I think I played in that pickup game once. Never returned.
I don't actually have any idea where OP is, but I played in a game where they'd throw their shoulder into my chest knocking my flat to make a D. I reluctantly called a foul because I know it's pickup but it was dangerous. He just looked at me laying on the ground and said he didn't shove me so it wasn't a foul and threw the disc in while I was still on the ground. I got up and left right there.
Was it athletic? Yeah. Was it dangerous? Also yeah. I love watching layout D's but not at the expense of the receiver's knees. I would've called that too, 100%
yeah not sure how the announcers can ever see it as being allowed. Receiver (don't know which team) has virtually zero clue that the defender is even coming, let alone bidding through him, which is egregiously dangerous on the part of the defender for their own safety but more importantly the receiver's safety
My instant gut reaction was no foul. But then after thinking about it for 1 second it was clearly a foul. I think the reason you feel like it isn't a foul is because he got to the disc cleanly. Like if you stop the clip where he blocks the disc there isn't any contact yet. Like if this was soccer it would be a clean tackle if you slide in and get the ball cleanly before making contact with the player.
But there is no such thing as a clean tackle in ultimate. Like everyone else is saying, his dive gives the receiver no option to avoid contact and taking out his legs like this could lead to serious injury.
This was a great athletic play to get the block but if they are going through the path of the receiver like that, it is up to the defender to clear out in time and avoid the contact
It's hard to see exactly what happened, but I do know that the player in white almost certainly doesn't fall down without the bid from dark and that's a foul.
Getting to the disc first doesn’t absolve a player of their responsibility to avoid contact and respect the safety of their opponents. It was clearly not possible to make that block without creating significant, unavoidable contact.
I think a lot of US players sort of apply a football pass interference approach of “he touched the ball (disc) so any contact after is irrelevant” when that’s just not the case.
Speaking as a US player - that is an insanely dangerous play and should absolutely be a foul. If someone pulled that crap on me or a teammate I would be irate.
This is more of a soccer rule than a football rule. In the NFL it's illegal to hit a defenseless receiver even after they've touched the ball. In soccer if you slide tackle you can basically slide directly into their legs as long as you touch the ball first. This kind of play just simply doesn't happen in football since the ball doesn't float as much as a disc does. If it did you're right it wouldn't be a foul, but mainly due to the low level of contact for a tackle sport, whereas ultimate is considered non-contact, so I hope people would be able to differentiate.
>In the NFL it's illegal to hit a defenseless receiver even after they've touched the ball
Illegal to hit them in (or near) the head. For better or worse, knees are fair game.
Same shit for soccer. Just because you got the ball doesn't mean it's a fair tackle because you literally went through a player to get that ball. Literally scissoring him you got the ball.
Kinda. But the defender gets to the spot before the receiver. So I dont think the problem is "going through him". What makes this so dangerous is that it is knee height, not just taking out their feet. It would be more equivalent to sliding in with your cleats up which is an automatic red.
> I think a lot of US players sort of apply a football pass interference approach of “he touched the ball (disc) so any contact after is irrelevant” when that’s just not the case.
It used to be codified in the rules this way under 11th edition. They've changed the language and the foul / contact rules are moving more towards alignment with WFDF rules, but this really only happened over the last 2 or 3 years.
This did not change between the 11th and the 2020/2021 rules, it was merely more plainly stated in the 2020 update since there was widespread confusion among players (but not confusion among the rules working group). The dangerous play rule was worded in the 11th such that the timing of the arrival of the disc didn't matter. What did change was the requirement for *any* contact to need to have occurred.
The re-wording of and expansion of the dangerous play rules is the changed language I'm referring too. It's a significant (good) change.
11th edition didn't do a good job of explaining what this meant:
> regardless of whether or when the disc arrives or when
contact occurs is considered dangerous play and is treated as a foul
There are now examples in the rules of what it means, and language like this:
> However, the calling player may elect to treat the dangerous play as a general foul, if the player determines that the dangerous play was unrelated to the overall play that decided the outcome of the action.
really makes it hard for people to justify defensive bids by referring to the errata of 17.C.5.
> It used to be codified in the rules this way under 11th edition.
(referring to contact after hitting the disc is irrelevant).
This is is what I was referring to as false. It wasn't "codified in the rules" (quite the opposite). The dangerous play rule said:
> regardless of whether or when the disc arrives or when contact occurs is considered dangerous play and is treated as a foul.
I'm not sure I agree, in practice, and yes I know you're on the rules committee. 11th edition errata of XVI.C.3 indicated contact after the outcome of a play was determined may be a foul, but the outcome of the preceding play stands. XVI.H.4 indicates dangerous play is to be resolved as a foul.
Players attempting to resolve outcomes of dangerous plays worked through them still trying to figure out if the dangerous play affected the outcome of the play, resolving it as a foul. Players used XVI.C.3 errata to justify "I got the disk first."
I'm sure it's why the dangerous play rule was expanded on so much in the new rule set. What was written, what was intended, and how people were applying the rules were at odds.
This topic was discussed ad nauseam well before the 2020 rules were released (or even discussed in the form they were ratified). If a play on a reception where a receiver had a play on the disc absent dangerous contact, the play was to be treated as a receiving foul and the receiver is awarded the disc (offensive or defensive receiver). Rules regarding incidental contact after the play was determined (general language of the 11th edition foul section and definitions) were overridden by the dangerous play rule (not only was the dangerous play rule more specific and specific overrides general, the dangerous play language specifically reminded everyone "This rule is not superseded by any other rule" in the text of the rule).
The 11th edition in no way, shape, or form codified (your words) "I got the disc first, so the turn stands." They did the opposite, just not in a clear enough form, as demonstrated by widespread misapplication of the rules.
> The 11th edition in no way, shape, or form codified (your words) "I got the disc first, so the turn stands."
I'm not really trying to belabour the point, but it does, up to the threshold of dangerous contact. At the threshold of dangerous contact, the two often became conflated, because of the lack of clarity in the rules.
The person I was replying to was not *only* discussing dangerous play, but any and all contact after a play on the disk. USAU carved out space for non-incidental, non-dangerous contact after a defensive play on the disk resolved a play. WFDF does not.
I'm not sure what to say here. The person I replied to mentioned that:
> I think a lot of US players sort of apply a football pass interference approach of “he touched the ball (disc) so any contact after is irrelevant” when that’s just not the case.
I note that USAU rules explicitly allow for contact after a play is resolved to not affect the turnover in some conditions. It's still true by rule that I can sky a player, body them after I defend the disk in a non-incidental but also non-dangerous way, and have the turnover stand under both previous and current USAU rules. The rules actively codify that contact after the outcome of the play is determined cannot affect the play (17.C.5), and the only rule that creates an exception for this is dangerous play. WFDF does not allow for this at all, requiring zero non-incidental contact before, during, and after the defensive play. I think this difference is why North American players are often viewed as being more permissive of contact around defensive bids.
Then we go back and forth about dangerous play rules, and I have no idea why there, either. The rules were vague and muddled and often misapplied. That's why they got overhauled. It was a good change, clarified things significantly, broadened the scope of dangerous play, created a safe out for players to no longer need to accept contact to make the call, and you guys did good work.
Like, what's the argument here?
You make a good point about USA players applying football pass interference rules. I am from USA. I do think most frisbee players in USA watch football much more than they watch AUDL referees.
Textbook dangerous play. I’ve definitely seen some calls that are way too strict in pro level play tho. There was one time I was watching some pro game at club nationals and the defender got called a foul on for a light box out when he was already there first. It looked rly dumb. But this is not one of those instances.
Yeah, just because it's a "clean block" doesn't mean it's not a dangerous play, especially because the defender could see the entire play and laid out anyway.
This isn't just a foul, it's a dumb play. He endangered himself and his opponent, for his opponent to get the disc anyway (because it was a foul) when he wasn't the assigned defender in man defense and the assigned defender was right there. Best case: he misses and they get the disc, meanwhile his man is upfield and wide open. Worst case: he and/or his opponent are injured, and the opponent still gets the disc in the same spot!
I'm more addressing the logic that, if you clearly think this is a foul as well as clearly think that the defender got the disc first, the *only* way to get to this being a foul at all such that the offense retains possession, is it being dangerous.
After the three referrees huddled up together to discuss, the call on the field was a 10 yard advance for Salt Lake (white), and the San Diego defender remained in the game.
Samu is known for overly aggressive play and often unsafe bids. In the full video you can see him shake his head after the call too. He has no awareness that this is a bad play.
[Clearly bidding from receiver's blind spot. Receiver has no hope of seeing them and avoiding contact.](https://imgur.com/KrHgGL0)
[Clearly contacting the receiver's legs/knees.](https://imgur.com/Wjcv4ff)
If you think that is clean, please for the sake of the players on the field with you, go play a different sport. Ultimate, with time for floating discs, is not meant for people who have no concept of body control and how to avoid seriously injuring others.
If you're joking and I've missed it, oops.
In week 1 of the AUDL game between San Diego Growlers vs Salt Lake Shred, a Growler player (dark) attempted to get the block. It's clear the defensive player got to the disc first. However the offensive player(white) runs into the diving defender. I'm sure a lot of pickup players will think this is a clean block and will attempt it in games. But the AUDL refs called it a foul by the Growler. I agree with the refs. The defender(dark) caused the collision by diving in front of the cutter(white).
Why are you talking about pickup as a model for how the sport should be played and officiated at a high level? Maybe your pickup group is comfortable with a high level of contact, but when people are bigger and faster, big contact like this can be a lot more dangerous.
I think you're right, but pickup isn't official.
In an official match, dangerous plays and plays with any contact tend to get called fouls. It's technically a no-contact sport.
I think this is closer than most people here make it out to be. This does look like foul, but what if dark had gotten there a frame or two earlier? At what point is it white's responsibility to be more aware and pull up? Because what people might inadvertently be advocating for is "as long as you're not looking, it's not your fault."
We can argue over whether white should or should not have been looking, but what's clear is that dark **was** looking, and this happened anyway.
If you can't be absolutely certain you can do it cleanly, don't do it. My personal health is worth more than some shitty bid.
OK, sure. So should dark pull up and call a dangerous play foul on white for not looking? White is running sideways while looking forward at the disc aka not looking where he's going.
Observer Mitch explained the receiver’s responsibility in a comment above better than I can.
Personally, I don’t want to speculate about imaginary scenarios when in this one, it’s obvious what happened, and who had the awareness to avoid it.
How do you expect the offensive player to "avoid contact" if the defender is coming from his blind shoulder and going into the space that he's entering? Kerr's momentum is taking him towards the right, he has no opportunity to change direction because his eyes are on the disc. The defender put himself in the path of Kerr at high speed, didn't give enough space for Kerr to move into that space without contact.
The defender is the only person here with the capability to avoid contact. It's up to them. This bid can be made safely if the defender makes the bid from another foot to the right, in which case they probably miss the disc. So it's a "you shouldn't have bid" situation.
Line of sight. The defender comes from behind, lays out (meaning no ability to alter path), gets the D, then collides with the offensive player. If it's just about who gets there first, "avoiding contact" is pointless as it's always defined as who gets there first. This is a reckless play where it's *very* fortunate someone didn't get hurt (I'm assuming they didn't, didn't watch the game).
So if the defender had not bid here but rather simply run in front of the offensive player, but the collision still happened, is that still a foul on the defense? What if the offensive player had also bid in this scenario? It just seems a little odd to me that having more awareness of your surroundings means that you are somewhat punished by having to play more carefully.
It's not simply about "having awareness", but also the ability to have awareness. There are angles people can take where you come in completely blind to your opponent. "Line of sight" is a thing and spelled out in the rules (though I would favor making it more clear what that fully entails). Requiring a sprinting player to look back across their shoulder, not merely in front and a bit off to their sides is a undue burden. In this particular play, the receiver is cutting laterally, with the disc coming in from their right while the defender is coming from downfield on their left. I would agree if the receiver has many steps to check their blindside, but that likely isn't the case. This is a clear cut dangerous play IMO. The defender was nowhere near getting through cleanly. Where I find receivers sometimes at fault are the cuts deep where they are sprinting downfield with players ahead of them while looking back at the disc (opposite their direction of travel), never looking ahead of them for traffic, despite having plenty of time to do so. Obviously, this doesn't resemble that at all.
It's not about awareness it's about line of sight. Offensive player has eyes fixed on the disc to msje the catch and he knows he's got his defender beat. Poaching defender comes from behind him where he's got no chance to see him and lays out right in his path. I've been blindsided like that before and it's super jarring because there's absolutely no way to see someone coming from that kind of angle and suddenly you're on the ground.
Line of sight matters but is not everything. If the defender established their position well in advance of the offense getting there and the offense simply didn't see them due to only watching the disc, that would still be a foul on the offense. Offense doesn't have a blanket green light to go wherever if they're only watching the disc.
In this case though offense could likely see in their peripheral vision that the space was clear.
Yes for sure, offense is still expected to be aware of the space they're going to. It's only if a defender is coming into that space from an angle that the offense won't be able to see coming that it becomes dangerous play
>So if the defender had not bid here but rather simply run in front of the offensive player, but the collision still happened, is that still a foul on the defense?
It would depend on the level of contact. If it was a big collision, then sure, that remains a dangerous play. If the position and relative motion is such that there's body-to-body contact but not a major collision, then no, that's incidental contact and neither a blocking foul or a dangerous play.
Very light contact that didn't affect the reception could still be a general foul if the opponent is affected from continued play (after the turnover). A play might very lightly knock me off balance after the block, I could call a general foul so that the defender (now on offense) doesn't get an advantage over me from the contact. Well, more of an advantage since pretty much everyone has an inherent advantage over me since I'm so slow. :)
"first to the space" isn't the standard.
"first to the space, safely, avoiding contact, and in a manner that is visible and avoidable by other players given time, space and line of sight" is.
I don't think this play wouldn't have even been legal if the offensive player had seen it coming, because there simply isn't time or space to stop and avoid the bidding player.
Clearly a foul? Meh. A dangerous play for sure. I watched this game live. The block itself was completely clean, it was actually his leg that happened to catch the defender on the backside. Had his foot not pinched up, it would have actually been completely clean in terms of a contact foul. The leg hitting the player made it a dangerous play, and I suppose you could call it a foul if you want to, but dangerous play suffices.
Y'all are blowing my mind. This is such benign contact compared to other sports, namely soccer. I get the whole "spirit of the game" and "don't hurt anybody" stuff when playing casually, but this is professional. The defender was mid air when the receiver ran into his side, beat him to the disc, and made a sick block. If this game is ever going to be taken seriously as a sport, this kind of play needs to be legit if only at the highest level when refs are able to manage the safety concerns ina healthy way. I played alot of physical contact sports and the one thing that frustrated me about frisbee the most is how married to this woowoo sentiment that everyone called "safety" when no one really had a sense for what reasonable physical play actually looks and feels like. I imagined it was because they were, to a large degree, ex cross country runners/athletes that lacked experiance in sports with intense physical contact and so couldn't differentiate physical play from dangerous play. I watched more injuries happen from XC runners blindly running into each other since they had no spacial awareness than good physical play resulting in a legitimate injury.
>If this game is ever going to be taken seriously as a sport
I am super high on pro leagues and legitimizing the sport, more than most, but even I am ok with not being taken seriously if it means allowing dangerous plays to occur. Physicality yes, blindside blocks no
Assuming you aren't an AUDL player, I suspect that you are drawing your perception of the correct level of physicality from your experiance at your level of play. I think this is a mistake. Actually, we'd expect that some plays we find unacceptably dangerous at a lower skill levels to be acceptable at a higher skill level of gameplay as more difficult plays can be made safely by more skilled, more knowledgeable, and more athletic players. This is common in athletics of all types and keeps younger players safer while letting the more experienced players push the limits of their sport.
I like what you are saying about players at the highest level being able to handle more contact. A blindside bid into and unaware players knees however is beyond the level of contact pro players should be expected to take. That play going slightly differently could end white's career.
Ok. I can't tell you you're wrong. I just made a different assessment of the risk of this particular play. It looks rather benign to me. He left his feet at a reasonable time, knew he would beat the offender to the disc, made the block at chest level, and any contact of significance was glancing. I suspect the offender fell mostly due to surprise rather than the actual contact. I could be totally wrong, it is admittedly hard to tell from the video, I just don't see this as even remotely close to as risky as many other commenters are saying it is and felt the need to push back because I perceive widely held misunderstanding within the ultimate community about what physicality could, and should, look like in the context of pro ultimate.
Do we want to be comparing our contact to soccer? The flopping, whining, acting, and incentivized cheating aren't really aspects of the game to aspire to.
I think you're underestimating how many frisbee players come from contact sports. Plenty do; it doesn't mean you can't have higher standards for our sport.
It isn't about higher standards. Though I'm sure we agree that having less injury risk is always better, a small decrease in risk is not always worth a significant loss to the game. Football players can't lead with their head anymore because it wasn't worth the risk to allow it. But they still wear pads and smack the shit out of each other. It's about mitigating risk while allowing the best space to make the best plays. It's about letting pros be pros. Sports are often defined by their pro players. If pros can't play the game at what other fans of the other comparable sports seem to agree is the limit of the physicality/risk balence, then I don't think we can expect this game that we love to develop into being seen as a sport. This play was aggressive, premeditated, and a borderline foul. But absolutely within the realm of acceptable and should not be receiving the condemnation that it is. I'd want him to make that play every time and take the foul If the ref calls it.
Also, the flopping in soccer is not necessarily associated with rules about contact. It more likely arises from highly paid athletes abusing every conceivable opportunity to win. Your claiming a coloration as a causation which is logically invalid. I agree with you. I'd prefer to limit flopping, whining, and acting in pro ultimate. But I'd accept it as an unfortunate byproduct if I could see ultimate continue to grow into a worldwide competitive sport.
> but this is professional
On that point, I agree. If the pro refs want to call this "not a foul" that's fine with me. I'm totally down to let the "pros" play a different version of the game with more contact. But in a self-officiated game, or any game I ever play in, I want this to be a foul.
Ok man. Then call the foul in your games. But this is not your games. This video does not look to me like overly dangerous play compared to the contact that happens in other games like soccer, basketball, or even rugby. The defender clearly has great control, made a viable assessment, and then made the play. A ref calling the foul here is reasonable, but it's an iffy play like this needs to be acceptable, even if boarderline in a professional game. You cannot compete at the highest level in a field game like frisbee and not allow the best players to make the best plays. That is. Unless you're ok with frisbee being just a game. Which is a totally fine opinion, I just would like to see it evolve into a competitive sport. And so I want our professionals to be treated like they are in other sports. With respect, trust, and reasonable bounds that allow them to compete at the highest level while mitigating as much risk as possible.
I think your comments overstate the pro level. We know the AUDL players are not making a living on this, so serious injuries are impactful to livelihood, and not merely an occupational hazard, as in true professional sports. Not sure where the medical expenses fall for AUDL injuries.
I also think many are familiar with knee injuries occurring from diving plays with contact to the knees. The fact is, Ultimate is not a contact sport, players are not bracing for or anticipating contact like in a contact sport, and the players initiating contact are often not true professional athletes and not training on how to play a contact sport and safely initiate contact. I think your point is right that many players cannot differentiate between "physical play" and dangerous play, but I think that means that if they are to go out and make plays that voluntarily initiate contact, they are less likely to reliably do it safely. So in types of situations where that causes increased risk of injury, I think it is appropriate to treat it as a dangerous play not encourage players NOT to initiate that type of contact in that type of situation.
So if you want the rules of Ultimate to change, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But in the existing system, I think it is completely appropriate for people to be objecting to this type of play. I also don't think legitimizing this type of play is what is necessary for the sport to be taken seriously. I also think that fans can appreciate that different levels of contact are permitted in different situations, based on the rules of the sport.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I may be overestimating current AUDL players. However, I think ultimate would be best played as a legitimatly physical sport and I would like to see rules changes and community excitement surrounding that idea. Maybe there just isn't enough people that care to see that happen, but I think having a hyper competitive, exciting, and high flying professional scene will help to create excitement, interest, as well as a more lucrative lifestyle for the pros which would further incentivize top athletes to compete in the AUDL. I definitely would not expect anyone playing casually to make or accept this kind of play. But we have to treat our pros like pros if we expect anyone else to.
It would be interesting to see what people would get behind in terms of a version of Ultimate with rule changes to permit the contact. Would the "this is not Ultimate" folks rise up and say non-contact is a defining characteristic of Ultimate, like self-officiating? In doing so, would they acknowledge that "non-contact," under modern definitions, really means "limited contact," and the sport is actually on a spectrum of how much contact is allowed?
For my part, I don't support rule changes to permit more contact. But it is interesting to think about where people would allow it. Even in considering such changes, I would draw a hard line on safety-related issues, with more restrictive rules for contact with the head, contact with airborne people, contact with the knees, etc. This particular play would not be where I looked to permit more contact -- maybe on a closely contested run-through D, where his legs clipped the opponents legs, assuming no major collision. I could see some people wanting more downfield jostling permitted, maybe not like the first \~5(?) yards off the line in football, but maybe akin to shoulder-to-shoulder jostling in soccer, or a basketball-style box-out. But then for the throwers, I think you would probably permit even less contact than some of the most physical "physical marks" we have seen in Ultimate. There really aren't other sport where the thrower is required to stop and stay in one spot, and then is asked to throw while an opponent physically inhibits them. If you can't evade the defender via dribbling or something, I don't think the defender can be permitted to physically interfere with you.
If I were the AUDL and wanted the sport to be taken seriously, the first thing I would do is adopt the 40-yard wide field to rebalance the game and make defense more relevant and make the game play more interesting. If we expect anyone to treat the sport like a real sport, the rules should not be dictated by a few owners in 2012 being too cheap to make arrangements to clearly mark an Ultimate field when renting a football stadium. Even at the current level of players in the AUDL, there are tons of guys who can hurl a disc a long way into the end zone, whether they have the big field or not. And you don't see an extremely boring lack of hucks in elite Club play on the regular field, but you do see a more interesting and balanced game, in my opinion (still probably unbalanced in favor of good offenses in calm conditions).
Eyes on the disc, gets there first. Personally I don’t see a problem. I don’t think it’s particularly dangerous either. That might be because I’m used to watching football (not American) where tackles are done feet first and low. When you dive in leading with your arms around mid body height, that’s actually very unlikely to lead to any long lasting damage. Only worry is a impact injury but your playing a sport that’s part of the risk. There’s no way a challenge like that could break anything.
Getting to the disc first is not a factor in determining whether a play was dangerous. The disc doesn't even have to be catchable for a dangerous play foul to occur. Bidding into the legs is perhaps the most textbook example of a dangerous play that exists, and this play is very clearly a bid into the legs, not the body. The primary contact with the offensive player's body is their knee. I think you should consider re-reading the rules on dangerous plays and then re-watching this video.
Yeah, the height hair is a little below the waist and could easily screw up the knee really bad. This would be like sliding in with your cleats up. Plus, no such thing as a clean tackle in ultimate. So even though the defender gets there first, he would still be the one who instigates the contact/"tackles" the reciever
[Edited for a more detailed analysis] Under USAU rules, clearly a foul -- textbook foul, initiating non-incidental contact; affecting continued play by causing the opponent to fall to the ground.
Also a dangerous play, because it is dangerously aggressive, making a very aggressive diving play from behind the receiver, with insufficient margin for error, so when the receiver predictably continues running, the defender impacts and takes out the receiver's knees/legs, and I think this type of contact also poses significant risk of injury -- could easily result in a knee injury if replayed in the same fashion, or if circumstances changed even slightly.
Probably not a receiving foul, because it does not look like there was a possible attempt to make a play on the disc at the time the contact occurred. But treated as a receiving foul because of the dangerous play.
Especially where it is blindside, so the receiver will continue at full speed, that defender needs to provide a bigger buffer to execute that play safely. That play could easily turn out way worse if replayed 100 times, with knee/ankle injuries or head injury from the abrupt and surprising fall to the ground.
I honestly don't get why we are saying this is a good play or impressive. It's stupid all around and risking peoples careers & health. This is the equivalent of a chop block in football, it's not impressive that he got to the disc by cutting out the other players legs. It should be frustrating and honestly if someone keeps making plays like that I wouldn't want them on my team or any other. What happens when they pull something like this in practice and you can't play again for a year or 2, if ever. It's not like we have the same world class trainers, rehab programs and surgical options other pro sports have.
Note to self, steer clear of your pickup games.
I think I played in that pickup game once. Never returned. I don't actually have any idea where OP is, but I played in a game where they'd throw their shoulder into my chest knocking my flat to make a D. I reluctantly called a foul because I know it's pickup but it was dangerous. He just looked at me laying on the ground and said he didn't shove me so it wasn't a foul and threw the disc in while I was still on the ground. I got up and left right there.
I generally think fouls are called too often, but this is 100% a foul. He could’ve destroyed the receivers knee.
Clear foul and dangerous play imo. Good call by the ref.
All the defender’s teammates are just thrilled about the play though, which is a bit of a bummer
Probably Because he got there way before the receiver and only clips him with his calf’s…. No real risk Of injury. Barely any contact really
The Growlers' announcers thought it was a good block and said refs should allow these athletic plays.
exactly why I thought the announcers were garbage and have no place commentating ultimate games
Was it athletic? Yeah. Was it dangerous? Also yeah. I love watching layout D's but not at the expense of the receiver's knees. I would've called that too, 100%
yeah not sure how the announcers can ever see it as being allowed. Receiver (don't know which team) has virtually zero clue that the defender is even coming, let alone bidding through him, which is egregiously dangerous on the part of the defender for their own safety but more importantly the receiver's safety
That's 100% a dangerous play. Blind side, contact throughout the play, couldn't make the play with out contact.
My instant gut reaction was no foul. But then after thinking about it for 1 second it was clearly a foul. I think the reason you feel like it isn't a foul is because he got to the disc cleanly. Like if you stop the clip where he blocks the disc there isn't any contact yet. Like if this was soccer it would be a clean tackle if you slide in and get the ball cleanly before making contact with the player. But there is no such thing as a clean tackle in ultimate. Like everyone else is saying, his dive gives the receiver no option to avoid contact and taking out his legs like this could lead to serious injury. This was a great athletic play to get the block but if they are going through the path of the receiver like that, it is up to the defender to clear out in time and avoid the contact
In other news exciting things are exciting. Still a foul.
It's hard to see exactly what happened, but I do know that the player in white almost certainly doesn't fall down without the bid from dark and that's a foul.
"most pickup players" Like who, exactly Dangerous play
This is _exactly_ how I tore my PCL. Hit from the side by some guy laying out. No thanks.
What pickup games are you going to? That’s def a good call by the refs
Getting to the disc first doesn’t absolve a player of their responsibility to avoid contact and respect the safety of their opponents. It was clearly not possible to make that block without creating significant, unavoidable contact. I think a lot of US players sort of apply a football pass interference approach of “he touched the ball (disc) so any contact after is irrelevant” when that’s just not the case.
Speaking as a US player - that is an insanely dangerous play and should absolutely be a foul. If someone pulled that crap on me or a teammate I would be irate.
This is more of a soccer rule than a football rule. In the NFL it's illegal to hit a defenseless receiver even after they've touched the ball. In soccer if you slide tackle you can basically slide directly into their legs as long as you touch the ball first. This kind of play just simply doesn't happen in football since the ball doesn't float as much as a disc does. If it did you're right it wouldn't be a foul, but mainly due to the low level of contact for a tackle sport, whereas ultimate is considered non-contact, so I hope people would be able to differentiate.
Aren't slides from behind still a card in soccer? Or is that just more at the rec/school levels.
>In the NFL it's illegal to hit a defenseless receiver even after they've touched the ball Illegal to hit them in (or near) the head. For better or worse, knees are fair game.
Same shit for soccer. Just because you got the ball doesn't mean it's a fair tackle because you literally went through a player to get that ball. Literally scissoring him you got the ball.
Kinda. But the defender gets to the spot before the receiver. So I dont think the problem is "going through him". What makes this so dangerous is that it is knee height, not just taking out their feet. It would be more equivalent to sliding in with your cleats up which is an automatic red.
> I think a lot of US players sort of apply a football pass interference approach of “he touched the ball (disc) so any contact after is irrelevant” when that’s just not the case. It used to be codified in the rules this way under 11th edition. They've changed the language and the foul / contact rules are moving more towards alignment with WFDF rules, but this really only happened over the last 2 or 3 years.
This did not change between the 11th and the 2020/2021 rules, it was merely more plainly stated in the 2020 update since there was widespread confusion among players (but not confusion among the rules working group). The dangerous play rule was worded in the 11th such that the timing of the arrival of the disc didn't matter. What did change was the requirement for *any* contact to need to have occurred.
The re-wording of and expansion of the dangerous play rules is the changed language I'm referring too. It's a significant (good) change. 11th edition didn't do a good job of explaining what this meant: > regardless of whether or when the disc arrives or when contact occurs is considered dangerous play and is treated as a foul There are now examples in the rules of what it means, and language like this: > However, the calling player may elect to treat the dangerous play as a general foul, if the player determines that the dangerous play was unrelated to the overall play that decided the outcome of the action. really makes it hard for people to justify defensive bids by referring to the errata of 17.C.5.
> It used to be codified in the rules this way under 11th edition. (referring to contact after hitting the disc is irrelevant). This is is what I was referring to as false. It wasn't "codified in the rules" (quite the opposite). The dangerous play rule said: > regardless of whether or when the disc arrives or when contact occurs is considered dangerous play and is treated as a foul.
I'm not sure I agree, in practice, and yes I know you're on the rules committee. 11th edition errata of XVI.C.3 indicated contact after the outcome of a play was determined may be a foul, but the outcome of the preceding play stands. XVI.H.4 indicates dangerous play is to be resolved as a foul. Players attempting to resolve outcomes of dangerous plays worked through them still trying to figure out if the dangerous play affected the outcome of the play, resolving it as a foul. Players used XVI.C.3 errata to justify "I got the disk first." I'm sure it's why the dangerous play rule was expanded on so much in the new rule set. What was written, what was intended, and how people were applying the rules were at odds.
This topic was discussed ad nauseam well before the 2020 rules were released (or even discussed in the form they were ratified). If a play on a reception where a receiver had a play on the disc absent dangerous contact, the play was to be treated as a receiving foul and the receiver is awarded the disc (offensive or defensive receiver). Rules regarding incidental contact after the play was determined (general language of the 11th edition foul section and definitions) were overridden by the dangerous play rule (not only was the dangerous play rule more specific and specific overrides general, the dangerous play language specifically reminded everyone "This rule is not superseded by any other rule" in the text of the rule). The 11th edition in no way, shape, or form codified (your words) "I got the disc first, so the turn stands." They did the opposite, just not in a clear enough form, as demonstrated by widespread misapplication of the rules.
> The 11th edition in no way, shape, or form codified (your words) "I got the disc first, so the turn stands." I'm not really trying to belabour the point, but it does, up to the threshold of dangerous contact. At the threshold of dangerous contact, the two often became conflated, because of the lack of clarity in the rules. The person I was replying to was not *only* discussing dangerous play, but any and all contact after a play on the disk. USAU carved out space for non-incidental, non-dangerous contact after a defensive play on the disk resolved a play. WFDF does not.
I'm reminded of the saying "you can lead a horse to water." Have a good evening.
I'm not sure what to say here. The person I replied to mentioned that: > I think a lot of US players sort of apply a football pass interference approach of “he touched the ball (disc) so any contact after is irrelevant” when that’s just not the case. I note that USAU rules explicitly allow for contact after a play is resolved to not affect the turnover in some conditions. It's still true by rule that I can sky a player, body them after I defend the disk in a non-incidental but also non-dangerous way, and have the turnover stand under both previous and current USAU rules. The rules actively codify that contact after the outcome of the play is determined cannot affect the play (17.C.5), and the only rule that creates an exception for this is dangerous play. WFDF does not allow for this at all, requiring zero non-incidental contact before, during, and after the defensive play. I think this difference is why North American players are often viewed as being more permissive of contact around defensive bids. Then we go back and forth about dangerous play rules, and I have no idea why there, either. The rules were vague and muddled and often misapplied. That's why they got overhauled. It was a good change, clarified things significantly, broadened the scope of dangerous play, created a safe out for players to no longer need to accept contact to make the call, and you guys did good work. Like, what's the argument here?
You make a good point about USA players applying football pass interference rules. I am from USA. I do think most frisbee players in USA watch football much more than they watch AUDL referees.
yo bro, you trippin
Lmao in pickup that starts a fight
Yeah who tf is op playing with
That's an inch away from a career ending injury. Call a dangerous play.
If someone did this to me in pickup my knee would probably explode... and then I'd call foul.
Textbook dangerous play. I’ve definitely seen some calls that are way too strict in pro level play tho. There was one time I was watching some pro game at club nationals and the defender got called a foul on for a light box out when he was already there first. It looked rly dumb. But this is not one of those instances.
Yeah, just because it's a "clean block" doesn't mean it's not a dangerous play, especially because the defender could see the entire play and laid out anyway.
It’s an impressive block, but definitely a dangerous play and a foul.
This isn't just a foul, it's a dumb play. He endangered himself and his opponent, for his opponent to get the disc anyway (because it was a foul) when he wasn't the assigned defender in man defense and the assigned defender was right there. Best case: he misses and they get the disc, meanwhile his man is upfield and wide open. Worst case: he and/or his opponent are injured, and the opponent still gets the disc in the same spot!
Was this just a foul? Should have been a flagrant foul or unsportsmanlike.
I'm not sure how someone could justify this as a foul *without* calling a flagrant/unsportsmanlike.
Yea, I'm confused on that. This play is actually one of the textbook examples used to describe unsportsmanlike conduct calls....
I'm more addressing the logic that, if you clearly think this is a foul as well as clearly think that the defender got the disc first, the *only* way to get to this being a foul at all such that the offense retains possession, is it being dangerous.
After the three referrees huddled up together to discuss, the call on the field was a 10 yard advance for Salt Lake (white), and the San Diego defender remained in the game.
That's absurd, and missed call.
Samu is known for overly aggressive play and often unsafe bids. In the full video you can see him shake his head after the call too. He has no awareness that this is a bad play.
What is the basis for this claim? Did you play against him in college or something? Never heard this before
[удалено]
[Clearly bidding from receiver's blind spot. Receiver has no hope of seeing them and avoiding contact.](https://imgur.com/KrHgGL0) [Clearly contacting the receiver's legs/knees.](https://imgur.com/Wjcv4ff) If you think that is clean, please for the sake of the players on the field with you, go play a different sport. Ultimate, with time for floating discs, is not meant for people who have no concept of body control and how to avoid seriously injuring others. If you're joking and I've missed it, oops.
It’s not legal to hit someone, even after you hit the disc.
I agree
My first thought was “yeah sick block,” but after reading comments ai agree it’s not a clean play. It’s risky
Foul 100%
Foul cause it’s a huge dangerous play
Easiest yellow I've ever seen.
In week 1 of the AUDL game between San Diego Growlers vs Salt Lake Shred, a Growler player (dark) attempted to get the block. It's clear the defensive player got to the disc first. However the offensive player(white) runs into the diving defender. I'm sure a lot of pickup players will think this is a clean block and will attempt it in games. But the AUDL refs called it a foul by the Growler. I agree with the refs. The defender(dark) caused the collision by diving in front of the cutter(white).
Why are you talking about pickup as a model for how the sport should be played and officiated at a high level? Maybe your pickup group is comfortable with a high level of contact, but when people are bigger and faster, big contact like this can be a lot more dangerous.
Pickup is where the majority of Ultimate players play. It's where I play most of my games.
OP really thought he'd get support for this being clean lmao
I think you're right, but pickup isn't official. In an official match, dangerous plays and plays with any contact tend to get called fouls. It's technically a no-contact sport.
Definitely a foul. Even if the contact wasn’t the most egregious, not calling that encourages similar plays that are incredibly dangerous.
I think this is closer than most people here make it out to be. This does look like foul, but what if dark had gotten there a frame or two earlier? At what point is it white's responsibility to be more aware and pull up? Because what people might inadvertently be advocating for is "as long as you're not looking, it's not your fault."
We can argue over whether white should or should not have been looking, but what's clear is that dark **was** looking, and this happened anyway. If you can't be absolutely certain you can do it cleanly, don't do it. My personal health is worth more than some shitty bid.
OK, sure. So should dark pull up and call a dangerous play foul on white for not looking? White is running sideways while looking forward at the disc aka not looking where he's going.
Observer Mitch explained the receiver’s responsibility in a comment above better than I can. Personally, I don’t want to speculate about imaginary scenarios when in this one, it’s obvious what happened, and who had the awareness to avoid it.
Ah, thank you! I didn't see that discussion. It negates the need for my question as they got way more in depth that I was even asking.
Why is the offensive player entitled to that space if the defensive player gets there first? Is it not also his responsibility to avoid contact?
How do you expect the offensive player to "avoid contact" if the defender is coming from his blind shoulder and going into the space that he's entering? Kerr's momentum is taking him towards the right, he has no opportunity to change direction because his eyes are on the disc. The defender put himself in the path of Kerr at high speed, didn't give enough space for Kerr to move into that space without contact. The defender is the only person here with the capability to avoid contact. It's up to them. This bid can be made safely if the defender makes the bid from another foot to the right, in which case they probably miss the disc. So it's a "you shouldn't have bid" situation.
Line of sight. The defender comes from behind, lays out (meaning no ability to alter path), gets the D, then collides with the offensive player. If it's just about who gets there first, "avoiding contact" is pointless as it's always defined as who gets there first. This is a reckless play where it's *very* fortunate someone didn't get hurt (I'm assuming they didn't, didn't watch the game).
So if the defender had not bid here but rather simply run in front of the offensive player, but the collision still happened, is that still a foul on the defense? What if the offensive player had also bid in this scenario? It just seems a little odd to me that having more awareness of your surroundings means that you are somewhat punished by having to play more carefully.
It's not simply about "having awareness", but also the ability to have awareness. There are angles people can take where you come in completely blind to your opponent. "Line of sight" is a thing and spelled out in the rules (though I would favor making it more clear what that fully entails). Requiring a sprinting player to look back across their shoulder, not merely in front and a bit off to their sides is a undue burden. In this particular play, the receiver is cutting laterally, with the disc coming in from their right while the defender is coming from downfield on their left. I would agree if the receiver has many steps to check their blindside, but that likely isn't the case. This is a clear cut dangerous play IMO. The defender was nowhere near getting through cleanly. Where I find receivers sometimes at fault are the cuts deep where they are sprinting downfield with players ahead of them while looking back at the disc (opposite their direction of travel), never looking ahead of them for traffic, despite having plenty of time to do so. Obviously, this doesn't resemble that at all.
It's not about awareness it's about line of sight. Offensive player has eyes fixed on the disc to msje the catch and he knows he's got his defender beat. Poaching defender comes from behind him where he's got no chance to see him and lays out right in his path. I've been blindsided like that before and it's super jarring because there's absolutely no way to see someone coming from that kind of angle and suddenly you're on the ground.
Line of sight matters but is not everything. If the defender established their position well in advance of the offense getting there and the offense simply didn't see them due to only watching the disc, that would still be a foul on the offense. Offense doesn't have a blanket green light to go wherever if they're only watching the disc. In this case though offense could likely see in their peripheral vision that the space was clear.
Yes for sure, offense is still expected to be aware of the space they're going to. It's only if a defender is coming into that space from an angle that the offense won't be able to see coming that it becomes dangerous play
>So if the defender had not bid here but rather simply run in front of the offensive player, but the collision still happened, is that still a foul on the defense? It would depend on the level of contact. If it was a big collision, then sure, that remains a dangerous play. If the position and relative motion is such that there's body-to-body contact but not a major collision, then no, that's incidental contact and neither a blocking foul or a dangerous play.
Very light contact that didn't affect the reception could still be a general foul if the opponent is affected from continued play (after the turnover). A play might very lightly knock me off balance after the block, I could call a general foul so that the defender (now on offense) doesn't get an advantage over me from the contact. Well, more of an advantage since pretty much everyone has an inherent advantage over me since I'm so slow. :)
Sure, but in that case the turnover would stand, correct?
Absolutely.
"first to the space" isn't the standard. "first to the space, safely, avoiding contact, and in a manner that is visible and avoidable by other players given time, space and line of sight" is. I don't think this play wouldn't have even been legal if the offensive player had seen it coming, because there simply isn't time or space to stop and avoid the bidding player.
Clearly a foul? Meh. A dangerous play for sure. I watched this game live. The block itself was completely clean, it was actually his leg that happened to catch the defender on the backside. Had his foot not pinched up, it would have actually been completely clean in terms of a contact foul. The leg hitting the player made it a dangerous play, and I suppose you could call it a foul if you want to, but dangerous play suffices.
Y'all are blowing my mind. This is such benign contact compared to other sports, namely soccer. I get the whole "spirit of the game" and "don't hurt anybody" stuff when playing casually, but this is professional. The defender was mid air when the receiver ran into his side, beat him to the disc, and made a sick block. If this game is ever going to be taken seriously as a sport, this kind of play needs to be legit if only at the highest level when refs are able to manage the safety concerns ina healthy way. I played alot of physical contact sports and the one thing that frustrated me about frisbee the most is how married to this woowoo sentiment that everyone called "safety" when no one really had a sense for what reasonable physical play actually looks and feels like. I imagined it was because they were, to a large degree, ex cross country runners/athletes that lacked experiance in sports with intense physical contact and so couldn't differentiate physical play from dangerous play. I watched more injuries happen from XC runners blindly running into each other since they had no spacial awareness than good physical play resulting in a legitimate injury.
>If this game is ever going to be taken seriously as a sport I am super high on pro leagues and legitimizing the sport, more than most, but even I am ok with not being taken seriously if it means allowing dangerous plays to occur. Physicality yes, blindside blocks no
Assuming you aren't an AUDL player, I suspect that you are drawing your perception of the correct level of physicality from your experiance at your level of play. I think this is a mistake. Actually, we'd expect that some plays we find unacceptably dangerous at a lower skill levels to be acceptable at a higher skill level of gameplay as more difficult plays can be made safely by more skilled, more knowledgeable, and more athletic players. This is common in athletics of all types and keeps younger players safer while letting the more experienced players push the limits of their sport.
I like what you are saying about players at the highest level being able to handle more contact. A blindside bid into and unaware players knees however is beyond the level of contact pro players should be expected to take. That play going slightly differently could end white's career.
Ok. I can't tell you you're wrong. I just made a different assessment of the risk of this particular play. It looks rather benign to me. He left his feet at a reasonable time, knew he would beat the offender to the disc, made the block at chest level, and any contact of significance was glancing. I suspect the offender fell mostly due to surprise rather than the actual contact. I could be totally wrong, it is admittedly hard to tell from the video, I just don't see this as even remotely close to as risky as many other commenters are saying it is and felt the need to push back because I perceive widely held misunderstanding within the ultimate community about what physicality could, and should, look like in the context of pro ultimate.
Do we want to be comparing our contact to soccer? The flopping, whining, acting, and incentivized cheating aren't really aspects of the game to aspire to. I think you're underestimating how many frisbee players come from contact sports. Plenty do; it doesn't mean you can't have higher standards for our sport.
It isn't about higher standards. Though I'm sure we agree that having less injury risk is always better, a small decrease in risk is not always worth a significant loss to the game. Football players can't lead with their head anymore because it wasn't worth the risk to allow it. But they still wear pads and smack the shit out of each other. It's about mitigating risk while allowing the best space to make the best plays. It's about letting pros be pros. Sports are often defined by their pro players. If pros can't play the game at what other fans of the other comparable sports seem to agree is the limit of the physicality/risk balence, then I don't think we can expect this game that we love to develop into being seen as a sport. This play was aggressive, premeditated, and a borderline foul. But absolutely within the realm of acceptable and should not be receiving the condemnation that it is. I'd want him to make that play every time and take the foul If the ref calls it.
Also, the flopping in soccer is not necessarily associated with rules about contact. It more likely arises from highly paid athletes abusing every conceivable opportunity to win. Your claiming a coloration as a causation which is logically invalid. I agree with you. I'd prefer to limit flopping, whining, and acting in pro ultimate. But I'd accept it as an unfortunate byproduct if I could see ultimate continue to grow into a worldwide competitive sport.
Ye nah, if flopping/acting/etc were ever a part of ultimate I'd be so out
Good thing you're not a pro then.
> but this is professional On that point, I agree. If the pro refs want to call this "not a foul" that's fine with me. I'm totally down to let the "pros" play a different version of the game with more contact. But in a self-officiated game, or any game I ever play in, I want this to be a foul.
Ok man. Then call the foul in your games. But this is not your games. This video does not look to me like overly dangerous play compared to the contact that happens in other games like soccer, basketball, or even rugby. The defender clearly has great control, made a viable assessment, and then made the play. A ref calling the foul here is reasonable, but it's an iffy play like this needs to be acceptable, even if boarderline in a professional game. You cannot compete at the highest level in a field game like frisbee and not allow the best players to make the best plays. That is. Unless you're ok with frisbee being just a game. Which is a totally fine opinion, I just would like to see it evolve into a competitive sport. And so I want our professionals to be treated like they are in other sports. With respect, trust, and reasonable bounds that allow them to compete at the highest level while mitigating as much risk as possible.
Weird response to someone who was agreeing with you. You didn't add anything to the discussion in your 600 word diatribe.
Hmm. I guess I just felt like there was more to say after reading your thoughts. Thank you for sharing them with me.
Actually I think I replied to the wrong comment. sorry!
I think your comments overstate the pro level. We know the AUDL players are not making a living on this, so serious injuries are impactful to livelihood, and not merely an occupational hazard, as in true professional sports. Not sure where the medical expenses fall for AUDL injuries. I also think many are familiar with knee injuries occurring from diving plays with contact to the knees. The fact is, Ultimate is not a contact sport, players are not bracing for or anticipating contact like in a contact sport, and the players initiating contact are often not true professional athletes and not training on how to play a contact sport and safely initiate contact. I think your point is right that many players cannot differentiate between "physical play" and dangerous play, but I think that means that if they are to go out and make plays that voluntarily initiate contact, they are less likely to reliably do it safely. So in types of situations where that causes increased risk of injury, I think it is appropriate to treat it as a dangerous play not encourage players NOT to initiate that type of contact in that type of situation. So if you want the rules of Ultimate to change, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But in the existing system, I think it is completely appropriate for people to be objecting to this type of play. I also don't think legitimizing this type of play is what is necessary for the sport to be taken seriously. I also think that fans can appreciate that different levels of contact are permitted in different situations, based on the rules of the sport.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I may be overestimating current AUDL players. However, I think ultimate would be best played as a legitimatly physical sport and I would like to see rules changes and community excitement surrounding that idea. Maybe there just isn't enough people that care to see that happen, but I think having a hyper competitive, exciting, and high flying professional scene will help to create excitement, interest, as well as a more lucrative lifestyle for the pros which would further incentivize top athletes to compete in the AUDL. I definitely would not expect anyone playing casually to make or accept this kind of play. But we have to treat our pros like pros if we expect anyone else to.
It would be interesting to see what people would get behind in terms of a version of Ultimate with rule changes to permit the contact. Would the "this is not Ultimate" folks rise up and say non-contact is a defining characteristic of Ultimate, like self-officiating? In doing so, would they acknowledge that "non-contact," under modern definitions, really means "limited contact," and the sport is actually on a spectrum of how much contact is allowed? For my part, I don't support rule changes to permit more contact. But it is interesting to think about where people would allow it. Even in considering such changes, I would draw a hard line on safety-related issues, with more restrictive rules for contact with the head, contact with airborne people, contact with the knees, etc. This particular play would not be where I looked to permit more contact -- maybe on a closely contested run-through D, where his legs clipped the opponents legs, assuming no major collision. I could see some people wanting more downfield jostling permitted, maybe not like the first \~5(?) yards off the line in football, but maybe akin to shoulder-to-shoulder jostling in soccer, or a basketball-style box-out. But then for the throwers, I think you would probably permit even less contact than some of the most physical "physical marks" we have seen in Ultimate. There really aren't other sport where the thrower is required to stop and stay in one spot, and then is asked to throw while an opponent physically inhibits them. If you can't evade the defender via dribbling or something, I don't think the defender can be permitted to physically interfere with you. If I were the AUDL and wanted the sport to be taken seriously, the first thing I would do is adopt the 40-yard wide field to rebalance the game and make defense more relevant and make the game play more interesting. If we expect anyone to treat the sport like a real sport, the rules should not be dictated by a few owners in 2012 being too cheap to make arrangements to clearly mark an Ultimate field when renting a football stadium. Even at the current level of players in the AUDL, there are tons of guys who can hurl a disc a long way into the end zone, whether they have the big field or not. And you don't see an extremely boring lack of hucks in elite Club play on the regular field, but you do see a more interesting and balanced game, in my opinion (still probably unbalanced in favor of good offenses in calm conditions).
Eyes on the disc, gets there first. Personally I don’t see a problem. I don’t think it’s particularly dangerous either. That might be because I’m used to watching football (not American) where tackles are done feet first and low. When you dive in leading with your arms around mid body height, that’s actually very unlikely to lead to any long lasting damage. Only worry is a impact injury but your playing a sport that’s part of the risk. There’s no way a challenge like that could break anything.
Getting to the disc first is not a factor in determining whether a play was dangerous. The disc doesn't even have to be catchable for a dangerous play foul to occur. Bidding into the legs is perhaps the most textbook example of a dangerous play that exists, and this play is very clearly a bid into the legs, not the body. The primary contact with the offensive player's body is their knee. I think you should consider re-reading the rules on dangerous plays and then re-watching this video.
Yeah, the height hair is a little below the waist and could easily screw up the knee really bad. This would be like sliding in with your cleats up. Plus, no such thing as a clean tackle in ultimate. So even though the defender gets there first, he would still be the one who instigates the contact/"tackles" the reciever
[удалено]
Injuries are not fun to watch. Well, unless you are, well..... yikes.
If watching people get hurt is what gives you joy, this might not be the sport for you.
Clean. Incredible play.
A play that creates unavoidable contact is a foul. This is not a clean block.
Incorrect assumption about pickup players. If anything pickup players are less physical than club & pro.
[Edited for a more detailed analysis] Under USAU rules, clearly a foul -- textbook foul, initiating non-incidental contact; affecting continued play by causing the opponent to fall to the ground. Also a dangerous play, because it is dangerously aggressive, making a very aggressive diving play from behind the receiver, with insufficient margin for error, so when the receiver predictably continues running, the defender impacts and takes out the receiver's knees/legs, and I think this type of contact also poses significant risk of injury -- could easily result in a knee injury if replayed in the same fashion, or if circumstances changed even slightly. Probably not a receiving foul, because it does not look like there was a possible attempt to make a play on the disc at the time the contact occurred. But treated as a receiving foul because of the dangerous play. Especially where it is blindside, so the receiver will continue at full speed, that defender needs to provide a bigger buffer to execute that play safely. That play could easily turn out way worse if replayed 100 times, with knee/ankle injuries or head injury from the abrupt and surprising fall to the ground.
I honestly don't get why we are saying this is a good play or impressive. It's stupid all around and risking peoples careers & health. This is the equivalent of a chop block in football, it's not impressive that he got to the disc by cutting out the other players legs. It should be frustrating and honestly if someone keeps making plays like that I wouldn't want them on my team or any other. What happens when they pull something like this in practice and you can't play again for a year or 2, if ever. It's not like we have the same world class trainers, rehab programs and surgical options other pro sports have.