-
This one is quite difficult to determine.
When you watch it in slow motion it is a bit deceptive as everything seems more premeditated in slow motion.
It appears though that both players behaved in a reckless manner:
The defender jumped into the offense player and therefore their actions could be considered reckless.
The offense player was not watching where they were going, and therefore their actions could be considered reckless.The basics of it though is that both players reacted very quickly to where the disc was and both made a play at the same time. So it would seem best to treat these sorts of collisions as Offsetting Fouls:
[i]17.10.1. If fouls are called by offensive and defensive players on the same play, the disc returns to the thrower.
17.10.2. Non incidental contact that occurs as two or more opposing players move towards a single point simultaneously should be treated as offsetting fouls[/i]Hey Rueben,
Thx for your reaction and continious work on these rules.
I just read your reply and was suprised by this interpretation by you:
The defender jumped into the offense player and therefore their actions could be considered reckless.
What I can see from this, the girl in the white is going for the disc, and only the disc, not initiating any contact. How did you come to the conclusion the defender jumped into the offense ?
I’m curious,
Thx,
Sjoerd
What I can see from this, the girl in the white is going for the disc, and only the disc, not initiating any contact.
Here is the definition of Initiate Contact:
Any movement towards a legally positioned opponent (either their stationary position, or their expected position based on their established speed and direction), that results in unavoidable non-incidental contact.
That is what appears to happen.
Also, don’t forget rule 12.9:
All players must attempt to avoid contact with other players, and there is no situation where a player may justify initiating contact. “Making a play for the disc” is not a valid excuse for initiating contact with other players.
To me it looks very clear that the player on offense could have easily avoided contact with the defensive player if she had been looking where she were running.
Going by the offensive players expected position based on established speed and direction, the defender was not initiating contact. This contact occurs after the defender has already made it to the spot she wanted, made a play on the disc, and is in the process of landing. How much more does she need to establish that this field position is hers? If the offender had hit her 3 seconds later is it still the same result? Where do you draw the line?
This contact occurs after the defender has already made it to the spot she wanted, made a play on the disc, and is in the process of landing.
That doesn’t make it legal.
Also when watching the full speed version I don’t think it is clear that the offense player could have avoided the defender, even of they were looking.
As with all these scenarios, a key thing to keep in mind is that at its basic level, Ultimate is a non-contact sport that has a bias towards the offense. In these sorts of incidents where contact occurs as two players converge on the same spot, the majority of outcomes will result in the offense retaining possession (either via the receiver or the disc being returned to the thrower). If this sort of collision did result in a turnover, then the rules would be rewarding dangerous play and would be in direct contradiction of one of the basic rules – that Ultimate is a non contact sport.
I agree with Ruben but I’m curious to hear some elaboration from JB. Could you clarify a couple of things.
[quote=”JB3″ post=227]To me it looks very clear that the player on offense could have easily avoided contact with the defensive player if she had been looking where she were running. [/quote]
This might be true but couldn’t the same be said of the defense? She could have avoided contact as well, right?[quote=”JB3″ post=227]Going by the offensive players expected position based on established speed and direction, the defender was not initiating contact.[/quote]
To my eyes it is not clear which player accelerated or changed direction last for 2 reasons.- Neither player dramatically accelerated or turned to alter their expected position.
- Any small acceleration they make is very close to the time of contact making it difficult to say who did so first.
I think you have a different perspective on this so could you point out when you believe the offence makes an action which shows she is not entitled to this position?
[quote=”JB3″ post=227]This contact occurs after the defender has already made it to the spot she wanted, made a play on the disc, and is in the process of landing. How much more does she need to establish that this field position is hers?[/quote]
In my opinion she should be able to complete the bid without contact occurring, this includes landing and any subsequent motion. This would be a different discussion all together if the defender had landed and then contact had occurred.I see it this way that the defensive player could have called a dangerous play before jumping for the disc. It is clear that the D got to the disc first and the O wasn’t watching where she is running so to keep in mind that Ultimate is a non-contact sport the D should just stop and call a dangerous play and a turnover.
But rarley the opposing player agrees on dangerous play without any contact and just gives the disc away…
Hi Mosley77 et al.
yep- i agree that the correct call in ep.4 was the D player calling dangerous play, and avoiding contact.
I also agree that it’s hard for the O player to believe it and accept the turnover. Maybe we just need to start seeing more of these calls for them to become accepted. There’s no doubt they will be controversial and involve discussions on the field, mainly around who had rights to the space.
From my 20 years of ultimate, i’d make these observations:
1. The majority of dangerous collisions involve poaching D players.
2. In the majority of these collisions, the poaching D player had best perspective on the impending play, and therefore the most responsibility to avoid contact.A very common example is the O player cutting up the line to get the disc forward of the thrower (power position). The O cutter has normally beaten his defender and presumably has seen clear space in front of the thrower. The O cutter is therefore completely focused on the disc and thrower, not where they are going. I think this is reasonable in most cases, but gets harder to justify the further the throw goes. A poaching defender will normally have full view of the thrower, the O cutter and the disc.
I’m about to link to another example of this type of collision from our recent Nationals 2014 in Australia- look for a new video post.
Greeny
#22 Phat Chilly (for WUCC2014)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.