Re: Announcing my candidacy for the UPA Board of Directors

Back to the rule conversation, because it is actually interesting and
there is room for something interesting to happen. However, as a
general statement, your whole conspiracy theory about the rules being
some sort of way to atract non-athletes doesn't hold up. Most people
playing serious ultimate today (I would say regionals level teams,
club or college) are for the most part former athletes, not D-I
athletes, but people who played sports who want to keep playing
sports. That is who ultimate attracts today. So, if the goal of the
rules is to attract non-athletes, they are doing a real crappy job of
it.

Now, are there parts of the ultimate culture, especially league play
and such, that are designed to attract inexperienced, non-athletes?
Yes, definitely. And often this includes bending the rules to help out
inexperienced players. But that is like watching church league
softball to make a determination about MLB. Things happen differently
at different levels. Also, I don't really care about the founders
intent. THis isn't constitutional law. Lets look at the current
effects. So, I am going to basically ignore everything about what the
founders were thinking when they made the rules.

What we should consider about new rules:

Does it benefit offense or defense? (Objective)
Does it pose a safety problem? (Objective)
Does it fundamentally alter the game in an undesirable way?
(sujbective)
Is it logistically feasible? (Debatable)


abolish double teams:
I disagree but there is only one way to find out.

My take on this is that the double team rule epitomizes Ultimate Frisbee's
Creators philosophy. "The whole game has this thinking built
in. We don't need penalties, that will make the game too hard and scare
people away.

My theory is that low level play wouldn't be destroyed but in fact, it would
be replaced. Adjusting the rules away from something that is less
attractive to non-athletes and more attractive to athletes is good thing.


Low level play woudl be replaced?? By what?? By high level play??

Now, what you could propose is two sets of rules for ultimate. Rec
rules and series/competitive rules. And maybe they could be different.

picks:

That girl did NOT get clobbered because of a pick. The pick rule has been
in place all these years and how many torn ACL, MCL, separated shoulders,
concussions, etc. have occurred in the sport? Ultimate is a dangerous game.

A 210, 5'6" player would get lost on the field but I'm not going to go
there.

The motion offense obsoletes the pick rule. This is a fact, not opinion.

It is incredibly unfair to impose the pick rule on a team that I am running
(hypothetically of course since I am currently not running one).

Moving picks, vis a vis, basketball would be illegal of course but I defy
you to author a pick rule that is enforceable in the context of the motion
offense. I can tell you that the current wording is no where near
sufficient.

Terrible idea.


Your motion offense has nothing to do with rule changes. Look at the
effect of the rules.

If we allow picks, offenses change. Player A runs deep, then he starts
jogging back toward disc. Player B cuts deep hard, disc goes up. As
Player B's defender looks for the disc, Player A headhunts him and
sets a big ol' pick while he is looking at the sky. Someone will get
hurt.

This WILL happen if you allow picks. Guarantee. It is one of the first
things I would try. I was a pick setter in basketball. Even at the
lower speeds and limited distances (usually the defender I was picking
was coming from less than 20 feet away and shuffling/sliding to play
defense, not at an all out sprint) it could still hurt a fair amount.

If you want to test this theory, stand out in a field, give someone a
30 yard run-up to a dead sprint, and have them run straight into you.
See if you think picks are a good idea then.

put a hard cap of three steps for traveling

I'm not sure I agree with your presumption that it would slow the game down.
True, the risk reward for catching the disc at a high speed makes it not
worth it but the overall speed of an offense could effectively be much
faster since flow will be more regular. In other words, with a soft cap,
players runs fast but then take a long (and somewhat arbitrary) time to get
reset to continue the offense. A more regulated gait could generate faster
offenses.


Helps defenses for sure. Defense can sprint without risk, offense
can't. Would force teams to develop different offenses based on
shorter throws, would basically eliminate hucking because the defense
can sprint to the disc while the offense has to worry about steps
after a catch. How does falling down figure into 3 steps? Would
everyone just catch and fall over so as to not travel?

Would probably require referees to enforce (you know, like the NBA,
where they can only take 2 steps).

out of bounds means out of bounds (no pivoting or momentum O.B.)

Why not?? Why does this matter?? There is a set rule, everyone plays
by it. Also, Ultimate not the only sport to allow people to play from
out of bounds.

Why?

Making O.B. truly out of bounds would have the effect of making the game
harder. Remember, the Creators made the game easy intentionally.

Ignoring the part about the creators intent as irelevant.

True, it would make the game harder for the offense. Would alter the
way offenses cut toward the sideline and would make sideline marking
much more effective.

If you want to help defenses, this would be an interesting way to do
it. Logistically this would require every game to have a lined field,
which I think is a great idea.

10 yard endzones:

Obviously this reduces hucks and makes defense a whole lot easier.
Why else do you want to do this??

I forgot, lengthen the field 10-80-10


Alright, why?

Helps defense.

Along with the 3-step travel, basically you are saying you want to
reduce the game to only short passes and reduce hucks.


30 seconds between points

Hmm, I might go for 60, but less than 90 is good. You would have to
set some limits on how long a team had to sub as well, especially the
offense, to allow defenses to have more than 10 seconds to adjust.

I have to admit, out of all the things I put down, this one is the easiest
shot down but please consider the context of Todd's question. He asked what
I would do to make the sport more spectator friendly and so since I've seen
how crowds have gathered to watch a game without stoppages, I cut it down as
short as possible. I thought 15 was too short. Imagine on defense though.
You've got 30 seconds to get ready so you've got to really hustle to get
back to the line and catch your breath for the next point or sub out.


As comparison to other sports for spectator friendlyness.

Football has what, 35 seconds between plays? And their plays only last
10 seconds. Also, consider the distance players have to travel. A
player who is making a D at teh back of the end zone has to go 95
yards to get back to his line. With 30 seconds, he would have to bust
pretty fast. I agree, speed up the game, but more than 30 seconds.


abolish 'boxiing out':

This is one of the worst rules in the game. It's illegal to box out. Player
A is not entitled to take a position and box out a defender. Again, this
rule was put in place because to legalize boxing out would mean admitted
that Ultimate is not a non-contact sport. Try to remember the Creators
frame of mind.


MMM...you haven't played elite ultimate. Boxing out is common,
encouraged, and never called. Now, you CAN'T back into a player,
pushing them backward like you can in basketball, but you can
establish a position and hold them off.

Oh yeah...on the non-contact:

" In "collision" sports (eg, boxing, ice hockey, football, and rodeo),
athletes purposely hit or collide with each other or inanimate
objects, including the ground, with great force. In "contact" sports
(eg, basketball and soccer), athletes routinely make contact with each
other or inanimate objects but usually with less force than in
collision sports. "
- Committee on Sports Medicine and Fitness, American Academy of
Pediatrics, [1]

I would say the American ACademy of Pediatrics would classify ultimate
as a contact sport. Even rec league level ultimate there is some
contact. Non-contact is sports like tennis, where there is no
possiblity of contact between players. Definitely ultimate is contact.


add tipping, delaying, air brushing:

It's very risky but again, why is it illegal? Better yet, why in the 11th
edition did they make it illegal to delay the disc on defense? What a
crock. How can you commit a travel violation if you don't even have
possession?


Not sure why it is illegal. Again, no objection, probably from most
people, but not exactly a big change to the game.


add fouling out:

BS. Either this game can be self-policed or it can not. I'm really tired
of listening to people say how great self-refereeing is and at the same time
these same people will say -it will never work-. hypocrits, one and all.

However, I would argue that the legitimate reason against a fouling out
mechanism is that teams will 'go to the bench' to get a thug to do the dirty
work. That is my only concern here but that could be remediated with team
fouls, yellow cards, etc.


If it is self-policed, you cannot have fouling out or yellow cards or
anything like that. That takes ref. See below.

Requires refs/observors for every game. Problems with logisitics.


Cost, lack of refs, etc. etc. etc.

eliminate the continuation rule:

So what happens when a foul is called and the pass is caught? Doesn't
this increase the incentive to foul, especially on hucks?

The continuation rule would have never come into existance (1987 maybe? I
forget; it wasn't always there) had the concept of penalizing a foul been
instituted. The continuation rule was one of the first band-aids.

Play should stop on every violation called.


Two parts to the continuation rule:

1. Play continues until the outcome of the play is determined. IE:
Fouled in the act of throwing, see if disc gets caught.
2. "Play on" if pass completed after foul in the act of throwing.

Part 1 we should keep. If the offense completes a pass DESPITE a foul,
they should not be penalized by having the disc brought back to the
thrower who just made the throw. Basketball parallel: if you make the
shot when you get fouled, you still get the points.

Part 2 should go away. If a foul is called, play should stop. Yelling
play on is not a good system. Granted, I think that this means fouling
is a bit more beneficial to the defense as play stops, disrupting flow
and such, but the current system is a bit fuzzy for my liking.


eliminate disc starts in the middle of the field (side out for all
restarts):

Why?

Good question. Beyond the obvious 'Why not'?, my reference point goes back
to dischoops. The game is so much more incredibly cleaner than Ultimate and
one of the reasons is side out. Part of the reason why is that most
stoppages now result in turnovers, player substitutions, etc.

I wasn't too biased either way when I put the rule in DH but after the fact
and having experienced it first hand, sideouts fit like a glove. Sorry I
can't give a better response but maybe after I sleep on it.


This doesn't really make sense in ultimate. In general, offense wants
to avoid getting trapped on teh sideline. Also, offensive players are
generally aligned differently based on where the disc is, if you move
it to the sideline without moving all the other players (which maybe
you want, basketball style) then that is a further disadvantage to the
defense, increasing incentive to foul.

Still haven't heard what is wrong with starting the disc at the point
of the infraction. This is how most field based sports operate (rugby
and soccer, lacrosse goes to specific points on the field, but still
on the field, football is entirely different since play is so stop-and-
start)

no getting up after laying out or falling down until after you
throw the disc:

This rule I was totally against and suggested by a DJ Patel. I thought it
was a terrible idea but copntrary to opinions, I am open to input. Now when
I watch Ultimate, it looks retarded when a player gets up from the ground.
Dischoops work so well in this regard. One of my favorite plays is the one
Matt Bruss pioneered where he goes down to catch the disc like a baseball
slide and while he's popping back up to his feet, he throws the disc to
himself on a dribble. It's a very sweet move.

No, you're required to keep one knee on the ground.

Nope, anybody that has played dischoops can attest that this works extremely
well.

Why? Put some ownership on an offense not to put its players on the ground.
Whos' fault is that?


Again, helping the defense out.

First, your reasoning AGAINST standing up is this: it looks retarded
when a player gets up from the ground.

Not exactly a well reasoned argument. The rest of you response is just
saying that it works. Tell me why standing after a catch is bad.

As to your favorite move, that requires a self pass rule as well,
which if you would like to justify that, by all means go right ahead.

Now you get into the ambiguity of your desired rule. Let me give you
three situations, tell me where the thrower would have to end up after
each.

1. Player running down pass, slides in on two knees to make catch,
comes to rest on two knees, two feet. Can he stand on one of those two
feet?
2. Player lays out and rolls as they make the catch. Come to feet
without stopping, but back contacts the ground. Do they then have to
go back down to one knee?
3. Player sort of lays out, but catches himself on one hand while
catching with the other. Points of contact are two feet, two knees,
and one hand (sort of girl pushup). He can stand without moving his
feet. Can he stand, or does he have to stay down?

Now, write a rule that makes this clear and unambiguous.

I'll wait till you respond before moving on to the next problem with
this idea.

jump passes legalized:

Hmmm, I could go for this. It would make defense a bit more difficult,
which I am not sure we need that given the efficiency of good offenses
already, but it could be fun. An interesting tweak, but nothing
substantial.

Efficiency in offenses? You're joking? You must be talking about teams
better than Sockeye and Jam, are you?


Does someone have statistics on turns during the Club Championship
last year? Where can I find these?


I forgot, the disc is live. It's legal to knock it out of the throwers
hand. The strip rule is abolished (although it is not legal to rip the disc
out of the thrower's hand). Basically, whomever comes down with the disc
has possession. This cleans up the game more than you can imagine.

Again, helps the defense.

This would make things different, for sure. But why do it? Explain
"cleans up the game" Do people take more showers?

I like that ultimate is a sport in which, once I have possession, the
defense can't take it away from me. Makes things different,
interesting. I like it. Would it be interesting to play the other way
too?? Sure, but there is no compelling reason to change. I would
probably be better under these rules, since I have nice big hands and
played basketball (more accustom to swiping at ball/disc), but that is
not a compelling reason to make the change.

One problem: O catches, D catches while in the air. What happens when
they both come down with the disc? Do they fight over it until one
person lets go??


Oh, and one last thing, this notion of 'it didn't effect the play' is so
wrong I don't even know how strongly to say that. Billy Berrou is about to
make an appearance and start swearing and calling out people by name. It's
utter non-sense.

Don't say it strongly, explain it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Announcing my candidacy for the UPA Board of Directors
    ... that will make the game too hard and scare ... 5'6" player would get lost on the field but I'm not going to go ... The motion offense obsoletes the pick rule. ... the risk reward for catching the disc at a high speed makes it not ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Announcing my candidacy for the UPA Board of Directors
    ... The whole game has ... 5'6" player would get lost on the field but I'm not going to ... The motion offense obsoletes the pick rule. ... the risk reward for catching the disc at a high speed makes it ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Tough Love Ultimate
    ... thoughts of one average player: ... Traveling results in a turnover ... This would help your game develop into above average much more rapidly. ... I'm all for keeping the disc moving. ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Announcing my candidacy for the UPA Board of Directors
    ... that will make the game too hard and scare ... My theory is that low level play wouldn't be destroyed but in fact, ... 5'6" player would get lost on the field but I'm not going to go ... the risk reward for catching the disc at a high speed makes it not ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: Tough Love Ultimate
    ... aspect of the game, ... Traveling as it is, while not a turnover, still helps the defense more ... than the offense, provided it's called. ... I'm all for keeping the disc moving. ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
Loading