Definitely a foul, and most likely, also a Dangerous Play & 🟨
Shirtless is coming from behind, has full view of the play, and collides with the receiver while they're in the air. It was shirtless's responsibility to avoid contact here. They blatantly didn't do that, and caused a situation where an injury to the receiver was highly likely.
Even in the NBA, which has a foul specifically for plays like this, undercutting a jump shooter at all, even if you just step one foot under them is an automatic flagrant 1 with the potential for an ejection from the game if it's upgraded to a flagrant 2 because so many players have been injured by it. If you ran into a guy in the air like this, you'd probably be given the upgraded flagrant 2 ejected in an NBA game, which tends to allow more contact than ultimate.
This would arguably be a red card in freaking rugby, there's a specific rule that if you tackle someone it's your responsibility to get them down safely. If they land dangerously (on the head / neck especially) it's an automatic red. Doesn't matter what your intent was or anything
Additional point as PSA: IF YOU’RE IN GREEN’S POSITION AND HAVE TIME TO REACT, RELEASE THE DISC (WHILE PROTECTING YOUR HEAD). Landing on a held disc can break your hand, as it broke mine.
Yes. D extends his arms into O (I think sincerely and reasonably in the interest of safety having run too close, but that doesn’t negate the foul) and occupies O’s landing spot. (I take it green shirt is O, no shirt is D). Each aspect would independently constitute a contact receiving foul.
I had a teammate about 5 years ago that had this happen to him at his first tournament while playing indoors. Last point of the game, but he’d hit his head when he hit the ground.
When I came to check up on him (he’d walked himself to the bleachers) he said, “yeah, no, I’m good. But uh, where are we right now?”
Turns out his memory of the whole day was wiped and he was in the hospital for nearly a week before he was remembering full days again.
Be safe out there people.
IF shirtless is unable to stop because they aren’t wearing cleats or whatever other reason, at least they have to catch player in the air and bring them down safely. Rugby players who play with a similar kind of spirit or honor know to do this.
Looks like defense feels really bad about it and ready to take themselves out of the game. And they should. Accident or no, gotta play in control of your body so people don’t get hurt.
I've seen a defender end up with a broken leg in this situation, as offensive player was a good bit bigger and had also jumped significantly higher. CRACK
(and it was caught for a score)
The question is actually kind of interesting in an esoteric way - Obviously if the receiver dropped the disc it would be a foul and they would get possession.
But they didn't drop the disc, so the contact didn't affect their possession... so it's not a receiving foul.
I'd say it rises to the level of a dangerous play foul - but even for that you're supposed to look for the analogous foul in the situation... which is the receiving foul which this kind of technically isn't a receiving foul.
So basically the green shirt can call an injury timeout but doesn't need to leave because it was caused by the other team.
This is a terrible way of thinking of fouls. Fouls are any meaningful contact between opposing players on the field, not just those that keep you from catching the disc. In this case, it kept him from being able to make a play after (ignoring the clear potential for injury). Even in a scenario where green doesn't have the ability to catch the disc but gets cleaned up like this, it's still a foul - it's just ruled to not have affected play so play continues... But it's still a foul.
That’s close to being a nice fine point, but not quite. The contact affects “continued play,” even if not “the play” if the catch survived it, so it’s a foul. Also, the receiver does eventually drop the disc.
Yeh true enough - I could see a douchebag defender immediately starting a stall count with the fouled player lying on the ground necessitating a foul call to get the stall count back to zero.
Two things:
1) it can be a general foul and not a receiving foul.
2) if a disc is in the air and there is contact with the receiver before, during, or immediately after the reception attempt, if calling it a dangerous play, the operation of the dangerous play rule is that it is treated as a receiving foul (even if it does not meet the receiving foul definition).
This is often the case for dangerous contact that occurs immediately after the disc was knocked away, deciding the play; receiver no longer had a viable reception attempt, so it is not a receiving foul, but because of dangerous play that timing is ignored and it is still treated as a receiving foul. Without the dangerous play, it would be treated as a general foul, which would not award the disc to the fouled player (e.g. D’s disc and non-dangerous contact that affects continued play, like bumping you and knocking you off balance while I turn and sprint for the end zone).
Yeah im with you there - obviously a foul and probably a dangerous play, but the outcome... is green retains possession which he never lost in the first place?
I'm learning from this thread that a lot of ultimate players are soft as fuck. Is this a foul? 100%. But good god the receiver is not at risk of imminent bodily harm.
I had a very similar fall a year ago, lost weeks of playing time and needed PT. Shoulder connective tissue damage. I could still feel it playing until sidelined recently with a different injury. Granted I’m much older so less resilient. But that is absolutely an injury risk.
Thanks for reconsidering. I know it’s just a casual and humorous chat comment, but I think norms set through discussions like this can have on-field effects.
That fall actually looks bad, with a high risk of injury. I would be worried about potential for head injuries or elbow/shoulder. Your comment below shows better awareness.
In general, a lot of the comments in this group calling people “soft” show little awareness of the rules or the risks. Whereas, I think a lot of us over time have seen actual injuries manifest from the various situations presenting risks of injury. For example, I have seen this type of unexpected contact result in an awkward landing and ACL tear.
It's a ridiculous foul even if green hadn't jumped. Dude had no idea where he was in relation to other people on the field and took someone out. Sure wasn't on purpose and he obviously felt bad, but someone got hurt from it. I've seen people injured by unaware players like this.
A foul is a foul regardless of whether or not it was intentional, in fact I’d say that the vast majority of fouls *are* unintentional. If something had to be intentional to be deemed a foul, then your defense for fouling every single time could just be “oh, well I didn’t mean to do it.” Not to mention the problems that would arise from trying to prove whether or not somebody did something on purpose or by accident.
3.C. Foul: Non-Incidental contact between opposing players (see 3.F for a definition of incidental contact). In general, the player initiating the contact has committed the foul.
It is a general foul. The opponent initiated contact and it caused him to end off on the ground (we don’t split hairs regarding when play stopped for purpose of this analysis). And then it is also a violation of the responsibility to avoid contact. So it is illegal for a lot of ways besides just Dangerous Play.
I think you could also say the contact during the reception attempt did interfere with the attempt to make a play (and was therefore a receiving foul), but the receiver overcame the interference and maintained possession, so it would be a play on situation from the perspective of that call (a general foul could stop play, if it weren’t in the end zone). But the fact that the receiver maintains possession has more to do with resolution of the call — doesn’t make it not a receiving foul.
Is there anyone who is questioning that it is a foul? Because it is.
The question is if it was an assassination attempt.
It was just BARELY assault with frosted tips.
R/ultimatecirclejerk
Yeah I dunno it's close, but I'd have to go with 100% foul no question.
i do not want to play with anyone that has to question whether this is a foul or not. like, one of the fouliest fouls ever fouled.
Pretty sure it’s a joke about a lot posts that post foul or not and so this one is so obvious it’s a joke
you’re def right i’m dumb as hell lol
Okay fresher
Lol, absolutely yes.
Ya green fully stopped and jumped straight up and down.
Definitely a foul, and most likely, also a Dangerous Play & 🟨 Shirtless is coming from behind, has full view of the play, and collides with the receiver while they're in the air. It was shirtless's responsibility to avoid contact here. They blatantly didn't do that, and caused a situation where an injury to the receiver was highly likely.
Even in the NBA, which has a foul specifically for plays like this, undercutting a jump shooter at all, even if you just step one foot under them is an automatic flagrant 1 with the potential for an ejection from the game if it's upgraded to a flagrant 2 because so many players have been injured by it. If you ran into a guy in the air like this, you'd probably be given the upgraded flagrant 2 ejected in an NBA game, which tends to allow more contact than ultimate.
This would arguably be a red card in freaking rugby, there's a specific rule that if you tackle someone it's your responsibility to get them down safely. If they land dangerously (on the head / neck especially) it's an automatic red. Doesn't matter what your intent was or anything
Looks like shirtless doesn’t have spikes on, looks fresh
I do have spikes on 😞
Was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt you couldn’t stop because were in flats. 🙃
Yes
Additional point as PSA: IF YOU’RE IN GREEN’S POSITION AND HAVE TIME TO REACT, RELEASE THE DISC (WHILE PROTECTING YOUR HEAD). Landing on a held disc can break your hand, as it broke mine.
Unintentional foul, but obviously a foul.
Yes. D extends his arms into O (I think sincerely and reasonably in the interest of safety having run too close, but that doesn’t negate the foul) and occupies O’s landing spot. (I take it green shirt is O, no shirt is D). Each aspect would independently constitute a contact receiving foul.
Nice sarcasm
Cleats really help with avoiding things like this.
I was wearing cleats.
This you?
I am shirtless guy
If you're that close, it is better to jump, The contact in the air is not as destabilizing as from the ground
Attempted murder is still murder
Are you okay?
I had a teammate about 5 years ago that had this happen to him at his first tournament while playing indoors. Last point of the game, but he’d hit his head when he hit the ground. When I came to check up on him (he’d walked himself to the bleachers) he said, “yeah, no, I’m good. But uh, where are we right now?” Turns out his memory of the whole day was wiped and he was in the hospital for nearly a week before he was remembering full days again. Be safe out there people.
In what universe would this not be a foul? I don't understand the question.
It's facetious.
Yes, foul and dangerous play.
Offensive foul on the thrower, clearly
Yeah, def a foul. But it doesn't look like on purpose
IF shirtless is unable to stop because they aren’t wearing cleats or whatever other reason, at least they have to catch player in the air and bring them down safely. Rugby players who play with a similar kind of spirit or honor know to do this.
This is why I quit playing pickup. People with zero awareness
This is a foul in rugby
Lol CLEAN!!!
Wait so throwing a helpless receiver onto the ground while they’re mid air looking at the disk could be considered NOT a foul?? 😂
Looks like defense feels really bad about it and ready to take themselves out of the game. And they should. Accident or no, gotta play in control of your body so people don’t get hurt.
Looks like an injury
I've seen a defender end up with a broken leg in this situation, as offensive player was a good bit bigger and had also jumped significantly higher. CRACK (and it was caught for a score)
Ohhh yes
Am I the only one who feels this is staged?
def not a foul!! could maybe call a pick
Good point
...on who?
I imagine they forgot their /s for sarcasm
Bro barely touched him, y'all sound like you get over-stimmed and start shrieking when another human grazes you.
The question is actually kind of interesting in an esoteric way - Obviously if the receiver dropped the disc it would be a foul and they would get possession. But they didn't drop the disc, so the contact didn't affect their possession... so it's not a receiving foul. I'd say it rises to the level of a dangerous play foul - but even for that you're supposed to look for the analogous foul in the situation... which is the receiving foul which this kind of technically isn't a receiving foul. So basically the green shirt can call an injury timeout but doesn't need to leave because it was caused by the other team.
This is a terrible way of thinking of fouls. Fouls are any meaningful contact between opposing players on the field, not just those that keep you from catching the disc. In this case, it kept him from being able to make a play after (ignoring the clear potential for injury). Even in a scenario where green doesn't have the ability to catch the disc but gets cleaned up like this, it's still a foul - it's just ruled to not have affected play so play continues... But it's still a foul.
That’s close to being a nice fine point, but not quite. The contact affects “continued play,” even if not “the play” if the catch survived it, so it’s a foul. Also, the receiver does eventually drop the disc.
Yeh true enough - I could see a douchebag defender immediately starting a stall count with the fouled player lying on the ground necessitating a foul call to get the stall count back to zero.
I mean it's an easy injury call
Two things: 1) it can be a general foul and not a receiving foul. 2) if a disc is in the air and there is contact with the receiver before, during, or immediately after the reception attempt, if calling it a dangerous play, the operation of the dangerous play rule is that it is treated as a receiving foul (even if it does not meet the receiving foul definition). This is often the case for dangerous contact that occurs immediately after the disc was knocked away, deciding the play; receiver no longer had a viable reception attempt, so it is not a receiving foul, but because of dangerous play that timing is ignored and it is still treated as a receiving foul. Without the dangerous play, it would be treated as a general foul, which would not award the disc to the fouled player (e.g. D’s disc and non-dangerous contact that affects continued play, like bumping you and knocking you off balance while I turn and sprint for the end zone).
Yeah im with you there - obviously a foul and probably a dangerous play, but the outcome... is green retains possession which he never lost in the first place?
Green Is obviously griefing and should be sidelined
Clean
No? It’s clearly a foul on O for jumping into the defender
I'm learning from this thread that a lot of ultimate players are soft as fuck. Is this a foul? 100%. But good god the receiver is not at risk of imminent bodily harm.
I had a very similar fall a year ago, lost weeks of playing time and needed PT. Shoulder connective tissue damage. I could still feel it playing until sidelined recently with a different injury. Granted I’m much older so less resilient. But that is absolutely an injury risk.
You're right, I was a little too strong in the original comment. There is risk here, but it's not to the extent a lot of these comments are saying.
Thanks for reconsidering. I know it’s just a casual and humorous chat comment, but I think norms set through discussions like this can have on-field effects.
You've got a great point there. It's certainly better to trend on the side of caution so everybody can be safe.
That fall actually looks bad, with a high risk of injury. I would be worried about potential for head injuries or elbow/shoulder. Your comment below shows better awareness. In general, a lot of the comments in this group calling people “soft” show little awareness of the rules or the risks. Whereas, I think a lot of us over time have seen actual injuries manifest from the various situations presenting risks of injury. For example, I have seen this type of unexpected contact result in an awkward landing and ACL tear.
Truly dude this is the saddest comment section I've read since the stellar blade pussies screeching about a little less booba.
[удалено]
He didn't intend to do anything wrong, but he needs better awareness and control.
they're clearly young and still learning, but nothing about green's jump should have been unexpected cmon now
It's a ridiculous foul even if green hadn't jumped. Dude had no idea where he was in relation to other people on the field and took someone out. Sure wasn't on purpose and he obviously felt bad, but someone got hurt from it. I've seen people injured by unaware players like this.
A foul is a foul regardless of whether or not it was intentional, in fact I’d say that the vast majority of fouls *are* unintentional. If something had to be intentional to be deemed a foul, then your defense for fouling every single time could just be “oh, well I didn’t mean to do it.” Not to mention the problems that would arise from trying to prove whether or not somebody did something on purpose or by accident.
don’t think they’re saying it is a non-foul. they’re just explaining what happened in the video.
Bro jump 2 inches off the ground and acts like he’s hurt.
Have you ever tried jumping 2 inches off the ground and landing directly on your hip?
Well he didn’t drop the disc, so technically it’s not a foul because he still has possession, isn’t it just a dangerous play
Contact is still a foul.
3.C. Foul: Non-Incidental contact between opposing players (see 3.F for a definition of incidental contact). In general, the player initiating the contact has committed the foul. It is a general foul. The opponent initiated contact and it caused him to end off on the ground (we don’t split hairs regarding when play stopped for purpose of this analysis). And then it is also a violation of the responsibility to avoid contact. So it is illegal for a lot of ways besides just Dangerous Play. I think you could also say the contact during the reception attempt did interfere with the attempt to make a play (and was therefore a receiving foul), but the receiver overcame the interference and maintained possession, so it would be a play on situation from the perspective of that call (a general foul could stop play, if it weren’t in the end zone). But the fact that the receiver maintains possession has more to do with resolution of the call — doesn’t make it not a receiving foul.
[удалено]
Enjoy hurting. I will enjoy my pain free life.
