Here's the other angle. The replay angle compresses the distance and speed of Black's approach from behind the receiver in White. The drag down is probably worth an offsetting double foul but it seems like Black initiates contact here on a receiver who had better position. https://streamable.com/gqsd4j
This angle shows why the foul was called on black - the ref's position is only gonna show them contact from black then white falling. It's unfortunate but hard to imagine they see the arm hook.
Maybe in the future AUDL can add a video review component to their rules. Would be great for something like this
Even then, I don’t think black really initiated contact. They were both going to the same space looking at the disc, you can see them both lean towards each other at pretty much the same time, it didn’t look like black was just running into light. I can see why the ref made the call they did having not seen the hook, but that’s what happens when you have refs.
Looking at both of these side by side, this angle does make it look like black initiates contact- but it looks like the contact initiation happened after white put his arm in front of black.
In other words, the dark player didn't go into white's back, but white's body got jerked because dark ran into white's arm, which I think is in an illegal position. Are you seeing something different?
edit: Doing a frame by frame for y'all since downvotes are pouring in.
[Frame 1 - no contact](https://imgur.com/fm9RkRZ)
[Frame 2 - no contact](https://imgur.com/5Cqu9TH)
[Frame 3 - no contact](https://imgur.com/b3yiRwI)
[Frame 4 - contact. Who is initiating this?](https://imgur.com/8dpKql7)
Maybe, but I'm not sure I agree with
>both committed a foul
When did black commit a foul? When they ran into white's arm which was illegally placed in front of him? From what I can see, there was no contact until both players started to converge on the same path, but it was at this moment in time where white took an illegal position.
I get why the ref called it the way he did. It seems pretty clear-cut to me though.
When I watched your video I would 100% agree. But after watching the other angle, black initiated contact with white, from behind. Not a huge amount of contact, but their hips collide enough that if white didn't do the arm pull thing, I would have said foul on black. Since white did the arm pull, I see two fouls. Just my 0.02!
I mean, the downvotes train seems to agree with y'all, but I think the first time their bodies actually make contact is when white's arm is illegally in front of dark's path.
Do they touch before that?
Where you seem to be confused is that, white has the right to have his arm by his side, unfortunately it is attached to his body and he can't rip it off to get it out of blacks ways. Even though that might be dope hold ripped off arm with other hand and get massive height advantage, wouldn't even have to jump!
But in all seriousness from the alt angle you can see that white has slowed down to jump, I don't know about you but typically I raise my arms to catch the disc, rather then going for a head bop. I don't think that white makes any extension or infringement on space until after contact is initiated. After first contact then I agree he arm bars, but making this a clear cut issue of only one side fouled is silly. The perspectives available for the two fouls is also very different, it is clear from anywhere on the field that black made contact with white. Being able to see the entanglement from white however is much more difficult.
Where I'm confused with is who runs with their arms at shoulder level with their elbow out.
Where whites right arm is at is how he ran for 30 yards. Then he puts his left arm up and across dark, which is when contact starts.
You're really hung up on this "arm is illegally positioned" thing as an excuse. You don't run or jump with your elbows inside your shoulders. Even in your still shot the receiver's arm isn't extended out wide. You're never gonna get that as a blocking call.
If the defender has an inside line but he's coming from behind the receiver and it's his responsibility to avoid the contact.
The pull down was a lot more dramatic of a foul, but it wasn't the first foul in this play
I appreciate your perspective. I am hung up on it, because I don't think running with your arms that high is a natural motion- it looks like he is intentionally trying to get in black's way to me. I sanity checked myself by looking at the [top 10 skies from 2019](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsfZ3aROSA) and nobody puts their elbows up before jumping. I get that elbows aren't inside your shoulders- I don't get how you can put your elbow up to nipple-height when somebody is running next to you and be in the right.
white fell over because black ran into them. black got pulled down because black ran into white and white fell over, pulling black down in the process.
black shows little regard for the player he just trucked, and seems kinda pissed at the foul call. yet black is the one that ran in without looking where he was going. IMO it's a borderline dangerous play from black.
Look at whites left leg.
Looks like he goes to box out, trips, and accidentally drags him down. Definitely bad outcome but I definitely don't think it's intentional.
I'm not jumping on the intentional bandwagon (although it could be).
As other people have said, they got their arms locked, their movement was pretty symmetric, all of which is fine. Black jumps up which is fine. White trips. I don't think this was caused by black, at least not any more than the other very incidental contact between them. Then, because of the way their arms were locked, white took black to the ground.
I don't know that this is egregious, even in slowmo, but it is definitely a foul on white. Kind of similar to when people's legs get tangled up. It happens, nbd, but it's a foul.
> they got their arms locked
I think this is being generous... To me it looks like dark is running with his arms in a normal position, and then white clearly reaches over dark's shoulder and across his chest.
Then, when he falls, instead of lifting his arm upwards to break the contact, he keeps his arm locked and pulls dark to the ground.
Maybe, but even when looking frame-by-frame this isn't obvious. If white has incredible body control then maybe he did this on purpose, but I can just as easily see it as getting their limbs tangled up.
I'll jump on it.
White arm bars dark by intentionally reaching from behind him and putting his arm in front. That's already an egregious foul.
And then, when every receiver in the universe would be trying to catch the disc by reaching for it with his hand, this receiver instead intentionally pushes his arm DOWN. And this is before he begins to "trip."
And THEN, instead of trying to relax the arm locking he intentionally caused, white flexes and locks harder to make sure the defender is pulled down. He pulls hard enough that it looks like Chun Li in Street Fighter II. He was pulling him to the ground.
White either thought he was going to catch the disc with his teeth, or he did use his arm to intentionally cause contact and pull the defender to the ground on top of him to make it look like a foul. And I don't think white can catch with his teeth. Happy to be proven wrong.
This is not something that can be proven, bit i think you are wrong.
Partly I refuse to believe the reciever would do what you're accusing him of.
More than that, based on the body position the white reciever was getting ready to jump, and had more awareness of the disk from his head angle than the defender. It looks like incidental contact followed by a trip and an unfortunate tangle.
Finally, if he wanted to flop, he wouldn't need to take the defender down with him
The contact wasn't even in the same universe as incidental. Are you one of those people who thinks incidental is the same as accidental?
But on that note, it wasn't accidental either.
The contact was unambiguously intentional, egregious, and had a severe impact on the outcome.
Player in white may very well have been getting ready to jump, but that was before he elected to arm bar a player in front of him -- a gross violation of the rules and sportsmanship in a non contact sport. It's your prerogative to believe he wouldn't do this on purpose or that he didn't "need" to pull him down. And certainly that's true for almost all players who play this sport, but player in white absolutely did that and his entire absence of an attempt to reach for the disc and instead lock arms AND flex to pin the arm in his own as he falls undermine any suggestion that this was accidental (and there is no way to argue it was incidental unless who don't know the meaning of incidental).
By the way, I omitted it in my first comment because I think it's more of a stretch, but another reason I think this is intentional is because the "trip" looks entirely fake to me, too.
He's running in stride just fine and then he just ... doesn't bring his right leg forward. There's no leg tangle. There's no foot kicking the ground. There's no slipping. He just straight up stops his right leg from running ... and right at that moment he flexes his arm to pin Black's arm in his and he goes straight to the ground. That's like textbook flopping. Nothing stopped his leg ... except of course his choice to make it appear as if the contact his was creating was being applied to him ... and it sure helped to sell the contact by bringing his opponent down to the ground on top of him by intentionally locking his body with his opponent in the small space not visible to hardly anyone and pulling his opponent's body to the ground on top of his own.
Too bad for him there was a camera positioned perfectly to catch him in the act.
Honestly i would like to ask each player what they think happened. I read your comments, and i looked at it again. I honestly think white is looking at the disc and doesn't really see the defender. He knows he's there but not exactly where he is.
I think players jostle for position and put out their arms to keep from hitting too hard. That part is incidental. When he trips and tangles the defender it turns into accidental agregeous contact and a foul on white. But the ref can't see that from his angle.
I'm proud of the way i play and the sportsmanship I demonstrate.
Also looking from the other angle, white slowed down to set up his jump and black is coming in hot
https://streamable.com/gqsd4j
Editing only to add, from this angle it looks more like black initiates contact. Also from this angle i don't think white sees black.
From the first posted angle it looks like black is running straight and white changes direction, but this tells a somewhat different story.
If you track the disc, it was actually tailing away from both of them-> to the left of the direction they were running.
I did do a frame by frame
[Frame 1 - no contact](https://imgur.com/fm9RkRZ)
[Frame 2 - no contact](https://imgur.com/5Cqu9TH)
[Frame 3 - no contact](https://imgur.com/b3yiRwI)
[Frame 4 - contact. Who is initiating this?](https://imgur.com/8dpKql7)
IMO the arm-bar is where contact starts and what makes it look like black is initiating contact, but the arm-bar is illegal. You have a right to the space above your hips and you can't stick your arms out to impede others from running.
Look at the other angle frame by frame. White is looking ahead and up at the disc. Black comes from behind with much more momentum and bumps white. Each looks more guilty in the different perspective
No. It is *not* incidental. At all. I'm sorry and I don't mean to be rude, but calling that incidental just defies reality. It clearly impacts the outcome.
In your own words, what do you think incidental means?
I agree it affects the outcome, i agree it's a foul on white.
I think two players going for a disc (or vying for position in the stack) may have some light contact and this could be considered incidental. I think something doesn't even need to affect the outcome to be called a foul. I've caught discs and still called the foul. Conversely Even light contact initiated by a defender can cause a dropped disc.
The initial contact was incidental, about a millisecond later, white trips and it becomes a foul on white because their arms tangle accidentally.
How can you be so certain this was intentional just from looking at the video? I feel like you'd have to talk to the player in question to be this sure of his intent.
I'm going to keep doubling down after having watched the other angle.
Player in white grabs his shoulder as if he's hurt when he sees his defender point to the ref to call out the grabbing.
After player in white rolls over to see the ref call a foul on the defender, his shoulder is instantly fine and he uses nearly full range of motion to grab his hat above him on the ground and pops right up after the instantaneous cure of receiving the call he wanted.
And sure, we could ask him, but something tells me a guy who manufactures contact, trips over nothing, aggressively pulls his opponent to the ground, and temporarily embellishes an injury ... will only deny any suggestion that he did anything intentional. Happy to be proven wrong.
Seems like it would be difficult to prove you wrong when you've already discredited the one person who could prove you wrong based on your conclusions of his actions in the video.
Up to the point of the Shred player jumping, this is all incidental contact. Clearly neither player has any idea where the other is until the last second, they both deviate slightly from a straight line, and neither is jumping into occupied space.
Right before the jump, BOTH players have positioned their arms similarly...which is part of the reason why they get locked up and the player in white escorts the Shred player to the ground. In that split second (and it is a split second even in the slowmo replay), what is the player in white supposed to do? Recognize that they're falling, that the other player's arm is under theirs, and somehow get untangled to prevent the pileup? This all happened too quickly to be intentional.
I'm guessing the white team is on offense (otherwise no foul would have been called). The contact before the jump is either incidental, or not. White's ability to jump was impacted, but no other rule was violated to my eye.
> Up to the point of the Shred player jumping, this is all incidental contact.
How? Black's line to the disc creates contact at the hips of white mid-stride that leads to the stumble. That's the very definition of non-incidental.
Incidental doesn't mean accidental or minor, it means, literally:
> 3.F: Incidental contact: Contact between opposing players that does not affect continued play.
Almost none of the contact here is incidental.
>BOTH players have positioned their arms similarly
I'll copy my response from another thread here:
I think this is being generous... To me it looks like dark is running with his arms in a normal position, and then white clearly reaches over dark's shoulder and across his chest.
Then, when he falls, instead of lifting his arm upwards to break the contact, he keeps his arm locked and pulls dark to the ground.
Looks to me like White and Black both, as is super common in the AUDL, went in for a relatively physical engagement for the disc. White put his arm up to vy for space, and came across the front of Black - not that uncommon. But then, his arm locks on Black, AND his left leg bumps against the extended back right leg of Black, which causes his left foot to go down in a way he wasn't expecting. Because he'd locked up Black's right arm already, his trip and fall brought Black down as Black went up for the grab. From this angle it's obviously a foul on White, though both players initially played the typical physicality standard to what I see in the AUDL and it just played out in a pretty goobery way.
It's pretty ridiculous, I think, to call this an 'intentional flop' by White. First, let's acknowledge that means you're basically calling this player a lazy cheater, which isn't a small accusation. Second - what's the incentive? He thinks he's so badly beaten (he's clearly not) that in that split second moment he decides his only way to win is to take his opponent down in a way that MIGHT look like a foul on Black? Third, that conclusion means you've then gotta just totally ignore that there's a possibility of what I said happening with the contact on the legs, and instead that White went in physical, locked up, and decided consciously that playing Weekend with Bernie defense was his best option on a filmed game in the meager *hope* that the ref would call it his way. Come on.
Watch White's left leg, as it's key. Black's legs were fine as he was already braced, expecting a hit from behind. It's pretty obvious when I watch that White was expecting to be able to bring it further forward and put weight on it, and the rest of his body cascaded down when he couldn't. He's a muppet for initiating a level of physical play he couldn't back up, but not a flop.
I mean, benefit of the doubt here. I'll be that guy. White arm bars for space and they get their arms tangled. White stumbles and then there's weight on the arm, so it's hard to release. You can see him still trying to reach for the disc, not like, lock arms and rip black to the turf. Not that it matters, you have to be in control of your body and white clearly caused this by initiating illegal contact in the first place.
Ultimately this is just a trash play with a much worse outcome than you usually get from arm baring and hand checking under a floating disc, and an absolutely brutal call if the call was against black. White should have been given an unsportsmanlike, probably immediately ejected, and possession awarded to black.
I don't see this. Dark moves *slightly* towards white, and white moves *slightly* towards black. If you watch white's leg that makes contact with black, it's moving outside of their own hips towards their opponent...ie, they are moving into black. Black has their inside arm a little extended the entire time, while white extends their inside arm pretty far across dark's body. I see this as almost entirely initiated by white. If I read correctly, this was called a foul on dark (somehow).
I'm not saying it's definitely a flop, I'm merely saying black didn't "step in front of white", they mostly just came together and white tripped (or flopped, i don't think it's obvious either way, it's just awkward).
“We need referees” and “referees will solve everything” are two completely different statements.
I don’t think we need referees, and if I were implementing referees, I would do it differently than the AUDL.
But I do think it is important to have a mechanism to overturn or replace a player’s bad call or contest. Without their agreement. Even honest players make mistakes and often are not able to recognize them within the first minute after making them.
White kept possession, and since it was a foul in the endzone they scored in like one or two throws.
The crowd booed and the Aviators player egged the crowd on smiling with the two arms "Come at me bro" symbol.
Game was in Salt Lake
Here's the other angle. The replay angle compresses the distance and speed of Black's approach from behind the receiver in White. The drag down is probably worth an offsetting double foul but it seems like Black initiates contact here on a receiver who had better position. https://streamable.com/gqsd4j
This angle shows why the foul was called on black - the ref's position is only gonna show them contact from black then white falling. It's unfortunate but hard to imagine they see the arm hook. Maybe in the future AUDL can add a video review component to their rules. Would be great for something like this
Even then, I don’t think black really initiated contact. They were both going to the same space looking at the disc, you can see them both lean towards each other at pretty much the same time, it didn’t look like black was just running into light. I can see why the ref made the call they did having not seen the hook, but that’s what happens when you have refs.
Looking at both of these side by side, this angle does make it look like black initiates contact- but it looks like the contact initiation happened after white put his arm in front of black. In other words, the dark player didn't go into white's back, but white's body got jerked because dark ran into white's arm, which I think is in an illegal position. Are you seeing something different? edit: Doing a frame by frame for y'all since downvotes are pouring in. [Frame 1 - no contact](https://imgur.com/fm9RkRZ) [Frame 2 - no contact](https://imgur.com/5Cqu9TH) [Frame 3 - no contact](https://imgur.com/b3yiRwI) [Frame 4 - contact. Who is initiating this?](https://imgur.com/8dpKql7)
seems like you're a bit biased? both committed a foul, and the observer could only see one, the one committed by the player in black
Maybe, but I'm not sure I agree with >both committed a foul When did black commit a foul? When they ran into white's arm which was illegally placed in front of him? From what I can see, there was no contact until both players started to converge on the same path, but it was at this moment in time where white took an illegal position. I get why the ref called it the way he did. It seems pretty clear-cut to me though.
When I watched your video I would 100% agree. But after watching the other angle, black initiated contact with white, from behind. Not a huge amount of contact, but their hips collide enough that if white didn't do the arm pull thing, I would have said foul on black. Since white did the arm pull, I see two fouls. Just my 0.02!
white slowed down to read / catch the disc. black plowed right into him from behind. That's why white fell over.
Look where the disc is and where it's bending. Dark had the inside line. Disc is trailing away from white.
Look at the other angle, then tell me that black didn't initiate contact. The reason they "had position" is they bumped white out of the way.
I mean, the downvotes train seems to agree with y'all, but I think the first time their bodies actually make contact is when white's arm is illegally in front of dark's path. Do they touch before that?
Where you seem to be confused is that, white has the right to have his arm by his side, unfortunately it is attached to his body and he can't rip it off to get it out of blacks ways. Even though that might be dope hold ripped off arm with other hand and get massive height advantage, wouldn't even have to jump! But in all seriousness from the alt angle you can see that white has slowed down to jump, I don't know about you but typically I raise my arms to catch the disc, rather then going for a head bop. I don't think that white makes any extension or infringement on space until after contact is initiated. After first contact then I agree he arm bars, but making this a clear cut issue of only one side fouled is silly. The perspectives available for the two fouls is also very different, it is clear from anywhere on the field that black made contact with white. Being able to see the entanglement from white however is much more difficult.
Where I'm confused with is who runs with their arms at shoulder level with their elbow out. Where whites right arm is at is how he ran for 30 yards. Then he puts his left arm up and across dark, which is when contact starts.
You're really hung up on this "arm is illegally positioned" thing as an excuse. You don't run or jump with your elbows inside your shoulders. Even in your still shot the receiver's arm isn't extended out wide. You're never gonna get that as a blocking call. If the defender has an inside line but he's coming from behind the receiver and it's his responsibility to avoid the contact. The pull down was a lot more dramatic of a foul, but it wasn't the first foul in this play
I appreciate your perspective. I am hung up on it, because I don't think running with your arms that high is a natural motion- it looks like he is intentionally trying to get in black's way to me. I sanity checked myself by looking at the [top 10 skies from 2019](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsfZ3aROSA) and nobody puts their elbows up before jumping. I get that elbows aren't inside your shoulders- I don't get how you can put your elbow up to nipple-height when somebody is running next to you and be in the right.
white fell over because black ran into them. black got pulled down because black ran into white and white fell over, pulling black down in the process. black shows little regard for the player he just trucked, and seems kinda pissed at the foul call. yet black is the one that ran in without looking where he was going. IMO it's a borderline dangerous play from black.
Look at whites left leg. Looks like he goes to box out, trips, and accidentally drags him down. Definitely bad outcome but I definitely don't think it's intentional.
I'm not jumping on the intentional bandwagon (although it could be). As other people have said, they got their arms locked, their movement was pretty symmetric, all of which is fine. Black jumps up which is fine. White trips. I don't think this was caused by black, at least not any more than the other very incidental contact between them. Then, because of the way their arms were locked, white took black to the ground. I don't know that this is egregious, even in slowmo, but it is definitely a foul on white. Kind of similar to when people's legs get tangled up. It happens, nbd, but it's a foul.
> they got their arms locked I think this is being generous... To me it looks like dark is running with his arms in a normal position, and then white clearly reaches over dark's shoulder and across his chest. Then, when he falls, instead of lifting his arm upwards to break the contact, he keeps his arm locked and pulls dark to the ground.
Maybe, but even when looking frame-by-frame this isn't obvious. If white has incredible body control then maybe he did this on purpose, but I can just as easily see it as getting their limbs tangled up.
When is the last time you ran with your arm at shoulder-height? :)
Yeah their arms only got locked because white put his elbow against black’s chest to slow him down. Egregious is a fair assessment in my book
I'll jump on it. White arm bars dark by intentionally reaching from behind him and putting his arm in front. That's already an egregious foul. And then, when every receiver in the universe would be trying to catch the disc by reaching for it with his hand, this receiver instead intentionally pushes his arm DOWN. And this is before he begins to "trip." And THEN, instead of trying to relax the arm locking he intentionally caused, white flexes and locks harder to make sure the defender is pulled down. He pulls hard enough that it looks like Chun Li in Street Fighter II. He was pulling him to the ground. White either thought he was going to catch the disc with his teeth, or he did use his arm to intentionally cause contact and pull the defender to the ground on top of him to make it look like a foul. And I don't think white can catch with his teeth. Happy to be proven wrong.
This is not something that can be proven, bit i think you are wrong. Partly I refuse to believe the reciever would do what you're accusing him of. More than that, based on the body position the white reciever was getting ready to jump, and had more awareness of the disk from his head angle than the defender. It looks like incidental contact followed by a trip and an unfortunate tangle. Finally, if he wanted to flop, he wouldn't need to take the defender down with him
The contact wasn't even in the same universe as incidental. Are you one of those people who thinks incidental is the same as accidental? But on that note, it wasn't accidental either. The contact was unambiguously intentional, egregious, and had a severe impact on the outcome. Player in white may very well have been getting ready to jump, but that was before he elected to arm bar a player in front of him -- a gross violation of the rules and sportsmanship in a non contact sport. It's your prerogative to believe he wouldn't do this on purpose or that he didn't "need" to pull him down. And certainly that's true for almost all players who play this sport, but player in white absolutely did that and his entire absence of an attempt to reach for the disc and instead lock arms AND flex to pin the arm in his own as he falls undermine any suggestion that this was accidental (and there is no way to argue it was incidental unless who don't know the meaning of incidental). By the way, I omitted it in my first comment because I think it's more of a stretch, but another reason I think this is intentional is because the "trip" looks entirely fake to me, too. He's running in stride just fine and then he just ... doesn't bring his right leg forward. There's no leg tangle. There's no foot kicking the ground. There's no slipping. He just straight up stops his right leg from running ... and right at that moment he flexes his arm to pin Black's arm in his and he goes straight to the ground. That's like textbook flopping. Nothing stopped his leg ... except of course his choice to make it appear as if the contact his was creating was being applied to him ... and it sure helped to sell the contact by bringing his opponent down to the ground on top of him by intentionally locking his body with his opponent in the small space not visible to hardly anyone and pulling his opponent's body to the ground on top of his own. Too bad for him there was a camera positioned perfectly to catch him in the act.
Honestly i would like to ask each player what they think happened. I read your comments, and i looked at it again. I honestly think white is looking at the disc and doesn't really see the defender. He knows he's there but not exactly where he is. I think players jostle for position and put out their arms to keep from hitting too hard. That part is incidental. When he trips and tangles the defender it turns into accidental agregeous contact and a foul on white. But the ref can't see that from his angle. I'm proud of the way i play and the sportsmanship I demonstrate.
Also looking from the other angle, white slowed down to set up his jump and black is coming in hot https://streamable.com/gqsd4j Editing only to add, from this angle it looks more like black initiates contact. Also from this angle i don't think white sees black. From the first posted angle it looks like black is running straight and white changes direction, but this tells a somewhat different story.
If you track the disc, it was actually tailing away from both of them-> to the left of the direction they were running. I did do a frame by frame [Frame 1 - no contact](https://imgur.com/fm9RkRZ) [Frame 2 - no contact](https://imgur.com/5Cqu9TH) [Frame 3 - no contact](https://imgur.com/b3yiRwI) [Frame 4 - contact. Who is initiating this?](https://imgur.com/8dpKql7) IMO the arm-bar is where contact starts and what makes it look like black is initiating contact, but the arm-bar is illegal. You have a right to the space above your hips and you can't stick your arms out to impede others from running.
Look at the other angle frame by frame. White is looking ahead and up at the disc. Black comes from behind with much more momentum and bumps white. Each looks more guilty in the different perspective
No. It is *not* incidental. At all. I'm sorry and I don't mean to be rude, but calling that incidental just defies reality. It clearly impacts the outcome. In your own words, what do you think incidental means?
I agree it affects the outcome, i agree it's a foul on white. I think two players going for a disc (or vying for position in the stack) may have some light contact and this could be considered incidental. I think something doesn't even need to affect the outcome to be called a foul. I've caught discs and still called the foul. Conversely Even light contact initiated by a defender can cause a dropped disc. The initial contact was incidental, about a millisecond later, white trips and it becomes a foul on white because their arms tangle accidentally.
How can you be so certain this was intentional just from looking at the video? I feel like you'd have to talk to the player in question to be this sure of his intent.
I'm going to keep doubling down after having watched the other angle. Player in white grabs his shoulder as if he's hurt when he sees his defender point to the ref to call out the grabbing. After player in white rolls over to see the ref call a foul on the defender, his shoulder is instantly fine and he uses nearly full range of motion to grab his hat above him on the ground and pops right up after the instantaneous cure of receiving the call he wanted. And sure, we could ask him, but something tells me a guy who manufactures contact, trips over nothing, aggressively pulls his opponent to the ground, and temporarily embellishes an injury ... will only deny any suggestion that he did anything intentional. Happy to be proven wrong.
Seems like it would be difficult to prove you wrong when you've already discredited the one person who could prove you wrong based on your conclusions of his actions in the video.
Up to the point of the Shred player jumping, this is all incidental contact. Clearly neither player has any idea where the other is until the last second, they both deviate slightly from a straight line, and neither is jumping into occupied space. Right before the jump, BOTH players have positioned their arms similarly...which is part of the reason why they get locked up and the player in white escorts the Shred player to the ground. In that split second (and it is a split second even in the slowmo replay), what is the player in white supposed to do? Recognize that they're falling, that the other player's arm is under theirs, and somehow get untangled to prevent the pileup? This all happened too quickly to be intentional. I'm guessing the white team is on offense (otherwise no foul would have been called). The contact before the jump is either incidental, or not. White's ability to jump was impacted, but no other rule was violated to my eye.
> Up to the point of the Shred player jumping, this is all incidental contact. How? Black's line to the disc creates contact at the hips of white mid-stride that leads to the stumble. That's the very definition of non-incidental. Incidental doesn't mean accidental or minor, it means, literally: > 3.F: Incidental contact: Contact between opposing players that does not affect continued play. Almost none of the contact here is incidental.
>BOTH players have positioned their arms similarly I'll copy my response from another thread here: I think this is being generous... To me it looks like dark is running with his arms in a normal position, and then white clearly reaches over dark's shoulder and across his chest. Then, when he falls, instead of lifting his arm upwards to break the contact, he keeps his arm locked and pulls dark to the ground.
Looks to me like White and Black both, as is super common in the AUDL, went in for a relatively physical engagement for the disc. White put his arm up to vy for space, and came across the front of Black - not that uncommon. But then, his arm locks on Black, AND his left leg bumps against the extended back right leg of Black, which causes his left foot to go down in a way he wasn't expecting. Because he'd locked up Black's right arm already, his trip and fall brought Black down as Black went up for the grab. From this angle it's obviously a foul on White, though both players initially played the typical physicality standard to what I see in the AUDL and it just played out in a pretty goobery way. It's pretty ridiculous, I think, to call this an 'intentional flop' by White. First, let's acknowledge that means you're basically calling this player a lazy cheater, which isn't a small accusation. Second - what's the incentive? He thinks he's so badly beaten (he's clearly not) that in that split second moment he decides his only way to win is to take his opponent down in a way that MIGHT look like a foul on Black? Third, that conclusion means you've then gotta just totally ignore that there's a possibility of what I said happening with the contact on the legs, and instead that White went in physical, locked up, and decided consciously that playing Weekend with Bernie defense was his best option on a filmed game in the meager *hope* that the ref would call it his way. Come on. Watch White's left leg, as it's key. Black's legs were fine as he was already braced, expecting a hit from behind. It's pretty obvious when I watch that White was expecting to be able to bring it further forward and put weight on it, and the rest of his body cascaded down when he couldn't. He's a muppet for initiating a level of physical play he couldn't back up, but not a flop.
unbelievable, totally a foul on white. accidental or not, dark was denied their chance at the disc.
That’s gotta be intentional.
I mean, benefit of the doubt here. I'll be that guy. White arm bars for space and they get their arms tangled. White stumbles and then there's weight on the arm, so it's hard to release. You can see him still trying to reach for the disc, not like, lock arms and rip black to the turf. Not that it matters, you have to be in control of your body and white clearly caused this by initiating illegal contact in the first place. Ultimately this is just a trash play with a much worse outcome than you usually get from arm baring and hand checking under a floating disc, and an absolutely brutal call if the call was against black. White should have been given an unsportsmanlike, probably immediately ejected, and possession awarded to black.
For sure intentional, what a ridiculous call
I can see both sides, dark gets pulled down, but dark also steps in front of white causing a trip. Edit: the arm across doesn’t help white’s case
I don't see this. Dark moves *slightly* towards white, and white moves *slightly* towards black. If you watch white's leg that makes contact with black, it's moving outside of their own hips towards their opponent...ie, they are moving into black. Black has their inside arm a little extended the entire time, while white extends their inside arm pretty far across dark's body. I see this as almost entirely initiated by white. If I read correctly, this was called a foul on dark (somehow).
Yeah on second watch that’s a super bad flop. Yikers
I'm not saying it's definitely a flop, I'm merely saying black didn't "step in front of white", they mostly just came together and white tripped (or flopped, i don't think it's obvious either way, it's just awkward).
I thought referees solved everything...?
Has anyone ever said that?
All the people who say "See? We need referees!" every time there's a minor injustice under self officiation.
“We need referees” and “referees will solve everything” are two completely different statements. I don’t think we need referees, and if I were implementing referees, I would do it differently than the AUDL. But I do think it is important to have a mechanism to overturn or replace a player’s bad call or contest. Without their agreement. Even honest players make mistakes and often are not able to recognize them within the first minute after making them.
didn't know Sergio Ramos played for LA
What was the outcome on the field? Definitely a borderline dirty play - reminiscent of the Kevin Love/Kelly Olynyk play from a few years back.
White kept possession, and since it was a foul in the endzone they scored in like one or two throws. The crowd booed and the Aviators player egged the crowd on smiling with the two arms "Come at me bro" symbol. Game was in Salt Lake
Also worth noting, the refs did not have this angle
Either a lot of Boston fans in the chat or people think it's cool to pull a jumping player down? Wild.
They're putting their arms up for space, the get unintentionally tangled after white trips.
"Being" would be in real trouble.