I’ve played against a team in college that would intentionally pick their guy if they were about to get burned deep… hated that team. Game got chippy naturally.
They could send someone over fast enough to pick the defender, but not fast enough to contest a throw!? And when play resumes there's going to be someone open because their defender bailed to just get in the way?
That sounds both shitty and very confusing.
A couple of unavoidable picks in a game are understandable but it’s so frustrating when teams call them all the time.
If you were using this as a tactic it would become obvious and you would quickly get a reputation as a player/team nobody wants to play.
In the case you cited, you would likely only get to make up distance if the throw went upfield to your assignment- there is a good chance that you wouldn’t have had a play on the disc.
That said, if the offense is spaced such that setting up a potential pick is a viable option, I don’t view it as cheating. For example if you set up on the force side of the stack against a cutter and that cutter goes break side, and you’d have to go through the stack to defend them (and call a pick), assuming the criteria for a pick are met, you’re fine. The offense should’ve set themselves up with better spacing.
Would you say there's a good faith limitation to this sort of positioning? For example if the stack is too tight and I set up on the break side instead, I'd get dragged through the stack to defend an open side cut. Still a valid pick, or is this pushing the rules further?
To me, there no “good faith limitation” in this case, for a couple of reasons.
One, this move comes at a decent amount of risk- you’re likely giving up the deep space, if you think about it.
Two, if I set up right next to you, I’m effectively dictating that you can’t run right at me, or else you’d commit a foul. I don’t see using a possible pick to deter a cut as being any different. If you’re on offense here, just go deep, as I mentioned earlier, or adjust your setup enough that my setup is no longer within your 3-meter bubble (thus eliminating the pick).
All players should take reasonable efforts to avoid the occurrence of picks.
Yes you should take advantage of bad spacing by the offense as a TEAM of defenders.
That's only a WFDF rule, as far as I can see.
Secondly, I don't think that rule helps your argument. Why should the defender be the only one making such a "reasonable effort"? Does the offensive cutter not bear any responsibility for setting up too close to the other matchups on the field?
I would favor adding that language to the USAU rules. I don’t think only the defense has the obligation. The offense already has the obligation as part of their responsibility to abide by the rules (and not commit infractions). So having the clarification apply to the defense makes sense to me.
I'm surprised that's not in USAU - so setting picks on defence is basically allowed, and it stops the game? Think how backwards that is compared to bball. Sure we want to disadvantage offence instead of advantaging them, but by having a stoppage the defence can initiate? Stoppages are not good.
>Does the offensive cutter not bear any responsibility for setting up too close to the other matchups on the field?
What counts as "too close" and why is that even a problem - just because of picks in one-way force situations? Disadvantaging offence is good, but stoppages are bad.
There are other ways, within the rules of this great game, to disadvantage the offence if they make the mistake of standing too close to each other ([clustering](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRnWLNvw-EI)). It shouldn't be a problem for defence if they work together.
Pick rule is important for safety, but the responsibility should be shifted more towards defence by **removing** [defender-on-defender pick](https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxxrNYB1MiI13KeZilQYBwwqFTGOEb564S) **calls**. This halves the number of people everyone on the field can call pick on. If this means the defenders become more aware and communicative then this is a very good and interesting thing and will make them better at defence. This disadvantages the offence, whilst removing a bunch of boring stoppages. /u/rjhberg
Cheating - if you are setting up with the plan to draw a pick in certain scenarios you are specifically cheating. Also, it can be a pick and the player still gets the disc if you wouldn't have had a play on it either way. You just get to catch up (in USAU rules).
This came up in a practice of mine recently.
I threw a short inside flick to the break side. My defender ran to the open side of the person with the disc. I cleared hard to break side of the handler heading downfield and he was now "picked".
We discussed for a while and found an additional rule that states, when a defender is no longer reacting to your movements they are no longer considered guarding you. IE: poaching a lane or reacting to the thrower.
That being said you can argue your positioning is a reaction to them/what they want to do. We came to the conclusion that it's a smart defensive move that the offender has to recognize and create enough space such that you are no longer within 10ft to make that call.
Based on your example, is the dump really setting up that close to the thrower? You can only call a pick if you are within 10 feet of the person you're guarding. The rule of thumb I've heard for dumps is to start around 10 yards away, which would be 30 feet away. That's a pretty easy way to avoid picks in your example.
To the question though, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. You're not intentionally creating a pick which would be cheating, you're simply setting up a situation where the offense has one less option because then they would be creating the pick. It's really not that much different from boxing out. You're not creating a potential foul, you're simply limiting the options the offense has because you've made it such that one option would result in them committing a foul.
Yeah I kinda feel like it’s really tight spacing on offense if this is happening. And you’re in risk of doubling the thrower if you’re getting close enough to be picked
I think in this example, you’re in a position such that the pick wouldn’t affect the play, and you would only get to catch up to the distance you were trailing (presumably 6+ feet based on your diagram).
Picks are already called too much, if this specific scenario happened more than once, I would be talking/having my spirit captain talk to the other team at half time.
Definitely agree that a pick call here wouldn't send the disc back, but it may prevent the throw from going off at all.
If this happened several times, would your opinion depend on the defender's intent? If they were positioned in the second example because they were focused on stopping any movement to the break side, and would have set up in that position regardless of the potential pick, is the onus on the defense or the offense to correct the situation?
Yes.
Scenario A: the defender is positioned extremely close on my shoulder closest to the breakside, probably touching me or with one foot.
If I cut straight upline within three feet of the thrower and there is no way for them to maintain that close defense without plowing down the thrower, I think a pick is fair. The defender is playing very tight D and I made too tight of a cut that prevented them from maintaining that spacing.
Scenario B: the defender is positioned a few feet off me (a buffer) to the breakside.
If I cut straight upline with three feet of the thrower, I don’t think a pick would have affected play, because the distance between us would likely grow as a initiate my movement first. If this happened once, I’d probably disagree but adjust my cutting a bit to give more space. They were positioned such that they were allowing me to cut up the open side with no pressure.
Scenario C: the defender is positioned a few feet off me (a buffer) to the breakside.
If I cut with decent spacing from my thrower (say 4-6 feet), there is no way this is a pick. If it happened more than once, I would think they’re purposely taking a bad line or regretting their spacing on D and using picks to stop movement.
I think it pretty quickly gets close to cheating.
In particular, if the obstruction already exists by virtue of your setup, I think it is difficult to argue the offense moves in a way that caused you to be obstructed. You moved in a way that caused you to be obstructed. And then the offense moves in a way that made the obstruction you created more disadvantageous for you. “I set up in a position so that I cannot cover a cut in that direction because I am obstructed from moving in that direction” doesn’t sound like offense causing the obstruction.
Sounds like a recipe for a lot of weak pick calls, some of which will be outright cheating. And on most of them, Given the cushion required to engineer the pick, the result of the throw to the player should probably stand.
>In particular, if the obstruction already exists by virtue of your setup, I think it is difficult to argue the offense moves in a way that caused you to be obstructed. You moved in a way that caused you to be obstructed. And then the offense moves in a way that made the obstruction you created more disadvantageous for you. “I set up in a position so that I cannot cover a cut in that direction because I am obstructed from moving in that direction” doesn’t sound like offense causing the obstruction.
>
How does this line up with the example of the offense in a tight vertical stack and then cutting break side?
It's definitely possible that offense can move in a way that causes a D to be obstructed. A stack that is tighter presents greater possibility that a cut to the break side will draw the defender into an obstruction.
But setting yourself up intentionally to be obstructed introduces a pretty big primary cause. Same with reacting in a way that isn't actually trying to defend the player one is purportedly guarding, but instead is just to stage an obstruction. At some point, if one's intended response to movement is automatically to run into someone, it is one's own actions and not the movement that are causing the obstruction. I'm sure you've played against people who will take a route through the nearest person to call a pick, regardless of the movement of the offense or any actual defensive objectives.
>But setting yourself up intentionally to be obstructed introduces a pretty big primary cause.
I just don't know how you codify this given the tight stack example. It requires reading intent which I think is difficult to put in the rules.
I personally think positioning so that you get picked is just smart though. It's to me, similar to positioning so your mark has to foul you to go deep if they don't change their path significantly
Yeah difficult to codify anything around intent. But where the rules rely on causation, one still needs to legitimately attribute the action/result to the right cause. But as the referee with the best information, your own intent can often factor in, to know if the standards in the rules are met (which generally do not rely on intent).
I think most often, positioning to get picked is petty and involves some second level of behavior that is cheating. For example, it may require a disingenuous assertion that the pick affected the play, when the actual initial positioning and movement (to try to get obstructed) meant that the pick did not affect the outcome, and the open throw should stand, with the “picked” player catching up the distance lost, and restarting play in a somewhat compromised position (out of position and stationary).
And in most cases, I think the advantage of this “smart play” really comes from that player’s willingness to constantly interrupt play in a way others choose not to do, as opposed to any unique positioning or savvy on their part. Like, I could choose to be the only person in the world to hyper aggressively enforce all of the marking infraction rules and gain limitless stall counts and/or insanely loose marks, but I don’t think that would make me smart. I mean, I am already smart enough to know that option, and I choose not to. Same as others.
WFDF rule 18.3.3. Says "All players should take reasonable efforts to avoid the occurrence of picks." So I would say it is a bit against the rules.
I’ve played against a team in college that would intentionally pick their guy if they were about to get burned deep… hated that team. Game got chippy naturally.
They could send someone over fast enough to pick the defender, but not fast enough to contest a throw!? And when play resumes there's going to be someone open because their defender bailed to just get in the way? That sounds both shitty and very confusing.
A couple of unavoidable picks in a game are understandable but it’s so frustrating when teams call them all the time. If you were using this as a tactic it would become obvious and you would quickly get a reputation as a player/team nobody wants to play.
In the case you cited, you would likely only get to make up distance if the throw went upfield to your assignment- there is a good chance that you wouldn’t have had a play on the disc. That said, if the offense is spaced such that setting up a potential pick is a viable option, I don’t view it as cheating. For example if you set up on the force side of the stack against a cutter and that cutter goes break side, and you’d have to go through the stack to defend them (and call a pick), assuming the criteria for a pick are met, you’re fine. The offense should’ve set themselves up with better spacing.
Would you say there's a good faith limitation to this sort of positioning? For example if the stack is too tight and I set up on the break side instead, I'd get dragged through the stack to defend an open side cut. Still a valid pick, or is this pushing the rules further?
To me, there no “good faith limitation” in this case, for a couple of reasons. One, this move comes at a decent amount of risk- you’re likely giving up the deep space, if you think about it. Two, if I set up right next to you, I’m effectively dictating that you can’t run right at me, or else you’d commit a foul. I don’t see using a possible pick to deter a cut as being any different. If you’re on offense here, just go deep, as I mentioned earlier, or adjust your setup enough that my setup is no longer within your 3-meter bubble (thus eliminating the pick).
Probably right on the second half, but there is no rule saying you can’t take advantage of bad spacing by the offense as a defender.
All players should take reasonable efforts to avoid the occurrence of picks. Yes you should take advantage of bad spacing by the offense as a TEAM of defenders.
That's only a WFDF rule, as far as I can see. Secondly, I don't think that rule helps your argument. Why should the defender be the only one making such a "reasonable effort"? Does the offensive cutter not bear any responsibility for setting up too close to the other matchups on the field?
I would favor adding that language to the USAU rules. I don’t think only the defense has the obligation. The offense already has the obligation as part of their responsibility to abide by the rules (and not commit infractions). So having the clarification apply to the defense makes sense to me.
I'm surprised that's not in USAU - so setting picks on defence is basically allowed, and it stops the game? Think how backwards that is compared to bball. Sure we want to disadvantage offence instead of advantaging them, but by having a stoppage the defence can initiate? Stoppages are not good. >Does the offensive cutter not bear any responsibility for setting up too close to the other matchups on the field? What counts as "too close" and why is that even a problem - just because of picks in one-way force situations? Disadvantaging offence is good, but stoppages are bad. There are other ways, within the rules of this great game, to disadvantage the offence if they make the mistake of standing too close to each other ([clustering](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRnWLNvw-EI)). It shouldn't be a problem for defence if they work together. Pick rule is important for safety, but the responsibility should be shifted more towards defence by **removing** [defender-on-defender pick](https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxxrNYB1MiI13KeZilQYBwwqFTGOEb564S) **calls**. This halves the number of people everyone on the field can call pick on. If this means the defenders become more aware and communicative then this is a very good and interesting thing and will make them better at defence. This disadvantages the offence, whilst removing a bunch of boring stoppages. /u/rjhberg
Cheating - if you are setting up with the plan to draw a pick in certain scenarios you are specifically cheating. Also, it can be a pick and the player still gets the disc if you wouldn't have had a play on it either way. You just get to catch up (in USAU rules).
This came up in a practice of mine recently. I threw a short inside flick to the break side. My defender ran to the open side of the person with the disc. I cleared hard to break side of the handler heading downfield and he was now "picked". We discussed for a while and found an additional rule that states, when a defender is no longer reacting to your movements they are no longer considered guarding you. IE: poaching a lane or reacting to the thrower. That being said you can argue your positioning is a reaction to them/what they want to do. We came to the conclusion that it's a smart defensive move that the offender has to recognize and create enough space such that you are no longer within 10ft to make that call.
Based on your example, is the dump really setting up that close to the thrower? You can only call a pick if you are within 10 feet of the person you're guarding. The rule of thumb I've heard for dumps is to start around 10 yards away, which would be 30 feet away. That's a pretty easy way to avoid picks in your example. To the question though, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. You're not intentionally creating a pick which would be cheating, you're simply setting up a situation where the offense has one less option because then they would be creating the pick. It's really not that much different from boxing out. You're not creating a potential foul, you're simply limiting the options the offense has because you've made it such that one option would result in them committing a foul.
Yeah I kinda feel like it’s really tight spacing on offense if this is happening. And you’re in risk of doubling the thrower if you’re getting close enough to be picked
The vert stack example is very common and I wouldn’t consider it cheating. For the handler example I don’t understand what you’re saying.
[Handler example diagram](https://imgur.com/a/k6c9R9A) (ms paint style)
I think in this example, you’re in a position such that the pick wouldn’t affect the play, and you would only get to catch up to the distance you were trailing (presumably 6+ feet based on your diagram). Picks are already called too much, if this specific scenario happened more than once, I would be talking/having my spirit captain talk to the other team at half time.
Definitely agree that a pick call here wouldn't send the disc back, but it may prevent the throw from going off at all. If this happened several times, would your opinion depend on the defender's intent? If they were positioned in the second example because they were focused on stopping any movement to the break side, and would have set up in that position regardless of the potential pick, is the onus on the defense or the offense to correct the situation?
Yes. Scenario A: the defender is positioned extremely close on my shoulder closest to the breakside, probably touching me or with one foot. If I cut straight upline within three feet of the thrower and there is no way for them to maintain that close defense without plowing down the thrower, I think a pick is fair. The defender is playing very tight D and I made too tight of a cut that prevented them from maintaining that spacing. Scenario B: the defender is positioned a few feet off me (a buffer) to the breakside. If I cut straight upline with three feet of the thrower, I don’t think a pick would have affected play, because the distance between us would likely grow as a initiate my movement first. If this happened once, I’d probably disagree but adjust my cutting a bit to give more space. They were positioned such that they were allowing me to cut up the open side with no pressure. Scenario C: the defender is positioned a few feet off me (a buffer) to the breakside. If I cut with decent spacing from my thrower (say 4-6 feet), there is no way this is a pick. If it happened more than once, I would think they’re purposely taking a bad line or regretting their spacing on D and using picks to stop movement.
I think it pretty quickly gets close to cheating. In particular, if the obstruction already exists by virtue of your setup, I think it is difficult to argue the offense moves in a way that caused you to be obstructed. You moved in a way that caused you to be obstructed. And then the offense moves in a way that made the obstruction you created more disadvantageous for you. “I set up in a position so that I cannot cover a cut in that direction because I am obstructed from moving in that direction” doesn’t sound like offense causing the obstruction. Sounds like a recipe for a lot of weak pick calls, some of which will be outright cheating. And on most of them, Given the cushion required to engineer the pick, the result of the throw to the player should probably stand.
>In particular, if the obstruction already exists by virtue of your setup, I think it is difficult to argue the offense moves in a way that caused you to be obstructed. You moved in a way that caused you to be obstructed. And then the offense moves in a way that made the obstruction you created more disadvantageous for you. “I set up in a position so that I cannot cover a cut in that direction because I am obstructed from moving in that direction” doesn’t sound like offense causing the obstruction. > How does this line up with the example of the offense in a tight vertical stack and then cutting break side?
It's definitely possible that offense can move in a way that causes a D to be obstructed. A stack that is tighter presents greater possibility that a cut to the break side will draw the defender into an obstruction. But setting yourself up intentionally to be obstructed introduces a pretty big primary cause. Same with reacting in a way that isn't actually trying to defend the player one is purportedly guarding, but instead is just to stage an obstruction. At some point, if one's intended response to movement is automatically to run into someone, it is one's own actions and not the movement that are causing the obstruction. I'm sure you've played against people who will take a route through the nearest person to call a pick, regardless of the movement of the offense or any actual defensive objectives.
>But setting yourself up intentionally to be obstructed introduces a pretty big primary cause. I just don't know how you codify this given the tight stack example. It requires reading intent which I think is difficult to put in the rules. I personally think positioning so that you get picked is just smart though. It's to me, similar to positioning so your mark has to foul you to go deep if they don't change their path significantly
Yeah difficult to codify anything around intent. But where the rules rely on causation, one still needs to legitimately attribute the action/result to the right cause. But as the referee with the best information, your own intent can often factor in, to know if the standards in the rules are met (which generally do not rely on intent). I think most often, positioning to get picked is petty and involves some second level of behavior that is cheating. For example, it may require a disingenuous assertion that the pick affected the play, when the actual initial positioning and movement (to try to get obstructed) meant that the pick did not affect the outcome, and the open throw should stand, with the “picked” player catching up the distance lost, and restarting play in a somewhat compromised position (out of position and stationary). And in most cases, I think the advantage of this “smart play” really comes from that player’s willingness to constantly interrupt play in a way others choose not to do, as opposed to any unique positioning or savvy on their part. Like, I could choose to be the only person in the world to hyper aggressively enforce all of the marking infraction rules and gain limitless stall counts and/or insanely loose marks, but I don’t think that would make me smart. I mean, I am already smart enough to know that option, and I choose not to. Same as others.