The Ultimate Revolution
So I had the opportunity to attend one of the UPA Ultimate Revolution Summits in suburban Boston this weekend. I won't go into too much detail about the process, since I don't want to contaminate the upcoming summits in Seattle, Atlanta, and Minneapolis. I was a little disappointed in the turnout, with around 35-40 people attending in what is supposed to be a hotbed of ultimate. There were surprisingly few elite players, men or women, but a good cross section of players, coaches, organizer types, and even a parent. Just not enough people considering the number of players in the area.
Far be it from me to pass up a free lunch. I got there around 12:30, sat at a table with 2 serious high school players, one not so serious one, another masters player, a buda player, and somebody else I'm forgetting. And Seigs showed up late and sat with us also. It was interesting drawing the young people out and getting their perspective on the game.
Dave Barkan, early Boston and later Double Happiness player was the facilitator for the event. He kept it moving crisply, and there were a lot of different discussions, open table events, mini-discussions about certain threads/directions, etc.
One thing that kept getting emphasized over and over was that people want more opportunities to play, at all levels. One of the things that I cottoned on to late in the game was a discussion about how to expand knowledge of the rules. Somebody had put down provide more of the rules booklets at events, tourneys, etc. That immediately got me going.
I haven't read the rule book in probably 15 years, at least. You would have to try to make something drier and less inviting to read. I don't fault the membership and people that have put in countless hours to try and get them right, and getting the phrasing right to close various loopholes (and add new ones like the new pick rule which I am not particularly fond of yet). This is not to say that I do not have a very good understanding of the rules. I do, although you could probably fail me with some abstruse situations, but it does not require a thorough reading of the rules. It helps that I have been playing the game for well nigh 23 years now.
In what sport do the majority of people read the entire rule book with all of the various arcana. 1-5% of the most dedicated players (and the ones that keep the rest of us informed and honest). I pushed the concept that the UPA needs to develop a 1 to 2 page document, pdf and otherwise, that would codify the general concept of the rules. And I'm not talking about the fundamental stuff like field size, pulling etc. Although if you end up with the space, go for it. I'm talking more about the calls, maybe quick decision trees with offensive fouls, defensive fouls, marking fouls, travels, picks, etc. A quick easy english paragraph that captures the essence of the discussed rule. This would obviously not supercede the rulebook, but would complement it and be far more useful to distribute at low level tourneys, summer leagues, etc. And worst case you could footnote it, or provide the IIv3 locations in the rule book where something is clarified.
I mentioned this to Jimmy P, who wasn't able to make the event. He said that there had been some efforts in the past, not necessarily UPA-centric. He mentioned there was some dude in Montreal that had done something, and the UPA had done some 10 basic things or something. But I think it would be powerful to have the UPA implement something like this under their auspices. This idea ended up being a very popular one, not just in the rules section, but overall (I won't explain the ranking system).
Thoughts?
Far be it from me to pass up a free lunch. I got there around 12:30, sat at a table with 2 serious high school players, one not so serious one, another masters player, a buda player, and somebody else I'm forgetting. And Seigs showed up late and sat with us also. It was interesting drawing the young people out and getting their perspective on the game.
Dave Barkan, early Boston and later Double Happiness player was the facilitator for the event. He kept it moving crisply, and there were a lot of different discussions, open table events, mini-discussions about certain threads/directions, etc.
One thing that kept getting emphasized over and over was that people want more opportunities to play, at all levels. One of the things that I cottoned on to late in the game was a discussion about how to expand knowledge of the rules. Somebody had put down provide more of the rules booklets at events, tourneys, etc. That immediately got me going.
I haven't read the rule book in probably 15 years, at least. You would have to try to make something drier and less inviting to read. I don't fault the membership and people that have put in countless hours to try and get them right, and getting the phrasing right to close various loopholes (and add new ones like the new pick rule which I am not particularly fond of yet). This is not to say that I do not have a very good understanding of the rules. I do, although you could probably fail me with some abstruse situations, but it does not require a thorough reading of the rules. It helps that I have been playing the game for well nigh 23 years now.
In what sport do the majority of people read the entire rule book with all of the various arcana. 1-5% of the most dedicated players (and the ones that keep the rest of us informed and honest). I pushed the concept that the UPA needs to develop a 1 to 2 page document, pdf and otherwise, that would codify the general concept of the rules. And I'm not talking about the fundamental stuff like field size, pulling etc. Although if you end up with the space, go for it. I'm talking more about the calls, maybe quick decision trees with offensive fouls, defensive fouls, marking fouls, travels, picks, etc. A quick easy english paragraph that captures the essence of the discussed rule. This would obviously not supercede the rulebook, but would complement it and be far more useful to distribute at low level tourneys, summer leagues, etc. And worst case you could footnote it, or provide the IIv3 locations in the rule book where something is clarified.
I mentioned this to Jimmy P, who wasn't able to make the event. He said that there had been some efforts in the past, not necessarily UPA-centric. He mentioned there was some dude in Montreal that had done something, and the UPA had done some 10 basic things or something. But I think it would be powerful to have the UPA implement something like this under their auspices. This idea ended up being a very popular one, not just in the rules section, but overall (I won't explain the ranking system).
Thoughts?
posted by Alex de Frondeville at 9:10 PM
23 Comments:
I read the 10th as a junior player, and I've read through the entire 11th edition maybe 4 times now. I even once went through and highlighted certain sections that contained important developments or pertained to situations that arise frequently on the field. I agree that some parts could use a descriptive paragraph, and some rules/definitions need to be epxlored a bit more. But really, if players merely read the rules once or twice, we'd see fewer arguments on the field.
I started reading the rules because I think it's integral to SOTG, and it really bothers me when players make bad calls or argue and don't know what they are talking about. It really only takes half an hour to skim them, slightly longer to read closely. It's almost a necessity in college, where teams look to gain an advantage by bending or breaking the rules. Have you found it unnecessary? Are you involved in so few calls that you can just shrug it off?
Lorne Beckman is the guy behind the the visual rules found here: http://www.montrealultimate.ca/files/visual_rules.pdf
maybe skip the details, but cover some usual sources of arguments:
1) general description of acceptable contact on plays, and on the mark. i.e., i tell my players, if it's really up for grabs, it's up for grabs. if you have to whack someone, it's not up for grabs.
2) understanding of count resets on calls.
3) understanding that picks come from poor offensive execution. (again i'm thinking from teaching new players)
4) line rules.
5) as a related aside, i was marking on the sideline recently, and tipped a throw that came back in. i called it out, because, as the mark, i was straddling the line, and in tipping the throw, it had come into contact with an out of bounds player... correct, or not?
George: This is not to say that I have not read the rules blog and rsd discussions with great interest, especially since the 11th edition and its many changes. For the most part the arguments that I have been involved in don't depend on interpretations of the rules, but on whether an actual foul occurred in the first place.
n: Don't forget Vincent Drolet... I just looked at that document. Pretty cool concept.
luke: on 5, that is a nice gotcha. Spirit-wise, I would say that it should be irrelevant where you are, but it would be interesting to know the real answer.
From 11th, IX. In-and Out-of Bounds
E. A disc becomes out-of-bounds when it first contacts the out-of-bounds area, contacts an out-of-bounds offensive player, or is CAUGHT by an out-of-bounds defensive player.
This to me assumes the situation you describe does not infer a turnover.
I assume therefore even further, that if you were on d, and were clearly out of bounds, and the disc was macced back in field by you (why one would do this I don't know), it would still be live as you had not caught it.
I'm not George! Although I suppose my login looks a bit like his. In any case, I actually found the "Substantive Changes" document to be less interesting and more difficult to sift through than the rules. When I read the real thing, I got the context of everything. I can understand how most arguments center around whether X hit Y, but I do think that the occurence of a foul really does depend now on interpreting the rules. I don't know whether that is a good thing or not, but knowing the exact wording of XIV.B.3 and XV.H.3.a.2-4 really changes your interpretation of whether a foul occurred or not.
-Glenn
The UPA has the "Ultimate in 10 Simple Rules" document, which is remarkably comprehensive for its length:
http://www.upa.org/ultimate/rules/10simplerules
Also, the observer manual has a list of common tough calls, which is also useful:
http://www.upa.org/observers/manual#tough
The observer recertification quiz had lots of good scenarios, with correct answers and explanations, but it isn't generally available.
Sorry about the confusion 'Glenn'.
So it seems that there are various resources available, and yet there is no consolidated approach to this. There was quite a cross-section of people at the meeting, and yet MANY people identified that as an issue, so these various options have to be sold/marketed more aggressively.
good to know. clearly that makes more sense.
"One thing that kept getting emphasized over and over was that people want more opportunities to play, at all levels."
So combining your last two posts together, should the upa endorse, sponsor, or create more pick up games of different levels so more people have opportunities to play? Or do you think pick-up is so different from competitive ultimate that it is not worth the UPA's time? If not pick up, what about Hat tournaments of different levels? They give the opportunity to play with low cost and with little to no commitment.
yours, CTW
p.s. Did the revolution cover anything about Goaltimate/box for smaller groups that want to play?
CTW: I'm not sure what the solution is. I also observed that there isn't much in the way of high school pickup. Granted, it is more difficult for people in high school to travel, especially given areas more spread out than Boston. Basically, if they don't have enough to play with themselves (?), then they are shit out. Hat tournies would be great, but is this the business of the UPA? Don't know. I agree that pickup is VERY different from competitive, both in quality and in terms of organization. Competition requires fixed teams (usually) with established rosters/teams, so you can identify in advance if you will have enough people. Pickup requires a completely different infrastructure to manage because it is at the individual level, so I'm not sure the UPA is structured (or could be) to handle that.
As for your PS, there was zero discussion of goaltimate or any alternate disc sports. Granted, it was a Upa meeting, not a Gpa meeting. Personally, I love goaltimate and would love to have a league in Boston, but at the moment all we get is infrequent pickup.
I haven't read the rule book in probably 15 years, at least.
...and add new ones like the new pick rule which I am not particularly fond of yet
This is not to say that I do not have a very good understanding of the rules. ... It helps that I have been playing the game for well nigh 23 years now.
Am I the only person who finds the juxtaposition of these statements humorous? You say you haven't read the rules for 15 years, and then complain about the "new pick rule"? If you'd read the 11th edition, you'd know the pick rule didn't change*, it was the continuation rule that changed. It applies to all offensive infactions equally.
Playing the game doesn't magically bestow you with a good understanding of the rules. I've observed all divisions at the elite level, and though there is widespread ignorance of the rules in all of them, it's usually masters players who are most adamant in their incorrect views.
I do not expect every player to be an expert on the rules, but especially for elite players, I think it's reasonable to expect them to at least read them once a year or so. At least every time a new major revision comes out. We're talking about only 16 pages here. It's not a terribly hard read.
I pushed the concept that the UPA needs to develop a 1 to 2 page document, pdf and otherwise, that would codify the general concept of the rules.
The ulimate in 10 simple rules document has been available on the UPA website for at least 10 years. This is pretty basic, but if every meaningful rule could be boiled down to 1-2 pages, don't you think we'd have done it?
There is also a wealth of documents, including the visual rules and discussions of the changes between the 10th and 11th edition here: upa.org/ultimate/rules/11th_links.
If you'd just as soon have ultimate be a fully-refereed sport, then I guess I can understand your apathy towards the rules. However, for anyone who sees worth in the self-officiated nature of ultimate, I think they need to take some responsibility to become decent officials. That means reading and understanding the rules. It may not be as fun as throwing the disc around, but it really does make the game work a lot better.
* Technically the pick rule did change, but I'm sure that's not the change you're talking about. Under the 10th, the part of the rule that says the disc should go back to the thrower in case of a pick that did affect the play was left out by mistake. It became customary to play the rule thet way it should have been written.
jon: Please. Now you're just being difficult. Fine, the pick rule did not change, but the modification or clarification on continuation has had the most visible impact on what happens during a pick. And it has come up in literally every game I have played under the 11 edition (and has not effected any other call yet), so yes, it is a 'change' in the pick rule. It will take quite a while before people are able to adjust 0-20 years of experience on what to do when a pick is called. And at the moment, it is ripe for abuse.
Yes, it would be nice if everyone read the rules and they were immediately comprehensible. However, if they were immediately comprehensible, why would there be threads on rsd with people chiming in with 4 or 5 completely different references from the rulebook that affect a play?
I'm not pushing this argument from an elite perspective. Yes, elite players should know the technical details of the rules. I'm talking about the people that are new to the sport, or the league player that has not had the indoctrination that the elite players have had. After all, this meeting was about UPA outreach.
This also speaks to the general issue of the league and pickup players that aren't even members of the UPA in the first place. If they aren't, how are they going to know about these various links? I brought this up as part of the Ultimate Revolution meeting, and it was a popular idea/problem. I'm not saying what the solution is, only that there is a problem. If we have all these resources, then the UPA needs to improve their outreach, which is what much of the meeting was about anyway.
When I say that I haven't read the rules, that does not mean that I haven't had pieces of the rules read to me, or read snipppets on rsd, or participated in discussions of the rules, just that I have not done a complete reading of the document itself.
I can see how masters players would be the worst offenders, especially because many of them are out there at nationals for the first time OR they maybe think we're still under the 8th edition, which was what the rules probably were the last time they played at a high level.
And, no, I don't want refs, so you can take that backhander somewhere else also.
UPA sponsered hat tournemnets:
players individually gets points based on how their hat team does in a any pickup tournment. Points given to relative finish (winning a 16 team tourny get similar points as a 4 teamer). Individual leaderboard made public...."The Best Hat Tourny Player In the World"...
Whata think?
sav hat (or, shat, 1996, finals loss)
seattle turkey bowl, 1997, 2001, 1999 (2 wins, one finals loss, the one loss in the finals on a magic 5 point goal that the tournament director created based on some nudity standard)we lost 9-8 on the 5 pointer.
bend halloween bowl , 2006, win
something in vancouver after a sir mixalot concert. semis loss. 2001, i think.,
so, 3 wins, 1 finals loss, 1 finals 'loss', one semis defeat.
shubbard: Cool concept except that it would have to be managed very closely. I don't know how hat tournaments are normally done, hopefully they separate the players into pools of experience, so that you will at least get your proper share of rookies, superstars, etc. I'm sure Jim could come up with the proper algorithms to assess individual performance assuming enough games from all of the players.
I don't think you would get enough people to travel for this, which leads me to think that this would actually be a great concept for a league. Hat tournament every weekend, or every other weekend, or hat 'games' every weekend, or weekday night. The nerds would have a field day managing the stats on this. Jim?
Luke: UDAMAN!
I don't think I have played in a single hat tourney.
they say that nearly 50% of frisbee players 'experiment' with 'hat tournaments' or 'co-ed' at some point in their career.
i'm not proud of this phase...
Hey
Considering how the North Americans think they are the leaders in how the game develops etc I'm amazed that you do not do more to promote the rules in all areas of the sport.
Over in the UK the UKU, immediately following the publication of the new WFDF rules, published a handy one page summary:
http://www.ukultimate.com/system/files/WFDFUltimateRules2007+-+2Page.pdf
This is a great little tool as does the job Alex described in his blog perfectly... maybe you should push to get something similar done as from my experience of playing Americans at WUCC06 you defo need to read up on them ;o)
PS> not a normal blogger hence the anom but felt urged to point this out!
anonymous, I didn't find the one page summary at this ukultimate link. It was the actual multi-page text of the WFDF rules. Or do I have my head up my ass? Or both?
"seattle turkey bowl, 1997, 2001, 1999 (2 wins, one finals loss, the one loss in the finals on a magic 5 point goal that the tournament director created based on some nudity standard)we lost 9-8 on the 5 pointer."
At least in the darkness we didn't have to see D'Arcy on display!
Alex
You don't have your head completely up your arse ;o)
Basically from my knowledge it was the UKU who created that 2 page document (although one sheet A4 if print on both sides) and donated it to the WFDF to help promote the new rule changes... (I could be shot if I get this wrong so apologies if got my wires crossed) but who created it doesn't matter...
It doesn't go into the level of detail of the full 27 pages of the offical rule book but it does cover all the major rules you come into contact with during a normal game.
This highlights that your idea of creating a summary document for lower leagues can work and has already been done although with a different rule set!
We even referred to it during the semi of the UK Mixed Tour to sort out the new pick and continuation rules...
M
jon: Please. Now you're just being difficult. Fine, the pick rule did not change, but the modification or clarification on continuation has had the most visible impact on what happens during a pick.
Maybe I'm being picky (grievous pun intended), but I don't think that I'm just being difficult, because to me that implies that there is no reason to make such distinctions.
I'm fully aware that the vast majority of the applications of this change are going ot occur in the context of picks, but that's no reason to call it a new pick rule as opposed to a new continuation rule. I think a lot of the confusion about the rules that is propagated among players has to do with sloppy terminology which leads to sloppy understanding.
In this case, if someone told you that the outcome was a certain way because of the "new pick rule", and you wanted to confirm that, you'd probably look at the pick rule and wonder what they meant. However, if someone said it was due to the "new continuation rule", you'd naturally look up the continuation rule and it would be immediately clear.
Other examples of sloppy language include using the term "ground check" (which does not exist in the rules) when people sometimes mean self-check and sometimes mean ground touch. Those differences are significant and have caused serious arguments in high level games that I've seen.
I'm sure you've had frustrating moments arguing with someone who clearly didn't know the rules. So, I hope you can appreciate the idea that trying to use the right terminology can help improve people's understanding of the rules.
It will take quite a while before people are able to adjust 0-20 years of experience on what to do when a pick is called. And at the moment, it is ripe for abuse.
As a thrower, what you should do is no different, right? If you hear the call, you should stop play. If you're saying that it's ripe for abuse under the 11th because a player could choose to ignore the call, then I'd say that's outright cheating. Maybe that's what you meant by abuse, but there are plenty of ways under the 10th and 11th to gain advantage if you don't mind cheating. The situation is definitely the same for defenders as the 10th. For cutters, I'd say there may be an increased incentive to start a cut after a pick call, but this is tempered by the fact that unless the cutter is 100% sure that the infracted player will consider themselves uninvolved in the play, any throw carries the risk of turnover and only a partial chance of standing if complete.
Yes, it would be nice if everyone read the rules and they were immediately comprehensible. However, if they were immediately comprehensible, why would there be threads on rsd with people chiming in with 4 or 5 completely different references from the rulebook that affect a play?
In my experience, most of the replies to rules queries on RSD don't contain any rules citations instead favoring "some guy told me that" sort of evidence. Besides, with the general level of quality on RSD, why would we want to use it to judge anything?
Sure, reading through the rules once won't make you an immediate expert. But if you play some and bother to read them when things come up (or they go through a revision), I don't think it's that difficult to have a very solid understanding.
I'm not pushing this argument from an elite perspective. Yes, elite players should know the technical details of the rules.
I'm glad we agree on that. Would you agree that even among elite players rules knowledge seems sorely lacking, or are my standards just too high?
For new or casual players, I expect virtually nothing. I'm not concerned if people playing pickup aren't getting the rules right, and I don't really think the UPA needs to invest time or energy to fix that. However, if you're playing the series (especially if you make it to regionals) I think you should have at least read through the rules in their entirety.
When I say that I haven't read the rules, that does not mean that I haven't had pieces of the rules read to me, or read snipppets on rsd, or participated in discussions of the rules, just that I have not done a complete reading of the document itself.
I'll just offer the opinion that I think reading the entire document (especially after the change to the 11th) is important because the rules are so interrelated. I know that even for the smallest most benign change we made, there were always unexpected consequences elsewhere in the rules. Reading the whole thing really does provide a context you can't get through discussions of individual points.
And, no, I don't want refs, so you can take that backhander somewhere else also.
That wasn't a flippant comment; I was being completely serious. I just know that after plenty of back and forth with Idris (who seems to know the rules very well) there is a fundamental philosophical difference between how the rules are written and the philosophy that would prefer the game to have referees. Sorry if you interpereted it as an insult.
here's the link to the WFDF 2-Page pocket rules.
Post a Comment
<< Home