How different people look at the field differently

How many open cutters do you generally see when you have the disc? I imagine the answer is one. After you see one, you stop looking for more. If there are two open cutters, I'd usually only see one of them. At least until I either throw to that option, or decide it's no longer open and look for another option.

I think we've all been in the situation, where as an open cutter, we consider ourselves to be the best option. But frustratingly, the thrower only sees some other cutter. When the other option results in a turnover, that's annoying.

Which of two different options is a thrower more likely to see? 
The one they see first is the one that's in the place where they look first. If a player really likes to huck it deep, they probably look there first. If there is a good hucking opportunity, they won't see an open cutter underneath.

Similarly, other players have their own first-look preferences. Plenty instinctively look first for a flow cut down the line. Looking at the person who threw it to you first can be a good move.

I'm still thinking about 2 questions
1- is it easy to change where you look first? Or are habits formed over many years of playing too ingrained to change?

2 - is it preferable to have a whole team looking for the same first option? Or is it preferable to have variety based on the different skill sets of players?

Anyway, look out for this. It's useful to see the patterns of where you, you're team-mates and your opponents are looking.

Irish juniors teams - I'm just looking for some thoughts

Given that the call for applications to be on the NSB for the European juniors championship is out at the moment, I’ve been thinking about the juniors set up a bit. I’m not sure whether I want to apply to be involved in it again next year or not. In any case, I’ve been writing down some of my thoughts on the good and the bad of the juniors set up last year. If anyone is considering applying to be a part of the juniors coaching set up next year (or knows someone else who is), and wants to ask me anything about it, feel free to email me (or add a comment here). 

There is one idea that I’ve been thinking over that I’d love to hear thoughts on.

For the juniors in 2009 and 2010 we ran a weekly practice session in Dublin. I’ve been thinking about how worthwhile it is. In many ways, a national team practicing so regularly like a club team should give a big advantage in terms of team chemistry. But, at the level that we’re at, improvements in player skill and general playing experience makes a much bigger difference to results than team chemistry does. To improve as a team, focus on improving the player’s skills and general playing experience, not so much the team's chemistry.

The most obvious way to go about this would be if all the players played with club teams. If we take all the juniors and put them in a completely separate section away from the experienced senior players (as has been the case) they won’t learn that much. But if they were all on club teams with more experienced players they’d gain a greater understanding of the game much more quickly.

Does anyone care to offer me their opinion on the chances of the juniors all being integrated into the club scene? I’m not imagining them all necessarily making the first team of the best club in their city, just being a regular club member that trains weekly and hopefully gets to a tournament or two. Or maybe club summer league, or whatever.

any thoughts?

The Ireland junior open team

My brother has been working on a document about teaching ultimate in schools. He asked me if I'd write a piece about the junior national team for it. So that any new schools players or coaches would know the situation regarding the team, how to get on it, what's involved and so forth. He sent me a few questions, and my answers are reproduced here.

Just for anyone that doesn't know, I was the manager of the Irish Junior open team in 2010, having been an assistant manager in 2009. The 2010 team was put together for the World junior ultimate championships held in Germany at the beginning of august. While the 2009 team competed at the European junior ultimate championships held in Austria in 2009. The European juniors championships will happen again in 2011 and Worlds again in 2012.

As for next year, I'm not sure if I'll be involved. Either way, the set up could all change in the future, so don't think this is a reliable guide to what might happen in 2011.

Be warned, this gets long.

On rereading this, I'm thinking it might sound like hard work. It is hard work, but its fun too. Ask any of the players that played for the Irish Juniors in 2009 or 2010 about it. I bet they'd recommend any eligible player to have a go.



Quick recap of what you did this year with the junior setup. When were trials, and trainings (how many were there), and what did you do at trials and trainings?


Try-outs and selection

At first I sent out some email calls for interest. I requested all interested players to email me to say which division they were interested in and eligible for. Mainly to figure out what divisions we’d likely be able to field teams for. I mean one of junior open, junior women (for which you must be turning 19 or less in the year of the competition), under 17 open and under 17 women. We have yet to field a team in any junior division other than junior open.

The first selection events we had (which we called tryout zero A and B) were the Irish schools indoors championships and the UCD beginners tournament (which were on consecutive weekends at the end of Januray). Most of the eligible players that the junior’s management team didn’t know were playing at one of these two tournaments, so it gave us a good chance to get to know the available player base.

Next we had 2 proper open tryouts. The first was a week into February, and the next about 3 weeks later. Any and every eligible player was welcome to attend.

Finally we had an invite only try-out. Where about 30 or so players were invited to attend. This allowed us to have a really close look at those players with a good chance of making the team before we made the final selection.

When I say ‘we’ here, I mean myself, the juniors manager and Seamas Kinsella, the coach, with help from selectors Mark Earley and Roger ‘Podge’ Beatty.

Training and practices

Last year, we had a team with a majority of Dublin based players, although there was also a contingent based in Cork and Limerick. As such, we had a weekly Dublin practice session (only mandatory for those based there, with non-dubliners expected to attend a weekly practice session local to them). And then we had a number of full squad weekends (mandatory for the whole squad), which were about monthly. The first one was in Limerick; the other 3 or so in Dublin.

There was also a fitness plan, involving some weekly core work, leg work and sprints.

Friendlies and warm up competitions
We had a few one off friendlies against various other teams often as part of the whole squad weekends - just to get some game time together as a team.

We entered the Dublin club summer league. Wednesday evenings in a Dublin park. From about June as I recall. Obviously, this was mainly for those based in Dublin. 

And to warm up for the tournament, we entered the UK junior club nationals; a great learning experience. in 2010 that was in Birmingham, on about the first weekend of July. So most of the lads got some cheap flights over (1 or 2 hardcore juniors got a bus and a ferry). The team camped at the venue. (with the aid of one big tippee)

What did you look for when picking the squad and why? And in what part of the game did players have the most shortcomings in?
There aren’t many very experienced junior players in Ireland. In general, the majority of the team is made of players who have been playing for less than a year. As such, the major shortcomings of most of the players that try out can be put down to a lack of experience playing the game, this means that players can be lacking in some basic skills, tactical awareness and so forth. As the selectors, there is no choice but to accept this. So while it's great to see skills and tactical awareness, we also look out for a willingness and ability to learn fast, commitment / enthusiasm and athleticism.

What advice would you give to any upcoming juniors who would like to try out for Ireland.
Firstly – the simple advice: try to make a good impression.

• Attending every tryout you can, shows that you’re good at showing up.
• Being on time for tryouts would give selectors the impression that you’d be on time for practices, or eventually for matches at the tournament.
• Taking on board anything that the coaches say to you, shows you’ll be willing and able to learn as the season progresses.
• Try to seem like a ‘good team mate’. If you’re a jerk to the other players trying out, it really won’t seem like a good idea to put you on a team with them.

Next - the more detailed stuff.

Picking the squad has usually gone like this: the first half of the squad or so worth of players are usually fairly obvious choices. These 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 guys stand out as the best players, which all the selectors agree on quickly. The next 3 or 4 or 5 players generally don’t take too long to agree on either. In terms of skill, athleticism, experience and commitment, they’re looking better than the other guys there. The last few guys selected are generally very hard to decide on. Choosing the last 3 or 4 guys out of 8 or 9 players with a realistic chance is difficult.

And so, my advice to anyone trying out for these teams in the future: don’t hope to scrape your way onto the squad by being just about good enough. Even if you really are the 19th best player and there are 20 spots, the selectors might make a mistake (regrettable but very possible). Aim to be in the top 10 players that the selectors have no question about choosing. For the juniors team I'd say that being athletic and skilful compared with the other guys trying out should get you into the top 15 or so, but its experience that will make you stand out as one of the best there. By experience, I don’t mean how long ago you started playing; but rather how high a level you’ve been playing. If you join a club team full of good players and get plenty of game time in high standard games you’ll look like you have experience, like you understand what's going on. If you spend 3 years playing exclusively with absolute beginners, you won't get the same effect.

Anyway, if you’re reading this having only just started playing a week ago, and the tryouts are soon, don’t despair. you'd still have a shot at making the team, like I said, there's generally not very many experienced players there. and the last few guys to make the team are really tough to choose. Realistically, the guys that get selected in this group are unlikely to called as a  handler for offence on game point (although nothing is impossible). As such, around this borderline area, fast, fit defenders will probably get selected over the slower handler types. I think athleticism does better than skill to a certain extent around here.

Experience has shown me something about comparing two guys at the start of the season; one who’s fast, fit, jumps high and lays out but can’t throw too well and another who’s slow and un-athletic but can throw well. By the time the peak of the season comes around it’s more likely that the fast guy has learned to throw than the slow guy has learned to be fast.

What If you’re some sort of non-athletic type. First step, become athletic! By which I mainly mean get fit. Don't just try to figure out how you can make a team based purely on skill and intelligence. The intelligent thing to do is to get in shape. Everyone has to play D. So do what you can to be in great shape. Realistically, if athleticism is your major weakness even though you're doing all you can about it, you’ll want to make sure you get into the team by being one of the best, most skilful players there. If you’re hoping to squeeze in as the 19th player picked onto a 20 man squad, you may be disappointed. Go get yourself the highest level game time you can.

Tryouts

Here's a quick summary of the format of the tryouts from previous years. (subject to change in the future). 

They usually consist of a warm up, some basic throwing, a few drills designed to show certain skills, and then a few games. All run and watched by various coaches / managers and selectors for the team. 

When I ran it we had a few different parts.

1. Throwing. Everyone threw in pairs, I came around and had a look. I was mainly looking to see who had fundamentally good technique (grip, stance, etc) as opposed to whether a particular throw was accurate or not as I walked past. I saw loads of throwing, from everyone. I'd often have asked a player to throw a few particular throws if I hadn't yet seen them (e.g. "throw a few backhands there, I've only seen you throw forehands"). I also often asked to see low release throws, longer throws and inside out throws; just to see how advanced anyone was at throwing. Such throws demonstrate a real control of the disc or possibly show up more clearly any flaw in technique (some people can only release throws from one particular height, it seemed). 
2. Sprinting. We had everyone run a timed sprint. Just to make sure that when it came to a selection meeting I wasn't calling guys athletic based purely on looking athletic. (of course in games we'd try to look at acceleration and agility and all too, but pure straight line speed was useful to know about and really easy to measure).
3. Huck and read drill. This was also to look at athleticism in a way, and also catching ability and ability to read the disc in flight.
4. Leading passes. Just since previously I had only looked at throwing skills in a static sense, throws in games have to lead receivers and inexperienced players often don't have the timing down. 
5. We may have done some other drills at the some other tryouts, possibly looking at forcing (the most important defensive skill in my opinion).
6. Games. There was always a game at each tryout; drills can only show so much. In general, we'd make some teams and just stand back and watch, only interjecting sometimes to change the teams or to ask for specific things (as in we asked everyone to only play man defence, we occasionally requested guys to mark specific players or requested certain lads to handle or to cut).

Finally, some advice for these tryout games. Be sure to get properly involved. At times, in previous years I've thought some guys were hiding on the field for fear of being seen making an occasional mistake. It's not like the team is picked by a process of elimination, you can't make it by hiding! Now obviously, try not to throw the disc away every time you get it, but don’t worry, there’ll be plenty of mistakes made, just keep up a total commitment on the field, especially on defence, and try with all you've got to show that you belong in an Ireland jersey.

No discussion 'foul' and 'contest' calls

There are many ways to be unspirited. Some of them bug me more than others.

This one is fairly self explanatory. A player calls "foul" and their opponent immediately calls "contest". One player tries to explain what they think just happened. The other is already sending the disc back to the thrower (or asking for the disc back if they are the thrower); they're not listening. This gives the impression to me that they're only making or contesting the call to advantage their team, rather than fully considering the play in question.

Breaking other rules, like for instance fouling somebody, can be seen as purely accidental. But refusing to engage in a discussion seems a less accidental way of breaking the rules. And it bugs me.

The rule:
"1.3. ... players must:...
1.3.4. explain their viewpoint clearly and briefly;
1.3.5. allow opponents a reasonable chance to speak;..."

If you think you're right, okay. Tell the other player why. They might retract the call.

If you just want to gain an unfair advantage, well, the rules are such that you can do that, but please humour them. Pretend it's the scenario where you honestly think you're right. Let the other player explain their point of view and then choose one detail that you can say you saw differently. Contest the call based on that. People will think you're more spirited.

Blog Link - a piece about gamesmanship in ultimate

I just wanted to point out this. From the ultimate blog 'win the fields'. (and the second part)

A post (a series of posts I guess) about gamesmanship in ultimate.

It's a really interesting read.

Update on Teaching People to Throw a Forehand

This post represents some further thoughts on this. If you're interested, see my previous piece about it.

I got thinking about this again after reading an article on the Thinkulti blog. It looks at the plane of release of a forehand. It's interesting enough. Read that, and an older post on the same blog more specifically about teaching a beginner to throw a forehand. 

Given it's university recruiting season, I guess this is quite relevant right now. If you have a university team,  you're probably teaching a new batch of beginners how to throw. If you get it right, you'll be laughing. If you're not so good at it, your club might be known for its lack of disc skills for years to come!

Of course the reason I care so much about it, is that there's a good chance that this seasons new college players make up plenty of next seasons Irish juniors teams. (With which I may or may not be involved). Every year I have been involved, there are plenty of players that come to the try-outs with really dodgy forehands. 

Having talked it over with the other Irish junior open coach from this year, its not just elbow in ribcage throws we see, (see my previous piece about this), but more generally forehand throws released with the wrist much higher than the elbow. (and not able to throw any other way). Which makes it incredibly hard to learn inside break flicks and very low release flicks.

I think the forehand grip angles discussed on that piece on the Thinkulti blog, could be a related issue. 

Anyway, best of luck to anyone teaching any beginners. 

IFDA College Recruitment Guide

The blog's been quiet for a while. I've been busy. I intend getting back to the Ireland caps topics soon, and there are also a few other topics I've got in mind, but for now, I'm going to talk about recruitment.

The IFDA recently released a very early version 0.5 of their planned college recruitment guide. Basically it's an edited version of the various submissions they had received. If you're on pookas, have a read of it. There's some great stuff in it.

Structuring the Recruitment Document

I think the best thing that could happen to the document next, is for it to get structured in some logical way. Both to make it easier to read, and also to make it easier to build on. Once the document has a sensible structure, deficient sections will stand out and any conflicting opinions also become more obvious. I replied to the email saying as much (and offering to help with it).

A preliminary structure idea could be as follows:
1. overall / being organised / having a meeting about it.
2. PR during the first few weeks.
3. recruiting day.
4. retaining the people that signed up, and turning them into active club members.

How version 0.5 measures up against that proposed structure

As it stands, the document has plenty of thoughts on getting plenty of people to sign up on clubs and socs day (or freshers week or whatever you call it). I find amusing the mentions of the strategic placement of "hot guys" and "hot girls" at the recruitment stand (possibly because its true).

Where I think it might be lacking is in the area of early term PR on campus. I thought there might be more about this in the document version 0.5. Maybe its just that there wasn't much variety in what was said, and plenty of repeated stuff got edited out.

Anyway, that section would focus on PR before sign up day. It would include stuff about posters, about being visible on campus throwing, wearing club merchandise, having as many articles in every campus publication as you can and mentioning ultimate enthusiastically to anyone you're talking to.

Retaining Beginners

Stuff about retaining the beginners could get interesting. I imagine there could be various different opinions on it.

I think this section could get further subdivided into
A - training
B - tournaments
C - club sociability

Possibly what sort of players you want to recruit and retain could be worth some discussion. I think any club has a finite capacity for active membership; you're unlikely to add 100 new active members to a club (although I understand plenty of clubs sign up more than this nowadays). There just isn't the space at practice (and possibly the existing club members haven't the ability to remember that many names). So perhaps a club needs to think about exactly what sort of players they really want to try to keep.

Increasing the Natural Capacity of a Club

Before anyone gets too carried away with being selective, it is possible to expand the natural capacity of a club. Try as hard as you can to recruit and retain more players before you start to pick and choose. I think UCC managed that last year. If you run a few separate practice sessions aimed at different groups, then the practices won't be overcrowded and no one needs to remember absolutely all the beginners names. This probably even holds true for socialising too. There's an upper limit on the size of a tight-knit social group. Only so many people can comfortably hang out in a living room. If a big club has multiple smaller tight-knit groups it allows space for more newbies to become active members.

Anyone from UCC tell me if I've got that right?

What sort of beginners will stay playing

So, once there's room for plenty of newbies, it's probably still true that you'll not be able to get all of those that sign up to stick around. And who sticks around will largely be determined by what you do in the first few weeks after the beginners join. For instance, if you do drills involving quite a bit of sprinting, then people that like sprinting will stick around.

Also, who becomes a regular is determined by who you get to know; who the experienced players become friends with. If all the experienced players spend all their time making friends with final year student newbies and 1 semester foreign students, they'll have no time to get to know the first years (that's bad).

Labeling players when playing defense in ultimate

When playing D, against a team you know nothing about, you might make a few judgements based on appearances. (Perhaps it's using stereotypes?) It can be a bad thing. It's unreasonable and unfair to assume things about people without evidence. But people do it all the time. And anyway, in this situation, if you're wrong you only disadvantage yourself rather than the person you're stereotyping. 

For instance, the stereotypical fat player, is slow. (this often turns out to be true, but not always!)

"I'll mark the fat guy"

-your lazy teammate. 

The fat guy must be a handler (a handler with great throws)

The old guy too. 

The tall guy is probably a receiver.
The guy wearing runners and tracksuit pants must be a beginner.
The guy wearing loads of gear (underarmour, tights, visor, gloves, some sort of support on every joint), is either really really good or really really bad. It could go either way.
The girl playing open, won't be cutting deep.

I'm sure you're thinking of exceptions to each assumption as you read them. It would be a dangerous game to rely completely on a stereotype assessment of an opposition player, without any supporting evidence.

As a game goes on, you might make comparisons between the guy you're marking and the other players you've played before, while trying to figure out how best to mark them. That's still basically labeling them, but now you have some evidence. I have said things like this to myself: "he plays like a fat handler despite being trapped in the body of a much thinner man". Maybe I'm getting into the categorisation of players, which could be a whole other blog post.

How to use this
If making quick assessments based on appearances is widespread, a team starting on offence can use it to their advantage. Basically, send your fat, old, deceptively fast guys deep, early on, for easy goals. While your tallest players make sure to stay well out of the way (since they have the fastest and best aerial defenders).

And at a low level fun tournament, wear jeans for the first point! 

update on metal studded boots in ultimate

This is an update of a previous post on the subject.

The interpretations document for the rules of ultimate has been updated this year. As I had stated in my previous post, I had hoped to see the mention of metal studs removed from the interpretation of the rule banning dangerous equipment (rule 3.4). Alas, no.

Here's what the interpretation (still) says:

3.1. "Metal studs, long studs and studs with sharp edges are not allowed on footwear"

The Appendix (additional rules for championship events) has also been updated this year. This has a section on uniform requirements, within which there are further mentions of metal studs. (this can also be found on a page of the WUCC2010 website, for which it will be in force, presumably).

Here's what that says about the issue:

C11.2. Any studs or ridges on the sole of the shoes must not protrude more than 20 millimetres from the sole nor have any sharp edges.

and then also:

C13. Additional Uniform Requirements for Players

C13.1. Players must not wear anything that is dangerous to other players. WFDF considers metal studs to be dangerous.

"WFDF considers...", that really doesn't sound like a rule to me, more a guideline; an issue on which I could consider something else. Looking at other parts of this document, it's clear that this is indeed something like a polite request. For instance:

C10. Socks
C10.1. Socks or stockings do not need to be matching in any way.
C10.2. If players on a team wear long socks, WFDF considers that matching those socks will improve the image of the sport.


Anyway, this is a change from the 2009 appendix, I believe (which had simply mentioned 'metallic cleats' in the list of things not allowed). This change pleases me.

I do think things could be clearer though. I had to carefully examine the rules, the interpretations and the appendix to try to find out what is allowed, and then two of the documents are seemingly contradictory. It's not ideal.



P.S. one other line from the appendix for championship play:

C13.2. Players must not wear anything that gains an advantage by substantially enhancing the
physical presence of the player.


Isn't it weird that this is in the appendix? Does it imply I could wear my cape to improve my force in non-championship play?

International Caps Part 2

This is a follow on from the International Caps Part 1 post. 

My best estimate of Irish ultimate's top 5 all time most capped players (at full international open and women's ultimate on grass):

Open

1. BB: 52 caps
2. Doyler: 39 caps
3. Podge 33 caps
=3. Marko: 33 caps
5. Dom: 32 caps

Women

1. Sparky: 40

=1. SJ: 40
3. Yiv: 39
=3. Fi: 39
5 Dee: 32 

(My main source was the player directory of the national teams of ultimate database for the Irish open team and the Irish women's team. Hence the same caveats apply as with the national teams of ultimate site, regarding possible errors due to missed games through injury and the like. Possibly there's also just someone else that I forgot to check. There's also a possibility in the back of my mind that there was another national team tournament in 2008, in preparation for worlds, but I can't find any details).

Looking at those lists, I had thought it would be closer at the top of the open team list, but there really is no contest for first place in the open team. I think Brian's total of 52 caps means he's been a part of every single full international game that the Irish open team has ever played. An incredible record!

Unsolicited advice about getting on the Irish open team 2011
Last April, Brian sent an email to the Pookas list entitled "unsolicited advice about getting on the Irish open team 2011". He knows more than anybody else about getting on the Irish open team. Take his advice! (look it up yourself).

Mixed Division
I've not done any mixed division analysis. The record for the most mixed team caps would be held jointly by the entire mixed team from 2000. If an all-division caps list were made, the extra mixed division caps could push the likes of Al, JD and Ois further up, but I think Brian would still reign supreme by some distance.

Any comments to ammend / improve the top 5 list are welcome. As are opinions joining in on the discussion of 'caps' in general.

International Caps Part 1

(in part 2, I'll outline my best guess at the top five most capped Ireland players in the open and women's divisions. In this part, I discuss how I got there).

The discussion that brought this up
I was having a discussion with some of the other Dublin players at tour 2 last weekend about caps. Wouldn't it be nice to have international 'caps' like in other sports.

Apparently, there are (or were) physical 'caps' (as in hats) given to players in international fixtures in other sports. See the Wikipedia article about it.

I think some of the Ireland players on Dublin Ultimate want some new headgear. Maybe it would be a nice way to recognise our 'capped' players and our 'most capped' players.

A few questions arose from this discussion.

Would buying hats for this be a total waste of time and money?
I should say that those advocating the purchase of head coverings weren't suggesting a new hat be given to players for each game, but just for their first international appearance and possibly milestones after that (like maybe just for your 1st cap, your 50th cap, and your 100th cap you'd get some real head insulation). I'm still unconvinced on that one; if you want a national team souvenir, keep your jersey (swap a spare one if you want to trade for another jersey). Buying more stuff is unnecessary.

Which games should count as 'full internationals' for the purposes of counting caps?
Aside from literal caps, it might be nice to have a list of all of our capped players and our all-time most capped players. Which brings me to question 1; which games should count? Not all international games are WFDF sanctioned but maybe this should be the deciding factor? (For instance the 8 Nations tournament last year wasn't sanctioned by WFDF). But if it's an honest to goodness national team playing another national team, then I think this should count as a full international match. The consensus we reached was that for non WFDF sanctioned competition, games against other full national teams should count, whereas games against 'dream teams' or club teams representing their nation at the likes of the 8 nations shouldn't. And of course, to get a 'cap' for a game, you have to play at some stage in that game (injuries are unfortunate, that's the way of sports).

Beach ultimate came up in this conversation too, something we thought should be treated as a different sport altogether for this. So for now, I'm not going to look at beach ultimate at all.

Anyway, such a system would mean it's difficult to count caps accurately, since it’s not easy to know if every player played every game. Considering this aspect of our sport, should we change the system? We could say there’s a cap for each player for each game the team plays (so the whole team gets like 10 caps for the tournament)? Or just one cap per tournament rather than per game, which would reflect the fact that players are selected to the squad just once for each tournament.

I think some of us have a deep longing to be like other sports. So while a one cap per tournament system might make more sense for ultimate, and even though I could look up the national teams section of the Irish ultimate website and easily count up caps and see who has represented Ireland at the most tournaments, it just doesn't seem as interesting. Imagine a list of most capped players where the biggest number is 4 or 5.

What about non-selected teams?
This was a question on which I don't think we agreed. We were talking about occasions where, through lack of there being very many interested players; everyone that's willing to go to a particular tournament gets on the  national team. Should these players be honoured with caps? Well, I think so! If you play in a full international game representing your country, then that's a cap. What's more, the logistics of awarding caps would get even more difficult, by complicating things like this.

The archive of international games
Anyway, the archive of international games, that has recently been publicised on various mailing lists basically counts international caps already. It might take a little bit of website navigation (and the site is pretty slow but he knows that) to find who's got how many Ireland caps. (It may be necessary to account for anyone appearing twice with a misspelling of their name, but it's a fantastic resource nonetheless. The creator of it uses the sort of criteria that I think is sensible, and it has the caveat that it looks at:

"games played by a team this person belonged to. This could overstate the number of games this person has really played in. (Player nominated to a team might not play in a certain game because of coaches decision, because she/he is injured or because she/he has not yet arrived to the tournament site.)"

Figuring out who played in which game really would be tough!

I do think that there are a few mistakes in the data. For instance in 8 nations open division last year, we played the Netherlands twice (and lost twice); one pool game and then again in the final. But only one game against the Netherlands is counted.

And the 8 nation’s women’s division doesn't seem to be there at all. Perhaps it’s just not up yet? Or maybe there weren't enough official national teams present for the site to count it? Looking at the teams the Irish ladies played, France and the UK are labelled as 'dream teams' (a phrase they use to refer to a non-official national team), and then club teams are listed for Belgium and the Netherlands. Only Spain and Ireland seem to be official national teams.

Anyway, I've made an attempt at making a top 5 list of most capped Irish players (see part 2: the next post on this blog). I counted one extra 8 Nations game against the Dutch for the open team (over what the national teams archive had). And I counted the one game against the Spanish for the womens team. It does seem strange (perhaps unfair) to only count 1 match from the whole tournament for the women, but I think that's how to adhere to the rules I already defined.

How an ultimate game finishes

*Summary for Col*

The rules of ultimate are very clear on how a game is finished and won. But yet, the way it works in practice, at tournaments, is generally an absolute mess. It's confusing for spectators and players alike. Something should be done!

According to the official rules of the sport:

"4.2. A game is finished and won by the first team to score seventeen (17) goals."

Doesn't it seem so straightforward? There's no mention of the word 'cap' in the rules (apart from the definitions at the end for some reason). I've only played one tournament (and a handful of one-off games) that didn't use any time cap. Windmill Windup a couple of years back; awesome tournament!

Unfortunately, the time cap is usually necessary. Tournaments have schedules to keep and limited fields to use. After a set time, the teams finish the point and set a new target score to win the game. This might not yet seem very complicated. But so often there's confusion about the cap at the end of a game. Sometimes, games end incorrectly. That is ridiculous.

How does it go wrong?

1. Inconsistency. Different tournaments implement different time cap systems. Differences exist with regard to how many points to add to the higher score for the cap, and in what circumstances is it played as opposed to just stopping the game right then. (for instance, is it always played or only when the difference in scores is less than a specified number). Some tournaments take inconsistent cap rules to a new level and change them over the course of the tournament.
2. Lack of clarity. Are the cap rules still used if applying them would give a new target higher than the original target? (I'd say generally no, but when that's not explicit it can cause confusion). Two other examples of what not to do:
• I was at one tournament that handed out copies of the official rules of ultimate branded with the tournament logo. A nice touch. Of course, the official rules specify how a game is finished and won. But at this tournament, amended rules for how the game is finished and won were used, different to the rules they handed out. Way to cause confusion.
• Timeouts in the cap. Here's another issue lacking clarity. Often, TDs add a rule that timeouts are not to be used in the cap. (This is reasonable, since the idea is to finish the game sooner). But rarely is it specified what happens if someone tries to call a timeout in the cap. Some people try to treat the situation as similar to calling a timeout when a team has none remaining. I see no basis for this! I think play should simply restart with a check, but I've never seen it made clear where the no timeouts in the cap rule is in place. 
3. The time-over sound. The hooter/buzzer/whistle/jingle/shouting-guy isn't always very loud, and sometimes it isn't very specific (did time end at the start of the jingle or the end?). If I'm in the middle of active play, I don't notice it anyway. 
4. The WFDF appendix for additional championship game rules. I think those rules are unnecessarily complex. TDs take concepts from these rules for their tournaments. 
• Those rules initially have 17 as a 'win by 2' target, which means (aside from a time cap possibility) you couldn't win 17-16. Considering that teams could trade points the whole game, this rule makes sense. There is an initial win by 1 target also; 19. So a team could win 19-18 (I've seen it once - Ireland-Denmark EUC2007). Now, if it's sufficiently important to win by 2 that this should be accounted for in the rules then why would the win by 1 target be only 2 points greater than the win by 2 target? I think if its important enough to have a win by 2 stipulation in the rules, you may as well give teams a decent chance to achieve it; like more than just 2 more traded points! And if you're not going to, you may as well get rid of the concept altogether.
• Of course, before you get anywhere near the end of the game, you might have the half time cap. More unnecessary complication if you ask me. 
• The time cap in this appendix involves reducing the win by 1 target from 19 to 2 more than the higher score after finishing the point once 100 minutes have elapsed. Clearly, our sports championship events are not looking to attract spectators that have been drinking! 

For spectators and players alike, the most exciting times in sports are always at the end of games. Confusion can spoil it.

What to do

The interpretations document has (brief) guidelines for shortening the field, given space constraints.

"2.1 Playing on shorter fields (2.1)
Note
If space is not available to fit a full sized field, the end zones should be made shorter before the playing field proper is reduced."

I'd like to see some similar (if not much more detailed) guidelines for shortening the length of time of the game, given time constraints. And hopefully, TDs would all try to conform to the guidelines, in an effort to achieve consistency in regular tournament play. Perhaps a few standard examples would be useful in this regard: like a detailed suggestion for tournaments with 60 minute time slots, another for 90 minute time slots and so on.

Finally, I'd like to see the championship rules appendix simplified as much as possible with regard to this. Smaller tournaments will try to mimic them in any case. Simplicity is a good thing for spectators, particularly given the lack of commentators at most games.

What I'm actually going to do

The new WFDF ultimate rules website is great. There's a whole lot of work gone into that. There is a forum, with a section for new rules suggestions. So at some stage, I intend to put this suggestion there. I might wait until I have a more definite suggestion. Perhaps my readers (both of you), can offer your thoughts on this? Would you agree that the situation regarding the end of a game should change? Is it something that can come through the rules and associated documents? Or is it purely up to individual tournaments and TDs themselves?

getting low on the mark

Ever since the Siege of Limerick earlier this year. I've had a new found appreciation of marking skills. That is the ability to put on a good force. And I've been noticing that one of the most common mistakes I see around here (and make myself), is bending at the back to get low (and to get close to the thrower perhaps, if that's something you're trying to do).

Bending forwards at the back is one way to get yourself (arms & head) lower, but it does mean you'll be looking at the ground. That's not a good thing. Another major disadvantage is seen when moving from side to side. Its harder when your back is bent forwards.

This is something I'm working on now; straightening up my back, getting low with a wide stance and bent legs, allowing me to keep my head up.

rules on catching

I've been thinking recently about the definition of catching, the 'strip' call and simultaneous catches.

According to the 2009 WFDF rules of ultimate

"12.1. A player “catches” the disc by demonstrating sustained control of a non-spinning disc."

This would be a little after a receiver first touches the disc. Even after they touch both the top and bottom surfaces of it, it would probably still be spinning (and the receivers hand spinning with it), for just a moment.

Simultaneous Catches

I once thought that the rule about simultaneous catches was only there to help sort out disputes about who caught a disc first.

12.5. If offensive and defensive players catch the disc simultaneously, the offence retains possession.

Two different things happening 'simultaneously' is unlikely, right? When you look in super slow motion, one player will always get to the disc microseconds before the other. But getting to the disc is not catching it. Even after your hand is touching both the top and bottom surfaces, it still spins a little. And if both players first touch the disc in quick succession while both attempting to catch it, the moment when the disc stops spinning is the moment both players catch it simultaneously. I don't think a simultaneous catch is unlikely after all. It's a sensible rule to include. 

'Strips'

It often happens that an offence player tries to catch the disc and a defender tries to D it at the same time. Considering that the catch doesn't technically happen until "sustained control of a non-spinning disc" is demonstrated, I think that often, those strips that, from afar, look like a good D are usually just that, a good D.

Now from afar, you don't have the best perspective, so next time I call strip, keep quiet about this post!

Usually if after a disc is caught, a defender tries to swat it away and hits only disc, it should be fairly obvious it was a strip (either that, or the first catcher has a good enough grip to hold onto it).

Conclusion
These 2 points together mean that as a defender, if it's close, you don't want to try to catch it a disc, but rather knock it away! Even if you touch the disc first when trying to catch it, you might lose it on a simultaneous catch, whereas if you try to knock it away, you can still manage it legitimately even if the offender touches it first.

Although, experience has shown me that catching discs isn't a bad habit to have. Swatted away discs tend to get caught by someone else.

throwing swing passes in 3-4 offence

When an offence plays with less than 3 designated handlers (common with vertical stack offence), it's straightforward to hit swing passes. There's plenty of space to lead someone to with a swing pass.

For horizontal offence, there's probably a third handler standing in the space where you would want to throw a swing. The swing pass is less straightforward; you can't lead a receiver to that space because there's already a defender there.

So the situation I'm imagining is like this. The offence is in a generic 3-4 formation, and the disc is with one of the side handlers. The axis or centre handler is positioned to make a dump cut, while the other 3rd handler is futher away, towards the other side.

The axis handler receives a dump pass towards the backfield (as in not an up-the-line pass), and then looks to throw a swing pass towards the other sideline. But the 3rd handler is already there, with a defender.

Here are the possible courses of action I can think of. (post a comment if you know another one).

• Have the 3rd handler move upfield in good time to clear the space for someone else to cut for a swing. (It doesn't have to be someone else that cuts back into that space, it could be that handler if they can get free). 
• Depending on how the defender on this 3rd handler is set up, it might be possible to just throw the swing to the non-defender side of them. 
• A system whereby the the axis handler gets out of the way, the 3rd handler comes in to take the dump pass, and then looks to throw the swing rather than receiving it. 
• Don't bother looking for that sort of swing pass. 3-4 offence isn't so suited to it. Just let the axis handler look upfield for a goal shot. 
• Swing to a cutter instead. The 3rd handler keeps out to the sideline as far as possible, to allow space for the throw. This swing won't move the disc across as much of the width of the field, but it probably would gain a few more yards. 

I think all of those could be realistic options, and for now, I'm still trying to figure out which is my favourite. Not that it's particularly important which is my favourite. As with everything in ultimate frisbee tactics, it's better for your team to play the same system rather than the right system. Play the system your team plays. 

Buy-in

Maybe there's a better word for buy-in?

Here's what I'm talking about. When the members of a team feel like a team; they're willing to make themselves useful for the team and make sacrifices for the team then I'd say they have bought-in to the idea of that team. I use the word idea because I think in such a situation that team means something particular to the players. There is an identity about the team. Something that differentiates them from other teams. Like a style of play or an attitude or something they identify with and like.

When there is no buy in there is the attitude of "why should I make sacrifices if others on the team aren't".

Buy-in enables a team to get good in a way that wouldn't be possible otherwise. And it can make for a more rewarding experience regardless of how good the team is.

It's easier to achieve for some teams:

• Very high level teams. They are often made up of players that would buy into most very high level teams. Or at least I imagine. I've not seen the inner workings of many. 
• National teams. There's a certain pride and honour in representing your country, and players would feel a responsibility to do right by that team. A good tradition of national sports teams is something that is already there to buy-in to.
• Teams of mates. 
• Spirited teams. 
• Teams that start out with a shared identity that they're already proud of. Like perhaps teams strongly tied to a particular place. (where there isn't also some other team there). I'd say there could be other possibilities here too. 

For some teams - it's harder.

• Teams with a really stupid name. (in the opinion of their players). It's difficult to be proud of your team if its name is something you're ashamed of. 
• Unspirited teams. (although if it doesn't bother anyone on the team, then its not an issue I guess. In this regard at least)
• Teams with big personality clashes
• Disparate teams. If a team is made up of players from all over the place, it can lack that place identity. And it can be harder to get to know team mates. (though a few tournaments would do it).
• New teams. Particularly when the players don' know each other to start with. If you don't know your teammates how do you know they'll match your efforts? No team starts off with total buy-in. It's something they'll have to develop.  

Its something captains (and coaches) have to be aware of. They have an important role in setting the right conditions to allow team-wide buy in to develop. And for all I know, a popular captain with great social intelligence can do even more than that, but it's over my head.

It was talking ultimate articles on captaincy that got me thinking about the whole thing in the first place. I think Fiona's piece best addressed the issue; how it specifically related to her team. Read that for ideas of what exactly to do.

Achieving the conditions to allow 'buy-in' from players to happen is one of the greatest things a captain can do. That and maintaining it once it's there. Everything else follows.

when a huck gets caught just outside the endzone

This is a fairly common situation. A long pass gets caught by the cutter just short of the endzone line. Their defender gets there pretty quick, but perhaps other players might take a little time to catch up with the play.

In theory, scoring from here shouldn't be very difficult. The endzone is close, the defence is poorly organised, and there is plenty of space to work with, considering the number of players not up with the play. (that is, there is plenty of space for use by the first offence-team team-mates to arrive on the scene).

While this situation often does result in a quick easy goal, there are many times when it doesn't. Instead the stall count gets high, and there's a surprising number of riskier-than-you'd-like passes that have to be made to continue the offence. Then the play settles in to a more structured endzone offence versus defence scenario.

I've been thinking about why there is that difference. After a huck is caught outside the endzone, why is it sometimes a quick goal, and sometimes so much more difficult.

Since the offence is poorly structured, there are a couple of things that happen, that can hinder clear passing opportunities. Basically, as players catch up, they can all get in each others way.

• As cutters overtake the player with the disc; looking to cut for a goal or to set up a stack or whatever endzone offence they use, they bring defenders with them and they can block options for cutters already in the endzone - or worse - get in the way of handlers trying to reset.
• Multiple players try to set up as the dump (that's bad; I've done it myself once or twice).

Anyway, there are plenty of little things that can go wrong that hinder an easy passing opportunity. But none of the ones I've thought of explain how it all started. What happened that was the difference between this huck-to-just-short-of-the-endzone situations being one of times its a quick goal and one of the times it isn't?

It's got to be something to do with the first cutter that gets there (We'll call him Freddy First-Cutter).There is a certain cut often made by this guy. Running straight past the guy with the disc from behind the forcer, towards the open lane. That cut so rarely seems to work out. If Freddy has a few yards deep on his guy, the forcer sees that and moves to either switch onto Freddy First-Cutter or moves his mark around to front up for a moment. If Freddy hasn't got much separation from his defender, the angle he cuts to the endzone (diagonally from the centre of the field towards the open side) means that his defender gets first bid if the pass is thrown.

This straight in cut, the "it's just a race and I think I'm winning" cut. This is the problem cut, I think.

My solutions: make a cut that doesn't look like that. Anything with a double movement is a good option. drive up into the endzone, plant and turn hard. Or maybe on your way up there, stop outside the endzone and run a give'n'go with the guy on the disc. Freddy First-Cutter can throw the goal instead of catching it.

That's pretty much the end of my blog post. Although I do have another theory on the on how sometimes this situation is an easy goal, and how sometimes it's not. So I'll keep going.

Theory 2. The guy who caught the huck, lets call him "Ricky Receiver", isn't the teams best thrower. Or at least he's not a particularly confident thrower, and because of that he's reluctant to try and throw goals. So even if Freddy First-Cutter looks fairly open, Ricky Receiver won't throw it to him.

Theory 2.1 - Ricky Receiver has okay throws. Its just that because he's good at catching hucks and his name is Ricky Receiver, all his team mates assume that his throws are bad. They want Ricky to cut and dump. They'll be very critical every time he throws something that's not a dump. And this has made him goal-throwing-averse, rather than any actual lack of throwing skills. ("Look to your dump Ricky Receiver, let Timmy Thrower throw the goals").

I don't think either of theories 2 or 2.1 are true. Think about anyone in real life that could be called Ricky Receiver. What are their assist stats generally like? Plenty of assists!

P.S. Time-outs. Some people take a time-out in this situation. I'm not a fan of that. It completely nullifies some of the advantages that the offence should have, and what's more, it seems like a waste of a time-out to me. If a team takes a time-out everytime they're in this situation,  they'll run out of time-outs fast. (not that I'd never ever do it, I'd just be a little reluctant).

update on offence versus open side poach.

This is an update of a previous article "offence against a poach from an open side dump"

In that piece I listed the 4 possible approaches that I had thought of for dealing with the poached open-side handler situation.

(they were: ignoring the poach, using the poached player to move it to the breakside, using the poached player to throw an unmarked huck, and running a give 'n' go with the poached player).

Here's another one (Ben Wiggins mentioned it in the 3-4 offence part of his coaching clinic before the Siege of Limerick Tournament). He was describing an option for dealing with the defenders of the handlers without the disc in a 3-4 offence (specifically when the disc is in the centre of the field) - the other 2 handler defenders are probably looking to get in the way or get a poach block. (so on the open side - it would be relevant to what I was discussing before).

The idea was to have the handler clear out, upfield, just to make space for the offence. Achieved by a cut right in front of the thrower, coming infield from where they started. If their defender doesn't get close with them, the thrower can give this handler a short pass to gain just a few metres, keeping the disc central and creating a better hucking opportunity with the forward momentum. If that pass isn't on, the defender has gone with them and the open side of the field then becomes much easier to work with.

Seems like a good idea to me.

This one is fairly specific to 3-4 I think. Whereas the likes of using the handler to move it breakside seems to me to be better for a vertical stack scenario.

"What will we do today then?...does anyone know any drills?"

Have you ever heard that quote at an ultimate training session? It's really not a good thing!

What happens after you hear that? the group go through the motions of a few unrelated drills, drills that some of those present have done or seen elsewhere. There is no thought given to how the drill relates to real game play situations...and then in the second part of the session, there'll probably be a practice match but it would be more of a pick-up game instead of a match that practices whatever skills the drills that were just done might have tried to work on. 

It can be easy for teams to fall into this sort of practice session. It's hard work to be adequately prepared beforehand to avoid it.  

I think a good practice session focuses on just one or two things. These things being individual or team skills. Hopefully, whoever is in charge knows beforehand which individual or team skills they want the team to work on, and they've given some thought to the in-game situations where the skills are important. Then they can decide what drills to use and be able to explain how the drill relates to a game. Finally, if there is a game at the end of the session, the focus should still be on the same thing. It should not be just a pick-up game, but rather an opportunity to put into practice the skills that have been the focus of the training session. Using some modified rules could help to accomplish that. 

As for deciding which skills to focus on. Well, obviously, it depends on the team. For a beginner team, you'd start with the basic skills (individual skills like catching, and basic throwing - backhands and forehands, and team skills like dumps, forces and stacks perhaps), and hopefully progress over a season to more advanced team and individual skills.  

If you try listing out every possible skill that you could have as the focus of a practice session, there are a whole lot! It would be really difficult to cover everything well. so for a more advanced team I'd say you really want a good idea of what you game plan is, and what skills you need to implement it well. Then you can focus on those skills. 

The key to focussed practice sessions, is in writing things down. What you've already done and what skills you plan on covering for the rest of the season. Of course if a tournament highlights a big weakness, change the plan to work on that next.

I had once been of the opinion that after the most basic individual and team skills are covered, thereafter it would make sense to focus on the more advanced individual skills next, leaving the more advanced team skills until later in the season, closer to whatever tournament is the important one. I'm not so sure about that now.

But anyway, even if your plan covers the various skills in a illogical order, the team would still be better off than they would have been had they had no plan. Just don't come down to training every week and say "What will we do today? Anyone know any drills?"  

The Different levels of defence

This is somewhat of a follow-up post to learning to defend in ultimate. 

I got to thinking about why some defenders give so many free cuts to the offence (and by free, I mean really free, like 'standing 4 meters up the line from a handler' free). I think it's because it can feel intelligent, in a lazy sort of way.

Now obviously I know that there are times when you know you can't cover everything as a defender, and you'll want to take away certain cuts as a priority over others. Maybe you're playing in an important game, and marking someone that you're confident will be able to get open easily, no matter what you do (well first up, consider marking someone else).  It's such an easy decision to decide you're in this situation and to play 'intelligent' ultimate and just give them the cut that's the lesser threat, for free. Telling yourself that this is intelligent play makes this decision very easy to live with. Too easy.

Now while it might be more intelligent than giving every cut for free, it still doesn't seem like the most intelligent thing you could do. (Getting into incredibly good shape, so you can defend better is the most intelligent thing you could do).

As I described in my last post, I think the approach means you miss a learning opportunity. And learning is generally an intelligent thing. So, long story short, I've tried to rank the different levels of defensive play that a player can try, based on the intelligence of the approaches, as I perceive them.

level 0 - Zero Defence: following a guy around, not playing D at all. You shut down zero cuts, the cutter has whatever they like and you can't really learn anything (well nothing that you couldn't learn by watching from the sideline). Zero Defence is popular with beginners - who have no idea where the offense is likely to go, and also sometimes with fatigued experienced players (like me).

level 0.5 -Half Defence: slightly more intelligent - take away one thing- so you choose how your opponent will beat you.  for example, take away the deep cut from a cutter or the up the line cut from a handler and then give them the other option without any contest (like by standing 4 meters away from them). You probably won't get any blocks and again you can't learn much. But you can be happy that you're more intelligent than those level zero guys.

level 1- Actual Defence: try to contest everything. You might not be successful, but at least the offense now have to try. There is some pressure, so mistakes from the offence are more likely. The best part is that you can learn, both about the general subtleties of man D and about the tendencies of the particular cutter you're marking. 

(level 1.x: as above, but you've learned a few things now)

level 2: Team Defence. I'm not sure if I should have this as another level. A simple game plan based on a force is a team defence, but it's within such a context that I've been looking at all the previous levels.
But still, when you're playing with your regular team, you can coordinate with your team mates to shut down more of the viable cuts, like say, by switching. Which I think is intelligent (but be careful not to switch so much you switch to level 0.5).

Playing defence knowing where the rest of your teammates are likely to be in a given scenario, knowing what the mark is like and knowing what sort of break throws are likely could also be in this level. Or maybe it's on an even higher level? A level of being able to read exactly what the offence is likely to do. If I got to that level more often I might be able to blog about it. 

Learning to defend in Ultimate

This is something I had been thinking about last year. I saw so many players that I thought were missing out on huge learning opportunities when they were playing defence that it bugged me sometimes. The issue I'm thinking of is when players give a particular cut for free to the person they're marking (like in a systematic way).

Say for example: at some pick up game or hat tourney - there's a less experienced player defending against some handler who's known for being quite good. And the less experienced player stands like 3 or 4 metres up line of them...thinking the handler is so good that if he gets the disc up the line, he'll definitely throw a score. So instead he gives free back field passes for the entire point. (and this good handler would proceed to do quite a bit for the offence, considering the lack of defensive pressure).

I don't mean to imply an intentional effort to poach off the handler by the way - all I mean is that a defender is giving an offender so much respect that he stops actually trying to defend against him.

(the same thing can happen with marking a recognised good cutter - with players no longer defending properly and just taking away one thing - the deep cut)

Clearly this situation is crazy. And the less experienced player is losing out on a huge learning opportunity. If he marked the other player tightly, he'd possibly get beat a few times, but if he makes an effort to not get beaten with the same move more than once, he should improve his defending hugely and indirectly get to learn some offence moves too.

So my tip for inexperienced players for learning how to defend is.... try defending. As in try to shut down every cut, and remember - if you 'get schooled' - then you should have learned something.

teaching people how to throw a forehand

Teaching people how to throw a forehand is something you'll invariably have to do if you play ultimate with beginners. It's not the most instinctive of throws.

For anyone interested in the topic, I'd recommend a look at this article from the Australian Fyling Disc Association, the book "Essential Ultimate" (amazon link) has some really good stuff about it too. There is even a DVD about perfecting throws - the example footage is about throwing forehands -it's certainly worth a look.

The reason I post about this now, is because of that whole "stick your elbow to your ribcage" approach to teaching forehand throwing. An idea that seems to have some fans. Does anyone know where the concept came from? (possibly it's hinted at in the AFDA article above - but it certainly doesn't say to do this). I really don't like it anyway. As I understand it, people know that it's bad throwing mechanics, but see it as some sort of learning aid to get beginners to focus on using their wrist more.

I think it's of very limited use and what's more it can be troublesome for people to unlearn it as their throwing progresses. Did anyone that reads this learn to throw that way?

To anyone involved in teaching beginners how to throw forehands, I'd urge you to stay away from the elbow-ribcage idea. In my experience, the best way to teach someone how to throw a good forehand, is to teach them how to throw a good forehand. Teach the body position, movements and grip first, encouraging them to focus on throws that spin and stay level.

Teaching your bad arm to throw a forehand can be a useful insight into the process of acquiring such a skill. At first you really have to think about the body mechanics involved, but through enough repetition it almost seems like your arm remembers most of that and your brain can progress onto thinking about the flight of the disc and eventually, just the target. (to reiterate, I really don't think you want your arm to remember the wrong throwing mechanics).

Offence against a poach from an open side dump

In this post I’m going to discuss the open side dump poach. First of all I should clarify what the situation I’m talking about is. I'll try to describe it. Regarding the offence, a player has the disc and a handler team-mate of theirs is set up as a dump (the player with the disc must be far enough away from the ‘forced’ side of the pitch that there is space for this). The defence are basically playing a man-to-man, forcing one sideline approach, apart from one defender. The one with responsibility for covering the dump on the open side is poaching the lane, making upfield passes more difficult, but passes to the dump are free. The intention would be to mark the dump more tightly if they get the disc. The logic would be that this defence wants to force the play towards a particular sideline and get a turnover there. By allowing the offence to go that way, it should help.

I'm sure if you understood what I just said, then you’ve probably seen the situation. It’s a favoured approach of lazy defenders everywhere, perhaps even intelligent defenders, depending on your perspective.

At one stage I was quite a fan of this. When I was playing at a level where players generally didn’t have good break force throws; encouraging them towards the forced sideline meant chances were high they’d just run out of room and turn over. I also liked it as a defender when myself and a DCU team mate of mine (Colin) had a poach-and-switch system going whenever we marked handlers (a defensive sort of rapport – very enjoyable when it worked). As I played higher level ultimate I had sort of decided it wasn’t such a great idea after all. Good handlers didn’t have much trouble throwing breaks away from the forced sideline so it just seemed like a tactic that gives opponents free resets. What’s more, giving good handlers such space allows them time to see the whole field and really take you apart.

I was thinking about what these good handlers do against the situation to really take a team apart. I want to do like them. Thus far, I’ve got 4 offensive approaches that I think a good handler might consider.

1. Ignore it. well be careful, but don't bother making a particular effort to use the poached player in a way you wouldn't do anyway. Look for your usual offence, just don't throw it into the poach. Perhaps a big fake will let you know if they're waiting to lay out. 
2. Move it to the breakside. This could be an opportunity to get an easy break throw off by using the poached player. The poached player moves to the breakside, behind the thrower. The thrower leads them with a pass out to that side and then some easy continuation passes might be available. This will depend on where you are on the pitch and what the offence and defence look like. 
3. A huck from the poached handler. Most throws tend to be easier with no mark, although it might be from a position that's a little too far away from deep cutters. 
4. A give'n'go with the poached player. The forcer is an out of position defender as soon as the the disc is thrown, so the original thrower can go up the line on the open side to get it straight back from the poached player. It's then a really good spot to throw a huck. 

Which of these approaches is best? I don't know! It would depend on the exact situation on the field and the strengths and weaknesses of both teams. The worst approach goes something like the dump going for approach 2 and the player with the disc going for approach 4; a misunderstanding turnover is the likely result. Any approach that doesn't result in a turnover is pretty good for a start. If you can use the opportunity to break down the defence then you're doing really well.

P.S.
I'm still quite unsure of how good an idea it is generally to poach open side dumps as a defensive tactic. I think there are definitely scenarios where it might be useful. Especially if the poach is only early in the stall count and the dump is marked more closely later on. Some of the matches at the world games seemed to have some of that going on (here are some links: 1,2,) and they're all pretty good players!
(although the final point of WUGC-open division has got some closer marking on dumps)

*Update - 5th of March 2010