-
Hi Reuben. Does rule 12.8. (Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by any opposing player, provided that they do not initiate contact in taking such a position.) cover the situations where a person defending the disc has their arms outstretched and in the action of throwing the person with the disc makes contact with the defender. Normally people argue about who initiated contact and whether the defender was moving etc. But if we say the defender was stationary then they are entitled to have their arms where every they want as long as they aren’t occupying the space of another person.
So, there would be no defensive foul, in fact the defender could call foul as they were stationary and the thrower made contact and, if the throw was incomplete the turn over would stand?
We got to discussing this on Monday night…
This is pretty much covered in 17.7. Offensive Throwing (Thrower) Fouls
The interpretation for that section includes the following:
Only when the thrower moves into a non-moving marker who is legally positioned is this a foul by the thrower. i.e. if the thrower moves into a space the marker has already occupied when the thrower started the throwing motion, and the marker is not in breach of; straddle, disc space, wrapping. All other contact will be the marker’s foul.
If an offensive throwing foul occurs, and the pass is incomplete, the turnover stands (16.2.4.1.).
[quote=”rueben” post=70]
Only when the thrower moves into a non-moving marker who is legally positioned is this a foul by the thrower. i.e. if the thrower moves into a space the marker has already occupied when the thrower started the throwing motion, and the marker is not in breach of; straddle, disc space, wrapping. All other contact will be the marker’s foul.
[/quote]I’ve been reading up on this interpretation today and was hoping for some clarification. I think that it is pretty well established that the requirements to be “legally positioned,” as a marker are higher than, as a player off the disk. Not only must you position yourself such that a thrower can reasonably avoid contact, you must also be non-moving or static. In other playing positions you are restricted to maintaining a constant speed or predictable motion.
While I agree that markers need to have stricter restraints than other players, I have heard some pretty extreme interpretations of 17.7 which effectively state that if the marker moved at all and non intentional contact occurred it must be a defensive foul. Examples include.
1. Contact occurred between the throwers arm and the defenders arm as they released but, while that hand was not moving another part of the markers body that was not involved in the contact e.g. their other arm was moving.
2. Same situation as above but the marker was moving the hand in question away from the point of contact, so the thrower’s motion caught up with the markers.First of all I’d be curious as to if the above examples are legitimate interpretations of 17.7 and, second if I am correct in assuming this oversteps the intention of the rule how would you proceed with a discussion after contesting such a call.
Thanks.
[quote=”rueben” post=165]
If you look at the rule this is pretty clear:
…….
It is a defensive throwing foul if the part of the markers body that was moving contacts the thrower.[/quote]Thanks for your reply Ruben. If I’m reading you correctly the rules say that Situation 1 above is a foul by the offence, while Situation 2 a foul by the defense. That all adds up for me now.
My confusion arose because I was looking at Rule 17.7 (and it’s interpretations) in isolation and without consulting the complementary rule 17.4. Only in 17.4 do the rules isolate movement of individual body parts from each other.
Thanks again.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.