MLU 2006 opinions

441 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 1:28:13 PM7/4/06
to
My opinions from the Potlatch/MLU weekend...(please excuse my butchering
of the English language)

1) MLU is a very different sport than Ultimate. And it is awesome.

Biggest Pros:
Game moves much more quickly.
Zero spurious travel/pick/stall calls.
Silent stall makes marking more fun, and high-stall situations
more exciting
2-point line plus strategic fouling makes for a more
strategy-intensive game
Rules are designed for fan-friendly play
Short end zones + longer playing field proper makes for a better
game

Biggest Cons:
If you don't like refs, you obviously won't like MLU
This is NOT a good game for beginning players....the level of
physicality and possibility of being injured goes up in
the course of normal play.
Lack of self-refereeing (and the intrinsic benefits of SOTG)
Cost of good referees is high

I loved the game. Much less downtime, a small percentage of the arguments
(and almost none between players) and more gametime pressure make for what
could be a much more marketable sport....which is exactly what it was
designed to be, so that isn't suprising.
It's a different game, and probably not one that most ultimate players
want to play recreationally. In the same way that most city-league
basketball players don't want to be called for illegal defense, most
ultimate players would probably not like someone like me pulling their
jersey, intentionally fouling them, or being forced to play at a very high
game pace. Ultimate was designed for players, MLU for the spectators, and
there are some big tradeoffs between the two.

MLU is NOT a replacement for Ultimate....I think they are different
sports, and both have a ton of value. Going back and forth between my MLU
team and my Potlatch team was really fun....each time I did I was excited
for aspects of that game.

2) Potlatch and the MLU were a good mix.

It seemed like the two independent events made each other better. MLU
without Potlatch is elitist and probably doesn't have a fan base yet. I
think the MLU added to Potlatch, was hopefully interesting for the fans,
but didn't detract from the scene, IMO. No one skipped their games to
watch MLU. The crowds depended much more on the schedule than on who was
playing (ie the Potlatch final was by far the biggest crowd). I think this
goes to show that people want to watch good ultimate, and maybe co-ed v.
elite men is not that big of a difference....as long as the players are
playing well.

3) 'Allstar teams'

Pros: Really, really fun to play with some guys that I normally play
against. The athleticism and talent on our team was
incredible, and the Furious/Rhino guys were really fun
to play with.
Hopefully fun for the fans to see a lot of the best players in one
place
Athletic matchups were top-notch (Beau vs. Nord, anyone?)
Geometry of the field changes with so many great throwers...it was
more difficult to poach, and teams were not constrained
to rigid offenses that allow the weak-link throwers to
survive.

Cons: Lack of coordination was the biggest downside. Teams with players
from a bunch of different UPA teams had troubles getting flow
going....and flow proved more valuable than just having a bunch
of great players, since athleticism mostly cancelled out. In
other words...DoG would probably have done pretty well in
the MLU tournament as a cohesive team that doesn't turn the
disc over.
MLU won't be an unqualified success until the refereed system
works for cohesive teams at intermediate skill in a
game with something real on the line. It was a success, just
not an unqualified success...I have faith that Ian, Toad, et
all will get it there.

4) Refereeing is the toughest job in sports

The Refs for MLU were much, much better than I think we could have hoped
for, given that this was most people's first time. I would not have had
any faith in first-time basketball refs, and I had faith in these refs.
They deserve a ton of praise for the job they did.

In general, these referees kept the whistle hidden, a set a precedent
early on that they were not going to call very much. I'm going to review a
set of calls (or non-calls) that I was involved in...I feel like very few
players were trying to push the envelope of the rules but I think that I
got a pretty good feel for what would be acceptable in a refereed game
with experienced observers.
I'm not trying to show how smart I am, or how sneaky....but I really felt
like we wouldn't know the limits of the MLU rules unless we tested them,
so pushing the limits was definitely one of my lower-priority goals for
the weekend.

Game 2: NW v NE (I wasn't at game 1 vs. the SE until the very end)

The faster pace of the game was amazing. If you pulled out of bounds, you
still had to run down hard on D, because a new disc came into play
immediately at the brick. Similarly, a new disc came in after
out-of-bounds turnovers....minimizing downtime. Awesome...I have always
thought that pulling was the most boring part of the game for this
reason....it can be up to a minute of downtime. Great change.

Early on, I found myself trying to get my teammates to foul more, since it
seemed like the refs were calling few fouls. Even small fouls on the mark,
especially before the throw is started, made a big difference in the game
(if you could grab an arm, and stop a pivot to an open throw, that
wouldn't be called....but a big advantage for the D). I found out once I
got on the field that fouling is tough...first you have to catch up to the
guy, then you have to know a throw is coming, then you have to do
something about it. Not as easy as I thought.

My first "brilliant" idea was to try and intentional pick play. At this
point, the refs had called maybe 1 pick over 3 games....maybe we could get
an open 2-pointer out of it. Our guy rolled off the back of the stack and
I gave his defender some friction (ok, a lot of friction...kind of a
clumsy attempt). I was immediately called for the pick...good call by the
refs, who were right on top of it. If I had been more subtle, I think they
still would have seen it. Refs 1, blw 0.

(By the way, the new pick rule (D player can't be picked off of another D
player) is sweet for game-play, though the obvious tradeoff is that the
game is slightly more dangerous.)

My next "brilliant" idea was on D. FM caught a swing about 8 yards out of
the end zone, and I could see in his eyes that he had an open hammer...as
he started to cock the hammer I tackled him. Grabbed both arms, wrapped
him up, fell down on top of him.
I was whistled for the foul. Should I have been given a tech? (a Tech = 2
personal fouls). Yeah, probably. The result of the play was that Forch had
the disc at stall 0, looking at essentially the same formation as before
(O can reset on a D foul, but they were already pretty well stacked up).
He didn't have any motion, though....I call this a win for the D. They
scored several throws later...but I think professional fouling will, as
reffed games keep going on...become much more commonplace.

I hope, of course, that I would never do this in an Ultimate game. Like I
said, very different sports, and I felt no guilt at all, since fouling is
a part of MLU. Me tackling FM increases the chance that one of us gets
hurt, for sure.
In general, we (the NW) did not foul as much as we should have. On a
couple of 2-point throws we allowed huckers to throw unimpeded....and in a
serious MLU game, I think that extra point makes it worthwhile to tackle
that hucker.

Last note....If a big guy went deep on me for a 2-pointer, I was resolved
to drag him down. Give them the disc on the goalline for 1 point, prevent
the 2, swallow my pride and make the team-first-play. In the next rule
edition, I would suggest that a technical foul called on a 2-point
receiver should give the receiver the disc on the goalline, with the first
throw being worth 2 points....

Game 3: NW v SW

I spent most of this game as a cup player in our transition zone, designed
to stop the 2 point bomb. As such, I got to know Parker Krug really
well....I fouled him probably 5-6 times that would have gotten called in
an ultimate game, and maybe 4 of those probably should have been called by
the refs, and only two were. The two that were called were called quickly
and I'd say overall good refereeing. Maybe I should have gotten a tech for
the bearhug....but like I said, I really didn't want that 80-yard Krugbomb
coming out.

All in all, the 2-pointer changed on-field strategies more than the
refereeing, it seemed to me...

Al, if you're listening, he did throw that huge thumber on a meaningful
point.

I also threw a turnover in this game...I was the 2 in a 4-person string
play. MN came and put a mark on me, and as I went to throw my backhand, he
grabbed my throwing arm as I pivoted. I tried to pivot through the 'foul'
and get the throw off anyway (Ultimate based instinct) and my throw missed
the receiver. The word foul was on my lips...but there was no whistle, so
I ran back to cover on D.

Missed call? Yeah, but it happens both ways. If you want all the good
things about refs, you have to accept that this play might happen and be
out of your control. Also...no telling that I don't call this foul in and
Ultimate game, MN goes to the observer, and I lose the disc anyways....

At two points in this game, a referee came up to me and gave me a
technical foul warning. Once was for a hard foul (the bearhug) and once
was for 'excessive celebration'. On both occasions, I would not have been
surprised to have been T'd up, and I think the warning told me that I
could get away with that stuff, rather than its intended goal. Gotta
remember, I think, that in the MLU I expect to be reprimanded by a call,
not by my own conscience...blow that whistle. Was my celebration poor
sportsmanship? Yeah, probably....but T'ing me up there would have been a
strong message to everyone else, and as it was, no one heard the warning
but me.

Aside: This excessive celebrating was for a play against a guy I think is
one of the best defenders in the country....it was an outpouring of my own
surprise/elation, and I hope he isn't pissed that I ran around like a damn
fool afterwards. Definitely not premeditated. Looking back, I regret that.

There were several stalls in this game....I LOVE the silent count. First
off, the 7-second count feels like forever, and I would be is longer on
average than the 10-second count in big Ultimate games. When I observed
college Nats one year I was asked to rule on a contested stall...the irate
marker calmed down real quick when I showed him my stopwatch that said
"5.3". wow.

Anyway, the 2 seconds at the end of the count....you can feel both teams
fan's edging toward the field to see whats...gonna....happen....
It's sweet.

Game 4: Final vs. SE

Two big points stand out in this game.
Early in the game, I was guarding TG...he cut breakside for a high
inside-out backhand. He went up with two hands, I went up with 1, and used
my other hand to rake down his right arm. In an Ultimate game he would
definitely call it, here it was a good physical play, evidently. While he
stood and argued I took off for a 2-point bomb from one of our
handlers....just goes to show, if you want to argue, you might get beat
(although, in this case, TG just ran me down and skied me....damn.).

Around halftime, I got locked in on one of the SE dump handlers, CS. I
found that if I waited until stalling 2-3, when I was sure both backfield
referees were looking at the thrower/marker, I could grab CS's jersey and
drag him down. At 4-5 then, when he should have been getting open, he was
trying to regain his balance...their O ground to a halt and they had to
call a TO.

CS complained to the ref during the TO, and had I tried it again right
then I would have likely been called. But, if I were being crafty, I would
have waited to use that trick again later. More coordinated refs might
call this, or they might not (I remember similar stuff going uncalled on
my HS basketball team). Maybe CS would learn to handfight me away, so I
couldn't do this....either way, the game gets more physical. More like
basketball physicality, for sure.

As it was, I subbed off during the TO....another sweet rule that we used
well, bringing in our two subs on every timeout possible.

At the end of the final game...we went up 15-12 with about a minute of
game time left. We concentrated on the 2-pointer, and they scored the 1 in
about 10 seconds. Then we threw a quick turn and they scored again
quickly....now it was 15-14 with 9 seconds left. Had we worked those 9
seconds off of the clock before the turn, it would have been game
over...someone on RSD said that down by 4 with a minute left would be
impossible, and I think that is wrong. Especially with the 2-point line,
you can come back quick against the clock. Still harder to come back vs.
the clock than versus the score, though.

Of the four teams, I think the SE used the MLU strategies the best,
playing the 2-point line particularly well on fastbreaks.

If anyone actually read all this....banana banana banana. Go Cradle
Robbers. A big ThankYou to Gavin Sing, Andy Lovseth, all the refs, Ian
McClellan, the NUA crew, and Sammy CK for putting this one.

blw

Mark Ratkiller

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 2:43:54 PM7/4/06
to
Ben wrote:
> a lot of stuff

A couple of things:
1) I think a lot more people would have watched the MLU if the games
weren't scheduled during potlatch game times. I have my fingers
crossed that MLU happens again next year at potlatch, but with an
updated schedule so that everyone can watch.

2) Blw has an excellent point - sotg is a great rule-arbitration system
for 99% of ultimate, but the highest levels of elite ultimate are
well-served by refs. I was only able to watch about a 1/2 hour of one
of the games but, as a spectator, I appreciated the upbeat pace of the
game and the lack of arguments between players. The silent 7-second
stall count is money.

Larry D. Hols

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 1:59:06 AM7/4/06
to
Hallo,

In article
<Pine.A41.4.64.060...@dante73.u.washington.edu>,
Ben <be...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

> My opinions from the Potlatch/MLU weekend...(please excuse my butchering
> of the English language)

Wow! Nice post!

Larry

Larry D. Hols

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 2:10:22 AM7/4/06
to
Hallo,

"Mark Ratkiller" <mratk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I appreciated the upbeat pace of the game

That's an argument for the sixty second limit after a score and
having discs immediately available after OB throws.

> the lack of arguments between players.

An observer system can get this, too. A makes call. Observer
immediately asks B for contest/no contest. Observer immediately upholds
or not. Play goes on. No time for arguing allowed.

I think there's much to do with timing that can be learned from MLU
and applied to self-officiated/observed ulty.

> The silent 7-second stall count is money.

The initial returns suggest this is popular--and the 7 count by the
ref was likely longer than a 10 count by a player. A solid argument for
having a third party counting stall.

And, if the MLU guys are interested, I've got some ideas for
officiation crews and mechanics. Send smoke signals direct (offlist) if
you'd care to hear.

Larry

Mark Ratkiller

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 6:03:25 PM7/4/06
to
Larry D. Hols wrote:
> "Mark Ratkiller" <mratk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I appreciated the upbeat pace of the game
>
> That's an argument for the sixty second limit after a score and
> having discs immediately available after OB throws.
>
> > the lack of arguments between players.
>
> An observer system can get this, too. A makes call. Observer
> immediately asks B for contest/no contest. Observer immediately upholds
> or not. Play goes on. No time for arguing allowed.
>
> I think there's much to do with timing that can be learned from MLU
> and applied to self-officiated/observed ulty.

I think a big part of the faster pace of the game was the lack of (bad)
calls by players. The observer system could be streamlined, but
there's that fundamental obstacle to a system where players make the
calls.

Larry D. Hols

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 5:21:02 AM7/4/06
to
Hallo,

> > I think there's much to do with timing that can be learned from MLU
> > and applied to self-officiated/observed ulty.
>
> I think a big part of the faster pace of the game was the lack of (bad)
> calls by players. The observer system could be streamlined, but
> there's that fundamental obstacle to a system where players make the
> calls.

That has to be weighed against bad calls by refs and no calls by
refs. The initial feedback reports both occurrences; to be expected as a
fundamental obstacle to a ref system.

So MLU removes bad calls by players and replaces them with bad calls
and bad no calls by refs. The decision to be made there is entirely one
of preference, I believe, and both approaches will find support.

MLU play may always be quicker than standard play. That's not to say
that standard play can't be streamlined to play much faster offer more
excitement to spectators.

Larry

toad

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 9:21:50 PM7/4/06
to

Larry D. Hols wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> "Mark Ratkiller" <mratk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I appreciated the upbeat pace of the game
>
> That's an argument for the sixty second limit after a score and
> having discs immediately available after OB throws.


There is more to it than just that. Its a whole facilitation process.

>
> > the lack of arguments between players.
>
> An observer system can get this, too. A makes call. Observer
> immediately asks B for contest/no contest. Observer immediately upholds
> or not. Play goes on. No time for arguing allowed.


Not with that 30 second ult-debate rule.....if that is a rule(maybe
thats a wfdf rule???). Anyways with the player initiated/observer
system the referal never(or rarley) goes directly to the
observer.....thats one of the novelties of that whole thing....to let
the players "work it out" on there own....isnt it? Now if the upa, or
whoever, adopted my idea of a IRS (immediate referal system) with their
observers they might be on to somthing.

>
> I think there's much to do with timing that can be learned from MLU
> and applied to self-officiated/observed ulty.

lets hope so.

>
> > The silent 7-second stall count is money.
>
> The initial returns suggest this is popular--and the 7 count by the
> ref was likely longer than a 10 count by a player. A solid argument for
> having a third party counting stall.

>
> And, if the MLU guys are interested, I've got some ideas for
> officiation crews and mechanics. Send smoke signals direct (offlist) if
> you'd care to hear.


well giddy up cowboy. nothin but air and opportunity...lets hear em.
Although it would sufice to say that we would first activly solicit
ideas from people with experience in and proponents of that field of
knowledge.

>
> Larry

toad

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 9:30:30 PM7/4/06
to

Mark Ratkiller wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > a lot of stuff
>
> A couple of things:
> 1) I think a lot more people would have watched the MLU if the games
> weren't scheduled during potlatch game times.


Its hard for a div like this to piggy back on such a popular event like
potlatch and get center stage. There was talk of a fri nigh stadium
showcased game but it never materialized due to time and financial
constraints. This is somthing we will definitely address at all future
events.

I have my fingers
> crossed that MLU happens again next year at potlatch, but with an
> updated schedule so that everyone can watch.


I dont know about that. I do know their will be a bidding process for
future events in which more recources will HAVE to be directed into
that division. Really, in a business sence, it will behove MLU to have
complete control of the events in which they compete.


>
> 2) Blw has an excellent point - sotg is a great rule-arbitration system
> for 99% of ultimate, but the highest levels of elite ultimate are
> well-served by refs. I was only able to watch about a 1/2 hour of one
> of the games but, as a spectator, I appreciated the upbeat pace of the
> game and the lack of arguments between players. The silent 7-second
> stall count is money.


seeing is believing!!!

florida...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 9:36:18 PM7/4/06
to
Banana, banana, banana......... Ben

excelent reading from all.......

this defenitely proves from Bens accounts to be a different sport or
maybe not so different based on the road elite college & club has been
on in recent years where physical play is unquestionably present as
well as the attitude of "what can I get away with" sport is sport and
in the heat of competition we all tend to push the envelope. Event the
SOTG envelope......... somthing has to evolve from yesterdays Ultimate
(UPA) of SOTG, is it MLU in this form? Only time will
tell.................

Its obvios we need something marketable to push our sport into
spotlight and out of the shadows of "rec sports" or the "hippie cloud"
............ face it if its not marketable we will simply be no more
popular than Soccer in the U.S. or to the Olympics..........

Looking forward to more feedback from other MLU players

Maestro

toad

unread,
Jul 4, 2006, 11:49:51 PM7/4/06
to
Great post ben. I'm gonna go thru it and offer up some feedback from
my reffing and sports research experiences. This will be a great bench
mark when MLU staff conviens to discuss and refine the rules for 07.


Ben wrote:
> 1) MLU is a very different sport than Ultimate. And it is awesome.

I think that it puts the "real sport" feel into ultimate......as for
the difference, i'd say it simply a modernized version.

> Biggest Cons

> This is NOT a good game for beginning players....the level of
> physicality and possibility of being injured goes up in
> the course of normal play.

I dont know. I think refs could be extreemly benificial for
begginers...especially youth. Its often hard to adjust to the self
officiation process and with novice players violations will often go
uncalled.....which lends itself to a more inconsistant and unleveled
playing field. As for the phisicality.....the refs just got to call it
tighter.....say like how college b-ball refs calls all touch fouls
where as in the pros they mug each other. Backing the marker up a bit
might deter alot of the exessive contact on the mark.

>Cost of good referees is high

But well worth the investment.


> I loved the game. Much less downtime, a small percentage of the arguments
> (and almost none between players)

YES... now that animosity is directed at the ref but in a much more
controled and polite(spirited?) manner.

>and more gametime pressure make for what
> could be a much more marketable sport....which is exactly what it was
> designed to be, so that isn't suprising.

Its a sound formula used by all major market sports.

>MLU for the spectators,

I believe that it is also designed for the players. Having the
facilitation of the refs is actually a privilidge. Of course the
accuracy of the call is a huge factor as to the perception of that
privledge.


>2) Potlatch and the MLU were a good mix.

I'm glad you feel that way. I was a little worried that the regulatory
aspects of the mlu concept wouldnt jive with the potlatch philosophy.
We all agreed (mlu staff)that it would be a great venue to expose MLU
(people/numbers-wise).


> 3) 'Allstar teams'


> Cons: Lack of coordination was the biggest downside. Teams with players
> from a bunch of different UPA teams had troubles getting flow
> going....and flow proved more valuable than just having a bunch
> of great players, since athleticism mostly cancelled out. In
> other words...DoG would probably have done pretty well in
> the MLU tournament as a cohesive team that doesn't turn the
> disc over.

As time goes on and insentives to both be selected, as well as
productive, increase we hope that these select teams will maybe put as
much time into preparing for MLU comp as they do for the upa
series.....maybe more....depends on the payoff and glory i guess.
It wont happen overnight, but thats part of the long term goal.

> MLU won't be an unqualified success until the refereed system
> works for cohesive teams at intermediate skill in a
> game with something real on the line. It was a success, just
> not an unqualified success...I have faith that Ian, Toad, et
> all will get it there.

WORD!!!


> 4) Refereeing is the toughest job in sports

and least appreciated....yet one of the most imprtant.


> The Refs for MLU were much, much better than I think we could have hoped
> for, given that this was most people's first time. I would not have had
> any faith in first-time basketball refs, and I had faith in these refs.
> They deserve a ton of praise for the job they did.

no doubt, we've got to praise them like we should.

> In general, these referees kept the whistle hidden, a set a precedent
> early on that they were not going to call very much.

I dont think this is good with some aspects of play (like the initial
bump or the "no-huck" foul on the mark) because it lets the players set
the tone for the game. Now on high floating discs with alot of
incedental contact i can see "lettin em play" especially on "hospital"
passes....you dont want to reward the reciever when his teammate makes
a mediocre throw.

>but I really felt
> like we wouldn't know the limits of the MLU rules unless we tested them,
> so pushing the limits was definitely one of my lower-priority goals for
> the weekend.

And rightfully so...how else do you understand their rule and call
interpretations.....and how else do we learn, as an organization, what
we need to work on in that dept. We knew going in that this event
would be largley experimental and developmental.

> Early on, I found myself trying to get my teammates to foul more, since it
> seemed like the refs were calling few fouls.

I think that will change when the foul limit is reduced to 3, roster
sizes become smaller, games lengthen, picks are counted as personals,
T's and intentionals count as 2, etc, etc......basically when the
system has more teeth.

> My next "brilliant" idea was on D. FM caught a swing about 8 yards out of
> the end zone, and I could see in his eyes that he had an open hammer...as
> he started to cock the hammer I tackled him. Grabbed both arms, wrapped
> him up, fell down on top of him.

How was this not a T. Soft crew? Had i of been there i would have
T'ed you in a heart beat.

>but I think professional fouling will, as
> reffed games keep going on...become much more commonplace.

not if the consequence is severe enough to deter it. Refinements are
comming....next season will be alot different.


> I hope, of course, that I would never do this in an Ultimate game.


Either way you wouldnt/didnt benefit from it....so yea, fairly
unnessesary. Of course with the mlu rules (and a personal foul
reduction) the consequense is much more tangible.


Like I
> said, very different sports, and I felt no guilt at all, since fouling is
> a part of MLU.

That guiltlessness was probably because there was no real fear of
fouling out(especially after no T was called). The guilt might be
directed towards your teammates if this caused you to foul out and you
were the type of player that is in high demand come crunchtime in a
crucial game with a small squad (similar to nba).

.
> In general, we (the NW) did not foul as much as we should have. On a
> couple of 2-point throws we allowed huckers to throw unimpeded....and in a
> serious MLU game, I think that extra point makes it worthwhile to tackle
> that hucker.

the punishment has to fit the crime....and you make a good point about
allowing the first throw to count as a 2 if there is a defending foul
on a throw from 2 point land.


> All in all, the 2-pointer changed on-field strategies more than the
> refereeing, it seemed to me...

I'm wondering if we need to, or even can, come up with a form of
illegal defence to prevent those junk zones to help promote more long
(2 point) throws to help maximize the excitment factor.

> Missed call? Yeah, but it happens both ways. If you want all the good
> things about refs, you have to accept that this play might happen and be
> out of your control. Also...no telling that I don't call this foul in and
> Ultimate game, MN goes to the observer, and I lose the disc anyways....

great point.....so essentially taking the step from observers to refs
helps to "cut out the middle man".


> At two points in this game, a referee came up to me and gave me a
> technical foul warning.

how nice. seems like one warning would have been enough.....or one too
many in my book.

> Gotta
> remember, I think, that in the MLU I expect to be reprimanded by a call,
> not by my own conscience...blow that whistle.

Damn straight!!

> There were several stalls in this game....I LOVE the silent count. First
> off, the 7-second count feels like forever, and I would be is longer on
> average than the 10-second count in big Ultimate games. When I observed
> college Nats one year I was asked to rule on a contested stall...the irate
> marker calmed down real quick when I showed him my stopwatch that said
> "5.3". wow.

I was gonna say that it may need to come down to 5 until i read your
next insight.

> Anyway, the 2 seconds at the end of the count....you can feel both teams
> fan's edging toward the field to see whats...gonna....happen....
> It's sweet.

I could grab CS's jersey and
> drag him down. At 4-5 then, when he should have been getting open, he was
> trying to regain his balance...their O ground to a halt and they had to
> call a TO.

Now would you have attempted this with a 3 foul limit, a call-savvy ref
crew and intentionals (like shirt grabbing) being worth 2......i guess
it would matter how many you had to give and in what part of the game
it was.

>either way, the game gets more physical. More like
> basketball physicality, for sure.

I would bet that the average american sports fan would appreciate a
little physicality in this sport.


> As it was, I subbed off during the TO....another sweet rule that we used
> well, bringing in our two subs on every timeout possible.

was that enough???? how about the idea of a whole sale
substitution.....too many??


> At the end of the final game...we went up 15-12 with about a minute of
> game time left. We concentrated on the 2-pointer, and they scored the 1 in
> about 10 seconds. Then we threw a quick turn and they scored again
> quickly....now it was 15-14 with 9 seconds left. Had we worked those 9
> seconds off of the clock before the turn, it would have been game
> over...someone on RSD said that down by 4 with a minute left would be
> impossible, and I think that is wrong. Especially with the 2-point line,
> you can come back quick against the clock. Still harder to come back vs.
> the clock than versus the score, though.

but the stopped time dynamic does wonders for the entertainment
value...especially with a visible clock.

> If anyone actually read all this....banana banana banana. Go Cradle
> Robbers. A big ThankYou to Gavin Sing, Andy Lovseth, all the refs, Ian
> McClellan, the NUA crew, and Sammy CK for putting this one.

A team effort for sure......Major League Ultimate will see you in
07!!!!

> blw

Bob Koca

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 12:06:58 AM7/5/06
to

toad wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if we need to, or even can, come up with a form of
> illegal defence to prevent those junk zones to help promote more long
> (2 point) throws to help maximize the excitment factor.
>

Such a rule would seem very difficult to write and officiate. Also
the variety of
defensive strategies adds depth to the game that I feel shouldn't be
taken away.

Is it a given that more long throws equals more excitement factor?

Bob Koca

toad

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 12:14:04 AM7/5/06
to
.

Bob Koca wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >
> > I'm wondering if we need to, or even can, come up with a form of
> > illegal defence to prevent those junk zones to help promote more long
> > (2 point) throws to help maximize the excitment factor.
> >
>
> Such a rule would seem very difficult to write and officiate. Also
> the variety of
> defensive strategies adds depth to the game that I feel shouldn't be
> taken away.


wind conditions would be another factor


> Is it a given that more long throws equals more excitement factor?

I'd say....people love the long bomb in football, the long drive in
golf...


>
> Bob Koca

grill

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 12:29:26 AM7/5/06
to
> I'd say....people love the long bomb in football, the long drive in golf...

right, but football doesn't make prevent defenses illegal; teams just
learn to take advantage of them.

Bob Koca

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 12:57:22 AM7/5/06
to

toad wrote:
>
> > Is it a given that more long throws equals more excitement factor?
>
>
>
> I'd say....people love the long bomb in football, the long drive in
> golf...

In football people love the long 12 play scoring drive also.

To me a well orchestrated sting of passes for the score in ultimate
shows more skill and is more fun to watch than a long huck for a score.


Bob Koca

bzz...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 1:20:49 AM7/5/06
to

any interest in exchanging 2pt line for 2pt clock?
team score w/n first, say, 35 seconds of possession is worth 2pts
(accounting for stoppages by D)


-easier to officiate than regulating styles of D allowed

-create incentive for O to move the disc quickly, either huck or quick
hitting combos.
I think both hucks and fast moving shorter passes are both fan
friendly


-decrease D's incentive to concede medium length passes in the interest
of shutting down hucks (making the prevent/junk D less rewarding)

and lots of other implications...

In any case, its great to see effort and innovation being put forth. I
am excited to see future permutations.

Dave Klink

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 3:47:58 AM7/5/06
to
Rare hucks are more exciting than frequent hucks.

toad

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 9:48:38 AM7/5/06
to

bzz...@gmail.com wrote:
> any interest in exchanging 2pt line for 2pt clock?
> team score w/n first, say, 35 seconds of possession is worth 2pts
> (accounting for stoppages by D)


uhm....interesting.


> -easier to officiate than regulating styles of D allowed
>
> -create incentive for O to move the disc quickly, either huck or quick
> hitting combos.
> I think both hucks and fast moving shorter passes are both fan
> friendly
>
>
> -decrease D's incentive to concede medium length passes in the interest
> of shutting down hucks (making the prevent/junk D less rewarding)
>
> and lots of other implications.


you make some really good points.


.

> In any case, its great to see effort and innovation being put forth. I
> am excited to see future permutations.


And the beautiful thing about MLU rule adjustments and experimentations
is that these innovations can be implamented with the approval of only
a handful of decision makers on a season to season (or even event to
event) basis.

In fact one innovation that ian and i were kicking around (that we are
both proponents of) is legalizing macks, either to oneself (as a form
of dribbling) or to a teammate. Now dont confuse this idea with that
dischoops self pass nonsence.....a selfmack advanvement of the disc
would only be allowable if the pass came from a teammate....or on an
interception. I dont know how often it would actually occur in the
course of a game but it could make for some excitment and showcase
another level of disc handleing skills yet unseen. Any thoughts???

Handy

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 11:11:35 AM7/5/06
to
The self-MAC idea (extending someone else's pass to you) sounds cool.

I HATE the introduction of intentional fouls. Watching someone get
fouled when they go up on a fast break is one of my least favorite
things about basketball and even worse is when I see someone get beat
in soccer and their defender completely takes them out and Marcel
Balboa says "He just got beat there, that's a good foul." If you're
going to get beat, play better defense next time, don't ruin the game
by hacking just cause you can't hack it.

Otherwise, very excited about MLU. Hope to play it someday.

mapler...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 11:28:00 AM7/5/06
to
Great post detailing pros and cons of MLU.

Interesting to see the thought process evolving in elite players in
these events around intentional fouling, finding out what the ref will
allow as opposed to what the rules allow, and even utilizing fouling as
a team strategy. Any other players find the same thought process going
on? Interesting that this would all occur at a tournament like
Potlatch.

This seems like the same mentality that we see in most other sports at
an elite level (except at Wimbledon of course), so rather predictable I
suppose. Human nature is what it is, but your confidence that
professional fouling will become de rigeur at these events is
disappointing for a potential fan. Seems to me that if this behavior
increases with each MLU event you run the risk of turning fans off
despite the tremendous athleticism. Unless of course we just go ahead
and switch to tackle ultimate, which might be great fun for fans and
players alike.

Were there players taking dives also, acting as if they were mauled by
a lion upon the slightest contact, a la World Cup? Did players who were
called for even the most obvious fouls vehemently protest their
innocence ad nauseum and try to work the refs, a la NBA?

Wondering what fan reactions were to watching a game (being careful not
to use the term ultimate) with intentional fouling and lack of fouls or
technical fouls called by the refs in situations where they were
clearly warranted? Anybody out there watching games think that the
intentional fouling deterred from the action and integrity of the game
or made it "boring" or "boorish"?

Where can one find the rules that these games were played under?

thanks
MJ

Ian

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 12:24:29 PM7/5/06
to
If you want a full version of the rules, email me, and I'll send them
to you.

imm110 at yahoo dot com

Ian

CR

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 1:26:31 PM7/5/06
to

Larry D. Hols wrote:

> That has to be weighed against bad calls by refs and no calls by
> refs. The initial feedback reports both occurrences; to be expected as a
> fundamental obstacle to a ref system.
>
> So MLU removes bad calls by players and replaces them with bad calls
> and bad no calls by refs. The decision to be made there is entirely one
> of preference, I believe, and both approaches will find support.

having bad/no calls placed in the hands of a neutral (supposedly)
observer can be very advantageous. with the players unable to affect
the game by making bad calls, the spirit between two teams in a highly
contested game has the potential to rise.

example from a UPA game: John from team North goes up for a disc, is
untouched and drops it. he calls a (imaginary) foul. Team South gets
pissed at John (and the rest of team North) for makng this shady call.
Team South may get over it, but they might also start to play the same
way. as both teams start to make more and more bad calls, the level of
spirit/sportsmanship goes way down.

example from MLU game: John goes up for the disc and drops it. now the
ref calls the foul thinking his defender must have bumped him since it
was such an easy disc to catch. Team South gets angry at the ref more
than John and the Northies. instead of making bad foul calls, now they
start to play more intense. they start to push the limit a bit, but the
spirit between the two teams remains, because the South know when
theyve actually committed a foul.

there are disadvantages to refs too, but to me they seem to revolve
less around the team-team spirit and more towards individaul
bias/error.

CR
Disclaimer: i was not at potlatch, so i didnt witness any of the games.
my only experience with the MLU is that which has been posted on RSD.

Julian

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 1:40:37 PM7/5/06
to

CR wrote:

> having bad/no calls placed in the hands of a neutral (supposedly)
> observer can be very advantageous. with the players unable to affect
> the game by making bad calls, the spirit between two teams in a highly
> contested game has the potential to rise.
>
> example from a UPA game: John from team North goes up for a disc, is
> untouched and drops it. he calls a (imaginary) foul. Team South gets
> pissed at John (and the rest of team North) for makng this shady call.
> Team South may get over it, but they might also start to play the same
> way. as both teams start to make more and more bad calls, the level of
> spirit/sportsmanship goes way down.
>
> example from MLU game: John goes up for the disc and drops it. now the
> ref calls the foul thinking his defender must have bumped him since it
> was such an easy disc to catch. Team South gets angry at the ref more
> than John and the Northies. instead of making bad foul calls, now they
> start to play more intense. they start to push the limit a bit, but the
> spirit between the two teams remains, because the South know when
> theyve actually committed a foul.

Nice example, but there's no gaurentee it'll work like that.

Here's another possibliity: John goes up, phantom foul, ref blows
whistle. Team South gets pissed at the ref, starts yelling a lot,
starts fouling more and harder, complains constantly. Eventually Fred
from Team South is so worked up he spits on the ref and has to be
restrained by John from Team North who then gets mauled by the rest of
Team South. Big fight, blood, bad feeling between many players for many
years. Good times. Good times.

Of course, this isn't necessarily any more likely, I just wouldn't bank
on bad calls leading to better spirit.

Larry D. Hols

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 12:53:02 AM7/5/06
to
Hallo,

> Unless of course we just go ahead
> and switch to tackle ultimate, which might be great fun for fans and
> players alike.

Add goalies who can tackle and there's a place for me!

Larry

Larry D. Hols

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 12:55:38 AM7/5/06
to
Hallo,

> Here's another possibliity: John goes up, phantom foul, ref blows
> whistle. Team South gets pissed at the ref, starts yelling a lot,
> starts fouling more and harder, complains constantly. Eventually Fred
> from Team South is so worked up he spits on the ref and has to be
> restrained by John from Team North who then gets mauled by the rest of
> Team South. Big fight, blood, bad feeling between many players for many
> years. Good times. Good times.

Might make Sportscenter....

Larry

toad

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 5:24:17 PM7/5/06
to
.

mapler...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Great post detailing pros and cons of MLU.

> This seems like the same mentality that we see in most other sports at


> an elite level (except at Wimbledon of course), so rather predictable I
> suppose. Human nature is what it is, but your confidence that
> professional fouling will become de rigeur at these events is
> disappointing for a potential fan. Seems to me that if this behavior
> increases with each MLU event you run the risk of turning fans off
> despite the tremendous athleticism.

thats why there is constant refinment of the rules and rules
process.....to ensure an equitable risk/consequence system and to
maximize the entertainment value. One of the first reports i got from
ian after saturdays play was that 4 personal fouls is too many.....and
originally we were gonna give em 5. Luckely i talked ian into going
with 4 but even that didnt deter guys from getting overly physical and
even intentionally fouling.


Unless of course we just go ahead
> and switch to tackle ultimate, which might be great fun for fans and
> players alike.

FCU....ICU???

toad

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 5:32:28 PM7/5/06
to

CR wrote:
> having bad/no calls placed in the hands of a neutral (supposedly)
> observer can be very advantageous. with the players unable to affect
> the game by making bad calls, the spirit between two teams in a highly
> contested game has the potential to rise.
>
> example from a UPA game: John from team North goes up for a disc, is
> untouched and drops it. he calls a (imaginary) foul. Team South gets
> pissed at John (and the rest of team North) for makng this shady call.
> Team South may get over it, but they might also start to play the same
> way. as both teams start to make more and more bad calls, the level of
> spirit/sportsmanship goes way down.
>
> example from MLU game: John goes up for the disc and drops it. now the
> ref calls the foul thinking his defender must have bumped him since it
> was such an easy disc to catch. Team South gets angry at the ref more
> than John and the Northies. instead of making bad foul calls, now they
> start to play more intense. they start to push the limit a bit, but the
> spirit between the two teams remains, because the South know when
> theyve actually committed a foul.

this is a great example of how the active impartial arbitration process
brings on a whole new dynamic with player control and restraint than
when using the traditional cross team player controled arbitration
system......very perceptive!


> there are disadvantages to refs too, but to me they seem to revolve
> less around the team-team spirit and more towards individaul
> bias/error.


well you cant have it both ways, thats for sure.


.

toad

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 6:00:45 PM7/5/06
to
you convieniently skipped a few of the likley reactions of the refs
that would have/should have curtailed the players behavior and helped
avoid the blood bath....Let me interject if i may.

Julian wrote:
> Here's another possibliity: John goes up, phantom foul, ref blows
> whistle. Team South gets pissed at the ref, starts yelling a lot,


John gets hit with a "T" and settles his ass down....and quick.

> starts fouling more and harder,


Another "T" and a probable ejection. Cancerous element eliminated.

complains constantly. Eventually Fred
> from Team South is so worked up he spits on the ref


and now he is immediatly ejected from the game

and has to be
> restrained by


the refs, security and probably his own teammates while john, from the
opposite team reamins out of it and uses that time to stratagize with
his team as it is no longer his responsibility/burden to babysit the
whiners.


John from Team North who then gets mauled by the rest of
> Team South.


this never happens because the teams dont have a problem with each
other and if they did they would have been separated before the
brewhaha.


Big fight, blood, bad feeling between many players for many
> years. Good times. Good times.


wishful thinking on the part of the anti ref, unaware sinic.


>
> Of course, this isn't necessarily any more likely,


yea, it more like insanely absurd.


I just wouldn't bank
> on bad calls leading to better spirit.


How about the notion that bad calls would result in more controled and
restrained reactions from the victim with refs.......i.e. yelling "you
are so full of shit.....that call sucks ass" and going on a lengthy
rant is unaceptable behavior that will result in an immediate and
tangible consequence. So tell me, what is the consequence of behaving
that way in a player controled system......none. Without a consequence
there is no risk. And if said consquences improve players behavior
isnt there an argument for bad calls (by refs as apposed to opposong
team) leading to better spirit?????

David Berney Needleman

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 7:26:44 PM7/5/06
to
It seems to me that what Ben is saying is that you have to make a
choice:

Did you liked playing soccer when you got to kidney punch your marker
as you were both running to ball, and grabbing his nuts as he tried to
shield you, and pushing off his back to get that extra six inches when
you were going for a header, and flopping when he pushed you off the
ball to make sure the ref called it? Do you like the last "two
minutes" of free throws in a close NBA game? A lot of people did/do.
A lot of people don't.

OR

Do you like trusting your opponent not to abuse a rule set that doesn't
include harsh penalties and having to know all the rules, abide by
them, argue them, make calls based on them? A lot of people do. A lot
of people don't (especially the trust part and the arguing part).

Ben likes both. I don't think he's alone in that.

Toad thinks you can devise a rule set that will prevent intentional,
strategic violation of the rules in a refereed sport (at least 99% of
the time). However, given that he uses analogies from other sports all
the time and is constantly talking about following their example, I
don't know HOW he believes this. It's not true in any refereed sport.
In refereed sport, it's about how much can I get away with and what
will the ref call/see?

I agree with Ben that there is an inherent choice when you add refs
into the game (Hand of God, here we come!), but like Ben, I don't think
the choice is between good and evil--it's just between MLU series and
UPA series. If there are a bunch of people who want to watch and play
MLU, I hope it prospers, and they can. I just also hope the UPA
remembers those who aren't interested, who like the integrity
associated with being expected to play by the rules and the control
that comes from making your own calls. Maybe the MLU and the UPA could
even run fall and spring, like college and club, so people who want to
can play both. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that refs are
being introduced to improve SOTG. They are counter to everything it's
about. SOTG says do what the rules say; it's the most important thing.
Refs say do what I say and all you have to worry about is winning.
Those are very different things. Anyone who thinks otherwise should
watch UPA Nationals and then any pro (or even high school) non-ultimate
sporting event.

-Needleman


Ben wrote:
> a lot

Larry D. Hols

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 7:28:34 AM7/5/06
to
Hallo,

> Toad thinks you can devise a rule set that will prevent intentional,
> strategic violation of the rules in a refereed sport (at least 99% of
> the time). However, given that he uses analogies from other sports all
> the time and is constantly talking about following their example, I
> don't know HOW he believes this. It's not true in any refereed sport.

I'll add that it doesn't happen in golf, where players self-officiate
and are observed by third parties to make certain they get it correct.

> I agree with Ben that there is an inherent choice when you add refs
> into the game (Hand of God, here we come!), but like Ben, I don't think
> the choice is between good and evil--it's just between MLU series and
> UPA series.

I'll add that it goes further. I know there are folks who like to be
completely self-officiated, without observers. There are those who
prefer observed self-officiation. There are those who prefer refs. There
are those who will like all three forms. There's no "good, better, best"
ranking for those *except in purely personal terms.*


Larry

toad

unread,
Jul 5, 2006, 10:16:31 PM7/5/06
to

David Berney Needleman wrote:
> It seems to me that what Ben is saying is that you have to make a
> choice:
>
> Did you liked playing soccer when you got to kidney punch your marker
> as you were both running to ball, and grabbing his nuts as he tried to
> shield you, and pushing off his back to get that extra six inches when
> you were going for a header, and flopping when he pushed you off the
> ball to make sure the ref called it?


Soccer isnt a real good comparison to ulty because there is a certian
amount of legal contact, right? But.....i cant help but think if, in
soccer (world cup) the refs gave more yellows for flopping.....guys
wouldnt do it near as much. I think the soccer arbitration system
sucks....Its arbitrary in so many aspects.

Do you like the last "two
> minutes" of free throws in a close NBA game? A lot of people did/do.
> A lot of people don't.

I think the NBA is devising ways to better deter this.....getting shots
and the ball when fouled late in the game.

>
> OR
>
> Do you like trusting your opponent not to abuse a rule set that doesn't
> include harsh penalties and having to know all the rules, abide by
> them, argue them, make calls based on them? A lot of people do. A lot
> of people don't (especially the trust part and the arguing part).
>
> Ben likes both. I don't think he's alone in that.
>
> Toad thinks you can devise a rule set that will prevent intentional,
> strategic violation of the rules in a refereed sport (at least 99% of
> the time). However, given that he uses analogies from other sports all
> the time and is constantly talking about following their example, I
> don't know HOW he believes this.

Easily, i watch "other sports" all the time. And i never said anything
about a 99% accuacy rating.

>It's not true in any refereed sport.
> In refereed sport, it's about how much can I get away with and what
> will the ref call/see?

No, its about competition and stratagy more than that.....why so
paranoid?


>
> I agree with Ben that there is an inherent choice when you add refs
> into the game (Hand of God, here we come!), but like Ben, I don't think
> the choice is between good and evil--it's just between MLU series and
> UPA series. If there are a bunch of people who want to watch and play
> MLU, I hope it prospers, and they can. I just also hope the UPA
> remembers those who aren't interested, who like the integrity
> associated with being expected to play by the rules and the control
> that comes from making your own calls. Maybe the MLU and the UPA could
> even run fall and spring, like college and club, so people who want to
> can play both.

The MLU season will likley be a june/july season with at least 2 events
in 07....maybe 3. Our niche will be in that lull between the end of
b-ball and hockey and the beggining of preseason football.

But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that refs are
> being introduced to improve SOTG.

I think it depends on what type of spirit yopu are talking about.
There may be less respect for an opponents personal space but more for
the impartial on field judgements.

>They are counter to everything it's
> about.

Uhmmmm, thats kind of existential.....I'm mean, whats "it" really all
about. Is it about tradition, history......if so then you should
reffer to the original rules of ulty....section 3...OFFICIALS...some of
the 1st ever showcase style games in the early 70's used refs. Its all
about what ever you make it about...and we are makin it about
this.....and this is this.


SOTG says do what the rules say; it's the most important thing.
> Refs say do what I say and all you have to worry about is winning.
> Those are very different things. Anyone who thinks otherwise should
> watch UPA Nationals and then any pro (or even high school) non-ultimate
> sporting event.

you seem to be critisizing/condeming any sport with refs.....dont you
watch any sports.....you have to watch the supperbowl, march maddness,
somthing. And we have watched upa nationals and then many pro
(highschool,non ulty) sporting events........thats why we started Major
League Ultimate.

Bob Koca

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 1:56:26 AM7/6/06
to
With the defence overplaying the huck and often starting off with
anti huck junk is it possible that the 2 point line rule encouraging
more hucks paradoxically causes there to be fewer?

Bob Koca

Bobus

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 2:36:17 AM7/6/06
to
> I HATE the introduction of intentional fouls.

Ditto. But how would you remove this in the context of MLU? One way
would be to severely penalize intentional fouls (eg, immediate
ejection), but how do you objectively make a judgement about a player's
intentions, other than in the obvious case of, say, a defender mauling
a thrower who has a wide open receiver downfield? Is there a way for
the MLU to eliminate strategic fouling (ie, make it so painful that
it's not considered an option)?

I get the impression that self-officiating isn't working for
elite-level ultimate in North America. Kudos to the MLU for providing
an alternative that may work better.

Meanwhile, SOTG works great for community leagues and tournaments,
atleast in my neck of the woods. I believe there is plenty of room for
both systems to operate.

Flo.P...@googlemail.com

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 4:29:16 AM7/6/06
to

Bob Koca schrieb:

It depends. You can use some game theory to analyze this.

First, you simplify and reduce the offense to two possible strategies:
huck (A) or no huck (B).
Perfect defensive strategy minimizes the pay out of the better of the
two strategies (include scoring percentage, field position after turn
over, psychological effects etc. in the pay out function, and note that
this function also depends on the current score and time left in the
game). (For the geeks out there: Under some extra continuity
assumptions etc.) this means that the defense should play a strategy
where A and B have the same expected pay out.

Introducing a 2-point line changes the pay out function, but the
general concept will stay the same. The defense should change their
strategy so that A and B have the same expected pay out. In the end,
given perfect defensive strategy, the O gains no advantage by choosing
one stategy over the other. So you should not expect to get more hucks
due to a 2-point line.

Introducing plays with higher variance like this (maybe a 10-point
score if the disc is caught in a little 10 foot square in the endzone
after it is thrown from 2-point territory?) gives some extra come back
chances for teams in the end of the game, so it adds some excitement
for spectators on near blow outs (think on-side-kick). But of cause the
defense knows this and can significantly reduce the chance of
completion on these plays.

If you want to decide 2-point line or not, the real question is not "do
you like hucks?", because the line should not change their number
(given good strategy, which will develop once you play with this rule
for a while). The question is, if you like the game better with all the
prevent Ds which will likely be employed. If you like hard man D all
over the field, then the 2-point line is probably not for you. If you
like hucks thrown into double coverage, then you might advocate
introducing a 3-point line.

-Flo.

Julian

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 8:54:30 AM7/6/06
to

toad wrote:
*some stuff*

> >Big fight, blood, bad feeling between many players for many
> > years. Good times. Good times.
>
>
> wishful thinking on the part of the anti ref, unaware sinic.
>

I'm not necessarily anti-ref. Why so paranoid? I'm not attacking you,
I'm making an analogy to other sports.

>
> >
> > Of course, this isn't necessarily any more likely,
>
>
> yea, it more like insanely absurd.

Really? Insane? Maybe unlikely, but insane? Seems to me that some of
the idiotic behavior I've seen at high- and not-so-high-level
tournaments would roll right over into the ref-arbitrated system. I was
trying to provide a counter-point to the idea that ref = better spirit.
That's all. Thanks for questioning my mental stability, though.

>
>
> >I just wouldn't bank
> > on bad calls leading to better spirit.
>
>
> How about the notion that bad calls would result in more controled and
> restrained reactions from the victim with refs.......i.e. yelling "you
> are so full of shit.....that call sucks ass" and going on a lengthy
> rant is unaceptable behavior that will result in an immediate and
> tangible consequence. So tell me, what is the consequence of behaving
> that way in a player controled system......none. Without a consequence
> there is no risk. And if said consquences improve players behavior
> isnt there an argument for bad calls (by refs as apposed to opposong
> team) leading to better spirit?????

I think the issue is that you are defining better spirit as "improved
behavior on the field." I define spirit as a respect for your opponent
and the rules, and I think that improved behavior flows from increased
respect.

I am not purely anti-ref, nor am I a complete cynic. I think that a
well-designed referee system might be good for the game of Ultimate. My
concern is that under ref-rule we would end up with teams full of
Antoine Walkers who spend more time whining to the ref than playing.
I'm not the first to say it, and I won't be the last. Don't dismiss me
as "insane" just because I raise concerns.

scoop

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 9:16:17 AM7/6/06
to

Julian wrote:
> toad wrote:
> *some stuff*

Somehow this footage from the Portugal-France semifinal seems relevant.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=7QSHB-AQZ1E

scoop

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 9:29:23 AM7/6/06
to
In this one
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iuazzL28bxc&search=world%20cup%20henry

It's the genius of henry, drawing a yellow card and a free kick. Extra
points for the clutching of the face.

Ian

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 9:41:44 AM7/6/06
to
Julian wrote:

> ...........................My


> concern is that under ref-rule we would end up with teams full of
> Antoine Walkers who spend more time whining to the ref than playing.
> I'm not the first to say it, and I won't be the last. Don't dismiss me
> as "insane" just because I raise concerns.


It's true, most pro teams have a whiner or two on them, but I can't
think of any pro team anywhere (even team Italy) that's completely
"full" of whiners, and I don't think an MLU team will be the first to
acheive that. There will be players who whine with refs. There are
already players who whine with self-officiation. A particular style of
arbitration does not create nor destroy whiners.

Are you saying that because there are A.Walkers, R.Wallaces, C.Webbers,
that there shouldn't be a refereed form of basketball? or the NBA?
They deserve to play in the NBA because they are good, but it's
unfortunate that they whine. But they have lost their fair share of
fans because of their reputations for whining too.

pizzaslot

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 9:52:32 AM7/6/06
to
Whiners are whiners with our without refs. At least this way, they
whine to a neutral party, and not argue every single call.

Barbu

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 10:02:48 AM7/6/06
to
Flo: are you a math major or something... you sound like that Russel
Crowe in the Beautiful Mind movie.

Barbu

Flo.P...@googlemail.com

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 10:17:43 AM7/6/06
to

Barbu schrieb:

> Flo: are you a math major or something... you sound like that Russel
> Crowe in the Beautiful Mind movie.
>
> Barbu
>
>

well, yes, mathematician to be exact. and yes, we are talking about
nash-equilibria, the kind of concept nash (the guy played by crowe in
the movie) got the nobel prize for.

toad

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 10:32:59 AM7/6/06
to

Bobus wrote:
> > I HATE the introduction of intentional fouls.
>
> Ditto. But how would you remove this in the context of MLU? One way
> would be to severely penalize intentional fouls (eg, immediate
> ejection),

we will likley, 1) lower the amount of personal fouls to 3.....2) make
intentionals and T's worth 2 and encourage refs to make the calls....as
apposed to giving out warnings.


but how do you objectively make a judgement about a player's
> intentions, other than in the obvious case of, say, a defender mauling
> a thrower who has a wide open receiver downfield?

"Having Good Judgement"....one of the three tenants of being a good
ref. I dont see how any call from a ref would be SUBjective......refs
just have to make the call.....sometimes their judgements are not
accurate, but they are always objective.....thats why refs need to be
properly trained and practice.

Is there a way for
> the MLU to eliminate strategic fouling (ie, make it so painful that
> it's not considered an option)?

hell yes.


>
> I get the impression that self-officiating isn't working for
> elite-level ultimate in North America. Kudos to the MLU for providing
> an alternative that may work better.


I wouldnt say that its not working.......its just not working in a way
that it is providing, or even attempting to provide, concepts that
would take advantage of maximizing the entertainment value.

>
> Meanwhile, SOTG works great for community leagues and tournaments,
> atleast in my neck of the woods. I believe there is plenty of room for
> both systems to operate.


Only time will tell if MLU gets established. From there we may see
some trickling down into other divisions/leagues (i'm sure the college
div will soon adopt any some of the rule and process tweeks used by
MLU......just as they used some of the NUA inovations) And if ultimate
becomes a NCAA sport they will undoubtedly use refs. I could see
observer pools forming for more upscale tournies in which players on
byes would observe games (as they do in beach vollyball and college
level club lax). Even using refs in highschool comp could become the
norm as i would think they would be required for varsity level status
and there would be plenty of older and qualified players to facilitate
it. But yes, there will always be pick up and community rec leagues in
which those facilitations arent nessesary.

Head Beagle

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 10:57:56 AM7/6/06
to
This is going back a few posts to Toads refute of the big fight
scenario. While I agree that what he said will happen some of the time,
if you look at other sports (MLB comes to mind at the moment), despite
the threat and carrying out of multiple ejections, there are on not too
rare an occasion full team brawls. So, it is utopian to think that the
threat of ejection is going to be 100% effective in preventing
situations like Julian described.

As with any sport, players, coaches and fans will direct abuse at
referrees in MLU. PLayers will feel like the ref is stealing the game
from them already, so getting ejected is no big deal. Player A will
foul player B hard, refs will miss the call, and Player A will see his
only means of reciprocity to be a hard foul back on Player B, with the
hope that the ref will miss this call also. Stuff like that will
happen, no system of technicals and ejections will prevent it.

toad

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 11:55:46 AM7/6/06
to
.
Julian wrote:

> I'm not necessarily anti-ref. Why so paranoid? I'm not attacking you,
> I'm making an analogy to other sports.

You sure dont sound like a proponent......not paranoid in the least.
Sounds like you were attacking reffed sports in general, i was simply
defending them as i am an advocate.


> Really? Insane? Maybe unlikely, but insane? Seems to me that some of
> the idiotic behavior I've seen at high- and not-so-high-level
> tournaments would roll right over into the ref-arbitrated system. I was
> trying to provide a counter-point to the idea that ref = better spirit.
> That's all. Thanks for questioning my mental stability, though.

Sorry...didnt mean to strike a nerve. Its just the type of banter i'v
become accoustomed to from listening to sports talk radio.


> I think the issue is that you are defining better spirit as "improved
> behavior on the field." I define spirit as a respect for your opponent
> and the rules, and I think that improved behavior flows from increased
> respect.

yea, its the chicken and the egg thing all over. But if you define
spirit as respect for the rules then why is it that the vast majority
of players find it so hard to follow a simple rule like "off-sides" and
why is it that the average 10 second stall is counted in under 8
seconds. That seems like a blatent disreguard for the rules.


> I am not purely anti-ref, nor am I a complete cynic. I think that a
> well-designed referee system might be good for the game of Ultimate. My
> concern is that under ref-rule we would end up with teams full of
> Antoine Walkers who spend more time whining to the ref than playing.
> I'm not the first to say it, and I won't be the last. Don't dismiss me
> as "insane" just because I raise concerns.

well your original "blood bath" scenerio was a little over the
top....you gotta admit. MLU is equally concerned with the bad sports
that may cross our path as well. But for every one bad apple there are
gobs of good ones. In time the kinks will be worked out so that
opportunities for these bad apples to flourish will be minimized.

toad

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 12:05:48 PM7/6/06
to
Yes, very relevant......and this is why MLU looks to other sports
arbitration systems for insight. Now with soccer, we use its system as
one NOT to emulate. In fact i dont know of any other sport in which
there is so much overly dramatic flopping. John stockten was the king
of drawing the foul in b-ball but his other assets by far outweighed
and outshone his flopping ability.

I dont know what the current upa assestment prosess is but i know at
one time they were using a card system, like soccer. MLU uses a
system more like b-ball. Now the upa is using a TMF assestment which,
to me, seems even more arbitrary than a yellow and red card penalty.

Jed

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 12:09:21 PM7/6/06
to

...and it must be said - good on the refs in that game, not falling for
all that BS! A few diving cards might have been appropriate though, but
sometimes it's nice when they just simply ignore the cry-babies.

To think these guys are representing a nation is shameful.

pizzaslot

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 12:19:10 PM7/6/06
to
The problem with ultimate, is that the penalty for committing a foul is
minimal. What's the penalty? Basically none for a defenseive marking
foul, other than having to play 10 more seconds of D. Basically none
for an offensive throwing foul. The penalty for a receiving foul is
just the likely result if there was no foul. There has to be greater
penalty that could change the outcome of the game to deter unnecessary
fouling. The rules are setup to reward a foul victim with possession.
But, ultimate is not only a game of possession, but of field position.
So, make the penalty also about field position. Liken it to getting
football holding penalty. 10 yards, and automatic first down.
possession and field position.

With refs, maybe consider implementing yardage penalties for fouls and
travels. i.e.-on a throwing foul, thrower gets 3-yards in any
direction he/she chooses. On an offensive foul for thrower, same
thing, but marker chooses which direction. On a receiving foul,
possesion plus 3-yards any direction. The "any direction" as opposed
to forward or back, plays to the uniqueness of the game. Foul someone
when they're pinned on the line, they can move it to the middle of the
field. Foul someone on the endzone, they can move it back to get more
space to work with.

You could never do this with self-officiating, because if the penalty
is too great, then people will call too many non-fouls or just always
contest.

OR, since its now a timed game, you commit 2-fouls in one point, and
you your team is down 1 person for 30 seconds.

toad

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 12:19:45 PM7/6/06
to
.

Head Beagle wrote:
> This is going back a few posts to Toads refute of the big fight
> scenario. While I agree that what he said will happen some of the time,
> if you look at other sports (MLB comes to mind at the moment), despite
> the threat and carrying out of multiple ejections, there are on not too
> rare an occasion full team brawls. So, it is utopian to think that the
> threat of ejection is going to be 100% effective in preventing
> situations like Julian described.


That kind of behavior is somewhat exclusive to baseball and if in fact
MLB wanted to do things (fines, suspentions) to deter it they probably
could.....of course currently they have bigger fish to fry. The NBA
had a similar problem with people leaving the bench when fights occured
and they did somthing about it........seems to have worked. Behavior
can be modified fairly easily......you ever watch that show "the dog
whisper"


>
> As with any sport, players, coaches and fans will direct abuse at
> referrees in MLU. PLayers will feel like the ref is stealing the game
> from them already, so getting ejected is no big deal. Player A will
> foul player B hard, refs will miss the call, and Player A will see his
> only means of reciprocity to be a hard foul back on Player B, with the
> hope that the ref will miss this call also. Stuff like that will
> happen, no system of technicals and ejections will prevent it.


Yes, and this is why we introduce a risk/consequence dynamic and
continually refine it to counter any scheems or plots on the part of
the offenders. Having good and perceptive refs help too.

toad

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 12:31:34 PM7/6/06
to

pizzaslot wrote:
> The problem with ultimate, is that the penalty for committing a foul is
> minimal.

YES, little risk/consquense factor and no teeth. Not to mention
partial and naturaly inconsistant.


> With refs, maybe consider implementing yardage penalties for fouls
and
> travels.


Its been discussed......and may need to be reexamined.

>i.e.-on a throwing foul, thrower gets 3-yards in any
> direction he/she chooses.

i


ntersting idea


> You could never do this with self-officiating, because if the penalty
> is too great, then people will call too many non-fouls or just always
> contest.


yea you can only go so far when using the cross team officiation
process......and i think it has reached its limit.

Julian

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 12:53:57 PM7/6/06
to

toad wrote:
*snip*

> > I think the issue is that you are defining better spirit as "improved
> > behavior on the field." I define spirit as a respect for your opponent
> > and the rules, and I think that improved behavior flows from increased
> > respect.
>
> yea, its the chicken and the egg thing all over. But if you define
> spirit as respect for the rules then why is it that the vast majority
> of players find it so hard to follow a simple rule like "off-sides" and
> why is it that the average 10 second stall is counted in under 8
> seconds. That seems like a blatent disreguard for the rules.
>

Tough but fair. There's a fine line between pushing the competitive
envelope and disrespecting the rules. For me (personally), as long as
my opponent isn't trying to actively take advantage of the rules I'm OK
with him/her not adhering to the letter of the law.

*snip*
>... But for every one bad apple there are


> gobs of good ones. In time the kinks will be worked out so that
> opportunities for these bad apples to flourish will be minimized.

I hope and expect that you're right. If the good outnumber the bad and
the reffing is of sufficiently high quality, the MLU could be awesome,
awesome, awesome.

On a high-school-soccer-inspired note: how do you address the training
of refs and the potential lack of qualified refs?

j

toad

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 2:17:57 PM7/6/06
to

Julian wrote:
> Tough but fair. There's a fine line between pushing the competitive
> envelope and disrespecting the rules. For me (personally), as long as
> my opponent isn't trying to actively take advantage of the rules I'm OK
> with him/her not adhering to the letter of the law.

See, this is where it gets tricky......you end up with alot of grey
area in that everyones "personal" tolerance is bound to differ. I.e.
how far is ti "OK" to go offsides...or how much quicker than actual
seconds is it deemed permisible before one calls "fast count". Seems
like the letter of the law should be changed to accuratly reflect the
way the game is actually played rather than allowing the
abuse.....especially with an honor system that is held in such high
esteem.


>
> *snip*
> >... But for every one bad apple there are
> > gobs of good ones. In time the kinks will be worked out so that
> > opportunities for these bad apples to flourish will be minimized.
>
> I hope and expect that you're right. If the good outnumber the bad and
> the reffing is of sufficiently high quality, the MLU could be awesome,
> awesome, awesome.


thats the goal

>
> On a high-school-soccer-inspired note: how do you address the training
> of refs and the potential lack of qualified refs?


enforce standards, scrutinize, recruit call-savvy players to be refs,
make them practice and pay them a fair wage for their services.

faiss

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 3:35:38 PM7/6/06
to
hi girls and guys,

very interesting to read all things about potlach/mlu week end
i'm a french player and have some friends who played in this
tournament, but i have just a little question, very little...what's MLU
rules, or way of playing? :-)

thanks...

faiss

spet...@wilmingtongi.com

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 4:36:42 PM7/6/06
to
There is a difference in going down easy or falling and "flopping". It
only becomes a problem in my opinion when the player starts crying to
the ref looking for the call. I mean if someone bumps me and I am
already off balance I may go down. You may think I flopped because I
was looking for a call. If I jump up and start complaining about it
then maybe you call the flop and I get a yellow. If I get up and
continue playing I think you let it go. In soccer it can be very
difficult to tell. Although, it does look like a flop everytime one of
the Italians starts flailing around on the ground.

David Berney Needleman

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 4:50:20 PM7/6/06
to

toad wrote:
> David Berney Needleman wrote:
> > It seems to me that what Ben is saying is that you have to make a
> > choice:
> >
> > Did you liked playing soccer when you got to kidney punch your marker
> > as you were both running to ball, and grabbing his nuts as he tried to
> > shield you, and pushing off his back to get that extra six inches when
> > you were going for a header, and flopping when he pushed you off the
> > ball to make sure the ref called it?
>
>
> Soccer isnt a real good comparison to ulty because there is a certian
> amount of legal contact, right? But.....i cant help but think if, in
> soccer (world cup) the refs gave more yellows for flopping.....guys
> wouldnt do it near as much. I think the soccer arbitration system
> sucks....Its arbitrary in so many aspects.

But there's a certain amount of legal contact in ultimate also.
Anything "incidental," which is pretty vague and therefore open to
"arbitrary" interpretation by different parties, is legal. There's
also a certain amount of legal contact in basketball, football,
baseball even. And in every sport the way fouls are called is
arbitrary (in that it is a subjective determination by an official, be
that official a player or a third party). Also, this world cup, FIFA
tried to cut down on fouling and on flopping by encouraging the refs to
give more cards and expanding the number of card-worthy offenses. The
refs gave more cards, and it didn't change player behavior at all, it
just led to the most cards ever in the world cup. All the people I know
who watched thought that more cards just detracted from the games.

>
>
>
> Do you like the last "two
> > minutes" of free throws in a close NBA game? A lot of people did/do.
> > A lot of people don't.
>
> I think the NBA is devising ways to better deter this.....getting shots
> and the ball when fouled late in the game.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if it works. I'm not saying
the end of basketball games are bad. The last two minutes of a close
basketball game are really dramatic, there's a lot of tension.

>
> >
> > OR
> >
> > Do you like trusting your opponent not to abuse a rule set that doesn't
> > include harsh penalties and having to know all the rules, abide by
> > them, argue them, make calls based on them? A lot of people do. A lot
> > of people don't (especially the trust part and the arguing part).
> >
> > Ben likes both. I don't think he's alone in that.
> >
> > Toad thinks you can devise a rule set that will prevent intentional,
> > strategic violation of the rules in a refereed sport (at least 99% of
> > the time). However, given that he uses analogies from other sports all
> > the time and is constantly talking about following their example, I
> > don't know HOW he believes this.
>
>
>
> Easily, i watch "other sports" all the time. And i never said anything
> about a 99% accuacy rating.
>
>
>
> >It's not true in any refereed sport.
> > In refereed sport, it's about how much can I get away with and what
> > will the ref call/see?
>
> No, its about competition and stratagy more than that.....why so
> paranoid?

I'm not paranoid. I've just played reffed sports and know what to
expect. There's no way to play effectively in a competitive soccer
game without giving way more than shoulder to shoulder contact. You
just have to push, pull, trip, hold. I'm also not talking about the
whole nature of refereed sports here, just the interaction between
players and the rules. And with refs, that interaction is one of
breaking every rule you can get away with to gain an advantage. In my
experience with self-officiated ultimate, it's not.

>
> But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that refs are
> > being introduced to improve SOTG.
>
> I think it depends on what type of spirit yopu are talking about.
> There may be less respect for an opponents personal space but more for
> the impartial on field judgements.

I'm talking about respect for the rules and for your opponents. I see
far fewer violations of the rules (especially intentional ones) in
self-officiated ultimate than in refereed sports.

>
> >They are counter to everything it's
> > about.
>
> Uhmmmm, thats kind of existential.....I'm mean, whats "it" really all
> about. Is it about tradition, history......if so then you should
> reffer to the original rules of ulty....section 3...OFFICIALS...some of
> the 1st ever showcase style games in the early 70's used refs. Its all
> about what ever you make it about...and we are makin it about
> this.....and this is this.

When I said "it," I meant SOTG as defined in the current UPA rules.
This was a continuation of the previous idea, as in "refs are not going
to improve SOTG, nor is that the goal of introducing them. Refs are
contrary to SOTG."

>
>
> SOTG says do what the rules say; it's the most important thing.
> > Refs say do what I say and all you have to worry about is winning.
> > Those are very different things. Anyone who thinks otherwise should
> > watch UPA Nationals and then any pro (or even high school) non-ultimate
> > sporting event.
>
> you seem to be critisizing/condeming any sport with refs.....dont you
> watch any sports.....you have to watch the supperbowl, march maddness,
> somthing. And we have watched upa nationals and then many pro
> (highschool,non ulty) sporting events........thats why we started Major
> League Ultimate.

I'm not condemning refereed sport or refereed ultimate. I'm saying
players' interaction with the rules under refs and under
self-officiation/SOTG are different. With refs, all the players have
to (and do) worry about is playing/winning (by any means possible).
With SOTG/self-officiation, they are responsible for safe-guarding,
following, and enforcing the rules as well. Whether you like watching
or playing one or the other or both is just an opinion. All I'm saying
is there is a very clear difference between them. It's not bad that a
guy fouls the crap out of someone on a breakaway in basketball because
he has a foul to give or it's a crucial moment, but it doesn't really
happen in self-officiated ultimate, and I think Ben has demonstrated
that it will happen in MLU. It's the difference between
self-officiation and refereeing.

Barbu

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 5:34:57 PM7/6/06
to
I totally agree with David here. The responsability of the player is
key to preserving the SOTG we know and love.

You guys have probably seen this before but I'll post it anyway.
http://www.wfdf.org/news/20040731_sff_observer_rule_submission.pdf

In page 3-4 is a letter from a Swedish FIFA referee. To quote him:"
Since we are dealing
with a competitive sport the players will most likely use this
opportunity that is given to them as a way to increase their chances to
win. Especially if they can point to an outside authority being
responsible for on-field infractions and other disagreements in the
game. If the individual himself does not have full responsibility then
the individual will not take any responsibility. Anything that reduces
the player's total responsibility will risk changing the foundation
of your sport and the whole character of the sport."

I think Ben is right in saying MLU is a very different sport. Nice idea
anyway and those who want to see some kind of disc game at the olympics
and/or on TV are better to bet on MLU, but I don't really care for
those two things and prefer the self-refereed ''real'' ulty.

my 2 cents,
a non-comp-level player.

Ian

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 7:04:38 PM7/6/06
to
I agree with David as well (and Ben too).

Reffed ultimate and self-officiated ultimate are very different (yet
both are "real," Barbu).

Many will have a preference for playing one or the other, many will
have a preference for watching one or the other. The MLU is just
another option to self-officiated ultimate, NOT EVER A REPLACEMENT.

Most basketball played in the world is pick-up, not reffed (and each is
very different experience to play in). Most ultimate played in the
world will also always be pick-up (self-officiated), not reffed, and
that's how it should be. However, there is a place for reffed ultimate
as surely as there is a place for reffed basketball.

If (NBA) basketball is going to be sold to millions of fans, with
players playing for lots of fame (and unfortunately too much money),
then 3rd party arbitration is a necessity, but I never invited or saw
any refs at the hoop at the park from where I grew up playing countless
basketball games (and even mini-tournaments).

The short term goal of the MLU is to create a product for ELITE players
that's capable of being molded into something a little more marketable.

When we acheive properly balanced rules, refs who are sharp and
well-trained, and an opportunity to showcase it properly, we're
confident that most of you will love watching it. I'm pretty sure the
players will love playing it in front of thousands of you too.

In fact, most of the people who watched us at Potlatch loved it despite
imperfect rules, un-trained refs, some awkward situations, and a
schedule that conflicted too much with the 2-day version of Potlatch.
So I could not be more encouraged to proceed!

Please understand that we do not want to replace the UPA, their rules,
or how 99% of you play self-officiated ultimate. If the MLU happens to
inspire changes or improvements to self-officiated ultimate, then
great. If not, that's cool too. The UPA has a strong program, and I'm
a happy lifetime member, and hope we can all play UPA for a long time.

Some of you (like Barbu) don't care to see ultimate on TV or in the
Olympics. That's okay, you can continue to play self-officiated
ultimate with no complaints from me. Meanwhile, I hope that the rest
of you agree, appreciate, and support what the MLU is trying to
acheive.

swill...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 7, 2006, 11:49:21 AM7/7/06
to
it may be semantics, like most rules dicussions, but...self-refereed
''real'' ulty?

that comment hurts me. like most opinions. :-D

at least no one gets to trademark an adjective.

if you must draw a line of distinction...i look forward to watching
some unreal ultimate. (happy?)

name suggestions for the sport formerly known as 'unreal ultimate'.
(penultimate?)
(ultra ultimate?)
(ultimus?) my favorite. ultimus prime. SHAWEET!

Larry D. Hols

unread,
Jul 6, 2006, 11:13:02 PM7/6/06
to
Hallo,

> name suggestions for the sport formerly known as 'unreal ultimate'.
> (penultimate?)
> (ultra ultimate?)
> (ultimus?) my favorite. ultimus prime. SHAWEET!

Well, for my experimental rules, I use the name "Capto." It's Latin
for "to seize" and refers to catching the disc. Dig out the Latin or old
Greek or something similar and name away.

LArry

Barbu

unread,
Jul 7, 2006, 2:22:23 PM7/7/06
to

> swillaho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]
> that comment hurts me.
> [...]

I did put the term in between quotation marks to make sure I didn't
offend anyone....
Sorry anyway if you lost some sleep on it.
B

mapler...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 9, 2006, 8:07:19 AM7/9/06