tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-152556182024-03-07T18:24:11.541-06:00zazblogZaz's blog.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-7134547931762985362011-10-03T19:46:00.002-05:002011-10-03T19:50:42.532-05:00Mental Intensity, a checklistA large part of the game has nothing to do with execution,<br />and everything to do with getting our minds in the right place.<br />This takes energy (hard to focus when you're huffing and puffing)<br />and foresight (these thoughts don't just happen on their own).<br /><br />Here's a checklist of things we should be doing. (Additions welcome.)<br /><br /><br />* know the D (sideline included)<br /><br />* know the call and think about your role before it happens<br /><br />* remember to chase swill / play the rebound / run it down<br /><br />* if you don't know, remember to ask (the D, the call, for help,...)<br /><br />* call it Up!<br /><br />* expect the underneath after the initial burst, or some other change of direction<br /><br />* anticipate: defenders, get yourself into position before the cut happens<br /><br />* don't ever get beat to the near cone (a mindset)<br /><br />* be ready for a clever play (no-look pass, no walk-up, no countdown)<br /><br />* ask your teammates if they're ready before you tap it in<br /><br />* call your poaches<br /><br />* use your peripheral vision: handlers, look for poaches; markers, see<br />what's developing around youEric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-38922587418126158202010-06-04T08:05:00.002-05:002010-06-04T08:07:52.930-05:00PlaysFrom a recent e-mail:<br /><br /><br />I think that plays fall last in a hierarchy that goes<br /><br />1. Principles<br />2. Formations<br />3. Audibles/Directives<br />4. Plays<br /><br /><br />As for 1, a team can't operate in flow unless people know<br />what to do based on what's happening on the field -- and<br />time spent together should be used to make sure that<br />the team's principles are shared (and understood) knowledge<br />among the players. Principles like (for example)<br />look downfield first, take what they give you on offense,<br />right-of-way to the downfield cutter, communicate<br />actionable information, move it off the<br />line, through-or-over against zone D, ....<br /><br />With principles in play, formations (2) are important. How<br />do we structure our endzone? What is our Ho stack, exactly,<br />and what should we be looking to do with it? Which cutters<br />get preference? How do handlers set up? How do they dump,<br />reset?<br /><br />As for 3, audibles can tell us who should cut, and where,<br />how to focus the O or D [such as, "move left" or "endzone"],<br />or how to get out of a jam [a signal for give-and-go or<br />break-mark]. Even just having signals for<br />break-mark and deep cut might be enough.<br /><br />Finally come plays, which are usually only useful<br />off of stoppages, and only if people are in position<br />and have the wherewithal to set it up. Typically<br />it will unfold as follows: travel call; handler<br />thinks to call a play rather late during the stoppage,<br />just before the tap in; four of the six other players hear<br />the call; two of those four are not in position and start to<br />head into position only after the tap comes; the<br />timing of the start of the play is off, and one or<br />two of those who didn't hear the play have gotten<br />in the way or somehow messed it up by not being<br />aware. Because a play involves lots of people<br />knowing what to do and implementing this knowledge<br />in unison and on cue, it is the hardest thing to<br />do. The HUGE majority of deep cuts, for example,<br />come from opportunistic cutting, not plays.<br /><br />Teams should acknowledge these difficulties<br />openly and honestly, freeing themselves from<br />the lie that plays make the difference.<br />1, 2, and 3 make the difference. Plays, if<br />used at all, are icing. If a team *does*<br />acknowledge these truths,<br />then it should focus its time<br />according to its priorities.<br /><br /><br />Thanks for listening,<br /><br />-zazEric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-81948686828117624262009-08-14T20:45:00.001-05:002009-08-14T20:47:00.827-05:00ALL GROWED UP(Or, Generation H and the Search for a Stackless O)<br /><br /><br />Okay, I don't play much ultimate anymore. Five tournaments in the past year: Sandblast (does that count?), GrandMasters '09, Masters '08, Masters Regionals '08, Masters Worlds '08. I do still think about disc, and have watched a bit of good play at those tournaments, however.<br /><br />The sport is certainly maturing. Observations which were lessons 10 years ago are now common knowledge to even middling teams. (Examples: communicating switches, help from the sideline, calling the danger spot, getting inside of the cutter, high count marking behavior.) Also, you can now assume that every decent team takes its athleticism seriously. In light of this, I feel I have little concrete intellectual content to offer -- hence the bloglessness, even when I *am* thinking about the game. (Plus, Facebook has proven itself *the* welcoming home for all of our psychoanalytical exhibitionism.)<br /><br />Do we see significant differences between teams? Experts will tell us we do, but that's because they are able to look with a keener eye. The fact that we even need a keen eye to discern among top teams is a testament to the convergence of play.<br />I don't think the "Turnover Compact" (archives: 8/14/05) is still valid. Good teams have a more refined sense of probabilities and expected outcomes, and have eliminated most unnecessary turnovers. In short, "Generation H" (archives: 8/10/05) is all growed up. What does it look like?<br /><br />It's about 6' 2", muscular (it does CrossFit), does ulty on-line and off, with all pistons blaring. Smart about the game. It's on a team that plays Ho stack on 90% of points. It gets open by using said pistons, juking up and back, outhustling its hapless defender. (There are other cuts, too, but this is the one that serves my purpose.) Here's my only beef: too many teams are racing down the same path toward victory. There is a fixed skill-and-muscle set which will help them down that path. The team which better develops these skills --- *these* skills --- will win the race.<br /><br />But what if there's another path?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong: I don't claim to have found it, and I don't claim to have been on a team that found it. I do think there is something to be said for valuing innovation, and I don't think we have had a significant innovation since the Ho stack arrived. I mentioned previously (archives: "The Moral Relativist and the Ho," 7/17/08) that a stack is more of a mindset, or framework, for thinking about offensive structures and spacing. Having a paradigm is great, and being able to shift paradigms is even better ("paradigm shift" or "game changer" is the Holy Grail of business, politics... sports). So why not move between one and another?<br /><br />So this is both a lament -- that we don't see teams wielding a full arsenal of weapons -- and a challenge, to find the Stackless O, a dynamic offense that instantly locates and exploits *any* viable space on the field. This would require a team to seamlessly move into (whatever) formation is best, shifting on a dime the way a flock of geese do. I'm not saying they're Canada geese.. or condors. Or fish, which also exhibit nice group behavior. They're certainly not packs of DoGs. I don't know what they are. Never seen them on the disc field. Just herds of magic unicorns, I guess. (Not goats.)<br /><br />(Maybe they're already there. Tell me about them.)Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-71143174263574975872008-08-05T09:33:00.000-05:002008-08-05T09:34:09.969-05:00Worlds: USA Masters vs. CanadaWe (USA) played on center stage for this game (16-14, USA) against<br />the #2 seed. This blog would be better if I fed the urge to use spectacular<br />words like "epic struggle," "wrested victory from...," "battled mightily,"<br />etc.... but I can't. I'll save the hyperbole for the hyperbolic situations.<br />(Come back Friday?)<br /><br />The game*was* intense, and there were big moments. The tide<br />shifted when we came out of halftime fired-up and rallied to<br />overcome a 4-point deficit. That was an exhibition of classic DoG<br />defense. We also showed the ability to win, to get it done when<br />it needs to get done. That's a vital skill.<br /><br />At the same time, we showed a lot of unforced errors, miscues, and<br />iffy decision-making. To Canada's credit, the defensive coverage<br />was tight and space and time were compressed. At several points,<br />we responded to these circumstances by trying to thread needles<br />or wish our way to the endzone, rather than get there with more<br />work and passes.<br /><br />Because of the above, the victory was not completely joyful for me.<br />I want us to win and play well, as well as showcase our capabilities.<br />We did some of that. We have more to prove.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-5819643311167671772008-08-03T00:18:00.000-05:002008-08-03T00:19:25.478-05:00His Masters ChoiceAh, the life of a committed Masters player.<br />Please contrast with a committed Open<br />player, who eats, sleeps, and breathes disc<br />(e.g., the author, circa 1998).<br /><br />Training: Okay, I do have a team and it does<br />get together every now and again, but that team<br />is in Boston and I live in Chicago. So I did<br />what I did on my own. This meant a variety<br />of running and sprinting days, but the flavor<br />was decidedly different from fall of 1998 when<br />I killed myself working out, imagining how<br />hard my teammates were pushing themselves.<br />Nowadays, when I imagine what my teammates<br />are actually doing... ... ...well, let's just leave<br />it at that.<br /><br />Hydration: The family will stay in Vancouver<br />for five months. We have already been traveling<br />in Santa Barbara and L.A. I keep waiting for the<br />time when I won't be worrying about FDIC-backing<br />on deposits and potential problems<br />at customs, and insuring stored belongings and<br />car, and health insurance in Canada etc. I keep waiting<br />for the time when I will be totally focused on training. <br />Hah! I did get some good workouts in<br />Santa Barbara, but much of that was at the<br />good grace of my wife. Anyway, so I was thinking<br />at least this day -- Friday before Sunday -- I would<br />be able to give my body some rest and restoration.<br />Well, we had to stand on line after line, repacking<br />and reticketing the seatless child under two.<br />Amazingly, we get it all done and arrive in Vancouver<br />and settle into our house in time to order dinner.<br />All that but basically no hydration. (I take it as given,<br />of course, that there will be nights, like last night, when<br />my toddler has FOUR teeth coming in at once.) <br />Today my legs were lead.<br /><br />Keeping Injury Free: Suddenly everything gives<br />me blood blisters. Suddenly, every time I schlep the 55 lbs<br />bags (yes, we had to repack both at the airport) they<br />bruise me in my already tender ankles. And on the<br />flight we manage to get BOTH kids asleep on the<br />small, cramped, noisy plane when the flight attendant<br />tells me we have to have BOTH kids on one side (my<br />side) because that was the side with three oxygen<br />masks. So I sat there with one on my lap and holding<br />the other in my hands. I thought for sure they'd be<br />too sore for pulling. (The children slept; the hands<br />were fine.)<br /><br />Muscles and Joints: Back in the day, I'd worry<br />about pulling my hamstring during sprint training.<br />Now I worry about joints. (I'm not fast enough to<br />injure myself trying to sprint!) Why do my ankles<br />spontaneously hurt. I used to pride myself<br />on not coming out with an injury unless it was<br />season-ending, or at least a few weeks. Now,<br />back in late June I got hit in a tournament (my only<br />this spring) and didn't come out, and I still wonder<br />whether my knee will make it through Worlds as<br />a result.<br /><br />Best Perspective: Back then, disc was the priority. The<br />"only"-ity. Now disc is just daddy's selfish lark.<br />Opening ceremonies, shmopening<br />shmeremonies. My children couldn't<br />come -- nap time!Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-42038622901418405642008-07-17T23:27:00.001-05:002008-07-17T23:27:45.418-05:00The Moral Relativist and the HoThis is a confession about a man, a Ho, and right or wrong.<br />What is right? What is wrong? Is it wrong not to cut deep when<br />someone has the disc on the sideline with a free backhand,<br />and you are being fronted? In a morally absolute world, yes!<br />But just as the fist bump can be a friendly greeting or a terrorist<br />call to arms depending on which network you watch, the<br />culture you play in has a lot to say about what is right and wrong<br />on the field.<br /><br />I just came back from a 4-on-4 practice with the Condors, who<br />graciously let an aging master take the field with them prior<br />to worlds (and even more graciously are lending the US team<br />two star-spangled players -- Hollywood and Dugan).<br />Anyway, for 90% of the practice I was completely ineffective<br />and completely unawares. People wouldn't cut for me when<br />I wanted them to, and I was generally not making an impact<br />on O. I attributed this to my glacial speed and to being<br />an unknown factor with the disc. To be sure, that's<br />part of it. But the other part was something I realized only<br />toward the end: they were playing a 4-person Ho stack.<br />For the most part, the man in the center was live, there was<br />some lateral handler motion, and some circulation among<br />roles. I was ineffective because I assumed vertical the whole<br />time and was generally hanging out -- hence clogging -- the<br />center lane. (They were probably too polite to yell at me.)<br /><br />The other part of my inability to make an impact was that<br />during situations when I was looking to advance the disc --<br />e.g. deep, as in the situation described at the start -- they<br />were not seeing me as being in a power position. Maybe<br />the person I wanted to cut was in a resting pattern. Maybe<br />I was not looking for the naturally "live" player or in the<br />natural direction of flow for the Ho. So what was right<br />to me was wrong to them. Likewise, I was not seeing<br />cutting opportunities that were obvious to them.<br />I was resting when they were looking for me to cut.<br />(After my epiphany, I was able to play somewhat more<br />effectively and with much less energy, since I had an<br />idea of what was about to happen.)<br /><br />It is important for a team to be on the same page. There<br />needs to be some unspoken understanding of what<br />is to come. But is this necessary state of affairs also<br />too limiting? Are potential opportunities squandered? <br />Why not have an offense which is able<br />to see the opportunities for both patterns of play<br />and exploit them -- an offensive flex? (Like a defense<br />which switches mid-pont.) Is this even possible?<br />It should be. If it is theoretically possible to score<br />based on the current playing position, then it should<br />be possible for an offense to recognize this.<br /><br />I am too tired -- did I mention that I was slow and just<br />trying to keep up? -- to explore what this would look<br />like, but my inner moral absolutist wants to know.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-11377643769140573642007-10-23T23:10:00.000-05:002007-10-23T23:11:05.682-05:00DoGgernautI never wanted an I-played-two-games-of-foosball-today kind of blog.<br />The idea from the start was to try to say something of general interest<br />about the game of ultimate, not necessarily about my personal experience.<br />But today I am excited to be going to Sarasota with my DoG reunion team.<br /><br />Two years ago I was ignominiously cut from the open team in Chicago.<br />I guess I was too old, or too old school, or too slow (more a function of<br />teething-child-induced-sleep-deprivation than age, but nevertheless).<br />That year a master's team grew in Chicago, and though it was a lot of<br />fun (and we qualified, and they're coming this year), I had been sold on<br />DoG reunion ever since our Easterns win a few years back.<br /><br />Now it is a reality, and the thrill of playing with TGTITHOTG...BF is<br />back! Yeah, baby!Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-2369937896903412182007-07-23T13:41:00.000-05:002007-07-23T13:46:48.443-05:00Spirit of the Rules?Many say spirit is linked to knowledge of the rules. Some want<br />to require rules quizzes for teams. Every player is a referee, right? <br />So shouldn't all be required to know the rules? <br /><br />Though I am attracted to the logic of these arguments, I reject<br />them wholeheartedly. In fact, my recent effort to learn the rules was<br />to better understand the connection, if any, between rules and spirit.<br />(Administratively, quizzes would be nearly impossible anyway.)<br /><br />It's true that players are referees, so they should know what a violation<br />and what a foul is. By and large, these are easy to recognize.<br />The consequences of foul calls and violations are much more<br />subtle, and whilel I *do* think that every game should have a<br />copy of the rules on the sideline, I don't think it is incumbent on<br />individual players to know all intricacies. If playing the game were<br />like operating heavy machinery, then there'd be an easy argument<br />for knowing the rules. But it's more like knitting. If there's a stray purl here and<br />there, the sweater will still keep you warm.<br /><br />On-field conduct is simply way more important.<br /><br />Examples from actual play:<br /><br />* Player calls equipment time-out just before his team turns the disc<br />over. The "technical time out," however, cannot be called in running<br />play. This was explained to the player, who was gracious in acknowledging<br />the turnover. Poor rules knowledge, but excellent spirit.<br /><br />* I have the disc waiting for a check, when a self-check (a.k.a. "ground check")<br />would suffice. Had I known that, I could have put the disc into play earlier and<br />had an easier time making the throw I wanted. Result: I would have<br />benefitted from better rules knowledge, but that's all.<br /><br />* Close call on the sideline and I ask for clarification as to whether the<br />defender touched the disc ("yes" says defender's teammate)... and<br />while he was still an in-bounds player? ("yes --- I know the rules," perhaps<br />a bit snidely). So far, knowledge of rules, yes, but no evidence of great (or poor spirit). <br />Later that game, I call a foul on the player who had responded earlier, indicating his<br />knowledge of the rules. (Perhaps my only foul call all weekend, but he wouldn't<br />have known that.) I claim that he bumped me while I tried to catch the disc. He says that<br />his hand was under mine -- "contest." I try to explain that his point is moot, as<br />the hand had nothing to do with the foul. He (without 60% of the vote, mind you!)<br />demands cloture and cuts off debate stating "contest -- the disc goes back --<br />that's what the rules state" (or something like that). Well, my understanding of XVI.B<br />is that one needs to contest a play on specific grounds relating to the infraction.<br />My point here: knowledge of the rules demonstrated satisfactorily. Spirit? Not<br />so much.<br /><br />* I bobble the disc but eventually catch it in the endzone. I did not intentionally<br />mac it in order to advance the disc. Opponent asks whether it is not a goal. I<br />call it a goal, explain the rule after the point, and he graciously accepts the result.<br />Verdict: spirited opponent with imperfect rules knowledge.<br /><br />* Before the no-double-turnover clause XII.C was established in the rules<br />(this is quite some time ago), I used to argue for a double-turnover, on occasion. <br />Most of the time, these efforts were dismissed summarily. Summary: my attempt<br />to apply my knowledge of the rules was seen as unspirited.<br /><br />* I have, on occasion, called a foul on myself. This is not allowed in the rules.<br />I can alert an opponent of the infraction, but it is up to him/her as to whether he/she<br />will make a call. Fair enough, the opponent may prefer to let play continue.<br />Calling my own foul was ignorant of the rules, but I don't think it has ever<br />been seen as unspirited.<br /><br />Maybe I'm stacking the examples, or maybe these are exceptions that prove the<br />rule, but I just don't see the connection.<br /><br />I do understand the argument that you have to *know* the rules to *follow* them,<br />but I don't think you have to have a detailed knowledge to play with sportsmanship.<br />Generally, good intentions take you a long way. I know that people *intuitively*<br />feel the connection between rules knowledge and spirit -- or at least between<br />rules knowledge and rule abiding? -- but I can't support the contention after a<br />close review. (We don't base national policies on intuition. Um... er... well, at least<br />we *shouldn't.*) Can you?<br /><br />-----<br /><br />p.s. The version of the spirit guidelines currently under consideration by the<br />UPA has language mixing "knowledge of" and attempts to "adhere to"<br />to the rules (i.e. not cheating). I think we are all against intentional nonadherence.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-48782637449123056072007-07-12T20:16:00.000-05:002007-07-12T20:18:26.443-05:00The Rules Game, Part IIIThese comments cover sections XVI through XIX in the 11th edition UPA rules.<br />For disclaimers, see "Part I" post of 7/4/07. Warning: these notes were written in<br />some haste and have not been edited for content or formatted to fit your screen.<br /><br />XVI VIOLATIONS AND FOULS<br /><br />XVI.A I used to think that you could call your own foul, and have done so. I guess<br />not. (See XIX.A, too.)<br /><br />XVI.B Ahhhhh, if only life were so simple!<br /><br />XVI.C Oy yi yi, the continuation rule. <br />I have saved this for last [I'm writing this afterr all the other stuff] because I'm afraid of it. <br />So much has been said. Now UPA and WFDF are worlds apart. <br />Has simplification begat complexity?<br /><br />I think that from a jurisprudence point of view, having a continuation rule<br />(even one that would have disallowed continuation) that applies to many different calls <br />is a good aim. However, in this case I think that it runs counter to the way the<br />game is played today. So, should the rules be a chicken or an egg? Should our<br />behavior follow the rules, or should we adapt to the rules. Of course we must adapt<br />as players, but the question I am asking pertains to how we should write the rules. <br /><br />Without answering this question, I'll say that this rule has definitely preceeded behavior.<br /><br />Also (and I have read some on the UPA Rules Blog and 11th Edition Discussion Forum)<br />a buck seems to have been passed from point of infraction or point of call to point<br />of acknowledgement. Further, is it clear what constitutes acknowledgement of a call.<br />And what about my question about etiquette XIX.F? Is it poor etiquette to fail to<br />acknowledge a call? Why? If the thrower sees the infraction and judges it not<br />to affect his intended play, and if the rules are written not to penalize infractions<br />but to recreate the situation as if they hadn't occurred, then why would it be<br />unspirited not to acknowledge a call and therefore to take advantage of the continuation<br />rule?<br /><br />There is more to say, but I don't think I can exhaust the issues here.<br /><br />The rule is fairly clearly written if you allow that "affected the play" is clear. It seems<br />fairly clear except for that meddlesome word "meaningfully." Are there meaningful<br />ways of affecting a play other than to change the outcome of a pass from incomplete<br />to complete, or vice versa? Suppose you lost 10 yards on your player but he was<br />not involved in the play. Then "the play" was not affected, but "continued play" was<br />affected, in that a goal will be easy. Should this be permitted? It would seem that<br />the players should be lobbying for a more liberal definition of "affected the play,"<br />because "the play" is not what's important to them but rather the likelihood of scoring.<br />Any maneuver such as a pick that affects the likelihood of scoring, even if it does<br />not affect a play, should not be allowed to stand. I realize that one can never<br />quantify likelihood of scoring, but I take this as evidence for advocating a more liberal<br />definition of "affected the play."<br />(Apologies: all this was right off the cuff and unedited. May not stand up to<br />scrutiny.)<br /><br />XVI.C.4.a Do we return to where we were when the call was made or<br />when the infraction occurred. (Is timeliness of calls reflected in the rules at all?<br />This seems an important issue, at least for the etiquette section.)<br />In XVI.C.4.c the time of the infraction is the relevant one. I haven't checked the<br />rules for consistency on this matter.<br /><br />XVI.E "Advancing in any direction"? Is this the same as "increasing its speed"?<br />I don't know what the word "advance" is otherwise, if it can be done in any direction.<br /><br />XVI.F Interesting rule. I'd have expected to see "last point of contact."<br />Hmm... now that I think about it, what if the thrower has caught a pass near the<br />endzone he is attacking and leapt to throw a goal which comes back on a<br />contested call? The closest part of the playing field may be in the endzone.<br />I guess X.B comes into play, but the applicability seems dubious, especially<br />since this is a specific rule which should trump a general rule (see I.E).<br /><br />Would the notion of "offensive playing field proper" (playing field minus<br />endzone the offense is attacking) be useful for any purpose? Likewise<br />for the defense?<br /><br />XVI.G It seems we need some guidance as to what constitutes "offsetting"? <br />Would not any two (or more) calls from opposing teams which "affected play"<br />be offsetting? If so, then it would help to say so.<br /><br />XVI.H.2 The use of the term "adjacent" is funny. Why is it there. If I can imagine<br />such contact between "nonadjacent" players, would it not be covered by this<br />note? Aren't two contacting players adjacent by definition? Sorry, this is all<br />unnecessary, of course.<br /><br />XVI.H.3.b.3 Perhaps this is heresy, but it may be time to get rid of the grandiose<br />"principle of verticality." Does it say anything that is not already covered<br />by XVI.H.3.b.1 and XVII.B (see note there, too)?<br /><br />XVI.H.3.b.4 I'm confused by the phrase "or out of the end zone instead of<br />in the end zone," in the first sentence. Let's consider the two possible end zones<br />involved in that phrase. If it's the end zone being attacked, then the second<br />sentence applies. If it's the end zone that the offense is defending (that<br />"offensive playing field proper" concept is useful here), then why should being<br />in it or out of it have any bearing on the play whatsoever? From the point of<br />view of the offense, the goal line separating the defended end zone from the<br />playing field proper has no meaning. I'd remove this phrase and not try to group<br />the end zone situation with the out-of-bounds situation. This seems more accurate<br />and clearer.<br /><br />I'm amused by the fantasy scenario of a huge bump sending a player<br />flying through the air from one end zone to the other. Then what?<br /><br />XVI.H.3.c.1 I said I wouldn't carp on grammar, but this run on sentence really<br />hinders comprehension. Let's replace the "and" by a period and a new sentence:<br />"Any resulting non-incidental contact constitutes a receiving foul on the blocking<br />player (XVI.H.3.b)."<br /><br />But we have a new problem: the word "solely" may be too strong. It is easy to argue<br />that you rarely, if ever, do anything in ultimately "solely" for a certain effect.<br />And yet these blocking fouls are a very gray area, and it's impossible to avoid<br />controversy. For example, if I recommend "primarily" instead of "solely," then<br />this may be more accurate to what should be called, but the language<br />is more slippery. Still, I think I prefer "primarily." I wonder what others have said<br />about this. <br /><br />XVI.H3.c.2 I think replacing "that is unavoidable by"<br />by "that renders unavoidable contact with" makes this rule more readable<br />(people will probably prefer "creates" to "renders," but not me).<br /><br />XVI.H.3.d Hmmm... the disc in a player's possession is part of that player, so<br />isn't any such contact already subject to rules forbidding initiating contact<br />with the thrower? (So is it time to remove the strip from our lexicon?)<br />The reason I point this out is that it is still a foul whether or not you drop the<br />disc, no? So why the special call?<br /><br />XVI.I I like this writing.<br /><br />XVI.J.1.c Here again we have the phrase "advance in any direction," and here<br />again it is confusing. If I bobble the disc to catch it, I am purposefully redirecting<br />it so that I might catch it. If I purposefully redirect it as such, then surely I am<br />purposefully advancing the disc in *some* direction. Here the replacement<br />by "decreasing the speed of the disc" doesn't seem to help at all.<br /><br />I guess it's the same group of words being problematic. If we write "solely" to<br />advance the disc, then we have other issues. Again, "primarily" may be the<br />best way out? I don't know.<br /><br />XVI.K This is a doozy, but I have nothing to say about how it is written. It is<br />clear.<br /><br /><br />XVII POSITIONING<br /><br />XVII.A Can five players on a team form a ring around a very strong player<br />and obstruct his movement (but without moving themselves), in the chance<br />that the other two against the other six gives them better odds of winning? Of<br />course not. And yet it is not a blocking foul or a pick or, as far as I can tell,<br />addressed anywhere else. This section should define obstruction more broadly.<br /><br />XVII.B The second scenario subsumes the first. The rule should simply state,<br />"A player who jumps is entitled to land without hindrance by opponents<br />provided that the landing spot and the direct path between the take-off<br />and landing spots were not already occupied at the time of take-off."<br />In the event of a purely vertical jump, it is clear that the provision applies.<br /><br />However, this rule is self-contradictory, as you can see from the case of<br />two opposing players running from opposite directions who jump so as to land on<br />top of each other. Neither path was occupied at the time of take-off, but both<br />players' landings were hindered by the other. What we need is some kind of<br />right-of-way. (Presumably, it goes to the offense? But what if these jumps were<br />not to catch a disc, for some reason?)<br /><br />Also, there is throughout the rules a kind of awkward treatment of kinetic<br />situations, where position is not as important as momentum (or more precisely<br />the combination of the two). I don't have a great solution for this. I would like<br />to see what is written in the rules of similar team sports like soccer, lacrosse<br />and field hockey. <br /><br /><br />XVIII OBSERVERS <br /><br />If observers are mentioned in the rules, the so should the rules governing<br />the interaction between players and (especially on-field) observers.<br />So the rules which say that the observers are in- or<br />out-of-bounds, the rules which govern obstruction of play by observers (picks),<br />and whether or not an observer can adjudicate a call in which he himself<br />was involved (say, by lingering in front of the thrower) should be there (or at the<br />very least referenced).<br /><br />XIX ETIQUETTE<br /><br />XIX.F This piece of etiquette is somewhat at odds with the continuation rule.<br />My understanding of the current rules is that it is okay for the offense to<br />ignore a call in favor of the continuation of play. This says that it is a failure of<br />etiquette. Also, "call" should be clarified, as some "calls" (such as "fast count")<br />patently DO NOT stop play.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-68259909104825163182007-07-09T21:29:00.000-05:002007-07-09T21:37:08.235-05:00The Rules Game, Part IIThese comments cover Sections IX through XV of the 11th edition UPA rules.<br /><br />For disclaimers on my rules comments, see "Part I" post of 7/4/05.<br /><br />[Notes:<br />1. Apology: I tried to cut and paste the rules and intersperse my comments, but<br />the list format of the document completely screwed up the paragraph enumeration.<br />I recommend opening up a window with the rules, or actually take out the free<br />copy that the UPA sent you.<br />2. Aside: I have to remark that while the "Ultimate Talk" meta-blog is generally a good<br />idea, I'm not sure I'd have signed up to share billing with "god bless my underwear."]<br /><br />IX. IN- AND OUT-OF-BOUNDS<br /><br />IX.C & IX.C.3 If a player jumps from in-bounds to catch a disc and might land<br />out-of-bounds, can a teammate then CATCH THE PLAYER and bring him back<br />in-bounds? So far in my reading, it seems possible as 1) the teammate can stand out-of-bounds<br />without being part of the out-of-bounds area, and 2) the contact with teammate<br />does not confer the out-of-bounds status to the catcher (of the disc), and<br />3) XII.D.5 does not apply, i.e. the teammate did not assist in the catching (of the disc).<br /><br />X END ZONE POSSESSION<br /><br />XI SCORING<br /><br />XI.A Presumably, Callahan scores are subsumed in this, as they are catches<br />of legal passes in the end zone, just not passes from your own team.<br /><br />XII TURNOVERS<br /><br />XII.A "other than as a result of a pull"? But when you pull (i.e. "pass") it out of<br />bounds, the receiving team gets the disc and possession has changed.<br />XII.B "before thrower regains possession" should be "before offensive team regains<br />possession" (here "possession is used in a non-technical sense, since possession<br />is not lost until the pass is complete so cannot be "regained"). I guess what is<br />a bit frustrating is that the level of technical writing is somewhat inconsistent<br />across the rules. So, some definitions have a hard-core meaning while some<br />are used mainly to describe what is happening. Sometimes there seems to be<br />overlap, and that's the most troublesome (okay, sometimes I mis-read things, too).<br />XII.D.3 What if the disc is thrown and contacts another player and then the<br />thrower catches it... BUT... in the process of catching it and in order to gain<br />possession the thrower intentionally deflects the disc against another player?<br />I'd amend this rule to say something like "unless all such contact occurs as the result of<br />intentional deflection by the thrower."<br />XII.D.5 Presumably, this should be expanded to include "assists a teammate's<br />in- or out-of-bounds status," or something, to address the loophole I cited above.<br />Or "catching" a pass can be defined to include the landing.<br />XII.D.5&6 Intent is always a slippery concept to introduce into law. What if<br />the defense knocks down a "hail mary" pass by throwing a hat? There may be<br />no specific intended receiver. Maybe the rule should be that the offense is<br />awarded possession at the point where the disc would have been caught or<br />last left the playing field, or something, and perhaps the offense should be able<br />to choose who gains possession (a slightly stiffer penalty), possibly other than<br />the thrower.<br /><br />XIII THE THROWER<br /><br />XIII.3 A disc can roll out and then back in, so the rule should state something like<br />"if the disc comes to rest on the playing field proper without having come into contact<br />with the out-of-bounds" (or some such wording)<br /><br />Another wording comment: there are several instances of "the defensive player may do B...<br />but only after having done A" These should read "the defensive player may to A and then<br />B," e.g. "when the disc is on the ground, a defensive player may initiate a pre-stall then<br />stall by announcing 'X' after Y seconds." A separate paragraph on pre-stall would<br />save some redundancy in the writing.<br /><br />XIII.5.B I played this weekend with a rules expert who called a violation for<br />failure to self-check/ground-check an in-play but not live disc. Is it widely<br />known that you have to self-check a disc when it is out of bounds and there<br />is no defender present for a check? Let alone whether it is widely known,<br />is it actually widely practiced? I think that there are several instances (more on<br />this later) of the rules preceeding convention, a move which hints<br />at "legislative activism."<br /><br />XIV. A There is no requirement that one second elapses between the<br />first utterance of "stalling" and the word "one." This means that the stall count<br />in ultimate is actually just 9+ seconds. Is it unspirited to say "stalling-one" very<br />quickly?<br /><br />Also, it now makes a much greater difference how players resolve<br />a dispute of whether the defense reached a count of 8 before a foul is called?<br />Previously, the defense had either 2 or 3 seconds (50% more time). <br />Now, without the delay, the D has either 1.5 (say) or 2.5 seconds (67% more time).<br /><br />XIV.A.3.a.2 Are these the only two options? Can't the marker (now thrower) put<br />the disc into play without the previous thrower becoming the marker? Option<br />(2) should simply state that he can retain possession of the disc and put the<br />disc into play with an appropriate check.<br /><br />XIV.B.1.a "intervals" should be "an interval," since only one instance, and not<br />a pattern, constitutes a fast count (or *should*).<br /><br />XIV.B.2 The metric thing, again. <br /><br />XIV.B.3 "one disc diameter" This phrase should be changed. Suppose that<br />under the captain's clause two teams agree to play with a very small disc.<br />Fine, but this decision should not impact the separation distance (it could get<br />comical). The distance should be an absolute distance, presumably defined<br />by the current (2007) diameter of a Discraft Ultrastar.<br /><br /><br />XV THE RECEIVER<br /><br />XV.A This paragraph should be made more clear. The "but" is a wrong choice<br />of words. There should be at least two sentences. At issue is purposeful bobbling<br />which advances the disc, but is done in order to gain control. Namely, make it<br />explicit that the first reason (catching) trumps the second (advancing). Occasionally,<br />as sort-of happened to me this weekend, one must advance the disc purposefully<br />in order to catch it.<br /><br />XV.B I've been looking and cannot find where the pivot needs to be on the playing<br />field. It must be for starting play, but nowhere (that I can find) is it said for a live disc,<br />e.g. after coming to a stop you might be out-of-bounds.<br /><br />XV.C For that matter, in part C if no pivot foot is established there is even less<br />reason to assume that the thrower needs to be in-bounds to release a throw.<br />So, if I am running toward the sideline to catch a disc, I can take two full-speed<br />points of contacts out-of-bounds as long as I toss the disc before the third.<br />If this reading is correct, it would be as exciting as the play in tennis where you<br />hit the ball low and *around* the net.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-22662789127793703432007-07-04T20:43:00.001-05:002007-07-04T20:43:58.162-05:00The Rules Game, Part IHere is what I mean by the rules game: try reading the rules<br />like a lawyer and develop hypothetical loopholes. Much of the<br />time, these loopholes run counter to SOTG, but this is just<br />an intellectual exercise, after all. Sometimes, interesting questions<br />arise. These comments are written purely for fun, and<br />to point out ambiguities, logical errors and the like (but not<br />trivial grammatical errors). You can view the rules at<br />http://www3.upa.org/ultimate/rules/11th<br /><br />The longtime UPA board member Henry Thorne would say<br />that I'm trying to "Zazzify" the rules, a term with negative and positive (?)<br />connotations.<br /><br />Here goes.<br /><br />Disclaimers:<br />1. Building consistent rules is a GARGANTUAN task and these rules<br />function INCREDIBLY well. They (all the editions) are an awesome achievement,<br />and serve hundreds of thousands of games without incident.<br />1. This is NOT A CRITIQUE and NOT A REVIEW of these excellent rules. <br />2. I have NOT DONE MY HOMEWORK, i.e. I have not read all existing rules<br />threads.<br />3. I haven't read the rules thoroughly since, well... um, ever? <br />4. I know that it is easier to find fault than to repair.<br />5. This is an amateur and unofficial exercise.<br />6. The comments are stream of consciousness, and possibly<br />inconsistent with one another.<br /><br />These comments (Part I) cover the Preface through Section VIII.<br /><br /><br />PREFACE<br /><br />[none]<br /><br /><br />I. INTRODUCTION<br /><br />I.A [none]<br /><br />I.B "never at the expense of mutual respect..." So does this<br />mean that you are completely spirited as long as your actions<br />do not diminish the joy of play, etc., for the opposing team, or<br />does perfect spirit require that you enhance the experience<br />of your competitors? This was a long-ish discussion among the<br />committee trying to establish a standard SOTG ranking system.<br /><br />I.C So we can play ultimate under the variation of the rules:<br />replace rulebook with the rules of poker (or Rochambeau)?<br />When does approval of the TD take place? Or what if a rogue<br />TD actually does approve? (And shouldn't "event organizer"<br />be replaced by "TD" or something more germaine, as the<br />organizer may not even know how to play ultimate?)<br /><br />I.D What about logistical changes that are necessitated<br />AFTER competition starts (say, for a hurricane, e.g.)?<br /><br />I.E Interesting "fudge factor" to cover inconsistencies.<br />Shall we take I.E as a general or a specific rule?<br /><br /><br />II. DEFINITIONS<br /><br />II.A [none]<br />II.B This definition seems backwards. Don't I determine retention<br />of possession by whether or not a pass was complete, and not<br />define completeness through retaining possession?<br />II.C The second part of this definition is a rule, not a definition.<br />II.D [none]<br />II.E [none]<br />II.F [none]<br />II.G "Reacting"? to the offensive player. So, if I am guarding one<br />player when another player within three meters suddenly breaks<br />free of his defender and I "react" by yelling "help!" to my teammates,<br />I am now guarding him? So I can be guarding two or more players?<br />Maybe... I'll have to read on.<br />II.H [none]<br />II.I [none]<br />II.J This definition ALMOST does what it should. The problem on an<br />unlined field is the sideline. With cones at the front and backs of<br />endzone there are four possible line segments you could draw<br />by picking the front or back of one endzone and the front or back of<br />the other. This definition should specify something like the "shortest"<br />possible line segment, or some such verbiage which makes the front-front<br />line segment the only correct one. (The definition clarifies one point of contention.<br />For example, if you are on the sideline near a goal, you could draw a<br />line which extends the segment from the back cone to the front cone of<br />the endzone you are near. This extension would not technically be<br />a "line segment between two field markers" are therefore does not apply.)<br />II.K The second part of this definition is not sharp enough. There could<br />be several offensive players and therefore several defensive players<br />within three meters (and why succumb to metric with all those crazy<br />numbers like 23 meters? why not just say "ten feet" and suck up the<br />two-inch difference?).<br />II.L [none]<br />II.M "body"? not "foot"? Can I establish a pivot nose? (In my case, this<br />might just be possible.)<br />II.N "up to" fourteen? Why not just "fourteen"? 'Cause of the captain's clause?<br />But then there could be more than fourteen. Or maybe it's because a team is<br />allowed to play with fewer than seven? (Is this true?) Or, if you can't write a correct<br />number, don't write a number.<br />II.O [none]<br />II.P [none]<br />II.Q Is this any different from "possession"? And doesn't the game start<br />with a pull, which is NOT a scoring attempt? Probably I am wrong and<br />this definition is needed to clarify some time-cap ruling.<br />II.R [none]<br />II.S [none]<br />II.T 1. Why this 1? The pull is a throw, but not a pass, no?<br />II.U [none]<br /><br />III. PLAYING FIELD [none]<br /><br />IV. EQUIPMENT<br /><br />IV.E "unfairly"? What a strange choice of words. How do I determine<br />whether my assistance is fair or unfair? Why not just remove the word?<br /><br />V. LENGTH OF GAME<br /><br />Strangely organized section. Part A, game to goals, Part B, halftime, Part C,<br />overtime. No comments, otherwise.<br /><br />VI. TIME-OUTS<br /><br />VI.B.1 70 seconds? I thought 90. Maybe it will be 70 + 20<br />to restart play?<br />VI.B.4 Presumably the phrase "that has survived ground<br />contact" rules out calling a time-out in the middle of a "greatest" play?<br />"Survived" is a funny word. "Sustained," maybe?<br />"Should audibly say"? -- so that's not a requirement? I think all use of<br />judgment and subjective words like "should" and "unfairly" should be<br />omitted. Either you have to say time-out or you don't. There is enough<br />relaxing of the rules during the context of play that the rulebook itself need<br />not be soft on matters. I would require it, as an accidental formation of a<br />"T" with the disc does not create a time-out.<br />VI.B.5.b Here the time issue is mistreated. If the maximum time-out is<br />seventy seconds, then 20 seconds for the defense *cannot possibly* be longer than the<br />90-second limit, and therefore that clause should be removed. Here again<br />the rules are soft, implicitly acknowledging that in practice time-outs last<br />much longer than 70 seconds.<br />VI.B.5.c "over 8"? Isn't this equivalent to 9, since 10 would have been a stall?<br />Maybe just "but not more than 9"? Anyway, it's clear enough.<br />VI.B.5.d This speaks back to enforcing parts a and b, but doesn't really<br />clarify the issue. Anyway, how does the defense invoke the rule of making<br />the offense restart the disc?<br /><br />VI.C How do we call an injury time-out? Are there special signals?<br />VI.C.4 Note that there is no penalty to a defensive team with no time-outs<br />remaining that calls injury time-outs for noninjured fellow members. I guess<br />there couldn't be a penalty, but this is conceivably something that could<br />be exploited against SOTG. Remember, we only set up with the same<br />positions before the time-out, not the same momenta!<br />VI.C.6 If a team calls an injury time-out between points (thinking that they<br />would need more time, say, due to an injury) but then does<br />not substitute the player (say if it was called by a teammate that did not<br />understand that the player only tripped) are they charged with a team time-out? <br />What if they have no team time-outs? Who is the team in possession of the<br />disc after a point? I thought that possession didn't really apply to the<br />team that was pulling (see definitions) since that team has not caught<br />a pass?<br /><br />VI.D.1&2 So there is no way of dealing with an opponent who maliciously<br />warps the disc during play, say by spiking in anger after missing a catch? So now<br />you have to play with a warped disc or correct it on your own stall count? <br />I didn't realize this.<br />VI.D.4.a.2 What does it mean to be "charged" with a technical time-out?<br />There are no limits on them, as far as I can tell.<br /><br /><br />VII PLAYER SUBSTITUTIONS [none]<br /><br />VIII STARTING AND RESTARTING PLAY<br /><br />VIII.B.3 Two players on the field? Can we really play with just two?<br />I'm sure that I've been in point-assessing situations where the other team<br />had at least two players. So they could have given it a go? I thought there<br />was a minimum of, like, five.<br />VIII.B.4.d&e Seems like the off-sides penalty is worse with an observer<br />than without (just a repull).<br />VIII.B.4.e.2 So for a weak-pulling team against a very strong wind (so that they<br />could only throw it, say, 25 meters) in a game with observers, it is in their<br />advantage to wildly violate the off-sides rule so that the opposing team gets<br />the disc at midfield. I've actually been on decent teams where the pull went<br />backward (okay, that was a hurricane -- but it happens!).<br />Viii.B.5 Again, it pays to mack a bad pull until it is far, since the only<br />penalty is re-pull (yes, I understand the penalty philosophy in ultimate,<br />this is just for fun).<br />VIII.B.6.d.2 So on a really out-of-bounds pull, say one that goes over<br />a fence and is not easily recoverable, I may sustain a delay-of-game<br />penalty because I can't call "re-pull" anymore and I can't get the disc in-play in time?<br />VIII.B.6.d.2.a So I can call "brick" on a really short, out-of-bounds pull, and<br />put it in at the brick mark if I choose. This may be useful for a team which uses<br />a very wide array of set plays requiring a start at the brick mark.<br />As far as I can assess, there's nothing unspirited about this.<br />Could even foil a team which is great at endzone D but not so good at<br />open-field D that intentionally pulls short.<br />VIII.B.9 So if I drop it but a teammate of mine catches it (before it hits the ground)<br />and then hands it back to me, we're okay? What if he dives to catch it and it hits<br />the ground (in his possession) before he gives it back. <br />What is his legal status? He is not the<br />"thrower" as far as I can tell, but some temporary substitute (since the rule specifies<br />that I am the thrower), so does that mean that the disc is NOT considered<br />part of him, and therefore a it is a turnover? This teammate is in some legal limbo<br />(can he challenge his detention?).<br />VIII.B.10 I recently could have benefited from knowing this rule. I was<br />the thrower putting the disc into play and there was a defender standing<br />right there while my teammate (Jim P of blog fame) was cutting deep, open.<br />But the opponent, for whatever reason, didn't check the disc quickly. Had<br />I ground-checked it immediately it would have been an easy completion. As it<br />was, it turned out much closer (but still complete). Would it have been unspirited<br />to self-check the disc on a pull even with the defender right there? I don't<br />think so. I don't think it is a question of spirit at all, just a question of rules.<br />Here is an instance where being a rule stickler could really help. Still, I'm<br />not sure that there would be consensus within the community on this one.<br />VIII.C.2 Again, if the D has to signal by 70 seconds, how can adding 20<br />possibly be more than 90? If these two cases are kept, there should be<br />a reference to a delay-of-game procedure, at least, I feel.<br />VIII.D.3a "whether complete or incomplete." I bet that few such incomplete<br />throws are re-done.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-36565588370346449942007-03-02T08:52:00.000-06:002007-03-02T08:53:04.698-06:00Spirit on the BrainThe proposal passed! (See previous two blog entries.) Thanks to all who helped. The next phase is to construct actual guidelines for spirit rankings. The UPA will form a committee -- soon, presumably -- which must submit recommendations to the Board by April 1. Some specific guidelines and some principles have been discussed previously, but I would like to make a call for suggestions. Feel free to brainstorm. This site can be a repository for ideas and opinions to be sorted later. <br /><br />Thanks for your help!<br /><br />-zazEric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1168388734446926402007-01-09T18:24:00.000-06:002007-01-09T18:25:34.460-06:00Revised ProposalHere is a revised version of the spirit ranking<br />proposal, worked out after consultation with Will<br />Deaver (Director of Championships) and others.<br /><br />This proposal has the endorsement of:<br /><br />Will Deaver, Director of Championships, UPA<br />Jim Parinella, Former President of the UPA<br />Kate Bergeron, Former President of the UPA<br /><br />Feel free to comment and add your name to the<br />list of endorsers.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />-zaz<br /><br /><br />Proposed--<br /><br /> That the UPA<br /> 1. Create new guidelines for spirit score rankings and submit for board approval by April 1, 2007. If approval is not granted, revise and submit within a month. And so on, until approval is obtained.<br /> 2. Require Admin to ensure ranking guidelines are communicated to captains of teams whose spirit scores are to be collected.<br /> 3. Include guidelines along with other "conduct" literature used for training UPA event personnel.<br /> 4. Distribute "Ten Things You Need to Know About SOTG" along with waiver forms -- if legal, then on the back of the paper; also if legal, then as page two of the electronic document containing the waiver.<br /> 5. Administer the collection and processing of spirit rankings as follows:<br /> a) Collect spirit rankings at every game at UPA championships for college and club, and for HS Easterns/Westerns and YCC.<br /> b) Establish a Team Spirit Award<br />for each division at the events of part (5a), given to the team that receives the highest overall average spirit ranking.<br /> c) Collect spirit rankings at the finals of regionals for college and club divisions<br /> d) Expand the collection and processing of spirit rankings beyond 5.a, 5.b, 5.c as resources allow<br />[Note: Items 5.a and 5.b describe the current practice of the UPA.]<br /> 6. Implement items 2-5 by September 1, 2007, or within a month of approval of new guidelines, whichever comes LATER.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1165498859082992132006-12-07T07:40:00.000-06:002006-12-07T07:40:59.106-06:00Proposal, Part Deux[This is a follow-up post to the one of Dec. 5, 2006.]<br /><br />I will file the proposal (below) with the UPA. I hope that it will be put on the<br />agenda for the annual meeting of the Board of Directors. Any readers<br />who wish to help ensure that happens, please comment as such and<br />I will include the comments as supplementary material to the proposal.<br />Thanks,<br /><br />-zaz<br /><br />------------<br /><br /><br /> Spirit Ranking System Proposal<br /><br />BACKGROUND:<br /><br />Part of the mission of the UPA is to "uphold the Spirit of the Game."<br />The UPA also seeks to foster and promote SOTG. One problem is<br />getting an accurate measure of SOTG: where it is best and worst,<br />how it is changing over time, and what effects the UPA's actions have<br />on it.<br /><br />This proposal states that the UPA will form guidelines for ranking<br />spirit scores at tournaments. Currently, there is already a ranking<br />system in place at many tournaments. This proposal would formalize<br />some aspects of that system and lead to the adoption of concrete<br />guidelines for spirit scores. The problem with current spirit scores<br />is that they are rather arbitrary, often arrived at whimsically by a<br />team at the end of a tiring game ("Four? Yeah, sure. Four it is!").<br /><br />With standards of spirit, the UPA could reliably compare SOTG<br />in different regions, among different divisions, and in different<br />time periods.<br /><br />Guidelines example---<br /><br />Score:<br /><br />1. Multiple incidents of acrimonious disputes involving<br />derision, name-calling, or taunting.<br />One team unhappy with level of physicality.<br />2. Game marked by one acrimonious dispute or several<br />smaller disputes involving needling remarks or other players<br />getting involved. Some level of disrespect in evidence.<br />One team unhappy with level of physicality.<br />3. Game played without any significant incident. Perhaps a few emotional<br />outbursts or disputed calls with terse words, but no overt signs of<br />disrespect. Both teams generally agree on the level of physicality.<br />4. Game played without incident and with evident good will<br />between teams. One or two areas of dispute settled<br />civilly, if not amicably. Both teams happy with level<br />of physicality.<br />5. Game played without incident and with evident<br />good will between teams. Contested foul calls were<br />honored with respect and without emotional outbursts. <br />Both teams happy with level of physicality. No heckling from team members.<br /><br />Notes: A score of "5" does not require any cheers, colorful antics,<br />or "give-back" calls. This measure of SOTG is entirely distinct<br />from the "spirit" of ultimate: its zany characters, inside jokes, and<br />cultural touchstones like Rochambeau. <br /><br />PROPOSAL: <br /><br />That the UPA <br />1. Create and adopt guidelines for SOTG scores by April 1, 2007.<br />2. Require volunteers collecting spirit scores to verify familiarity with, and/or<br />distribute, the adopted guidelines to team captains before collecting scores.<br />3. Require that all UPA-certified observers know the guidelines.<br />4. Print "Ten Things You Need to Know About SOTG" on the back of waiver forms.<br />5. Expand the collection of spirit scores beyond the current limited<br />system (at the least, to include regional tournaments).<br />6. Implement items 1-5 by September 1, 2007.<br /><br />PROS/CONS:<br /><br />This proposal aims to improve an existing scoring system which is currently<br />ad hoc and arbitrary. There are no drawbacks to such an improvement, although<br />the efforts could conceivably be seen as heavy-handed. I don't think the<br />hand is heavy.<br /><br />FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal or none.<br /><br />CONCLUSION: Spirit scores should mean something. The UPA should<br />standardize them. Reliable SOTG measurements will allow the<br />UPA to focus on areas of poor spirit and learn from teams/divisions<br />which exemplify SOTG. The UPA could also reward and publicize<br />the efforts of outstanding teams. All this helps to *foster* and *promote*<br />SOTG, not just "uphold" it.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1165381551462772862006-12-05T22:53:00.000-06:002006-12-05T23:05:51.486-06:00Spirit Score Guidelines: A ProposalI am writing to suggest a proposal to the UPA and to solicit your feedback.<br /><br />The mission of the UPA currently is, in part, "to uphold the Spirit of the Game." <br />As chair and member of the Conduct committee, I tried to do just that,<br />including drafting the code of conduct. Standards of conduct and rules for<br />their consistent enforcement are ways of upholding fair play.<br /><br />Personally, I think that "uphold" is not a strong enough<br />word. I think the UPA should "foster and promote" the SOTG.<br />(No, my proposal is not about changing the mission statement,<br />though I would support doing so.)<br />Talking about SOTG is one way that the ultimate community<br />reinforces its values. I tried to make the *practice* of SOTG<br />a bit more concrete by drafting Ten Things You Should Know<br />About Spirit of the Game (www.upa.org/spirit/10Things),<br />a practical guide to good behavior.<br /><br />Still, this classifies as "just talk." It was my intention then, and is my<br />proposal now, to follow "Ten Things" up with something somewhat<br />more tangible.<br /><br />Oddly, the thing which makes discussing SOTG difficult<br />is that we have no measure of the state of spirit;<br />whether it is getting better or worse over time; and<br />whether any effort to improve it is working, or would work.<br /><br />To this end, I would like to develop a standard for measuring<br />SOTG. A very crude measurement is spirit scores. It is crude<br />because there is no rubric for creating a spirit score -- a captain<br />or group of players usually just picks a number out of mid-air.<br />"Three." "Five." "Four." "Whatever." What's good about taking spirit scores<br />is that it is a mechanism already in place for gauging spirit. Scores are<br />taken at many tournaments. The administration for collecting SOTG data<br />is already up and running. The problem is that the data is unreliable. <br />There are no standards.<br /><br />My proposal is that the UPA adopt the following set of guidelines for<br />spirit scores.<br /><br />Score:<br /><br />1. Multiple incidents of acrimonious disputes involving<br />derision, name-calling, or taunting.<br />2. Game marked by one acrimonious dispute or several<br />smaller disputes involving needling remarks or other players<br />getting involved. Some level of disrespect in evidence.<br />3. Game played without any significant incident. Perhaps a few emotional<br />outbursts or disputed calls with terse words, but no overt signs of<br />disrespect. <br />4. Game played without incident and with evident good will<br />between teams. One or two areas of dispute settled<br />civilly, if not amicably. <br />5. Game played without incident and with evident<br />good will between teams. Contested foul calls were<br />honored with respect and without emotional outbursts. No<br />heckling from the sideline.<br /><br />Notes: A score of "5" does not require any cheers, colorful antics,<br />or "give-back" calls. This measure of SOTG is entirely distinct<br />from the "spirit" of ultimate: its zany characters, inside jokes, and<br />cultural touchstones like Rochambeau. Physicality of the game<br />is not mentioned. (N.B.: perhaps the guidelines should address<br />the possibility that one team voices unhappiness with the physicality,<br />to no avail.)<br /><br />Of course, this will not change spirit overnight. But it would give us<br />a way of collecting reliable statistics about SOTG. We could:<br />* determine areas of superb SOTG, and then learn what's working;<br />* determine areas of spirit deficit, pointing where we should focus efforts;<br />* give relative comparisons of spirit over time and across regions;<br />* identify teams with exemplary spirit, e.g. for awards<br /><br />Without reliable information about SOTG, efforts to foster and promote<br />it will be too broad and too blunt. My proposal is...<br /><br />That the UPA:<br /><br />1. Adopt the above guidelines for SOTG scores.<br />2. Print the guidelines as part of the literature for every UPA-sanctioned event,<br />and require TD's to announce and distribute them at the captain's meeting.<br />3. Require that observers learn the guidelines.<br />4. Print "Ten Things" on the back of waiver forms.<br /><br />Cynics will see such moves as either heavy-handed and/or cornballish.<br />I think it is "handed," but not too heavy, and I'll take cornball if it's effective.<br />What do you think? Your voiced support will buttress the proposal. Your<br />disapproval could dissuade me from submitting.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1137031007597937592006-01-11T19:53:00.000-06:002006-01-11T19:56:47.613-06:00What Now?Another year gone by and Ultimate matures with the Baby Boomers who created it. Cable TV, DVD's, Hall of Fame, Youth Division, and now a book of record. What next? What would you like to see? I'm curious.<br /><br />I am no longer a member of the UPA Board of Directors (my term recently expired) so I am speaking and asking as a civilian.<br /><br />As a board member, I was an advocate of the involvement and support of leagues. However, I was unable to put into action a plan I had in hand three years ago when I joined the board. Nor was I able to get passed a refined version of that plan which incorporated the comments of many league organizers. After further research with league organizers (the UPA held a league conference) and discussions with outside consultants, the question of the UPA and leagues remains one that the board is continuing to consider (to the best of my now out-of-date knowledge). This issue may also wind up being part of a long-term plan in which grows out of the strategic planning process now underway. I am supportive of such efforts. It's just that...<br /><br />...I am disappointed with myself for not having been able to produce more or induce more action with regard to leagues. Part of the mission of the UPA is to provide a framework for competition at all levels, and to foster the growth of ultimate in the US. Developing a true plan for incorporating leagues and/or league players into the UPA would help to uphold that mission.<br /><br />Of course, there are pros and cons on this issue. I see as most important the single "pro" that there are very many league players out there who would benefit from a roughly standardized "league product" a la youth soccer (AYSO) or USTA tennis tournaments for children. I also think the UPA should foster SOTG more actively than it currently does (how? That's another issue), and affiliated leagues would be one way of ensuring a universal standard.<br /><br />The biggest con is the difficulty in answering the questions, "What can the UPA do for my league? Why should I bother?" I believe that there is a good answer, as the UPA can offer the following benefits: providing insurance at discount rates through their blanket policy, on-line registration, tried-and-true processes and policies, start-up manuals, competitive formats, expanded newsletter coverage. The UPA *currently* offers some of these benefits to sponsored leagues and is developing others from this list. I think that the UPA can go further by rebating some of the revenue from new league members who join the UPA.<br /><br />There are many practical reasons to be hesitant; any new adventure has risks. Developing an on-line system is costly, and many leagues have already developed independent, incompatible systems? Why should they switch? Well, maybe they won't, but a central, on-line system could be extremely valuable to smaller leagues, as well as for information sharing and reporting. The on-line rostering system is a great example. And with any new program, there are mistakes at first, but there is learning, too. <br /><br />The UPA, in my opinion, has the money, clout and wherewithal to develop a sound league program and to continue to work to improve it until it is genuinely first-rate.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1136263723796416672006-01-02T22:38:00.000-06:002006-01-02T22:48:43.813-06:00Back and Blue?[This letter is a duplicate of a post to rec.sport.disc, written in response to Ken Dobyn's post regarding the book, Ultimate: The First Four Decades, by Pasquale Anthony Leonardo and Adam Zagoria. Ken Dobyn's orginal message of 12/29/05 is the first of the thread "Ultimate-The First Forty-Four Skewering." (Sorry, I was unable to create a link.)]<br /><br />Mr. Dobyns,<br /><br />You created a dynasty and culture of athletic excellence by dint of the force of your will, skill, and your considerable charisma. Generations of ultimate players respect your personal accomplishments and what you have done for the game.<br />Your voice carries the weight of decades at the height of the sport. Your influence extends worldwide.<br /><br />And THIS is how you choose to represent yourself? By a tirade against people who have devoted years to a project which may never break even? By initiating a spirit battle from a long-dead rivalry? By standing up for the disenfranchised "little people," i.e. the franchise known as Molly and Teens? By disparaging other styles of winning ultimate?<br /><br />One is heartened that the sands of time have not dulled your passion. One can fondly imagine that your pedantry in trying to set the record straight is indicative of the perfectionism and expectations you brought to your teams -- something most of us did not experience first-hand. One can enjoy the armchair view of a heated exchange.<br /><br />But for a man of such vision on the field, your literary view is verily myopic. In that great trove you deride is the collation of thousands of names, pictures, facts, statistics, rosters, stories, viewpoints and lore into ONE place. It is the first significant effort to record an oral history which would have died with age and fuzzy memories. It will give legions of players a sense of their sport and enrich their ultimate experience. It is a synthesis of different writing styles. It is a massive editing task. It is a rich visual presentation. You have belittled these accomplishments by overlooking them. The task of the writers need not have been "thankless."<br /><br />Criticism IS easy, because perfection is so hard. <br /><br />Your legacy, which clearly is still of great concern to you, includes the impressions of every person who ever played with, against, or near you -- those who remain in the game and those who do not. It also includes those whose introduction to a legend includes the bitter invective you just released. Would that you could have spared us, and yourself, that indiscretion!<br /><br />-Eric ZaslowEric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1129332385272753492005-10-14T18:24:00.000-05:002005-10-14T18:26:25.283-05:00Blog HiatusThis blog will go on hiatus until January 1, 2006. The reasons are simple:<br /><br />1. My team did not make the UPA Championship tournament in Sarasota.<br />I will lack fresh new insights about the state of the game (if ever I had them).<br />2. I don't want to write about the future of the sport while a member<br />of the Board of Directors of the UPA (term expires January 1), lest my opinions<br />be confused with those of the Board.<br />3. Given that the future and present of disc is off limits, writing about the past<br />would be dull.<br /><br />While on hiatus, I will (probably) not write new posts. I may respond to your<br />comments, however, which are most welcome. You can make them here.<br /><br />Thanks for your readership,<br />-zazEric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1128905959057777162005-10-09T19:58:00.000-05:002005-10-09T19:59:19.066-05:00Black Sunday: Say it Ain't So!I don't treat this space as a chronicle of my personal experiences, but today is a singular day. It is the worst day of ultimate in the history of the city of Chicago.<br /><br />First, my team, Machine, was eliminated in an upset during the hard cap by Madison. The cap went on at 12-13, which means that we finish the point and, if tied, play another. We lost 14-12. End of season for Chicago Open. After that body blow, I wanted to beat it. I can't bear the sight of watching the victors enjoy the spoils. I take losses hard enough as it is. But my carpool wanted to wallow in misery, so I scouted the tournament for other games of interest. I found them.<br /><br />Next up was the Mixed team, Mr. Briefcase, playing an elimination game against the Chad Larson Experience. Mr. B was up at least one upwind break. But tides turn, and we were soon watching another hard-cap game, this one all tied at 14. Sudden death. C'mon Briefcase! I was cheering like it was my own team. After a few turnovers, CLX flowed down the field and celebrated. Chicago Mixed was out.<br /><br />Still no ride home, so I quickly found Nemesis vs. Bait embroiled in their Betty Bowl elimination game -- winner goes to Sarasota. Nemesis got the disc on D but had to travel upwind to take it. The task proved too much, and Bait moved down to win. Chicago Women, for the first time in years and years and years, was out.<br /><br />That's it. No Show for Chicago.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1128043957164579132005-09-29T20:31:00.000-05:002005-09-29T20:33:56.066-05:00Am I Being Offensive?How do we measure an individual's contribution to offense? I recently posted some suggestions at Clueless Finn (hartti.com), and I want to expand on those remarks here.<br /><br />Before we can define a measure, i.e. a numerical value which tries to capture what we *mean* by offensive contribution, we first have to agree on what we are looking for. We can know good offense when we see it, and we're reasonably sure that it involves things like throwing percentage, scores thrown, scores caught, and offensive success fractions. But how do we combine our statistics to produce some reasonable numbers. In baseball, there are many kinds of measures, the most basic being batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. No single one tells the whole story, but we humans like to rank players, so we search for an overall measure.<br /><br />I think of a player's contribution as being how well s/he helps the offense keep or get back the disc and advance it toward (and into) the goal. In this view, a middle receiver may contribute greatly even if s/he never throws nor catches a goal. This "concept" of offensive contribution includes intangible factors like creating space for other cutters or effectively motivating a team to achieve that goal. Sadly, these intangibles will not be reflected very much in the index I define (except through osr -- see below).<br /><br />We are limited in defining a measure by the kinds of statistics that are available. With complete videographic data of every game, we could get very technical in our definition, but that would be impractical. Instead, I will assume that the statistics correspond to someone on the sideline marking who is in on a given point, and keeping track of every pass, recording whether it was <br /><br />1 : complete short, and who caught it,<br />2 : complete medium, and who caught it,<br />3 : complete long and who caught it,<br />T : throwaway,<br />D: drop, and who dropped it,<br />I : incomplete for other reasons (forced turnover)<br />G : goal, and who caught it<br /><br />also, on defense<br /><br />B : block or catch on defense.<br /><br />For our purposes, we can ignore other defensive data.<br /><br />Apologies to those who know how stats are taken and if these assumptions are unrealistic, but I am imagining charting offensive progress by a string of players a, b, c, d, e, f, g with the corresponding symbols. So, "a2c1f2Ge" would mean "a throws a medium-length pass to c who throws a short pass to f who throws a medium length goal to e," and "b3Df" would mean "b throws a long pass to f, who dropped it." In this way, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that ultimate teams are capable of recording statistics at this level of detail. There are probably much better ways.<br /><br />Given these data, we can form a few useful quantities.<br /><br />gt = goals thrown per point (less than or equal to one)<br /><br />gc = goals caught per point<br /><br />tlp = throwing length per possession = sum of the numbers (1, 2, or 3) of completed passes divided by the number of points played (for me, possession equals point on O).<br /><br />rlp = receiving length per possession = sum of the numbers (1, 2, or 3) of received passes divided by the number of points played.<br /><br />tep = throwing errors per point<br /><br />dp = drops per point<br /><br />bp = blocks per point (on defense)<br /><br />tr = throwing ratio = number of complete throws / number of throws (in fact I won't use this below, and this might cause some controversy).<br /><br />dbr = fraction of times defense causes a turnover (so (1-dbr) equals the fraction of times the defense gets scored on (without having caused any turnovers -- I won't worry about higher iterations).<br /><br />osr = offensive scoring ratio, i.e. the number of times a team scores on offense divided by the total number of times receiving the pull<br /><br />isr = individual scoring ratio, i.e. the percentage of times the team scores when player x is in on offense, divided the by the total percentage of times the team scores on offense.<br /><br />[isr is some overall measure of a player's effectiveness, but it is very crude, since s/he may have had nothing to do with her/his team's success. We will use this as an overall factor, rather than using this number alone. Thus, when all other things are equal, a player with higher osr is more effective. One nice thing about osr is that it *may* be able to differentiate between otherwise equal players through their intangible contributions which help the team score. Those are partly reflected in isr.]<br /><br />Okay, I will now consider 7 throwing lengths to be equal to one score caught.<br /><br />We can now give a rough measure the effective number of "scores" that a player is responsible for. (It doubly rewards goals caught or thrown, as they count toward two categories, but that's why I used 7 throwing lengths and not 6 or 5.) For example, a block leads to a possession on offense, which has a chance (osr) of leading to a score. So (bp)(osr) is gives the number of scores per point that a player creates through his/her blocks. (I know: the offensive squads and defensive squads are different, but whaddayagonnado.) The Unweighted Individual Scoring Index will be<br /><br />UISI = gt + gc + (tlp + rlp)/6 - (tep + dp)*(1 - dbr) + (bp)(osr)<br /><br />Finally, using isr, we get the Individual Scoring Index:<br /><br />ISI = (isr)(UISI).<br /><br />What do you think?Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1127677218567813172005-09-25T14:38:00.000-05:002005-09-25T14:40:18.573-05:00Tournament PrepWe all know that how you play at practice is how you play at a tournament. But on-field play is just about the only aspect of a tournament that can realistically be simulated at practice. And yet, the other aspects -- many games in a day, new O's and D's from opponents, sub calling, injuries, time pressures affecting preparation, the urge to socialize, travel fatigue and other logistics -- bear heavily on a team's performance.<br /><br />Granted, the rank and file need not think about all this, but the captain should. A team should have a strategy about how it is approaching a tournament or an individual game. That strategy should be communicated to the players. Pre-tourney, what is the plan? (Hint: don't make a plan unless you plan on following it! A plan is not just a statement; it must be enforced by an army of operatives, and overseen.) Pre-game, articulate the concept so your teammates do not feel like victims of an arbitrary policy of subbing. Without such a plan, subbing does indeed become haphazard, to no one's benefit. There should be contingencies -- what if we are getting blown out? or what if we're winning easily? At a more basic level, your players must know the role/niche they play/fill on your squad. This is much more important at tournaments than at practice, since playing time is more scarce.<br /><br />I think the only physical preparation is other tournaments. Make sure your players, if not your team as a whole, have gone to enough tournaments in a year to be ready for the prolonged intensity of the series.<br /><br />Tournament day arrives and people may scatter to find lunch or wander to nearby fields to watch friends play. Captains: don't be surprised by your teammates' urge to socialize. Try to set a realistic schedule based on your team's model (hardcore, competitive, just for fun). Again, don't set a schedule if you don't plan on following it.<br /><br />Some teams have begun full-day practices, and this is a great way of practicing the test. Of course, going to tournaments is itself great practice.<br /><br />I think most teams realize too late in the season how short a season can be. It's a good idea to start in June (or whenever) by drawing up a list of things a team needs to know and planning to get through all of them by sectionals or regionals. Leave blank slots for practicing how to counter unforeseen offenses or for repeating a formation that hasn't been working or that the team hasn't learned.<br /><br />All of this takes organization above and beyond the basic tasks of learning how to play better. Is it worth it? Generally, I'd say NO! In fact, most teams spend the bulk of their time bilging the hull and can't worry about ripples in the sails. So, plug the holes first, then make your craft yar!Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1127268798294813042005-09-20T21:12:00.000-05:002005-09-21T08:51:18.466-05:00The Thing About Ultimate...In writing about ultimate, I am constantly reminded of the universality of sports. So much of what is true about our sport is true about other sports: that it's crucial to understand spacing and weighting; that on-field/on-court conduct is a sore point in the community; that the governing organization has its critics; that there is a yearning for more media exposure; that successful play demands a reasoned, disciplined approach; that teamwork is about the field, the sidelines, and what's said and done away from the game; that sound play competes with flair within a team; that drive comes from within. All these things are important in ultimate, but not just ultimate. So what makes our sport different?<br /><br />1. The game itself. Okay, it's a great and exciting game, but the actual rules -- though necessarily unique to ultimate -- are plain and simple: move the disc into the endzone. The specific strategies which result from these rules are unique to ultimate, but the principles which guide them are not so novel (cf. basketball zones, soccer positioning, hockey or volleyball formations, football plays and defenses, etc.).<br /><br />2. The disc and how it flies. The beautiful and varied flight of a disc is unique in sports, and this lends our sport a real charm.<br /><br />3. Skying and layouts. A consequence of the disc's beautiful flight is the spectacular manner in which it can be caught. A dive, a sky, the combination of athleticism and grace -- these make playing fun.<br /><br />4. Self-officiating and SOTG. This aspect of ultimate offers something unique and appealing to the outside sporting world. Golf is largely self-officiated and tennis has its rules of etiquette, but neither of these concepts are as centrally embraced as in our sport.<br /><br />5. The community of players. Go anywhere and you will be welcomed on the playing field. You can find games of chess anywhere too, but it just ain't the same.<br /><br />As for (1), well any sport has its unique rules, and (5) may be true of balloonists, for all I know. (2) and (3) are related and part of the throw-catch spectacle. (4) is the subject of a series of blog posts, perhaps, but to avoid the appearance of partiality I won't do that until I am no longer on the UPA Board or the Conduct Committee.<br /><br />What's my point? Okay, this entry doesn't have razzle-dazzle, but (as readers of this site are well aware) not all thoughts do. In fact, these thoughts are more observations than points -- but I'll conclude by saying, if you love our sport then embrace what makes it distinct.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1126849532452156502005-09-16T00:44:00.000-05:002005-09-16T00:45:32.460-05:00The Name GameFancy words are for pseudointellectuals, right? You shouldn't need to use a sesquipedalian word to describe a foot-and-a-half-long hotdog, eh? You just say it's looonng!<br /><br />This argument is always in favor -- after all, learning big words can be hard. People flock to arguments supporting easy choices, like the ones which say that the body needs fat, that red wine is good for the heart, and that Jim Fixx died an early death.<br /><br />But words which succinctly replace long explanations for specific things or concepts are indispensible. How can you say, "I regretted granting parole to Willie Horton," without using the high-level concepts of regret, granting and parole? That short sentence (pun intended) would grow unwieldy without these crucial words.<br /><br />In sports and other areas of specialty, the special lexicon of terms of art serves as a way of "chunking" our knowledge so that we can use these chunks 1) to express ourselves more effectively, and 2) to create more sophisticated chunks incorporating deeper understanding. For example, if you were "tailgating" at the Bears game you were combining the concepts of party and pick-up truck. "Rubbernecking" involves traffic, accidents and curiosity. Examples abound.<br /><br />In disc, words like "cag," "gratuitous," and "strike" convey important concepts. New slang phrases appear when a pattern of behavior is recognized as functionally distinct from other patterns. For example, many different handlers move without the disc in many different ways, but those who play cag stay behind the disc for easy resets at the expense of yardage gain and significant repositioning. Likewise, the strike call recognizes that free cutters up the sideline pose a unique kind of threat. When we say to a defender, "poach off the cag and clog the lane," we are communicating a sophisticated concept which requires the defender to know about the cag as well as poaching, positioning and throwing lanes. We need the previous terminology to issue the demand. If this behavior becomes so useful and popular (it won't), the sport may endow it with a name of its own, like "clagging." Think about how specific the squeeze play is in baseball. You need significant chunking to describe it.<br /><br />We need to be able to refer to our game and its structures quickly and easily, and a growing lexicon helps us do that. Teams have their own terminology for positions and plays as well. Disc argot is different in different regions, too. When a certain group understands and accepts a terminology, there is a common knowledge base from which to grow.<br /><br />None of this is revolutionary, but the (underappreciated?) point is that when terminology is not standardized (say, on your team) it is a real impediment to understanding and growth. A classic example is when you have just switched defenders with a teammate and he shouts "Stay!" Stay switched, or stay with the original? Another example is when rookies are not systematically instructed about the team's phrases. This sink-or-swim philosophy can only hurt the team.<br /><br />Vive la dictionnaire!Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1126280478663984532005-09-09T10:37:00.000-05:002005-09-09T10:41:18.670-05:00Big Time SportsThere's always talk about ultimate "going pro" and fantasies about the major networks covering ultimate, a touring circuit, etc. We're a long way away, and I'm not talking about marketability, referees or any corporate obstacles to the Big Time. I'm talking about how bad we are.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I'm no better than anyone else. The problem is, we're all bad. Oh, sure, we have excuses: "No one's paying us to play ultimate all day long." But this isn't about excuses or the fact that there aren't national development programs which nurture talented youth. It's just about the way it is.<br /><br />My intent here is to identify what we need to start expecting of ourselves *athletically* (as opposed to administratively) before bringing our sport to the next level, and to highlight how far we have left to go.<br /><br />First, there's the skill. I'm sorry, but there are far too many unforced errors for a sport with any kind of design on professionalism. We're talking about reasonably basic errors like throws to open cutters or drops. The situation reminds one of the difficulties the WNBA faced(s?), especially early on.<br /><br />Then, there's the athleticism. Soccer is a close companion to ultimate and you don't see the World Cup riddled with 40-year-olds the way we have in our sport. There's the occasional old-timer at midfield for play development, but that's about it. The reason so many can hang in our sport at old age is because experience still counts for a lot. It should, but not *that* much. If our sport were tighter, there would be less latitude for the elderly.<br /><br />Third, there's the discipline. Most teams employ some kind of general offensive arrangement because we don't have the discipline either to memorize sophisticated schemes or plays or to work them effectively. It's not uncommon to see dodos running around like chickens with their heads cut off because they don't know the play. This kind of behavior is almost unfathomable in professional sports -- certainly at the frequency it happens in ours. Reasons? First, there are so few coaches. Coaches enforce team structures and discipline. Second, sporadic practice attendance means that even if you've practiced plays as a team, it is likely that for any particular play, *someone* on your team doesn't know it. Although offense is not as much of a "weakest link" arrangement as defense, captains/coaches are unwilling to use plays that players might not know.<br /><br />Finally, there is so little "institutional knowledge" in our sport. What I mean by this is best illustrated by a comparison with basketball. Every hack who hoops it up can shoot a reasonable lay-up, jump shot, knows the basics of man-to-man and zone defense, also knows a thing or two about dribbling, passing, rebounding, body position, cutting, knows a few drills, and knows some of the sport's history, key phrases and culture. In ultimate, such a person is way above the rank and file, and all too often we call him/her "Captain."<br /><br />We've come a long way, baby, but, like 1970's feminism, we've got oh so far to go.Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15255618.post-1126189985899561662005-09-08T09:22:00.000-05:002005-09-08T09:33:05.930-05:00Peak Age for Ultimate?[Apologies for lack of posts while (still) on vacation. This will be brief.]<br /><br />I have always felt instinctively that 28 was the optimal age for ultimate. Somehow, this age represents for me a time when muscles are well developed, age deterioration is minimal, stamina is good, the mind has lost the knowitallness of adolescence, curmudgeonliness has not set in, yet a considerable wealth of experience has been amassed -- but not so much that ossification of the mind has begun. In my personal experience and observation, 28 represents all these things. Also, I have always just liked this number, since it is "perfect" (equal to the sum of its divisors: 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14).<br /><br />Clearly I am swayed by my own prejudices. In a running event, e.g., you can pretty much statistically prove that some certain age is optimal, but this is harder in a team sport. I wonder if people generally concur with my own assessment or if feelings differ greatly?Eric Zaslowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05162063502472187099noreply@blogger.com4