Marking Violations - the Rest of the Team

Double-team, that is...

Other than the marker, no defensive player can come within 3m of the thrower, except under two conditions: [11th Ref: XIV.B.2.]

(1) They can if they're also within 3m and guarding another player; or

(2) They can otherwise run through the thrower's 3m area as long this is all they're doing.

"Guarding" is defined as (paraphrased): "being within 3m and reacting to an offensive player". [11th Ref: II.G.] Some of you may suggest that you can effectively 'guard' a player from farther than 3m, and that may be true, but for the purpose of the rules, you need to be within 3m.

And for clarity, especially since it clears up some players' interpretations of the 10th, the defender can validly be within 3m of the thrower while the offensive player that he or she is guarding is outside this circle, as long as they're within 3m of each other.

(And in case anyone's curious, "guarding" is also used in the 'pick' rule, and I'm sure we'll get to picks eventually. Just not today.)

So, guarding is being within 3m and reacting to.

The term "reacting to", while at first blush might not appear much clearer, this term really needs to be left to the individual players to define for any given situation. If you think about the various ways that players can guard someone, there are many options, depending on many factors.

With so many options, it would be very difficult to come up with any prescriptive and definite wording that will apply to all situations consistently. And there will be some criterion that may validly apply in one case, but that same criterion may not be valid in another.

It's also difficult for the rules to do the next best thing, such as provide specific examples and/or general guidance for what kinds of things might be considered 'reacting to'. To do that for all the rules that might require it would result in greatly increased bulk and size of the ruleset. Then there are the challenges with making sure that general guidance isn't misinterpreted as a prescriptive rule (e.g. vs i.e.). Which in itself is one of the benefits of a venue such as this blog and other guidance resources.

So with that thought in mind, let's look at a few common examples.

Let's take an example of a second offensive player along with the defensive dancing partner both being active within the 3m area. If the defender is moving his/her body and arms to keep between the thrower and the receiver, then I suggest that he or she is guarding the receiver. And normally not a double-team.

If, however, the defender changes his/her attention fully to the thrower, especially if moving an arm to attempt a point-block as the wind-up happens, then I suggest this is guarding the thrower instead. And depending on distances, especially if this point-block attempt is very close to the release point, this is more likely to be a double-team.

If the defender is reacting to the receiver, and the throw goes up, and then the defender moves towards the disc (and possibly towards the thrower), then I suggest this is still valid, even if only a few feet away and it looks somewhat similar to a point-block. The difference is whether the defender is ignoring the receiver and focusing on stopping the throw, or is attempting to stop the reception (i.e., of a disc already in flight).

Another example of a potential double-team would be when the defender is rather close to the thrower and then stays close--as if waiting for a throw to then attempt a point-block--when his receiver has decided to high-tail it out of the area. Especially if the thrower starts to fake in a direction away from his/her original receiver and this defender bites to point-block or otherwise stop the flight. It should be clear if his receiver is in another direction, that he's no longer reacting to that player... "double-team".

The trickier part is in situations where the defender is reacting to both the receiver and the thrower at the same time. The rule doesn't say the defender has to react only to the receiver; so truly reacting to both at the same time appears valid. However, reacting to one and then the other is not the same as reacting to both at the same time. Again, it'll need to be governed by the particulars of each different situation.

And while I'm on what the rule does not say, the 10th required the defender to "establish a position" in order to be a double-team. However, the 11th does not consider or care whether you're moving or have established a position. In either case, unless you're within 3m and guarding, it's a double-team.

Unless... which brings us to the second point I made near the top, the "running through" part.

The intent here is to not allow the offense to use this 3m area as a way to stay away from a defender who finds him/herself out of position, or during a change in defensive patterns (e.g., zone-to-man). In other words, we want to allow someone to come through this area to catch up to another offensive player somewhere on the other side.

As long as this is all they're doing. That is, no trying to get in the way of the thrower, or attempting to block/stop throws. And you need to run through; walking doesn't work.

{update Feb 16}

We've chosen the word "merely" in this rule for its specific meaning. Depending on which dictionary you're using, its definition will include something along the lines of, "only as specified and nothing else and nothing more". And this is exactly what we mean.

With that in mind, if the additional defender is running through that space to do no more than get to the other side, then that is allowed. Examples include trying to get to a player you are trying to guard, like when you're caught out of position or during a transition from zone-to-man; or to get into some other legal defensive position, like members of the cup running across to get to their position.

What you do, and how long you spend, in that defined space is what is important, not what you do once you get out the other side, or even why you're trying to get to the other side.

While you're in that space around the thrower, you need to be "merely" running across, not running across AND trying to obstruct the throw, or trying to get in the passing lane, or running closer than necessary to the thrower. Basically, to add an "AND anything" to running across means you are doing something more than just running across, and as such is contrary to the definition of "merely".

What about beginning to cross the space to catch up to a receiver and then abruptly changing direction while still within the space, in reaction to the receiver's movements?

That’s a really good question. Of course, if you're within 3m of the receiver, then you may well meet the "guarding" criteria. In other cases though, you are still merely running across that space, because you have no intention within that space except for moving through it. You may be taking another path through it, but you are still merely running through and not doing anything else while you’re in there, which is allowed.

Now having said all that, a double-team will be difficult for the thrower to call and will require a fair bit of judgment because often the intent of the defender won't necessarily be obvious to the thrower. This is a good example of the importance of the very last rule in the book, where it's the defender's responsibility to make every effort to not intentionally violate a rule. [11th Ref: XIX.G.]

{/update}

And for one final idea about the double-team call. As explained in an earlier post, and of course in the rules, the stall count pauses after the double-team call and does not continue until the player has retreated. [11th Ref: XIV.B.7.] So clearly the marker needs to know when this player has retreated, in order that the count can validly continue.

The marker could watch this player to see when he or she is out of the area. While this may work well if this player is in front of the marker, for double-teams behind the marker, the marker would need to take his/her attention from the thrower to watch the other player's retreat. This may not be the best option because since play is continuing, the thrower could throw at any time. In this case, it'd be a better choice for the marker to keep attention on and continue to guard the thrower and the double-teaming player to verbally let the marker know the area is clear. This will allow the marker to know when to continue the count without needing to take any attention away from the thrower.

Is that it for marking violations? Almost.

We haven't covered vision blocking yet, but this one's rather simple. For the most part, this will occur when the marker intentionally positions his or her hands to limit the thrower's view of the field. Of course, the marker's hands will come up to block high back-hands or scoobers, but since this is not to deliberately block vision, it is not considered vision blocking. [11th Ref: XIV.B.4.]

And other than hands, it's unlikely a marker will use any other part of his or her body to intentionally block the thrower's vision. There's a rare chance that a marker will deliberately position and move his or her head in line with where the thrower is looking, perhaps looking somewhat like a chicken bobbing in front of a mirror. But other than this, I can't envision any real examples of calling vision blocking because of the marker's body other than the hands.

That's the end of a long series of information on marking violations. Congratulations for making it through, and hopefully this helps with your understanding. We'll be happy to give more guidance, just ask away... that's what this is here for.

And of course, feel free to suggest other topics you'd like covered. We are listening.

Play on.