zazblog

We (USA) played on center stage for this game (16-14, USA) against
the #2 seed. This blog would be better if I fed the urge to use spectacular
words like "epic struggle," "wrested victory from...," "battled mightily,"
etc.... but I can't. I'll save the hyperbole for the hyperbolic situations.
(Come back Friday?)

The game*was* intense, and there were big moments. The tide
shifted when we came out of halftime fired-up and rallied to
overcome a 4-point deficit. That was an exhibition of classic DoG
defense. We also showed the ability to win, to get it done when
it needs to get done. That's a vital skill.

At the same time, we showed a lot of unforced errors, miscues, and
iffy decision-making. To Canada's credit, the defensive coverage
was tight and space and time were compressed. At several points,
we responded to these circumstances by trying to thread needles
or wish our way to the endzone, rather than get there with more
work and passes.

Because of the above, the victory was not completely joyful for me.
I want us to win and play well, as well as showcase our capabilities.
We did some of that. We have more to prove.

Ah, the life of a committed Masters player.
Please contrast with a committed Open
player, who eats, sleeps, and breathes disc
(e.g., the author, circa 1998).

Training: Okay, I do have a team and it does
get together every now and again, but that team
is in Boston and I live in Chicago. So I did
what I did on my own. This meant a variety
of running and sprinting days, but the flavor
was decidedly different from fall of 1998 when
I killed myself working out, imagining how
hard my teammates were pushing themselves.
Nowadays, when I imagine what my teammates
are actually doing... ... ...well, let's just leave
it at that.

Hydration: The family will stay in Vancouver
for five months. We have already been traveling
in Santa Barbara and L.A. I keep waiting for the
time when I won't be worrying about FDIC-backing
on deposits and potential problems
at customs, and insuring stored belongings and
car, and health insurance in Canada etc. I keep waiting
for the time when I will be totally focused on training.
Hah! I did get some good workouts in
Santa Barbara, but much of that was at the
good grace of my wife. Anyway, so I was thinking
at least this day -- Friday before Sunday -- I would
be able to give my body some rest and restoration.
Well, we had to stand on line after line, repacking
and reticketing the seatless child under two.
Amazingly, we get it all done and arrive in Vancouver
and settle into our house in time to order dinner.
All that but basically no hydration. (I take it as given,
of course, that there will be nights, like last night, when
my toddler has FOUR teeth coming in at once.)
Today my legs were lead.

Keeping Injury Free: Suddenly everything gives
me blood blisters. Suddenly, every time I schlep the 55 lbs
bags (yes, we had to repack both at the airport) they
bruise me in my already tender ankles. And on the
flight we manage to get BOTH kids asleep on the
small, cramped, noisy plane when the flight attendant
tells me we have to have BOTH kids on one side (my
side) because that was the side with three oxygen
masks. So I sat there with one on my lap and holding
the other in my hands. I thought for sure they'd be
too sore for pulling. (The children slept; the hands
were fine.)

Muscles and Joints: Back in the day, I'd worry
about pulling my hamstring during sprint training.
Now I worry about joints. (I'm not fast enough to
injure myself trying to sprint!) Why do my ankles
spontaneously hurt. I used to pride myself
on not coming out with an injury unless it was
season-ending, or at least a few weeks. Now,
back in late June I got hit in a tournament (my only
this spring) and didn't come out, and I still wonder
whether my knee will make it through Worlds as
a result.

Best Perspective: Back then, disc was the priority. The
"only"-ity. Now disc is just daddy's selfish lark.
Opening ceremonies, shmopening
shmeremonies. My children couldn't
come -- nap time!

This is a confession about a man, a Ho, and right or wrong.
What is right? What is wrong? Is it wrong not to cut deep when
someone has the disc on the sideline with a free backhand,
and you are being fronted? In a morally absolute world, yes!
But just as the fist bump can be a friendly greeting or a terrorist
call to arms depending on which network you watch, the
culture you play in has a lot to say about what is right and wrong
on the field.

I just came back from a 4-on-4 practice with the Condors, who
graciously let an aging master take the field with them prior
to worlds (and even more graciously are lending the US team
two star-spangled players -- Hollywood and Dugan).
Anyway, for 90% of the practice I was completely ineffective
and completely unawares. People wouldn't cut for me when
I wanted them to, and I was generally not making an impact
on O. I attributed this to my glacial speed and to being
an unknown factor with the disc. To be sure, that's
part of it. But the other part was something I realized only
toward the end: they were playing a 4-person Ho stack.
For the most part, the man in the center was live, there was
some lateral handler motion, and some circulation among
roles. I was ineffective because I assumed vertical the whole
time and was generally hanging out -- hence clogging -- the
center lane. (They were probably too polite to yell at me.)

The other part of my inability to make an impact was that
during situations when I was looking to advance the disc --
e.g. deep, as in the situation described at the start -- they
were not seeing me as being in a power position. Maybe
the person I wanted to cut was in a resting pattern. Maybe
I was not looking for the naturally "live" player or in the
natural direction of flow for the Ho. So what was right
to me was wrong to them. Likewise, I was not seeing
cutting opportunities that were obvious to them.
I was resting when they were looking for me to cut.
(After my epiphany, I was able to play somewhat more
effectively and with much less energy, since I had an
idea of what was about to happen.)

It is important for a team to be on the same page. There
needs to be some unspoken understanding of what
is to come. But is this necessary state of affairs also
too limiting? Are potential opportunities squandered?
Why not have an offense which is able
to see the opportunities for both patterns of play
and exploit them -- an offensive flex? (Like a defense
which switches mid-pont.) Is this even possible?
It should be. If it is theoretically possible to score
based on the current playing position, then it should
be possible for an offense to recognize this.

I am too tired -- did I mention that I was slow and just
trying to keep up? -- to explore what this would look
like, but my inner moral absolutist wants to know.

I never wanted an I-played-two-games-of-foosball-today kind of blog.
The idea from the start was to try to say something of general interest
about the game of ultimate, not necessarily about my personal experience.
But today I am excited to be going to Sarasota with my DoG reunion team.

Two years ago I was ignominiously cut from the open team in Chicago.
I guess I was too old, or too old school, or too slow (more a function of
teething-child-induced-sleep-deprivation than age, but nevertheless).
That year a master's team grew in Chicago, and though it was a lot of
fun (and we qualified, and they're coming this year), I had been sold on
DoG reunion ever since our Easterns win a few years back.

Now it is a reality, and the thrill of playing with TGTITHOTG...BF is
back! Yeah, baby!

Many say spirit is linked to knowledge of the rules. Some want
to require rules quizzes for teams. Every player is a referee, right?
So shouldn't all be required to know the rules?

Though I am attracted to the logic of these arguments, I reject
them wholeheartedly. In fact, my recent effort to learn the rules was
to better understand the connection, if any, between rules and spirit.
(Administratively, quizzes would be nearly impossible anyway.)

It's true that players are referees, so they should know what a violation
and what a foul is. By and large, these are easy to recognize.
The consequences of foul calls and violations are much more
subtle, and whilel I *do* think that every game should have a
copy of the rules on the sideline, I don't think it is incumbent on
individual players to know all intricacies. If playing the game were
like operating heavy machinery, then there'd be an easy argument
for knowing the rules. But it's more like knitting. If there's a stray purl here and
there, the sweater will still keep you warm.

On-field conduct is simply way more important.

Examples from actual play:

* Player calls equipment time-out just before his team turns the disc
over. The "technical time out," however, cannot be called in running
play. This was explained to the player, who was gracious in acknowledging
the turnover. Poor rules knowledge, but excellent spirit.

* I have the disc waiting for a check, when a self-check (a.k.a. "ground check")
would suffice. Had I known that, I could have put the disc into play earlier and
had an easier time making the throw I wanted. Result: I would have
benefitted from better rules knowledge, but that's all.

* Close call on the sideline and I ask for clarification as to whether the
defender touched the disc ("yes" says defender's teammate)... and
while he was still an in-bounds player? ("yes --- I know the rules," perhaps
a bit snidely). So far, knowledge of rules, yes, but no evidence of great (or poor spirit).
Later that game, I call a foul on the player who had responded earlier, indicating his
knowledge of the rules. (Perhaps my only foul call all weekend, but he wouldn't
have known that.) I claim that he bumped me while I tried to catch the disc. He says that
his hand was under mine -- "contest." I try to explain that his point is moot, as
the hand had nothing to do with the foul. He (without 60% of the vote, mind you!)
demands cloture and cuts off debate stating "contest -- the disc goes back --
that's what the rules state" (or something like that). Well, my understanding of XVI.B
is that one needs to contest a play on specific grounds relating to the infraction.
My point here: knowledge of the rules demonstrated satisfactorily. Spirit? Not
so much.

* I bobble the disc but eventually catch it in the endzone. I did not intentionally
mac it in order to advance the disc. Opponent asks whether it is not a goal. I
call it a goal, explain the rule after the point, and he graciously accepts the result.
Verdict: spirited opponent with imperfect rules knowledge.

* Before the no-double-turnover clause XII.C was established in the rules
(this is quite some time ago), I used to argue for a double-turnover, on occasion.
Most of the time, these efforts were dismissed summarily. Summary: my attempt
to apply my knowledge of the rules was seen as unspirited.

* I have, on occasion, called a foul on myself. This is not allowed in the rules.
I can alert an opponent of the infraction, but it is up to him/her as to whether he/she
will make a call. Fair enough, the opponent may prefer to let play continue.
Calling my own foul was ignorant of the rules, but I don't think it has ever
been seen as unspirited.

Maybe I'm stacking the examples, or maybe these are exceptions that prove the
rule, but I just don't see the connection.

I do understand the argument that you have to *know* the rules to *follow* them,
but I don't think you have to have a detailed knowledge to play with sportsmanship.
Generally, good intentions take you a long way. I know that people *intuitively*
feel the connection between rules knowledge and spirit -- or at least between
rules knowledge and rule abiding? -- but I can't support the contention after a
close review. (We don't base national policies on intuition. Um... er... well, at least
we *shouldn't.*) Can you?

-----

p.s. The version of the spirit guidelines currently under consideration by the
UPA has language mixing "knowledge of" and attempts to "adhere to"
to the rules (i.e. not cheating). I think we are all against intentional nonadherence.

These comments cover sections XVI through XIX in the 11th edition UPA rules.
For disclaimers, see "Part I" post of 7/4/07. Warning: these notes were written in
some haste and have not been edited for content or formatted to fit your screen.

XVI VIOLATIONS AND FOULS

XVI.A I used to think that you could call your own foul, and have done so. I guess
not. (See XIX.A, too.)

XVI.B Ahhhhh, if only life were so simple!

XVI.C Oy yi yi, the continuation rule.
I have saved this for last [I'm writing this afterr all the other stuff] because I'm afraid of it.
So much has been said. Now UPA and WFDF are worlds apart.
Has simplification begat complexity?

I think that from a jurisprudence point of view, having a continuation rule
(even one that would have disallowed continuation) that applies to many different calls
is a good aim. However, in this case I think that it runs counter to the way the
game is played today. So, should the rules be a chicken or an egg? Should our
behavior follow the rules, or should we adapt to the rules. Of course we must adapt
as players, but the question I am asking pertains to how we should write the rules.

Without answering this question, I'll say that this rule has definitely preceeded behavior.

Also (and I have read some on the UPA Rules Blog and 11th Edition Discussion Forum)
a buck seems to have been passed from point of infraction or point of call to point
of acknowledgement. Further, is it clear what constitutes acknowledgement of a call.
And what about my question about etiquette XIX.F? Is it poor etiquette to fail to
acknowledge a call? Why? If the thrower sees the infraction and judges it not
to affect his intended play, and if the rules are written not to penalize infractions
but to recreate the situation as if they hadn't occurred, then why would it be
unspirited not to acknowledge a call and therefore to take advantage of the continuation
rule?

There is more to say, but I don't think I can exhaust the issues here.

The rule is fairly clearly written if you allow that "affected the play" is clear. It seems
fairly clear except for that meddlesome word "meaningfully." Are there meaningful
ways of affecting a play other than to change the outcome of a pass from incomplete
to complete, or vice versa? Suppose you lost 10 yards on your player but he was
not involved in the play. Then "the play" was not affected, but "continued play" was
affected, in that a goal will be easy. Should this be permitted? It would seem that
the players should be lobbying for a more liberal definition of "affected the play,"
because "the play" is not what's important to them but rather the likelihood of scoring.
Any maneuver such as a pick that affects the likelihood of scoring, even if it does
not affect a play, should not be allowed to stand. I realize that one can never
quantify likelihood of scoring, but I take this as evidence for advocating a more liberal
definition of "affected the play."
(Apologies: all this was right off the cuff and unedited. May not stand up to
scrutiny.)

XVI.C.4.a Do we return to where we were when the call was made or
when the infraction occurred. (Is timeliness of calls reflected in the rules at all?
This seems an important issue, at least for the etiquette section.)
In XVI.C.4.c the time of the infraction is the relevant one. I haven't checked the
rules for consistency on this matter.

XVI.E "Advancing in any direction"? Is this the same as "increasing its speed"?
I don't know what the word "advance" is otherwise, if it can be done in any direction.

XVI.F Interesting rule. I'd have expected to see "last point of contact."
Hmm... now that I think about it, what if the thrower has caught a pass near the
endzone he is attacking and leapt to throw a goal which comes back on a
contested call? The closest part of the playing field may be in the endzone.
I guess X.B comes into play, but the applicability seems dubious, especially
since this is a specific rule which should trump a general rule (see I.E).

Would the notion of "offensive playing field proper" (playing field minus
endzone the offense is attacking) be useful for any purpose? Likewise
for the defense?

XVI.G It seems we need some guidance as to what constitutes "offsetting"?
Would not any two (or more) calls from opposing teams which "affected play"
be offsetting? If so, then it would help to say so.

XVI.H.2 The use of the term "adjacent" is funny. Why is it there. If I can imagine
such contact between "nonadjacent" players, would it not be covered by this
note? Aren't two contacting players adjacent by definition? Sorry, this is all
unnecessary, of course.

XVI.H.3.b.3 Perhaps this is heresy, but it may be time to get rid of the grandiose
"principle of verticality." Does it say anything that is not already covered
by XVI.H.3.b.1 and XVII.B (see note there, too)?

XVI.H.3.b.4 I'm confused by the phrase "or out of the end zone instead of
in the end zone," in the first sentence. Let's consider the two possible end zones
involved in that phrase. If it's the end zone being attacked, then the second
sentence applies. If it's the end zone that the offense is defending (that
"offensive playing field proper" concept is useful here), then why should being
in it or out of it have any bearing on the play whatsoever? From the point of
view of the offense, the goal line separating the defended end zone from the
playing field proper has no meaning. I'd remove this phrase and not try to group
the end zone situation with the out-of-bounds situation. This seems more accurate
and clearer.

I'm amused by the fantasy scenario of a huge bump sending a player
flying through the air from one end zone to the other. Then what?

XVI.H.3.c.1 I said I wouldn't carp on grammar, but this run on sentence really
hinders comprehension. Let's replace the "and" by a period and a new sentence:
"Any resulting non-incidental contact constitutes a receiving foul on the blocking
player (XVI.H.3.b)."

But we have a new problem: the word "solely" may be too strong. It is easy to argue
that you rarely, if ever, do anything in ultimately "solely" for a certain effect.
And yet these blocking fouls are a very gray area, and it's impossible to avoid
controversy. For example, if I recommend "primarily" instead of "solely," then
this may be more accurate to what should be called, but the language
is more slippery. Still, I think I prefer "primarily." I wonder what others have said
about this.

XVI.H3.c.2 I think replacing "that is unavoidable by"
by "that renders unavoidable contact with" makes this rule more readable
(people will probably prefer "creates" to "renders," but not me).

XVI.H.3.d Hmmm... the disc in a player's possession is part of that player, so
isn't any such contact already subject to rules forbidding initiating contact
with the thrower? (So is it time to remove the strip from our lexicon?)
The reason I point this out is that it is still a foul whether or not you drop the
disc, no? So why the special call?

XVI.I I like this writing.

XVI.J.1.c Here again we have the phrase "advance in any direction," and here
again it is confusing. If I bobble the disc to catch it, I am purposefully redirecting
it so that I might catch it. If I purposefully redirect it as such, then surely I am
purposefully advancing the disc in *some* direction. Here the replacement
by "decreasing the speed of the disc" doesn't seem to help at all.

I guess it's the same group of words being problematic. If we write "solely" to
advance the disc, then we have other issues. Again, "primarily" may be the
best way out? I don't know.

XVI.K This is a doozy, but I have nothing to say about how it is written. It is
clear.


XVII POSITIONING

XVII.A Can five players on a team form a ring around a very strong player
and obstruct his movement (but without moving themselves), in the chance
that the other two against the other six gives them better odds of winning? Of
course not. And yet it is not a blocking foul or a pick or, as far as I can tell,
addressed anywhere else. This section should define obstruction more broadly.

XVII.B The second scenario subsumes the first. The rule should simply state,
"A player who jumps is entitled to land without hindrance by opponents
provided that the landing spot and the direct path between the take-off
and landing spots were not already occupied at the time of take-off."
In the event of a purely vertical jump, it is clear that the provision applies.

However, this rule is self-contradictory, as you can see from the case of
two opposing players running from opposite directions who jump so as to land on
top of each other. Neither path was occupied at the time of take-off, but both
players' landings were hindered by the other. What we need is some kind of
right-of-way. (Presumably, it goes to the offense? But what if these jumps were
not to catch a disc, for some reason?)

Also, there is throughout the rules a kind of awkward treatment of kinetic
situations, where position is not as important as momentum (or more precisely
the combination of the two). I don't have a great solution for this. I would like
to see what is written in the rules of similar team sports like soccer, lacrosse
and field hockey.


XVIII OBSERVERS

If observers are mentioned in the rules, the so should the rules governing
the interaction between players and (especially on-field) observers.
So the rules which say that the observers are in- or
out-of-bounds, the rules which govern obstruction of play by observers (picks),
and whether or not an observer can adjudicate a call in which he himself
was involved (say, by lingering in front of the thrower) should be there (or at the
very least referenced).

XIX ETIQUETTE

XIX.F This piece of etiquette is somewhat at odds with the continuation rule.
My understanding of the current rules is that it is okay for the offense to
ignore a call in favor of the continuation of play. This says that it is a failure of
etiquette. Also, "call" should be clarified, as some "calls" (such as "fast count")
patently DO NOT stop play.

These comments cover Sections IX through XV of the 11th edition UPA rules.

For disclaimers on my rules comments, see "Part I" post of 7/4/05.

[Notes:
1. Apology: I tried to cut and paste the rules and intersperse my comments, but
the list format of the document completely screwed up the paragraph enumeration.
I recommend opening up a window with the rules, or actually take out the free
copy that the UPA sent you.
2. Aside: I have to remark that while the "Ultimate Talk" meta-blog is generally a good
idea, I'm not sure I'd have signed up to share billing with "god bless my underwear."]

IX. IN- AND OUT-OF-BOUNDS

IX.C & IX.C.3 If a player jumps from in-bounds to catch a disc and might land
out-of-bounds, can a teammate then CATCH THE PLAYER and bring him back
in-bounds? So far in my reading, it seems possible as 1) the teammate can stand out-of-bounds
without being part of the out-of-bounds area, and 2) the contact with teammate
does not confer the out-of-bounds status to the catcher (of the disc), and
3) XII.D.5 does not apply, i.e. the teammate did not assist in the catching (of the disc).

X END ZONE POSSESSION

XI SCORING

XI.A Presumably, Callahan scores are subsumed in this, as they are catches
of legal passes in the end zone, just not passes from your own team.

XII TURNOVERS

XII.A "other than as a result of a pull"? But when you pull (i.e. "pass") it out of
bounds, the receiving team gets the disc and possession has changed.
XII.B "before thrower regains possession" should be "before offensive team regains
possession" (here "possession is used in a non-technical sense, since possession
is not lost until the pass is complete so cannot be "regained"). I guess what is
a bit frustrating is that the level of technical writing is somewhat inconsistent
across the rules. So, some definitions have a hard-core meaning while some
are used mainly to describe what is happening. Sometimes there seems to be
overlap, and that's the most troublesome (okay, sometimes I mis-read things, too).
XII.D.3 What if the disc is thrown and contacts another player and then the
thrower catches it... BUT... in the process of catching it and in order to gain
possession the thrower intentionally deflects the disc against another player?
I'd amend this rule to say something like "unless all such contact occurs as the result of
intentional deflection by the thrower."
XII.D.5 Presumably, this should be expanded to include "assists a teammate's
in- or out-of-bounds status," or something, to address the loophole I cited above.
Or "catching" a pass can be defined to include the landing.
XII.D.5&6 Intent is always a slippery concept to introduce into law. What if
the defense knocks down a "hail mary" pass by throwing a hat? There may be
no specific intended receiver. Maybe the rule should be that the offense is
awarded possession at the point where the disc would have been caught or
last left the playing field, or something, and perhaps the offense should be able
to choose who gains possession (a slightly stiffer penalty), possibly other than
the thrower.

XIII THE THROWER

XIII.3 A disc can roll out and then back in, so the rule should state something like
"if the disc comes to rest on the playing field proper without having come into contact
with the out-of-bounds" (or some such wording)

Another wording comment: there are several instances of "the defensive player may do B...
but only after having done A" These should read "the defensive player may to A and then
B," e.g. "when the disc is on the ground, a defensive player may initiate a pre-stall then
stall by announcing 'X' after Y seconds." A separate paragraph on pre-stall would
save some redundancy in the writing.

XIII.5.B I played this weekend with a rules expert who called a violation for
failure to self-check/ground-check an in-play but not live disc. Is it widely
known that you have to self-check a disc when it is out of bounds and there
is no defender present for a check? Let alone whether it is widely known,
is it actually widely practiced? I think that there are several instances (more on
this later) of the rules preceeding convention, a move which hints
at "legislative activism."

XIV. A There is no requirement that one second elapses between the
first utterance of "stalling" and the word "one." This means that the stall count
in ultimate is actually just 9+ seconds. Is it unspirited to say "stalling-one" very
quickly?

Also, it now makes a much greater difference how players resolve
a dispute of whether the defense reached a count of 8 before a foul is called?
Previously, the defense had either 2 or 3 seconds (50% more time).
Now, without the delay, the D has either 1.5 (say) or 2.5 seconds (67% more time).

XIV.A.3.a.2 Are these the only two options? Can't the marker (now thrower) put
the disc into play without the previous thrower becoming the marker? Option
(2) should simply state that he can retain possession of the disc and put the
disc into play with an appropriate check.

XIV.B.1.a "intervals" should be "an interval," since only one instance, and not
a pattern, constitutes a fast count (or *should*).

XIV.B.2 The metric thing, again.

XIV.B.3 "one disc diameter" This phrase should be changed. Suppose that
under the captain's clause two teams agree to play with a very small disc.
Fine, but this decision should not impact the separation distance (it could get
comical). The distance should be an absolute distance, presumably defined
by the current (2007) diameter of a Discraft Ultrastar.


XV THE RECEIVER

XV.A This paragraph should be made more clear. The "but" is a wrong choice
of words. There should be at least two sentences. At issue is purposeful bobbling
which advances the disc, but is done in order to gain control. Namely, make it
explicit that the first reason (catching) trumps the second (advancing). Occasionally,
as sort-of happened to me this weekend, one must advance the disc purposefully
in order to catch it.

XV.B I've been looking and cannot find where the pivot needs to be on the playing
field. It must be for starting play, but nowhere (that I can find) is it said for a live disc,
e.g. after coming to a stop you might be out-of-bounds.

XV.C For that matter, in part C if no pivot foot is established there is even less
reason to assume that the thrower needs to be in-bounds to release a throw.
So, if I am running toward the sideline to catch a disc, I can take two full-speed
points of contacts out-of-bounds as long as I toss the disc before the third.
If this reading is correct, it would be as exciting as the play in tennis where you
hit the ball low and *around* the net.