Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AUDL Input Request
96 views
Skip to first unread message
Josh Moore
Jan 13, 2012, 2:25:04 PM1/13/12
to
Thank you to everybody that has provided a lot of great
feedback in the various topics on the site. We are going to
have another test game with our rules next weekend and make
final changes accordingly for our first season. We consider
everybody's feedback and ideas and understand there will
always be dissenting positions on certain rules, but the
goal continues to be finding a balance between the players
and fans that puts the best product on the field. That
being said, a lot of people on this board have given a lot
of thoughts to different rules and one thing we will be
discussing is the potential to have our games too heavy on
the offense and how to create a balance. Obviously if we
went with the 40 yard field width it would put things closer
to how they are currently, but if we keep the bigger field,
what is the best way to help the defense out? I've read a
lot of the responses on here and will use those as
takeaways. Beyond that, what impact does the board feel the
following two items would have:
1.) Right now there are no double teams allowed. If that
restriction was removed and defenders could trap, with the 7
second stall count being in place as well, what type of
turnover ratio might we expect? We may or may not test
this, just curious on thoughts.
2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
after the first backwards pass because then they know the
next one has to be down field.
Thanks in advance for the thoughts, we will discuss the
others in the other threads at our meeting but hadn't really
seen any discussion around these potential rules above and
the thoughts on the effects.
Josh Moore, President
American Ultimate Disc League
www.theaudl.com
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
feedback in the various topics on the site. We are going to
have another test game with our rules next weekend and make
final changes accordingly for our first season. We consider
everybody's feedback and ideas and understand there will
always be dissenting positions on certain rules, but the
goal continues to be finding a balance between the players
and fans that puts the best product on the field. That
being said, a lot of people on this board have given a lot
of thoughts to different rules and one thing we will be
discussing is the potential to have our games too heavy on
the offense and how to create a balance. Obviously if we
went with the 40 yard field width it would put things closer
to how they are currently, but if we keep the bigger field,
what is the best way to help the defense out? I've read a
lot of the responses on here and will use those as
takeaways. Beyond that, what impact does the board feel the
following two items would have:
1.) Right now there are no double teams allowed. If that
restriction was removed and defenders could trap, with the 7
second stall count being in place as well, what type of
turnover ratio might we expect? We may or may not test
this, just curious on thoughts.
2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
after the first backwards pass because then they know the
next one has to be down field.
Thanks in advance for the thoughts, we will discuss the
others in the other threads at our meeting but hadn't really
seen any discussion around these potential rules above and
the thoughts on the effects.
Josh Moore, President
American Ultimate Disc League
www.theaudl.com
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
mvuong
Jan 13, 2012, 3:25:03 PM1/13/12
to
I kind of like eliminating double teams as a way for
defenses to strategically gamble.
defenses to strategically gamble.
Mankind
Jan 13, 2012, 3:45:04 PM1/13/12
to
joshmoore7 wrote on Fri, 13 January 2012 14:21
"trap" with zones regardless of the no double team rule.
And allowing double teaming will likely not help the defense
from a man to man perspective. With zone and outdoors with
wind that's a whole different ballgame though.
joshmoore7 wrote on Fri, 13 January 2012 14:21
especially if you're trying to keep refs out of the way of
the game play (they would have to be very close to the
player with the disc to call this infraction and would
therefore be potentially in the way of the next throw. I
also think you would significantly hurt the quality of your
offensive play with this rule. It would need to be tested
to be sure but I would advise not exploring it.
To a larger degree teams and players need to get used to the
set up of the field and work on defenses that work within
those constraints. Also I know the Indy team has an outdoor
stadium. If most of the team have an indoor stadium your
defense will suffer no matter what and your offensive
players will look like superstars. There are definitely
defensive adjustments that teams and players will have to
make to the new field. Rather than messing around with the
frisbee rules we've all grown up with I'd recommend sticking
with them and forcing teams to come up with something
innovative to help on defense.
Two things I'd recommend based on the rules I read through
at the Indy combine that one of the coaches had and also
from playing with the refs.
1) Have the refs announce when they get to stall 5. It will
help the O and the D have a better idea of where they are in
the stall count considering everyone who currently plays
ultimate has a stall count that amounts to a total of about
6-7 seconds for them to count to 10.
2) There was a wording to a rule about positioning that
basically said "you can take up any position on the field as
long as that position does not cause contact with an
offensive player." I read that to mean that if I'm standing
still and someone runs into me as a cutter its a foul on me.
If I'm wrong, clarify. However as defense will be harder
with the bigger field and as ultimate already is a physical
game (despite the rules) there will definitely be a feeling
out process with defenders on what they can get away with
(think hand checking in basketball). And one of the ways
defenders will try to level the playing with is with
contact. And to that end, basically I'm looking for the
ability for there to either be the equivalent of a charging
foul on the offense or a no call if I'm standing still and
take the impact of someone running into me.
Are the AUDL rules actually posted anywhere? Or are they
still completely a working document that hasn't been shared
with the public. I'm just curious how much they differ from
the 11th edition rules.
Tim
> 1.) Right now there are no double teams allowed. If
> that restriction was removed and defenders could trap,
> with the 7 second stall count being in place as well, what
> type of turnover ratio might we expect? We may or may not
> test this, just curious on thoughts.
Certainly can't give you a turnover ratio but people will
> that restriction was removed and defenders could trap,
> with the 7 second stall count being in place as well, what
> type of turnover ratio might we expect? We may or may not
> test this, just curious on thoughts.
"trap" with zones regardless of the no double team rule.
And allowing double teaming will likely not help the defense
from a man to man perspective. With zone and outdoors with
wind that's a whole different ballgame though.
joshmoore7 wrote on Fri, 13 January 2012 14:21
> 2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
> consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
> after the first backwards pass because then they know the
> next one has to be down field.
I think this would be a really hard rule to enforce,
> consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
> after the first backwards pass because then they know the
> next one has to be down field.
especially if you're trying to keep refs out of the way of
the game play (they would have to be very close to the
player with the disc to call this infraction and would
therefore be potentially in the way of the next throw. I
also think you would significantly hurt the quality of your
offensive play with this rule. It would need to be tested
to be sure but I would advise not exploring it.
To a larger degree teams and players need to get used to the
set up of the field and work on defenses that work within
those constraints. Also I know the Indy team has an outdoor
stadium. If most of the team have an indoor stadium your
defense will suffer no matter what and your offensive
players will look like superstars. There are definitely
defensive adjustments that teams and players will have to
make to the new field. Rather than messing around with the
frisbee rules we've all grown up with I'd recommend sticking
with them and forcing teams to come up with something
innovative to help on defense.
Two things I'd recommend based on the rules I read through
at the Indy combine that one of the coaches had and also
from playing with the refs.
1) Have the refs announce when they get to stall 5. It will
help the O and the D have a better idea of where they are in
the stall count considering everyone who currently plays
ultimate has a stall count that amounts to a total of about
6-7 seconds for them to count to 10.
2) There was a wording to a rule about positioning that
basically said "you can take up any position on the field as
long as that position does not cause contact with an
offensive player." I read that to mean that if I'm standing
still and someone runs into me as a cutter its a foul on me.
If I'm wrong, clarify. However as defense will be harder
with the bigger field and as ultimate already is a physical
game (despite the rules) there will definitely be a feeling
out process with defenders on what they can get away with
(think hand checking in basketball). And one of the ways
defenders will try to level the playing with is with
contact. And to that end, basically I'm looking for the
ability for there to either be the equivalent of a charging
foul on the offense or a no call if I'm standing still and
take the impact of someone running into me.
Are the AUDL rules actually posted anywhere? Or are they
still completely a working document that hasn't been shared
with the public. I'm just curious how much they differ from
the 11th edition rules.
Tim
jtj
Jan 13, 2012, 4:15:03 PM1/13/12
to
Mankind wrote on Fri, 13 January 2012 12:41
the sideline in line with the disc. This way the official
can easily see if the pass was backwards and he is out of
the field of play.
> joshmoore7 wrote on Fri, 13 January 2012 14:21
> > 2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
> > consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
> > after the first backwards pass because then they know
> > the next one has to be down field.
>
>
> I think this would be a really hard rule to enforce,
> especially if you're trying to keep refs out of the way of
> the game play (they would have to be very close to the
> player with the disc to call this infraction and would
> therefore be potentially in the way of the next throw. I
> also think you would significantly hurt the quality of
> your offensive play with this rule. It would need to be
> tested to be sure but I would advise not exploring it.
This is not true at all. You can position an official on
> > 2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
> > consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
> > after the first backwards pass because then they know
> > the next one has to be down field.
>
>
> I think this would be a really hard rule to enforce,
> especially if you're trying to keep refs out of the way of
> the game play (they would have to be very close to the
> player with the disc to call this infraction and would
> therefore be potentially in the way of the next throw. I
> also think you would significantly hurt the quality of
> your offensive play with this rule. It would need to be
> tested to be sure but I would advise not exploring it.
the sideline in line with the disc. This way the official
can easily see if the pass was backwards and he is out of
the field of play.
Michael
Jan 13, 2012, 4:35:03 PM1/13/12
to
The no two consecutive pass rule could mess up a bunch of
strategies, especially making it more difficult for
possession offenses to dump I would think. Then again, I'm
fairly new to the game, so maybe I'm totally wrong.
strategies, especially making it more difficult for
possession offenses to dump I would think. Then again, I'm
fairly new to the game, so maybe I'm totally wrong.
Ari
Jan 13, 2012, 5:15:04 PM1/13/12
to
Okay, actually... taking away the double-team for this
league is genius (theoretically). Some (me) have worried
that a football field is too wide to allow for multiple
looks on defense, which would make the game less
interesting. A no double-team rule could even the score a
little bit by allowing teams to create defenses that can
swarm an identified weak player close to the sideline and
create difficult throwing situations. It sounds like a
seven-man blitz in football; at the right time it can be
deadly, but if you get beat then you get beat bad.
It will be interesting to see if the change works in a
scrimmage, but I caution that if it isn't working at first
to allow time for defensive strategists to adapt a defense
tailored to the rule and see if gameplay approves from
there.
Thanks for asking, Josh.
league is genius (theoretically). Some (me) have worried
that a football field is too wide to allow for multiple
looks on defense, which would make the game less
interesting. A no double-team rule could even the score a
little bit by allowing teams to create defenses that can
swarm an identified weak player close to the sideline and
create difficult throwing situations. It sounds like a
seven-man blitz in football; at the right time it can be
deadly, but if you get beat then you get beat bad.
It will be interesting to see if the change works in a
scrimmage, but I caution that if it isn't working at first
to allow time for defensive strategists to adapt a defense
tailored to the rule and see if gameplay approves from
there.
Thanks for asking, Josh.
Josh Drury
Jan 13, 2012, 5:13:34 PM1/13/12
to
If you're concerned about the potential impact of some rule changes on
gameplay, I'd recommend running a few test events with these rule
changes (one change at a time to see what the impact of each is).
This would give much more practical input than theoretical discussion.
That said (here comes my own theoretical discussion) - is there really
a clear need for either change, and what is intended to result? I can
see the wider field offering a potential additional advantage to the
offence, but is this considered a problem from the league's
perspective? Any change intended to help the defence is going to
increase turnovers which could be seen as making gameplay look more
sloppy, especially to the casual fans that I imagine the AUDL is
trying to target. The clips I've seen of AUDL practices thus far
indicated that turnovers were already occurring on a sufficiently
regular basis with the existing rule set. The play in the clips was
not quite at USAU club nationals level but I imagine will improve with
practice; still, it did not seem like the game was at risk of turning
into a completely offence-heavy, turnover-free affair. So I'm not
sure if the game is in need of a 'fix' which would represent any
further departures from existing rules.
gameplay, I'd recommend running a few test events with these rule
changes (one change at a time to see what the impact of each is).
This would give much more practical input than theoretical discussion.
That said (here comes my own theoretical discussion) - is there really
a clear need for either change, and what is intended to result? I can
see the wider field offering a potential additional advantage to the
offence, but is this considered a problem from the league's
perspective? Any change intended to help the defence is going to
increase turnovers which could be seen as making gameplay look more
sloppy, especially to the casual fans that I imagine the AUDL is
trying to target. The clips I've seen of AUDL practices thus far
indicated that turnovers were already occurring on a sufficiently
regular basis with the existing rule set. The play in the clips was
not quite at USAU club nationals level but I imagine will improve with
practice; still, it did not seem like the game was at risk of turning
into a completely offence-heavy, turnover-free affair. So I'm not
sure if the game is in need of a 'fix' which would represent any
further departures from existing rules.
ulticritic
Jan 13, 2012, 5:14:36 PM1/13/12
to
Julian Bonds
Jan 13, 2012, 6:54:07 PM1/13/12
to
Here are a few suggestion on details (not really game rules) that I
think will help with fan enjoyment:
1) keep teams within a player bench area, no ringing the field
2) no coaches on the field, except for timeouts
3) time limit between scoring and pull: 45 seconds / 2 minutes
my suggestion here is an attempt to minimize down time between the
action. I suggest 45 seconds between the score and the subsequent
pull for three points, then a 2 minute break. One of the advantages is
that a team can go on a run for three points which could be intense to
watch. Another advantage is that it would work well for future TV
viewing (both replays and commercials). The details can be tweaked,
but the basic idea is to consider that the time between pulls can
vary.
And remember, this is supposed to be a pro league. The coach should
be able to call a line and a play within 45 seconds.
think will help with fan enjoyment:
1) keep teams within a player bench area, no ringing the field
2) no coaches on the field, except for timeouts
3) time limit between scoring and pull: 45 seconds / 2 minutes
my suggestion here is an attempt to minimize down time between the
action. I suggest 45 seconds between the score and the subsequent
pull for three points, then a 2 minute break. One of the advantages is
that a team can go on a run for three points which could be intense to
watch. Another advantage is that it would work well for future TV
viewing (both replays and commercials). The details can be tweaked,
but the basic idea is to consider that the time between pulls can
vary.
And remember, this is supposed to be a pro league. The coach should
be able to call a line and a play within 45 seconds.
James Highsmith
Jan 13, 2012, 8:25:02 PM1/13/12
to
As a player, I'd rather not have the disc and be questioning
whether or not I can dump the disc again.
The double team rule seems like a pretty good idea, however.
whether or not I can dump the disc again.
The double team rule seems like a pretty good idea, however.
Lk
Jan 13, 2012, 8:45:03 PM1/13/12
to
how bout instead of no two-consecutive backwards passes you
enact a half-court violation. this would allow teams to
dump/swing but if they get pushed back to midfield they'll
have to move it forward to avoid a turnover.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYtjpIwamos
enact a half-court violation. this would allow teams to
dump/swing but if they get pushed back to midfield they'll
have to move it forward to avoid a turnover.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYtjpIwamos
jt
Jan 13, 2012, 8:39:36 PM1/13/12
to
If we are talking timed games, you can't keep dinkin and dumpin.
Pretty easy to enforce and it takes away a little from the offense
with this new wide field. Gets pretty boring from a fans point of
view it you keep dumping, right?
ulticritic
Jan 13, 2012, 9:03:32 PM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 6:54 pm, Julian Bonds <fromthesideline...@gmail.com>
wrote:.
> Here are a few suggestion on details (not really game rules) that I
> think will help with fan enjoyment:
>
> 1) keep teams within a player bench area, no ringing the field
yes
----------------------------
teams ample time out opps and use a 4 quarter game. one of the most
exciting parts of a stopped time game is the count down a the end of
periods......especially if an allert player was to call a time out
with only seconds left so team can reset and set up a last second
play. otherwise its also cool whe the crowd counts don=wn and a lst
second huck is put up.
----------------------------------
>
> And remember, this is supposed to be a pro league. The coach should
> be able to call a line and a play within 45 seconds.
definite!
wrote:.
> Here are a few suggestion on details (not really game rules) that I
> think will help with fan enjoyment:
>
> 1) keep teams within a player bench area, no ringing the field
----------------------------
> 2) no coaches on the field, except for timeouts
> 3) time limit between scoring and pull: 45 seconds / 2 minutes
> my suggestion here is an attempt to minimize down time between the
> action. I suggest 45 seconds between the score and the subsequent
> pull for three points, then a 2 minute break.
i'm with ya on the 45 secs......not on the 2 min thing. just give
> 3) time limit between scoring and pull: 45 seconds / 2 minutes
> my suggestion here is an attempt to minimize down time between the
> action. I suggest 45 seconds between the score and the subsequent
> pull for three points, then a 2 minute break.
teams ample time out opps and use a 4 quarter game. one of the most
exciting parts of a stopped time game is the count down a the end of
periods......especially if an allert player was to call a time out
with only seconds left so team can reset and set up a last second
play. otherwise its also cool whe the crowd counts don=wn and a lst
second huck is put up.
----------------------------------
>
> And remember, this is supposed to be a pro league. The coach should
> be able to call a line and a play within 45 seconds.
ulticritic
Jan 13, 2012, 9:06:12 PM1/13/12
to
On Jan 13, 8:45 pm, Lk <bigbananaspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> how bout instead of no two-consecutive backwards passes you
> enact a half-court violation. this would allow teams to
> dump/swing but if they get pushed back to midfield they'll
> have to move it forward to avoid a turnover.
OR to try and work it back for a two point attempt. was there gonns
> how bout instead of no two-consecutive backwards passes you
> enact a half-court violation. this would allow teams to
> dump/swing but if they get pushed back to midfield they'll
> have to move it forward to avoid a turnover.
be a two point line in audl? (if so make it 60 yards)
also, no repull on offsides.....just give the O the disc at mid
field......unless it went ob prior to mid field
> --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYtjpIwamos
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
ultimated
Jan 14, 2012, 7:03:58 AM1/14/12
to
I think eliminating the double team rule is a good idea. It
would speed up play by removing a call that the ref has to
make; it would allow the defense to gamble, which would
increase fan interest (who doesn't like a blitz?); it would
reward disc skills and athleticism on the part of the
throwers; it would encourage creativity on defensive
strategies which rewards coaching. I think banning a second
consecutive backward pass wouldn't work as well, just give
another chance for the ref to affect a game, interrupts flow
on offense (which is aesthetically pleasing to knowledgeable
spectators) and seems like an artificial curb on play.
would speed up play by removing a call that the ref has to
make; it would allow the defense to gamble, which would
increase fan interest (who doesn't like a blitz?); it would
reward disc skills and athleticism on the part of the
throwers; it would encourage creativity on defensive
strategies which rewards coaching. I think banning a second
consecutive backward pass wouldn't work as well, just give
another chance for the ref to affect a game, interrupts flow
on offense (which is aesthetically pleasing to knowledgeable
spectators) and seems like an artificial curb on play.
Mankind
Jan 14, 2012, 9:45:03 AM1/14/12
to
jtj22 wrote on Fri, 13 January 2012 16:10
enough to be able to enforce violations on the mark than
they cannot be on the sideline and have to be more towards
the middle of the field. If you add a separate official
just to watch this rule than that would work better although
the point about more calls slowing the game down is a good
one and overall I think it's not a great rule to test out.
> This is not true at all. You can position an official
> on the sideline in line with the disc. This way the
> official can easily see if the pass was backwards and he
> is out of the field of play.
If that official, assuming you have 4, also has to be close
> on the sideline in line with the disc. This way the
> official can easily see if the pass was backwards and he
> is out of the field of play.
enough to be able to enforce violations on the mark than
they cannot be on the sideline and have to be more towards
the middle of the field. If you add a separate official
just to watch this rule than that would work better although
the point about more calls slowing the game down is a good
one and overall I think it's not a great rule to test out.
Jed
Jan 14, 2012, 10:35:03 AM1/14/12
to
Ever considered speed point? A bit more of an extreme
change, but it's how we play indoor in Toronto, among other
places. Basically the scoring team drops the disc, and the
opponent immediately starts on offence from that spot.
Substitutions are made on the fly, like hockey or lacrosse.
Makes for much less down time, much higher scoring, and
greater possibility of a comeback (easy to stuff and score
very quickly).
As for your suggested rules, maybe instead of no consecutive
back passes, have a time limit for teams to "move the
chains" so to speak. E.g. each time they pass a 10 yard
line, reset the clock (~20 seconds maybe?), and they have to
get to the next line before the time runs out.
change, but it's how we play indoor in Toronto, among other
places. Basically the scoring team drops the disc, and the
opponent immediately starts on offence from that spot.
Substitutions are made on the fly, like hockey or lacrosse.
Makes for much less down time, much higher scoring, and
greater possibility of a comeback (easy to stuff and score
very quickly).
As for your suggested rules, maybe instead of no consecutive
back passes, have a time limit for teams to "move the
chains" so to speak. E.g. each time they pass a 10 yard
line, reset the clock (~20 seconds maybe?), and they have to
get to the next line before the time runs out.
jtj
Jan 14, 2012, 11:25:03 AM1/14/12
to
Mankind wrote on Sat, 14 January 2012 06:41
False again. Why does it have to be that official? There
are locations to place officials, like behind the disc and
still out of the way of a dump/swing, to where they can call
marking fouls. You don't have to be literally on top of the
disc to see a marking foul.
If you have 4 officials like you said, there would be 1 on
each sideline, with one of those in line with the disc. 1
behind the disc, out of the way of the dump/swing and 1 down
field. Plenty of eyeballs to catch most violations (no ref
is perfect).
are locations to place officials, like behind the disc and
still out of the way of a dump/swing, to where they can call
marking fouls. You don't have to be literally on top of the
disc to see a marking foul.
If you have 4 officials like you said, there would be 1 on
each sideline, with one of those in line with the disc. 1
behind the disc, out of the way of the dump/swing and 1 down
field. Plenty of eyeballs to catch most violations (no ref
is perfect).
Jeff
Jan 14, 2012, 12:15:03 PM1/14/12
to
You really seem concerned about limiting offenses with these
suggestions.
1.) Right now there are no double teams allowed. If that
restriction was removed and defenders could trap, with the 7
second stall count being in place as well, what type of
turnover ratio might we expect? We may or may not test this,
just curious on thoughts.
Would effective double teams limit the options of throwers
and consequently limit the movement of the disc downfield?
Would it encourage more sideways or backwards passes in an
attempt to break a double mark? Would it double the
likelihood of a foul on a throw, increasing stoppages of
play?
2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
after the first backwards pass because then they know the
next one has to be down field.
As stated above ... Why would you want to limit offensive
flow? The use of 'backward' passes resets and repositions
the offense for passes downfield, which creates the
offensive and defensive challenges on the disc which are
going to sell your game.
suggestions.
1.) Right now there are no double teams allowed. If that
restriction was removed and defenders could trap, with the 7
second stall count being in place as well, what type of
turnover ratio might we expect? We may or may not test this,
just curious on thoughts.
and consequently limit the movement of the disc downfield?
Would it encourage more sideways or backwards passes in an
attempt to break a double mark? Would it double the
likelihood of a foul on a throw, increasing stoppages of
play?
2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
after the first backwards pass because then they know the
next one has to be down field.
flow? The use of 'backward' passes resets and repositions
the offense for passes downfield, which creates the
offensive and defensive challenges on the disc which are
going to sell your game.
ulticritic
Jan 14, 2012, 1:47:16 PM1/14/12
to
On Jan 13, 2:25 pm, Josh Moore <joshmoo...@cox.net> wrote:
the game more offensive, so there is more scoring IS WHAT YA
WANT!!!!! i guess a "shot clock" would enable even more scoring while
at the same time benefiting the D. but couldnt/wouldnt reducing the
stall essentially do the same thing? i'd think it would definitely
make the pace move faster
ultimate7
Jan 14, 2012, 8:18:15 PM1/14/12
to
From a fan's perspective, especially a new fan, I can't see any
downside of having a 2 point line. It encourages exciting plays and
keeps the game interesting for longer.
downside of having a 2 point line. It encourages exciting plays and
keeps the game interesting for longer.
Chris
Jan 15, 2012, 3:10:06 AM1/15/12
to
Okay guys, I think we need to take a step back as I think we
might be missing the bigger picture and many of us may be in
so deep that we can't see the forest through the trees.
Ultimate is not a sport that has just been developed in the
last couple of years whose rules or game concept needs a
major overhaul. The fact is, it's been refined and developed
over a couple of decades. Whilst I don't have a copy of the
first couple of versions of the rules, I'd be willing to bet
that the vast majority of rules that have been added
organically over time to make the sport both more
competitive, fair and fluid which have ultimately make it
more enjoyable to play and watch.
So before we go overhauling major concepts of the sport,
maybe we should try having a little faith in what the sport
has already become so far. After all, it is one of, if not
the, fastest-growing sports. So obviously something is
obviously working!
I'm not sure if this thread was started in response to my
previous comments suggested that it might not be in the
AUDLs interest to increase the field width too much because
it makes offence easier. If that's the case, I know I
mentioned that I think the increase in the field width does
change the dynamics of defence substantially, but I think
the best solution to this problem would be just reducing the
field width rather than trying to go and add/change/remove
more rules to favour the defence more to compensate.
I really don't understand the concept of making one rule
change and then needing to make a couple others rule changes
to try and compensate for the one that has already been
changed. Doesn't it make more sense to just stick with what
works? And I should point out that I don't even know that a
wider field won't work better for the defence (it's not like
I have conducted tests or anything).
My previous comments about field width were not meant to be
interpreted as "oh you should make it easier for the defence
in light of the increased width of the field" they were
meant to be interpreted as "maybe we should just play with
the normal field width".
If I'm not mistaken, at one point it was in the AUDL plans
to have the field dimensions being exactly that of an NFL
field, i.e. 100 yard playing area and 10 yard endzones, but
obviously this was quickly changed because with only a 10
yard endzone it would increase the difficulty of scoring
substantially, not to mention 100 yard playing area is huge.
So I assume that AUDL wants the current width because they
want "fit" on an NFL field.
Whilst I understand the concept of trying to fit the mould
of already successful professional sports, I think there is
a real danger in not recognising the growing popularity of
ultimate just as it is. I really don't think whether
ultimate games can draw a crowd or not will have anything to
do with the width of the field, so why ask the players to
completely change the way they play for the sake of NFL
field dimensions.
Ultimate is one of the fastest-growing sports with growth of
7 to 12% per year. When you have constant growth figures
like that whether ultimate will develop into a semi-pro
league is not a matter of "redesign" it's just a matter of
"time". Now the AUDL may be "ahead of its time", but there
is very little they can do in regards to rule changes that
will hasten ultimate's success as a professional sport,
however I think there is a lot they can do to ruin their
chances of success - and I think trying to redesign ultimate
for its convenience to fit the mould of other sport runs a
big risk of alienating the players it needs and to some
degree show a lack of faith of the sport being able to sell
itself as is.
So Josh if I was you, I'd simply ask the stadium owners to
paint a single white line 6 yards in from the NFL sidelines,
rather than try and increase defences chance via alternative
rule changes.
It already says on the AUDL site that "a restraining line
shall be established 6 yards from the outer perimeter of the
entire playing area." So why not make the "restraining line"
the edge of the NFL field and have the ultimate field 6
yards in?
This way you kill two birds with one stone.
As for creating more turnovers within given points, I think
you will have already achieved that just by making the field
an extra 10 yards longer and reducing the stall count to
seven seconds as these changes by themselves will
substantially increase the number of turnovers per point. So
I see no need to be going on adding clumsy rules just to
favour the defence in the hope of making the game slightly
more "entertaining" because if there's one thing most people
hate, whether it is watching sport all using the latest
technology, it's things that are too complicated.
Less is more.
I know I previously mentioned that I had some doubts about
the increase in width, making it harder for the defence to
generate blocks given that it will likely remove the zone
defence as an option (which I think would be a little
disappointing), but that doesn't mean there will be less
turnovers as a result. For all I know, increasing the field
width may just increase the distance of many swing passes
which may have the effect of increasing the turnover rate,
who knows, maybe creating a bigger break side will increase
the number of throws to the break side which might result in
far more turnovers than throws to the open side might have
produced. These are only thing that can be tested over
time.
The only thing that I can be confident about is that
increasing the player field size relative to the number of
players will probably promote the style of player on the
field from "skilful and strategic" to more "athletic",
because with a bigger field there's more area to cover and
as a result you will want guys that are fitter, faster,
stronger and as well as guys who can throw longer. Of
course I'm not saying that this would be the e the end of
the world for ultimate, because the game for the most part
is still fundamentally the same.
In regards to your specific question, I think removing the
double team rule would have a lots of unforeseen
consequences. It can be hard enough to get frisbee past a
fence/cup that is stationed 3m from the thrower, let alone
if you are allowed unlimited number of guys within disc
width of a player.
No consecutive backwards passes just makes both playing and
watching the game more complicated. The sport needs to be
simple to what, so you'd just have the rules as you either
are allowed to throw backwards or you are not, and I
wholeheartedly sit on the side of allowing throwers to be
able to throw the disc anywhere on the field, including
backwards.
The game is just so fast as it is, that the players on the
field already are likely to be focusing on other things (ie
making cuts/defending a player) so much so that at any given
time up to 50% of players on the field will have no idea
what the direction the last pass even was.
Like the old saying goes, KISS.
Quote:
as a result of defensive blocks or pressure. Of course
watching guys throw frisbees into the ground or drop lots of
uncontested discs looks a little "sloppy", but I don't think
that's an issue where are discussing here - that's more a
"calibre of player" issue and from what I have seen, this
probably won't be a MASSIVE concern.
Quote:
than they need to be. Why not just keep it as is, or at
least keen the period between points one fixed time, ie 60
seconds.
Once again we should be approaching rule changes from a
minimalist approach. How many things in life are ruined,
because they are too complicated. People want simple,easy
and free flowing.
Also I'd like to think that any rule changes that are made
at the elite level of the sport should be able to be easily
implemented at a beginners level as well. I don't think you
want to differentiate the elite level of the sport from its
playing community.
Kids should be able to watch their sporting idols play much
the same fashion of games that they do and not feel like
they are playing a somewhat different style of ultimate.
Nor do you want the sport to be full of complicated rules
that REQUIRE 2 or 3 independent referees, because not only
does this not allow the game to incorporate it's much
advocated SOTG, what it REALLY stifles is the ability of a
bunch of people to get together on any patch of grass with
10 cones and a frisbee to play a game of ultimate at any
level, be it social or elite. Making sure there are people
in parks playing games of ultimate will got a long way to
building up and maintain mind share of the public, as well
as building and maintaining a core fan base of people that
play the sport and therefore affiliate themselves with the
sport of ultimate.
I'd bet my bottom dollar that much of ultimate's great
growth over the recent decades has come as a result of its
ability to be able to conduct every level of the sport
without needing to organise referees. If this were to change
then "social frisbee" would be that much harder to organise
and manage and it would stifle the growth of the sport,
alienate a lot of players, not mention significantly reduce
the viability of a number of tournaments and leagues from a
financial perspective.
I think the AUDL has already seen some of the player
backlash that has come from just a couple of rule changes,
pushing that envelope further I think will start to
seriously undermine the AUDLs ability to attract players,
because at the end of the day it is fundamental to the AUDL
that the player base be willing to play with their proposed
rule changes. So I think if an aspect of the game doesn't
NEED to be changed - then don't change it.
I know as a player who has been seriously considering
playing in the AUDL. The last thing I want is to be playing
in the league four months of the year, but needing to spend
an extra month just getting used to the rule changes, before
heading back to mainstream ultimate where I'll have to
readjust back to the regular rules again.
I can completely appreciate that a sport becoming semipro
needs to transition from being about just playing the game
to becoming somewhat of an "entertainment product" but I
don't think this means that you need to make dozens of rule
changes in the first season to try and achieve this.
Changing just for the sake of entertainment smacks of
desperation, and in my opinion it is unnecessary at this
stage, ultimate is growing in popularity naturally, you
don't need to tinker with the winning formula too much.
I think it's worth recognising that the rules of ultimate
have also evolved over decades, there is a good chance if a
rule has been created it has been created for a reason.
So I'd be very careful about removing any established rule
unless you have DEEPLY considered all the ramifications, and
I'd be making sure you were consulting with a lot of VERY
experience and strategic players who were able to offer
unbiased feedback before deciding on anything, because at
the top level of the game, which the AUDL will be, you can
bet your bottom dollar that players/coaches will completely
deconstruct the rules and take any advantage they can get,
whether that makes the game "more entertaining" or not.
I guess you might like to look at it a bit like the GFC,
when long-standing banking regulations were removed because
they though it would make marginal improvements to the
banking system, a lot of negative consequences came about as
a result.
Quote:
that a repull isn't ideal, because it normally takes awhile
for the repull to happen, but because in the mainstream game
there are no referees it's hard to allow the opposition to
enforce a penalty of "offside" so the fairest thing to do is
to send it back. That said, with referees in AUDL games I
think just giving the offensive team the disc at the brick
mark is a sufficient penalty.
Quote:
play ultimate" territory. If this rule was brought into the
AUDL I will guarantee you 50% if not 100% of current elite
level players will not play the sport.
I'm really starting to think with comments like this there
might be too many cooks in the kitchen.
Quote:
unnecessary.
Quote:
referees to function relatively well even at Worlds and
International levels of competition to all of sudden needing
FOUR referees...
This is a perfect example of us all needing to step back and
look at the bigger picture. If you've got a sport that only
has seven players per team and you need FOUR referees for
that game to function you need to go back to the drawing
board. Seriously...
I'm not saying there isn't a place for one, maybe two,
referees/observers in the semi pro version of ultimate, but
the outcome any sport should be trying to achieve is
designing a game that can be played as true to the rules as
possible without the requirement of referees.
I'd really love to believe that in 5 to 10 years time elite
level ultimate will be able to go back to playing without
any onfield referees and just use technology to solve
disputs (ie an off field umpire who can be watching video
footage and/or quickly replay video footage and who can
adjudicate on disputed calls) and just like in tennis you
could give the team a certain number of incorrect calls per
game because the fact of the matter is when you watch elite
level games where observers are present I reckon 66%+ of
calls are uncontested and it's just faster for players to
concede that they made a mistake and to get on with it.
Quote:
the rate of turnovers, just drop the stall count, nothing
else will fundamentally change, everyone will still be
playing ultimate and there will be no need for all these
fancy new rules. (Please note I'm not suggesting you do this
- I think 7 seconds is a perfectly sensible stall count to
have for the first season)
If you want to refine the game slightly, so that they is
some degree of referee involvement, I think the best thing
you can do is just run lots of these demo game so you get a
feel for all the different scenarios that play out. Then
just ask the players if they felt there were lots of calls
that weren't made that should have been (I obviously haven't
been involved in any of the demo games myself but I have
some concerns about one ref being able to observe 4 or 5
downfield cutting pairs for things like picks and fouls).
But I guess the only way to know for sure is make sure that
the referees that you are getting for these trial games are
VERY experienced with ultimate themselves and that both
players and referees can openly discuss short comings with
the new system and how (if at all) some of the problems with
it can be fixed. I personally don't think it would be the
end of the world if some calls were still left to players,
ie pick calls, etc.
I don't think players making calls should be feared, the
fact we all be on camera will probably keep everyone very
honest.
I'd also say scrap all this talk of shot clocks, two points
lines, maximum passes, no backwad passes, half court
violations, etc. they are unneeded changes.
I have yet to play in a game of ultimate where a team tried
"run down the clock" or "stall for time" the best way to win
a game is to just get to 17, and you don't need a two point
line to give yourself a chance to get back in a game of
ultimate, you just need to stop the other team scoring. So
there is no need for a shot clock or two points lines. The
only reason you'd ever add a two point line in FUTURE years
if there was HIGH DEMAND from spectators for more long hucks
and I mean like REALLY HIGHLY DEMANDED, ie people wouldn't
watch the sport if it weren't for long hucks - which I
severely doubt will ever be the case.
OK so I have ranted and raved a bit - my point is there is
too much fixing of what isn't broken.
might be missing the bigger picture and many of us may be in
so deep that we can't see the forest through the trees.
Ultimate is not a sport that has just been developed in the
last couple of years whose rules or game concept needs a
major overhaul. The fact is, it's been refined and developed
over a couple of decades. Whilst I don't have a copy of the
first couple of versions of the rules, I'd be willing to bet
that the vast majority of rules that have been added
organically over time to make the sport both more
competitive, fair and fluid which have ultimately make it
more enjoyable to play and watch.
So before we go overhauling major concepts of the sport,
maybe we should try having a little faith in what the sport
has already become so far. After all, it is one of, if not
the, fastest-growing sports. So obviously something is
obviously working!
I'm not sure if this thread was started in response to my
previous comments suggested that it might not be in the
AUDLs interest to increase the field width too much because
it makes offence easier. If that's the case, I know I
mentioned that I think the increase in the field width does
change the dynamics of defence substantially, but I think
the best solution to this problem would be just reducing the
field width rather than trying to go and add/change/remove
more rules to favour the defence more to compensate.
I really don't understand the concept of making one rule
change and then needing to make a couple others rule changes
to try and compensate for the one that has already been
changed. Doesn't it make more sense to just stick with what
works? And I should point out that I don't even know that a
wider field won't work better for the defence (it's not like
I have conducted tests or anything).
My previous comments about field width were not meant to be
interpreted as "oh you should make it easier for the defence
in light of the increased width of the field" they were
meant to be interpreted as "maybe we should just play with
the normal field width".
If I'm not mistaken, at one point it was in the AUDL plans
to have the field dimensions being exactly that of an NFL
field, i.e. 100 yard playing area and 10 yard endzones, but
obviously this was quickly changed because with only a 10
yard endzone it would increase the difficulty of scoring
substantially, not to mention 100 yard playing area is huge.
So I assume that AUDL wants the current width because they
want "fit" on an NFL field.
Whilst I understand the concept of trying to fit the mould
of already successful professional sports, I think there is
a real danger in not recognising the growing popularity of
ultimate just as it is. I really don't think whether
ultimate games can draw a crowd or not will have anything to
do with the width of the field, so why ask the players to
completely change the way they play for the sake of NFL
field dimensions.
Ultimate is one of the fastest-growing sports with growth of
7 to 12% per year. When you have constant growth figures
like that whether ultimate will develop into a semi-pro
league is not a matter of "redesign" it's just a matter of
"time". Now the AUDL may be "ahead of its time", but there
is very little they can do in regards to rule changes that
will hasten ultimate's success as a professional sport,
however I think there is a lot they can do to ruin their
chances of success - and I think trying to redesign ultimate
for its convenience to fit the mould of other sport runs a
big risk of alienating the players it needs and to some
degree show a lack of faith of the sport being able to sell
itself as is.
So Josh if I was you, I'd simply ask the stadium owners to
paint a single white line 6 yards in from the NFL sidelines,
rather than try and increase defences chance via alternative
rule changes.
It already says on the AUDL site that "a restraining line
shall be established 6 yards from the outer perimeter of the
entire playing area." So why not make the "restraining line"
the edge of the NFL field and have the ultimate field 6
yards in?
This way you kill two birds with one stone.
As for creating more turnovers within given points, I think
you will have already achieved that just by making the field
an extra 10 yards longer and reducing the stall count to
seven seconds as these changes by themselves will
substantially increase the number of turnovers per point. So
I see no need to be going on adding clumsy rules just to
favour the defence in the hope of making the game slightly
more "entertaining" because if there's one thing most people
hate, whether it is watching sport all using the latest
technology, it's things that are too complicated.
Less is more.
I know I previously mentioned that I had some doubts about
the increase in width, making it harder for the defence to
generate blocks given that it will likely remove the zone
defence as an option (which I think would be a little
disappointing), but that doesn't mean there will be less
turnovers as a result. For all I know, increasing the field
width may just increase the distance of many swing passes
which may have the effect of increasing the turnover rate,
who knows, maybe creating a bigger break side will increase
the number of throws to the break side which might result in
far more turnovers than throws to the open side might have
produced. These are only thing that can be tested over
time.
The only thing that I can be confident about is that
increasing the player field size relative to the number of
players will probably promote the style of player on the
field from "skilful and strategic" to more "athletic",
because with a bigger field there's more area to cover and
as a result you will want guys that are fitter, faster,
stronger and as well as guys who can throw longer. Of
course I'm not saying that this would be the e the end of
the world for ultimate, because the game for the most part
is still fundamentally the same.
In regards to your specific question, I think removing the
double team rule would have a lots of unforeseen
consequences. It can be hard enough to get frisbee past a
fence/cup that is stationed 3m from the thrower, let alone
if you are allowed unlimited number of guys within disc
width of a player.
No consecutive backwards passes just makes both playing and
watching the game more complicated. The sport needs to be
simple to what, so you'd just have the rules as you either
are allowed to throw backwards or you are not, and I
wholeheartedly sit on the side of allowing throwers to be
able to throw the disc anywhere on the field, including
backwards.
The game is just so fast as it is, that the players on the
field already are likely to be focusing on other things (ie
making cuts/defending a player) so much so that at any given
time up to 50% of players on the field will have no idea
what the direction the last pass even was.
Like the old saying goes, KISS.
Quote:
> is there really a clear need for either change, and what
> is intended to result? I can see the wider field offering
> a potential additional advantage to the offence, but is
> this considered a problem from the league's perspective?
> Any change intended to help the defence is going to
> increase turnovers which could be seen as making gameplay
> look more sloppy, especially to the casual fans that I
> imagine the AUDL is trying to target.
I don't think "turnovers" will be seen as sloppy if they are
> is intended to result? I can see the wider field offering
> a potential additional advantage to the offence, but is
> this considered a problem from the league's perspective?
> Any change intended to help the defence is going to
> increase turnovers which could be seen as making gameplay
> look more sloppy, especially to the casual fans that I
> imagine the AUDL is trying to target.
as a result of defensive blocks or pressure. Of course
watching guys throw frisbees into the ground or drop lots of
uncontested discs looks a little "sloppy", but I don't think
that's an issue where are discussing here - that's more a
"calibre of player" issue and from what I have seen, this
probably won't be a MASSIVE concern.
Quote:
> 3) time limit between scoring and pull: 45 seconds / 2
> minutes my suggestion here is an attempt to minimize down
> time between the action. I suggest 45 seconds between the
> score and the subsequent pull for three points, then a 2
> minutes my suggestion here is an attempt to minimize down
> time between the action. I suggest 45 seconds between the
> score and the subsequent pull for three points, then a 2
> minute break. One of the advantages is that a team can go
> on a run for three points which could be intense to watch.
> Another advantage is that it would work well for future TV
> viewing (both replays and commercials). The details can be
> tweaked, but the basic idea is to consider that the time
> between pulls can vary.
Once again I think this just makes things more complicated
> on a run for three points which could be intense to watch.
> Another advantage is that it would work well for future TV
> viewing (both replays and commercials). The details can be
> tweaked, but the basic idea is to consider that the time
> between pulls can vary.
than they need to be. Why not just keep it as is, or at
least keen the period between points one fixed time, ie 60
seconds.
Once again we should be approaching rule changes from a
minimalist approach. How many things in life are ruined,
because they are too complicated. People want simple,easy
and free flowing.
Also I'd like to think that any rule changes that are made
at the elite level of the sport should be able to be easily
implemented at a beginners level as well. I don't think you
want to differentiate the elite level of the sport from its
playing community.
Kids should be able to watch their sporting idols play much
the same fashion of games that they do and not feel like
they are playing a somewhat different style of ultimate.
Nor do you want the sport to be full of complicated rules
that REQUIRE 2 or 3 independent referees, because not only
does this not allow the game to incorporate it's much
advocated SOTG, what it REALLY stifles is the ability of a
bunch of people to get together on any patch of grass with
10 cones and a frisbee to play a game of ultimate at any
level, be it social or elite. Making sure there are people
in parks playing games of ultimate will got a long way to
building up and maintain mind share of the public, as well
as building and maintaining a core fan base of people that
play the sport and therefore affiliate themselves with the
sport of ultimate.
I'd bet my bottom dollar that much of ultimate's great
growth over the recent decades has come as a result of its
ability to be able to conduct every level of the sport
without needing to organise referees. If this were to change
then "social frisbee" would be that much harder to organise
and manage and it would stifle the growth of the sport,
alienate a lot of players, not mention significantly reduce
the viability of a number of tournaments and leagues from a
financial perspective.
I think the AUDL has already seen some of the player
backlash that has come from just a couple of rule changes,
pushing that envelope further I think will start to
seriously undermine the AUDLs ability to attract players,
because at the end of the day it is fundamental to the AUDL
that the player base be willing to play with their proposed
rule changes. So I think if an aspect of the game doesn't
NEED to be changed - then don't change it.
I know as a player who has been seriously considering
playing in the AUDL. The last thing I want is to be playing
in the league four months of the year, but needing to spend
an extra month just getting used to the rule changes, before
heading back to mainstream ultimate where I'll have to
readjust back to the regular rules again.
I can completely appreciate that a sport becoming semipro
needs to transition from being about just playing the game
to becoming somewhat of an "entertainment product" but I
don't think this means that you need to make dozens of rule
changes in the first season to try and achieve this.
Changing just for the sake of entertainment smacks of
desperation, and in my opinion it is unnecessary at this
stage, ultimate is growing in popularity naturally, you
don't need to tinker with the winning formula too much.
I think it's worth recognising that the rules of ultimate
have also evolved over decades, there is a good chance if a
rule has been created it has been created for a reason.
So I'd be very careful about removing any established rule
unless you have DEEPLY considered all the ramifications, and
I'd be making sure you were consulting with a lot of VERY
experience and strategic players who were able to offer
unbiased feedback before deciding on anything, because at
the top level of the game, which the AUDL will be, you can
bet your bottom dollar that players/coaches will completely
deconstruct the rules and take any advantage they can get,
whether that makes the game "more entertaining" or not.
I guess you might like to look at it a bit like the GFC,
when long-standing banking regulations were removed because
they though it would make marginal improvements to the
banking system, a lot of negative consequences came about as
a result.
Quote:
> also, no repull on offsides.....just give the O the disc
> at mid field......unless it went ob prior to mid field
This sounds a bit excessive. That said, I tend to agree
> at mid field......unless it went ob prior to mid field
that a repull isn't ideal, because it normally takes awhile
for the repull to happen, but because in the mainstream game
there are no referees it's hard to allow the opposition to
enforce a penalty of "offside" so the fairest thing to do is
to send it back. That said, with referees in AUDL games I
think just giving the offensive team the disc at the brick
mark is a sufficient penalty.
Quote:
> Ever considered speed point? A bit more of an extreme
> change, but it's how we play indoor in Toronto, among
> other places. Basically the scoring team drops the disc,
> and the opponent immediately starts on offence from that
> spot. Substitutions are made on the fly, like hockey or
> lacrosse. Makes for much less down time, much higher
> scoring, and greater possibility of a comeback (easy to
> stuff and score very quickly).
Okay, now we are moving into "Oh my God! Can we please just
> change, but it's how we play indoor in Toronto, among
> other places. Basically the scoring team drops the disc,
> and the opponent immediately starts on offence from that
> spot. Substitutions are made on the fly, like hockey or
> lacrosse. Makes for much less down time, much higher
> scoring, and greater possibility of a comeback (easy to
> stuff and score very quickly).
play ultimate" territory. If this rule was brought into the
AUDL I will guarantee you 50% if not 100% of current elite
level players will not play the sport.
I'm really starting to think with comments like this there
might be too many cooks in the kitchen.
Quote:
> As for your suggested rules, maybe instead of no
> consecutive back passes, have a time limit for teams to
> "move the chains" so to speak. E.g. each time they pass a
> 10 yard line, reset the clock (~20 seconds maybe?), and
> they have to get to the next line before the time runs
> out.
I get your premise but it's too complicated and
> consecutive back passes, have a time limit for teams to
> "move the chains" so to speak. E.g. each time they pass a
> 10 yard line, reset the clock (~20 seconds maybe?), and
> they have to get to the next line before the time runs
> out.
unnecessary.
Quote:
> If that official, assuming you have 4, also has to be
> close enough to be able to enforce violations on the mark
> than they cannot be on the sideline and have to be more
> towards the middle of the field. If you add a separate
> official just to watch this rule than that would work
> better although the point about more calls slowing the
> game down is a good one and overall I think it's not a
> great rule to test out.
How on earth do we go from a sport that doesn't require ANY
> close enough to be able to enforce violations on the mark
> than they cannot be on the sideline and have to be more
> towards the middle of the field. If you add a separate
> official just to watch this rule than that would work
> better although the point about more calls slowing the
> game down is a good one and overall I think it's not a
> great rule to test out.
referees to function relatively well even at Worlds and
International levels of competition to all of sudden needing
FOUR referees...
This is a perfect example of us all needing to step back and
look at the bigger picture. If you've got a sport that only
has seven players per team and you need FOUR referees for
that game to function you need to go back to the drawing
board. Seriously...
I'm not saying there isn't a place for one, maybe two,
referees/observers in the semi pro version of ultimate, but
the outcome any sport should be trying to achieve is
designing a game that can be played as true to the rules as
possible without the requirement of referees.
I'd really love to believe that in 5 to 10 years time elite
level ultimate will be able to go back to playing without
any onfield referees and just use technology to solve
disputs (ie an off field umpire who can be watching video
footage and/or quickly replay video footage and who can
adjudicate on disputed calls) and just like in tennis you
could give the team a certain number of incorrect calls per
game because the fact of the matter is when you watch elite
level games where observers are present I reckon 66%+ of
calls are uncontested and it's just faster for players to
concede that they made a mistake and to get on with it.
Quote:
> i dont get why you want to make it more fair for the
> defense. making the game more offensive, so there is more
> scoring IS WHAT YA WANT!!!!! i guess a "shot clock" would
> enable even more scoring while at the same time benefiting
> the D. but couldnt/wouldnt reducing the stall essentially
> do the same thing? i'd think it would definitely make the
> pace move faster
I think you're right on the money, if you want to increase
> defense. making the game more offensive, so there is more
> scoring IS WHAT YA WANT!!!!! i guess a "shot clock" would
> enable even more scoring while at the same time benefiting
> the D. but couldnt/wouldnt reducing the stall essentially
> do the same thing? i'd think it would definitely make the
> pace move faster
the rate of turnovers, just drop the stall count, nothing
else will fundamentally change, everyone will still be
playing ultimate and there will be no need for all these
fancy new rules. (Please note I'm not suggesting you do this
- I think 7 seconds is a perfectly sensible stall count to
have for the first season)
If you want to refine the game slightly, so that they is
some degree of referee involvement, I think the best thing
you can do is just run lots of these demo game so you get a
feel for all the different scenarios that play out. Then
just ask the players if they felt there were lots of calls
that weren't made that should have been (I obviously haven't
been involved in any of the demo games myself but I have
some concerns about one ref being able to observe 4 or 5
downfield cutting pairs for things like picks and fouls).
But I guess the only way to know for sure is make sure that
the referees that you are getting for these trial games are
VERY experienced with ultimate themselves and that both
players and referees can openly discuss short comings with
the new system and how (if at all) some of the problems with
it can be fixed. I personally don't think it would be the
end of the world if some calls were still left to players,
ie pick calls, etc.
I don't think players making calls should be feared, the
fact we all be on camera will probably keep everyone very
honest.
I'd also say scrap all this talk of shot clocks, two points
lines, maximum passes, no backwad passes, half court
violations, etc. they are unneeded changes.
I have yet to play in a game of ultimate where a team tried
"run down the clock" or "stall for time" the best way to win
a game is to just get to 17, and you don't need a two point
line to give yourself a chance to get back in a game of
ultimate, you just need to stop the other team scoring. So
there is no need for a shot clock or two points lines. The
only reason you'd ever add a two point line in FUTURE years
if there was HIGH DEMAND from spectators for more long hucks
and I mean like REALLY HIGHLY DEMANDED, ie people wouldn't
watch the sport if it weren't for long hucks - which I
severely doubt will ever be the case.
OK so I have ranted and raved a bit - my point is there is
too much fixing of what isn't broken.
Josh Moore
Jan 15, 2012, 11:00:04 AM1/15/12
to
"So I'd be very careful about removing any established rule
unless you have DEEPLY considered all the ramifications, and
I'd be making sure you were consulting with a lot of VERY
experience and strategic players who were able to offer
unbiased feedback before deciding on anything, because at
the top level of the game, which the AUDL will be, you can
bet your bottom dollar that players/coaches will completely
deconstruct the rules and take any advantage they can get,
whether that makes the game "more entertaining" or not."
That's why I posted the question was to get feedback from
unless you have DEEPLY considered all the ramifications, and
I'd be making sure you were consulting with a lot of VERY
experience and strategic players who were able to offer
unbiased feedback before deciding on anything, because at
the top level of the game, which the AUDL will be, you can
bet your bottom dollar that players/coaches will completely
deconstruct the rules and take any advantage they can get,
whether that makes the game "more entertaining" or not."
those on this board that love the sport and offer candid
responses. Thanks to all that provided thoughts. Overall
the sense continues to be, keep the game as close to the
current rules as possible.
ulticritic
Jan 15, 2012, 11:11:22 AM1/15/12
to
On Jan 15, 3:10 am, Chris <cncpr...@gmail.com> wrote:.
> Okay guys, I think we need to take a step back as I think we
> might be missing the bigger picture and many of us may be in
> so deep that we can't see the forest through the trees.
>
> Ultimate is not a sport that has just been developed in the
> last couple of years whose rules or game concept needs a
> major overhaul.
sure it does.....unless you dont think adding fully active refs to
manage the game and enforce rules is a major overhaul.. think about
the game of football......if you go back in time and compare the
original sport to todays game you say that football has had a major
overhaul. thing is, ther is no reason why, in this day and age, that
the sport of ultimat cant cut to the chase and mocernize. its not
somthing that should takes decades of baby steps to come to fruitian.
-----------------------------------------
The fact is, it's been refined and developed
> over a couple of decades.
pffft, no it hasent.
-----------------------------------
Whilst I don't have a copy of the
> first couple of versions of the rules, I'd be willing to bet
> that the vast majority of rules that have been added
> organically over time to make the sport both more
> competitive, fair and fluid which have ultimately make it
> more enjoyable to play and watch.
but the only thing thats really changed is the stall count
---------------------------------------------------
pays attention to.
---------------------------------------------
After all, it is one of, if not
> the, fastest-growing sports.
yall are full of shit with that usau bullshit propaganda. of course,
if ya compared its growth rate in areas that REALLY MATTER, official
little leagues, middle and hs official sanctioned sports and the ncaa
and LOSE YOUR COGNATIVE DISSONANCE you will see that its NOT a fast
growing sport at all.
---------------------------------------------
So obviously something is
> obviously working!
bzzzt WRONG. i mean if it were REALLY working wouldnt ultimate be a
popular hs varsity sport?
-------------------------------------------------------
of levels.
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
incresing field size accomplishes the same thing. SMART MOVE AUDL
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
but
> obviously this was quickly changed because with only a 10
> yard endzone it would increase the difficulty of scoring
> substantially,
substantially? what are you basing this contention on? ignorance?
----------------------------------------
not to mention 100 yard playing area is huge.
> So I assume that AUDL wants the current width because they
> want "fit" on an NFL field.
which is smart.....AND, LETS BE FOR REAL, how much harder would it be
for teams to advance the disc an extra 20 yards? thats one very short
throw, right?
-------------------------------------------------
version, of a thing. ultimate will be no different
---------------------------------
I really don't think whether
> ultimate games can draw a crowd or not will have anything to
> do with the width of the field, so why ask the players to
> completely change the way they play for the sake of NFL
> field dimensions.
so fans are closer to the action.....on both sidelines, duh
------------------------------------------------
little leagues, middle or hs althletic assocoation recognized sports,
the ncaa?
or, church orgs, band camps and pe classes?
-----------------------------------------------------
When you have constant growth figures
> like that whether ultimate will develop into a semi-pro
> league is not a matter of "redesign" it's just a matter of
> "time".
pffft, kickball has been a popular band camp, pee class sport too but
i dont see that sport gettin any hsaa recognition.
---------------------------------
Now the AUDL may be "ahead of its time", but there
> is very little they can do in regards to rule changes that
> will hasten ultimate's success as a professional sport,
how the fuck do you know that?
-------------------------------------------------
this
------------------------------------------
- and I think trying to redesign ultimate
> for its convenience to fit the mould of other sport runs a
> big risk of alienating the players it needs and to some
> degree show a lack of faith of the sport being able to sell
> itself as is.
so should they not use refs either.......for those same reasons?
cause, to me, using refs would be more of a deal breaker than widening
the field a little......in regards to alienating people in the way you
ignorantly contend it will
-----------------------------------------
ok, thats all i got. this chris guy is exausting.......i've never
known someone that writes so much and sais so little
-----------------------------
>
> read more »
no thanks
> Okay guys, I think we need to take a step back as I think we
> might be missing the bigger picture and many of us may be in
> so deep that we can't see the forest through the trees.
>
> Ultimate is not a sport that has just been developed in the
> last couple of years whose rules or game concept needs a
> major overhaul.
manage the game and enforce rules is a major overhaul.. think about
the game of football......if you go back in time and compare the
original sport to todays game you say that football has had a major
overhaul. thing is, ther is no reason why, in this day and age, that
the sport of ultimat cant cut to the chase and mocernize. its not
somthing that should takes decades of baby steps to come to fruitian.
-----------------------------------------
The fact is, it's been refined and developed
> over a couple of decades.
-----------------------------------
Whilst I don't have a copy of the
> first couple of versions of the rules, I'd be willing to bet
> that the vast majority of rules that have been added
> organically over time to make the sport both more
> competitive, fair and fluid which have ultimately make it
> more enjoyable to play and watch.
---------------------------------------------------
>
> So before we go overhauling major concepts of the sport,
> maybe we should try having a little faith in what the sport
> has already become so far.
but what its become so far is an unwatched fringe sport that no one
> So before we go overhauling major concepts of the sport,
> maybe we should try having a little faith in what the sport
> has already become so far.
pays attention to.
---------------------------------------------
After all, it is one of, if not
> the, fastest-growing sports.
if ya compared its growth rate in areas that REALLY MATTER, official
little leagues, middle and hs official sanctioned sports and the ncaa
and LOSE YOUR COGNATIVE DISSONANCE you will see that its NOT a fast
growing sport at all.
---------------------------------------------
So obviously something is
> obviously working!
popular hs varsity sport?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure if this thread was started in response to my
> previous comments suggested that it might not be in the
> AUDLs interest to increase the field width too much because
> it makes offence easier. If that's the case, I know I
> mentioned that I think the increase in the field width does
> change the dynamics of defence substantially, but I think
> the best solution to this problem would be just reducing the
> field width rather than trying to go and add/change/remove
> more rules to favour the defence more to compensate.
WRONG AGAIN......increasing the field size is a good move on a number
> I'm not sure if this thread was started in response to my
> previous comments suggested that it might not be in the
> AUDLs interest to increase the field width too much because
> it makes offence easier. If that's the case, I know I
> mentioned that I think the increase in the field width does
> change the dynamics of defence substantially, but I think
> the best solution to this problem would be just reducing the
> field width rather than trying to go and add/change/remove
> more rules to favour the defence more to compensate.
of levels.
----------------------------------------------------
>
> I really don't understand the concept of making one rule
> change and then needing to make a couple others rule changes
> to try and compensate for the one that has already been
> changed. Doesn't it make more sense to just stick with what
> works? And I should point out that I don't even know that a
> wider field won't work better for the defence (it's not like
> I have conducted tests or anything).
then maybe you should shut your pie hole about it
> I really don't understand the concept of making one rule
> change and then needing to make a couple others rule changes
> to try and compensate for the one that has already been
> changed. Doesn't it make more sense to just stick with what
> works? And I should point out that I don't even know that a
> wider field won't work better for the defence (it's not like
> I have conducted tests or anything).
----------------------------------------------
>
> My previous comments about field width were not meant to be
> interpreted as "oh you should make it easier for the defence
> in light of the increased width of the field" they were
> meant to be interpreted as "maybe we should just play with
> the normal field width".
fuck that. ive always said we should go to a 6 on 6 game but
> My previous comments about field width were not meant to be
> interpreted as "oh you should make it easier for the defence
> in light of the increased width of the field" they were
> meant to be interpreted as "maybe we should just play with
> the normal field width".
incresing field size accomplishes the same thing. SMART MOVE AUDL
-------------------------------------------
>
> If I'm not mistaken, at one point it was in the AUDL plans
> to have the field dimensions being exactly that of an NFL
> field, i.e. 100 yard playing area and 10 yard endzones,
YET ANOTHER SMART IDEA!!!!
> If I'm not mistaken, at one point it was in the AUDL plans
> to have the field dimensions being exactly that of an NFL
> field, i.e. 100 yard playing area and 10 yard endzones,
-------------------------------------------
but
> obviously this was quickly changed because with only a 10
> yard endzone it would increase the difficulty of scoring
> substantially,
----------------------------------------
not to mention 100 yard playing area is huge.
> So I assume that AUDL wants the current width because they
> want "fit" on an NFL field.
for teams to advance the disc an extra 20 yards? thats one very short
throw, right?
-------------------------------------------------
>
> Whilst I understand the concept of trying to fit the mould
> of already successful professional sports, I think there is
> a real danger in not recognising the growing popularity of
> ultimate just as it is.
eh, people will always appreciate an uprgaded, new and improved
> Whilst I understand the concept of trying to fit the mould
> of already successful professional sports, I think there is
> a real danger in not recognising the growing popularity of
> ultimate just as it is.
version, of a thing. ultimate will be no different
---------------------------------
I really don't think whether
> ultimate games can draw a crowd or not will have anything to
> do with the width of the field, so why ask the players to
> completely change the way they play for the sake of NFL
> field dimensions.
------------------------------------------------
>
> Ultimate is one of the fastest-growing sports with growth of
> 7 to 12% per year.
oh yea, and exactly where is this growth happening? in official
> Ultimate is one of the fastest-growing sports with growth of
> 7 to 12% per year.
little leagues, middle or hs althletic assocoation recognized sports,
the ncaa?
or, church orgs, band camps and pe classes?
-----------------------------------------------------
When you have constant growth figures
> like that whether ultimate will develop into a semi-pro
> league is not a matter of "redesign" it's just a matter of
> "time".
i dont see that sport gettin any hsaa recognition.
---------------------------------
Now the AUDL may be "ahead of its time", but there
> is very little they can do in regards to rule changes that
> will hasten ultimate's success as a professional sport,
-------------------------------------------------
> however I think there is a lot they can do to ruin their
> chances of success
yea, not putting franchises in proper locations......we've been over
> chances of success
this
------------------------------------------
- and I think trying to redesign ultimate
> for its convenience to fit the mould of other sport runs a
> big risk of alienating the players it needs and to some
> degree show a lack of faith of the sport being able to sell
> itself as is.
cause, to me, using refs would be more of a deal breaker than widening
the field a little......in regards to alienating people in the way you
ignorantly contend it will
-----------------------------------------
>
> So Josh if I was you, I'd simply ask the stadium owners to
> paint a single white line 6 yards in from the NFL sidelines,
> rather than try and increase defences chance via alternative
> rule changes.
dont do it josh
> So Josh if I was you, I'd simply ask the stadium owners to
> paint a single white line 6 yards in from the NFL sidelines,
> rather than try and increase defences chance via alternative
> rule changes.
ok, thats all i got. this chris guy is exausting.......i've never
known someone that writes so much and sais so little
-----------------------------
>
> read more »
no thanks
Julian Bonds
Jan 15, 2012, 12:51:05 PM1/15/12
to
on TV in the US? Since when does a kid's football game have two
minute TV timeouts after a kick off? Or instant replay officials?
NHL hockey routinely delays face offs for TV. My point is that
details of the elite level play are commonly different from the
amateur game.
The idea is to pack the action into bundles. Think of how the fans
will want to watch. Also, think of the concession business.
Please also note (on a different issue) that the AUDL is intending to
have timed games (20 minute quarters I believe) so running out the
clock will be a common strategy.
Jed
Jan 15, 2012, 2:40:04 PM1/15/12
to
cncventure wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 03:06
the pull, and allowing players to sub during a point. Is
having the same 14 players on the field for the duration of
a point somehow critical to the excitement of the sport?
Does a nice pull and run down the field get you on the edge
of your seat?
Apart from call discussions, the dullest part of the game
has to be the time between when a point is caught, and when
the receiving team takes possession and starts their
offense. Why not cut to the chase?
The way we do it now is somewhat akin to having a time out
and then a jump ball at centre court every time a basket is
scored.
> Quote:
> > Ever considered speed point? A bit more of an
> > extreme change, but it's how we play indoor in Toronto,
> > among other places. Basically the scoring team drops the
> > disc, and the opponent immediately starts on offence
> > from that spot. Substitutions are made on the fly, like
> > hockey or lacrosse. Makes for much less down time, much
> > higher scoring, and greater possibility of a comeback
> > (easy to stuff and score very quickly).
> Okay, now we are moving into "Oh my God! Can we please
> just play ultimate" territory. If this rule was brought
> into the AUDL I will guarantee you 50% if not 100% of
> current elite level players will not play the sport.
>
> I'm really starting to think with comments like this
> there might be too many cooks in the kitchen.
Why is this so radical? It basically amounts to eliminating
> > Ever considered speed point? A bit more of an
> > extreme change, but it's how we play indoor in Toronto,
> > among other places. Basically the scoring team drops the
> > disc, and the opponent immediately starts on offence
> > from that spot. Substitutions are made on the fly, like
> > hockey or lacrosse. Makes for much less down time, much
> > higher scoring, and greater possibility of a comeback
> > (easy to stuff and score very quickly).
> Okay, now we are moving into "Oh my God! Can we please
> just play ultimate" territory. If this rule was brought
> into the AUDL I will guarantee you 50% if not 100% of
> current elite level players will not play the sport.
>
> I'm really starting to think with comments like this
> there might be too many cooks in the kitchen.
the pull, and allowing players to sub during a point. Is
having the same 14 players on the field for the duration of
a point somehow critical to the excitement of the sport?
Does a nice pull and run down the field get you on the edge
of your seat?
Apart from call discussions, the dullest part of the game
has to be the time between when a point is caught, and when
the receiving team takes possession and starts their
offense. Why not cut to the chase?
The way we do it now is somewhat akin to having a time out
and then a jump ball at centre court every time a basket is
scored.
Anthony
Jan 15, 2012, 3:45:10 PM1/15/12
to
I would think you'd have to keep the full size field as
spectators will have a hard time looking at the lines. Hell
as players some of us have trouble with that.
Field size as it is I think the double team would be good to
add excitement and to pressure offense a bit more. I do not
like the idea of limiting backwards passes as that will
dramatically change lots of offensive and defensive
strategies. I know we want to add excitement, but how much
team skill are we going to show if we have to have huck
fests all the time. Don't worry about the excitment factor
too much. Lets not forget how many people were addicted to
watching Curling in the winter olympics. You get it on TV
where people can see it, and they'll watch.
spectators will have a hard time looking at the lines. Hell
as players some of us have trouble with that.
Field size as it is I think the double team would be good to
add excitement and to pressure offense a bit more. I do not
like the idea of limiting backwards passes as that will
dramatically change lots of offensive and defensive
strategies. I know we want to add excitement, but how much
team skill are we going to show if we have to have huck
fests all the time. Don't worry about the excitment factor
too much. Lets not forget how many people were addicted to
watching Curling in the winter olympics. You get it on TV
where people can see it, and they'll watch.
Doc
Jan 15, 2012, 4:40:04 PM1/15/12
to
Another alternative to trying to fill up that new empty
space that the increased field width has created is to maybe
make it 8 on 8 instead of 7 on 7. Not sure how that might
affect roster size decisions, but it could be an alternative
to other, defensive-minded changes to the current rules.
Eliminating the no double-team rule seems like an
interesting idea. Definitely feel like that is far superior
to the "no two consecutive passes backwards" rule, which as
someone suggested might be cumbersome to officiate. Poking
and prodding at a defense for weaknesses is an interesting
strategic element to the game. Forcing a change to a more
vertical style of play seems unnecessary... some teams play
like that anyway. Different styles add interest and
intrigue.
The sprint rules that someone suggested (subbing on the fly,
scored on team takes possession of the disc on their own end
line instead of there being a pull, etc) are an interesting
idea, and would amp up the scoring considerably. The
downside might be a lack of drama to each point. There's
something about the anticipation of the pull that is
exciting to me. Maybe the average AUDL fan might not find
it that fascinating.
I think the suggestion that elite players wouldnt play the
game with some rule changes kinda paints those players as
bizarre Ultimate snobs, rather than athletes looking for a
challenge. The AUDL is going to be a bit different than
USAU... thats not a bad thing as long as the games are
exciting to watch and fun and challenging to play.
Doc
space that the increased field width has created is to maybe
make it 8 on 8 instead of 7 on 7. Not sure how that might
affect roster size decisions, but it could be an alternative
to other, defensive-minded changes to the current rules.
Eliminating the no double-team rule seems like an
interesting idea. Definitely feel like that is far superior
to the "no two consecutive passes backwards" rule, which as
someone suggested might be cumbersome to officiate. Poking
and prodding at a defense for weaknesses is an interesting
strategic element to the game. Forcing a change to a more
vertical style of play seems unnecessary... some teams play
like that anyway. Different styles add interest and
intrigue.
The sprint rules that someone suggested (subbing on the fly,
scored on team takes possession of the disc on their own end
line instead of there being a pull, etc) are an interesting
idea, and would amp up the scoring considerably. The
downside might be a lack of drama to each point. There's
something about the anticipation of the pull that is
exciting to me. Maybe the average AUDL fan might not find
it that fascinating.
I think the suggestion that elite players wouldnt play the
game with some rule changes kinda paints those players as
bizarre Ultimate snobs, rather than athletes looking for a
challenge. The AUDL is going to be a bit different than
USAU... thats not a bad thing as long as the games are
exciting to watch and fun and challenging to play.
Doc
Michael
Jan 15, 2012, 5:10:03 PM1/15/12
to
I think some of the problems with the sprint rule are that
there would need to be much larger rosters to make up for
not having time to rest between points, and there couldn't
be specific O and D lines as easily. Also, you wouldn't be
able to have a star player on your team if there comes
someone who dominates the entire game play every point,
which has potential to be someone who fans really can cling
to.
there would need to be much larger rosters to make up for
not having time to rest between points, and there couldn't
be specific O and D lines as easily. Also, you wouldn't be
able to have a star player on your team if there comes
someone who dominates the entire game play every point,
which has potential to be someone who fans really can cling
to.
huckbucket
Jan 15, 2012, 7:20:03 PM1/15/12
to
"The way we do it now is somewhat akin to having a time out
and then a jump ball at centre court every time a basket is
scored."
No.
and then a jump ball at centre court every time a basket is
scored."
The way we do it now is directly similar to a kickoff after
a touchdown, or a faceoff in hockey, or whatever the hell
it's called in soccer.
Where's frank? why don't we just play dischoops? Or play
with a make it - take it rule...
troyd...@gmail.com
Jan 15, 2012, 9:31:49 PM1/15/12
to
Everything in this post is spot on.
Having been to an AUDL tryout and scrimmages and with plans to attend more, I can confirm that the larger field makes defense significantly harder. The 7 second stall is rarely an issue as the disc easily moves around on resets and someone somewhere is open up field with the extra space.
If there were further changes like 8 vs 8 or 2 point line or shot clock or whatever I would probably bail on the concept, though I can only speak for myself in that matter. To me it'd be the same as coming out for a new basketball league and finding out they're playing 6 on 6 or make-it-take-it or have an 11 foot rim.
The biggest advantage of the AUDL is the simple fact that they're trying to pull it off. They should be focusing on their marketing dedication to a particular city, their potential of at least paying players' expenses if not more, and their system of full third party officiating. These are the fundamental changes that they bring. Further rule changes at this point are unnecessary, and as the previous poster stated, only run the risk of ruining the big picture. If the league is as dedicated to multiple seasons as they have so far stated, it'd be easy to tweak rules as needed for 2013 after they've had a real sample size and measurable feedback.
I was more accepting of the field size change given how it made football venues easier to use, but if the league is growing in clout, then it should have the ability to get venues to bend to us and get lines in the right places. If the AUDL really consciously has decided a larger field size makes the sport better, then great go for it. If it's just for the sake of convenience, that's not good enough.
Finally, I know some of these AUDL teams are going to think about staying together for the club season and seeing how they do, and everyone is going to be very interested in their result if that happens. I can already see how poaching defenders on a 40 yard wide field will be a pretty big surprise to an AUDL ho-stack offense used to having everyone more spaced out. The more differences there are between AUDL and the rest of the sport, the more AUDL based club teams will struggle to adjust when they hit that circuit.
Troy
Chris
Jan 15, 2012, 10:05:05 PM1/15/12
to
joshmoore7 wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 07:56
as it was meant to be a wake-up call to all of the ultimate
on RSD that felt like throwing in their two cents without
really thinking through the consequences of what their
suggestions might have for the future of the sport and the
AUDL. These aren't "small" decisions being made.
The fact of the matter is, if the AUDL is successful, it
will be the only semipro league in the world and how it is
played will have a substantial influence over the future of
our sport!
So I really dislike the idea that the future of our sport is
potentially being influenced by RSD posters who just want to
throw their two cents in, because they like playing ultimate
in their in their local leagues and had a brain fart of an
idea.
Josh, I know you are passionate about making the AUDL work,
and I greatly appreciate that you are communicating with the
community on forums like RSD, but I think when it comes to
designing the game and any potential rule changes I wouldn't
be leaving that up to posts on RSD I'd be getting 5 to 10
leading figureheads in the game who have the ability to
think laterally, highly value the future of the sport, have
respect for what the AUDL is trying to achieve, but
understand the in game consequences of rule changes and a
potentially with a bias towards elite level players given
that you're creating an elite player league, and only
consulting with them.
So to me that would be elite level players from top club
teams, representatives from WFDF, UAO, and USAU, top
commentators from ultimate resources like sydd mag etc.
These are the sorts of people you want to be consulting with
potential rule changes not letting every tom, dick and harry
have their two cents.
And if you are a member of these organisations I think you
have a responsibility to the sport to be getting in contact
with the AUDL and consulting on these matters.
Quote:
longer to write, so take it as a reflection of how much I
care.
I have dozens of things that I have to do, and I consider my
time to be precious, so this will be my last posts on this
thread.
Also, just so you know I write long posts because nothing in
life or business is black and white. There are always
indirect consequences of actions. So foresight is required,
there seems to be quite a lack of it in these threads at the
moment.
Quote:
step too far, or at least they may be too soon, and as I
mentioned in my previous post I still think there is a place
for player calls even in the AUDL - but that's up to the
AUDL to test those concepts and make their own decisions.
That said, I don't think having refs "greatly changes how
the game is played" it just changes who makes the calls. I
don't consider myself a cheat so I'm okay with that change.
So whilst not ideal, I don't see having observers or refs at
the elite level sport as the end of the world.
Ulticritic, I respect that you are passionate about your
opinion, and you clearly are not un-insightful, but I would
take you a lot more serious if you presented your arguments
more amicably and presented a case rather than just assumed
you were right.
Quote:
really been properly sold as a product. Let's spare the
judgements until the end of 2012.
Quote:
growth rates of the sport, I'm not trusting a USUA promo
video. And this "knowledge" is not because I just want to
have an opinion or because I have watched my home town
leagues grow rapidly in size over the last 5 - 7 years, but
because a few weeks back I took 30 to 60 min of my time to
go out, do some research, find some statistics and realise
that the sport is not only growing, it's actually growing
quite rapidly:
http://www.ultitalk.com/index.php?topic=1580.0
So you can make as many off-the-cuff statements as you want,
but the reality is reality. Ignore them at your own peril.
Quote:
"right" or "wrong" when it comes to ideal field size. It
just depends what you want to achieve, and that is just a
difference of opinion.
Quote:
Quote:
played. When you make the end zone is only 10 yards deep,
you are going to reduce the number of leading passes into
the end zone, which is the easiest way to score.
As a result what we will probably see is a lots of long
hucks falling 10 to 20 yards short of the end zone, and then
seeing 8 to 10 people being crammed into an endzone that is
now half the size of what we are used to be, even with the
wider field, and as a result I imagine there would be a lot
more hammers, blades, scoobers to score because any defender
with half a brain would know that they just have to mark
aggressively under, open side because there is no deep
threat and the hammer option is super tough throw if you
only have 10m to work with.
Quote:
does make a big difference. You have to throw it 42.8%
further!
So it stands to reason that there would probably be 42.8%
more opportunities for a turn, couple this with the smaller
endzones which I'd imagine would be AT LEAST twice as hard
to score into given that they are half the size. You are now
talking about a "substantially" different style of point
being played.
Once again, ulticritic, I'm seriously questioning your
understanding of the game. If you don't understand the
indirect consequences of hundred yard field and 10 yard
endzones...
Quote:
smaller than they were five years ago...
Quote:
watching the game without referees, then I wouldn't have
them.
I think most people make this out to the bigger deal than it
is, from what I've seen observers do a decent job, so it
isn't "essential" that referees be integrated into the AUDL
game, but as I have previously stated - I don't mind.
from_the_sidelines wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 09:51
shorter to cater for a TV audience (and let's not forget we
don't have one of them yet) because it still essentially the
same game and increasing or decreasing intervals between
points, or timeouts or half times are all easy changes to
make at any level of the sport. We all played in local
tournaments that have different point caps, game lengths,
timeout limits, these sorts of modifications don't change
the essence of the game.
What I was arguing was that I would be disappointed to see
the rules of the game changed that affected "how" the game
is played.
Quote:
never play a game of ultimate where a team has just tried to
play "keep away" to try and run down the clock. Nor have I
ever been on an offensive line, where the words were utter
"now our focus of this point is just maintain possession and
run down the clock".
The only instance where running down the clock might be
possible would be if the team was playing zone defence where
there were men who were being unmarked.
Now, given that any team can win the game by getting to the
points cap, means that any team on offence has incentive to
score. Any team on defence has the option of playing man
defence so that its quite hard to recycle the disc in a
"keep away" fashion. That's enough to ensure that sort of
thing doesn't happen.
[quote title=Jed wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012
11:35]cncventure wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 03:06
completely changes the style of game being played?
We are talking about the field size increasing 25% and a
simple change like that can significantly influence the type
of player suited for the sport, and you can't understand why
making ultimate a continuous sport isn't a radical
concept...
Quote:
second lull between points, but if you watched any of those
USAU club championship 2011 games that were filmed, a good
chunk of that 60 seconds was able to fill with replays
and/or commentary. So it was quite bearable.
azoppi wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 11:39
Quote:
Doc wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 13:36
after their trials.
I'm certain ultimate could be played in an 8 on 8 fashion,
it would just take quite a bit of getting used to, and it
would take quite a few months to come up with new offensive
and defensive strategies.
That said I'm supportive of the AUDL reverting back to the 7
on 7 style of play because it keeps it consistent with how
ultimate is played around the rest of the world and as I
have previously stated, I think the AUDL should be wary of
differentiating itself from mainstream ultimate too much.
Quote:
to. What would happen would be is if the AUDL found any
success in their first couple of seasons the elite
players/USAU would just go set up their own professional
league to compete with the AUDL using mainstream ultimate
rules and they would piggyback off the foundation of success
of the AUDL had created for them. That's definitely not what
the AUDL wants.
In the long run, the players are the product and the fans
are the customers. If the overwhelming majority of elite
level players prefer an unmodified version of the game and
the fans agree, or just want to watch the highest level
players, that is where the game will trend.
I'm not against some game modifications for the sake of
creating an entertainment product, and as you all know I
really do want the AUDL to work.
So I just think some modifications are more tolerable than
others and that we all, including the AUDL, need to have a
great deal of respect for the fact that decisions that are
made about how we are going to present the sport to the
public will have a VERY large influence of the future of the
sport. So they should be thought through thoroughly.
> That's why I posted the question was to get feedback
> from those on this board that love the sport and offer
> candid responses. Thanks to all that provided thoughts.
> Overall the sense continues to be, keep the game as close
> to the current rules as possible.
Sorry Josh, that wasn't meant to be an attack at you as much
> from those on this board that love the sport and offer
> candid responses. Thanks to all that provided thoughts.
> Overall the sense continues to be, keep the game as close
> to the current rules as possible.
as it was meant to be a wake-up call to all of the ultimate
on RSD that felt like throwing in their two cents without
really thinking through the consequences of what their
suggestions might have for the future of the sport and the
AUDL. These aren't "small" decisions being made.
The fact of the matter is, if the AUDL is successful, it
will be the only semipro league in the world and how it is
played will have a substantial influence over the future of
our sport!
So I really dislike the idea that the future of our sport is
potentially being influenced by RSD posters who just want to
throw their two cents in, because they like playing ultimate
in their in their local leagues and had a brain fart of an
idea.
Josh, I know you are passionate about making the AUDL work,
and I greatly appreciate that you are communicating with the
community on forums like RSD, but I think when it comes to
designing the game and any potential rule changes I wouldn't
be leaving that up to posts on RSD I'd be getting 5 to 10
leading figureheads in the game who have the ability to
think laterally, highly value the future of the sport, have
respect for what the AUDL is trying to achieve, but
understand the in game consequences of rule changes and a
potentially with a bias towards elite level players given
that you're creating an elite player league, and only
consulting with them.
So to me that would be elite level players from top club
teams, representatives from WFDF, UAO, and USAU, top
commentators from ultimate resources like sydd mag etc.
These are the sorts of people you want to be consulting with
potential rule changes not letting every tom, dick and harry
have their two cents.
And if you are a member of these organisations I think you
have a responsibility to the sport to be getting in contact
with the AUDL and consulting on these matters.
Quote:
> ok, thats all i got. this chris guy is
> exausting.......i've never
> known someone that writes so much and sais so little
They may be exhausting to read, but they take 10 times
> exausting.......i've never
> known someone that writes so much and sais so little
longer to write, so take it as a reflection of how much I
care.
I have dozens of things that I have to do, and I consider my
time to be precious, so this will be my last posts on this
thread.
Also, just so you know I write long posts because nothing in
life or business is black and white. There are always
indirect consequences of actions. So foresight is required,
there seems to be quite a lack of it in these threads at the
moment.
Quote:
> sure it does.....unless you dont think adding fully
> active refs to
> manage the game and enforce rules is a major overhaul..
> think about
> the game of football......if you go back in time and
> compare the
> original sport to todays game you say that football has
> had a major
> overhaul. thing is, ther is no reason why, in this day
> and age, that
> the sport of ultimat cant cut to the chase and
> mocernize. its not
> somthing that should takes decades of baby steps to come
> to fruitian.
I actually think adding fully active refs, may indeed be a
> active refs to
> manage the game and enforce rules is a major overhaul..
> think about
> the game of football......if you go back in time and
> compare the
> original sport to todays game you say that football has
> had a major
> overhaul. thing is, ther is no reason why, in this day
> and age, that
> the sport of ultimat cant cut to the chase and
> mocernize. its not
> somthing that should takes decades of baby steps to come
> to fruitian.
step too far, or at least they may be too soon, and as I
mentioned in my previous post I still think there is a place
for player calls even in the AUDL - but that's up to the
AUDL to test those concepts and make their own decisions.
That said, I don't think having refs "greatly changes how
the game is played" it just changes who makes the calls. I
don't consider myself a cheat so I'm okay with that change.
So whilst not ideal, I don't see having observers or refs at
the elite level sport as the end of the world.
Ulticritic, I respect that you are passionate about your
opinion, and you clearly are not un-insightful, but I would
take you a lot more serious if you presented your arguments
more amicably and presented a case rather than just assumed
you were right.
Quote:
> but what its become so far is an unwatched fringe sport
> that no one
> pays attention to.
It's never been bought as a product because it has never
> that no one
> pays attention to.
really been properly sold as a product. Let's spare the
judgements until the end of 2012.
Quote:
> yall are full of shit with that usau bullshit
> propaganda. of course,
> if ya compared its growth rate in areas that REALLY
> MATTER, official
> little leagues, middle and hs official sanctioned sports
> and the ncaa
> and LOSE YOUR COGNATIVE DISSONANCE you will see that its
> NOT a fast
> growing sport at all.
and you see that's where we differ ulticritic, I know the
> propaganda. of course,
> if ya compared its growth rate in areas that REALLY
> MATTER, official
> little leagues, middle and hs official sanctioned sports
> and the ncaa
> and LOSE YOUR COGNATIVE DISSONANCE you will see that its
> NOT a fast
> growing sport at all.
growth rates of the sport, I'm not trusting a USUA promo
video. And this "knowledge" is not because I just want to
have an opinion or because I have watched my home town
leagues grow rapidly in size over the last 5 - 7 years, but
because a few weeks back I took 30 to 60 min of my time to
go out, do some research, find some statistics and realise
that the sport is not only growing, it's actually growing
quite rapidly:
http://www.ultitalk.com/index.php?topic=1580.0
So you can make as many off-the-cuff statements as you want,
but the reality is reality. Ignore them at your own peril.
Quote:
> WRONG AGAIN......increasing the field size is a good
> move on a number
> of levels. fuck that. ive always said we should go to a
> move on a number
> 6 on 6 game but
> incresing field size accomplishes the same thing. SMART
> MOVE AUDL
LOL, I love the way you say that I am "wrong". There is no
> incresing field size accomplishes the same thing. SMART
> MOVE AUDL
"right" or "wrong" when it comes to ideal field size. It
just depends what you want to achieve, and that is just a
difference of opinion.
Quote:
> > If I'm not mistaken, at one point it was in the AUDL
> > plans
> > to have the field dimensions being exactly that of
> > an NFL
> > field, i.e. 100 yard playing area and 10 yard
> > endzones,
>
>
> YET ANOTHER SMART IDEA!!!!
Ugh, do you even play this sport?!?
> > plans
> > to have the field dimensions being exactly that of
> > an NFL
> > field, i.e. 100 yard playing area and 10 yard
> > endzones,
>
>
> YET ANOTHER SMART IDEA!!!!
Quote:
> but
> > obviously this was quickly changed because with only
> > a 10
> > yard endzone it would increase the difficulty of
> > scoring
> > substantially,
>
> substantially? what are you basing this contention on?
> ignorance?
I'm basing it on a deep understanding of how the sport is
> > obviously this was quickly changed because with only
> > a 10
> > yard endzone it would increase the difficulty of
> > scoring
> > substantially,
>
> substantially? what are you basing this contention on?
> ignorance?
played. When you make the end zone is only 10 yards deep,
you are going to reduce the number of leading passes into
the end zone, which is the easiest way to score.
As a result what we will probably see is a lots of long
hucks falling 10 to 20 yards short of the end zone, and then
seeing 8 to 10 people being crammed into an endzone that is
now half the size of what we are used to be, even with the
wider field, and as a result I imagine there would be a lot
more hammers, blades, scoobers to score because any defender
with half a brain would know that they just have to mark
aggressively under, open side because there is no deep
threat and the hammer option is super tough throw if you
only have 10m to work with.
Quote:
> which is smart.....AND, LETS BE FOR REAL, how much
> harder would it be
> for teams to advance the disc an extra 20 yards? thats
> one very short
> throw, right?
If you change the field from 70 yards to 100 yards, that
> harder would it be
> for teams to advance the disc an extra 20 yards? thats
> one very short
> throw, right?
does make a big difference. You have to throw it 42.8%
further!
So it stands to reason that there would probably be 42.8%
more opportunities for a turn, couple this with the smaller
endzones which I'd imagine would be AT LEAST twice as hard
to score into given that they are half the size. You are now
talking about a "substantially" different style of point
being played.
Once again, ulticritic, I'm seriously questioning your
understanding of the game. If you don't understand the
indirect consequences of hundred yard field and 10 yard
endzones...
Quote:
> oh yea, and exactly where is this growth happening? in
> official
> little leagues, middle or hs althletic assocoation
> recognized sports,
> the ncaa? or, church orgs, band camps and pe classes?
Why don't you show me the areas of the sport that are
> official
> little leagues, middle or hs althletic assocoation
> recognized sports,
> the ncaa? or, church orgs, band camps and pe classes?
smaller than they were five years ago...
Quote:
> so should they not use refs either.......for those same
> reasons?
> cause, to me, using refs would be more of a deal breaker
> than widening
> the field a little......in regards to alienating people
> in the way you
> ignorantly contend it will
If they don't NEED refs, i.e. if the fans don't mind
> reasons?
> cause, to me, using refs would be more of a deal breaker
> than widening
> the field a little......in regards to alienating people
> in the way you
> ignorantly contend it will
watching the game without referees, then I wouldn't have
them.
I think most people make this out to the bigger deal than it
is, from what I've seen observers do a decent job, so it
isn't "essential" that referees be integrated into the AUDL
game, but as I have previously stated - I don't mind.
from_the_sidelines wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 09:51
> Interesting. However one detail: have you ever watched
> a pro sport
> on TV in the US? Since when does a kid's football game
> have two
> minute TV timeouts after a kick off? Or instant replay
> officials?
> NHL hockey routinely delays face offs for TV. My point
> is that
> details of the elite level play are commonly different
> from the
> amateur game.
>
> The idea is to pack the action into bundles. Think of
> how the fans
> will want to watch. Also, think of the concession
> business.
Yes, that's fine to have breaks that are slightly longer or
> a pro sport
> on TV in the US? Since when does a kid's football game
> have two
> minute TV timeouts after a kick off? Or instant replay
> officials?
> NHL hockey routinely delays face offs for TV. My point
> is that
> details of the elite level play are commonly different
> from the
> amateur game.
>
> The idea is to pack the action into bundles. Think of
> how the fans
> will want to watch. Also, think of the concession
> business.
shorter to cater for a TV audience (and let's not forget we
don't have one of them yet) because it still essentially the
same game and increasing or decreasing intervals between
points, or timeouts or half times are all easy changes to
make at any level of the sport. We all played in local
tournaments that have different point caps, game lengths,
timeout limits, these sorts of modifications don't change
the essence of the game.
What I was arguing was that I would be disappointed to see
the rules of the game changed that affected "how" the game
is played.
Quote:
> Please also note (on a different issue) that the AUDL is
> intending to
> have timed games (20 minute quarters I believe) so
> running out the
> clock will be a common strategy.
I don't know how much ultimate you've played, but I have
> intending to
> have timed games (20 minute quarters I believe) so
> running out the
> clock will be a common strategy.
never play a game of ultimate where a team has just tried to
play "keep away" to try and run down the clock. Nor have I
ever been on an offensive line, where the words were utter
"now our focus of this point is just maintain possession and
run down the clock".
The only instance where running down the clock might be
possible would be if the team was playing zone defence where
there were men who were being unmarked.
Now, given that any team can win the game by getting to the
points cap, means that any team on offence has incentive to
score. Any team on defence has the option of playing man
defence so that its quite hard to recycle the disc in a
"keep away" fashion. That's enough to ensure that sort of
thing doesn't happen.
[quote title=Jed wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012
11:35]cncventure wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 03:06
> Why is this so radical? It basically amounts to
> eliminating the pull, and allowing players to sub during a
> point. Is having the same 14 players on the field for the
> duration of a point somehow critical to the excitement of
> the sport? Does a nice pull and run down the field get you
> on the edge of your seat?
Seriously dude, are you kidding me? You can't see how that
> eliminating the pull, and allowing players to sub during a
> point. Is having the same 14 players on the field for the
> duration of a point somehow critical to the excitement of
> the sport? Does a nice pull and run down the field get you
> on the edge of your seat?
completely changes the style of game being played?
We are talking about the field size increasing 25% and a
simple change like that can significantly influence the type
of player suited for the sport, and you can't understand why
making ultimate a continuous sport isn't a radical
concept...
Quote:
> Apart from call discussions, the dullest part of the
> game has to be the time between when a point is caught,
> and when the receiving team takes possession and starts
> their offense. Why not cut to the chase?
I won't disagree with you there, there is a bit of a 60
> game has to be the time between when a point is caught,
> and when the receiving team takes possession and starts
> their offense. Why not cut to the chase?
second lull between points, but if you watched any of those
USAU club championship 2011 games that were filmed, a good
chunk of that 60 seconds was able to fill with replays
and/or commentary. So it was quite bearable.
azoppi wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 11:39
> I would think you'd have to keep the full size field as
> spectators will have a hard time looking at the lines.
> Hell as players some of us have trouble with that.
So paint the line slightly wider, end of problem.
> spectators will have a hard time looking at the lines.
> Hell as players some of us have trouble with that.
Quote:
> You get it on TV where people can see it, and they'll
> watch.
Bingo.
> watch.
Doc wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 13:36
> Another alternative to trying to fill up that new empty
> space that the increased field width has created is to
> maybe make it 8 on 8 instead of 7 on 7.
That was their original plan then they scrapped that idea
> space that the increased field width has created is to
> maybe make it 8 on 8 instead of 7 on 7.
after their trials.
I'm certain ultimate could be played in an 8 on 8 fashion,
it would just take quite a bit of getting used to, and it
would take quite a few months to come up with new offensive
and defensive strategies.
That said I'm supportive of the AUDL reverting back to the 7
on 7 style of play because it keeps it consistent with how
ultimate is played around the rest of the world and as I
have previously stated, I think the AUDL should be wary of
differentiating itself from mainstream ultimate too much.
Quote:
> I think the suggestion that elite players wouldnt play
> the game with some rule changes kinda paints those players
> as bizarre Ultimate snobs, rather than athletes looking
> for a challenge. The AUDL is going to be a bit different
> than USAU... thats not a bad thing as long as the games
> are exciting to watch and fun and challenging to play.
The elite players wouldn't play because they wouldn't have
> the game with some rule changes kinda paints those players
> as bizarre Ultimate snobs, rather than athletes looking
> for a challenge. The AUDL is going to be a bit different
> than USAU... thats not a bad thing as long as the games
> are exciting to watch and fun and challenging to play.
to. What would happen would be is if the AUDL found any
success in their first couple of seasons the elite
players/USAU would just go set up their own professional
league to compete with the AUDL using mainstream ultimate
rules and they would piggyback off the foundation of success
of the AUDL had created for them. That's definitely not what
the AUDL wants.
In the long run, the players are the product and the fans
are the customers. If the overwhelming majority of elite
level players prefer an unmodified version of the game and
the fans agree, or just want to watch the highest level
players, that is where the game will trend.
I'm not against some game modifications for the sake of
creating an entertainment product, and as you all know I
really do want the AUDL to work.
So I just think some modifications are more tolerable than
others and that we all, including the AUDL, need to have a
great deal of respect for the fact that decisions that are
made about how we are going to present the sport to the
public will have a VERY large influence of the future of the
sport. So they should be thought through thoroughly.
Julian Bonds
Jan 15, 2012, 11:35:41 PM1/15/12
to
> Quote:> Please also note (on a different issue) that the AUDL is
> > intending to
> > have timed games (20 minute quarters I believe) so
> > running out the
> > clock will be a common strategy.
>
> I don't know how much ultimate you've played, but I have
> never play a game of ultimate where a team has just tried to
> play "keep away" to try and run down the clock. Nor have I
> ever been on an offensive line, where the words were utter
> "now our focus of this point is just maintain possession and
> run down the clock".
>
> The only instance where running down the clock might be
> possible would be if the team was playing zone defence where
> there were men who were being unmarked.
>
> Now, given that any team can win the game by getting to the
> points cap, means that any team on offence has incentive to
> score. Any team on defence has the option of playing man
> defence so that its quite hard to recycle the disc in a
> "keep away" fashion. That's enough to ensure that sort of
> thing doesn't happen.
>
timed? When did the clock get removed from ultimate? 1982? Again,
let me point out that the AUDL is looking at having four 20 minute
quarters. NOT A POINT CAP. And North Carolina Basketball has shown
us that a timed game without a shot clock is asking for a four corners
offense.
I am not sure what they expect a normal score will be. 11-4? 6-3?
22-19?
Take a look at these details:
http://www.theaudl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40&Itemid=68
Bobus
Jan 16, 2012, 6:35:04 AM1/16/12
to
cncventure wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 22:03
Seriously, there are lots of folk who appreciate your posts,
so don't be discouraged when a couple of douchebags get all
douchy on you.
My advice:
use RSD No Spam to block them
or, don't respond unless to make fun of them or troll them
back - it can actually be quite fun
> I have dozens of things that I have to do, and I
> consider my time to be precious, so this will be my last
> posts on this thread.
Don't let the terrorists win!
> consider my time to be precious, so this will be my last
> posts on this thread.
Seriously, there are lots of folk who appreciate your posts,
so don't be discouraged when a couple of douchebags get all
douchy on you.
My advice:
use RSD No Spam to block them
or, don't respond unless to make fun of them or troll them
back - it can actually be quite fun
anakin gerics
Jan 16, 2012, 6:52:23 AM1/16/12
to
Bobus
Jan 16, 2012, 7:10:03 AM1/16/12
to
anakin gerics wrote on Mon, 16 January 2012 06:52
> On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Chris <cncpr...@gmail.com[/email]>
Everyone brings their own unique style I guess...
> On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Chris <cncpr...@gmail.com[/email]>
> wrote:
>
> ~~~~~
>
> --you write like a weirdo.
And you write like a douchebag.
>
> ~~~~~
>
> --you write like a weirdo.
Everyone brings their own unique style I guess...
anakin gerics
Jan 16, 2012, 7:20:30 AM1/16/12
to
On Jan 16, 7:10 am, Bobus <roblo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone brings their own unique style I guess...
~~~~~~~~~~
> Everyone brings their own unique style I guess...
---yeah, you got style.............the wronnnng style.
say, aren't you one of those fellas who pretends to have us cool
people 'blocked'?
Bobus
Jan 16, 2012, 7:45:03 AM1/16/12
to
anakin gerics wrote on Mon, 16 January 2012 07:20
> say, aren't you one of those fellas who pretends to have
> us cool
> people 'blocked'?
You spelled retarded wrong...
> us cool
> people 'blocked'?
Chris
Jan 16, 2012, 7:55:04 AM1/16/12
to
from_the_sidelines wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 20:35
but upon looking at the details it doesn't seem to
explicitly say whether the winner will be the team that gets
to points cap or the team that is in front when the final
buzzer goes.
Josh, are you able to clarify?
That said, I think ultimate is a little different from most
sports in that the person with possession can't move, and
may only maintain it for a brief amount of time. This makes
it significantly more difficult to "run down the clock".
I'm not saying it isn't possible, it's just very difficult.
Plus in ultimate there is the added benefit of if you score,
you not only put yourself another point ahead, you also earn
your team another 60+ seconds where the opposition can't
score against you.
Quote:
And don't worry I'm not letting anyone "win" and as a
general rule I try not to respond to comments that aren't
worth the time, but at the same time it's important to stamp
out misinformation if there is any floating around.
Whilst I do have lot of things to do, ultimate is very
important to me as well, and I do want to see the AUDL
succeed, so if there is ever anything that I find concerning
or biased being said or suggested on these forums rest
assured I'll step in and post.
But for now I just really appreciate that there are now over
1500 people out there that "like" the AUDL, and that number
is growing rapidly, and that the ultimate community is
becoming more "open" to the idea of the AUDL, which means I
can stop ranting and raving a little less about how we
should get behind it and help make it a success, and I can
let others within the community take up the cause of
converting the readers of RSD to supporters of the AUDL
(tough ask I know).
: ))
> > The question is: how much ultimate have you played
> > that has been
> timed? When did the clock get removed from ultimate?
> 1982? Again,
> let me point out that the AUDL is looking at having four
> 20 minute
> quarters. NOT A POINT CAP. And North Carolina
> Basketball has shown
> us that a timed game without a shot clock is asking for
> a four corners
> offense.
>
> I am not sure what they expect a normal score will be.
> 11-4? 6-3?
> 22-19?
>
> Take a look at these details:
>
> http://www.theaudl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view
> =article&id=40&Itemid=68
My apologies, I just assumed there would be a points cap -
> > that has been
> timed? When did the clock get removed from ultimate?
> 1982? Again,
> let me point out that the AUDL is looking at having four
> 20 minute
> quarters. NOT A POINT CAP. And North Carolina
> Basketball has shown
> us that a timed game without a shot clock is asking for
> a four corners
> offense.
>
> I am not sure what they expect a normal score will be.
> 11-4? 6-3?
> 22-19?
>
> Take a look at these details:
>
> http://www.theaudl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view
> =article&id=40&Itemid=68
but upon looking at the details it doesn't seem to
explicitly say whether the winner will be the team that gets
to points cap or the team that is in front when the final
buzzer goes.
Josh, are you able to clarify?
That said, I think ultimate is a little different from most
sports in that the person with possession can't move, and
may only maintain it for a brief amount of time. This makes
it significantly more difficult to "run down the clock".
I'm not saying it isn't possible, it's just very difficult.
Plus in ultimate there is the added benefit of if you score,
you not only put yourself another point ahead, you also earn
your team another 60+ seconds where the opposition can't
score against you.
Quote:
> Don't let the terrorists win!
>
> Seriously, there are lots of folk who appreciate your
> posts, so don't be discouraged when a couple of douchebags
> get all douchy on you.
Thanks, I appreciate your comment.
>
> Seriously, there are lots of folk who appreciate your
> posts, so don't be discouraged when a couple of douchebags
> get all douchy on you.
And don't worry I'm not letting anyone "win" and as a
general rule I try not to respond to comments that aren't
worth the time, but at the same time it's important to stamp
out misinformation if there is any floating around.
Whilst I do have lot of things to do, ultimate is very
important to me as well, and I do want to see the AUDL
succeed, so if there is ever anything that I find concerning
or biased being said or suggested on these forums rest
assured I'll step in and post.
But for now I just really appreciate that there are now over
1500 people out there that "like" the AUDL, and that number
is growing rapidly, and that the ultimate community is
becoming more "open" to the idea of the AUDL, which means I
can stop ranting and raving a little less about how we
should get behind it and help make it a success, and I can
let others within the community take up the cause of
converting the readers of RSD to supporters of the AUDL
(tough ask I know).
: ))
pacemaker
Jan 16, 2012, 8:15:04 AM1/16/12
to
ccventure:
I think Josh needs to give a list of knowns.
Such as
1)Football sized field
2) Times quarters.
3) Refs
4) Indoor or outdoor
5) 7 on 7
If those are true, then different rule sets are needed.
Each of those modifications to how the game is played now
will create a different problem, as you suggested in your
first long post. Many of the suggestions made in this
thread and the Mechanix thread were based on those
assumptions. These were made by people (including me) who
have been playing ultimate quite a long time, and, as
another poster noted, can remember when North Carolina ran
their 4 corners offense in basketball. zzzzzzz
That you claim you have never been in a game where an
offense has stalled stuns me. This happens in many subtle
and unsubtle ways when the hard cap is approaching. Maybe
not through a bunch of dink and dump passes, but the present
rules certainly allow for some shenanigans along these
lines.
Some of the suggestions WERE for more spectator friendly
rules. Ultimate7 who agreed with the 2-point line is hardly
a new player to the game. I am fairly sure a shot clock
will be needed to make a timed game function in some
reasonable way. But that is assuming an indoor game. In a
windy outdoor game possession maintaining "drives" will be
harder.
Anyway, if someone could post the knowns, it would likely
help the conversation.
pacemaker
I think Josh needs to give a list of knowns.
Such as
1)Football sized field
2) Times quarters.
3) Refs
4) Indoor or outdoor
5) 7 on 7
If those are true, then different rule sets are needed.
Each of those modifications to how the game is played now
will create a different problem, as you suggested in your
first long post. Many of the suggestions made in this
thread and the Mechanix thread were based on those
assumptions. These were made by people (including me) who
have been playing ultimate quite a long time, and, as
another poster noted, can remember when North Carolina ran
their 4 corners offense in basketball. zzzzzzz
That you claim you have never been in a game where an
offense has stalled stuns me. This happens in many subtle
and unsubtle ways when the hard cap is approaching. Maybe
not through a bunch of dink and dump passes, but the present
rules certainly allow for some shenanigans along these
lines.
Some of the suggestions WERE for more spectator friendly
rules. Ultimate7 who agreed with the 2-point line is hardly
a new player to the game. I am fairly sure a shot clock
will be needed to make a timed game function in some
reasonable way. But that is assuming an indoor game. In a
windy outdoor game possession maintaining "drives" will be
harder.
Anyway, if someone could post the knowns, it would likely
help the conversation.
pacemaker
anakin gerics
Jan 16, 2012, 8:25:02 AM1/16/12
to
> You spelled retarded wrong...
~~~~~~~~~
---bobus.
Ravi
Jan 16, 2012, 8:40:03 AM1/16/12
to
I'm a bit curious on the clock (maybe this was stated
somewhere already). Does the game clock stop in between
points, when an observer (ref, whatever) is making a call,
when a disc goes out of bounds, etc. If not is there going
to be some kind of stoppage time like in soccer?
somewhere already). Does the game clock stop in between
points, when an observer (ref, whatever) is making a call,
when a disc goes out of bounds, etc. If not is there going
to be some kind of stoppage time like in soccer?
AndrewZill
Jan 16, 2012, 12:47:15 PM1/16/12
to
Ravi wrote on Mon, 16 January 2012 05:37
yes, when the game gets close to ending the team ahead can
and sometimes does try to run out the clock. However, it
isn't necessarily a snooze fest.
In this situation the defense becomes (or needs to become)
more aggressive, putting more pressure on the handlers to
try and shut down all dump cuts instead of poaching lanes
and preventing up field cuts while the downfield defense has
to stop all the in cuts.
When the disc is in the hands of the losing team, the
defense also adjusts(or should adjust) trying to prevent
quick strikes and 2 pointers (Yes there was a two point line
as well) and playing less tight on the underneath cuts.
Personally, I think things that create more strategic
elements to the game are good things. Gives the announcers
something to talk about.
> I'm a bit curious on the clock (maybe this was stated
> somewhere already). Does the game clock stop in between
> points, when an observer (ref, whatever) is making a call,
> when a disc goes out of bounds, etc. If not is there
> going to be some kind of stoppage time like in soccer?
Here in Champaign we have run timed games (with refs) and
> somewhere already). Does the game clock stop in between
> points, when an observer (ref, whatever) is making a call,
> when a disc goes out of bounds, etc. If not is there
> going to be some kind of stoppage time like in soccer?
yes, when the game gets close to ending the team ahead can
and sometimes does try to run out the clock. However, it
isn't necessarily a snooze fest.
In this situation the defense becomes (or needs to become)
more aggressive, putting more pressure on the handlers to
try and shut down all dump cuts instead of poaching lanes
and preventing up field cuts while the downfield defense has
to stop all the in cuts.
When the disc is in the hands of the losing team, the
defense also adjusts(or should adjust) trying to prevent
quick strikes and 2 pointers (Yes there was a two point line
as well) and playing less tight on the underneath cuts.
Personally, I think things that create more strategic
elements to the game are good things. Gives the announcers
something to talk about.
pizzapinochle
Jan 17, 2012, 9:05:06 AM1/17/12
to
Evidence that cncventure is new to RSD:
cncventure wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 22:03
:)
You are dead on in your assessment of Ulticritic.
He doesn't care about facts.
He doesn't believe in logic.
He doesn't think before he types.
Even if you agree with him, you are wrong and he is right.
To any AUDL folk who read RSD and aren't familiar with the
personalities, you can pretty much ignore Ulticritic. What
little he does offer that is right/valuable is pretty
obvious and other people will have already suggested it.
Mostly he just rants about whatever pops into his head
(usually refs and the failings of the USAU), whether it is
related to the topic at hand or not.
In reference to rule chnages.
Eliminating the double team rule is probably a good change.
Not sure why the double team rule is still around, actually.
As long as you have clear rules that prevent a group of
markers from using physicality to prevent throwers from
pivoting and making throws, most high level players can
handle double teams. One less rule for officials to try and
monitor.
Penalties:
Advancing the disc 5 yards is a fairly minor penalty to a
defense and a minor benefit to the offense. It is also time
consuming to walk off the distance and such.
Instead, consider leaving the disc where it is, but
enforcing a penalty on the defender.
For example, when there is a foul, the thrower gets an
undefended throw. The marker has to back off at least 10
yards (does not have to be exact, just a distance that means
they can't be right on the offensive player) and the thrower
gets a full stall to throw. The risk of an undefended huck
or break is a much bigger risk than advancing the disc 5
yards. Also is a quicker game mechanic. Whistle blows,
official indicates defenssive foul, marker starts jogging
away, thrower can check the disc in as soon as they like.
Eliminates the need for an official to be right at the point
of the foul to walk off the distance and restart play.
Game play mechanics:
Something that Kyle suggested (I think it was kyle) is an
"innings" system. Sounded interesting. If someone remembers
what thread it was in, they should post a link.
On field size:
I played in a tournament where the TD set the fields up
wrong. 80-90 yard fields instead of 70. The best team in the
tournament shut everyone out for a full day, did not get
scored on once for 3 games on saturday. Lots of hucks that
would have been scores fell just short and they got several
D's in the endzone that they would not have had the
opportunity to get if the offense didn't have to make one
more pass.
Increasing field length has a significant negative impact on
the ability of offenses to score.
As others have suggested, increased WIDTH makes it easier
for the offense.
cncventure wrote on Sun, 15 January 2012 22:03
> Ulticritic, I respect that you are passionate about your
> opinion, and you clearly are not un-insightful, but I
> would take you a lot more serious if you presented your
> arguments more amicably and presented a case rather than
> just assumed you were right.
>
>
>
> opinion, and you clearly are not un-insightful, but I
> would take you a lot more serious if you presented your
> arguments more amicably and presented a case rather than
> just assumed you were right.
>
>
>
> So you can make as many off-the-cuff statements as you
> want, but the reality is reality. Ignore them at your own
> peril.
>
>
> want, but the reality is reality. Ignore them at your own
> peril.
>
>
> Ugh, do you even play this sport?!?
>
>
>
>
> Once again, ulticritic, I'm seriously questioning your
> understanding of the game. If you don't understand the
> indirect consequences of hundred yard field and 10 yard
> endzones...
The rest of us figured these things out a long time ago!!
> understanding of the game. If you don't understand the
> indirect consequences of hundred yard field and 10 yard
> endzones...
:)
You are dead on in your assessment of Ulticritic.
He doesn't care about facts.
He doesn't believe in logic.
He doesn't think before he types.
Even if you agree with him, you are wrong and he is right.
To any AUDL folk who read RSD and aren't familiar with the
personalities, you can pretty much ignore Ulticritic. What
little he does offer that is right/valuable is pretty
obvious and other people will have already suggested it.
Mostly he just rants about whatever pops into his head
(usually refs and the failings of the USAU), whether it is
related to the topic at hand or not.
In reference to rule chnages.
Eliminating the double team rule is probably a good change.
Not sure why the double team rule is still around, actually.
As long as you have clear rules that prevent a group of
markers from using physicality to prevent throwers from
pivoting and making throws, most high level players can
handle double teams. One less rule for officials to try and
monitor.
Penalties:
Advancing the disc 5 yards is a fairly minor penalty to a
defense and a minor benefit to the offense. It is also time
consuming to walk off the distance and such.
Instead, consider leaving the disc where it is, but
enforcing a penalty on the defender.
For example, when there is a foul, the thrower gets an
undefended throw. The marker has to back off at least 10
yards (does not have to be exact, just a distance that means
they can't be right on the offensive player) and the thrower
gets a full stall to throw. The risk of an undefended huck
or break is a much bigger risk than advancing the disc 5
yards. Also is a quicker game mechanic. Whistle blows,
official indicates defenssive foul, marker starts jogging
away, thrower can check the disc in as soon as they like.
Eliminates the need for an official to be right at the point
of the foul to walk off the distance and restart play.
Game play mechanics:
Something that Kyle suggested (I think it was kyle) is an
"innings" system. Sounded interesting. If someone remembers
what thread it was in, they should post a link.
On field size:
I played in a tournament where the TD set the fields up
wrong. 80-90 yard fields instead of 70. The best team in the
tournament shut everyone out for a full day, did not get
scored on once for 3 games on saturday. Lots of hucks that
would have been scores fell just short and they got several
D's in the endzone that they would not have had the
opportunity to get if the offense didn't have to make one
more pass.
Increasing field length has a significant negative impact on
the ability of offenses to score.
As others have suggested, increased WIDTH makes it easier
for the offense.
pizzapinochle
Jan 17, 2012, 9:05:07 AM1/17/12
to
Oh yeah....
I don't like the consecutive pass rule at all. Hard to
officiate and very awkward for players, makes an unatural
change to the game flow.
The halfcourt violation idea is a better route for that type
of change.
I don't like the consecutive pass rule at all. Hard to
officiate and very awkward for players, makes an unatural
change to the game flow.
The halfcourt violation idea is a better route for that type
of change.
Reggie Fanelli
Jan 17, 2012, 9:20:06 AM1/17/12
to
Ulticritic. What
> little he does offer that is right/valuable is pretty
> obvious and other people will have already suggested it.
> Mostly he just rants about whatever pops into his head
> (usually refs and the failings of the USAU),
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> little he does offer that is right/valuable is pretty
> obvious and other people will have already suggested it.
> Mostly he just rants about whatever pops into his head
> (usually refs and the failings of the USAU),
---WOW!
it DOES seem like you TRULY understand the Ulticritic!!!!!
what he DOES offer that IS right.......AND valuable..........are rants
about the failings of the upsa.
yep.
he's right to rant about the failings of the upsa.
jtj
Jan 17, 2012, 12:55:03 PM1/17/12
to
pizzapinochle wrote on Tue, 17 January 2012 06:00
Water Polo has a similar rule for minor fouls on the ball.
> Penalties:
>
> Advancing the disc 5 yards is a fairly minor penalty to
> a defense and a minor benefit to the offense. It is also
> time consuming to walk off the distance and such.
>
> Instead, consider leaving the disc where it is, but
> enforcing a penalty on the defender.
>
> For example, when there is a foul, the thrower gets an
> undefended throw. The marker has to back off at least 10
> yards (does not have to be exact, just a distance that
> means they can't be right on the offensive player) and the
> thrower gets a full stall to throw. The risk of an
> undefended huck or break is a much bigger risk than
> advancing the disc 5 yards. Also is a quicker game
> mechanic. Whistle blows, official indicates defenssive
> foul, marker starts jogging away, thrower can check the
> disc in as soon as they like. Eliminates the need for an
> official to be right at the point of the foul to walk off
> the distance and restart play.
I like the idea of a free throw for a foul by the marker.
>
> Advancing the disc 5 yards is a fairly minor penalty to
> a defense and a minor benefit to the offense. It is also
> time consuming to walk off the distance and such.
>
> Instead, consider leaving the disc where it is, but
> enforcing a penalty on the defender.
>
> For example, when there is a foul, the thrower gets an
> undefended throw. The marker has to back off at least 10
> yards (does not have to be exact, just a distance that
> means they can't be right on the offensive player) and the
> thrower gets a full stall to throw. The risk of an
> undefended huck or break is a much bigger risk than
> advancing the disc 5 yards. Also is a quicker game
> mechanic. Whistle blows, official indicates defenssive
> foul, marker starts jogging away, thrower can check the
> disc in as soon as they like. Eliminates the need for an
> official to be right at the point of the foul to walk off
> the distance and restart play.
Water Polo has a similar rule for minor fouls on the ball.
pacemaker
Jan 17, 2012, 1:40:05 PM1/17/12
to
Answering the question at the beginning of the thread.
Double team.
I am not a big fan of allowing double teams, but again, that
comes down to definition. Watching the Ironside - Double
Wide game, Ironside, whenever possible, jumped another
handler's defender into Brodie's throwing lane. They tried
to stay 10 feet away, but were not always successful.
Result: Brodie must throw the disc laterally and not
downfield. Good tactic. Get the disc out of a top
thrower's hand. Not sure, but I think they got T'd up early
for being too close. The same thing may have happened
against Revolver.
Sockeye's Zone seems to set up a bit close and has 4 tall
people with their arms up. Top teams just throw over the top
and do not call double team unless it is very egregious in
zone. They may actually prefer the apparent illegality of
certain zones. But I doubt many top players would be able to
throw well with two (or more) people right up in their face.
A real double team, like in basketball, may be disastrous.
Since the disc has to fly from one player to the next and be
caught, breaking a real double team will be much harder.
That does not sound too exciting. And a short throw just
invites another immediate double team.
If you allow the double teamer to be at least 4-5 feet away,
it might be more manageable.
Talk is cheap. Doesn't matter what I say.
Try it out and see. Play test it.
pacemaker
Double team.
I am not a big fan of allowing double teams, but again, that
comes down to definition. Watching the Ironside - Double
Wide game, Ironside, whenever possible, jumped another
handler's defender into Brodie's throwing lane. They tried
to stay 10 feet away, but were not always successful.
Result: Brodie must throw the disc laterally and not
downfield. Good tactic. Get the disc out of a top
thrower's hand. Not sure, but I think they got T'd up early
for being too close. The same thing may have happened
against Revolver.
Sockeye's Zone seems to set up a bit close and has 4 tall
people with their arms up. Top teams just throw over the top
and do not call double team unless it is very egregious in
zone. They may actually prefer the apparent illegality of
certain zones. But I doubt many top players would be able to
throw well with two (or more) people right up in their face.
A real double team, like in basketball, may be disastrous.
Since the disc has to fly from one player to the next and be
caught, breaking a real double team will be much harder.
That does not sound too exciting. And a short throw just
invites another immediate double team.
If you allow the double teamer to be at least 4-5 feet away,
it might be more manageable.
Talk is cheap. Doesn't matter what I say.
Try it out and see. Play test it.
pacemaker
pizzapinochle
Jan 17, 2012, 2:40:03 PM1/17/12
to
There is actually a place where this is tested: Goaltimate.
Double teams are allowed in Goaltimate, which is played in a
much more compact space that makes double teaming fairly
easy.
I haven't played a ton of goalty, so not the best source,
but my experience...
Generally, I've had good success preventing the most
dangerous throwers from making the most damaging throws via
double teaming, but it doesn't create a completely
unmanageable situation for experienced throwers, even with a
sideline helping.
On a few occasions (2 or 3 tops) I managed to produce a
triple team. Even this is not a guarnateed turn. Without
fouling, it is tough to contain the thrower. And, 2
completely uncovered players means that even a crappy
scoober flopped over the top of the triple team was
completed.
Any other more experienced Goalty players out there to give
some feedback on double teams?
Double teams are allowed in Goaltimate, which is played in a
much more compact space that makes double teaming fairly
easy.
I haven't played a ton of goalty, so not the best source,
but my experience...
Generally, I've had good success preventing the most
dangerous throwers from making the most damaging throws via
double teaming, but it doesn't create a completely
unmanageable situation for experienced throwers, even with a
sideline helping.
On a few occasions (2 or 3 tops) I managed to produce a
triple team. Even this is not a guarnateed turn. Without
fouling, it is tough to contain the thrower. And, 2
completely uncovered players means that even a crappy
scoober flopped over the top of the triple team was
completed.
Any other more experienced Goalty players out there to give
some feedback on double teams?
RoShamShot
Jan 17, 2012, 5:10:04 PM1/17/12
to
But would that be the whole point pizza? Generally you
double team to lessen the scoring chance.
i.e. You double team Shaq down low because he makes at least
half of his shots on the post. But when he kicks it out the
guard might be a terrible shooter. Same with ultimate, you
double team Brodie so he takes the small swing to get it to
the 3rd handle who has slighty worse throws.
Or you double team on the sideline for a trap no matter who
has the disc. It might work out great if the thrower
doesn't have every throw but if you trap a good thrower you
just get broken and then an easy score, a la trapping Chris
Paul probably won't work.
But I like it because it doesn't force a dramatic change in
the game however it does let teams try something risky if
things aren't going their way. Or even play a trap press
the whole way down the field like Missouri basketball used
to press the entire game.
double team to lessen the scoring chance.
i.e. You double team Shaq down low because he makes at least
half of his shots on the post. But when he kicks it out the
guard might be a terrible shooter. Same with ultimate, you
double team Brodie so he takes the small swing to get it to
the 3rd handle who has slighty worse throws.
Or you double team on the sideline for a trap no matter who
has the disc. It might work out great if the thrower
doesn't have every throw but if you trap a good thrower you
just get broken and then an easy score, a la trapping Chris
Paul probably won't work.
But I like it because it doesn't force a dramatic change in
the game however it does let teams try something risky if
things aren't going their way. Or even play a trap press
the whole way down the field like Missouri basketball used
to press the entire game.
Alex Peters
Jan 17, 2012, 5:10:45 PM1/17/12
to
Allow double teams. Allow jump throws.
Jed
Jan 18, 2012, 8:50:04 AM1/18/12
to
One more post in favour of a trial of speed-point ultimate
(i.e. immediate check in after a score, sub on the fly). It
may be a more significant change than any/all of the other
suggestions here, but a few points in its favour:
1) It results in a faster game (no time between points, no
marathon points with dog-tired athletes stuck on the
field).
2) It results in a higher scoring game, with greater
possibility of scoring runs (and therefore, better chance
for momentum swings)
3) It achieves the above without any other changes to the
game (we play with a shorter stall count, but that has more
to do with playing indoors than with playing speed point).
To give an idea, we currently play on a full length football
field that is divided in two, and in a 50 minute time slot,
the +/- is usually in the range of 40 points.
4) Finally, unlike any of the other rule change suggestions
above, it has been trialed extensively - hundreds if not
thousands of games over many years, a good porion of which
have involved elite-level (Goat / Capitals) players.
Consider that for the AUDL to succeed, it will have to
appeal to an audience that goes well beyond current ultimate
players & fans. A faster, higher scoring game would likely
go a long way to catching and keeping the interest of new
fans; and I feel like the rest of us would appreciate the
pace as well.
All this is to say, Josh, give it some thought. My gut says
it's the future of this sport, but I would suggest you
contact some of the guys from Goat to get their thoughts on
the matter as well.
(i.e. immediate check in after a score, sub on the fly). It
may be a more significant change than any/all of the other
suggestions here, but a few points in its favour:
1) It results in a faster game (no time between points, no
marathon points with dog-tired athletes stuck on the
field).
2) It results in a higher scoring game, with greater
possibility of scoring runs (and therefore, better chance
for momentum swings)
3) It achieves the above without any other changes to the
game (we play with a shorter stall count, but that has more
to do with playing indoors than with playing speed point).
To give an idea, we currently play on a full length football
field that is divided in two, and in a 50 minute time slot,
the +/- is usually in the range of 40 points.
4) Finally, unlike any of the other rule change suggestions
above, it has been trialed extensively - hundreds if not
thousands of games over many years, a good porion of which
have involved elite-level (Goat / Capitals) players.
Consider that for the AUDL to succeed, it will have to
appeal to an audience that goes well beyond current ultimate
players & fans. A faster, higher scoring game would likely
go a long way to catching and keeping the interest of new
fans; and I feel like the rest of us would appreciate the
pace as well.
All this is to say, Josh, give it some thought. My gut says
it's the future of this sport, but I would suggest you
contact some of the guys from Goat to get their thoughts on
the matter as well.
dusty
Jan 18, 2012, 10:15:52 AM1/18/12
to
1. Double-teams are a double-edged sword. The increase in pressure
on the thrower also increases the reward for completing the pass.
Like splitting the double in basketball, suddenly the offense is
playing 7v5 rather than 7v7. Like getting past the cup in a standard
zone in ultimate to run the 5v4 fast-break. Overall, the increase in
types of pressure available to the defense will increase the number of
high risk & reward plays for both O&D. This is pretty much a win for
both sides. As for concerns about passing out of defenses constructed
around double and triple teams... those are skills and strategies that
can be learned and developed, respectively. I think double teams
should be legal in all versions of ultimate.
2. Eliminating consecutive backward passes, on the other hand, is a
fundamental change to the definition of ultimate. Currently, ultimate
resembles soccer more than football. This is part of the identity of
the sport. The ability to work the field in any direction increases
the number of available strategies and tactics for individual throwers
as well as full teams. The threat o the backwards pass alters the
positioning of defenses while the execution of the backwards pass
allows the offense to change the angle of attack to better break down
the defense. I would argue that some of the most exciting plays in
ultimate currently result from aggressively moving the disc backwards
to set up a killshot as the defense rushes in to pressure th new
position.
Sme possibly odd situations resulting from outlawing 2nd backwards
passes:
- warning-track huck, player dumps the disc to a player sprinting
toward him. Next throw must be a goal. To extend this, end/redzone
offense becomes exceedingly complex and high risk.
- Thrower toses the disc wide and slightly backwards to a teammate. D
now mrks the thrower with as many marks as possible, knowing that the
thrower can only throw forward.
- what if the pass arcs backward before it travels forward?
- what if the pass arcs forward before it travels backward?
- what if the pass is thrown backward, but the receiver lands in front
of the thrower?
- what if the pass is thrown forward, but the receiver lands behind
the thrower?
- wha if the pass is thrown backward, but the receiver jumps to catch
and throws before landing?
I'll stop this line ofthought now, but I believe that eliminating
consecutive backward passes is an unnecessary rule change which will
have bizarre unintended consequences in addition to the intended
consequence of changing the fundamental nature of the game from a goal-
focused game to a yardage-focused game.
And yes, jump passes should be legal, Mr. Peters.
Music on tap: desperado sundtrack
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
Postscript: teams should NOT be playing both indoors and outdoors.
These are dramatically different sports due to the fascinating effects
weather has on that lightweght piece of plastic.
On Jan 13, 2:25 pm, Josh Moore <joshmoo...@cox.net> wrote:
> Thank you to everybody that has provided a lot of great
> feedback in the various topics on the site. We are going to
> have another test game with our rules next weekend and make
> final changes accordingly for our first season. We consider
> everybody's feedback and ideas and understand there will
> always be dissenting positions on certain rules, but the
> goal continues to be finding a balance between the players
> and fans that puts the best product on the field. That
> being said, a lot of people on this board have given a lot
> of thoughts to different rules and one thing we will be
> discussing is the potential to have our games too heavy on
> the offense and how to create a balance. Obviously if we
> went with the 40 yard field width it would put things closer
> to how they are currently, but if we keep the bigger field,
> what is the best way to help the defense out? I've read a
> lot of the responses on here and will use those as
> takeaways. Beyond that, what impact does the board feel the
> following two items would have:
>
> 1.) Right now there are no double teams allowed. If that
> restriction was removed and defenders could trap, with the 7
> second stall count being in place as well, what type of
> turnover ratio might we expect? We may or may not test
> this, just curious on thoughts.
>
> 2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
> consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
> after the first backwards pass because then they know the
> next one has to be down field.
>
> Thanks in advance for the thoughts, we will discuss the
> others in the other threads at our meeting but hadn't really
> seen any discussion around these potential rules above and
> the thoughts on the effects.
>
> Josh Moore, President
> American Ultimate Disc Leaguewww.theaudl.com
>
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
on the thrower also increases the reward for completing the pass.
Like splitting the double in basketball, suddenly the offense is
playing 7v5 rather than 7v7. Like getting past the cup in a standard
zone in ultimate to run the 5v4 fast-break. Overall, the increase in
types of pressure available to the defense will increase the number of
high risk & reward plays for both O&D. This is pretty much a win for
both sides. As for concerns about passing out of defenses constructed
around double and triple teams... those are skills and strategies that
can be learned and developed, respectively. I think double teams
should be legal in all versions of ultimate.
2. Eliminating consecutive backward passes, on the other hand, is a
fundamental change to the definition of ultimate. Currently, ultimate
resembles soccer more than football. This is part of the identity of
the sport. The ability to work the field in any direction increases
the number of available strategies and tactics for individual throwers
as well as full teams. The threat o the backwards pass alters the
positioning of defenses while the execution of the backwards pass
allows the offense to change the angle of attack to better break down
the defense. I would argue that some of the most exciting plays in
ultimate currently result from aggressively moving the disc backwards
to set up a killshot as the defense rushes in to pressure th new
position.
Sme possibly odd situations resulting from outlawing 2nd backwards
passes:
- warning-track huck, player dumps the disc to a player sprinting
toward him. Next throw must be a goal. To extend this, end/redzone
offense becomes exceedingly complex and high risk.
- Thrower toses the disc wide and slightly backwards to a teammate. D
now mrks the thrower with as many marks as possible, knowing that the
thrower can only throw forward.
- what if the pass arcs backward before it travels forward?
- what if the pass arcs forward before it travels backward?
- what if the pass is thrown backward, but the receiver lands in front
of the thrower?
- what if the pass is thrown forward, but the receiver lands behind
the thrower?
- wha if the pass is thrown backward, but the receiver jumps to catch
and throws before landing?
I'll stop this line ofthought now, but I believe that eliminating
consecutive backward passes is an unnecessary rule change which will
have bizarre unintended consequences in addition to the intended
consequence of changing the fundamental nature of the game from a goal-
focused game to a yardage-focused game.
And yes, jump passes should be legal, Mr. Peters.
Music on tap: desperado sundtrack
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
Postscript: teams should NOT be playing both indoors and outdoors.
These are dramatically different sports due to the fascinating effects
weather has on that lightweght piece of plastic.
On Jan 13, 2:25 pm, Josh Moore <joshmoo...@cox.net> wrote:
> Thank you to everybody that has provided a lot of great
> feedback in the various topics on the site. We are going to
> have another test game with our rules next weekend and make
> final changes accordingly for our first season. We consider
> everybody's feedback and ideas and understand there will
> always be dissenting positions on certain rules, but the
> goal continues to be finding a balance between the players
> and fans that puts the best product on the field. That
> being said, a lot of people on this board have given a lot
> of thoughts to different rules and one thing we will be
> discussing is the potential to have our games too heavy on
> the offense and how to create a balance. Obviously if we
> went with the 40 yard field width it would put things closer
> to how they are currently, but if we keep the bigger field,
> what is the best way to help the defense out? I've read a
> lot of the responses on here and will use those as
> takeaways. Beyond that, what impact does the board feel the
> following two items would have:
>
> 1.) Right now there are no double teams allowed. If that
> restriction was removed and defenders could trap, with the 7
> second stall count being in place as well, what type of
> turnover ratio might we expect? We may or may not test
> this, just curious on thoughts.
>
> 2.) What if there was a rule that a team cannot have
> consecutive backward passes? That might help the defense
> after the first backwards pass because then they know the
> next one has to be down field.
>
> Thanks in advance for the thoughts, we will discuss the
> others in the other threads at our meeting but hadn't really
> seen any discussion around these potential rules above and
> the thoughts on the effects.
>
> Josh Moore, President
> American Ultimate Disc Leaguewww.theaudl.com
>
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Parag
Jan 18, 2012, 1:44:00 PM1/18/12
to
dusty wrote on Wed, 18 January 2012 10:15
the Superdome, compared to a blizzard in Foxborough. The
weather affects plenty of aspects of football, i.e. field
position, the passing game, kickoffs, field goals, etc.
It's still the same game, even if you have to deal with some
adverse conditions.
> Postscript: teams should NOT be playing both indoors and
> outdoors.
> These are dramatically different sports due to the
> fascinating effects
> weather has on that lightweght piece of plastic.
So what? Professional football is dramatically different in
> outdoors.
> These are dramatically different sports due to the
> fascinating effects
> weather has on that lightweght piece of plastic.
the Superdome, compared to a blizzard in Foxborough. The
weather affects plenty of aspects of football, i.e. field
position, the passing game, kickoffs, field goals, etc.
It's still the same game, even if you have to deal with some
adverse conditions.
dusty
Jan 19, 2012, 10:54:30 AM1/19/12
to
2. A football doesn't have an edge engineered to catch the wind.
3. A football, when thrown into a 30mph headwind, cannot end up 70yds
in the other direction. A football does not "hop&drop" 10+ feet. A
football, when thrown 30yds with a 15mph crosswind will not end up on
the adjacent field. That is, the variance in the flight of a football
is significantly less than that of a disc. Remember that time you got
hit in the neck with the disc as you attempted to sky them bitches
because the disc's path changed dramatically after the point of no
return (cue Back to the Future reference) ? Doesn't happen with a
football.
4. You chose an extreme example. The more telling example is what
happens in 12mph wind vs 0mph on an otherwise identical 68degree sunny
day.
5. the number of passes in a total game of football rarely exceeds
100. The number of passes in a 15-14 game of ultimate, if each team
scores in 4 passes and never turns the disc over (capped game) is 116.
6. There is no running game in ultimate (metaphorically, yes.
Actually? No.).
7. High-level indoor ultimate is dramatically different than high-
level outdoor ultimate. Blades kill poaches at a different rate.
Rocket arcs never miss by the 1inch difference caused by a stiff
breeze. The overblade is in everyone's wheelhouse. The precision
passes of indoor ultimate contrast starkly with the margin of error
cutters work so hard to provide outdoors. If you are standing still
indoors, you're open.
8. If we grant that offense and spectacular d's are what the fans
want, play indoors. it encourages more risktaking on d because the o
makes fewer unforced errors. If we want weather to be the 15th man,
put everyone outdoors. Short fast teams are at less of a disadvantage
indoors because there are fewer "cleanup aisle 6" hospital throws.
9. I had more, but I already lost this post once... so I'll just send
it on.
Music on tap: holy ghost!, holy ghost!
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
DJ
Jan 19, 2012, 3:35:03 PM1/19/12
to
I too like the idea of constantly playing and subbing on the
fly ala hockey / lacrosse. 24 guys for one game is going to
be very little play time. Reward deep teams by having fast
paced game play.
fly ala hockey / lacrosse. 24 guys for one game is going to
be very little play time. Reward deep teams by having fast
paced game play.
huckbucket
Jan 19, 2012, 3:55:03 PM1/19/12
to
This speed game would be incredibly anti-climactic. It
removes any build-up from drama filled situations.
Also, the combination of constant gameplay and subbing on
the fly wouldn't work. There is a reason that basketball
doesn't use on the fly subbing, and there is a reason that
hockey stops and resets after each goal. It's because the
two don't work together.
removes any build-up from drama filled situations.
Also, the combination of constant gameplay and subbing on
the fly wouldn't work. There is a reason that basketball
doesn't use on the fly subbing, and there is a reason that
hockey stops and resets after each goal. It's because the
two don't work together.
tim
Jan 19, 2012, 4:15:05 PM1/19/12
to
Hockey subbing would not work on a big field, it barely
works on an indoor field (offensive players can be so far
away from subzone). My rule set-
5 sec Stall
1 Pull per half
After a score the defense has 10 seconds (after the offense
centers the disc on the goal-line) to get subs in the game.
Offense subs at this point as well.
The offense then plays from the goal-line.
The only other time you could sub would be during a foul
call. The fouling team would not be able to sub. You foul on
the mark, the offense can sub-out any player on the field
for a new one, creating a mismatch, fresh player ect.. this
is an actual punishment for a foul I think.
Pulls are boring to watch and play, can you imagine a
football game with 26 kick-offs...
works on an indoor field (offensive players can be so far
away from subzone). My rule set-
5 sec Stall
1 Pull per half
After a score the defense has 10 seconds (after the offense
centers the disc on the goal-line) to get subs in the game.
Offense subs at this point as well.
The offense then plays from the goal-line.
The only other time you could sub would be during a foul
call. The fouling team would not be able to sub. You foul on
the mark, the offense can sub-out any player on the field
for a new one, creating a mismatch, fresh player ect.. this
is an actual punishment for a foul I think.
Pulls are boring to watch and play, can you imagine a
football game with 26 kick-offs...
Washington University in St. Louis
Jan 20, 2012, 6:49:32 AM1/20/12
to
oldstyle wrote on Thu, 19 January 2012 13:00
talented player pulling. Plus there's the possibility of a
dropped pull.
> Pulls are boring to watch and play, can you imagine a
> football game with 26 kick-offs...
I disagree. I like watching pulls, especially when there's a
> football game with 26 kick-offs...
talented player pulling. Plus there's the possibility of a
dropped pull.
anakin gerics
Jan 20, 2012, 7:24:17 AM1/20/12
to
> > Pulls are boring to watch and play, can you imagine a
> > football game with 26 kick-offs...
>
> I disagree. I like watching pulls, especially when there's a
> talented player pulling. Plus there's the possibility of a
> dropped pull.
---agreed....with Wash Univ of St Louis.
ulticritic
Jan 20, 2012, 8:17:36 AM1/20/12
to
each endzone and make teams get the disc in that goal for scores to
count (OR it could be considered an extra point attempt once an actual
goal ((simple catch in ez))was scored). i mean, if you are trying to
appeal to the masses it might be smart to add that soccer-like touch
to the game. and you gotta admit, just catching a disc in an area in
order to "score points" is inda boring. this way fans would be ensured
of havng diving block attemps throughout the whole game. i know this
is an unconventional and "crazy" tweek idea but put yourself back in
the 1800's when smoe "crazy" guy came up with the idea of allowing
forward passes in rugby.
Baer
Jan 20, 2012, 9:51:55 AM1/20/12
to
ulticritic wrote on Fri, 20 January 2012 07:17
the sport over the years, despite your online persona, but
this is probably one of the worst ideas I've ever seen. But
this thread is mostly about brainstorming, so hey, what the
hell. Maybe Josh will try it.
> On Jan 13, 2:25 pm, Josh Moore
> <joshmoo...@cox.net[/email]> wrote:
> how about sticking a soccer type goal (with goalie) at
> the back of
> each endzone and make teams get the disc in that goal
> for scores to
> count (OR it could be considered an extra point attempt
> once an actual
> goal ((simple catch in ez))was scored). i mean, if you
> are trying to
> appeal to the masses it might be smart to add that
> soccer-like touch
> to the game. and you gotta admit, just catching a disc
> in an area in
> order to "score points" is inda boring. this way fans
> would be ensured
> of havng diving block attemps throughout the whole game.
> i know this
> is an unconventional and "crazy" tweek idea but put
> yourself back in
> the 1800's when smoe "crazy" guy came up with the idea
> of allowing
> forward passes in rugby.
Toad, you have always had some great ideas and vision for
> how about sticking a soccer type goal (with goalie) at
> the back of
> each endzone and make teams get the disc in that goal
> for scores to
> count (OR it could be considered an extra point attempt
> once an actual
> goal ((simple catch in ez))was scored). i mean, if you
> are trying to
> appeal to the masses it might be smart to add that
> soccer-like touch
> to the game. and you gotta admit, just catching a disc
> in an area in
> order to "score points" is inda boring. this way fans
> would be ensured
> of havng diving block attemps throughout the whole game.
> i know this
> is an unconventional and "crazy" tweek idea but put
> yourself back in
> the 1800's when smoe "crazy" guy came up with the idea
> of allowing
> forward passes in rugby.
the sport over the years, despite your online persona, but
this is probably one of the worst ideas I've ever seen. But
this thread is mostly about brainstorming, so hey, what the
hell. Maybe Josh will try it.
Manzell Blakeley
Feb 3, 2012, 9:45:04 AM2/3/12
to
If the double-team is legal;
I'd pull the disc out of bounds every time.
Then triple-team the disc and play a 2-2ish zone behind it.
With effective marking, the only way out of this would be an
upside down pass to a dump near the sidelines, which should
give my team enough time to recover into man.
I probably wouldn't ever double-team a non-stopped disc (why
bother when you can poach instead?); and the above scenario
doesn't seem very interesting to watch or fun to play.
I'd pull the disc out of bounds every time.
Then triple-team the disc and play a 2-2ish zone behind it.
With effective marking, the only way out of this would be an
upside down pass to a dump near the sidelines, which should
give my team enough time to recover into man.
I probably wouldn't ever double-team a non-stopped disc (why
bother when you can poach instead?); and the above scenario
doesn't seem very interesting to watch or fun to play.
jegi
Feb 3, 2012, 11:30:05 AM2/3/12
to
Anyone else concerned about 2 defenders within a disc's
width of the thrower, making it impossible to throw.
Shouldn't one of the two double-teaming defender be at least
5-6 feet off the thrower?
All these rules changes, just to compensate for one colossal
mistake of a wider field. Not too smart.
As I told the other AUDL owners in Detroit a few weeks ago,
after being voted down on the 40yd field width,
"Congratulations, you've created a new sport, and it's not
the one I've played and love: Ultimate Disc. It's something
else."
width of the thrower, making it impossible to throw.
Shouldn't one of the two double-teaming defender be at least
5-6 feet off the thrower?
All these rules changes, just to compensate for one colossal
mistake of a wider field. Not too smart.
As I told the other AUDL owners in Detroit a few weeks ago,
after being voted down on the 40yd field width,
"Congratulations, you've created a new sport, and it's not
the one I've played and love: Ultimate Disc. It's something
else."
thefan
Feb 3, 2012, 12:10:03 PM2/3/12
to
Quote:
subject and it obviously has a lot of experienced ultimate
players concerned, could you tell us what the reason in
favor of the wider field is? or what the reasoning against
40yds is?
> As I told the other AUDL owners in Detroit a few weeks
> ago, after being voted down on the 40yd field width,
> "Congratulations, you've created a new sport, and it's not
> the one I've played and love: Ultimate Disc. It's
> something else."
since you have some insight on the owners thinking on this
> ago, after being voted down on the 40yd field width,
> "Congratulations, you've created a new sport, and it's not
> the one I've played and love: Ultimate Disc. It's
> something else."
subject and it obviously has a lot of experienced ultimate
players concerned, could you tell us what the reason in
favor of the wider field is? or what the reasoning against
40yds is?
Baer
Feb 3, 2012, 12:35:06 PM2/3/12
to
thefan wrote on Fri, 03 February 2012 11:07
Seems a little dramatic to declare it a totally different
sport just because the field is a few yards wider.
Isn't it pretty obvious that the 53 yard field is just to
take advantage of football fields that are already lined and
ready to use?
Sure, it'll change gameplay somewhat, but hockey,
basketball, and soccer have different sized fields or
different markings for different levels of competition
(domestic pro leagues vs international or olympic play).
The UPA also once said the inclusion of refs would make the
sport cease to be Ultimate. Also a silly reaction.
Regarding the double-team concept, it would be kind of
interesting to see how double-teams could be used, maybe if
a double team is allowed for a maximum of three seconds
(like a lane violation in basketball). That might minimize
the number of times that double teams are used, but it would
make it a high risk/high reward situation like a blitz in
football if and when a defense decided to throw that DT on
(late in a stall count, for example). Jose and Manzell are
right, though, a good double team would totally shut down
and smother a thrower.
Whether or not this change would be a reasonable balance to
make up for the offensive advantage of a wider field? Who
knows. It would take some experimentation. If the AUDL wants
to try out bizarre experiments on the field when they are
supposed to be presenting a professional product, that is up
to them.
But I think this discussion, and Jose's comment, sort of
speaks to the conundrum of having the AUDL run and operated
by people who know very little about Ultimate. People who
have been immersed in the sport for years don't even know
how to make it appealing to spectators and profitable as a
product, but we recognize many of the limitations. Outsiders
don't even know the limitations, and they can't really
fathom the impact of making changes to the sport. Just my
opinion of course.
sport just because the field is a few yards wider.
Isn't it pretty obvious that the 53 yard field is just to
take advantage of football fields that are already lined and
ready to use?
Sure, it'll change gameplay somewhat, but hockey,
basketball, and soccer have different sized fields or
different markings for different levels of competition
(domestic pro leagues vs international or olympic play).
The UPA also once said the inclusion of refs would make the
sport cease to be Ultimate. Also a silly reaction.
Regarding the double-team concept, it would be kind of
interesting to see how double-teams could be used, maybe if
a double team is allowed for a maximum of three seconds
(like a lane violation in basketball). That might minimize
the number of times that double teams are used, but it would
make it a high risk/high reward situation like a blitz in
football if and when a defense decided to throw that DT on
(late in a stall count, for example). Jose and Manzell are
right, though, a good double team would totally shut down
and smother a thrower.
Whether or not this change would be a reasonable balance to
make up for the offensive advantage of a wider field? Who
knows. It would take some experimentation. If the AUDL wants
to try out bizarre experiments on the field when they are
supposed to be presenting a professional product, that is up
to them.
But I think this discussion, and Jose's comment, sort of
speaks to the conundrum of having the AUDL run and operated
by people who know very little about Ultimate. People who
have been immersed in the sport for years don't even know
how to make it appealing to spectators and profitable as a
product, but we recognize many of the limitations. Outsiders
don't even know the limitations, and they can't really
fathom the impact of making changes to the sport. Just my
opinion of course.
thefan
Feb 3, 2012, 12:45:03 PM2/3/12
to
Quote:
field? Josh Moore seems so willing to accept any and all
new ideas for improving the league but they are locked in on
making the field almost 30% wider? Why?
> after being voted down on the 40yd field width
is there a reason given for this attachement to the wider
field? Josh Moore seems so willing to accept any and all
new ideas for improving the league but they are locked in on
making the field almost 30% wider? Why?
Baer
Feb 3, 2012, 1:00:07 PM2/3/12
to
Hey, I just thought of a new idea for the AUDL, too...
Highlight the ro-sham.
No coin tosses or disc flips for any decision, it's all
decided by ro-sham. The statisticians keep track of winning
percentages and most-used throws. They can finally start a
database/record of who has actually used thrown fire during
their careers.
And if a player had used their fire during their
college/club days prior to joining the AUDL, and the story
has been verified by witnesses, it also goes on record.
This idea may add some entertainment value (and edcational
value to the spectators who may not be familiar with ro-sham
rules and etiquette) and drama or controversy to what would
otherwise be a boring coin toss. Guaranteed to increase
attendance by 18.5%.
Highlight the ro-sham.
No coin tosses or disc flips for any decision, it's all
decided by ro-sham. The statisticians keep track of winning
percentages and most-used throws. They can finally start a
database/record of who has actually used thrown fire during
their careers.
And if a player had used their fire during their
college/club days prior to joining the AUDL, and the story
has been verified by witnesses, it also goes on record.
This idea may add some entertainment value (and edcational
value to the spectators who may not be familiar with ro-sham
rules and etiquette) and drama or controversy to what would
otherwise be a boring coin toss. Guaranteed to increase
attendance by 18.5%.
Reggie Fanelli
Feb 3, 2012, 1:21:11 PM2/3/12
to
> The UPA also once said the inclusion of refs would make the
> sport cease to be Ultimate. Also a silly reaction.
---yeah, what are they.....loco?
Alex Peters
Feb 3, 2012, 2:10:03 PM2/3/12
to
Baer wrote on Fri, 03 February 2012 12:33
use the football lines. It makes the field look really ugly
and harder to follow the action with all those distracting
and pointless lines all over the field (in contrast to
football where the lines are extremely informative).
Compare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr6BQtbPctM to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGCyRHU60zY.
The only thing they should improve on is maybe a half-field
line (or 2 point lines if they go for that), and really
thick solid lines overall. Colored endzones might be cool
too.
Quote:
SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED by the first several editions of
rules.
Quote:
should be a turnover.
> Isn't it pretty obvious that the 53 yard field is just
> to take advantage of football fields that are already
> lined and ready to use?
Like I said in the other thread, I really hope they DON'T
> to take advantage of football fields that are already
> lined and ready to use?
use the football lines. It makes the field look really ugly
and harder to follow the action with all those distracting
and pointless lines all over the field (in contrast to
football where the lines are extremely informative).
Compare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr6BQtbPctM to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGCyRHU60zY.
The only thing they should improve on is maybe a half-field
line (or 2 point lines if they go for that), and really
thick solid lines overall. Colored endzones might be cool
too.
Quote:
> The UPA also once said the inclusion of refs would make
> the sport cease to be Ultimate. Also a silly reaction.
More than silly, it's ridiculous considering refs are
> the sport cease to be Ultimate. Also a silly reaction.
SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED by the first several editions of
rules.
Quote:
> Regarding the double-team concept, it would be kind of
> interesting to see how double-teams could be used, maybe
> if a double team is allowed for a maximum of three seconds
> (like a lane violation in basketball). That might minimize
> the number of times that double teams are used, but it
> would make it a high risk/high reward situation like a
> blitz in football if and when a defense decided to throw
> that DT on (late in a stall count, for example). Jose and
> Manzell are right, though, a good double team would
> totally shut down and smother a thrower.
Which is why you allow JUMP THROWS. And then an up-and-down
> interesting to see how double-teams could be used, maybe
> if a double team is allowed for a maximum of three seconds
> (like a lane violation in basketball). That might minimize
> the number of times that double teams are used, but it
> would make it a high risk/high reward situation like a
> blitz in football if and when a defense decided to throw
> that DT on (late in a stall count, for example). Jose and
> Manzell are right, though, a good double team would
> totally shut down and smother a thrower.
should be a turnover.
DJ
Feb 6, 2012, 8:30:04 AM2/6/12
to
I'm concerned about refs calling fouls and disc space for
the thrower.
Currently you have the option of ignoring a foul in order to
continue playing. If you choose to do this you can call disc
space and gain an extra 2 seconds on the stall count. With
refs the play will always stop. I'd like it if players still
called fouls / disc space on the mark and the ref could
choose to uphold the foul call on the fly by blowing the
whistle, or not upholding it by remaining silent and
continue to stall count.Play will only be stopped by a
whistle, but the player will still have control over whether
or not he wants to ignore a foul call.
I also think it's very difficult for the person with the
disc to know what the stall count is when not counted aloud.
In a sport where the stall count can stop, go backwards or
restart depending on various violations it seems unfair that
the thrower doesn't know whether he is at stall 6 or stall
2. Did my marker step outside of 10 ft and the count
restart, or did the ref keep counting and I need to get rid
of the disc? Does the ref see this mark as a disc space
violation or legal? Throwers will always have to assume the
mark is legal and get rid of it after 7 seconds. The defense
will always illegally mark without penalty. The UOA counts
the last few seconds out loud. As far as I know, refs in
AUDL do not.
Oh, and in the case of a double team, who is counted as a
mark with regards to the stall? Can either player move out
of 10 ft and the count continue?
the thrower.
Currently you have the option of ignoring a foul in order to
continue playing. If you choose to do this you can call disc
space and gain an extra 2 seconds on the stall count. With
refs the play will always stop. I'd like it if players still
called fouls / disc space on the mark and the ref could
choose to uphold the foul call on the fly by blowing the
whistle, or not upholding it by remaining silent and
continue to stall count.Play will only be stopped by a
whistle, but the player will still have control over whether
or not he wants to ignore a foul call.
I also think it's very difficult for the person with the
disc to know what the stall count is when not counted aloud.
In a sport where the stall count can stop, go backwards or
restart depending on various violations it seems unfair that
the thrower doesn't know whether he is at stall 6 or stall
2. Did my marker step outside of 10 ft and the count
restart, or did the ref keep counting and I need to get rid
of the disc? Does the ref see this mark as a disc space
violation or legal? Throwers will always have to assume the
mark is legal and get rid of it after 7 seconds. The defense
will always illegally mark without penalty. The UOA counts
the last few seconds out loud. As far as I know, refs in
AUDL do not.
Oh, and in the case of a double team, who is counted as a
mark with regards to the stall? Can either player move out
of 10 ft and the count continue?
anakin gerics
Feb 6, 2012, 9:24:16 AM2/6/12
to
The UOA counts
> the last few seconds out loud. As far as I know, refs in
> AUDL do not.
~~~~~~
> the last few seconds out loud. As far as I know, refs in
> AUDL do not.
--Hello DJ,
Just so you know, the UOA USED to count that last few seconds of the
stall out loud.
More than a year ago, we started using a whistle......and a completely
SILENT stall count, accompanied by visually chopping the seconds.
....can't count out loud, with a whistle in your mouth.
DJ
Feb 7, 2012, 7:50:03 AM2/7/12
to
anakin gerics wrote on Mon, 06 February 2012 09:24
Sorry, my mistake. Still think it'd be nice to know the
count.
> The UOA counts
> > the last few seconds out loud. As far as I know,
> > refs in
> > AUDL do not.
> ~~~~~~
>
> --Hello DJ,
> Just so you know, the UOA USED to count that last few
> seconds of the
> stall out loud.
> More than a year ago, we started using a
> whistle......and a completely
> SILENT stall count, accompanied by visually chopping the
> seconds.
> .....can't count out loud, with a whistle in your mouth.
> > the last few seconds out loud. As far as I know,
> > refs in
> > AUDL do not.
> ~~~~~~
>
> --Hello DJ,
> Just so you know, the UOA USED to count that last few
> seconds of the
> stall out loud.
> More than a year ago, we started using a
> whistle......and a completely
> SILENT stall count, accompanied by visually chopping the
> seconds.
Sorry, my mistake. Still think it'd be nice to know the
count.
Reggie Fanelli
Feb 7, 2012, 2:44:02 PM2/7/12
to
> Sorry, my mistake. Still think it'd be nice to know the
> count.
---nothing to be sorry about!
we all make mistakes from time to time...and the UOA has been very
fluid in its changes since we've only been around a few years.
in basketball...the players NEVER hear the count...10 sec backcourt, 5
sec closely guarded, 5 sec to inbound...but they seem to avoid
turnovers most often.
and if they are called for a 5 sec closely guarded, 10 sec backcourt
or 5 sec in bound violation....THEY LEARN QUICK to adjust.
while officiating UOA games....it's always cool when the sideline
shouts out '7' on the correct arm chop.
i smile a lot when the sideline's count is correct.
when the sideline count is consistently wrong...i let them know it and
ask them to pay better attention.
DJ
Feb 7, 2012, 4:15:03 PM2/7/12
to
Reggie Fanelli wrote on Tue, 07 February 2012 14:44
In basketball the counts don't stop or go down. Especially
not on the ruling of an infraction made on the fly and
without any signal to the person with the ball/disc. I don't
think that's a relevant comparison.
Does the UOA call disc space infractions by going back in
the count or by stopping the count entirely?
not on the ruling of an infraction made on the fly and
without any signal to the person with the ball/disc. I don't
think that's a relevant comparison.
Does the UOA call disc space infractions by going back in
the count or by stopping the count entirely?
dan nonjax
Feb 7, 2012, 4:46:32 PM2/7/12
to
Reggie Fanelli wrote on Tue, 07 February 2012 11:44
Actually, the 'wrong count' is a possible home field
advantage for AUDL teams. As fans at my college games, we
would consistently start countdowns for shot clock/end of
half wrong to try and throw off the other team. Start early
and they rush a shot when they still had a second left.
Start late and time might run out before they get the shot
off.
I could definitely see fans trying to influence a game like
that.
advantage for AUDL teams. As fans at my college games, we
would consistently start countdowns for shot clock/end of
half wrong to try and throw off the other team. Start early
and they rush a shot when they still had a second left.
Start late and time might run out before they get the shot
off.
I could definitely see fans trying to influence a game like
that.
0 new messages