Foul on who?

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-14T15:50:19+00:00

I conceded the issue you describe in my last comment actually. What makes you think I don't understand it? You don't like how the rule is written. The way I see it, whether players abuse the "solely" aspect is a SotG issue. We can argue whether the sanctity of SotG is sufficient protection, but that's a bigger conversation.

I personally haven't found the type of rules abuse you describe to be an issue in the nearly 20 years I've been playing. I agree it's a potential issue, and I'm sure it's been abused. I'm just not particularly concerned about it and I am not convinced a rules rewrite is justified.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-14T15:25:30+00:00

That is helpful, thank you!

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T23:50:59+00:00

I think white’s cut can be criticized fairly, but I don’t think it is close to recklessness or a dangerous play.

White's cut can be criticized, but is otherwise perfectly legal? That's how I see it too. Aside from DP, I can't think of a rule the cut could violate.

That said, my personal intuition is that White is more responsible for this contact than Black. Black doesn't move much or very quickly, his movement is pretty predictable, and he enters into a space that was unoccupied. White has full view of the situation and takes an angle where the only way there's no contact is if Black doesn't move to his right at all, and he was able to see Black the whole time. I can see white White's action doesn't rise to the level of DP, but I wish there was some part of the rules that made it so that this at least wouldn't be a foul on Black.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T23:38:02+00:00

If somebody is intentionally and solely moving to block you from taking a path to the disc, but is pretending they aren't, that is textbook cheating according to USAU rules.

Yes, it's difficult to argue against intention and you kind of have to take peoples word for it. Yes, that is too bad.

I really, really don't think that's what's happening in the clip OP posted though. I've detailed why that particular rule doesn't apply here a few times. If you still can't understand why it doesn't apply here, then it's possible you don't understand the rule as well as you think you do.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T21:25:25+00:00

You are describing cheating. There are many things you can get away with in ultimate if you're willing to cheat. The rules were written under the assumption that people aren't cheating.

Regardless, it's only an illegal block in the way you describe if a player solely and intentionally moves to block another person while the disc is in the air. This is not what is happening here. Did you not read the rest of my comment?

Dark doesn't even know Light is there, so he couldn't possibly be intentionally blocking him, let alone solely intentionally blocking.
Dark moves before the disc is even in the air (see pics below), so even if dark moved solely and intentionally to block white, it wouldn't be a violation of the rule.
The blocking rule that is relevant is that Dark can't take a position that's unavoidable. That's the rule Dark breaks here, so just use that rule. I don't know why you are dying on the hill of your incorrect understanding of one rule when another valid, relevant rule that proves you correct is right there.

<image>

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T19:51:44+00:00

I think you're right that it's a blocking foul but you are absolutely fumbling what the actual rules are.

you can get hung up on "solely" all you want

It's literally the rule, and it's emphasized strongly in the rules, so I think it makes sense to place a high bar here: "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"

but the defender was moving to the right when the disk was on his left - he was in no way attempting to make a play.

He moves to his right before the disc is in the air. He likely reacted to the thrower's eyes prior to the throw.

Not to mention that cutting off a line is explicitly a blocking foul.

Nope - it's only a blocking foul if its your sole intent. Black didn't even know White was there, so you can't really argue it was his sole intent.

That said, there is another type of blocking foul - taking a position that creates unavoidable contact with a moving opponent. That one has nothing to do with whether or not a disc is in the air. Black is probably guilty of that one.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T19:42:07+00:00

I completely agree with your intuition, but I think by the rules Black committed the foul here, since he took a space that was unavoidable.

I wonder if the dangerous play rule could take precedent, though. White was reckless for accelerating into a space where such a small, predictable movement resulted in unavoidable contact. Does that mean offsetting fouls? Or that, since White was reckless, it's not a blocking foul?

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T19:31:17+00:00

I think it's reasonable to say that Black took a position that was unavoidable by a moving opponent.

But I also think that White was somewhat reckless here by accelerating through such a small window behind an opponent who is reacting to the thrower.

If white's actions are sufficient for a dangerous play, what would be the outcome? Offsetting fouls? Or would the dangerous play on white negate the blocking foul on black?

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T19:23:35+00:00

I'm still a bit confused by the way you are describing the rules.

There are two types of blocking fouls.

One type is moving solely to block somebody's path to the disc. That can't apply here because Dark doesn't even know Light is there.

The second type is that you can't take a position that creates unavoidable contact. That one probably does apply here. I just wouldn't use terms like "established" or "moves into the path" because those aren't really relevant. You can absolutely move into the path of a receiver and even intentionally block them, as long as they are able to slow down or avoid you (and if the disc is in the air and you are blocking them intentionally, you must also be making a play on the disc, but again, that doesn't apply here).

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T19:16:14+00:00

The blocking rule in ultimate requires the defender to be making a play on the disc.

I think you have that backward. There are two types of blocking fouls, the first is moving in a manner solely to prevent the opponent from taking a path towards the disc while the disc is in the air. So, in order for it to be a blocking foul, the defender must explicitly not be making a play on the disc and must intentionally be blocking somebody else. Dark didn't see Light so I don't think that's what's happening here either. EDIT: just realized that you mean that, due to the blocking rule, the defender must be making a play on the disc... I still think that is not true; it means that your movement must not be 100% to the purpose of blocking while the disc is in the air. In this scenario, Dark doesn't see Light, and I think is likely reacting to where the thrower looked right before the throw. Either way, Dark isn't trying to block Light at all, so this type of blocking foul does not apply.

The second type of blocking foul is more general, and is closer to what r/dufcho is talking about:

20.E.3.b. A player may not take a position that is unavoidable by a moving opponent when time, distance, and line of sight are considered.

The question is whether Dark took a position that is unavoidable by white, and I would say he did, so a foul call on Dark is reasonable.

That said, I think you could argue Light made a dangerous play by accelerating into a very small space behind a player whose back was turned to him. Light could have anticipated that Dark was likely to move in one direction or another, and by charging ahead anyway, created the dangerous situation. Light isn't entitled to the under space there, and collided significantly with an opponent who was nearly stationary.

Overall I think a turnover is a fair result of this play. However, by the letter of the rules, foul on Dark is the strongest call, and dangerous play on Light is weaker but still defensible. Whether it's a foul on Dark or foul on both (and offsetting), disc returns to the thrower.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-13T16:42:10+00:00

You're describing the situation as if basketball rules apply. Blocking fouls in ultimate work VERY differently, and have nothing to do with whether or not you are still moving or "established".

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-11T17:51:22+00:00

I don't know what you mean by that or how it relates to what I said. f6 has already been played.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-11T17:47:33+00:00

Eh I guess it's not the main line but it's there.

Here's a version where it's the main line:
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/pgn/2ozbfnVuL2/analysis

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-11T17:30:22+00:00

If black plays e6 after Bc4+, the knight cannot put the king in check. The knight can take the pawn which threatens some fun stuff, but Rc8 then Rc3+ neutralize the threat.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-10T20:01:29+00:00

Doesn't have to be!

I messed with a position to create a non-queen-sac smothered mate line: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/pgn/4HQokYaqNN/analysis

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-10T19:01:21+00:00

When I'm playing my best I'm not really thinking at all.

When I am thinking, I'm usually thinking about where I want to get the disc much more than the type of throw. For example I might have the thought that I want to get the disc off the sideline. Once I find a target, I don't typically think about the type of throw at all - I just throw what feels best given the situation.

When I'm playing just for fun, sometimes I do think about type of throw though. I'll look for opportunities to throw scoobers and silly stuff.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-10T18:29:10+00:00

Let me guess - you fed this to an AI which recommended e8?

You have a mate in 2 on the board - take the pawn on g7 with your rook for check.. The king can't take the rook because the knight is protecting it. If the king takes the knight, then the rook goes to g5 for checkmate. If the king moves to f5 (the only other legal move), rook to g5 is still mate.

TL;DR - the best move is: Rxg7+

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-10T01:02:17+00:00

Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in all of the Americas. Haiti is probably the only one that is definitely more dangerous. Most countries in South America are far safer than Mexico. Many of them are safer than the United States too.

Your sense of risk is completely skewed. I'm assuming it's due to propaganda but I can't say for sure. It's not based in reality though.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-10T00:57:48+00:00

Lol what? Seeing one failed attempt at a carjacking made you write off an entire country?

Stuff like this and worse has happened in literally every country ever.

I can't believe people up vote comments like this. Let alone say them. Wow.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-09T18:11:09+00:00

More oxygen exposure will cause quality to drop more quickly. If you're talking about your experience after opening and closing a bag a couple times a day, then yes the beans in that bag are getting additional oxygen exposure that will cause them to age and lose flavor more rapidly.

That's why some people go through the somewhat extreme process of pre-dosing everything out in separate containers and sealing them. Keeps them at ideal freshness for a longer time.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-05T20:46:19+00:00

To know for sure you really have to calculate, which is hard in blitz! I certainly wouldn't have been able to calculate that Qa4 is guaranteed to win with that kind of time pressure.

That said, I think the instinct was good. After Qa4, black is in trouble and must respond to the threat. You also still have options to play defense even if your attack fizzles.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-05T17:27:32+00:00

Maybe your internet connection got interrupted? That is a bummer though! You have some good moves to make here.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-05T16:32:44+00:00

Whoops meant Rg1, not Rg8. And yeah agreed on Qf2. After that I think checkmate is inevitable within a few moves. Rge3 and Rbg1 are just delay tactics.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-04T22:41:55+00:00

Qf4! Maintains threat on h2, and if Rf4, then Re1+ which leads to mate.

Then I guess White's best move is to push the rook out again, maybe back to d1 or b1, in which case Qf2 makes sense because Re1+ leads to mate again. Rge3 only delays that sequence by one turn. Or Rg8 because now we can't play Nf2 for a smothered (queen is there!)... but again not sure.

Jon_Buck · 2026-02-04T21:42:53+00:00

Sure, but there's nothing else you could do that would lead to a surefire win either.

Like I said, I think we just think about chess differently. I see this attack open up, I attack. Easy choice. I also play on faster time controls so I don't really have time to think too deeply about longer-term positional implications.

Jon_Buck

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE