Rules for a Single Game and Rules for a Whole Tournament

I wonder if a 2011 updated version of the rules is due? I think I remember that an announcement had gone out in the last few months of last year that suggestions for the 2011 changes to the rules should be made (to the rules forum) by a certain date. Obviously, updating the rules is a big job, which is important to get right; but hopefully, if there will be any big changes, the update will be released soon.

I had made some suggestions, on this blog and on the rules forum already mentioned. Looking at the rest of that forum, the pick thread is the only one to get to 2 pages long. It seems the pick rule is one that quite a few people would like to see changed! Although, the pick rule is the rule that I see most frequently misinterpreted, so perhaps there'd be less trouble with the rule were it played as it is written. The fact that it's different to the USA ultimate rule probably doesn't help it get played correctly either.

Where are the main weaknesses left in the rules? What causes the biggest avoidable disputes? I was recently talking this over with my brother and I've come to the opinion that quite a few weaknesses of the sport come down to the fact that the rules are written for a game of ultimate, but, virtually all important games are played as part of tournaments. The rules of the sport are pretty good. The rules specific to each competition can vary.

Because of this, we get the over-complicated way games tend to end. (see the piece I already pointed out above on this blog).

We get confusion over who is entitled to play in game. If a tournament director just says "yeah, sure, play for whoever you want", other teams can get annoyed at what they see as their opposition unfairly picking up players from other teams.

And at big tournaments we get sidelines lined with about 10-20 subs from each team, with whom a player could inadvertently blend in with, and be accused of unfairly sneaking past the defence to get open. Not against the rules of the sport, but it's the duty of the competition organisers to define limits for how many subs a team can have, and how close they can stand to the pitch.

The rules of the sport don't actually say anything about not taking performance enhancing drugs either. (Do they?) I think we can take that as a given, but perhaps championship tournament rules should actually state it.

In conclusion, if you're organising a competition, be sure that any associated rules you need to add, separate to the usual rules of ultimate for isolated games, are well thought through. For instance, if your competition includes a rule that says "no time outs can be called in the last 5 minutes of the game" be sure to say what should happen if someone forgets and calls one. Since that isn't a general rule of the sport, what happens next is not defined in the rules.

And maybe state whether or not players can only play for one team in your competition.

eurodisc

This is just a link to one of my first ever posts. It seems a good time to bring it up again. 

Enthusiasm: a finite resource?

Over the last few years I've treated enthusiasm as a finite resource; it's something to be managed. Overuse it, and like overfishing or something, stocks could become dangerously depleted.

When I talk about enthusiasm here I mean volunteer enthusiasm; something like buy-in except not necessarily specific to just to one team, but rather to an ultimate community or to the sport in general. While team buy-in is required to show up to practice, improve your skills and fitness, volunteer enthusiasm is required for the likes of frisbee admin, running teams or governing bodies, recruiting, coaching, fundraising, PR and so on.

Some of it can be rewarding. For the sake of life happiness, it's good to do things for other people. If you enjoy ultimate and are grateful for having been introduced to it, introducing it to others seems like a good way to pay it forward. That, or organise something, or just find somewhere else to do your share of frisbee admin work.

Anyway, what I'm wondering here is this, am I correct to treat this enthusiasm as a limited resource? Is it a good approach to try to do some stuff, but to stay away from my tolerance limit for frisbee admin? Or is that the wrong way to think about it?

It's not that I see it all as a chore, but I think that often, to work on the stuff you consider really worthwhile or enjoyable, you have to deal with some stuff that you don't care for quite so much.

Perhaps its just been too long since I played a decent tournament. Those have a way of renewing all stocks of ultimate related enthusiasm. Bring on Tom's Tourney.

P.S. to all those people that do way more of this stuff than I do, a great big 'Thank you' from me! I appreciate your contributions.

When spirit scores are tied, who gets the prize?

When spirit scores are tied, and there's only one trophy, who should get it?

I've seen a few different ways of deciding.

1. The higher place team gets the prize.
2. Use rock-paper-scissors to decide.
3. If only one of the tied teams has attended the presentation, give them the trophy.
4. The organisers just announce the winner based on their own opinions
5. Let the team that was mistakenly already given the trophy keep it (don't ask).

In general, I think it's okay to leave the spirit award as a tie. If there is a token prize that can't be easily split between two teams, methods 2 or 3 are fine for deciding who to give it to. 

In the case where it's a decent trophy for an important tournament, I can see the merit of having a well-known convention to decide it. Method 1 does fit the bill. Everyone knows what to expect, even if it is a little arbitrary. 

Presumably, the theory behind method 1 is that it's more difficult to be spirited and good at the sport than to be a spirited loser. I would think there'd be more of an argument to be made for it being more difficult to keep good spirit in close games over blow-outs, rather than just finishing position. But working that out could be too much trouble between a final and a presentation. 

And of course some teams give high scores willy-nilly while other teams only give low scores. Calculating which of the tied teams played those teams that were stingy with spirit scores could be the most accurate method. 

I hear recently this call was made based on the team with the better single game spirit score. Or possibly it was the opposite; the team with the more consistent spirit scores. I think there are arguments for either but neither are great arguments.

 

There are so many variables at work, all at the mercy of the subjective judgements of teams filling out a spirit score sheet that it would be difficult, based on some factor or other, to say for sure that one team is slightly more spirited. Its probably best to just stick with the most straight-forward 'higher placed team gets the trophy' convention. 

Any thoughts?

Be the worst guy in the band

“ Always be the worst guy in every band you’re in. ”

-a legendary jazz guitarist's advice for becoming a good musician. 

The idea holds for other things.

If you want to become good at ultimate; play with a team where you're the worst player. (if they'll have you, you'll improve real fast).

Maybe that conflicts with the idea of loyalty to the one club with whom you started playing. (that is, trying to play with a better team). I've heard some people lament the way the ultimate scene works in Dublin, with many players playing for multiple teams, saying it's a bad thing, and they'd prefer to see everyone fiercely loyal to just one team.

If players can play with a team where they're the worst player, and then later take what they've learned and bring it to even worse players; well the level throughout the scene goes up. It's a very good thing.

Awards in Ultimate

There is a caveat on all that follows; in a team sport like ultimate, individual awards are nothing but a bit of craic. Don't get too hung up on them. Keep your eyes on the team's prize. Win some games, win a championship, win the spirit prize.

I therefore think that the tradition of naming MVPs among teams and at tournament finals is an odd tradition. Regardless of whether a particular MVP was on the winning or losing team.

Given that it happens in other sports, non-ultimate players can relate to these awards, and that's not a bad thing. And the annual IFDA awards are a great excuse for an fun awards ball. So I do like the awards.

There is one set of awards that I've found really odd though; the IFDA 'team of the year'. The one where a panel of experts chooses the 7 best players across all divisions. Looking for it on the website, I can't find it. Maybe they got rid of that? Comparing players from different divisions was ridiculously arbitrary anyway- and  the panel of experts implied that the award had notions of not being as arbitrary as the 'everyone gets a vote' main awards.

I think Rob Kiely had previously suggested a GAA style All-star awards system: picking an all-star team for each gender, with players specified for each position. Such an idea would definitely allow non ultimate players to understand what the award is about. And it does seem to make more sense: no longer comparing men with women or specialist handlers with specialist deeps.

I bring it up now, because that awards ceremony is a long way away. I don't want to offend anyone that won anything, and any changes to the award system would most sensibly be made well in advance.

(this is a link)

The January Effect

I first heard this term from Malcolm Gladwell; it's something he discusses in his book 'Outliers' (Amazon Link), with regard to the birthdays of professional ice hockey players. And This article looks at the same effect in a study of the birthdays of Aussie rules players. These have found that a disproportionate number of top sports people have birthdays early in the year.

The idea here is that if you are born early in the year, you'll do well at youth sports by virtue of being considerably older than someone born later in the year. This advantage then means that you're more likely to get picked onto regional teams or the best teams, where you'll then get the best coaching and resources, thus increasing your advantage.

So if you want to have a kid that's good at sports, mid April should be good :-)

Now obviously, in Ireland at least, there's nowhere near enough youth ultimate for the January effect to happen. I do wonder though, would all the January kids, benefiting from this effect go on to play the mainstream sports, leaving behind any sport inclined December kids to find ultimate later in life?

Well, I decided to see if I could use any data to prove or disprove this theory. I took the birthdays of all 24 of this year's Irish national open team (not hard to find), and calculated the average. In a group with a 'January effect', the average birthday would be very early in the year. And for an inverse January effect, the opposite would be the case.

I found that the average birthday is July 13th. Which is a little after half way through the year. Of course, I've got a sample size of 24 - this is ridiculously small. If a player with a January birthday had been selected ahead of the player with the last birthday in the year (Hag), the average would move to before halfway. I definitely haven't proven anything.

And for all I know, January 1st isn't the cut-off date for all of the main youth sports in Ireland. Blonde Rob just told me that soccer only changed it to January 1st a few years ago. Making my theory even more rubbish.

Aside: While I was working out the average birthday of the national open team, I had a look at the average age too. It's 26. By the time of EUC2011, it'll be 26 years, 8 months and 19 days. Back at WUGC 2004, I remember a few lads worked out an approximate average age of our team -which was something like 20 or 21. Things have changed.