The Rules- Whether to Break, Bend or Follow

by Jean Gaetan

Cheating has never been easier or more convenient than when playing Ultimate today. Don’t like your opponent’s huck-for-a-score? Simply make the call, "Travel!" All too easy, sucka. You see, per the rules of Ultimate any throw, whether for a score or not, can be nullified simply by calling "travel" on the thrower. And there’s nothing the thrower can do about it – contesting the call accomplishes nothing more than a do-over, and there’s no instant replay to dispute it.

Admittedly, cheating is a strong word in sports and is truthfully a very poor fit for this situation. Perhaps it is more fitting to say a player has allowed his competitive fervor to influence his judgment. (So much more pleasant than cheating, isn’t it?) Another phrase that may resonate stronger still is, "Whoa, dude! That’s poor spirit!"

In last month’s Austin Scoober, Punk wrote about one specific type of traveling call and clarified its appropriate use. In future editions of the Scoober, we will periodically attempt to clarify many of the sport’s more misunderstood or contentious rules. In today’s article, we present a non-technical discussion of some of the rules, along with some insights into why the rules of Ultimate are so often abused.

What Constitutes a Foul?

Any discussion of fouls should build from the premise that Ultimate is a non-contact sport, accidental collisions and incidental bumping aside. Thus, any player initiating contact may be called for a foul. If a receiver is on the verge of making a catch and the defender slams into him, that’s a foul...even if the defender touches the disc first. We need to hit that point again, because it debunks one of the sport’s biggest myths: that touching the disc first excuses the defender from a foul. It does not.

Think of the common scenario when there are two or three players waiting underneath a swilly pass. What happens when a taller player rushes to the spot and catches the disc while crashing down upon everyone else? Even if the tall guy touched the disc first, it’s a foul, because the foul is predicated first upon contact with other players, not contact with the disc. And in this particular scenario the location of the disc is irrelevant if there’s body-crashing. Remember, it’s a non-contact sport!

In short, if the D ain’t clean, it’s probably a foul. Likewise, if the O ain’t clean it’s probably a foul. (Notice, the tall train-wreck-of-a-player in the scenario above was never defined as playing offense or defense...because it didn’t matter.)

Are you ready for the caveat? Here it is: According to the rules of Ultimate not all contact constitutes a foul. For it to merit a foul call, the contact must be sufficient enough to affect the play. The official 11th Edition language goes like this, "Some amount of incidental contact before, during or immediately after the [catch] attempt often is unavoidable and is not a foul." And therein lies ample room for player judgment...and, occasional abuse. Deciding what is incidental or sufficient is highly subjective and quite often gives rise to genuine differences of opinion regarding the source and severity of contact.

To make it super-easy, here is your Foul Litmus Test:

* Offensive Player -- Did the defender’s contact cause me to not catch the disc? (Or, did I just miss it?) Also, did the defender simply make a better play than me?

* Defensive Player -- Did I make a clean D? (Or did I bump, push, knock, hit, slam the receiver when he had better positioning than me?)

Jerk or Knee-Jerk?

Unfortunately, even the clearest of understanding of what constitutes a foul is of little consequence to some players.

There is a player in Florida that I’ve known for years. He’s an absolute haus on the field; very intense. I remember one particular play where he ran deep with a huge lead on his defender, the throw went up and his defender gave chase. The defender was young, lanky, sorta tall, and fast as shit, but it still looked impossible that he could make up the divide between himself and Haus. But like I said the kid was fast as shit and just as the disc was settling into Haus’ outstretched hand, the lankster made an off-balance leap that just tapped the disc away before Haus could close his hand down onto the rim. There was scarcely any contact as the lanky kid’s twisting jump brought him crashing down next to Haus, not on top of him. By all appearances, it was a phenomenal D. But then came the call: "Foul," Haus shouted out to a chorus of boos and jeers from the crowd.

Over the years I’ve seen Haus call a lot of fouls just like this one. And it’s a shame. He’s a good guy, but his play has earned him a very negative rep for sure. In Haus’ defense, there was contact. But remember, it’s not any degree of contact that constitutes a foul, only contact that affects the receiver’s ability to make the play. Without a super slow-mo instant replay of the incident it’s impossible to be certain, but by all appearances Haus’ competitive fervor trumped his recognition that he didn’t make the play and his defender did. As a consequence, his foul call nullified his opponent’s great effort and gave his team a second chance.

I call this a knee-jerk foul call. As soon as Haus didn’t make the catch, he called a foul…without even considering the facts. Clearly, calling a foul is not something you want to spend a lot of time thinking about--you either feel the contact or you don’t--but taking a half-second to review it in your head can help you make the right call.

WTF?

Perhaps even more common than the knee-jerk foul call is the knee-jerk contest. This one is usually easier to spot: the defender bids for the disc and makes enough receiver contact to disrupt the catch. Duh, a foul is called. Then, without giving it a second thought (or a first thought), the defender contests the foul. Really? WTF? You just wiped out the receiver. What is the basis for contesting it?

Setting aside for the moment those foul/contest situations where there is genuine disagreement about the facts, there are three common explanations for why seemingly obvious fouls are contested:

1) The defender doesn’t understand the rule. He might be clutching to several pesky but popular myths about fouls (I touched the disc first; it wasn’t intentional [intent is irrelevant to fouls); or, it wasn’t me… it was the one-armed man.)

2) Contesting a foul may simply be a reflection of a player’s personality. Let’s face it, some players are (jerks and) more inclined to argue than others. It could be about any topic and you can always count on some folks to zig when you zag. You say foul; they say contest.

3) Some players have a fundamental belief that there is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the rules to create an advantage for their team.

The Outer Limits

There are certain players (and some entire teams) around the country have decided that it’s a perfectly legitimate philosophy to push the limits of the rules in order to give their team its highest competitive advantage. Unfortunately, the push-the-limits philosophy is at perfect odds with the grand daddy of all Ultimate philosophies: Spirit of the Game. Lofty, idealized, and some would argue, antiquated, SOTG tells players that not playing by the rules is disrespectful to your opponent, yourself and to the very game you are playing.

Possibly the easiest rule to abuse is the one that states the mark shall be no closer to the thrower than the width (diameter) of the disc. The rule is unambiguous, yet many players, especially at the higher levels of competition, routinely and intentionally violate it. In fact, they are coached to violate the rule every chance they get under the pretext of putting on an “aggressive” mark. Per the rules, though, the remedy for a disc space-invader is that the thrower can call a violation.

Here is the question: Is it wrong to intentionally violate the disc space rule as long as the thrower’s ability to remedy the violation is respected?

Taking a Stand

Yes, it’s wrong and here’s why. As long as Spirit of the Game remains the major tenet of Ultimate, no player should ever intentionally violate a rule, period. If one day SOTG is voted out by the Ultimate community, my opinion will flip the other way. (But then we’ll be talking about a whole new game, with zebra-striped refs with whistles and little yellow and red cards. Perhaps we’ll call it Ultimate 2.0.)

Until that day comes, however, SOTG remains the predominant code of conduct for the sport and we should all play under its philosophical umbrella. If we fail in this then we have abandoned the principles that have set this sport apart from all others for more than four decades. That would be Epic Fail. Respect and follow the rules while playing by the spirit-of-the-game and Ultimate as we know and love it will endure.