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?