tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post8832619530147634879..comments2018-04-25T09:20:27.307-06:00Comments on UPA Rules Blog: Marking Violations - the Rest of the TeamMortakaihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-38101956620458925312007-10-04T18:45:00.000-06:002007-10-04T18:45:00.000-06:00Well, the rule doesn't state hands or otherwise, b...Well, the rule doesn't state hands or otherwise, but simply that the thrower's vision is blocked.Mortakaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-30084598481025823862007-09-27T20:58:00.000-06:002007-09-27T20:58:00.000-06:00The funny thing is that it wasn't the hand but rat...The funny thing is that it wasn't the hand but rather the head (the guy wasn't even interested in blocking the disk!) all he was doing was moving his head (as you described it... like a chicken) and blocking my vision (I know the difference between him watching my eyes and him blocking my vision... and he was definitely blocking my vision...) he actually admitted it and said he's allowed to do it as long as he is not using his hands!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-15887622597923558112007-09-27T12:34:00.000-06:002007-09-27T12:34:00.000-06:00Well, if YOU believe they were deliberately blocki...Well, if YOU believe they were deliberately blocking your vision (which is the definition of vision blocking), then you're in the right to call that.<BR/><BR/>If they believe they weren't, then they have the equal right to contest it. ... which perhaps was what they were doing by laughing?<BR/><BR/>Is the hand up in front of your face to be ready to block a hammer and it just happens to also block your vision to part of the field?... or is it obvious that the hand is there to block your vision?<BR/><BR/>Oftentimes it's simply a matter of different perspectives. And this difference is completely acceptable.Mortakaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-53980171674428163792007-09-27T10:06:00.000-06:002007-09-27T10:06:00.000-06:00"There's a rare chance that a marker will delibera..."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 ...." <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately... this happened to me last night! I called a vision blocking violation that was laughed at! was it the right call? should the rule be clarified in editions to come?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-35916884774307567632007-08-07T18:29:00.000-06:002007-08-07T18:29:00.000-06:00Sorry about the non-response... it seems that our ...Sorry about the non-response... it seems that our "comment-notification" system hasn't been working lately (my fault).<BR/><BR/>Foot blocks: what they exactly are and how they are resolved, need to be defined by the Event Organizer that implements them. We don't have any official ruling on them.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I've commonly seen them explicitly defined as being "an attempt by the marker to block a throw with his/her foot, and are a violation resolved as if it were a throwing foul on the marker". This implies it's within 3m of the thrower because otherwise it wouldn't have been done by "a marker" (i.e., marker is the defensive player within 3m of the thrower's pivot).Mortakaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-50262323906485877782007-06-25T12:56:00.000-06:002007-06-25T12:56:00.000-06:00No comments on the footblock issue?No comments on the footblock issue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-13477519992245821242007-06-19T06:17:00.000-06:002007-06-19T06:17:00.000-06:00Off the marker, is a intentional kick at a disk do...Off the marker, is a intentional kick at a disk downfield to knock down a pass considered a footblock?<BR/><BR/>Some argue that footblocks only occur for the marker (i.e. within 3 meters of the thrower).<BR/><BR/>However, one could also argue that allowing footblocks downfield raise a potential safety hazard. Having defenders intentionally try to kick down a disk would mean cleats are up and would be dangerous for any offensive players making a diving bid for the pass.<BR/><BR/>11th Edition rules don't really cover footblocks. What's the UPA stance on them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-65505687102578730642007-02-16T15:25:00.000-07:002007-02-16T15:25:00.000-07:00We've chosen the word "merely" in this rule for it...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. <BR/><BR/>With that in mind, if the additional defender is running through that space to do <EM>no more</EM> 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. <BR/><BR/>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 <EM>why</EM> you're trying to get to the other side.<BR/><BR/>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 <EM>anything</EM>" to <EM>running across</EM> means you are doing something <EM>more</EM> than just running across, and as such is contrary to the definition of "merely".<BR/><BR/>You'll find further clarification in the original post to these comments, <A HREF="http://uparules.blogspot.com/2007/02/marker-violations-rest-of-team.html" REL="nofollow"><EM>Marking Violations - the Rest of the Team</EM></A>. Look for the "{<EM>updated Feb 16</EM>}" part.Mortakaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-1606868619239133972007-02-13T22:50:00.000-07:002007-02-13T22:50:00.000-07:00as long as this is all they're doing ... no trying...<I> as long as this is all they're doing ... no trying to get in the way of the thrower, or attempting to block/stop throws. </I><BR/><BR/>Where's that in the rules? Sure, waving your arms or shuffling around would fail to meet the "merely" requirement. But why can't the purpose of the "merely running across" be specifically to obstruct the thrower? Realizing, of course, that one must make it all the way across in order to "merely run across".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-51620475828582868932007-02-12T19:51:00.000-07:002007-02-12T19:51:00.000-07:00in trying to play by the 11th, I've found that I n...in trying to play by the 11th, I've found that I now "merely run through" purposefully more than I did accidentally run through under the old rules. In other words, in certain situations, with certain throwers, I will run through and take away the lane. I am running in a straight line, and continue through without stopping. I am also running through much closer to the thrower than I would have under the old rule, where I at least might make an effort to stay far enough away to not get in the way...bilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14324838491933580860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-51595089285006653012007-02-12T12:04:00.000-07:002007-02-12T12:04:00.000-07:00Since the thrower needs to retain the disc to call...Since the thrower needs to retain the disc to call marking violations, if the throw happens it's become too late to call the double-team. The thrower can (should) only call the double-team if they realize the defender wasn't guarding the receiver before the throwing motion starts.<BR/><BR/>It's important to add, however, that even though the thrower has no recourse in this situation, it does not make the behaviour of the defender legal. Doing this intentionally is cheating.Mortakaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01502285957707157947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9075032755383655184.post-55580797734712837822007-02-11T21:30:00.000-07:002007-02-11T21:30:00.000-07:00If, however, the defender changes his/her attentio...<I><BR/>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.</I><BR/><BR/>So, if a non-marking defender changes his/her attention fully to the thrower but the thrower cannot tell his/her attention is fully on the thrower until the wind-up and throw occurs, what recourse, if any, does the thrower have if that double-teaming player gets the point block? Can they call double-team after the point block and get the disc back? Or even during the throwing motion and get the disc back? Or is it a turn over, despite the double-team that occurred right as the throw occured?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com