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.