The Huddle | Issue No. 3 (Part II)
Bearseth
A Hucker," with twelve new articles, and four brand new authors to The
Huddle (VY Chow, Matt Dufort, Kirk Savage, & Mike Whitaker).
If you are interested in reading how our authors think about mid-game
adjustments, check it out at:
AND STAY TUNED!
"You are chasing your man deep, and you hear the “Up” call from your
sidelines. The next few seconds are critical...what should you do?"
Our answers coming in Issue No. 4, releasing Tuesday, June 17th!
As always, feel free to contact us and let us know what's working,
what's not, anything else you would like to tell us.
So, thanks so much for reading, and enjoy.
Ben & Andy
The Huddle
MD
(To anyone:)
What exactly is a "box and one" zone? I've vaguely heard of it before,
but I've never been on a team that ran it or even had it run on me.
Sounds like playing man on one O player and zone with the other six,
but is it usually a 3 person cup, 2 short deeps/wings, and a deep?
Eric Brach
generally used when one handler in particular is the guy shredding
your zone, and you want to stop him from getting it.
As for whether you use a three-man or two-man cup, well, it depends on
how you want to run it. Box and one can be done with just three
players in the backfield (you'll generally kind of see a rotation;
where if the deep-deep needs to come in after a swing, the off-side
wing drops back), or with just a two-man cup forcing one way.
The three-man cup box-and-one is definitely more commonly seen, but
I've seen both used successfully. (And unsuccessfully, I ought to
add.) The relative utility of each depends on the conditions, the
strengths of the team you're playing against, and the communication/
heads up D ability of your backfield players.
Handy
Having YV Chow say "I had a conversation with a captain of Brute at
one point and she said she felt it was okay to intentionally foul
every time as long as you don't contest the foul call." and then
having Nancy Sun's post next, entitled: "Make The Offense
Uncomfortable" is brilliant. Kudos.
-Handy
Flo
Yupp,
a few of these statements are somewhat alarming. If the players at the
top of the game don't properly know the rules or choose intentionally
not to follow them, there is a problem.
This kind of intentional fouling (short of having officials --- call
them refs/observers, whatever you like --- handing out TMFs or other
penalties) can only be addressed by educating the players about the
rules. Intentional fouling = cheating. If the other team employs this
tactic, stop the game and have a captain's talk reminding them about
it.
The rules are not written in a way to discourage intentional fouling
more than by stating that it is considered cheating, so in this way
they have no teeth other than peer pressure. I don't see a way to
change this while keeping self refereeing alive. The step from
intentional fouling to contesting these fouls is not very far, so
implementing penalties for uncontested fouls will probably not do the
trick in the absence of a third party.
But at least for the early bump, there is something in the 11th you
can do as a thrower short of stopping the game (and calling your
opponent a cheater after repeated bumps on every reception): Call
"disc-space", which does 2 things without stopping the game:
1. The marker has to drop the count by 2,
2. On every further marking violation, you can choose to stop play and
get the count reset to 0 (or continue and just get the count lowered
by 2 again).
The first is probably not all that important in a low count situation,
after all, the flow is still very much affected. But the 2nd may be
big enough that the early bump as a tactic is not only cheating but
also not effective.
Flo.
morfin
> one point and she said she felt it was okay to intentionally foul
> every time as long as you don't contest the foul call." and then
> having Nancy Sun's post next, entitled: "Make The Offense
> Uncomfortable" is brilliant. Kudos.
Hey, intentionally fouling is NOT cool. But there are ways to fight
back. One is the K-Fed approach of vicious pivoting with high
elbows. Then there is the already described Ryan Carrington approach
of using hockey intimidation to stop the hack-a-shaq strategy.
Fouling at stall 1-4 isn't fantastic because the thrower can get a
free huck on the immediate foul or another 10 seconds with the disc in
the best throwers hand.
Gambler
captain santioning intentionally fouling the thrower. Having played
against Brute Squad a number of times and having the pleasure of
playing with some of its players, I have never felt that the team's
style of play fell into the Hack-a-Shaq category. I have a lot of
respect for the integrity of the players I've interacted with on Brute
and am certain that the team would never condone intentionally and
systematically breaking the rules for a strategic advantage. There
simply must have been a misunderstanding or unintentional quote-out-of-
context behind VY's comment.
Gwen
Fury
> Flo.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mccants
philosophy as I was repeatedly hacked on the mark at previous
nationals. In the end, I had always decided it was not intentional,
just thought it was an aggressive mark.
Lately I have been thinking about intentional, aggressive marks now
that I am a coach. At first, I was under the impression that fouling
on the mark is a foul, but you are only cheating if you contest the
foul. The more I thought about it though, the more I realized how
awful that philosophy is. First of all, there are no limits to how
many times you can foul on the mark and secondly, there are no
penalties for fouling the mark (decreasing the stall count is minor
compared to what the stoppage does to your offense). therefore, if
you are willing to use the rules to your advantage, you can completely
destroy a team's offensive flow. Then, it is also hard to say what is
an intentional foul and what is just an aggressive mark that
accidentally fouls. What is cheating and what is not? The only person
that really knows out there is the mark.
At college nationals this year I spoke with a few observers and the
philosophy seems to be now that if players are being overly aggressive
on the mark and fouling (intentional or not) they are being given
TMFs. If a team and an individual get a certain number of TMFs there
are serious penalties. that's great for games that are observed, and
that is great for games for that are observed by good observers, but
what about the rest of the games? who is supposed to control the
integrity of those games?
dusty
Players cheat in ultimate like marriage.
I do not have a solution, but at least I acknowledge a problem and am
not "surprised" or "alarmed."
You both miss the mark. Players know intentional fouls = cheating and
do it anyway and the PR damage to Brute Squad is already done, as if
there was any. Let it pass. Think bigger...
What next?
Cheaters exist in ultimate as in every facet of our lives.
No matter the rules, no matter the consequences, there will be
cheaters.
What next?
Will you cheat too, or will you not?
Will you tattle-tale, or will you not?
What next?
Will you solve the problem, or ignore it?
Will you solve the problem, or pass the buck?
What next?
Is there really a problem to be solved?
These are individual and team *decisions.* Not UPA decisions. Not
Rules decisions. Each decision is a snapshot of your history as a
player. You between the lines. You in the context of rules that
assume you will not cheat and are as forgiving as possible.
And yet... players cheat.
(At least some of them are evel-ly honest about it.)
music on tap: sly and the family stone, there's a riot goin' on
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
jacob...@gmail.com
Ultimate is too favored to offense.
I'm not sure why marking fouls have become collectively accepted (most
elite men's players routinely foul on the mark, especially early in
the count on top throwers), while other fouls (like swiping at a
receiver's arm or grabbing a cutter's jersey) are still taboo.
Regardless, it seems as though marking fouls have become a sort of
silently agreed upon equalizer for the fact that, barring windy
conditions, the offense usually scores. This is still true even with
regular fouls on the mark, but certainly less so than in their
absence.
A simple solution would be to make a rule that the marker has to stay
one meter away from the thrower (this rule was implemented at the
refereed Santa Cruz Labor Day tournament in 1996, run by the brilliant
and largely despised genius Dennis Karlinsky). A trade off would have
to be made to favor the defense. Bringing the stall count down to 6 or
7 would be a good start (switching to 80 yard fields with 20 yard
endzones would also help). A shorter stall count combined with getting
rid of fouls called on the mark would go a long way towards speeding
up the game.
Yeah, yeah ... I realize that there would still be "disc distance"
calls when markers came within a meter of the throwers, I just don't
think this would slow the game down as much as the current marking
fouls do.
dusty
Did you read the rules or understand the rules?
YOU are responsible for controlling the integrity of the games.
YOU (like every other player).
The rules give you a challenge... rise to meet it.
music on tap: talking heads, speaking in tongues
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
pkur...@gmail.com
on the mark. No Brute Squad captain has ever endorsed this tactic, or
even suggested it.
-Peri
Brute Squad #24
On Jun 3, 6:34 pm, Gambler <amb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
T
> I'm not sure why marking fouls have become collectively accepted (most
> elite men's players routinely foul on the mark, especially early in
> the count on top throwers), while other fouls (like swiping at a
> receiver's arm or grabbing a cutter's jersey) are still taboo.
> Regardless, it seems as though marking fouls have become a sort of
> silently agreed upon equalizer for the fact that, barring windy
> conditions, the offense usually scores. This is still true even with
> regular fouls on the mark, but certainly less so than in their
> absence.
They're tolerated by any offensive player that recognizes calling a
foul sometimes is not advantageous for their team. This is not a
recent development, it has been that way for a while (longer than I've
been playing, since '99). Obviously there are still a lot of foul
calls made by throwers, so I don't know about "collectively accepted"
as if everyone ignores them. Maybe it's been accepted that the top
men's teams are all going to toe the line and mark so closely that
they're going to cross that line frequently. I would argue it's only
been accepted by those teams at those times, not by everyone else who
have been watching and complaining about elite ultimate and the
frequent stoppages.
T
mccants
it is hard when you are a young player (and i am not anymore, hence
why i do not advocate fouling on the mark intentionally) to know what
is right and what is wrong when someone is telling you one thing and
then someone else is telling you something else and both individuals
are viewed as "mentors." it takes some thoughtful reflection time to
come to certain conclusions.
i am very well aware that i have the ability to contribute to the
integrity of the game. i am not an idiot. but, i cant do much about
someone who is hacking the shit out of me on the mark, over and over
again, and just says no contest when i say foul. fucks up your entire
offensive flow. you look dump...you have the dump open...someone is
hacking the shit out of you. do you honestly think you yell foul?
and then your dump is going to still be miraculously open or someone
downfield is now going to be open because we get an extra couple of
seconds? hell no. it is a defensive advantage more times than not.
i can control how i contribute to the integrity of the game, but i
cant do much else about others except lead by example. if you want to
explain to me how i can control the integrity of the game beyond
myself and my teammates, please, enlighten me.
colinm...@gmail.com
> A simple solution would be to make a rule that the marker has to stay
> one meter away from the thrower (this rule was implemented at the
> refereed Santa Cruz Labor Day tournament in 1996, run by the brilliant
> and largely despised genius Dennis Karlinsky).
Intentional rule-breakers are hard to reach by rules. So instead of
violating the disc space rule intentionally, now they're violating the
one meter rule intentionally. So what?
Now, I agree that backing the markers off would decrease the number of
marking fouls. I just don't think that changing the requirement of an
already-violated rule would do it.
Douglas T Lilley
> For the record, Brute Squad has NEVER advocated purposefully fouling
> on the mark. No Brute Squad captain has ever endorsed this tactic, or
> even suggested it.
> -Peri
> Brute Squad #24
>
Sounds like a bit of a disconnect here. The implications of your
statement are either:
A) Chow is lying and your captain did not say that
B) Chow made a mistake and misinterpreted/misquoted what your captain
said/meant (in which case it would be interesting to know what your
captain actually meant)
C) You are wrong
For the record, any ideas as to the cause of the disconnect?
jacob...@gmail.com
recognizes calling a foul sometimes is not advantageous for their
team."
me: T, it's important to read something carefully before you respond
to it. Here is part of my post: "other fouls (like swiping at a
receiver's arm or grabbing a cutter's jersey) are still taboo." I'm
not defining "tolerated" as "not called by the offensive player." I'm
defining "tolerated" as "not taboo." In other words, throwers DO call
fouls on markers who foul them, but since everyone in men's ultimate
fouls on the mark, guys who foul on the mark are not discouraged by
any possibility of stigma. This is different from swiping at a
receiver's arm or grabbing a cutter's jersey, which would lead to
being widely hated, or even chastised by one's own teammates. I don't
think Sockeye would put up with a teammate who intentionally committed
such fouls.
T: "This is not a recent development, it has been that way for a while
(longer than I've been playing, since '99)."
me: Yes, thank you for the history lesson. I am familiar with the
concept of refraining from calling a marking foul when such a call
would actually benefit the defense. So are 99% of the people who play
ultimate.
T: "Obviously there are still a lot of foul calls made by throwers, so
I don't know about "collectively accepted" as if everyone ignores
them."
me: See above.
"Maybe it's been accepted that the top men's teams are all going to
toe the line and mark so closely that they're going to cross that line
frequently."
me: Again, T, you need to read things before you respond. Here is
what I wrote: "marking fouls have become collectively accepted (most
elite men's players routinely foul on the mark)." See? I wrote "elite
men's teams." That's the same as "top men's teams." We agree here.
T: "I would argue it's only been accepted by those teams at those
times, not by everyone else who have been watching and complaining
about elite ultimate and the frequent stoppages."
me: Jesus, T! Really. Your "argument" is just repeating and
corroborating my post, which you are free to do in a supportive tone,
but should not do in an argumentative tone. Since I am "watching and
complaining about" and suggesting a possible solution to the
intentional marking fouls in elite men's ultimate, it is obvious that
I cannot possibly be suggesting that those fouls are universally
accepted.
shubbard
weighing heavily on my mind. The Preface of the 11th edition rules
says in no uncertain terms that there are no harsh penalties for fouls
because all players are MORALLY bound to not intentionally foul. This
is the "We the People, in Order to Form a More Perfect Union..." of
ultimate! Its in the freaking PREFACE to the rules - it IS the MOST
important rule of the self officated form of our sport.
Elite teams are called elite teams are called such because they are
the best at winning games. Yet if teams must intentionally foul on the
mark en route to this elite status (not saying that all elite teams or
players do), then why bother. What is the point at being good at a
sport by violating its most important?
As a community, we often laugh at the silliness of investing so much
time, money, effort and attention into being good at what is
considered to be a game for hippies and stoners - throwing around the
ol' flippy disc. Yet the people that find themselves so infatuated
with this "silly game" often try to be good at it so much that they
become bad at it. If one screws up with one of the most important
rules of their sport they are bad at it. This is akin to a forward in
soccer dribbling into the ball into the box and then picking it up
with his hands and running it into the goal - sure he can get the ball
into the goal real well, but he is no good at soccer. How truly silly
we are to think a team of intentional foulers is worthy of admeration
for any of its victories.
I experienced a game this weekend at Cal States that made things clear
for me. This was my first real Club tournement with highclass teams
like Sockeye, Revolver and Jam. At 13-12 us over Furious late on
Saturday the following exchange happend:
Our handler gets a dish up the backhand sideline and would have
unleashed a bomb save for his trailing defender catching up and
essentially bear hugging the thrower (perhaps bear hug is overdramatic
but there was no possible way to get off any throw whatsoever because
of intense physical contact). It had been a physical game thus far but
this was so blatantly an intentional foul that the thrower decided to
call the fowl immediatly rather than try to get a throw off and then
call it. The Furious George sideline errupted into "Good Mark!! (Ay)"
and other cheers for the defender. I was near the play and some of
those Furious players (some of whom were tryouts, to be fair) so I
indignantly asked aloud "What was good about that mark? It was
blanantly obvious that he was intentionally fouling to hamper the
thrower." To which they indignetly replied "He fouled to prevent the
throw. Exactly.Thats why it was a great mark (Ay)". It was late in the
day and late in the close game and this acceptance, this encurragement
of blatant intentional foulling seemed unanimuss amoung their
sideline.
I would think that if I was on such a skilled team as Furious and
realized that I incorrectly advocated blatant intentional fouling i
might have an identity crisis. What are you if you want to be good at
something but dont even respect that something for what it is, in this
case, a moral code enfored sport?
This all goes away once referees or even real penalties for fouls are
introduced. I am sure that would be very fun and that unharmful
tactical fouling would become a part of the game such as in
Basketball, I want to give that sport a try. But Ultimate in its
current form is not that sport.
We all need to take pride in what we do and actually do our duty to
each other and ourselves. Without such pride any championship or
trouphy means absolutly nothing.
Thanks for reading,
Stephen "Pumba" Hubbard
Flo
> Seriously? Gwen? Flo? Y'all are that out of touch?
>
> Players cheat in ultimate like marriage.
>
Hey Dusty,
no, I don't think Gwen and I are that out of touch, we are very well
aware of the fact that intentional fouling exists and is pretty wide
spread in elite men's ultimate (and spreading in womens ultimate as
well). What was alarming to me is that
1. VY thought (I am paraphrasing) that intentional fouls were just a
matter of slightly breaking SOTG
2. a BS captain saying (well, hearsay on this one) that intentional
fouls are ok as long as you don't contest
At least, they should know better. And if they condone the "aggressive
mark", they should at least try to reason that these fouls are
accidental and not intentional, flawed as this argument may be.
I know that there are plenty players who intentionally foul on the
mark... or, let's say it differently, players who try to prevent break
marks to a point where fouls happen all the time, players marking way
too close leading to a lot of contact etc.
If this appears to be team strategy, stop the game and let them know
that they are playing a different game.
If your captain suggests this strategy, step up against it. This is
not Ultimate.
This problem (fouling marks) has been around for a very long time. I
don't think it is a huge problem, as long as everyone is made aware of
the fact that it is not ok, and it is not commonly accepted as a
strategy.
I know elite players who have been successful by calling every ticky
tack marking foul, from the very beginning of every game. Yes, it
disrupts the flow, but usually the marker gets so annoyed by the
constant stoppages that they stop fouling you after a few possessions.
Not the best for spectators, but I blame the marker on that one.
Upside for the thrower is that he does not have to spend any thought
about advantages/disadvantages of calling the foul...
If we want to do something about it more than educating the players,
the 1m-distance rule is an option. Yes, Colin, this rule will be
broken just as much as the current rule. But disrupting the flow from
half a meter away is much harder than with direct contact. So the
"benefits" of breaking this rule would be much smaller than currently.
And if you marked so close that you could disrupt the flow under this
alternative rule, your cheating would be too obvious (even to
yourself).
But this rule change would change the game so much that it is more
than the SRC should decide on. This is an experimental rule that
should be tried out extensively first.
Flo
Rodney Jacobson
Shack defensive strategies."
This is a disappointing article from an otherwise excellent website.
You need to read only the first paragraph of the rules to see that The
Huddle is spreading harmful misinformation with VY's article.
I hope The Huddle will correct this with a disclaimer placed on this
article explaining that VY is very wrong about this statement.
An article explaining about how some teams use cheating as part of
their strategy - either admitting it openly, or through
"misunderstanding" the rules, would be perfectly appropriate. But the
website is reduced by spreading this false information.
Ma$e
approach and its interpretation of the current state of marking in
ultimate in an otherwise excellent and informative website.
Along those same lines, I haven't seen the other authors slander their
long time rivals, especially during a tryout period. For those not in
the know, the author, VY, is a longtime member of Godiva, Brute
Squad's in-town rival. Brute Squad is a team that started as nothing
and has since overtaken Godiva, and now she is writing as an 'expert'
accusing them of cheating based on a purported conversation she had
with a "captain". The irony is, just a couple of years ago, Godiva
had the very same reputation.
Brute is a hard-playing, hard working, fun, fair team. They are some
of the most knowledgeable and spirited players I've had the privilege
of watching. Of course they have fouls, but every team does. Brute
Squad has never taught that it is OK to hack. I hope that helps clear
it up for someone who might not know the truth.
vyc...@gmail.com
energy and passion and spirit. i think they are some of the teams that
are helping to shape and revolutionize the game of ultimate. over the
past many years sockeye and furious have had incredibly competitive
games that have raised the bar on ultimate and provided a very
entertaining rivalry. brute squad and godiva have been developing a
great rivalry based on competition and respect over the past few
years, which is fantastic for east coast women's ultimate.
2. i should NOT have written about my conversations with either the
furious or brute squad player or anything about sockeye. they were
private conversations on and off the field and should have stayed as
private conversations and not provided as anecdotal information about
a team's perceived strategy. i have asked ben to remove all references
to these conversations from the article.
3. one of the main thrusts of the article was to spur discussion about
the use of the hack-a-shaq strategies in the game. i am not exactly
sure what i think about these strategies (i am conflicted about its
use), but at this point, i don't particularly think it is cheating to
use these strategies. i guess i think it is already a part of the
game. i will say i am tired of people couching fouling by stating they
are "unintentionally fouling" when they foul the thrower while s/he is
trying to break the mark or that they just have "an aggressive mark"
and that's why fouls occur.
4. a lot of teams use these hack-a-shaq strategies. both men's and
women's teams use these strategies. i don't think it matters whether
its just a few people on the team or it is a codified team strategy --
if someone is doing it on your team and you don't stop them, it is
part of your team strategy.
5. i stand by the main, and what i consider the more salient, points
of my article - while i understand that some people are outraged at
the suggestion of the hack-a-shaq philosophies, many teams are already
using them. whether they think it is unintentional or intentional
fouling, at some point that distinction becomes immaterial when the
thrower is always being fouled. i am not arguing that just because
many teams are using these tactics, it make these tactics
automatically right...it also doesn't make them automatically wrong
either. SOTG is important. but it must be acknowledged that SOTG is
already being eroded -- we have observers (and TMFs!). just the fact
of having observers, i feel, lessens the impact of SOTG and integrity
of the game.
the game of ultimate is evolving. i feel all games evolve. the hack-a-
shaq strategy while often derided in the NBA, was and continues to be
used with great effectiveness. this resulted in a lot of stoppages in
play, unsightly foul-shooting from shaq (ben wallace, dennis rodman,
etc.), and a loss of the essence of the game. thus, the NBA
subsequently changed the rules so any intentional fouling off the ball
in the last 2 minutes of the 4th quarter resulted in 2 free throws and
the O retaining the ball. but if anyone watched the suns v. spurs
series this year, popovich was grand master in using the hack-a-shaq
strategy to demolish the suns. was it infuriating to watch? yes. did
it feel somehow "not-right"? yes. but as much as i wanted the suns to
win, i will still say it was a brilliant strategy.
jacob...@gmail.com
1) accept the current intentional fouls on the mark,
2) change the rules so the marker is permitted to be more aggressive
3) change the rules so the marker must be further off, or
4) get active refs who penalize cheaters
jacob...@gmail.com
that the marker has to stay one meter away from the thrower
Colin: "Intentional rule-breakers are hard to reach by rules. So
instead of violating the disc space rule intentionally, now they're
violating the one meter rule intentionally. So what? Now, I agree
that backing the markers off would decrease the number of marking
fouls. I just don't think that changing the requirement of an already-
violated rule would do it."
me: I think you are generally correct that cheaters will cheat
regardless of the rules (although not regardless of the penalties for
violating those rules-only a side note here, as I did not suggest any
new penalties). However, specifically in the ultimate "community,"
even elite players feel social pressure, and their cheating often
takes the form of masquerading as aggressive play which just steps
over the line of legal play.
This is why I believe that markers would indeed consistently violate
the one meter rule, but would do so by staying only 2/3 of a meter or
so away from the thrower, rather than by stepping in and hitting the
thrower as markers currently do. The critical difference between this
type of cheating and the current marking fouls would be that a thrower
who opted not to call the violation would still be able to get their
throw off.
Again, there would have to be some rule adjustment to make life harder
on the offense in order to offset how much easier throwing would be
when the marker has to stay one meter off. Or, we could just say screw
it and change the rules to allow the marker to be more aggressive.
jacob...@gmail.com
props to Ben and Andy for doing a great job with The Huddle.
Flo
>
> 3. one of the main thrusts of the article was to spur discussion about
> the use of the hack-a-shaq strategies in the game.
Great. This is a good start of educating players about the rules. And
if some/most top teams habitually break specific rules, something
should be done. Calling out specific teams where you observe this is
not the worst start.
> i am not exactly
> sure what i think about these strategies (i am conflicted about its
> use), but at this point, i don't particularly think it is cheating to
> use these strategies.
What part of rule I.B is so hard to understand? (emphasis mine)
Spirit of the Game: Ultimate relies upon a spirit of sportsmanship
that places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly
competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual
respect among competitors, *adherence to the agreed upon rules*, or
the basic joy of play. Protection of these vital elements serves to
eliminate unsportsmanlike conduct from the Ultimate field. Such
actions as taunting opposing players, dangerous aggression,
belligerent intimidation, *intentional infractions*, or other win-at-
all-costs behavior are contrary to the spirit of the game and *must be
avoided* by all players.
So how is it not cheating if you intentionally break the rules in a
game that relies on no one intentionally breaking the rules as a
foundation of the rules?
> i guess i think it is already a part of the
> game.
Well, if we are so far gone that many feel that intentional (slight?)
fouls on the mark are ok, we may have to do something about it. I
still think that educating the players about the contrary is the way
to go, and putting out false information about the rules is
detrimental.
Other possibilities include officials at all high level games, or the
1m-mark.
> i will say i am tired of people couching fouling by stating they
> are "unintentionally fouling" when they foul the thrower while s/he is
> trying to break the mark or that they just have "an aggressive mark"
> and that's why fouls occur.
Yes, I am tired of that, too. Include in your rules knowledge XIX.G
(the last rule in the book):
In addition to the assumption that players will not intentionally
violate the rules, players are similarly expected to make every effort
to avoid violating them.
Repeated fouls on the mark are a pretty clear indicator that the
marker is not abiding by XIX.G, and the only way to violate this rule
is either intentionally (cheating) or out of ignorance. There is such
a thing as a non-fouling aggressive mark, only lazy markers (and
hacks) foul frequently.
>
> 4. a lot of teams use these hack-a-shaq strategies. both men's and
> women's teams use these strategies. i don't think it matters whether
> its just a few people on the team or it is a codified team strategy --
> if someone is doing it on your team and you don't stop them, it is
> part of your team strategy.
So, go out and try to stop this behavior, on your team and on other
teams.
>
> the game of ultimate is evolving. i feel all games evolve. the hack-a-
> shaq strategy while often derided in the NBA, was and continues to be
> used with great effectiveness.
There is a fundamental difference in basketball and ultimate. The
rules of ultimate are based on the assumption of no intentional
infractions and have very few checks and balances to deal with
infractions. In a way, they are a big social experiment trying to
prove that a game like this is possible. Straying from this principle
endangers the whole construction. Yes, you could write up a rule set
like the MLU codifying an ultimate alike game with refs, checks and
balances, without the burden on the players to follow the rules, even
if it is not to their advantage to do so. But that would be giving up
this whole experiment, which has been pretty successful so far.
In basketball, no one expects you not to foul when it is to your
advantage to foul. It's always a cost-benefit calculation. And if a
new strategy like hack-a-shack is successful and is observed to make
the game unwatchable, the rules are modified so that it is less
successful.
In ultimate, there are many situations where it is to your advantage
to break the rules, since the consequences are so small. If
intentional fouls on the mark become accepted, what's next? Stall
counts that last only 7 seconds (joke... well, at least in the 11th
edition the fast count call has some extra teeth)? Bear hugs to stop
the open huck? Contests of obvious calls?
Flo.
Jed
(...)
Are you telling me that there are players failing to live up to their
responsibility to "avoid contact in every way possible"?
My world is forever shattered.
ctw...@gmail.com
This discussion is great. I hope every team discusses their
philosophies on intentionally fouling.
Paul
> There is a fundamental difference in basketball and ultimate. The
> rules of ultimate are based on the assumption of no intentional
> infractions and have very few checks and balances to deal with
> infractions. In a way, they are a big social experiment trying to
> prove that a game like this is possible. Straying from this principle
> endangers the whole construction. Yes, you could write up a rule set
> like the MLU codifying an ultimate alike game with refs, checks and
> balances, without the burden on the players to follow the rules, even
> if it is not to their advantage to do so. But that would be giving up
> this whole experiment, which has been pretty successful so far.
>
So is ultimate primarily a sport, or primarily a social experiment?
That seems to be a central question here.
Paul
Jed
Nail, I'd like you to meet head.
dusty
> i am very well aware that i have the ability to contribute to the
> integrity of the game. i am not an idiot. but, i cant do much about
> someone who is hacking the shit out of me on the mark, over and over
> again, and just says no contest when i say foul. fucks up your entire
> offensive flow. you look dump...you have the dump open...someone is
> hacking the shit out of you. do you honestly think you yell foul?
> and then your dump is going to still be miraculously open or someone
> downfield is now going to be open because we get an extra couple of
> seconds? hell no. it is a defensive advantage more times than not.
This is where I could explain specifically how I deal with players and
teams who mark me or my team that way. But that's me and my team.
You've got to find your own solution.
In short, you're right, it does suck, and it does change the best
practices against a given team/individual. BUT, everything taken away
gives away something else. Make them change the way they defend you
by taking advantage of their strategy, not by asking them to change
it. Though, it is always fun to call a spade a spade. Force them to
change.
> i can control how i contribute to the integrity of the game, but i
> cant do much else about others except lead by example. if you want to
> explain to me how i can control the integrity of the game beyond
> myself and my teammates, please, enlighten me.
It is unclear why you ask me to enlighten you after you describe the
solution!
music on tap: curtis mayfield, roots
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
swill...@yahoo.com
"Ultimate" is a sport.
Self officiation is a social experiment*.
How a sport is officiated does not, nor should it, define the sport.
*....this isn't really a experiment, which would include controls/
variables (good luck linking causation by restricting variables).
It's more of an observational study....
Well, not really a study....lacking stats not to mention a biased(?)
survey pool....
Heh......we're left with observing.
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
been written assuming that the 10th edition was still in force. For
example, there was no mention of the 'disc space' call, which can be
used to give the thrower unlimited time against a marker who is
consistently marking illegally. Given that this use of the rule was
intended, from what I remember of the discussions of the 11th edition,
it seems strange that more players haven't used it. Although if
people don't know it exists, I guess it's not that surprising.
sam th
T
> Your "argument" is just repeating and
> corroborating my post, which you are free to do in a supportive tone,
> but should not do in an argumentative tone.
I actually partially thought that as well once I wrote it and read it,
and sent it anyway to join the conversation. Not every reply on rsd
has to be automatically taken as an attack on the previous poster.
Forgive my tone, I took English as a second language in grade school,
though I never did get a first language...
T
rufio
>
> Heh......we're left with observing.
I played in a good amount of observed games in college this year
against college teams who are known for "physical" (contact prone)
marks. This year there seemed to be a large emphasis on handing TMFs
out to teams who repeatedly foul on the mark, and the TMFs did a good
job of keeping games under control.
I would expect there to be less intentional contact from markers in
observed games than actively officiated games. I am not saying
Basketball has it wrong (where intentional fouls are a part of the
game) or that we have it right, but having observers works. We just
need more of them, and we need them to be hardasses. Having good
observers that don't take any crap and hand out warranted TMFs is a
huge step in the right direction.
kyle.w...@gmail.com
Part of the problem with discussing this article is that it was
written without the perspective of the new TMF/PMF rule enforcement
system. TMFs have dealt with the marking problems in college very
well. This fall is the first year they will be implemented in the
Club division which, up until now, used the yellow/red card system.
VY probably has little experience with the TMF system as a player.
benlw...@gmail.com
If you are interested in The Huddle's take on the issue, please visit
www.the-huddle.org and look for a new link in the menu bar:
"Letter from the Editor"
Thanks to those that have taken the time to write to us directly on
this issue.
Ben Wiggins
swill...@yahoo.com
Heh...
1 small step in officiating...
1 giant leap for ultimate....
The 'problem' with VY's article is that was an honest (and real)
perspective on the culture of high level ultimate.
Does she speak for the majority? I won't claim that.
Does she condone/support "cheating"? NO ONE should claim that.
But it happens, it has been happening for A LONG TIME, and the
solution everyone seems to support is more active officiating.....
Eric Brach
know teams have strategies that call for intentionally fouling. I
know this is cheating.
I have played with and against Dusty, lots of times. There have been
times when I've been marking the dump, and I know he's kinda not all
there, so I poach off a bit and help my teammate on the mark my
getting in the lane a little bit. I have heard Dusty yell at me from
the sidelines "That's a double team, Brach. Stop cheating."
And you know what? I do. I may not have thought "I'm gonna double
team this guy"... but when it's brought to my attention, even by an
opponent, even when a call is not made, I stop.
That being said, I don't think that every team, or every player, is
like that. But I think it's important to point out rules violations
(see: my number of posts this spring about Florida's double-teamy 4-
man cup) very publicly, and to try to get players who do violate the
rules to stop doing so - by bringing it to their attention and talking
to them about it.
On Jun 3, 7:45 pm, dusty <dusty.rho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seriously? Gwen? Flo? Y'all are that out of touch?
>
> Players cheat in ultimate like marriage.
>
> I do not have a solution, but at least I acknowledge a problem and am
> not "surprised" or "alarmed."
>
> You both miss the mark. Players know intentional fouls = cheating and
> do it anyway and the PR damage to Brute Squad is already done, as if
> there was any. Let it pass. Think bigger...
>
> What next?
>
> Cheaters exist in ultimate as in every facet of our lives.
> No matter the rules, no matter the consequences, there will be
> cheaters.
>
> What next?
>
> Will you cheat too, or will you not?
> Will you tattle-tale, or will you not?
>
> What next?
>
> Will you solve the problem, or ignore it?
> Will you solve the problem, or pass the buck?
>
> What next?
>
> Is there really a problem to be solved?
>
> These are individual and team *decisions.* Not UPA decisions. Not
> Rules decisions. Each decision is a snapshot of your history as a
> player. You between the lines. You in the context of rules that
> assume you will not cheat and are as forgiving as possible.
>
> And yet... players cheat.
> (At least some of them are evel-ly honest about it.)
>
> music on tap: sly and the family stone, there's a riot goin' on
>
> dusty.rhodes
> at gmail.com
>
dy
I take issue with your post - I think it takes an overly defensive
posture that overlooks the main thesis of the article and I think the
brief history provided, while greatly simplifying the context, does
not more clearly reveal the "truth".
Your post seems to be saying that VY was not forthcoming about the
relationship that exists between Brute Squad and Godiva, and it goes
on to make some assumptions about how that relationship is biasing her
statements on the issue of marker fouling. I think that this view is
ignoring the substance of the article and focusing on how the article
may or may not effect the reputation of your admired team. So far
I've been pleased that most of the other responses to the article are
about the issue of intentional marker fouling and I hope this dialogue
doesn't become focused on defending the reputation of any one team,
whether it be Brute Squad, Sockeye, Godiva, or any other team. I
certainly hope it doesn't devolve into a flame-fest against VY,
Godiva, or Brute Squad, captains captains or otherwise.
Secondly, you omit much of the details in the history of the two teams
while failing to disclose your own relationship to Brute Squad. My
understanding is that you are not merely a spectator of Brute Squad's
games but in a relationship with one of their players. There is much
you leave out of your "truth" and rather than offer my own additions,
I encourage anyone who is interested in recent Boston women's ultimate
politics (which, I repeat, is not the focus of the original article)
to ask some of the players involved and not rely on RSD postings for
anything more than a biased sample of individual (and often extremist)
opinions.
Taking my own advice, I am the husband of the author of the original
The Huddle article. As such, I have a unique (though not perfect nor
always "right") perspective on her leadership of Godiva and the team
in general. VY has always been a vocal representative of the Godiva
philosophy that the teams try out for the players as much as the
players tryout for the teams. It's a two-way process - tryouts are
encouraged to play with all teams they're interested in and find the
best fit - ask around - there are loads of players who've gotten this
speech from VY and other Godiva representatives. Additionally, though
every teams fouls (and if this casual comment excuses Brute Squad now,
then it should also excuse Godiva "a couple of years ago"), Godiva
tied with Brute Squad for third in the nation in 2007 while finishing
4th in spirit rankings. If Godiva had a reputation for hard marker
fouling, then it appears that they took that feedback and changed the
way they played rather than defensively denying the accusation.
I've already cited my own biases. I read the post before it was sent
to The Huddle and I agree with the facts expressed therein - many
teams and individuals endorse, tacitly and overtly, intentional marker
fouling and the rules as they are currently written do not
sufficiently account for the offense-defense imbalance this creates.
As seen in other posts and other player accounts, fouling the thrower
is a practiced defensive tactic, the opening paragraphs of the rules
notwithstanding. Ultimate has always been a players' sport, so what
are we going to do about it?
Dylan Boyd
PS. and if you call my wife a liar again I'm going to kick your
ass.
PPS. Just kidding. Especially if you're bigger than me. :)
jeremia...@gmail.com
jeremia...@gmail.com
perhaps change the discspace to one yard and make doubleteams legal
colinm...@gmail.com
> If we want to do something about it more than educating the players,
> the 1m-distance rule is an option. Yes, Colin, this rule will be
> broken just as much as the current rule. But disrupting the flow from
> half a meter away is much harder than with direct contact. So the
> "benefits" of breaking this rule would be much smaller than currently.
> And if you marked so close that you could disrupt the flow under this
> alternative rule, your cheating would be too obvious (even to
> yourself).
Some of the current cheaters would probably be deterred if the rules
changed to make their cheating extra egregious...assuming they read
the new rules. I think many cheaters wouldn't be deterred at all,
though. I guess that's where the experimentation comes in. I can
name a handful of players who would be great test subjects for this.
The real solution is to play with a different disc:
http://www.sunkingdiscs.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=962
This would back up the marker by increasing the physicaly assertable
disc space. It would also adjust the offense/defense balance. And
the forward-thinking SRC has been on top of this for years (Rule
IV.A). If the players have refused to adopt this simple solution for
all these years, then maybe they do find the hacking marks to be
acceptable.
-Colin
Knappy
On Jun 5, 12:16 am, "colinmcint...@gmail.com"