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.
Monday, July 10, 2006
MLU: Player perspectives
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.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Boston Invitational 2006-Write-Up
Saturday:
The day started off rainy, so I hung out underneath the shelter at Frisbee Central. This meant getting to watch Dog play Potomac on field 8, which also meant, of course, getting to see all of Al's turnover's. Dog definitely took some time to find their groove, and I noticed, in most of the first round games, that the pace was a bit off from what I was expecting. I moved quickly to check out Clapham on field 7, and they're a fun team to watch. Nothing earth shattering, but good skills and they run hard. I moved on to check out the new-look Brute squad, and I must say that it is a bit jarring to see the Godiva players wearing Brute shirts. They look very solid throughout the day. In the end, a New Boston Team was put together and Godiva vets like Mo, VY, and Sarah Cook showed up. They pulled off an upset of Lotus 13-12 in the first round, but ended up 4th in the pool. While there seems to be a desire to continue the Godiva pedigree, I think the general sense was that this "NBT" team was a pick-up team.
I moved on to check out Metal playing Sub. Close game. Metal seemed more comfortable with longer possessions than in the past. They ended up beating Sub by 1, I believe, and ended up winning their pool, which was great.
I checked in on the Mixed Div and things seemed to be running fine. The first real news of the day was Camelot beating 6TM 14-12. 6TM was inconsistent on offense, but looked pretty good when I was looking on. Camelot is very defined about their approach, and they seem more active and aggressive on D than in years past. Lorne displayed high sportsmanship, as usual. I saw him quietly intervene two times when his players had made calls, and both times his teammates changed their calls. I am not much for the whole "the disc never lies" karma thing, but I did think at the time that if Camelot overturned those calls that they would win the game.
I went for a run during round three.
I got back from run in time to eat some lunch and pick out a seat for the Dog-Clapham game. It was around this time, during a conversation, that I got my first (of 2-3) "Is that going to go into your blog?" comment. That was a bit weird. It will probably get to the point where I will need to define if my conversations are on or off the record.
The Dog-Clapham game began with a lot of pace. Good offense and defense on both sides. The gentleman that Al mentioned talking to beat Zip deep for a goal early on. You don't see that very often. Dog got a Callahan goal late in the first half. Both teams tried some standard cup zone. Someone commented that the zone looks seemed as much or more about slowing the pace down than trying to get a block. Al threw a lot of hammers. Zip seemed to have a good day and I was impressed by Paul V's work on O.
After gathering scores in the Mixed Division, I came back to check out the Dog-Metal crossover. I was a bit disappointed that the game was meaningless from a formats point of view, but I was pleasantly surprised by the overall level of intensity. Unfortunately, early on, Dog made The Worst Call of the Day when a strip was called that took away a Callahan goal for Metal. I was about 15 yards away and had a good angle. Metal clearly gained possession first. The thing that bothered me as a spectator was that the call came across as "We're Dog. Callahan's don't happen to us". I am not saying that this was the intention of the player that made the call and I do trust that he acted fairly, but it did feel like one of a few examples over the weekend of "when the going gets tough...out come the calls". To digress for a moment, the refereeing debacles at the World Cup have reinforced my feeling that those who think that adding refs alone will take our sport to the next level are at best misguided, but if I am going to be candid, it's calls like that strip call that are frustrating for the spectators and make me wonder if self-officiating will go down as a failed social experiment. Honestly, I lost interest in the game at that point and slowly made my way around to check out Brute Squad again. As I was leaving field 8, though, Dog turned the disc over in the end zone they were attacking, and after some good defense, Jim P called a stall on the person he was guarding. After a brief discussion, Jim overturned his call and Metal promptly converted the break. While it might seem hokey, I left with my confidence in self-officiating intact. I was glad to hear that these calls were not the difference makers in the game as Metal went up by 3 or 4 after half, but was unable to close out. Dog ended up winning 15-13.
I stopped in on the Brute-Stella game, and Brute was very much in control. I talked with Beth N a bit after the game, and I agreed with her that seemed slightly tired on D. I was not impressed with Stella's throws and Brute seemed to be a much deeper team.
I finished the day checking out the 1v2 pool play games in the Mixed Division. When I got to the 6TM-Puppet Regime game, Puppet was up 6-1. One of my Wellesley girls, Ralph, is trying out for 6TM, and she made a very nice block which began a run for 6TM. Puppet played inconsistently all day and ended up losing 13-11. As this is Puppet's first tournament of the year, one gets the feeling like the wheels are just getting going for them. They will be fine in a few months. 6TM also had an inconsistent day, and they are very much just beginning to get a feel for what their roster will look like for 06. It will be very different from previous years, and as Marshall said "We got some work to do". I moved over to the Slow White-Amp game as SW scored to make it 10-9. This game probably had the highest pace of any mixed game I watched. Both teams were playing well on both sides of the disc. Jasper had some very nice long throws for Slow White, and Doc did a good job of running the show for Amp. I would not be surprised if the finals was a rematch of this game.
Sunday:
There was only one team with anything truly at stake in Open quarters and it was Clapham. A win against Goat would put them in semis and give them the chance, due to a bye, to watch England in the round of 16. As consolation semis occurred in the next round, there was clearly much to play for and Clapham seemed very fired up and won pretty easily. They played good defense and were able to convert their breaks. In general, Clapham does nothing very different. They like to break the mark on O, and they can play good D when they have energy. I did find that their overall pace fluctuated quite a bit from game to game.
After Clapham secured their victory, about 40 folks descended upon Frisbee Central when the word got out that Tommy had brought his satellite dish to the fields plus 3!! TV's. His efforts were met with great cheers by the Clapham guys, and it was fun to watch the game with them and get a glimpse of real appreciation for the game.
I went to check in on Brute Squad in their quarters game. They were very on all weekend and seemed to be more athletic and have better skills than everyone else. I was quite impressed, and they cruised to the championship without being really challenged. Congrats to them on a great start to the season!
I found the Open semis to be a bit low key. I was very impressed with Dog's man defense over the weekend and they handled Sub Zero 15-11. In the other semi, Clapham was a bit slow to get going and Metal jumped out to an early lead that they held to a 15-11 win. Clapham plays a very clean game and makes very few calls as does Metal, so their semi was a good show of athleticism. Clapham looked long at the end of the game, and in one exciting sequence, Rob A was able to go deep for a huge gainer to the end zone line, but his push pass attempt to a teammate running by him fluttered in the wind...big groans from the crowd.
The Open final was played with a lot of intensity and it was very fun to watch. I would say that a key part of the game is that Dog's O just seemed easier. They had a few 2 or 3 pass points, while Metal had to work very hard and throw a lot of passes against both Dog's person and zone D looks. I think Metal's willingness to possess the disc bodes well for them, but they had to work a lot harder than Dog. Zip made some huge cuts for Dog and was a factor on both sides of the disc. Ryan (newly in from Pike) made a great layout grab for a goal, but Dog took half by a couple. Jeff G had a lot of energy for this game and had great ups, but several times was working against double coverage (twice it was both Mahoney brothers). Brian Stout, whose body type might be the prototype for the future of Ultimate, had two huge D's followed once by a goal and the second by a big layout grab. This second grab, though, was brought back due a travel call, so instead of it being 12-10 it ended up 13-9....that is a big momentum shift. Dog was able to close the game out at 15-11. I was very impressed with Dog's intensity over the weekend. They ran very well and played good defense. They deserve congratulations for their second Boston Invite championship in a row. If I have any negative comments at all, it was that I felt that the other semis teams called cleaner games over the course of the weekend, but that is just my opinion.
Mixed quarters went to seed, and I spent some time watching semis. Slow White jumped out on Camelot 8-3, but Camelot made a game out of it before losing 14-12. Slow White had tightened their rotation for this game and Camelot did have a bit of trouble matching up. Overall, though, I thought Camelot made a great showing. They have strong women and men players, and Lorne really runs their O very well. In the other quarters, Amp continued their strong weekend by beating 6TM 15-6. It looked like 6TM struggled on O.
The finals, as I predicted, was a rematch of pool play. I got there at the beginning of the second half as Slow White went up 9-8 over Amp. They trade to 11-11. Both teams are running tight rotations. Slow White is getting good long throws from Teddy, but Amp is very good at possessing the disc. Doc runs the O with confidence, and Jeff is a strong D handler and his ability to run the D's offense should be a source of confidence for them this year. The teams trade until 11-11, then Rosie put up a throw for Teddy at the back of the end zone, but he can't grab it as it goes out the back. Amp works it all the way down field for the big break, 12-11. Amp secures another break to go up 13-11, and then, Teddy gets footblocked about 15 yards out of Slow White's end zone. Teddy gets the disc back with a huge block, but the teams trade turnovers. Then Sloppy gets a big catch in the end zone to bring it to 13-12. Amp displays confidence in their ability to possess the disc, and the teams trade to a 15-13 win for Amp. Amp looks very good this year, and I can see why the loss of Doc last year was a big deal. They have fast and athletic women and their overall rotation is tight and organized. I am going to be very interested to see how their Philly Invite tournament plays out as most of the top Mid-Atlantic and NE teams will be there. So congrats to Amp on their win in Boston!
As usual, Tommy and Barbara ran a great show and the teams seemed appreciative. We were lucky to avoid the rain that swamped other parts of our area.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Boston Invitational 2006: Top 3 Stories
Boston in late June. The Boston Invitational kicks us off into summer with 60+ teams sharing the fields at Devens, MA. Many of the teams are getting final looks at their tryouts and are preparing to make decisions about what their roster will look like for the UPA Champ Series. While there will be lots of shuffling around after this weekend as recently cut players will seek other avenues, for this weekend, at least, there is still the promise and hope of carving out a spot on the number one option.
The new season comes to us with the promise of goals to achieve, but with that also comes uncertainty in the face of changing rosters and leadership. This uncertainty is of interest to us observers as it signals a change in the landscape. A change to the understood order. This weekend will be the first time we get to see the results of what occurred over the winter and spring, and we will try, probably unrealistically, to get a sense of how these changes will play out come the fall.
So, going into this tournament, my top three points of interest are:
1) The New Boston Team-Brute Squad fallout
We all saw it on RSD. I put it on this blog. Leaders of Brute Squad were going to merge with the ashes of Lady Godiva and form a New Boston Team. Well, it didn't happen. The core group leading the change ended up going back to Brute. I have heard rumors that the New Boston Team is very young, with many recent college graduate tryouts, and that many of the Godiva vets have jumped ship to play on other teams including Brute and West Coast options. Sounds like there will be no clear and direct heir to the Godiva pedigree this season. Sitting here, it seems that Brute has the momentum right now, but I am going to be very curious about what this New Boston Team looks like.
2) Mixed: Phase 2
The Mixed Division benefits from getting an additional tournament in Mixed Easterns, so it will be interesting to see the teams after their initial cuts and recruiting efforts. Slow White and 6TM have had very different springs. Slow White had a robust recruiting year, and it seems like their big guns like Teddy and Jaspar have declined other options in an effort to build upon the 05 love. They brought two squads to Mixed Easterns, and I must say that the 20 or so players that may have been cut between then and now would make for a pretty good team. 6TM is facing a rebuilding year. There will be lots of turnover this year: Keri Dorko, Joggles, and Lauren Casey have all graduated from college and have moved on. LJ and Mary Hunt Martin have also moved on. Jay Clyne and Hunt won't be around this weekend. Holly and Olen have moved to the mid-west. Adam Goff is healing from surgery. Both these teams face pressure and expectations, so it will be interesting to see how they handle it.
3) Clapham
I am very interested in seeing the Brits play and they do bring some interest to the somewhat same old-same old Open Elite div. This is not to say that I won't be hanging out watching this div, it is just that other than Clapham it is the usual suspects: Pike, Dog, Metal, Goat, Sub, etc. One of my big goals for the weekend is to actually introduce myself to Timmy.
So does Clapham have a shot at semis? I have no clue. I just know that I would want to be playing them around 11am on Sunday morning...assuming that England wins Pool B. My prediction? Fire is thrown in the "Go ahead, mate, take the PT, I will back at the hotel watching the round of 16" rosham.
Monday, June 12, 2006
What is the story?
I am pretty excited about the US vs Czech game today. As their path through the "group of death" begins, I am going to be very curious to see how they manage the experience. I spoke to a friend the other day who said "Of course, you know they are not going to get into the finals". Get into the finals? Even in the light of their great showing of 2002, getting into the round of 16 will be a great feat this year and we cannot burden our team with the expectation that advancing is a given. Of course, I have heard the usual comments about how boring soccer is, and I listen with great sympathy as the person lays out for me, without insight, their inability to concentrate for longer than it takes for the TV to show the replay of a football play. People are entitled to their opinions, of course, but these types of comments, combined with some assumptions we make about Ultimate, have made me wonder about what it is that attracts us to sports and makes us invest, as fans, in the experience of athletics and cheering for our teams. I think we think we know....but I am not so sure that we do.
If you were to ask most people what they like about watching sports, they might say "because it is exciting". I agree, but what, exactly, makes sports exciting? If we go back to soccer, it would seem that a big problem is the lack of scoring, and this is what makes it unexciting. If the amount of scoring was tied inexorably to excitement, however, baseball would have died a long time ago (I know that some folks think it has) and arena football would be the most popular thing on TV. I strongly disagree with the assumption that scoring equates to excitement. For me, excitement is a build-up to, and the anticipation of, future events. The most obvious is the pitcher holding the ball with the bases loaded with two outs in the bottom of the ninth. There were points during the 04 Yankees-Boston playoff series when the drama (read: excitement) was almost unbearable, and I am not a big fan of either baseball or the Red Sox. I was a fan of baseball during that series, though, and I have no idea what the scores were in those games. Ultimate has a similar moment as well, of course, and waiting for the pull can be great drama. This is not to say that photo finishes are the only means of generating excitement, they are just the most obvious. Watching great execution or an athlete struggling to overcome the odds are also obviously exciting in their own right (although the Olympics TV coverage has shamelessly disintegrated into trying to generate "human interest" stories for every single athlete. After a while it becomes humorous and the attempt to tweak our heartstrings, and interest, fails). I can see why we want to tie scoring to excitement. It is an easy and objective means of measurement. Perhaps we should cherish and appreciate just how difficult it is to hit a round ball with a round bat or kick the ball into a soccer net. Perhaps the difficulty of these tasks is what makes the sport beautiful. Personally, I view the rule changes in hockey, which have lead to routine 9-5 scores, as an insult and has made me view watching hockey as a "doctored" or, perhaps, patronizing experience.
We also use athleticism as a means for explaining enjoying sports, and I do not think it is a coincidence that this is another parameter that can be objectively measured. A few weeks ago, I was teaching Ultimate clinics in a local high school, and the head of the PE Dept, who has become a friend, said to me during a conversation about kids playing sports, "Baseball isn't even a sport...it's a pastime". This after praising Ultimate. Again, baseball is a convenient example of how it can't be raw athleticism that attracts us to sports. I think, in the Ultimate world, we frequently hear the assumption that fans want to see the most athletic (read: the men) Ultimate and that this is the only possible way to promote our sport. I don't know about you, but in one of the rare displays of women playing Ultimate on Ultivillage in the NACS video, I was much more interested in Miranda breaking the mark with a low release forehand than I was with the first Open clip of some bad choice floaty huck into the end zone. I have said it before, but the 99 women's world cup was as compelling, athletically speaking, as any men's world cup I have watched. Other examples of why watching the best athletes play is not the sole factor in determining our interest as fans are the popularity of college football and college basketball.
Of course, athleticism and scoring goals factor into our enjoyment of sports, but I think it is good stories that really draw us in as we enjoy drama, suspense, context, and history as much in sports as we do in a good book or movie. Perhaps this is why sports can make great movies and books. One of the better sports books I have read recently is "The Last Amateurs" by John Feinstein. This is a great book about the Patriot League in college basketball. It is a compelling story about the least athletic and most unknown college players in the country. We have great stories in Ultimate that encompass all the elements of great drama. NY(KD) vs Boston(Moons) is perhaps the most famous. Hector wrote eloquently about the CUT vs Wisconsin rivalry in his blog. Lady Godiva's commitment to excellence and their ensuing success over the years. Red Tide over Darkhorse in 1998. Stanford women's Ultimate. Our stories are a serious asset, but they require knowledge and perspective on the part of the fans and it is challenging to make them familiar enough with the stories to buy in. My friend in the PE Dept said, "If baseball didn't have 150 years of history, we wouldn't care". Ultimate is young and we need to have patience for the time when the stories will be bolstered enough by context and history that every article in the newspaper and every program won't feel it has to present itself as an introduction to the sport.
Next week, my post will follow this post's lead and present the interesting stories for the upcoming Boston Invitational. In the meantime, I am going to spend this afternoon watching, with rare patriotism, our boys fight in the group of death. Will they emerge? I have no idea, but I am excited to see what happens.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Mixed Easterns: Brief Recap
The first (and only) "What the Hell am I doing?"(see my Golf Cart Boy post) of the weekend came as I opened my front door at 6:45am on Saturday morning to get in my car and drive to the fields. I was greeted by pouring rain. I turned around to see my daughter, still in pj's, curled up with a nice blanket in front of the TV. I almost bailed....but duty called.
By the time I got to the fields, the rain was more of a drizzle. The fields, which were quite dry when we lined them on Thursday, were draining very well, and were actually in very nice condition. The Devens staff has done a remarkable job with the fields, and the conditions never got sloppy, even when it poured rain during the last round on Sat. We are very lucky to have access to that facility and I am appreciative that the teams seem to have got the message that we need to respect the fields and the facility.
I was also quite pleased that all 32 teams showed up. I had alternate versions of the format ready...all the way down to 28 teams, but, thankfully, none of that was needed. Tommy, Barbara, and Eric ran a great show as usual. They really have the details down. For example, on the trainers golf cart, they have a field map taped to the steering wheel, so that it is easy to find where injured players are. They have a stop watch for the caps. The fields are lined, and the registration process, thanks to on-line rostering, went smoothly.
You can see all the results here:
http://www2.upa.org/scores/tourn.cgi?div=68&id=2650
All the pools, except for C, F, and G went to seed. Pool G ended up with Harpoon taking the pool and RIP (who upset WMD in the first round), WMD, and Gratuitous tied at 1-2. RIP, who started off with the big win, ended up in 4th place, and WMD, who finished 6th overall, came precariously close to not qualifying for the championship bracket. In pool C, SPAWN began their run to a great weekend by upsetting GCAS, which was basically 6 Trained Monkeys running their tryouts. In pool F, Tandem, basically Brown Alumni, began their run to the championship in strong form with two 15-1 wins. Tandem, not surprisingly, has very good skills and is fundamentally rock solid. They did not seem bothered by the rain at all. Many of the players have College rings, and they ran a crisp and efficient offense that demonstrated the pedigree of the Brown program. (Kyle, was that OK? Balanced??)
The last round on Saturday was crossover games, and featured only one 3 seed over a 2 seed as MHUC beat Enough Monkeys. The top 3 of pool A ended up finishing 2nd and tied for 11th. Blackfly, on their way to the 11th place finish, beat 7Express in this round, furthering the NY teams slide from the 11 seed to a 24th place finish.
It rained very hard in the 4th round and pretty much most of the evening. By Sunday morning, the rain had subsided, and the fields were in fine shape, considering the conditions.
The Championship Bracket began with a round of 16 that had two upsets: WMD, the 9 seed, beat SPAWN 15-7, and GCAS, the 10 seed, beat Harpoon 11-7. Slow White, who brought a split squad due to a strong recruiting year, continued both their teams strong showing with 15-3 wins in this round.
In Quarters, WMD gave SW X a run for their money as they lost 12-10. WMD seemed to ramp up over the weekend after their rough start. Chinstrap overcame a deficit to defeat Philly KRU 15-14.
At this point, there were 5 teams in the 9th place bracket that wanted to qualify for the Boston Invitational, so that was a bit exciting. MHUC and Gecko ended up finishing 9th and 11th to secure the at-large bids to the BI.
Both Semis were close affairs. Tandem went up a couple of breaks over SW Y, but SW Y made a late run as the time cap went off. At 12-12, Tandem put up a long throw which was caught on the end zone line, at this point, the hard cap went off, Tandem scored to win 13-12. In the other semi, SW X edged Chinstrap 12-9 to earn a rematch with Tandem.
Both teams seemed a bit fatigued in the final, but Tandem continued with good offensive efficiency and took home the Mixed Easterns Championship Trophy.
So, congratulations to Tandem and to Gecko and MHUC for qualifying for the Boston Invitational.
The tournament was a great success even with the weather. Teams seem to like playing at this venue and appreciate the attention to detail that Tommy and Barbara provide.
A quick note about the other divisions:
Big Ego Ultimate (basically old dog) avenged their finals loss to Above and Beyond in 05 and took home the Masters Easterns Trophy. Jim took the time to remind me of what number championship this was for him, but I forgot what it was as it was too large to remember.
In the Youth Division, Amherst High School brought a Mixed team to the Open Division and won both the Massachusetts title(over Lincoln-Sudbury) and the New England title(over Amherst JV A....that's right there is a JV B as well). I watched them play a bit and they are very fundamentally sound as well as disciplined. I know that Hh posted some derogatory crap on the Ultimatetalk chat line about "indoctrination", but frankly, if any club team played like that...we would call it good Ultimate. It seems a bit precious for folks to take it upon themselves to decide when it is or isn't good for our young players to have the opportunity to play good Ultimate. It is hard for me to see how offering the opportunity of high standards and positive behavioral values can be bad for our young players.
So, as usual, this weekend provided an overall look at our past and future. That opportunity is a rare one, and, again, thanks to Tommy Proulx for his vision.
