[Hugh Kinnear]

At this moment in the gif

https://j.gifs.com/oQjMM3.gif

an offensive throwing foul was called. We are wondering if this rule:

17.7.2. Incidental contact occurring during the thrower’s follow through is not sufficient grounds for a foul, but should be avoided.

would in this case allow the play to stand and a goal to be scored.

The mark said that following the release of the disc, contact was initiated by the thrower (during the follow through) which the thrower agreed with (although the contact was very minor). However he argued this affected play because without contact the result would have been meaningfully different, but it seems like 17.7.2. was put in place to guard against this exact case.

If this case is a foul then we do not know what case 17.7.2. should be used in and thus why it would be included. I have also included the relevant definitions.

Affect the play: A breach affects the play if it is reasonable to assume that the outcome of
the specific play may have been meaningfully different had the breach not
occurred.

Incidental contact: Any contact which is not dangerous in nature and does not affect the play.

[Carlos Andrés Bohm]

I think the mark did not have enough grounds to call the fault. The contact is not even significant enough. I think the goal should have been awarded according to 17.7.2.