Відео

Aside from deciding which player should have picked it up, what is the punishment for a player making a D and running away from the disc on the ground? Giving possession back seems....excessive. Allow pre-stalling?

@@MrCho14 the idea is to make it a culture where the person that makes the D doesn't run away and picks the D up......the punishment is a little irrelevant at this stage of this rule suggestion.

Terrible idea. That's not what makes Ultimate boring. Letting teams set up and make plans makes the game more interesting. It adds a strategic dynamic to the 'plot' of the point, vs just brainless movement. A bit of a slow down means more interesting play to occur.

@@MrCho14 Pre-stalling seems like a good idea. It prevents outright play stoppage while still allowing for meaningful decision-making in the moment, which is always good.

Yeah it's definitely more feelings than logic on that point. But I think that unfortunately most turnovers are the result of offensive miscues rather than defensive magic or some kind of massive block.

Helmets for safety in ultimate when?

I'm sure he did, if only they had waited 15 seconds for Nathan Kolakovic's perspective we saw in the video like they did multiple times in the World U24 finals ...

@@HiveUltimate yeah

Apparently Nathan was keen to show the camera but they didn’t consult him - pretty sure he said this on his insta story one time. My big grievance with USAU rules (appreciate you’re talking WFDF in this vid) is only one party has to decide to go to the observers and the call is out of the hands of the players; the “fouler” (for want of a better word) doesn’t have to contest the call; they can go to the observer and chance a 50:50 that they didn’t see it properly. I’m not saying AJ did it like this. I’m just saying there’s benefit to going to observers over contesting and giving the last thrower the disc back, and that seems wrong

Shade of Kurt Gibson WUGC open final 2016 ua-cam.com/video/cQJcUbxzyqY/v-deo.htmlsi=5h6xi_1tfeyVjRyB&t=100s

I totally agree that the wording is a little clunky - although it is trying to be narrow, its too narrow in that a pick could be called if a obstructing defender had just very recently stopped marking a player before they obstruct the other defender. And it's a fair suggestion that the USAU wording of the rule may be better, but I personally very strongly dislike this wording because I philosophically disagree that an offensive player ever causes a pick. There's an assumption made that when a offensive move moves a defensive player follows - meaning the offensive player is causally responsible for the movements of the defender and I don't agree with this implication - I'd rather we place full responsibility for every player to move into space of their own accord and if they cause contact or are obstructed in any way thats on them.

I agree more with your pick adjustment in the video than the change you’re arguing for here. Making the change above (if I’m interpreting your rule correctly) would make the sport much more like basketball, and intentional picks would become rampant. As far as the pick rule change you say in the video, I would make the rule specifically say “if a pick occurs between to defenders, they must each be actively guarding, and within [the prescribed distance in WFDF] different offensive players”. To your point though maybe that would be too clunky of a rule.

@jccalhoun4972 That wording goes farther than I'm suggesting. With that wording of the rule a defender assassinating an attacker in a zone could not call pick if they were obstructed by a defender zonally marking - to me that seems like a reasonable pick call.

Thank you for the reply! I fundamentally disagree with you that your zone scenario is a legitimate pick (or should be by what I think should be the rules of the sport). BUT at some point, reasonable minds can disagree. Play on!

in your situation wouldn't the player calling pick just be the defender (A) guarding the offensive player, as this defender (A) would be reacting to the offensive player who runs close to the poaching defender (B) and thus causing defender A to be obstructed by another player (B). i guess you would then have to argue about "cause", but I think it's clear a pick could still rightfully be called here.

It still feels like a long time even given the climate of fast counting

Yeah, going from 10 to 8 would mean going from 7 real seconds to about 5.

@@flyingdics1 If the goal is to reduce the amount of time allowed, then isn't that accomplishing the goal? We just have to acknowledge there isn't a 1 to 1 ratio between count and seconds currently. There should be better enforcement of fast counts which likely will happen if the count is reduced.

@@MrCho14 I guess I don't see the value in prioritizing reducing the amount of time allowed in general. I also don't see how there will be better enforcement of fast counts with less time. It's hard enough with nominally 10 seconds (which is really 7.5), so why will it be easier with 7 seconds (which will really be 4.5)?

@@flyingdics1 "I don't see the value in prioritizing reducing the amount of time allowed in general." "It's hard enough with nominally 10 seconds (which is really 7.5)" << That's a fair enough opinion. There are generally side effects to all rule changes in all sports. With shorter time, people would be more aware of a faster count which likely would lead to more fast stall counts. The bottom line question though is if a shorter stall count will make the game flow better or if we just end up with rushed plays. Even at my low league level, 10 seems high. The handler is looking for a good cut to hit up to about the 4 count and then is just looking for a dump and has a full 6 count to do that in which means almost certainty they can do it even with good defense. I'll fully admit my experience is limited though so happy to hear opinions on it.

It already is not permitted

this is what i mean soon we are gonna make playing hard a foul

Yeah, I thought this was obvious. Legal picks will incentivize and increase contact in all games immediately. It's hard to see who wants that outside of maybe a minority of UFA players.

which should actually be more reason to not allow pick calls when two defenders trying to guard the same person block each other. You are basically protecting and rewarding them for a dangerous act. "hey let me collide with my teammate so we can call pick"

​@@tusharjamwal In the video's JPN CAN play, the cutter had time to react, swerving around the defender. That means he had time to break off his cut, and not run his defender past the pick. If offensive players were allowed to use poachers to set screens, the vert stack would be unstoppable.

@@travisfinucane First let me say that I also think that the offense is too favoured and weakening the pick rule will indeed disadvantage the defense even more. But I still stand on what I said and we need other methods to tip the rules in the favour of defense. If someone is poaching in means they are currently not guarding a specific player but rather a space. This is a choice they made not the offense. When an offensive player attacks said space and is able to get past this defender without contact. They have beaten this defender fair and square. This is even without another defender trying to guard the same offender. Now if another defender is guarding this offender you effectively double team the offender. If the two defenders in this case collide with each other, this is an even bigger mistake for the defense. In no way should the offense be punished for it. And the pick making the play invalid is in effect punishment. By contrast if two players of opposing teams are standing together on the field and an offensive player runs between them and their guard is blocked by either, I agree that this should be a pick and not allowed. The defender in this case is reacting to a different player.

Rule 18.3.3. 'All players should take reasonable efforts to avoid the occurrence of picks', exists and I do not want to change that.

BASL Indoor Winter 2023 Finals, Swill vs Baddy Daddies :(

16.3 'Regardless of when any call is made, if the players involved from both teams agree that the event or call did not affect the outcome, the play stands. This rule is not superseded by any other rule.' Applies as always. In fact I think that perhaps the rule is a touch too harsh, if a deep shot is up and you're clearly gonna catch it then you pull your hamstring should you retain possesion of the disc/should it go back - I could be convinced that it should even tho as it stands the rules necessitate this is a turn. I'm particularly talking about rule 19.1.6. 'If the disc was in the air when the injury stoppage was called, play continues until either a player establishes possesion, or the disc hits the ground. If the injury is not the result of a foul by an opponent, the completion or turnover stands, and play restarts there after the stoppage.'

@@HiveUltimate Quite right. Both WFDF 16.3 and USAU 17.C.1 allow players to agree that any call had no affect on the play and the outcome should stand. I stand corrected!

WHO IS THIS RULE FOR?!

This rule started in the 2000s when they started televising games. They started requiring matching jerseys and shorts with numbers on both, and color-coordinating accessories (hats, base layers, tights, etc.). I've never seen it enforced and I doubt I've watched a single game where a team was in full compliance in the 15+ years since it's been on the books.

@flyingdiscs1 it has been sporadically enforced at some wfdf events post pandemic

this silly rule was enforced on my team by advisors at WUMCC 2022 for a streamed game. I had a black and white hat, my teammate had a black and white hat but with different logo and they allowed just one of the two on the field.

probably not good for lower levels of play

Not at all for lower levels.

Works great for AUDL, from what I've seen--kind of a desperation D that will get beaten by high level handlers, but can help stave off a fast break. As others have said, definitely not for lower level play.

I would move brickpoint in the middle of the field. Pullers should concentrate more to make good pull. In other sport you would loose point due to bad pull.

Like others I think it would be bad news for lower level play - but I think that like youth leagues etc could add the rule back in (I've heard of zones being banned in low level play which I'm not a fan of at all but it does set the precedent that adjusting the rules for low level play is plausible. The other thing that I think would uniquely effect WFDF play compared to UFA play is that a removal of the double team rule is a real buff to cup style aggressive zones. In the UFA that's kinda offset by the much larger field - in WFDF it wouldn't be so the question becomes do zones become more the meta and do we want that - I'd suggest maybe we don't. Personally match with a lot of switching and poaching and a sprinkling of some zone D points makes for the most interesting games. I'd also be really interested in the effect it would have on handlers hanging out behind the disc. Would it be less viable because it would facilitate sneak attack double team Ds (like the one in the Singapore game)?

Hmm I'm not sure - football (soccer) the defence certainly has an advantage. The perfect game of football finishes 0-0, yet it the most popular spectator sport in the world. Nevertheless ultimate will always be an offensively dominated sport but I just wanna tip the scale slightly towards the defence with a reduction.

this is not valid for many other sports from different cultures. Which have good viewership in their region.

I disagree that offensive output is what creates a successful spectator sport. Just look at basketball and soccer. They're basically complete opposites in this regard, but they're both wildly successful. What really causes a sport to take off is star power, which the rules can only indirectly affect.

@@AllUpOns look at all popular team sports out there.. (baseball is the exception.. because of innings and a orderly change from offence to defence taking turns).. most other major spots also with your exception to soccer.. all thrive on scoring.. we have to also note that a tie tends to be acceptable with soccer.. (except in some championship games.. and like very limited substitutions..)

The problem is that the current ‘10 seconds’ already tend to be 7 to 7,5 seconds, especially in high level club play in North America or Australia. (And I’ve also seen quite some European high level players counting too fast.) So if you reduce the stall to 8, the actual stall out may come at (or below) 6 seconds already.

Indoor games are already played stall 8.

@@Rakkerrrbingo. Stall reduction to 8 will be effectively the same time because it’s going to result in a much more frequent fast count call. Which is probably good still. It would get the enforcement of “real” second counting to trickle down a bit. I’m pretty tired of having to pull out my phone to prove to someone they’re counting twice as fast as they ought to be 😂

Don't agree about contesting the stall count - sometimes those final seconds come way too fast and that takes more than a second of stall count to recognise and verbalise. Agree on defensive marking fouls the fact that 'there is non-minor contact [with a legally positioned marker] resulting from the thrower and the defender both vying for the same unoccupied position, prior to the release' is definitionally a defensive marking foul is nuts. I think we could rewrite the defensive marking foul rule using the principles of who initiated the contact from rule 12.7.

@@Rakkerrr I don't know why this is a problem. The goal would be to reduce the amount of time of a full stall. If a 10 count is too long, then you reduce it. It doesn't matter if that translates into 10 seconds down to 8 seconds or 7 seconds down to 6 seconds. And if stalls are consistently faster than 1 second, then as already stated it may result in more fast stall calls which is fine. It just makes things more accurate and allows for further adjustment of the count later if desired.

Yes - I was inspired by Spain's football style in 2012, under the coaching of Vicente del Bosque. Johan Cruyff was a legendary player and coach who fundamentally changed the way football was played, particularly with his philosophy of "Total Football." As a coach, Cruyff was the architect of the "Dream Team" at FC Barcelona in the early 1990s. His ideas and style at Barcelona heavily influenced the development of the club's philosophy and the players who came through its ranks, including Pep Guardiola. Pep Guardiola played under Johan Cruyff at Barcelona and absorbed many of his mentor’s ideas. Guardiola's playing style and later his coaching philosophy were deeply influenced by Cruyff’s approach. When Guardiola became the coach of Barcelona, he implemented a style of play that echoed Cruyff's principles, focusing on possession, pressing, and positional play. This style of play not only led to great success for Barcelona but also influenced football globally. Vicente del Bosque, while not a direct disciple of Cruyff, managed a Spain national team that included key players from Guardiola's Barcelona, such as Xavi, Iniesta, and Piqué. The style of play that Del Bosque employed with the national team shared similarities with Cruyff's philosophy, particularly in terms of ball possession and positional play. This similarity was largely due to the significant influence of Barcelona players in the national squad who were trained under Guardiola’s adaptation of Cruyff’s methods. Even though Del Bosque and Cruyff were from different footballing backgrounds and did not work directly together, there is a linkage through Guardiola and the overarching philosophy of play that influenced both Barcelona and the Spain national team, and consequently Hex Offence.

Yes exactly. Local principles which players can apply, which lead to constantly connected shape and reliable quick disc movement. Vert stack is like a set play that you run over and over again, and as such it's very susceptible to smart defence. It's time we applied an alternative approach based on simple principles to coordinate player movements, like a flock of starlings.

Great to hear it, I hope it goes well, keen to see some new footage!