Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Fouls in the Open Finals at Nationals
Summary: 
Expires: 
Sender: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Keywords: 


Having seen much talk on fouls and such at Nationals and being a big
stat freak, I decided to review the tape of the National Finals and
evaluate the foul situation.  Here is what I found.

				Double	DoG
Fouls by the marker		8	22
Fouls on the receiver		1	1
Fouls called by the
receiver but overruled		2	2
Picks called by defense		4	3
Travels called 			1	3
Strips called but ruled
inconclusive				1
Passes thrown			422	132
% of passes that the 
thrower was fouled		5.1	6.1
Additional commentary:

1.  The strip (Bob Lobel called Dilly for it) was a good call, but I
had to review the tape several times to be convinced.  The observer
ruled that the play should go back because it was too close to call,
and I think that was the right call to make.

2.  Foul breakdown by DoG:
	Dennis McCarthy		8
	Jordan Haskell		5
	3 others		2
	3 others		1

   Dennis and Jordan played point most of the game.  Dennis was the
one cited by Phil Price as being "called for over 30 fouls".  If there
were a foul limit, we would have switched around markers so no one
would get into foul trouble.  Our style of marking has been called
extremely aggressive, yet at most two players would have been in
danger of fouling out.

3.  Let me quote Phil Price again.
"FOUL FIRST. Boston was fairly successful at keeping the disc moving once
they managed to get it past the cup, often stringing together three or 
four advancing passes in a row after the first one.  DH, on the other
hand, frequently was unable to get off a second pass, and almost never
got a third one.  Part of this is due to the hussle and smarts displayed
by DoG's wings and deep players, but part is due to the fact that the
first DoG player to reach the thrower would immediately administer a 
foul (or at least an "aggressive mark"--see above) before retreating to
their position in the zone.  These fouls mostly went uncalled---the foul
took place before a stall count had been started, so calling it would
only have allowed the defense to collect themselves---but were effective
at stopping the right-away passes that keep the broken zone from
resetting."

I counted a total of only 4 contacts between a defender and a popper
who had just got the disc.  3 of them came in a flurry on one
possession, so it's easy to see where it would appear to be "all the
time".  One contact I would call "pretty bad", although it didn't
really stop the flow.  Scott Lippy caught a 15-20 yarder through the
middle, a DoG wing ran by and set up about two yards in front of him
preventing the huck, and about 4-5 seconds after the catch, a DoG
point ran up and fouled him fairly hard.  The other two contacts that
point were fairly solid, but it appeared to be more of a mutual
collision and no fouls were called.   The fourth occurrence had the
middle middle running hard to the disc, couldn't get it, and put his
hands up to prevent a full body contact.  Nothing unsportsmanlike,
although he did slow the flow, and again no foul called.  I
specifically watched the tape looking for these infractions, so I
couldn't have missed more than one or two.  The reason Double wasn't
getting a continuation was that they would almost always look back
immediately. A few times they did look for the next pass and moved it
up well.

4.  A couple of the fouls committed by DoG could be called "bad
fouls", and a couple of the calls by Double seemed pretty lame.  I
remember no bad calls or bad fouls the other way..

5.  4 of 6 fouls called by receivers were overruled.

6.  I think no matter what your view on the situation, you can find
some corroborating information in this article.  Objectively, I don't
think it's fair to label one of the teams the aggressor here.  I think
there should be some disincentive to foul, but I'm not sure what it
could be.  In a game that some would label a "call-fest" (at least 46
stoppages of play), only two players would be in foul trouble, and as
I mentioned in #2, there are ways around that.  

Jim Parinella