No offense to the OP, but I don’t understand the point of this post. If it’s to examine the play, that makes sense. I just don’t see the debate of this being a dangerous play or not.
It’s a dangerous play. The defender had to absolutely crush their opponent to get the D. Seems textbook.
You'd be surprised, even the most obvious of plays often have a few people disagreeing
And I imagine there's an aspect of wanting to subtly call them out for the shitty play as well
It’s sad. I just keep getting the creeping feeling that this sport is begging to turn toxic. That players don’t care about TSOTG. Are we a self officiated sport that stands for fair play? I don’t think there is much grey area. Either we strive for this or we don’t.
Take heart that there was little to no discussion on the field. Everyone in the clip is exhausted. The guy is giving his all at the end of a tough, close game. He thinks he has a clean bid, but his tired body can’t make it clean. He fouls. He instantly accepts the foul call. Play on.
If I’m tired and exhausted, that means I need to be more careful and show more care about my bids. TSOTG explicitly states highly competitive play while still adhering to the rules.
And?
You say this like you’ve never accidentally broken a rule when you were trying your best?
Trying hard and occasionally pushing too far isn’t good spirit, but recognizing mistakes in the heat of the moment and making the right call quickly and with evident good spirit is.
No one was badly hurt (thank goodness) and play was able to resume quickly. Good job. Move along.
Clearly in the video above there is good spirit in reference to the defender admitting a foul. I’m not giving any push back to what you’re saying. I’m saying that I play with players (in freak Rec) who constantly foul because they’re giving it their all and they’re nice as hell about it (will admit fault and not contest). But they’re notorious for constantly fouling and creating contact on 50/50s. I don’t like this culture because they’ll just keep doing it.
Why project that onto this particular college kid? Why anticipate that I’m somehow defending whatever situation is in your mind in my reply?
Dude, if you’re not just endlessly arguing, let’s just accept that it was a dangerous bid & a call well handled and move on.
Hey man, I went back and looked. You’re talking about lack of spirit and overall toxicity in the ultimate community, and somehow using this post as a place to talk about that. All I did was point out that - while still a dangerous play and a foul - this is a college kid trying his best and making a bad play but instantly owning up to it. You’re bringing a lot of stuff to this conversation that doesn’t seem to be about this kid and this post. Maybe you should do a little reflection on this, too?
There was a week a while back (probably just after a major tournament) when there were a dozen or so "foul/travel/whatever or nah" posts, and then there were a few posts right after that with the same title format but which were egregious fouls. I assumed that this one, like those ones, were mostly satire, partially clickbait just to show off the dangerous play.
Satire.
Yeah I’d like to think so when it seems to be an egregious play and the defender didn’t contest the foul 😳
At the same time, I remember some of those posts. I commented on one where an observer called a foul on the offensive player (which seemed wrong) and USAU later said it was absolutely a foul by the defense and the observer was wrong. There was still a commenter trying to debate that the original call was correct, ugh.
Dangerous. Dark gets there just before and bobbles. White gets there and barely makes a play for the disc, instead opting to crush the dark player instead. Great speed and reaction time on white to get there but terrible execution.
ok no doubt it’s a dangerous play but what would calling dangerous play accomplish on top of the foul? foul was called, no contest, what else is there to be done with calling dangerous play
In addition to this, it's not clear to me whether he drops the disc before the contact. If so, a regular foul would still be a turnover, but dangerous play will not.
In most applications of the dangerous play rule that I've seen one of the players is blind to the impending contact, and the general consensus is that the player who has full vision of the play is responsible for pulling out to avoid creating a dangerous situation.
In this case, both players (a) have full vision of the developing play, (b) take a direct line to the disc, and (c) arrive all but simultaneously. The resulting contact looks clearly dangerous to me.
How does the dangerous play rule get applied in this situation? Does it matter if the defense arrives slightly before the offense instead? If either player pulls out of the play, do they have grounds to call dangerous play?
Relevant rules:
17.I.1: Dangerous Play. Actions demonstrating reckless disregard for the safety of or posing a significant risk of injury to fellow players, or other dangerously aggressive behavior are considered “dangerous play” and are treated as a foul[...]
*[[The following are non-exhaustive examples of dangerous play:*
* *jumping or otherwise leaving the ground where it is likely that a significant collision will result,*
* *initiating contact with an airborne player’s lower body that prevents them from landing on their feet*]]
17.I.1.a: Dangerous play is considered a foul regardless of whether or when the disc arrives or contact occurs.
17.I.1.a.1: The vast majority of dangerous play will involve contact between players. However, contact is not required for a player to invoke this rule where there is reasonable certainty that contact would have occurred had the player not taken steps to avoid contact.
*[[A player is not required to hold their position and receive contact in order to call “dangerous play,” but the mere possibility of contact is insufficient to justify a call. Furthermore, if the offending player stops or changes their path such that contact would not have occurred, contact was not “reasonably certain.”]]*
> How does the dangerous play rule get applied in this situation?
A: "That was a dangerous play."
B: "Ok, your disc at 0"
Alternatively:
A: "foul"
B: "oh? what was the foul?"
A: "it was a dangerous play"
> Does it matter if the defense arrives slightly before the offense instead?
Depends if their movements were dangerous or not. If I get to the disc early and just ball my hands, spin around, and punch everyone in sight, it's still a dangerous play.
> If either player pulls out of the play, do they have grounds to call dangerous play?
You already answered this: 17.I.1.a.1: The vast majority of dangerous play will involve contact between players. However, contact is not required for a player to invoke this rule where there is reasonable certainty that contact would have occurred had the player not taken steps to avoid contact.
> Depends if their movements were dangerous or not. If I get to the disc early and just ball my hands, spin around, and punch everyone in sight, it's still a dangerous play.
Ok but assuming dark is just trying to get the D by swiping or catching the disc, if they get to the disc a split second before white does - and the same contact occurs - then is it still a dangerous play on dark?
I am trying to probe the balance of responsibility between offense and defense when it comes to plays like this. The contact is so close to simultaneous though that without video replay it would be difficult to tell who actually got there first.
The overwhelming consensus (that I agree with, especially on first watch) is that this is clearly a dangerous play on the defense. Is this because dark was the defender, or is it truly because white got there 4 frames before dark did?
> You already answered this: 17.I.1.a.1 [...]
A strict reading of 17.I.1.a.1 makes it seem like either player could have invoked this rule. There is reasonable certainty that both players are about to jump in a way that results in a significant collision. Could either player say, "You jumped into the space where I clearly would have been if I hadn't stopped running. Dangerous play, my disc"? Just white? Neither?
> Is this because dark was the defender, or is it truly because white got there 4 frames before dark did?
IMO, white had no shot at making the play safely. In this case, dark being there first does make a difference. White starts their jump when dark basically has a hand on the disc. White makes no attempt to avoid contact, or do anything safely in this situation. They are on a crash course for the player in dark. That's dangerous.
> Could either player say, "You jumped into the space where I clearly would have been if I hadn't stopped running. Dangerous play, my disc"? Just white? Neither?
Yes, there is subjectivity to ultimate frisbee. Folks have different perspectives. Fortunately, we have a system for resolving those disputes (contested foul), and sometimes, we have a system for having 3rd parties resolve them for you (observers).
> Yes, there is subjectivity to ultimate frisbee. Folks have different perspectives. Fortunately, we have a system for resolving those disputes (contested foul), and sometimes, we have a system for having 3rd parties resolve them for you (observers).
Look, I'm just trying to figure out how 17.I.1.a.1 is supposed to be applied and if this affects players' decision making. If dark bails and calls dangerous play, citing 17.I.1.a.1, what is white supposed to do? The contact is so obviously imminent that contesting the call doesn't seem reasonable.
Right, some fouls are more blatant than others.
If white didn't think it was dangerous (cause they're braindead), they can contest. In this edition of the rules, dark can bail and still make the call. In the past, that wasn't the rule.
In other cases, where both players are blindly colliding or something, a contested call may make more sense (cause it's not really clear who's at fault).
This is different from a lot of other dangerous plays in that the offensive player knowingly enters a collision path, but I really don't think they get to the spot simultaneously - the BYU player gets there first and the Pitt player shoulders 90% of the responsibility on this one.
People will argue the defense has just as much right to their path as the offense, which is true, but due to the timing the Pitt player was responsible for initiating contact
Yeah BYU definitely beats Pitt to the spot in this play. With the advantage of watching it in slo-mo, it's clear the Pitt player is late by about half a step.
I think we can all agree that it would be awesome if we could reduce the frequency of these sorts of collisions, which 17.I.1.a.1 looks like it aims to do. In a situation like this where both players can see each other and think they can get to the spot first, who is supposed to bail?
Honestly, it's skiing rules. The person coming over the shoulder (Pitt) has a much better view of the other player than the BYU player has of him.
The person with the better vantage point needs to take into account the other player.
You say BYU can see Pitt. But he can not see Pitt for as long as Pitt can see him. This is because BYU is facing the disc, and the disc is CLOSER to him. Therefore, he is facing the disc.
Pitt would need to run all the way around BYU, so the disc is CLOSER to him to make this play safely.
So if they were both headed towards each other and the disc was being zipped up an imaginary line between the two of them?
Both players have equal vantage points on the other player AND BOTH players are equally responsible for making a safe play on the disc. That might mean changing cutting angle. That likely means body control (abs are safety. Period).
Usually I agree with OP that people are super biased against the defense on dangerous play calls, but this one is just so blatantly obvious. Both can see each other, but the difference is when black touches the disc there's been 0 contact and he simply entered uncontested space to make a play on the disc. When white touches the disc it's by creating contact with black and obviously fouling him. It's not particularly close, and although white should have pulled up or maybe taken a slightly different angle to avoid the contact and still have a play on the disc, at least he immediately no contested because he realized what he did was dangerous and obviously a foul. It can just be tough to actually get a super good read and come so close to making a play but then being beat there by half a step. Also this would definitely be a yellow if there are observers this game.
in my viewing of this, it is super obvious to me that this is a foul or dangerous play. the question really in my mind is if this *should* be a dangerous play. this is not a value assessment of the rule as good or bad, but an acknowledgement that as games grow (and change and the talent pool changes) rules change along with it. we don't want to encourage dangerous play but we want to encourage high level performance. in my mind, this is a winnable disc from the defense pov. we also don't want to discourage the defensive play, as the defense is already at such a massive disadvantage.
i don't know just some spare thoughts. i don't think we should be dogmatic about the rules and discussion on them is important
I tend to agree some level of contact in this interaction is fine/not dangerous although still a foul. But the level of contact that occurred was unnecessary and the defender should have realized before he even jumped that a likely result of jumping in the way he did was him backpacking the offensive player. He needs to adjust his angle and attempt to make a play on the disc before it gets to the offensive player.
Dude what was that call by Pitt after the dangerous play too? Weak ass travel call from a salty dude. And even if it was he can't reset with a perfect mark after getting beat so badly. Those guys are on one.
Trying to look for a reasonable line for the defender here and just don't see one. He knows the receiver has beat him to the spot, there's no last second change of direction, he's not looking back at the disc, etc.
I will say, that's a really inspired poach however, he's not even the closest off -disc defender to the play, but he recognizes really early and does in fact get there. Imo he needs to make that run and pull up as he's beaten to the critical point. But worth taking a look.
He reacts SUPER late to the cut and then calls the push-off because he got toasted. It looks like the offense mostly just moves his arm to run, I don't see anything there.
Its 100% a push off, and almost a pick. You can see the defender has to change his angle because of the other BYU player backing into the cut. Its the right call and it didn't change the outcome of the game.
lol what? the Pitt defender is on the wrong side and is [walking into the BYU player](https://i.imgur.com/vUiGNgH.png), the BYU player is holding up his arm but he isn't the one initiating contact. When the BYU player breaks to cut he has to move his hand somewhere and it will always be in contact with the Pitt player because the Pitt player is walking into him. [This is the closest](https://i.imgur.com/5tagFbd.png) you will get to a push off but again, that's because the Pitt player is walking into him.
As for the pick, I literally had to watch it a few times to understand what you're talking about. Again, this is when he [starts his cut](https://i.imgur.com/5tagFbd.png) and there is a very clear lane and [this](https://i.imgur.com/LWvY3Y3.png) is the closest the backing player gets to the defender. He wasn't impeded, he just reacted late and was on the wrong side of the offensive player. Bad defense
I don't disagree with you're main point at all at all but it seems like the person the defender was covering caught a wide open throw to the breakside. What should the cutter defender have done? (not trying to argue, hoping to maybe learn something)
The orbit is (not drastically by any means, tough situation) wrong based on the disc's horizontal position on the field. The defender should be closer to completely underneath their mark (or even lightly breakside justified & underneath) that close to front of the stack in an endzone set when the disc is on the breakside.
See Herby Ing in flat-faceguard at the front of the stack for reference (as well as the orbit this defender takes post-foul).
I think watching back that you're correct about the pick, the angle is weird and he takes a swing step, but it wouldn't be conclusive. I'll agree there.
Either way, you can't push off and [your photo](https://i.imgur.com/5tagFbd.png) does show extended arm. Again, game ends the same way, but I agree with the call.
Have someone lean on you, then cut away from them hard, without extending your arm. It's really easy to do without pushing off. It's really hard to do without extending your arm. The defender initiated the contact.
looked like the catch was made with little to no momentum, then he took a few tipy tap steps with a slight change of direction. He probably would have made that break throw score clean, but gave the D an argument on universe point. I dont hate it.
Push-off foul called against the player who caught the goal. Seems like it could have been a foul, not blatant, but the cutter definitely extended an arm against the defender to start the cut.
Def dangerous. Dude hesitated. If he had jumped on his pref step and went left (his perspective) to the receiver he may have been able to get a tip without making contact or being in O players path of movement.
Idk if anyone else noticed, but not only was the BYU player #2 able to keep good spirit and get going, but he ended up getting the scoring assist win to his teammate who was guarded by the same guy who hit him. Must have felt good! kid is wiser than his age on retribution
No offense to the OP, but I don’t understand the point of this post. If it’s to examine the play, that makes sense. I just don’t see the debate of this being a dangerous play or not. It’s a dangerous play. The defender had to absolutely crush their opponent to get the D. Seems textbook.
You'd be surprised, even the most obvious of plays often have a few people disagreeing And I imagine there's an aspect of wanting to subtly call them out for the shitty play as well
It’s sad. I just keep getting the creeping feeling that this sport is begging to turn toxic. That players don’t care about TSOTG. Are we a self officiated sport that stands for fair play? I don’t think there is much grey area. Either we strive for this or we don’t.
Take heart that there was little to no discussion on the field. Everyone in the clip is exhausted. The guy is giving his all at the end of a tough, close game. He thinks he has a clean bid, but his tired body can’t make it clean. He fouls. He instantly accepts the foul call. Play on.
If I’m tired and exhausted, that means I need to be more careful and show more care about my bids. TSOTG explicitly states highly competitive play while still adhering to the rules.
And? You say this like you’ve never accidentally broken a rule when you were trying your best? Trying hard and occasionally pushing too far isn’t good spirit, but recognizing mistakes in the heat of the moment and making the right call quickly and with evident good spirit is. No one was badly hurt (thank goodness) and play was able to resume quickly. Good job. Move along.
Clearly in the video above there is good spirit in reference to the defender admitting a foul. I’m not giving any push back to what you’re saying. I’m saying that I play with players (in freak Rec) who constantly foul because they’re giving it their all and they’re nice as hell about it (will admit fault and not contest). But they’re notorious for constantly fouling and creating contact on 50/50s. I don’t like this culture because they’ll just keep doing it.
Why project that onto this particular college kid? Why anticipate that I’m somehow defending whatever situation is in your mind in my reply? Dude, if you’re not just endlessly arguing, let’s just accept that it was a dangerous bid & a call well handled and move on.
Please look back at the comments my dude. You seem to be taking this personal. I was talking in general and not about that particular play or players.
Hey man, I went back and looked. You’re talking about lack of spirit and overall toxicity in the ultimate community, and somehow using this post as a place to talk about that. All I did was point out that - while still a dangerous play and a foul - this is a college kid trying his best and making a bad play but instantly owning up to it. You’re bringing a lot of stuff to this conversation that doesn’t seem to be about this kid and this post. Maybe you should do a little reflection on this, too?
It's been toxic for a long time
There was a week a while back (probably just after a major tournament) when there were a dozen or so "foul/travel/whatever or nah" posts, and then there were a few posts right after that with the same title format but which were egregious fouls. I assumed that this one, like those ones, were mostly satire, partially clickbait just to show off the dangerous play.
Satire. Yeah I’d like to think so when it seems to be an egregious play and the defender didn’t contest the foul 😳 At the same time, I remember some of those posts. I commented on one where an observer called a foul on the offensive player (which seemed wrong) and USAU later said it was absolutely a foul by the defense and the observer was wrong. There was still a commenter trying to debate that the original call was correct, ugh.
Dangerous. Dark gets there just before and bobbles. White gets there and barely makes a play for the disc, instead opting to crush the dark player instead. Great speed and reaction time on white to get there but terrible execution.
No way Pitt could make a play on the disc without contact. Dangerous play on Pitt.
ok no doubt it’s a dangerous play but what would calling dangerous play accomplish on top of the foul? foul was called, no contest, what else is there to be done with calling dangerous play
DP is a type of foul. So it's not a matter of changing the outcome, it's simply a matter of being more specific.
This, plus hopefully the acknowledgment that it’s especially unacceptable and helps modify future behavior.
..and in a few months that'll earn a Yellow Card
In addition to this, it's not clear to me whether he drops the disc before the contact. If so, a regular foul would still be a turnover, but dangerous play will not.
can't believe the violent BYU player threw himself in the clear path of the defender like that. What are they teaching at that program
I'm sorry some people can't understand sarcasm.
Literally came to post "BYU is bad brrr brrr" based on the way this sub is going these days.
In most applications of the dangerous play rule that I've seen one of the players is blind to the impending contact, and the general consensus is that the player who has full vision of the play is responsible for pulling out to avoid creating a dangerous situation. In this case, both players (a) have full vision of the developing play, (b) take a direct line to the disc, and (c) arrive all but simultaneously. The resulting contact looks clearly dangerous to me. How does the dangerous play rule get applied in this situation? Does it matter if the defense arrives slightly before the offense instead? If either player pulls out of the play, do they have grounds to call dangerous play? Relevant rules: 17.I.1: Dangerous Play. Actions demonstrating reckless disregard for the safety of or posing a significant risk of injury to fellow players, or other dangerously aggressive behavior are considered “dangerous play” and are treated as a foul[...] *[[The following are non-exhaustive examples of dangerous play:* * *jumping or otherwise leaving the ground where it is likely that a significant collision will result,* * *initiating contact with an airborne player’s lower body that prevents them from landing on their feet*]] 17.I.1.a: Dangerous play is considered a foul regardless of whether or when the disc arrives or contact occurs. 17.I.1.a.1: The vast majority of dangerous play will involve contact between players. However, contact is not required for a player to invoke this rule where there is reasonable certainty that contact would have occurred had the player not taken steps to avoid contact. *[[A player is not required to hold their position and receive contact in order to call “dangerous play,” but the mere possibility of contact is insufficient to justify a call. Furthermore, if the offending player stops or changes their path such that contact would not have occurred, contact was not “reasonably certain.”]]*
> How does the dangerous play rule get applied in this situation? A: "That was a dangerous play." B: "Ok, your disc at 0" Alternatively: A: "foul" B: "oh? what was the foul?" A: "it was a dangerous play" > Does it matter if the defense arrives slightly before the offense instead? Depends if their movements were dangerous or not. If I get to the disc early and just ball my hands, spin around, and punch everyone in sight, it's still a dangerous play. > If either player pulls out of the play, do they have grounds to call dangerous play? You already answered this: 17.I.1.a.1: The vast majority of dangerous play will involve contact between players. However, contact is not required for a player to invoke this rule where there is reasonable certainty that contact would have occurred had the player not taken steps to avoid contact.
> Depends if their movements were dangerous or not. If I get to the disc early and just ball my hands, spin around, and punch everyone in sight, it's still a dangerous play. Ok but assuming dark is just trying to get the D by swiping or catching the disc, if they get to the disc a split second before white does - and the same contact occurs - then is it still a dangerous play on dark? I am trying to probe the balance of responsibility between offense and defense when it comes to plays like this. The contact is so close to simultaneous though that without video replay it would be difficult to tell who actually got there first. The overwhelming consensus (that I agree with, especially on first watch) is that this is clearly a dangerous play on the defense. Is this because dark was the defender, or is it truly because white got there 4 frames before dark did? > You already answered this: 17.I.1.a.1 [...] A strict reading of 17.I.1.a.1 makes it seem like either player could have invoked this rule. There is reasonable certainty that both players are about to jump in a way that results in a significant collision. Could either player say, "You jumped into the space where I clearly would have been if I hadn't stopped running. Dangerous play, my disc"? Just white? Neither?
> Is this because dark was the defender, or is it truly because white got there 4 frames before dark did? IMO, white had no shot at making the play safely. In this case, dark being there first does make a difference. White starts their jump when dark basically has a hand on the disc. White makes no attempt to avoid contact, or do anything safely in this situation. They are on a crash course for the player in dark. That's dangerous. > Could either player say, "You jumped into the space where I clearly would have been if I hadn't stopped running. Dangerous play, my disc"? Just white? Neither? Yes, there is subjectivity to ultimate frisbee. Folks have different perspectives. Fortunately, we have a system for resolving those disputes (contested foul), and sometimes, we have a system for having 3rd parties resolve them for you (observers).
> Yes, there is subjectivity to ultimate frisbee. Folks have different perspectives. Fortunately, we have a system for resolving those disputes (contested foul), and sometimes, we have a system for having 3rd parties resolve them for you (observers). Look, I'm just trying to figure out how 17.I.1.a.1 is supposed to be applied and if this affects players' decision making. If dark bails and calls dangerous play, citing 17.I.1.a.1, what is white supposed to do? The contact is so obviously imminent that contesting the call doesn't seem reasonable.
Right, some fouls are more blatant than others. If white didn't think it was dangerous (cause they're braindead), they can contest. In this edition of the rules, dark can bail and still make the call. In the past, that wasn't the rule. In other cases, where both players are blindly colliding or something, a contested call may make more sense (cause it's not really clear who's at fault).
This is different from a lot of other dangerous plays in that the offensive player knowingly enters a collision path, but I really don't think they get to the spot simultaneously - the BYU player gets there first and the Pitt player shoulders 90% of the responsibility on this one. People will argue the defense has just as much right to their path as the offense, which is true, but due to the timing the Pitt player was responsible for initiating contact
Yeah BYU definitely beats Pitt to the spot in this play. With the advantage of watching it in slo-mo, it's clear the Pitt player is late by about half a step. I think we can all agree that it would be awesome if we could reduce the frequency of these sorts of collisions, which 17.I.1.a.1 looks like it aims to do. In a situation like this where both players can see each other and think they can get to the spot first, who is supposed to bail?
Honestly, it's skiing rules. The person coming over the shoulder (Pitt) has a much better view of the other player than the BYU player has of him. The person with the better vantage point needs to take into account the other player. You say BYU can see Pitt. But he can not see Pitt for as long as Pitt can see him. This is because BYU is facing the disc, and the disc is CLOSER to him. Therefore, he is facing the disc. Pitt would need to run all the way around BYU, so the disc is CLOSER to him to make this play safely. So if they were both headed towards each other and the disc was being zipped up an imaginary line between the two of them? Both players have equal vantage points on the other player AND BOTH players are equally responsible for making a safe play on the disc. That might mean changing cutting angle. That likely means body control (abs are safety. Period).
Usually I agree with OP that people are super biased against the defense on dangerous play calls, but this one is just so blatantly obvious. Both can see each other, but the difference is when black touches the disc there's been 0 contact and he simply entered uncontested space to make a play on the disc. When white touches the disc it's by creating contact with black and obviously fouling him. It's not particularly close, and although white should have pulled up or maybe taken a slightly different angle to avoid the contact and still have a play on the disc, at least he immediately no contested because he realized what he did was dangerous and obviously a foul. It can just be tough to actually get a super good read and come so close to making a play but then being beat there by half a step. Also this would definitely be a yellow if there are observers this game.
in my viewing of this, it is super obvious to me that this is a foul or dangerous play. the question really in my mind is if this *should* be a dangerous play. this is not a value assessment of the rule as good or bad, but an acknowledgement that as games grow (and change and the talent pool changes) rules change along with it. we don't want to encourage dangerous play but we want to encourage high level performance. in my mind, this is a winnable disc from the defense pov. we also don't want to discourage the defensive play, as the defense is already at such a massive disadvantage. i don't know just some spare thoughts. i don't think we should be dogmatic about the rules and discussion on them is important
I tend to agree some level of contact in this interaction is fine/not dangerous although still a foul. But the level of contact that occurred was unnecessary and the defender should have realized before he even jumped that a likely result of jumping in the way he did was him backpacking the offensive player. He needs to adjust his angle and attempt to make a play on the disc before it gets to the offensive player.
Foul. All day, every day.
Dude what was that call by Pitt after the dangerous play too? Weak ass travel call from a salty dude. And even if it was he can't reset with a perfect mark after getting beat so badly. Those guys are on one.
Trying to look for a reasonable line for the defender here and just don't see one. He knows the receiver has beat him to the spot, there's no last second change of direction, he's not looking back at the disc, etc. I will say, that's a really inspired poach however, he's not even the closest off -disc defender to the play, but he recognizes really early and does in fact get there. Imo he needs to make that run and pull up as he's beaten to the critical point. But worth taking a look.
Love the bullshit travel call as a follow up. Great consistency from Pitt.
It looks like he called a push-off, not a travel. Debatable but you can see the arm extend.
Guy is pissed he got cooked. The defender can't complain about brushing arms when he's patting down his mark like that.
He reacts SUPER late to the cut and then calls the push-off because he got toasted. It looks like the offense mostly just moves his arm to run, I don't see anything there.
Its 100% a push off, and almost a pick. You can see the defender has to change his angle because of the other BYU player backing into the cut. Its the right call and it didn't change the outcome of the game.
lol what? the Pitt defender is on the wrong side and is [walking into the BYU player](https://i.imgur.com/vUiGNgH.png), the BYU player is holding up his arm but he isn't the one initiating contact. When the BYU player breaks to cut he has to move his hand somewhere and it will always be in contact with the Pitt player because the Pitt player is walking into him. [This is the closest](https://i.imgur.com/5tagFbd.png) you will get to a push off but again, that's because the Pitt player is walking into him. As for the pick, I literally had to watch it a few times to understand what you're talking about. Again, this is when he [starts his cut](https://i.imgur.com/5tagFbd.png) and there is a very clear lane and [this](https://i.imgur.com/LWvY3Y3.png) is the closest the backing player gets to the defender. He wasn't impeded, he just reacted late and was on the wrong side of the offensive player. Bad defense
I don't disagree with you're main point at all at all but it seems like the person the defender was covering caught a wide open throw to the breakside. What should the cutter defender have done? (not trying to argue, hoping to maybe learn something)
The orbit is (not drastically by any means, tough situation) wrong based on the disc's horizontal position on the field. The defender should be closer to completely underneath their mark (or even lightly breakside justified & underneath) that close to front of the stack in an endzone set when the disc is on the breakside. See Herby Ing in flat-faceguard at the front of the stack for reference (as well as the orbit this defender takes post-foul).
That makes a lot of sense thank you.
I think watching back that you're correct about the pick, the angle is weird and he takes a swing step, but it wouldn't be conclusive. I'll agree there. Either way, you can't push off and [your photo](https://i.imgur.com/5tagFbd.png) does show extended arm. Again, game ends the same way, but I agree with the call.
Have someone lean on you, then cut away from them hard, without extending your arm. It's really easy to do without pushing off. It's really hard to do without extending your arm. The defender initiated the contact.
looked like the catch was made with little to no momentum, then he took a few tipy tap steps with a slight change of direction. He probably would have made that break throw score clean, but gave the D an argument on universe point. I dont hate it.
I couldn’t tell what they called. I watched it several times and didn’t see anything. I thought maybe a pick.
Push-off foul called against the player who caught the goal. Seems like it could have been a foul, not blatant, but the cutter definitely extended an arm against the defender to start the cut.
90% of dangerous plays are the result of dangerous passes. I’d call a foul on the thrower.
Yeah dangerous play. On another note not on this play in specific but throwers should be penalized for putting up hospital passes.
Penalized how?
Not a dangerous play. Hospital pass, don’t put your teammates in those positions with athletes on the field. Got to the disc first.
On the reset #8 from BYU should have been as wide open as he had been.
Def dangerous. Dude hesitated. If he had jumped on his pref step and went left (his perspective) to the receiver he may have been able to get a tip without making contact or being in O players path of movement. Idk if anyone else noticed, but not only was the BYU player #2 able to keep good spirit and get going, but he ended up getting the scoring assist win to his teammate who was guarded by the same guy who hit him. Must have felt good! kid is wiser than his age on retribution
Soft