This is the busy week. 104 campers.
First, though, this story from the end of Session B:
Last Wednesday afternoon I came to the fields after running some errands and I saw two gentlemen, probably in their 70's, sitting under the tent watching the proceedings. I went over to introduce myself, and they introduced themselves as twin brothers who live in the area. They said that they heard that there was a frisbee camp in town and that they wanted to see what it was all about. They asked me how I liked the facilities and, when I described how much we liked Northfield School, they seemed delighted. I then found out that the brothers went to this school, one of them was a former Board member, and that their Great-Grandfather had founded the school. They were very happy that the school was being put to good use. By this time, the kids had begun warming up for scrimmaging, so the brothers and I began a lively discussion of the sport. They seemed to be endlessly enthusiastic and interested in what we were doing. We discussed the camp, the stall, self-officiating, and the club and college structure. They would ask questions like "What skill sets do you need to be a handler?". Every time one of the campers did an athletic play (they were scrimmaging by now), they would say things like "Look at that throw!", or "Isn't that wonderful!". I mentioned to them that we were going to have the finals in "Goaltimate Stadium" the following morning as they started to make their way home. The following morning, I walked out of the dorm to start the finals, and it is a nice scene. The dorm overlooks the field in a natural bowl, so campers and parents were spread out on the hill. It is a very nice way to watch the game. As I made my way down to the field, I noticed one of the brothers, my new friend, perched in his fold-up chair with his wife and a friend in prime spectator form, ready to go. I went over to say hello, and I noticed that they all had copies of the 10th Edition Rules in their hands! I asked where they had gotten them, thinking that maybe somebody from the camp had given it to them. They said that had printed them up from the internet and were studying them to get ready for the finals! I was pretty much in love by this point. I spent a few moments watching the game with them, and they appreciated the plays, but also enjoyed learning about zone to man transitions, skill sets, positions, and other strategy.
Onto the week at hand. Our counselors this week:
The All-In Crew:
Dan-O
Jody
Lexi
E-Bay
Dylan
Returning for second week:
Shmi
BVH
Chelsea
Amanda
Jennie
New this week:
Tully Beatty
Isaiah
Zip
Yesterday we ran our normal schedule, but the focus, with double the amount of campers, was to move everyone quickly from place to place. We did have some campers struggle with the heat, but everyone made it through the day even though we ran them pretty hard with the sprints.
Tomorrow we break up into teams for the rest of the week.
Monday, July 31, 2006
NUTC-Session C
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
NUTCvillage-Disc 1 (Extended Version)
Disc 1 features the entire Session B camper/counselor game. All the highlights from the Destructors 15-1 win are available. Some exciting moments were Mike Wiseman landing on Chelsea Dengler after they both went up in the air. The Longmeadow program scored the only goal, and overall the game was a bit sloppy. I continued my trend from last week of finding myself matched up against the fastest kid in camp (perhaps they are trying to set up a mismatch. Hey, if I look down the line and see BVH, Graham, Chelsea, Micah, Dylan, etc......I would do the same) and then beating them deep. I guess I do have some legs left.
As the first game moved rather quickly, Disc 2 is the special "Extended Version". Game 2 saw the Destructors tighten it up for a 10-1 win. The major highlight was when a "ringer" from Amherst High went up and ripped a goal away from Graham and BVH.
Monday, July 24, 2006
NUTC-Session B
Session B dawned at NMH, the birthplace of Ultimate. It is interesting to imagine Jared Kass driving up from Amherst College on Route 63 over 35 years ago to teach summer camp at this very campus, and, while armed with the idea of the "ultimate" game, he did not know he would meet camper Joel Silver and that the seeds of our new sport would be sown. All of this is poignant this week as we have 14 campers from Columbia High Scool attending.
Our counselors this week:
The All-In Crew:
Dan-O
Dylan T
Lexi M
Emily B
Jody Y
Plus:
Micah F-in week 2 of 2
Jeff Graham- MA
Mike Wiseman- MA
Amanda Strout- GA
BVH- NYC
Chelsea Dengler- OR
Jennie Yen- GA
Awesome.
BVH, Jeff, Dylan, and Chelsea showed off their diving skills in the pool this afternoon. We also set up the Goaltimate and DDC courts this week as it was just too hot last week.
This week we have a videographer, Jeff Irvine, filming the proceedings. We are hoping to have our first visitor tomorrow. Ted Munter will be coming out from Boston.
The weather broke yesterday afternoon, so it should be warm and less humid. Perfect Ultimate weather. The campers this week are mostly from New England, and two high school programs, Columbia (NJ) and Longmeadow(MA), are well-represented.
I had a break in the evening, so my daughter and I took our rabbit outside so he could stroll out in the quad. One of our campers came over and he mentioned that he had attended college nationals as a spectator. I asked him what he thought, and he said it was a great experience. I asked what he thought about the finals. He said, "I am sure you have read all about it, but I had some thoughts about the men's final". I asked him what he thought. He said, "Florida was 8-10 men deep, while Wisconsin had an army. It seemed to me, though, that Wisconsin lost the game with shallow pulls. Every pull landed about 10 yards shy of the end zone and by the time that Wisconsin got down the field, Florida had gained another 10 yards and had a short field. So, while Wisconsin made a run at the end of the game, because I think Florida was tired, it was too little too late. If Florida had had to work an extra 20-30 yards every time they had received the pull, maybe they wouldn't have won the game."
Insightful stuff from a young man. It brings up a couple of points. First, how important pulls are, and how their importance seems to be a bit overlooked. I think in 04 6TM probably won 4-5 points per game due to Adam Goff's pulls. This was a huge advantage. The second point is different. A lot of the reporting we read in Ultimate is a point by point description of what happened. While we get this in pro sports, we also benefit from the interpretive analysis as offered by the camper in my discussion. While pure description is needed at this stage as our media outlets are limited, it is my hope that interpretive reporting develops as a means of increasing both our quality, but also our cumulative knowledge.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
NUTC-Session A quick summary
So week 1 is winding down to a close. Time flies when you're having fun. We close tomorrow morning with the tournament final followed by awards then it is check out time.
The counselors did a great job this week. There was a substantial increase in the quality of play over the course of the week and it can be attributed to the fine teaching of the counselors. They also consistently demonstrated best practices during drills. One specific example was Micah and Dylan's team. They were running a standard away cut drill and, at the start, the drill was a bit lazy with lots of turnovers. After Micah and Dylan joined, concentration improved and there were fewer throwaways. Across the board, the counselors put their all into coaching and the campers respond.
The kids ate a lot. There was a 100 kid soccer camp here the week before us, and the kitchen folks told us that our camp (61 kids) ate twice as much as they did. The kids took our warnings about dehydration seriously, but the heat did take its toll in another form: chafing. It got to the point where I had to go buy a case of baby powder.
So the staff has tomorrow afternoon and Friday off. We then reconvene on Saturday for Session B, which is similar in size to this week. Session C is looming with 100 campers.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
NUTC: Camper/Counselor Game
We just had the camper/counselor game.
We won 15-4.
It was all about Flash.
As promised, I "came out of retirement" for the Big Game. I sang myself onto the field with the "Chariots of Fire" theme song. Then we put on the NUTC Eye-Black, and it was...........the Dylan Show. He pretty much ruled the air. He threw a no-look-pass behind him for a goal. He took off his NUTC jersey to reveal a basketball jersey while running for a goal.
During half-time, we had the counselor distance contest. Derek won, followed by Dylan...then for third.....Yours Truly with the Power Grip!
Game point featured the couselors playing off-hand catch/off-hand throw. We did have a turn, but with Emily B running the show (she has had to practice her lefty throws as she had shoulder surgery a year ago) we were able to close it out.
The kids stayed to play pick-up as the sun was going down. Good stuff. Hopefully the heat will break tomorrow.
Monday, July 17, 2006
National Ultimate Training Camp-Session A
Session A of the National Ultimate Training Camp began this past Saturday, and the big story is its new home. The Northfield Campus of the Northfield-Mount Hermon School replaced our old home of three years, Hampshire College. While more remote than Hampshire College, the new campus offers excellent facilities, a great staff, and, most importantly, fields that are probably in the top five that I have seen for Ultimate.
We have 61 campers this week, and they hail from most of the NE states plus Colorado,Illinois, California, Georgia, and Washington, etc. The campers are mostly experienced players, and the theme of camp this year is "No Flash". This means focusing on fundamental skills. We have a camper from New Brunswick that paid her own way to NUTC with babysitting money she earned, and then had her parents drive her the 11 hours to camp.
Tiina Booth, our director, has, as usual, picked an outstanding crop of counselors for this week's session:
Dan Parrish-NC.....has been at every NUTC
Derek Gottleib- CO
Dylan Tunnell- GA
Micah Flynn- MA
Josh Mullen- MA
Jody Avirgan- lately of San Fran
Shmi Narayan- MA
Emily Baecher- MA
Lexi Marsh- MA
My role, as Assistant Director, is to basically herd campers and to espouse wisdom to anyone who will listen.
Registration featured the usual, "I forgot sheets", "I forgot my toothbrush", etc, but everyone arrived safe, received cool gear from VC, Breakmark and Discraft, and everyone got to play some pick-up after signing in.
We woke up bright and early at 6:45am this morning, ate breakfast, and made our way to the fields. One of the nice thing about Northfield is that we can walk to the fields and not have to bus it like we did at Hampshire. We started the day by discussing mental toughness as the thought of the day was "focus on the things you can control". This was appropriate as it was VERY hot today (upper 90's, very humid). Our EMT weighed in on the dangers of dehydration and we kept on the campers all day about drinking enough fluids. We worked on fundamentals and scrimmaged until lunch. The same template followed in the afternoon. I am very impressed with the teaching skills of our counselors. After Rec Hour (swimming, etc), it was dinner. The evening activity was team night in which the campers are divided into teams for the remainder of the week. Teams for this week:
Team Jody/Shmi
Team Josh
Team Dylan/Micah
Team Derek/Emily
Team Dan/Lexi
We did various team games before lights out. Tomorrow looks to be another hot day. Temps in the 90's and humid. We will be focusing on the camp philosophy of creating a safe place by working very hard to ensure that everyone is hydrated. Monday is a fun day as this is the first time the teams get to work together, and it will be in this environment that we will continue to drill fundamentals.
Monday, July 10, 2006
MLU: Player perspectives
The MLU made its debut a week ago at Potlatch, of all places, and, it seems that, despite the dogmatic fervor of the ref "discussion" on RSD (can people disrespecting each other over religious beliefs really be called a discussion?), there were no reported protest marches, sit-ins, or fist fights. While the lack of such off-field conflict is really boring and the general feeling on RSD right now is a mundane "its all good", the attendees at Potlach got to eat cake in that they could partake in "FUN" Ultimate and witness MLU genuflecting before that "black hole of need", the God of Entertain Us, otherwise known as The Spectator. Most accounts seem to point out that the MLU action was indeed fast paced, athletic, and fun to watch, but, as acknowledged by both the organizers and players, in need of refinment and tweaking when it comes to the new rule set and specifically its implementation by the refs.
While RSD can be fun in a Jerry Springer kind of way, I am interested in perpsectives on MLU that exist outside the context of the rigidly polarized and over-emotional world that is that newsgroup. As such, I contacted a number of players and asked them to answer a few questions about their MLU experience. I also contacted Ian McClellan about an interview and he expressed interest, but was unable to complete the interview as he was leaving for vacation. I very much appreciate the time that the authors spent on this, and I think there are some extremely interesting points to be found.
I received the following from Fortunat Mueller:
1) Obviously, the rule differences between MLU and the UPA’s 10th ed. are of great interest. Which of the new MLU rules did you feel worked well this past weekend?
I really like shortened time between points. I guess this isn’t necessarily a difference with the 10th edition as much as it is a difference with the way the game is played today.
2) Which rules did not work well?
The silent stall is a little goofy. I guess I figured that a real 7 second stall would be similar to most elite stall counts anyway, but I didn’t account for the fact that the refs stalls would be as inconsistent (and at times fast) as the players’ stall. I think that people count fast, not because they are cheating, but because they are breathing hard and their pulse is elevated from running. As it turns out, same thing happens with the refs…Maybe this can be fixed with ref training, but more likely, a visible stall clock is a better answer.
The rule that allows the D to set up on any stoppage is goofy and encourages intentional fouling on a fast break. I think it makes sense (maybe) on an offensive violation, but on a defensive violation it is silly to give the D such a big advantage.
Finally the use of replacement discs whenever a disc goes out of bounds (to keep the game moving) makes a lot of sense. However, what the refs frequently did was to give the O a replacement disc even when the old disc was still on the field. That is confusing and strange. In one situation in one of our games, a player got stalled and thew the disc a few yards after the whistle. A D (now O) player went to go pick up the disc to put it back in play. Meanwhile the refs dropped another disc at the spot of the stall, which was picked up by another O player and thrown for a goal. I think situations like that need to be avoided (perhaps this is just a ref training issue).
3) How do you feel the refs did in managing the games?
Highly variable.
Some seemed to no nothing about the rules and were hesitant to do anything. Others were a bit more active.
In general, I thought the level of refereeing was pretty low. I recognize it is a difficult job, and that the refs only had a few hours to actually read the rules, but I was disappointed by the result. I’d say in the games I played in and watched, on receiving fouls (which should be the easiest calls to make because everyone is watching) the refs were about as often wrong as they were right.
4) How did you and other players react to not being able to call your own fouls? Was it difficult to adjust to the idea of intentionally fouling?
Most people didn’t adjust. They called their fouls as a matter of habit (and as it worked out, if you called it loudly enough, the ref usually blew his whistle also).
Other than one or two people, I don’t think there was any intentional fouling to speak of. Of course, players were just getting used to the rules and trying to figure out their teammates so maybe it wasn’t representative of the future of reffed ultimate.
5) Were there any problems with the silent stall?
Yes, see above. The silent and short stall were not so much the problem as was the inconsistency of it.
6) Is there anything else you would like to add?
A few things:
1: I know the organizers did their best and I know for a fact that Ian was working his ass off in the weeks before the event, but it seemed mildly absurd that at the event that was supposed to show the potential of proffesionalized ultimate, there was neither a game clock nor a scoreboard anywhere in site. That is the very first thing I think you need to make ultimate watchable.
2: speaking of timed games…I think they are kind of dull. They make a comeback seem less likely so once a team is up by a couple in the second half, I just kind of tuned out.
3: Paradoxically, the 2 point line led to fewer deep shots, I think. Many teams played junk or had a deep poacher until the O crossed the two point line. This just made the first 20 yards of the field boring. Maybe 2 points is too much for a deep shot (someone suggested 2 points per regular point and 3 points for a deep shot ?), or maybe you need to make the penalty for not playing D till the line more severe by putting the line at midfield or something, but I didn’t think it added anything to the game as it was.
4: I think for reffed ultimate to work, you need to make some changes to the rules that make it easier to referee. Marking fouls that are not during the throw are impossible to call, but can at times have substantial effect on the flow of play. Maybe make the mark stand a few feet away (and offset that disadvantage by some other rule changes that benefit the D), but the way it is, I think even with good refs, those little bumps are hard to call (and it is especially hard to tell as a ref, when you should let them go because of offensive advantage).
5: I missed calling my own fouls and the expectation to play with a sense of honor and fairness. I love the sport of ultimate (strategy, execution and all that), but I also am very attracted to the aspect of self officiating. It is hard to do at the top level, but what in life that is worthwhile is not also difficult.
6: I am not nearly as down on the idea as I sound. I had fun both watching and playing. I’d do it again if asked. I am just not sold on the idea just yet.
Jeff Eastham responded:
1) Obviously, the rule differences between MLU and the UPA's 10th ed. are of great interest. Which of the new MLU rules did you feel worked well this past weekend?
The active travel and receiving foul calls were great. I also liked the stall being reset after a timeout. On out-of-bounds pulls, a new disc was placed at the brick/2-point line by the refs, which sped up the game greatly.
2) Which rules did not work well?
Like I said in my post (on RSD), the awkwardness of some of these rules is probably mainly attributable to the players and refs not being super-familiar with them. That being said, I think fouls and violations away from the disc (picks, holding, etc.) were rarely enforced; not surprising given that there were only 3-4 refs to watch all the action.
3) How do you feel the refs did in managing the games?
They definitely became better as the day went on, but were a still a little shy with the whistle.
4) How did you and other players react to not being able to call your own fouls? Was it difficult to adjust to the idea of intentionally fouling?
I don't think there were many intentional fouls. I remember a couple in particular, but only one was designated as a technical because of it being intentional. Not being able to call my own fouls, even if they were clean, was pretty frustrating. It is hard to imagine how I would react if I was intentionally fouled to prevent a catch or score, and it wasn't called by the refs. I guess that's why I play Ultimate and not Football.
5) Were there any problems with the silent stall?
No, I think the silent stall worked as intended. It did generate a lot of comments directed at the refs when people thought they were counting slowly. As a thrower, it did add an anxiety factor, but seeing as how some people don't listen to the stall anyway.
6) You said, in posting to RSD, that you wouldn't recommend MLU as the "future of the sport". What are some of the primary reasons you feel this way?
This may be a little harsh, looking back. The primary reason for this statement, however, is that Ultimate has spread, and is continuing to spread, in a large part because of the sportsmanship/Sprit of the Game aspects that it possesses. Any time that I have spoken to PE teachers, or sports enthusiasts (and we get past the whole no dogs involved thing), they don't really pay attention and become interested until I mention the lack of referees. Sure, using a Frisbee is pretty unique, and there aren't a ton of non-contact sports, but they can't get over the lack of a 3rd party official. And after they hear the whole respect your opponent and Spirit of the Gameâ spiel, whatever resistance they might have had to teaching or trying Ultimate usually dissolves.
In fact, I believe the lack of ANY self officiating by MLU is a mistake in what appears to be their goal to produce a top-level league of Ultimate players that can be mass-marketed and aired on TV. The sports market is saturated with content as it is. Soccer is a great example of a sport that has great intrinsic appeal, but is not that popular in the US for the simple fact that is a late-comer. If the only thing MLU has going for it is the use of a Frisbee, it will not be able to break through into a broader market where Soccer has struggled for decades.
7) Is there anything else you would like to add?
Again, I think there are lessons to be learned here that would be applicable to the Observer system used in the UPA series. A 3rd party can be helpful in resolving certain aspects of the game that can cause frustration (travel calls, not knowing the rules, line calls, etc.) as well as speeding up the game (time between pulls, putting the disc immediately on the field where it should be put into play instead of a player walking it up).
For the few that don't read RSD, I contacted Ben Wiggins and asked him if I could reprint his post from last week.
My opinions from the Potlatch/MLU weekend...(please excuse my butchering
of the English language)
1) MLU is a very different sport than Ultimate. And it is awesome.
Biggest Pros:
Game moves much more quickly.
Zero spurious travel/pick/stall calls.
Silent stall makes marking more fun, and high-stall situations
more exciting
2-point line plus strategic fouling makes for a more
strategy-intensive game
Rules are designed for fan-friendly play
Short end zones + longer playing field proper makes for a better
game
Biggest Cons:
If you don't like refs, you obviously won't like MLU
This is NOT a good game for beginning players....the level of
physicality and possibility of being injured goes up in
the course of normal play.
Lack of self-refereeing (and the intrinsic benefits of SOTG)
Cost of good referees is high
I loved the game. Much less downtime, a small percentage of the arguments
(and almost none between players) and more gametime pressure make for what
could be a much more marketable sport....which is exactly what it was
designed to be, so that isn't suprising. It's a different game, and probably not one that most ultimate players
want to play recreationally. In the same way that most city-league
basketball players don't want to be called for illegal defense, most
ultimate players would probably not like someone like me pulling their
jersey, intentionally fouling them, or being forced to play at a very high
game pace. Ultimate was designed for players, MLU for the spectators, and
there are some big tradeoffs between the two.
MLU is NOT a replacement for Ultimate....I think they are different
sports, and both have a ton of value. Going back and forth between my MLU
team and my Potlatch team was really fun....each time I did I was excited
for aspects of that game.
2) Potlatch and the MLU were a good mix.
It seemed like the two independent events made each other better. MLU
without Potlatch is elitist and probably doesn't have a fan base yet. I
think the MLU added to Potlatch, was hopefully interesting for the fans,
but didn't detract from the scene, IMO. No one skipped their games to
watch MLU. The crowds depended much more on the schedule than on who was
playing (ie the Potlatch final was by far the biggest crowd). I think this
goes to show that people want to watch good ultimate, and maybe co-ed v.
elite men is not that big of a difference....as long as the players are
playing well.
3) 'Allstar teams'
Pros: Really, really fun to play with some guys that I normally play
against. The athleticism and talent on our team was
incredible, and the Furious/Rhino guys were really fun
to play with.
Hopefully fun for the fans to see a lot of the best players in one
place
Athletic matchups were top-notch (Beau vs. Nord, anyone?)
Geometry of the field changes with so many great throwers...it was
more difficult to poach, and teams were not constrained
to rigid offenses that allow the weak-link throwers to
survive.
Cons: Lack of coordination was the biggest downside. Teams with players
from a bunch of different UPA teams had troubles getting flow
going....and flow proved more valuable than just having a bunch
of great players, since athleticism mostly cancelled out. In
other words...DoG would probably have done pretty well in
the MLU tournament as a cohesive team that doesn't turn the
disc over.
MLU won't be an unqualified success until the refereed system
works for cohesive teams at intermediate skill in a
game with something real on the line. It was a success, just
not an unqualified success...I have faith that Ian, Toad, et
all will get it there.
4) Refereeing is the toughest job in sports
The Refs for MLU were much, much better than I think we could have hoped
for, given that this was most people's first time. I would not have had
any faith in first-time basketball refs, and I had faith in these refs.
They deserve a ton of praise for the job they did.
In general, these referees kept the whistle hidden, a set a precedent
early on that they were not going to call very much. I'm going to review a
set of calls (or non-calls) that I was involved in...I feel like very few
players were trying to push the envelope of the rules but I think that I
got a pretty good feel for what would be acceptable in a refereed game
with experienced observers.
I'm not trying to show how smart I am, or how sneaky....but I really felt
like we wouldn't know the limits of the MLU rules unless we tested them,
so pushing the limits was definitely one of my lower-priority goals for
the weekend.
Game 2: NW v NE (I wasn't at game 1 vs. the SE until the very end)
The faster pace of the game was amazing. If you pulled out of bounds, you
still had to run down hard on D, because a new disc came into play
immediately at the brick. Similarly, a new disc came in after
out-of-bounds turnovers....minimizing downtime. Awesome...I have always
thought that pulling was the most boring part of the game for this
reason....it can be up to a minute of downtime. Great change.
Early on, I found myself trying to get my teammates to foul more, since it
seemed like the refs were calling few fouls. Even small fouls on the mark,
especially before the throw is started, made a big difference in the game
(if you could grab an arm, and stop a pivot to an open throw, that
wouldn't be called....but a big advantage for the D). I found out once I
got on the field that fouling is tough...first you have to catch up to the
guy, then you have to know a throw is coming, then you have to do
something about it. Not as easy as I thought.
My first "brilliant" idea was to try and intentional pick play. At this
point, the refs had called maybe 1 pick over 3 games....maybe we could get
an open 2-pointer out of it. Our guy rolled off the back of the stack and
I gave his defender some friction (ok, a lot of friction...kind of a
clumsy attempt). I was immediately called for the pick...good call by the
refs, who were right on top of it. If I had been more subtle, I think they
still would have seen it. Refs 1, blw 0.
(By the way, the new pick rule (D player can't be picked off of another D
player) is sweet for game-play, though the obvious tradeoff is that the
game is slightly more dangerous.)
My next "brilliant" idea was on D. FM caught a swing about 8 yards out of
the end zone, and I could see in his eyes that he had an open hammer...as
he started to cock the hammer I tackled him. Grabbed both arms, wrapped
him up, fell down on top of him.
I was whistled for the foul. Should I have been given a tech? (a Tech = 2
personal fouls). Yeah, probably. The result of the play was that Forch had
the disc at stall 0, looking at essentially the same formation as before
(O can reset on a D foul, but they were already pretty well stacked up).
He didn't have any motion, though....I call this a win for the D. They
scored several throws later...but I think professional fouling will, as
reffed games keep going on...become much more commonplace.
I hope, of course, that I would never do this in an Ultimate game. Like I
said, very different sports, and I felt no guilt at all, since fouling is
a part of MLU. Me tackling FM increases the chance that one of us gets
hurt, for sure.
In general, we (the NW) did not foul as much as we should have. On a
couple of 2-point throws we allowed huckers to throw unimpeded....and in a
serious MLU game, I think that extra point makes it worthwhile to tackle
that hucker.
Last note....If a big guy went deep on me for a 2-pointer, I was resolved
to drag him down. Give them the disc on the goalline for 1 point, prevent
the 2, swallow my pride and make the team-first-play. In the next rule
edition, I would suggest that a technical foul called on a 2-point
receiver should give the receiver the disc on the goalline, with the first
throw being worth 2 points....
Game 3: NW v SW
I spent most of this game as a cup player in our transition zone, designed
to stop the 2 point bomb. As such, I got to know Parker Krug really
well....I fouled him probably 5-6 times that would have gotten called in
an ultimate game, and maybe 4 of those probably should have been called by
the refs, and only two were. The two that were called were called quickly
and I'd say overall good refereeing. Maybe I should have gotten a tech for
the bearhug....but like I said, I really didn't want that 80-yard Krugbomb
coming out.
All in all, the 2-pointer changed on-field strategies more than the
refereeing, it seemed to me...
Al, if you're listening, he did throw that huge thumber on a meaningful
point.
I also threw a turnover in this game...I was the 2 in a 4-person string
play. MN came and put a mark on me, and as I went to throw my backhand, he
grabbed my throwing arm as I pivoted. I tried to pivot through the 'foul'
and get the throw off anyway (Ultimate based instinct) and my throw missed
the receiver. The word foul was on my lips...but there was no whistle, so
I ran back to cover on D.
Missed call? Yeah, but it happens both ways. If you want all the good
things about refs, you have to accept that this play might happen and be
out of your control. Also...no telling that I don't call this foul in and
Ultimate game, MN goes to the observer, and I lose the disc anyways....
At two points in this game, a referee came up to me and gave me a
technical foul warning. Once was for a hard foul (the bearhug) and once
was for 'excessive celebration'. On both occasions, I would not have been
surprised to have been T'd up, and I think the warning told me that I
could get away with that stuff, rather than its intended goal. Gotta
remember, I think, that in the MLU I expect to be reprimanded by a call,
not by my own conscience...blow that whistle. Was my celebration poor
sportsmanship? Yeah, probably....but T'ing me up there would have been a
strong message to everyone else, and as it was, no one heard the warning
but me.
Aside: This excessive celebrating was for a play against a guy I think is
one of the best defenders in the country....it was an outpouring of my own
surprise/elation, and I hope he isn't pissed that I ran around like a damn
fool afterwards. Definitely not premeditated. Looking back, I regret that.
There were several stalls in this game....I LOVE the silent count. First
off, the 7-second count feels like forever, and I would be is longer on
average than the 10-second count in big Ultimate games. When I observed
college Nats one year I was asked to rule on a contested stall...the irate
marker calmed down real quick when I showed him my stopwatch that said
"5.3". wow.
Anyway, the 2 seconds at the end of the count....you can feel both teams
fan's edging toward the field to see whats...gonna....happen....
It's sweet.
Game 4: Final vs. SE
Two big points stand out in this game.
Early in the game, I was guarding TG...he cut breakside for a high
inside-out backhand. He went up with two hands, I went up with 1, and used
my other hand to rake down his right arm. In an Ultimate game he would
definitely call it, here it was a good physical play, evidently. While he
stood and argued I took off for a 2-point bomb from one of our
handlers....just goes to show, if you want to argue, you might get beat
(although, in this case, TG just ran me down and skied me....damn.).
Around halftime, I got locked in on one of the SE dump handlers, CS. I
found that if I waited until stalling 2-3, when I was sure both backfield
referees were looking at the thrower/marker, I could grab CS's jersey and
drag him down. At 4-5 then, when he should have been getting open, he was
trying to regain his balance...their O ground to a halt and they had to
call a TO.
CS complained to the ref during the TO, and had I tried it again right
then I would have likely been called. But, if I were being crafty, I would
have waited to use that trick again later. More coordinated refs might
call this, or they might not (I remember similar stuff going uncalled on
my HS basketball team). Maybe CS would learn to handfight me away, so I
couldn't do this....either way, the game gets more physical. More like
basketball physicality, for sure.
As it was, I subbed off during the TO....another sweet rule that we used
well, bringing in our two subs on every timeout possible.
At the end of the final game...we went up 15-12 with about a minute of
game time left. We concentrated on the 2-pointer, and they scored the 1 in
about 10 seconds. Then we threw a quick turn and they scored again
quickly....now it was 15-14 with 9 seconds left. Had we worked those 9
seconds off of the clock before the turn, it would have been game
over...someone on RSD said that down by 4 with a minute left would be
impossible, and I think that is wrong. Especially with the 2-point line,
you can come back quick against the clock. Still harder to come back vs.
the clock than versus the score, though.
Of the four teams, I think the SE used the MLU strategies the best,
playing the 2-point line particularly well on fastbreaks.
If anyone actually read all this....banana banana banana. Go Cradle
Robbers. A big ThankYou to Gavin Sing, Andy Lovseth, all the refs, Ian
McClellan, the NUA crew, and Sammy CK for putting this one.
blw
This just in from Ricky Eikstadt:
1) Obviously, the rule differences between MLU and the UPA’s 10th ed. are of great interest. Which of the new MLU rules did you feel worked well this past weekend?
a. 60-sec between pulls – the game’s pace was brisk
b. putting the disc in play within 7 seconds
c. lower stall count
d. fouls were called by refs, so the game pace was much faster (no discussions about fouls.) however this had it’s drawbacks (below)
e. there wasn’t much discontent between players when there were fouls and the refs called them. I felt like the refs calling a foul took the heat off players and potential conflicts were less regular.
2) Which rules did not work well?
a. At times, during play, the disc is put into play at a spot different from where the disc actually is. For instance, a long throw out of bounds or a little out the back of the endzone, etc. in these cases, the ref would place a disc at the OOB points or the place on the playing field proper where the disc went out. This was quite confusing at times to have the new disc suddenly be in play _and live_ despite the fact that the previous disc was still nearby.
b. Calling picks was very difficult as a ref. The pick rule says that defenders running into one another is not a pick. So as a ref you constantly had to parse the cause of a potential pick, then decide, then blow the whistle.
c. Marking fouls were vitually impossible to call well. The ref behind is screened by the thrower. The ref in front is screened by the marker (for the most part.) It was easy to get away with fouls.
d. Since so few fouls were called, I think you should foul out after 2 or 3 fouls instead of 4. I don’t know if anyone got 3 fouls in one game.
3) How do you feel the refs did in managing the games?
a. I, personally, missed several calls, which after I considered them should have been called.
b. I know I both fouled and was fouled numerous times and it went uncalled.
c. The refs did keep the pace of the game brisk.
4) How did you and other players react to not being able to call your own fouls? Was it difficult to adjust to the idea of intentionally fouling?
a. It was frustrating at times. It led to me being stalled one time, when I was fouled but it wasn’t called and I had a lapse for a moment when I was thinking about being fouled but had no recourse. I wasted stall time and was consequently stalled.
5) Is there anything else you would like to add?
The refs helped in many ways, however, the marking fouls and picks (which are the two things that really slow down the game currently) went uncalled a lot or incorrectly called. These areas will require some training to do right as a ref.
Let's Talk About the Money
The MLU debate on RSD has fractured into many different threads. There are discussions about specific rules, perspectives from players, concern from some, hard selling from others, etc. There is very little discussion, though, about what is driving the vision of MLU and, in the end, what will be considered an objective measure of its vision and success. This subject is lurking in the shadows, assumed by some to be the reward for the vision of this, potential, next step, and ignored by others, who, like high school students in health class, really don't want to talk about how to make babies. This subject is, of course, money.
There is no need to waste time placing perceived blame for the disconnect that has characterized the discussion on RSD. The result, though, is a polarized discussion in which the parties are talking about two distinct set of concerns. My opinion is that the conversation that MLU wants to have is not "Is the 2-point line good for Ultimate?", it is "Does the 2-point line create more excitement for the spectator? (and then, it follows, create the willingness on the spectators part to pay for witnessing said excitement)." While it is noble that folks are concerned for the integrity of Ultimate and I am glad to see folks write about their concerns, it is pretty obvious that MLU does not care about, nor wishes to discuss, the basic values of the sport as defined by the Spirit of the Game, etc. Toad's response to Ben Wiggin's comment that Ultimate and MLU are two different sports? MLU "puts the 'real sport' feel into ultimate". Ian said that "'Fairness' from the players perspective is obviously very important, but not more important than trying to make ultimate a better SHOW". I personally do not have a problem with MLU's lack of concern for the integrity of Ultimate as defined by the 10th edition when I am able, instead, to view MLU as a business proposition. Certainly, I don't love having to chew on Toad's disrespect every morning (he is certainly not alone in dishing this out), but as I have said before, one should expect that kind of tone when one dips their toe into the RSD waters.
So, if the MLU conversation on RSD is not about what is best for Ultimate, what are we talking about? Well, I think we are discussing MLU's business plan, but we are putting the cart before the horse in the sense that we are discussing the specifics of the plan before agreeing upon the premise that generated the plan. MLU has not publicly offered us their business plan, nor are they required to do so, but as they have been willing to engage in a discussion on RSD, there have been some quotes that do illuminate their priorities and assumptions. I think a pretty good quote is one from Ian, "To take ultimate to the prime time level that it could be at (someday), we need to start seriously reaching, attracting, and pleasing larger numbers of spectators. Spectators want to believe they are watching a well-officiated game". Toad has alluded to doing some "sports research" that has apparently informed MLU's business plan. Again, the concern is not whether refs, for example, are good for Ultimate. MLU has concluded, due to, it sounds like, personal experience and some research, that refs are "necessary" in order to make Ultimate attractive enough to entice spectators to part with their dollars. So, while the conclusion that Ultimate needs to be changed (in this case via the MLU rule set) in order to make money is an interesting possible discussion, MLU has already arrived at this conclusion, have built a business model around this conclusion, and, as any belief system cannot be refuted, this conclusion (read: business plan) will be validated (or invalidated) not by theory, but by revenue (or lack thereof).
The folks at MLU have been pretty clear about this conclusion and the resulting business plan, but I guess one could say they are guilty of not tattooing it on our foreheads so we can be reminded every morning of what exactly their priority is. I won't give lengthy quotes, but Toad and Ian have said over and over that they want to make MLU a "show", that they want to "maximize the entertainment value", and that they will do whatever it takes to "get spectators into the seats". In short, they want to make money.
So is all the froth on RSD due to some deep-seeded discomfort we have with folks making money off the sport? I don't think so. No one has a problem with VC, Gaia, or Ultivillage developing business models that profit off of Ultimate. In this day and age, any news is good publicity, so perhaps MLU has adopted a publicity strategy in the form of a caustic tone in order to maintain visibility, and, as an additional payoff, they get free market research from the resulting RSD firestorm and rule ideas.
While I don't have any specific issue with MLU's plan to derive profit from Ultimate, I would say that I am highly suspicious of "creating a show", "maximizing the entertainment value" and "improving the marketability" as motivations as they do not represent, for me, values that I am personally concerned with, but, being the contrarian that I am, that kind of language will always raise a red flag for me. I have found, when attending any spectacle like a sporting event, that I am negatively distracted by The Show's attempt to create excitement, and I find such attempts, frankly, a bit insulting. However, my personal feelings about being catered to are not the topic at hand and perhaps only serve to marginalize myself as a potential demographic sector.
While I may be suspicious, I don't think there is any reason to feel threatened by MLU's desire to experiment with marketing, exposure, and any pay out that might result. Ian said, on Thursday, in a reasonable and calm tone that MLU "seeks to be an option and will never be a replacement" for the UPA. On the other side, the attraction of the ethical challenge that is SOTG and the fact that SOTG could actually be a differentiating asset rang out clearly in my "MLU: Players Perspectives" post, and these were voiced by top-level, elite players. So, perhaps we have reached detente, and maybe the tone of RSD is correct, "Its all good"....even if we are talking about money.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Hating Our Opponents?
A couple of months ago, there was an RSD thread about Aaron Bell from Oregon. The thread was the fairly typical mid-May "Aaron for Callahan" thread. One of the responses caught my attention, though. The author described competing against Aaron and what Aaron did when he found out that the author was having some gear issues. The author wrote, "That day one of my cleats was giving me trouble and I was moving my leg kind of funny to try to adjust it. Aaron comes over in between points and after noticing me doing this. He offers me a brace to help whatever is injured. I explain there is no injury but am dumbfounded that he would do this. I was his opponent. I hate my opponent no matter who it is. I am not going to help them out, let alone in the middle of a game".
I kept coming back to the line "I hate my opponent no matter who it is". At first, I figured that "hate" was probably just not the best word choice and that the author was simply trying to explain that he would never purposefully give an opponent any kind of advantage. Maybe it was meant as a turn of phrase like "Let's crush them". I can understand that. This type of gamesmanship happens all the time. We want our opponents to come to our field, we try to learn their plays, we dig for any psychological advantage, etc.
But then I started to wonder "What if the author actually meant 'hate'?" or "What if a player actually hates his opponents?" I guess I found this idea somewhat troubling. Hate to me is a very strong word and I think my bias is that this emotion can potentially color one's world view to the point where one is capable of destructive actions. I started to look into this a bit and began by looking the word up in the dictionary. The author's use is as a verb, and the definition is "feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone)". After looking this up, my next question was "Is it possible to hate our opponent and yet still act in a manner consistent with The Spirit of the Game". I specifically mean "never at the expense of mutual respect among players". Another way to phrase this is "if we hate our opponents, are we more likely to engage in 'taunting of opposing players, dangerous aggression, etc'?". I decided to look up "respect". The definition is: "feeling deep admiration for someone". This blog is a pretty clear testament to my lack of literary scholarship, but, to this uneducated soul, those two definitions are pretty much directly opposite one other. So, by the book, I would say that the answer is that hating our opponents is inconsistent with SOTG. For the sake of the following discussion, "hate" is meant in the context of a "self-generated" source of motivation, not as an emotional reaction to our opponents behavior or actions, and I probably need to be very clear that I am not calling the author of that post an unspirited player. I don't know who the author is, how he behaves on or off the field, or what the actual intent of his words were. Thankfully, most of us are studies in complexity and we embrace many perspectives that are not limited to the black and white definitions of a dictionary.
I think it is safe to say that, buried frequently behind the mask of humor, displays of mild disrespect are a common source of motivation for us Ultimate players (and, I am sure, other athletes as well). I recall once playing a talented team and by a "perfect storm" of events, we ended up bageling our opponent, which was clearly acknowledged by both sides as a fluke. Close to the end of the game, they took a time out, and, while trying to keep our chuckling and voices down to respectful levels, we said "let's bagel these guys and make them not want to play this sport again". I think the myriad of debates around spiking and/or showing the disc are also relevant. Other examples could be as benign as "Let's kick their ass".
Perhaps it is helpful, for the moment, to view our behavior from "mildly disrespectful" to "hateful" as a continuum rather than distinct entities. If so, why do we need to use this type of behavior to motivate ourselves? Perhaps it indicates a clear display of our imagined superiority. Or, perhaps, it serves to depersonalize our opponent enough to let us feel comfortable with vaquishing our foe. Maybe, in its mild forms, it is simply to have fun at our opponents expense. I will argue, though, that mild forms of disrespect toward our opponent distract us from focusing on ourselves and the task at hand, and that actual hate for our opponents is probably an immature (meaning not fully realized) method of trying to get the best out of ourselves. I use the word immature with deliberate caution as it is not only judgmental, but implies an assumption that I am mature or in a place to comment on others maturity. I also think that hate becomes potentially problematic as we tend to assume that the way we treat others is the way they are treating us. If so, then if I hate my opponent, I assume that they hate me as well. To me, this has to color our interpretations of our opponents behaviors.
At the very real risk of redundancy, I will say that I think the view of competition as the cooperative exercise of challenging both parties to reach their full potential as offered by "The Inner Game of Tennis" is not only a positive but a mature view of competition that sits very neatly with SOTG. This is to say that we can only perform at our peak, which I will argue is a viable source of motivation, if we welcome a full challenge from our opponent. The necessity to acknowledge our opponents talents and abilities might provide a foundation for respect. As an aside, Dean Smith, in his pre-game press conferences, always acknowledged the abilities of his opponents, and he would go further to cite the variety of ways in which his opponent held a psychological advantage over his team. So, while such behavior is certainly not mandatory, I think that viewing Aaron Bell's concern for his opponent through the lens of a realization that we need our opponents in order to reach our full potential will make us less "dumbfounded" by his actions, and, perhaps, make us realize that "hate", as it is strictly defined, is not a sustainable means of achieving full performance.
