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.