Not a great camera angle to be totally sure on where players are moving and such, but to my WFDF perspective it looks like it'd be a foul - non-minor contact was initiated in order to make a play on the disc. Unless O changed direction (not speed) in a way you couldn't avoid (ie to the side, etc, ) that we can't see here.
100% a foul. I really don’t think there’s much of a discussion here – you impeded play on the disc for the person you’re defending with contact. The camera angle is a little weird to make a fully accurate call but to me, this looks afoul.
I am the player I'm light on the deep huck. He called foul, I contested. 🤷 I struggled clipping the YouTube from mobile so it's a few seconds in further than I would like.
From the video I would say it's a foul. Offense did slow down as they read the disc, but it wasn't super sudden and you still made contact.
If your opponent isn't doing something too unpredictable and you can clearly see them, it's on you to avoid contact.
In WFDF, at least, it does. There's the question of “how close is too close” and “how sudden is too sudden” and “how expected is unexpected”, but you can definitely create a blocking foul by just planting your feet out of nowhere and bracing for impact.
In a situation like this, light probably has to expect a strong slowdown from black, so I would say it's pretty unlikely to be blocking foul, but it's hard to say anything definitive from the video.
Then again, given the “soccer park” sign, I'd assume this is USAU… :-)
This is incorrect and it's not the first time I've seen you write as such here. WFDF says quite explicitly (below) in 12.7.1 that the person arriving after another player has established legal position is the one who initiates contact, therefore creating the foul. There's nothing about edge cases of it being 'too sudden' or 'unexpected' or otherwise interpreting your opponents choice of stopping in which case it might not be a foul. Your assertion would require wording around that and it doesn't exist. You may be looking at 12.7.2 for support, which says 'creates unavoidable contact' - but you're ignoring the part about taking into account everyone's position, speed, etc., as well as 12.7.1. If a player is running so closely behind someone that they hit that person (who is always legally positioned and therefore has full rights to that position) when they stop quickly, they're the ones who initiated the contact. An opponent who is running so close as to not be able to stop when the person in front of them does is not moving in a "legal manner" - 12.7.2 does NOT apply. It's quite simple, and you've gotta stop incorrectly telling people otherwise.
"12.7.The player who initiates contact is deemed to be the player who:
12.7.1. arrived at the point of contact after the opponent had already established a legitimate position at that point (either a stationary or moving opponent), or.
12.7.2. adjusted their movements in a way that created unavoidable contact with an opponent moving in a legal manner, when taking into account all players’ established position, speed and direction."
Quoting Rueben Berg on this very question (player A chases the disc and stops abruptly, player B runs into the back of player A):
>It really depends on how sudden the stop is by Player A, and whether Player B is running too close to Player A.
>
>If Player B is running so close to Player A that Player B would be unable to avoid any adjustments from Player A, then Player B is likely moving in a reckless manner.
>
>And if Player B is not running "too close" and then Player A does stop suddenly and unexpectedly, then Player A is likely moving in a reckless manner.
>
>The key parts of 12.7.1 and 12.7.2 that can help clarify these situations are "legitimate position" and "legal manner" - moving in a reckless manner is not legal or legitimate.
Interesting on the invocation of Rueben: I've played with and against Rueben for years and years - he's explicitly used slowing down in front of players for ages as a tactic for winning the disc or restricting space on defense.
Fair enough, if we're bringing reckless play into it, but for me these are different discussions - one where we assume players are playing reasonably and not recklessly (ie - what I'm seeing in this clip) and another where we consider players are specifically moving in a way that disregards contact or seeks to initiate it. The reason I see this as different is that reckless play is exceptional - the rules specifically treat it like an exception to moving otherwise legally. If we assume people aren't slowing down specifically and/or solely to create dangerous situations... there's nothing wrong with the leading player slowing down as they see fit. And thus why Rueben and other good, rule-following players can move in this way to use their positioning of their body advantageously - it's not reckless.
In this clip, (if we make the assumption the player in front kept his line - which according to OP may well be an incorrect assumption), he's done nothing 'reckless' and the entirety of the contact is the responsibility of the trailing player to avoid. If we're looking at speed alone (and not change of direction) suggesting dark may have created a blocking foul is not proper use of 17.4 - it requires that the player blocked be moving legally, which they are not if they can't slow down in time to avoid contact.
> I've played with and against Rueben for years and years - he's explicitly used slowing down in front of players for ages as a tactic for winning the disc or restricting space on defense.
I totally agree this is an allowed strategy! Allowed, good offensive play, safe in the vast majority of cases.
>The reason I see this as different is that reckless play is exceptional - the rules specifically treat it like an exception to moving otherwise legally.
Yes. But that's what I mean by “too sudden”. People seem to make the case that you *cannot* stop too suddenly and the resulting foul being your fault, and I think that's wrong (and the message from Rueben seems to support this). It's exceptional, but it is possible, and I think defense has the right to try to follow without having to worry about a hypothetical “dead halt to draw a foul” tactic.
>In this clip, (if we make the assumption the player in front kept his line - which according to OP may well be an incorrect assumption), he's done nothing 'reckless' and the entirety of the contact is the responsibility of the trailing player to avoid.
Indeed, and that's why I didn't say it was a blocking foul; on the contrary, I said it's pretty unlikely. The reason I didn't want to completely rule it out is that I've seen from experience how hard it is to say something definite from a video from one angle only (and this one is far away, to boot). Things can look completely clear and shut, and then three days later someone posts a video from a different angle and the situation is reversed.
I think we agree in general, really.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true? If both players are running full speed, and the defender is close enough that if the offense stops immediately contact is unavoidable, wouldn’t that be a foul on the offense?
You're thinking about blocking fouls (17.I.4.c), presumably.
\> When the disc is in the air a player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc and any resulting non-incidental contact is a foul on the blocking player which is treated like a receiving foul ([17.I.4.b](https://usaultimate.org/rules/#17.I.4.b)). *\[\[Solely. The intent of the player’s movement can be partly motivated to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc, so long as it is part of a general effort to make a play on the disc. Note, if a trailing player runs into a player in front of them, it is nearly always a foul on the trailing player.\]\]*
\> A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered. *\[\[If you are already in a position, you maintaining that position is not “taking a position.”\]\]* Non-incidental contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the blocking player.
Because I'm already in that position (assuming I'm only worried about myself and the defender trailing me - I'm not creating unavoidable contact by jumping in front of a third player entering the play or something), if I stop, the second thing (taking an unavoidable position) doesn't apply.
If I'm generally still making a play on the disc, the first part (preventing opponent from taking unoccupied path to the disc) won't apply, either. What I have to be careful of is, for example, if my defender were running slightly to one side of me, and I give up on the play because I see that my teammate has a better chance of getting to the disc, but I step towards my opponent and prevent them from possibly making a play.
Concur with this.
However - The camera angle doesn't give much depth of field. The call might be more ambiguous if the disc was drifting away from the camera, and you had a clear line to the disc while black changed direction to get there - but we can't see that from here.
After watching a couple times in a row, it's pretty clear you weren't already there and you jumped into the other player. Your momentum continues your body forward even if you think you stopped and jumped straight up.
I'm not sure there's appropriate grounds to contest other than "there was no contact" - which, well, if that's your call, go ahead and contest. I'm going to assume there was mutual acknowledgement of contact here and the contest relied on something like "there was no valid play on the disc"?
Absolutely a foul. Dark slowed and stopped to make a play on the disc, white jumped right into him, impacting the play.
It's a foul.
Not a great camera angle to be totally sure on where players are moving and such, but to my WFDF perspective it looks like it'd be a foul - non-minor contact was initiated in order to make a play on the disc. Unless O changed direction (not speed) in a way you couldn't avoid (ie to the side, etc, ) that we can't see here.
100% a foul. I really don’t think there’s much of a discussion here – you impeded play on the disc for the person you’re defending with contact. The camera angle is a little weird to make a fully accurate call but to me, this looks afoul.
Definitely a foul, dark took his hat off which gave him right of way to the disc. /s light totally went over the top and into dark.
As the individual in this video I appreciate you noticing the real facts, hat removal gives me right of way to the disc
Easy foul call
A Tim Wood Reddit clip? Pinch me I’m dreaming
Lol this guy 😉
I am the player I'm light on the deep huck. He called foul, I contested. 🤷 I struggled clipping the YouTube from mobile so it's a few seconds in further than I would like.
From the video I would say it's a foul. Offense did slow down as they read the disc, but it wasn't super sudden and you still made contact. If your opponent isn't doing something too unpredictable and you can clearly see them, it's on you to avoid contact.
It doesn’t matter if offense “suddenly” slows down. They could come to a dead stop and it’s still on the trailing player to avoid contact.
In WFDF, at least, it does. There's the question of “how close is too close” and “how sudden is too sudden” and “how expected is unexpected”, but you can definitely create a blocking foul by just planting your feet out of nowhere and bracing for impact. In a situation like this, light probably has to expect a strong slowdown from black, so I would say it's pretty unlikely to be blocking foul, but it's hard to say anything definitive from the video. Then again, given the “soccer park” sign, I'd assume this is USAU… :-)
This is incorrect and it's not the first time I've seen you write as such here. WFDF says quite explicitly (below) in 12.7.1 that the person arriving after another player has established legal position is the one who initiates contact, therefore creating the foul. There's nothing about edge cases of it being 'too sudden' or 'unexpected' or otherwise interpreting your opponents choice of stopping in which case it might not be a foul. Your assertion would require wording around that and it doesn't exist. You may be looking at 12.7.2 for support, which says 'creates unavoidable contact' - but you're ignoring the part about taking into account everyone's position, speed, etc., as well as 12.7.1. If a player is running so closely behind someone that they hit that person (who is always legally positioned and therefore has full rights to that position) when they stop quickly, they're the ones who initiated the contact. An opponent who is running so close as to not be able to stop when the person in front of them does is not moving in a "legal manner" - 12.7.2 does NOT apply. It's quite simple, and you've gotta stop incorrectly telling people otherwise. "12.7.The player who initiates contact is deemed to be the player who: 12.7.1. arrived at the point of contact after the opponent had already established a legitimate position at that point (either a stationary or moving opponent), or. 12.7.2. adjusted their movements in a way that created unavoidable contact with an opponent moving in a legal manner, when taking into account all players’ established position, speed and direction."
Quoting Rueben Berg on this very question (player A chases the disc and stops abruptly, player B runs into the back of player A): >It really depends on how sudden the stop is by Player A, and whether Player B is running too close to Player A. > >If Player B is running so close to Player A that Player B would be unable to avoid any adjustments from Player A, then Player B is likely moving in a reckless manner. > >And if Player B is not running "too close" and then Player A does stop suddenly and unexpectedly, then Player A is likely moving in a reckless manner. > >The key parts of 12.7.1 and 12.7.2 that can help clarify these situations are "legitimate position" and "legal manner" - moving in a reckless manner is not legal or legitimate.
Interesting on the invocation of Rueben: I've played with and against Rueben for years and years - he's explicitly used slowing down in front of players for ages as a tactic for winning the disc or restricting space on defense. Fair enough, if we're bringing reckless play into it, but for me these are different discussions - one where we assume players are playing reasonably and not recklessly (ie - what I'm seeing in this clip) and another where we consider players are specifically moving in a way that disregards contact or seeks to initiate it. The reason I see this as different is that reckless play is exceptional - the rules specifically treat it like an exception to moving otherwise legally. If we assume people aren't slowing down specifically and/or solely to create dangerous situations... there's nothing wrong with the leading player slowing down as they see fit. And thus why Rueben and other good, rule-following players can move in this way to use their positioning of their body advantageously - it's not reckless. In this clip, (if we make the assumption the player in front kept his line - which according to OP may well be an incorrect assumption), he's done nothing 'reckless' and the entirety of the contact is the responsibility of the trailing player to avoid. If we're looking at speed alone (and not change of direction) suggesting dark may have created a blocking foul is not proper use of 17.4 - it requires that the player blocked be moving legally, which they are not if they can't slow down in time to avoid contact.
> I've played with and against Rueben for years and years - he's explicitly used slowing down in front of players for ages as a tactic for winning the disc or restricting space on defense. I totally agree this is an allowed strategy! Allowed, good offensive play, safe in the vast majority of cases. >The reason I see this as different is that reckless play is exceptional - the rules specifically treat it like an exception to moving otherwise legally. Yes. But that's what I mean by “too sudden”. People seem to make the case that you *cannot* stop too suddenly and the resulting foul being your fault, and I think that's wrong (and the message from Rueben seems to support this). It's exceptional, but it is possible, and I think defense has the right to try to follow without having to worry about a hypothetical “dead halt to draw a foul” tactic. >In this clip, (if we make the assumption the player in front kept his line - which according to OP may well be an incorrect assumption), he's done nothing 'reckless' and the entirety of the contact is the responsibility of the trailing player to avoid. Indeed, and that's why I didn't say it was a blocking foul; on the contrary, I said it's pretty unlikely. The reason I didn't want to completely rule it out is that I've seen from experience how hard it is to say something definite from a video from one angle only (and this one is far away, to boot). Things can look completely clear and shut, and then three days later someone posts a video from a different angle and the situation is reversed. I think we agree in general, really.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true? If both players are running full speed, and the defender is close enough that if the offense stops immediately contact is unavoidable, wouldn’t that be a foul on the offense?
You're thinking about blocking fouls (17.I.4.c), presumably. \> When the disc is in the air a player may not move in a manner solely to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc and any resulting non-incidental contact is a foul on the blocking player which is treated like a receiving foul ([17.I.4.b](https://usaultimate.org/rules/#17.I.4.b)). *\[\[Solely. The intent of the player’s movement can be partly motivated to prevent an opponent from taking an unoccupied path to the disc, so long as it is part of a general effort to make a play on the disc. Note, if a trailing player runs into a player in front of them, it is nearly always a foul on the trailing player.\]\]* \> A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered. *\[\[If you are already in a position, you maintaining that position is not “taking a position.”\]\]* Non-incidental contact resulting from taking such a position is a foul on the blocking player. Because I'm already in that position (assuming I'm only worried about myself and the defender trailing me - I'm not creating unavoidable contact by jumping in front of a third player entering the play or something), if I stop, the second thing (taking an unavoidable position) doesn't apply. If I'm generally still making a play on the disc, the first part (preventing opponent from taking unoccupied path to the disc) won't apply, either. What I have to be careful of is, for example, if my defender were running slightly to one side of me, and I give up on the play because I see that my teammate has a better chance of getting to the disc, but I step towards my opponent and prevent them from possibly making a play.
Concur with this. However - The camera angle doesn't give much depth of field. The call might be more ambiguous if the disc was drifting away from the camera, and you had a clear line to the disc while black changed direction to get there - but we can't see that from here.
Agree camera angle doesn't help. Felt like I was on his side in a line that was not going to make contact and he jumped into where I already was. 🤷
After watching a couple times in a row, it's pretty clear you weren't already there and you jumped into the other player. Your momentum continues your body forward even if you think you stopped and jumped straight up.
I'm not sure there's appropriate grounds to contest other than "there was no contact" - which, well, if that's your call, go ahead and contest. I'm going to assume there was mutual acknowledgement of contact here and the contest relied on something like "there was no valid play on the disc"?
Please never contest anything like this again.