zazblog

Mental Intensity, a checklist

2011-10-03T19:46:00.002-05:00

A large part of the game has nothing to do with execution,
and everything to do with getting our minds in the right place.
This takes energy (hard to focus when you're huffing and puffing)
and foresight (these thoughts don't just happen on their own).

Here's a checklist of things we should be doing. (Additions welcome.)

* know the D (sideline included)

* know the call and think about your role before it happens

* remember to chase swill / play the rebound / run it down

* if you don't know, remember to ask (the D, the call, for help,...)

* call it Up!

* expect the underneath after the initial burst, or some other change of direction

* anticipate: defenders, get yourself into position before the cut happens

* don't ever get beat to the near cone (a mindset)

* be ready for a clever play (no-look pass, no walk-up, no countdown)

* ask your teammates if they're ready before you tap it in

* call your poaches

* use your peripheral vision: handlers, look for poaches; markers, see
what's developing around you

Plays

2010-06-04T08:05:00.002-05:00

From a recent e-mail:

I think that plays fall last in a hierarchy that goes

1. Principles
2. Formations
3. Audibles/Directives
4. Plays

As for 1, a team can't operate in flow unless people know
what to do based on what's happening on the field -- and
time spent together should be used to make sure that
the team's principles are shared (and understood) knowledge
among the players. Principles like (for example)
look downfield first, take what they give you on offense,
right-of-way to the downfield cutter, communicate
actionable information, move it off the
line, through-or-over against zone D, ....

With principles in play, formations (2) are important. How
do we structure our endzone? What is our Ho stack, exactly,
and what should we be looking to do with it? Which cutters
get preference? How do handlers set up? How do they dump,
reset?

As for 3, audibles can tell us who should cut, and where,
how to focus the O or D [such as, "move left" or "endzone"],
or how to get out of a jam [a signal for give-and-go or
break-mark]. Even just having signals for
break-mark and deep cut might be enough.

Finally come plays, which are usually only useful
off of stoppages, and only if people are in position
and have the wherewithal to set it up. Typically
it will unfold as follows: travel call; handler
thinks to call a play rather late during the stoppage,
just before the tap in; four of the six other players hear
the call; two of those four are not in position and start to
head into position only after the tap comes; the
timing of the start of the play is off, and one or
two of those who didn't hear the play have gotten
in the way or somehow messed it up by not being
aware. Because a play involves lots of people
knowing what to do and implementing this knowledge
in unison and on cue, it is the hardest thing to
do. The HUGE majority of deep cuts, for example,
come from opportunistic cutting, not plays.

Teams should acknowledge these difficulties
openly and honestly, freeing themselves from
the lie that plays make the difference.
1, 2, and 3 make the difference. Plays, if
used at all, are icing. If a team *does*
acknowledge these truths,
then it should focus its time
according to its priorities.

Thanks for listening,

-zaz

ALL GROWED UP

2009-08-14T20:45:00.001-05:00

(Or, Generation H and the Search for a Stackless O)

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.

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.)

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.
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?

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.

But what if there's another path?

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?

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.)

(Maybe they're already there. Tell me about them.)

Worlds: USA Masters vs. Canada

2008-08-05T09:33:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

His Masters Choice

2008-08-03T00:18:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Moral Relativist and the Ho

2008-07-17T23:27:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

DoGgernaut

2007-10-23T23:10:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

Spirit of the Rules?

2007-07-23T13:41:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

On-field conduct is simply way more important.

Examples from actual play:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

The Rules Game, Part III

2007-07-12T20:16:00.000-05:00

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

XVI VIOLATIONS AND FOULS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XVI.I I like this writing.

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

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

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

XVII POSITIONING

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

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

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

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

XVIII OBSERVERS

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

XIX ETIQUETTE

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

The Rules Game, Part II

2007-07-09T21:29:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

IX. IN- AND OUT-OF-BOUNDS

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

X END ZONE POSSESSION

XI SCORING

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

XII TURNOVERS

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

XIII THE THROWER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XIV.B.2 The metric thing, again.

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

XV THE RECEIVER

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

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

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

The Rules Game, Part I

2007-07-04T20:43:00.001-05:00

Here is what I mean by the rules game: try reading the rules
like a lawyer and develop hypothetical loopholes. Much of the
time, these loopholes run counter to SOTG, but this is just
an intellectual exercise, after all. Sometimes, interesting questions
arise. These comments are written purely for fun, and
to point out ambiguities, logical errors and the like (but not
trivial grammatical errors). You can view the rules at
http://www3.upa.org/ultimate/rules/11th

The longtime UPA board member Henry Thorne would say
that I'm trying to "Zazzify" the rules, a term with negative and positive (?)
connotations.

Here goes.

Disclaimers:
1. Building consistent rules is a GARGANTUAN task and these rules
function INCREDIBLY well. They (all the editions) are an awesome achievement,
and serve hundreds of thousands of games without incident.
1. This is NOT A CRITIQUE and NOT A REVIEW of these excellent rules.
2. I have NOT DONE MY HOMEWORK, i.e. I have not read all existing rules
threads.
3. I haven't read the rules thoroughly since, well... um, ever?
4. I know that it is easier to find fault than to repair.
5. This is an amateur and unofficial exercise.
6. The comments are stream of consciousness, and possibly
inconsistent with one another.

These comments (Part I) cover the Preface through Section VIII.

PREFACE

[none]

I. INTRODUCTION

I.A [none]

I.B "never at the expense of mutual respect..." So does this
mean that you are completely spirited as long as your actions
do not diminish the joy of play, etc., for the opposing team, or
does perfect spirit require that you enhance the experience
of your competitors? This was a long-ish discussion among the
committee trying to establish a standard SOTG ranking system.

I.C So we can play ultimate under the variation of the rules:
replace rulebook with the rules of poker (or Rochambeau)?
When does approval of the TD take place? Or what if a rogue
TD actually does approve? (And shouldn't "event organizer"
be replaced by "TD" or something more germaine, as the
organizer may not even know how to play ultimate?)

I.D What about logistical changes that are necessitated
AFTER competition starts (say, for a hurricane, e.g.)?

I.E Interesting "fudge factor" to cover inconsistencies.
Shall we take I.E as a general or a specific rule?

II. DEFINITIONS

II.A [none]
II.B This definition seems backwards. Don't I determine retention
of possession by whether or not a pass was complete, and not
define completeness through retaining possession?
II.C The second part of this definition is a rule, not a definition.
II.D [none]
II.E [none]
II.F [none]
II.G "Reacting"? to the offensive player. So, if I am guarding one
player when another player within three meters suddenly breaks
free of his defender and I "react" by yelling "help!" to my teammates,
I am now guarding him? So I can be guarding two or more players?
Maybe... I'll have to read on.
II.H [none]
II.I [none]
II.J This definition ALMOST does what it should. The problem on an
unlined field is the sideline. With cones at the front and backs of
endzone there are four possible line segments you could draw
by picking the front or back of one endzone and the front or back of
the other. This definition should specify something like the "shortest"
possible line segment, or some such verbiage which makes the front-front
line segment the only correct one. (The definition clarifies one point of contention.
For example, if you are on the sideline near a goal, you could draw a
line which extends the segment from the back cone to the front cone of
the endzone you are near. This extension would not technically be
a "line segment between two field markers" are therefore does not apply.)
II.K The second part of this definition is not sharp enough. There could
be several offensive players and therefore several defensive players
within three meters (and why succumb to metric with all those crazy
numbers like 23 meters? why not just say "ten feet" and suck up the
two-inch difference?).
II.L [none]
II.M "body"? not "foot"? Can I establish a pivot nose? (In my case, this
might just be possible.)
II.N "up to" fourteen? Why not just "fourteen"? 'Cause of the captain's clause?
But then there could be more than fourteen. Or maybe it's because a team is
allowed to play with fewer than seven? (Is this true?) Or, if you can't write a correct
number, don't write a number.
II.O [none]
II.P [none]
II.Q Is this any different from "possession"? And doesn't the game start
with a pull, which is NOT a scoring attempt? Probably I am wrong and
this definition is needed to clarify some time-cap ruling.
II.R [none]
II.S [none]
II.T 1. Why this 1? The pull is a throw, but not a pass, no?
II.U [none]

III. PLAYING FIELD [none]

IV. EQUIPMENT

IV.E "unfairly"? What a strange choice of words. How do I determine
whether my assistance is fair or unfair? Why not just remove the word?

V. LENGTH OF GAME

Strangely organized section. Part A, game to goals, Part B, halftime, Part C,
overtime. No comments, otherwise.

VI. TIME-OUTS

VI.B.1 70 seconds? I thought 90. Maybe it will be 70 + 20
to restart play?
VI.B.4 Presumably the phrase "that has survived ground
contact" rules out calling a time-out in the middle of a "greatest" play?
"Survived" is a funny word. "Sustained," maybe?
"Should audibly say"? -- so that's not a requirement? I think all use of
judgment and subjective words like "should" and "unfairly" should be
omitted. Either you have to say time-out or you don't. There is enough
relaxing of the rules during the context of play that the rulebook itself need
not be soft on matters. I would require it, as an accidental formation of a
"T" with the disc does not create a time-out.
VI.B.5.b Here the time issue is mistreated. If the maximum time-out is
seventy seconds, then 20 seconds for the defense *cannot possibly* be longer than the
90-second limit, and therefore that clause should be removed. Here again
the rules are soft, implicitly acknowledging that in practice time-outs last
much longer than 70 seconds.
VI.B.5.c "over 8"? Isn't this equivalent to 9, since 10 would have been a stall?
Maybe just "but not more than 9"? Anyway, it's clear enough.
VI.B.5.d This speaks back to enforcing parts a and b, but doesn't really
clarify the issue. Anyway, how does the defense invoke the rule of making
the offense restart the disc?

VI.C How do we call an injury time-out? Are there special signals?
VI.C.4 Note that there is no penalty to a defensive team with no time-outs
remaining that calls injury time-outs for noninjured fellow members. I guess
there couldn't be a penalty, but this is conceivably something that could
be exploited against SOTG. Remember, we only set up with the same
positions before the time-out, not the same momenta!
VI.C.6 If a team calls an injury time-out between points (thinking that they
would need more time, say, due to an injury) but then does
not substitute the player (say if it was called by a teammate that did not
understand that the player only tripped) are they charged with a team time-out?
What if they have no team time-outs? Who is the team in possession of the
disc after a point? I thought that possession didn't really apply to the
team that was pulling (see definitions) since that team has not caught
a pass?

VI.D.1&2 So there is no way of dealing with an opponent who maliciously
warps the disc during play, say by spiking in anger after missing a catch? So now
you have to play with a warped disc or correct it on your own stall count?
I didn't realize this.
VI.D.4.a.2 What does it mean to be "charged" with a technical time-out?
There are no limits on them, as far as I can tell.

VII PLAYER SUBSTITUTIONS [none]

VIII STARTING AND RESTARTING PLAY

VIII.B.3 Two players on the field? Can we really play with just two?
I'm sure that I've been in point-assessing situations where the other team
had at least two players. So they could have given it a go? I thought there
was a minimum of, like, five.
VIII.B.4.d&e Seems like the off-sides penalty is worse with an observer
than without (just a repull).
VIII.B.4.e.2 So for a weak-pulling team against a very strong wind (so that they
could only throw it, say, 25 meters) in a game with observers, it is in their
advantage to wildly violate the off-sides rule so that the opposing team gets
the disc at midfield. I've actually been on decent teams where the pull went
backward (okay, that was a hurricane -- but it happens!).
Viii.B.5 Again, it pays to mack a bad pull until it is far, since the only
penalty is re-pull (yes, I understand the penalty philosophy in ultimate,
this is just for fun).
VIII.B.6.d.2 So on a really out-of-bounds pull, say one that goes over
a fence and is not easily recoverable, I may sustain a delay-of-game
penalty because I can't call "re-pull" anymore and I can't get the disc in-play in time?
VIII.B.6.d.2.a So I can call "brick" on a really short, out-of-bounds pull, and
put it in at the brick mark if I choose. This may be useful for a team which uses
a very wide array of set plays requiring a start at the brick mark.
As far as I can assess, there's nothing unspirited about this.
Could even foil a team which is great at endzone D but not so good at
open-field D that intentionally pulls short.
VIII.B.9 So if I drop it but a teammate of mine catches it (before it hits the ground)
and then hands it back to me, we're okay? What if he dives to catch it and it hits
the ground (in his possession) before he gives it back.
What is his legal status? He is not the
"thrower" as far as I can tell, but some temporary substitute (since the rule specifies
that I am the thrower), so does that mean that the disc is NOT considered
part of him, and therefore a it is a turnover? This teammate is in some legal limbo
(can he challenge his detention?).
VIII.B.10 I recently could have benefited from knowing this rule. I was
the thrower putting the disc into play and there was a defender standing
right there while my teammate (Jim P of blog fame) was cutting deep, open.
But the opponent, for whatever reason, didn't check the disc quickly. Had
I ground-checked it immediately it would have been an easy completion. As it
was, it turned out much closer (but still complete). Would it have been unspirited
to self-check the disc on a pull even with the defender right there? I don't
think so. I don't think it is a question of spirit at all, just a question of rules.
Here is an instance where being a rule stickler could really help. Still, I'm
not sure that there would be consensus within the community on this one.
VIII.C.2 Again, if the D has to signal by 70 seconds, how can adding 20
possibly be more than 90? If these two cases are kept, there should be
a reference to a delay-of-game procedure, at least, I feel.
VIII.D.3a "whether complete or incomplete." I bet that few such incomplete
throws are re-done.

Spirit on the Brain

2007-03-02T08:52:00.000-06:00

The 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.

Thanks for your help!

-zaz

Revised Proposal

2007-01-09T18:24:00.000-06:00

Here is a revised version of the spirit ranking
proposal, worked out after consultation with Will
Deaver (Director of Championships) and others.

This proposal has the endorsement of:

Will Deaver, Director of Championships, UPA
Jim Parinella, Former President of the UPA
Kate Bergeron, Former President of the UPA

Feel free to comment and add your name to the
list of endorsers.

Thanks,
-zaz

Proposed--

That the UPA
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.
2. Require Admin to ensure ranking guidelines are communicated to captains of teams whose spirit scores are to be collected.
3. Include guidelines along with other "conduct" literature used for training UPA event personnel.
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.
5. Administer the collection and processing of spirit rankings as follows:
a) Collect spirit rankings at every game at UPA championships for college and club, and for HS Easterns/Westerns and YCC.
b) Establish a Team Spirit Award
for each division at the events of part (5a), given to the team that receives the highest overall average spirit ranking.
c) Collect spirit rankings at the finals of regionals for college and club divisions
d) Expand the collection and processing of spirit rankings beyond 5.a, 5.b, 5.c as resources allow
[Note: Items 5.a and 5.b describe the current practice of the UPA.]
6. Implement items 2-5 by September 1, 2007, or within a month of approval of new guidelines, whichever comes LATER.

Proposal, Part Deux

2006-12-07T07:40:00.000-06:00

[This is a follow-up post to the one of Dec. 5, 2006.]

I will file the proposal (below) with the UPA. I hope that it will be put on the
agenda for the annual meeting of the Board of Directors. Any readers
who wish to help ensure that happens, please comment as such and
I will include the comments as supplementary material to the proposal.
Thanks,

-zaz

------------

Spirit Ranking System Proposal

BACKGROUND:

Part of the mission of the UPA is to "uphold the Spirit of the Game."
The UPA also seeks to foster and promote SOTG. One problem is
getting an accurate measure of SOTG: where it is best and worst,
how it is changing over time, and what effects the UPA's actions have
on it.

This proposal states that the UPA will form guidelines for ranking
spirit scores at tournaments. Currently, there is already a ranking
system in place at many tournaments. This proposal would formalize
some aspects of that system and lead to the adoption of concrete
guidelines for spirit scores. The problem with current spirit scores
is that they are rather arbitrary, often arrived at whimsically by a
team at the end of a tiring game ("Four? Yeah, sure. Four it is!").

With standards of spirit, the UPA could reliably compare SOTG
in different regions, among different divisions, and in different
time periods.

Guidelines example---

Score:

1. Multiple incidents of acrimonious disputes involving
derision, name-calling, or taunting.
One team unhappy with level of physicality.
2. Game marked by one acrimonious dispute or several
smaller disputes involving needling remarks or other players
getting involved. Some level of disrespect in evidence.
One team unhappy with level of physicality.
3. Game played without any significant incident. Perhaps a few emotional
outbursts or disputed calls with terse words, but no overt signs of
disrespect. Both teams generally agree on the level of physicality.
4. Game played without incident and with evident good will
between teams. One or two areas of dispute settled
civilly, if not amicably. Both teams happy with level
of physicality.
5. Game played without incident and with evident
good will between teams. Contested foul calls were
honored with respect and without emotional outbursts.
Both teams happy with level of physicality. No heckling from team members.

Notes: A score of "5" does not require any cheers, colorful antics,
or "give-back" calls. This measure of SOTG is entirely distinct
from the "spirit" of ultimate: its zany characters, inside jokes, and
cultural touchstones like Rochambeau.

PROPOSAL:

That the UPA
1. Create and adopt guidelines for SOTG scores by April 1, 2007.
2. Require volunteers collecting spirit scores to verify familiarity with, and/or
distribute, the adopted guidelines to team captains before collecting scores.
3. Require that all UPA-certified observers know the guidelines.
4. Print "Ten Things You Need to Know About SOTG" on the back of waiver forms.
5. Expand the collection of spirit scores beyond the current limited
system (at the least, to include regional tournaments).
6. Implement items 1-5 by September 1, 2007.

PROS/CONS:

This proposal aims to improve an existing scoring system which is currently
ad hoc and arbitrary. There are no drawbacks to such an improvement, although
the efforts could conceivably be seen as heavy-handed. I don't think the
hand is heavy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal or none.

CONCLUSION: Spirit scores should mean something. The UPA should
standardize them. Reliable SOTG measurements will allow the
UPA to focus on areas of poor spirit and learn from teams/divisions
which exemplify SOTG. The UPA could also reward and publicize
the efforts of outstanding teams. All this helps to *foster* and *promote*
SOTG, not just "uphold" it.

Spirit Score Guidelines: A Proposal

2006-12-05T22:53:00.000-06:00

I am writing to suggest a proposal to the UPA and to solicit your feedback.

The mission of the UPA currently is, in part, "to uphold the Spirit of the Game."
As chair and member of the Conduct committee, I tried to do just that,
including drafting the code of conduct. Standards of conduct and rules for
their consistent enforcement are ways of upholding fair play.

Personally, I think that "uphold" is not a strong enough
word. I think the UPA should "foster and promote" the SOTG.
(No, my proposal is not about changing the mission statement,
though I would support doing so.)
Talking about SOTG is one way that the ultimate community
reinforces its values. I tried to make the *practice* of SOTG
a bit more concrete by drafting Ten Things You Should Know
About Spirit of the Game (www.upa.org/spirit/10Things),
a practical guide to good behavior.

Still, this classifies as "just talk." It was my intention then, and is my
proposal now, to follow "Ten Things" up with something somewhat
more tangible.

Oddly, the thing which makes discussing SOTG difficult
is that we have no measure of the state of spirit;
whether it is getting better or worse over time; and
whether any effort to improve it is working, or would work.

To this end, I would like to develop a standard for measuring
SOTG. A very crude measurement is spirit scores. It is crude
because there is no rubric for creating a spirit score -- a captain
or group of players usually just picks a number out of mid-air.
"Three." "Five." "Four." "Whatever." What's good about taking spirit scores
is that it is a mechanism already in place for gauging spirit. Scores are
taken at many tournaments. The administration for collecting SOTG data
is already up and running. The problem is that the data is unreliable.
There are no standards.

My proposal is that the UPA adopt the following set of guidelines for
spirit scores.

Score:

1. Multiple incidents of acrimonious disputes involving
derision, name-calling, or taunting.
2. Game marked by one acrimonious dispute or several
smaller disputes involving needling remarks or other players
getting involved. Some level of disrespect in evidence.
3. Game played without any significant incident. Perhaps a few emotional
outbursts or disputed calls with terse words, but no overt signs of
disrespect.
4. Game played without incident and with evident good will
between teams. One or two areas of dispute settled
civilly, if not amicably.
5. Game played without incident and with evident
good will between teams. Contested foul calls were
honored with respect and without emotional outbursts. No
heckling from the sideline.

Notes: A score of "5" does not require any cheers, colorful antics,
or "give-back" calls. This measure of SOTG is entirely distinct
from the "spirit" of ultimate: its zany characters, inside jokes, and
cultural touchstones like Rochambeau. Physicality of the game
is not mentioned. (N.B.: perhaps the guidelines should address
the possibility that one team voices unhappiness with the physicality,
to no avail.)

Of course, this will not change spirit overnight. But it would give us
a way of collecting reliable statistics about SOTG. We could:
* determine areas of superb SOTG, and then learn what's working;
* determine areas of spirit deficit, pointing where we should focus efforts;
* give relative comparisons of spirit over time and across regions;
* identify teams with exemplary spirit, e.g. for awards

Without reliable information about SOTG, efforts to foster and promote
it will be too broad and too blunt. My proposal is...

That the UPA:

1. Adopt the above guidelines for SOTG scores.
2. Print the guidelines as part of the literature for every UPA-sanctioned event,
and require TD's to announce and distribute them at the captain's meeting.
3. Require that observers learn the guidelines.
4. Print "Ten Things" on the back of waiver forms.

Cynics will see such moves as either heavy-handed and/or cornballish.
I think it is "handed," but not too heavy, and I'll take cornball if it's effective.
What do you think? Your voiced support will buttress the proposal. Your
disapproval could dissuade me from submitting.

What Now?

2006-01-11T19:53:00.000-06:00

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.

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.

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...

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Back and Blue?

2006-01-02T22:38:00.000-06:00

[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.)]

Mr. Dobyns,

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.
Your voice carries the weight of decades at the height of the sport. Your influence extends worldwide.

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?

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.

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."

Criticism IS easy, because perfection is so hard.

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!

-Eric Zaslow

Blog Hiatus

2005-10-14T18:24:00.000-05:00

This blog will go on hiatus until January 1, 2006. The reasons are simple:

1. My team did not make the UPA Championship tournament in Sarasota.
I will lack fresh new insights about the state of the game (if ever I had them).
2. I don't want to write about the future of the sport while a member
of the Board of Directors of the UPA (term expires January 1), lest my opinions
be confused with those of the Board.
3. Given that the future and present of disc is off limits, writing about the past
would be dull.

While on hiatus, I will (probably) not write new posts. I may respond to your
comments, however, which are most welcome. You can make them here.

Thanks for your readership,
-zaz

Black Sunday: Say it Ain't So!

2005-10-09T19:58:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's it. No Show for Chicago.

Am I Being Offensive?

2005-09-29T20:31:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

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).

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

1 : complete short, and who caught it,
2 : complete medium, and who caught it,
3 : complete long and who caught it,
T : throwaway,
D: drop, and who dropped it,
I : incomplete for other reasons (forced turnover)
G : goal, and who caught it

also, on defense

B : block or catch on defense.

For our purposes, we can ignore other defensive data.

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.

Given these data, we can form a few useful quantities.

gt = goals thrown per point (less than or equal to one)

gc = goals caught per point

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).

rlp = receiving length per possession = sum of the numbers (1, 2, or 3) of received passes divided by the number of points played.

tep = throwing errors per point

dp = drops per point

bp = blocks per point (on defense)

tr = throwing ratio = number of complete throws / number of throws (in fact I won't use this below, and this might cause some controversy).

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).

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

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.

[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.]

Okay, I will now consider 7 throwing lengths to be equal to one score caught.

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

UISI = gt + gc + (tlp + rlp)/6 - (tep + dp)*(1 - dbr) + (bp)(osr)

Finally, using isr, we get the Individual Scoring Index:

ISI = (isr)(UISI).

What do you think?

Tournament Prep

2005-09-25T14:38:00.000-05:00

We 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

The Thing About Ultimate...

2005-09-20T21:12:00.000-05:00

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?

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.).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Name Game

2005-09-16T00:44:00.000-05:00

Fancy 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vive la dictionnaire!

Big Time Sports

2005-09-09T10:37:00.000-05:00

There'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

We've come a long way, baby, but, like 1970's feminism, we've got oh so far to go.

Peak Age for Ultimate?

2005-09-08T09:22:00.000-05:00

[Apologies for lack of posts while (still) on vacation. This will be brief.]

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).

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?

Siren Song

2005-09-01T23:00:00.000-05:00

Your team's down by two, you're in the red zone and the D is fierce. You need this score, but the force-side cone is covered like a Chicago hot dog. What do you do? Zip the i/o flick!

The snappy inside-out forehand break is the most dangerous throw in ultimate. It can cripple a D -- or an O, depending on how it flies. I'm talking about the big-time breaker, not the one right up the middle.

It easy to release, almost anyone can let it fly. Just get your arm down low and flick quickly and you'll get it past the mark. Not catchable? Sailed too fast? Too much angle? Too little? Wormburner straight into the ground? Oh, but he was OPEN! And it's just so easy to release! It's no wonder people go overboard with this throw.

On the other hand, when the beast is tamed and an effective quick break is deployed, it's a thing of beauty -- and you can go under the marker's hand or step out and avoid him entirely. Get it right and the D is faced with a weak side player catching a break throw in-stride (or in goal).

Sure, hucks hold high promise but they stand out so much that intemperate teammates are usually admonished (if not chastened) and the problem is apparent to all. Not so the quick invert, since it is a short, undramatic turnover when it fails. It just seems so quick and easy that people underestimate how hard it is and how often it results in a turnover.

In fact, its siren song is so alluring that it takes year's to see this i/o for the temptress that it is. We should require ten year's of disc experience before letting our young tars flirt with this seductress.

Maybe it's no surprise, then, that our team's best forehand i/o comes from it's oldest player (J.H.).

The Curse of Tier 2

2005-08-30T10:21:00.000-05:00

I have had the good fortune of being on teams at a great variety of levels. For the past several years, I have been in Chicago playing on a national-level team, but one firmly in the second tier. This is one of the hardest positions for a team to be in, regardless of the divison. There are a number of reasons.

1. The curse of the middle class: no time for fun. People in the middle class are able to acquire possessions and the responsibilities that go with them, but lack the time to enjoy them. The same thing is true in the second tier. A Tier 2 team could, if it wished, skip sprints, drills, and other workouts and have lots of fun while still having an okay team. They wouldn't make it to The Show, but compared to those years where they struggle and don't make it anyway, it seems like a tempting choice. In the end, they ask themselves, was all the struggle we made in getting to the middle class worth it? It's a good question with no easy answers.

2. When to peak? When there's no guarantee of making it to "nationals" (this is a common designation for the UPA Championship Series, and I will continue to use it here as an abbreviation for the longer, more appropriate, term), do you plan to peak at regionals or nationals? If you train to peak at nationals and then don't make it, well... that sucks. On the other hand, if you peak at regionals and do well, but your team is spent by late October (or May for college), you may be in for a disappointment -- for no matter how many "pump it up" speeches you throw at your team, you can only buck a body's physiology so much.

3. Sub to win or sub to learn? At a non-ladder tourney during the season, should you try to win or try to learn as much as you can, keeping October (or May) in mind? Winning keeps team confidence up, but to win you might have to bench some of the newbies. Your team might lose the depth it needs for a four-day tournament, and the morale among rookies may suffer. On the other hand, if you sub to learn, your team may get eliminated, meaning fewer games, less learning, less experience for the newbies and low confidence.

The same considerations apply to what strategies you use during play. If you use that zone you're developing, you may learn something but lose the game. If you go with your bread and butter, you may do well but be left with a meager bag of tricks for Sarasota (or wherever).

These issues do not affect the top tier, who can comfortably prepare for nationals by using tournaments (even most of regionals) for development. Likewise, the lower tiers are typically happier just having fun with their bread-and-butter style.

4. The path of least resistance is hard not to follow. This observation is similar to the above, but the new point is that even if you have resolved Question 3 and opted for development, there is a force aligned against you -- for it is simply hard to turn your back on what's working. And yet the path which has least resistance now may look different in a few weeks' time.

5. The rich get richer. The top tier teams can treat most non-nationals tournament as learning experiences; they see more semifinals and finals games; they have more games against better competitors where they see a greater variety of strategies. As a result, the top-level teams continue to improve at a good clip, and unless the Tier 2 teams work their tails off (or even so), the gap between rich and poor widens.

6. Institutional Knowledge. Top-level teams benefit immensely from the collective wisdom of current and former players. While a great deal has been written about ultimate and is available to the general player, even more has not. Anyway, publication of information is a far cry from having it understood and internalized by the public. (Examples: Darfur, Rwanda.) Top-level teams have players who mentor younger players into a proven way of practicing, preparing and playing ultimate. Moreover, there is often a culture which perpetuates what works. All this is sorely absent in the second tier (and others).

7. Rebuilding. If you're in the second tier and you want to move up, it's hard to be happy with a performance at nationals that doesn't indicate such growth and it's hard to make quarters. So, year in, year out, teams look for that South Beach or Atkins diet which is going to solve all their problems. They reconfigure, reformulate, revise, recruit, rename and rebuild. Sometimes the new haircut makes you feel good about yourself. Sometimes you win that extra game; sometimes not. Either way, your roots and doubts eventually return. For maybe the renaming buys confidence in a two-year experiment, but at some point the stockholders start looking at the bottom
line.

In all the scrambling for success, long-term (multi-year) strategies for growth are omitted.

8. Emotional Toll. No matter what you know to be true, the rollercoaster ride of so many close games decided by the fickle hands of fate -- a block here, a drop there -- is hard on the soul. Phil Michaelson's difficult wait for his Masters jacket pales by comparison to the plight of journeyman golfers who subsist on the tour, toiling every week just to make the cut. Their struggle is our struggle: the curse of Tier 2.

I have no answers for all these problems, only first-hand experience at how gutwrenchingly real they all are.

Discs and Demagogues

2005-08-26T11:13:00.000-05:00

"`Never play zone when there's no wind.' We called
this `Tito's rule.'" "Who's Tito?" "He's a masters player from the
Western Plains. He's awesome."

"When the disc is stopped, look for a cut from the front of
the stack. We always used to play this way in college and
we had a great team. We made nationals my senior year!"

"You want to move the disc through the middle of the field
in the horizontal stack. That's what my summer league
captain taught us, and he was really good."

"In corporate league we never played zone D with two deeps."

[Readers: more examples?]

When we're young and learning, we have impressionable minds,
and these impressions linger long past their "use by" date.
Children *should* trust their teachers, but a teen who
enters college still believing her sixth grade teacher's
description of the UN as a place "where all the countries of
the world get together and do what's right for everyone"
is in for a rude awakening. Business school tykes often
quote their favorite corporate magnate even in non-business
matters, as though wealth and wisdom were one and the same.

The same thing happens in disc all the time. We repeat
mantras and rules without understanding for ourselves why
they're true. We accept explanations for HOW something
should happen, rather than a WHY that makes sense, as long
as it comes from a source we've chosen to trust -- even
though that trust is often given for arbitrary reasons.
Blind faith is the word for it, and unless some Supreme Deity
plays ultimate, there are no excuses. Sometimes the
advice-giver is knowingly deceptive and a whole team
(or nation) falls prey to demagoguery.

Occasionally you're in a situation where no one really understands.
Say your young team is getting torn up by a by a bunch of old fogeys.
You and your captains can't figure it out. One leader may step
up confidently and say, "this is what we're going to do,"
without any meaningful justification. The strategy
is flawed but the team is all on one page and sharing a goal. Not
terribly bad. But the best thing is usually to spend some time looking
at what the other team is actually doing. Sit on the sideline for a point
or two and observe. Oh, are they playing a force middle and poaching
in the throwing lanes? Well, that piece of information is already
more valuable than just about any slogan or rote response.
At the least, you can know how to avoid turnovers, even if finding
the right offensive solution (e.g., break-mark plays, active play by
poached handler, creating long options on the mark switch) eludes you.

As a sloganeer might say, "you can't get to where you should be
without knowing where you are."

Why Track?

2005-08-24T09:57:00.000-05:00

Let's face it, the track workout is part training, part hazing.
Of course, ultimate demands sprinting, recovery, and more
sprinting over the course of many hours. We need to shorten
recovery times and quicken our pace, and the track workout helps.
However, the hazing aspect, which is often painfully similar
to the old college rituals of punish the newbie to
the point of disgorgement, serves its purposes.

1. The victim, er... athlete, demonstrates a commitment
to the social unit.
2. The victim earns the respect of other members
who have done (and are doing) similarly.
3. The victim builds toughness by learning to power
through those painful times -- necessary in later
life, er... sport.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of mindnumbing frathouse
social conformity. However, the track is a way of accomplishing
1, 2, 3 in a HEALTHY way which will only benefit the participant.
When you get to the big tournament having survived the
shipwreck of the Repeat 400's with teammate Bozo, you
and Bozo share a trust and a bond which strengthens your
team. You know his heart is big, just like his size 23 shoes.

Freshman Gestation, Old Dogs and New Flicks

2005-08-20T14:48:00.000-05:00

College freshmen stuggle mightily with everything on campus. Sympathetic professors understand this, often giving B+ grades to students with only a mediocre grasp of the material. For example, if you *do* understand integration, even though you might not get the exact answer on a question, you certainly wouldn't set up the problem wrong. Setting up the limits of integration completely wrong is really a failing effort, but we (the professors) often take off only a few points. Normally, I wouldn't want to participate in such a skewed valuation, but for a phenomenon I call the Freshman Gestation.

See, they leave campus for the summer and spend that time hanging out with friends as much as either work or the need to pad their resumes allows. But no matter what they actually do, they come back to college greatly matured as academicians. Basically, the Freshman Gestation is the time when the material just "sinks in."

What does this have to do with disc? Well, a similar thing happens when rookies return for their second year. Suddenly, they're significantly less clueless (and not just by comparison with the new class). But another example of the Freshman Gestation happened to me unexpectedly when I threw some forehands after the track workout on Wednesday. (Unlike other bloggers, my times showed no dramatic increase; nor did I vomit.)

We have on my team a fellow with a cannon of a forehand: we'll call him "Schulzie." A moment of praise: "cannon" is not really apt, since cannons do not sail the disc upwind, far past the defense, then apply the brakes so the receiver easily can run under it. Well, people have asked Schulzie how he throws it, and he usually says something like, "you gotta put the squeeze on so you can torque it!" Schulzie knows what these words mean, but few others do. (Is he keeping his lifeblood a secret? I don't think so.) Translation (my own): align the pads of both fingertips along the inside rim so that the fingers flex in the direction of flight when bent at the knuckle. This gives more power.

Anyway, for a while I tried to practice this throw after some instruction from Schulzie, but to no avail. Then, after a year in another country, a marriage and a birth, I returned to Chicago to find others praciticing this same grip/throw. I tried again, too, and to my surprise what felt awkward and unnatural only a year ago suddenly felt entirely doable, possible.

I'm still practicing it; it probably won't even be game ready this year. But if this old dog can learn a new flick he just might be able to make himself worthwhile to his teammates through some of his inevitable gerontological decline.

Ten Things You Should Know about Spirit of the Game

2005-08-17T08:55:00.000-05:00

[I wrote the following document and submitted it
to the UPA along with the Conduct Committee.
It has received the endorsement of several founders
of ultimate and progenitors of spirit of the game.
It is now "accepted literature" by the organization.
I hope that the ultimate community starts to teach
these hows, as well as the whats and whys, of SOTG.
Please note: it does not presuppose any spirit
superiority by the author!]

Ten Things You Should Know About Spirit of the Game

1. The golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated.

Spirited games result from mutual respect among opponents. Assume the best of your opponent. Give him or her the benefit of a doubt. You would want the same for yourself. But if you are thick-skinned, do not assume that your opponent is. Maybe you should think of this rule as, "treat others as you would have them treat your mother."

2. Control: SOTG takes real effort.

SOTG is not just some abstract principle that everyone adopts and then games run smoothly without effort. Close calls are made in tight games. Hard fouls are committed. SOTG is about how you handle yourself under pressure: how you contain your emotionality, tame your temper, and modulate your voice. If you initiate or contribute to the unraveling of spirit, the concept falls apart quickly. If you act to mend things (or at least not exacerbate the situation) by following (1) above, the game heals itself.

3. Heckling and taunting are different.

Ultimate has a long tradition of good-natured heckling. Heckles are friendly barbs, typically from non-playing spectators. Heckling can be fun, but taunting is unspirited and wrong. Harassing remarks after an opponent's foul call or close play are NOT heckling: they are abusive taunts which create unpleasant playing conditions and often escalate to acrimonious disputes.

4. SOTG is compatible with championship play.

It is a fallacy to argue that the stakes are so important that some aspect of SOTG can be cast aside. Time and again, great teams and star players have shown that you can bring all your competitive and athletic zeal to a game without sacrificing fair play or respect for your opponent.

5. Don't "give as you got."

There is no "eye for an eye." If you are wronged, you have no right to wrong someone in return. In the extreme case where you were severely mistreated, you may bring the issue up with a captain, tournament director, or even lodge a complaint with the governing body. If you retaliate in kind, however, a complaint may be filed against you. We recall point (1): treat others as you would have them treat you, not as they have treated you. In the end, you are responsible for you.

6. Breathe.

After a hard foul, close call, or disputed play, take a step back, pause, and take a deep breath. In the heat of competition, emotions run high. By giving yourself just a bit of time and space, you will gain enough perspective to compose yourself and concentrate on the facts involved in the dispute (was she in or out; did you hit his hand or the disc; did that pick affect the play). Your restraint will induce a more restrained response from your opponent. Conflagration averted, you may resume business as usual.

7. When you do the right thing, people notice.

When you turn the other cheek, you know you've done the right thing. You may not hear praise, there may be no standing ovation, but people do notice. Eventually, their respect for you and their appreciation of the game will grow.

8. Be generous with praise.

Compliment an opponent on her good catch. Remark to a teammate that you admire his honesty in calling himself out of bounds. Look players in the eye and congratulate them when you shake their hands after a game. These small acts boost spirit greatly, a large payoff for little time and effort.

9. Impressions linger.

Not only does the realization that your actions will be remembered for a long time serve to curb poor behavior, it can also inspire better conduct. Many old-timers enjoy the experience of meeting an elite player who remembers their first rendezvous on the field and recalls the event in detail. A good first encounter with an impressionable young player can have considerable long term positive impact.

10. Have fun.

All other things being equal, games are far more fun without the antipathy. Go hard. Play fair. Have fun.

The Turnover Compact

2005-08-14T16:50:00.000-05:00

The NBA All-Star game is all flashy plays and no D. Both teams
agree upon this arrangement and compete within these parameters.
The winning team is the one which does this best. It's fun to watch,
but the regular season is different: if you take wanton shots, your
opponent will punish you with precision offense. It might not *seem*
flashy... well, until you realize that title rings bling. Ask Tim Duncan
or Larry Bird.

In most of ultimate, a similar agreement prevails. It's called
The Turnover Compact. Both teams agree to make a certain
number of turnovers with exciting strategies and big throws.
Long throws are taken when there is a cut and open space,
rather than when there is a cut, open space, a clear shot past
the mark, a strong enough thrower and an 80%+ chance of success.
As a result, the fans get a kickass huckfest and the team which
does better wins. Good for all, right? In a way, yes! In another
way, we are vulnerable to an attack by a team of Duncans and Birds.

Let me drop some science: the team with fewer turnovers wins.
Do the math. It's true. (Exception: with hard caps decided by one point,
both teams may have an equal number of turns.) So you MUST
minimize your turns if you want to win. (This doesn't mean you must
always take the higher percentage throw. If you need fifty 99%
throws to score, your chances would be better with one 75% huck
to the endzone.)

What about the minions among us who know this and despise
turnovers? We're free to make our own team and prove them wrong,
right? The atheletic field is the perfect free market, and if Big Business
is colluding to sell subpar goods at inflated prices, we can
assemble our own product and beat them on their playing field
(to mix, then unmix a few metaphors), right? Well, not exactly.
It's hard to attract players to an unflashy idea, and since most
teams play without a coach, unpopular ideas may not have
an authority to promote them. All players need to buy in, but
there's no money in advertising to promote your idea, and the
governing party ain't listening -- so the status quo remains, and
The Turnover Compact cartel inhibits prudent playing (to mix a few
more).

Here's the thing: this secret alliance is a secret even to its members!
People don't realize how inefficiently they play. Or what they
"know" on the sideline, they simply don't do on the field (see
previous post).

Tim, Larry, we need you!

Huddles Suck! Or, The Chasm between Sideline and Field

2005-08-12T10:08:00.000-05:00

Huddles are a waste of time! Nothing we say matters! How many
times has THIS happened to YOU?

Your team on O has an open player, but a defender poaches
out of the stack to cover, leaving a new teammate open. Unfortunately,
he doesn't see that he's open. As a result, your handler throws a late dump
which floats and is blocked. The D scores. Halftime.
The handler is one of your team's leaders and spends most of the
halftime huddle talking about how you have to see your poaches.
He goes on to explain exactly how you should be keeping aware of
all what your defender is doing at all times. Other team leaders chime
in with their thoughts about how to do this. In the course of this, another
team leader remembers a play where a defender overcommitted on the
mark, getting broken. "We have to hold our marks!" he exclaims.
A few more general points by other team leaders are made, based
on specific plays during the first half. In the remaining minute, the
captain talks about the next half and says a few words of encouragement.
Your team takes the field and the game continues on its own course.

The many voices of the huddle deliver a muddled message which
is never repeated and completely forgotten by the time you take the
field. After all, it's a lot just to remember the O and D calls on the line!

Why do we do this? There are NO GOOD REASONS. Just try to think
or observe what you actually think about during a point. It is very unlikely
related to what someone just told you, and that's not a bad thing -- especially
if what you're thinking about is, "where's my guy? what's he doing? where's
my guy? where's he going? where's the disc? where's my guy? where's he
facing? where's the disc? what's that other guy doing? where's my guy now?
how is he weighted? where's my guy? what's he preparing?...." Again, there
are no good reasons, but the bad reasons for the way we huddle are:

1. Ego. Your leaders -- and everyone seems to think he's a leader -- want
to feel good about themselves, that they have helped the team.
(This is what I call unenlightened ego, where the self is gratified at the
expense of the team. But a poor team reflects poorly on its members.
Enlightened ego is when the team's best interest is served, and this reflects
positively on its members.)

2. Ignorance. People don't realize that saying something -- even if it is
a relevant thing -- has little practical effect.

3. Talk is cheap. It's easier to blather on reflexively than to work to ensure
that team communications are well organized (see below) -- especially if
this means holding your tongue.

4. Political clout. The captain can't risk damaging team unity by silencing
all the team leaders.

What SHOULD we do?

1. One Voice. Too many leaders spoil the broth.

2. Focus the Message. One voice must deliver a focussed strategic message
during huddles, emphasizing just one offensive/defensive theme. Another voice
(or the same) can deliver a defensive message, say if it's halftime and not a
time-out. This may sound like bullet-point oversimplification.
Yes, it may -- but let's not overestimate ourselves, huh?

2. Keep conversations private. If Jimmy made one tactical error which
is not part of a team pattern, only Jimmy needs to hear about it (and not
even that if it's something he clearly knows). Talk to him privately.
Don't use the huddle for private conversations.

3. Echo. The message from the huddle has to be echoed after the
huddle breaks and continued to be stressed from the sideline when
play resumes. It should also be stressed on the line. If not, it's a
guarantee that the on-field players will forget.

4. Take stock. Captains/statisticians, make an honest assessment
of the cause of your team's troubles and successes and take note of
whether the emphasis has had any affect whatsoever. If not, it's okay
to admit it. Better to call it like it is than to point to a score and try to
attribute it to some improvement in team strategy, when the fact was
that Jimmy simply made a great throw.

But few teams do this. Instead, we waste our huddles with
mindnumbing blather and countless irrelevancies.

Generation H

2005-08-10T10:10:00.000-05:00

The game is being rocked by a new generation of players.
These kids graduated college in the new millenium and
after the revival of force middle and straight-up defenses.
They grew up in a disc world of advanced strategies and
at a time where basic skills were in abundance. They all
can throw. But the most significant thing is that they came
into their own at a time when Horizontal was new and
they have an ingrained belief in the power of H.

I have two concerns about Generation H. The first is what
seems to be a belief that everyone is equal, and so success or
failure is a result of global strategy. Indeed, the offensive
structure of the H-stack is more democratic, and maybe this contributes
to that way of thinking. For example, how often
have you been on the line after a two-drop, three-throwaway
point only to hear people complain about offensive positioning?
Positioning isn't the problem; decision-making is. Generation H has an
inflated view of the importance of strategy over individual accountability.
Okay, maybe the playing field IS leveled in that most people
have the *disc* skills, but the skills in MAKING CHOICES are all
over the map! Having throws during warm-up is not the
same as being able to use those throws wisely in a game. Not
all players are equal. It's like the driver who drifts over the yellow lines
at seven mph because he's on the cell phone asking his mom
to clean his underpants. Being ABLE to drive well doesn't mean
you're a good driver.

The second concern is about the blind faith in the H-stack. They
love it, Generation H. And yet... can these new disciples
articulate the reason for H? Can they explain why it is better than
a conventional (vertical) stack? Can they explain what the offense
should do? Can they explain how to respond to the most obvious
of defensive responses? Maybe semi-finalists at Sarasota can, but
among the rank and file there are too many teams which have
hitched their trailer to a star without knowing its orbit.
(In a nutshell, V-stack frees up alleys for flow, H-stack frees up
deep space for long throws, which is why straight-up can be an
effective D. If every players knows this offensive philosophy in the
H-stack, then your team should have a healthy supply of deep cuts.)

This post is not a knock against the H-stack. A team should have the
H-stack in its repertoire. But should it sell all other O's lock, stock and
barrel? I think the jury is still out on this question, although the disc
world seems to have made up its mind already, somehow.
Maybe the H-stack *is* the Fosberry Flop of the disc world... but maybe
not. Even a decade after Fosberry, records were still set with the
scissor-kick jump. It may take some time to decide.

So how can the H-stack win, if it's not the proven perfect O? Well,
Generation H is in power. If that's what the people in
power want, that's what will happen. If two H teams play each other,
it's hard to tell if a V-stack would have beaten them.
(Separate post: the Turnover Convention. If two teams "agree" to
turn over the disc regularly, neither loses from its poor completion ratio.)

My (boring) view: a team should own the H-stack and the V-stack and
then make an empirical decision about what works better for it -- not
an emotional vote for Danny Way over Tony Hawk. And while
teams are playing an imperfect H-stack, even if it eventually becomes the
Fosberry Flop of disc ("Frisberry"?), I believe there are championships
still to be won with the V.

Fate of RSD?

2005-08-09T12:00:00.000-05:00

As newsgroups fade and blogs rule, what will be the fate of rec.sport.disc?

Many players lament the atrocious level of discourse on r.s.d.
Navigating among blogs is an easier way to avoid rants and
insults. Add to this phenomenon the fact that much of the information
on r.s.d. is available from the UPA or other disc portals, and you see
an emergent irrelevance.

Is a moderated newsgroup needed? If we separated the wheat from the
chaff, would we be left with interesting posts? I think so. Users could
post questions and receive replies without having to get heckled or
have their subject usurped by the hoggers. A centralized newsgroup
offers something closer to a conversation than does a blog.
This could be an opt-in venue, say "rec.sport.disc.moderated," which
would otherwise mirror r.s.d., except for the excised rants, insults,
and off-topic posts. So r.s.d. could exist in parallel.

The same Roman playwright (Terence) who gave us the quotation,
"moderation in all things" also gave us the dubious sentiment,
"too much liberty corrupts us all." (Or perhaps "liberty" wasn't
the most accurate translation.) Having r.s.d. AND r.s.d.m.
would mean no censorship against those who are happy as is.

The problem: who moderates?