on field rapport

Rapport is one of the more fun aspects of having a steady team. 

I find certain players I play with that I throw passes to, or recieve passes from, more than anyone else on the pitch. If there were stats on passes I'm involved with that break down the defence then i'm sure that these would connect me to these players with whom I have an 'on-field rapport', even more.


so are these players with whom I have an 'on-field rapport'? or are these just good players with whom everyone thinks they have an 'on-field rapport'?


While I think there are elements of both at work, I do think its often more about player specific rapport, rather than playing on the same team as someone who's just really good.

I've found a drawback though. Here's a situation. I make a grab, and I hit the floor afterwards. My perpheral vision saw the beginning of 2 cuts as I was doing all that.  As i'm getting up, I'm preparing to throw to the cut I saw my rapport buddy (Luan) start. Regardless of whether it was the better one (but lets face it, it probably was).

Maybe the problem is a lack of rapport with the other guy.

passes that break down a defence

I want to rank passes. To define which are the most and least useful passes. Then I can work on throwing and cutting for more of the most useful passes in various situations.

Useful passes are, I think, passes that break down defences. This might not immediately be a clear way to categorise passes. (unlike, say, naming everything 'dump', 'swing', 'undercut', 'leading pass to an away cut', 'break' and so on...or saying useful passes are just the ones that gain the most territory)

I propose this definition:

A pass that results in the next pass (that works towards a score) being an easier one is a pass that breaks down the defence.

The obvious passes that come under this definition are

• passes that get past a cup
• break mark passes
• hucks

But there are also more subtle ones. For instance a backfield dump from a force sideline position: if it leads the receiver towards the sideline, the defence will get a force on quickly and considering the position of the original thrower (now, in the way) the new disc holder is worse off in every respect other than stall count. Whereas a dump that leads the receiver away from the sideline should create the opportunity for a continuation pass. The next pass working towards a score should be easier.

I think the majority of passes that everyone looks for should mean the next one is closer to a score. That is the majority of players look for upfield passes most often. But using the definition you could still say one option is even better than another. Passes can be ranked with how easy they make the next throw progressing towards a score.

Perhaps my definition implies a comparison with the previous throw. I'm not sure if I want to do that.

WUCC bids

For the world ultimate club championships, next summer in Prague. The number of bids for each nation shows that 141 bids have been offered in total across all divisions. The total number of bids per division looks quite odd from a scheduling point of view (53 open, 29 women, 41 mixed and 18 masters). The invitation document said that the "tournament can only host approximately 120 Teams". 


It seems pretty clear that WFDF is relying on not every offered bid being accepted. The wait list bids therefore (to be announced January 10th) are unlikely to be very numerous. 


Presumably, easily scheduled numbers would be preferable, numbers divisible by 4 tend to work well. So I'm guessing maybe 44 open teams, 24 womens teams, 36 mixed teams and 16 masters teams. That would add up to 120.  Although perhaps 'approximately' 120 could mean a few more could squeeze in. 


I'm guessing the smaller divisions - like Masters and Womens won't have too many unaccepted bids - since the offered bids are in the main to very established ultimate nations. Whereas open and mixed might have a few more unaccepted ones because these are the divisions where the smaller, less established and even provisional WFDF member nations were offered bids. 


Whichever division you play in, if you're hoping for a wait list bid, don't set your expectations too high!




UPDATE: http://twitter.com/UKUltimate/statuses/7455341255

The great eurodisc spirit debate

So, the never ending eurodisc spirit debate has kicked off once more.

For those unfamiliar with it, eurodisc is the European ultimate email list. As email lists go, it's really quite good. There's no spam. Just useful information about ultimate tournaments, and ultimate related news. Until, every few months someone says 'spirit' and then it all kicks off.

Spirit is good. Referees are bad

But we are all referees, so referees can't be bad.

Logical fallacy foul! Observers are not referees. Except when playing at the slippery slope tournament.

Why don't you go play MLU and bodycheck everyone. You're not as spirited as me.

 I'll bodycheck your mom. You can be the observer.

There is a chance I may have exaggerated certain elements of the great eurodisc spirit debate (there are generally no references to anyone's mom and the individual posts are usually much longer). But you get the idea.

My main problem with this debate is about the thread system of my email program. Its a fantastic system that means all the emails of a conversation are grouped together. The problem I'm having is that the eurodisc spirit debate seems to often find itself on more than one thread. Sometimes this is because people change the subject line of the email...perhaps sometimes it happens if someone replies to a digest email...but it has happened once or twice without any of that (just yesterday for instance). Can anyone suggest why? It takes much longer to delete than it would otherwise.

Metal Studded Boots in Ultimate

When I started playing Ultimate, there was a rule against wearing metal studs - safety was the reason for this. I was unaware of the rule for quite some time. When I became aware of it, I disagreed with it, mainly because I had previously played rugby and in rugby metal studs were not only allowed but compulsory and plastic studs were not allowed. Safety was also the reason for this. I've been told it's because plastic studs may get damaged and become sharp, whereas the rounded metal surface of the rugby studs will hold their shape and not cut anyone - having played some underage rugby with some guys who wore soccer boots, i'm inclined to agree.


Anyway, the mention of metal studs was removed from the rule which now says "3.4. No player may wear items of clothing or equipment that reasonably could harm the wearer or other players."
I thought mention of metal studs was gone for good, and I was happy about it. Until it showed up in the new interpretations document this year. Where they interpret 'equipment that could harm...' as metal studs. 


The reason I was bothered by this is that metal studs are common in Irish Ultimate, and I worry that someday a teammate of mine will get called on it and won't have a spare pair of boots. 


So i emailed the WFDF rules discussion group to ask about it. Saying more or less what I've said here. Here's the response i got (from Johnathan Potts):

The important thing is that people don't wear dangerous equipment.  If someone is convinced that their metal studs are as safe as plastic studs then they should be allowed to wear them.  I think length of stud is probably more of an issue.  Metal studs have been out and then not explicitly out and then "sort of out" by being placed in interpretations. The language in the interpretations could probably be better worded, but as you say, I don't think we have any clear evidence of what is and isn't relatively safe.

In football & rugby, metal (and plastic) studs are usually tested pre-game by referees to make sure that they are not sharp, as they can easily be sharpened by scraping them on concrete.  Is this an issue in ultimate?  I hope not.

So, perhaps they'll reword the interpretations document next time.  I hope so. The rules committee will have to debate it first though. 

Introduction

I have this written on a player profile page: 


"There are two secrets to success in ultimate:
1- don't give away all your secrets on the internet."


Even though it was meant as a joke, I did think it was true. I'm not as sure any more. I'll give blogging a go.