tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post4996745603465571398..comments2018-04-25T09:20:27.307-06:00Comments on UPA Rules Blog: Throwing FoulsMortakaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-75267306874974790582009-06-10T23:49:24.874-06:002009-06-10T23:49:24.874-06:00the following scenario occurred during my league g...the following scenario occurred during my league game tonight:<br /><br />i'm marking backhand. the thrower steps out to huck, so i step out too. he smashes through my outstretched hand and calls a foul. assume he was still in possession and it was not contact during the follow-through. i feel like i should have contested it long enough to ask for a rule clarification at least. the throw was caught for a goal though, so it became irrelevant. i didn't want to argue for the sake of arguing, so i merely asserted that my arm was stationary and my legs were not and i didn't know what that meant.<br /><br />to be clear, in relation to my shoulder and every other point of my upper body, my arm (and hand) was motionless. no change in elevation or inclination. the only movement i made was to sidestep. is this considered a "completely" stationary extended limb, even if it was moving relative to the field? in relation to myself, and to a lesser extent the thrower's torso, head and vision, it was effectively stationary.<br /><br />i don't know that i would agree that we were vying for the same open space, as my intent was to go for the open space a disc's length or so in front of him and he started his throw after i was already moving towards it.<br /><br />i personally love XVI.H.3.a.2, but can someone clarify what the marker limbs need to be stationary in relation to, be it his body, the thrower's pivot, or the field?<br /><br />does XVI.H.3.a.3 apply here? i previously assumed it was meant to protect the thrower's right to pivot without being bumped by an active marker, and the use of "vying simultaneously" in the FAQ makes me think it is irrelevant since i was moving for that space before he was, so technically it wasn't open to him. am i wrong?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12840898358317076335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-67963112345474533262007-09-08T21:38:00.000-06:002007-09-08T21:38:00.000-06:00I believe the above post makes it clear that major...I believe the above post makes it clear that <I>major</I> contact on the follow through is only a foul if said contact was foreseen by the thrower. In situations where a defender is running across the thrower to make a play, contact after the throw can be hard, unforeseen (by the thrower) and therefore not a foul.Rob Maguirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01959701803385846857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-82539406200385598542007-03-06T15:40:00.000-07:002007-03-06T15:40:00.000-07:00Any course of action that would likely result in s...Any course of action that would likely result in significant (i.e., dangerous) impact is considered harmful endangerment and that supersedes all other rules.<BR/><BR/>This rule is not saying it's OK for the thrower to clock the marker, it's saying that <I>minor</I> contact on the follow through isn't a foul.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, it is not OK to move in a way that you know will cause significant impact with an opponent, even if you know you can get to the disc first.Jon "rb" Baumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126936457712338346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-31794243985465426672007-03-06T13:37:00.000-07:002007-03-06T13:37:00.000-07:00Quote:[...] contact on the follow-through that occ...Quote:<BR/><BR/>[...] contact on the follow-through that occurs after the disc is released [11th Ref: XVI.H.3.a)(5)]. This is not in itself a foul, and is consistent with the concept of whether the contact affected the play or not. Contact after the disc is released, in virtually all cases, will not affect [...] the marker's ability to block it (the disc will already have passed by the time the marker reacts to the contact).<BR/><BR/>I'm a little confused here. If the thrower can only get off a huck by backhanding a marker, isn't it a foul because by definition, the contact after the foul was a necessary part of the throw? <BR/><BR/>It's easy to imagine the same scenario on the field, where a player lays out into the path of another player, gets to the disc but causes significant contact. [assume not harmful endangerment]. if the contact was an inevitable consequence of the bid, it would seem to effect the play. <BR/><BR/>If you want to make a play on the disc or a throw, you gotta figure out a way to do it without significant contact. Otherwise, you've just created a "i got there first" exception to the rule on fouls where the contacted party's only recourse is to the harmful endangerment rule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com