[BD] Blocking Foul :S

[IndoorsDOC]

I think the 'unable to avoid' bit is crucial - it's not a blocking foul 
to slow down. I admit, though, I'd probably word it differently. There 
needs at least to be a line about 'while not making a play on the disc'; 
i.e. you should be allowed to take any position you like if doing so is 
necessary to play the disc; and you SHOULDN'T be able to step in 
someone's way for the sole purpose of getting in the way if you're not 
making a play on the disc.

I'd interpret the rule as :

"A player causes a blocking foul by taking a position, /while not making a play on the disc/, that a moving opponent will be unable to avoid and contact results."

But I agree with Andy that this still doesn't cover getting in the way 
where there's no contact. I'd say the crucial thing about a blocking 
foul is that you block someone when you're not playing the disc. Contact 
shouldn't be the important bit, it's your reason for being in the way 
that counts:

 - If you're playing the disc and you're in someone's way, then by 
definition you've got position on him - you've got to the spot he wants 
to be in /first/. I don't see that that should be a foul whether contact 
is avoidable or not. If you get there first and contact is unavoidable, 
he's fouled you, not the other way round.

 - And if you're /not /playing the disc, any attempt to slow the guy 
down is a foul, again whether contact is avoidable or not.

Contact should be irrelevant to this rule, and playing the disc should 
be central.

Rule 12.6 already contains similar phrasing to what I think we need -

"12.6. A player in an established position, /who has not moved to that position to intentionally/

/block another player while not making a play on the disc/, is entitled to remain in that

position and should not be contacted by an opposing player."

- although this refers to a stationary player not being contacted, 
rather than a running player getting in the way. It looks to me as 
though the blocking foul rule is an attempt to settle what happens when 
someone /has "/moved to that position to intentionally block another 
player while not making a play on the disc" but I don't think it succeeds.

Just my opinion, of course. I hope I haven't said anything stupid for 
Roger to jump on...  ;)

B

(P.S. if anyone out there is still reading and remotely interested, the 
older and less controversial rule 12.7 seems to imply that you're 
allowed to deliberately get in the way also:

"12.7. Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by any opposing

player, provided that they do not cause contact in taking such a position."

This seems to suggest it's OK to get in the way to the extent that 
someone has to run around you to get to where they're going, as long as 
there's no contact. I'd suggest a rewrite here, too. I think everyone 
would agree that spirit would be breached by deliberately blocking 
someone while not playing the disc, but in fact nowhere in the rules is 
it covered properly, as far as I can see.

Naturally it is difficult to phrase a good rule about this, so perhaps 
it might be best to just put something in the spirit section about not 
deliberately getting in someone's way just for the sake of being in the 
way.)



Andy Taylor wrote:
> My understanding of that rule is:
> 'You may not step into the path of someone in order to make them run into you.'
>  
> This goes against what I thought the rule used to be (although this may be influenced from football rules) that you may not take up a position so as to deliberately prevent someone from reaching their intended destination. As I read the current rule: I can step into the path of a running player, provided they will have enough time to swerve and avoid me / or slow down to avoid me, in order to stop them reaching the disc. That seems wrong to me, and not in keeping with the general ethos of the game.
>  
> As far as your example goes: if you have to slow down to get your position, the defender should also have to slow down to get a jumping position. If he runs into you in that situation, it is likely that he could have been able to avoid contact (unless you can somehow slow down faster than the average human), and so it would not be a foul.
>  
> Tails> From: lewis at lglover.co.uk> To: britdisc at ranulf.net> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:47:07 +0100> Subject: [BD] Blocking Foul :S> > Also can anyone explain this rule to me: > "A player causes a blocking foul by taking a position that a moving opponent> will be unable to avoid and contact results." > > Does that mean I am not allowed to slow down to get my positioning to jump> for a disc if I know that the defender behind me is likely to have contact> with me? > > I really don't understand the purpose of this rule and I don't know how> people are going to interpret it at Vancouver etc> Looks like it will either get ignored or get argued over because people> don't understand it> > Lewis> > > > __________________________________________________> BritDisc mailing list> BritDisc at ranulf.net> http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc> Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
> _________________________________________________________________
> Play and win great prizes with Live Search and Kung Fu Panda
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719966/direct/01/
> __________________________________________________
> BritDisc mailing list
> BritDisc at ranulf.net
> http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc
> Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
>
>
>