Tuesday, August 09, 2005

0 for 3

So after losing to Ring 17-16 at the Furniture City Shootout, Chain is officially 0-3 in tourney finals this year. We lost primarily because I went with the unorthodox decision of throwing to a member of the opposing team at double game point. For all of those reading in hopes of picking up some ultimate strategy advice – I’d suggest using the more traditional approach of throwing to your team. This marks the second time in my career that I’ve made the double game point, tournament ending turnover. It’s a pretty terrible feeling. The first occurred at Poultry Days 2001. After throwing away the final pass and then proceeding to get scored on, I was hanging out with my team at the pool. This incredibly cute little kid comes up to me and tugs on my shorts. He looks up at me with these huge eyes and asks, “Mister, mister, why did you cost your team the tournament?” I look up to see my teammates laughing hysterically in the corner - they had bribed this kid to come and harass me. It’s good to know that when you’re feeling down you can always count on your teammates to stop at nothing to make you feel worse.

Anyway, all and all it was a pretty decent weekend for us. We were up to 17 able bodied players for Sunday, which seemed pretty luxurious compared to the 11 we’ve taken to the last two tourneys. We got to work on some stuff and the competition was pretty respectable – especially on Sunday (Potomac, BAT, Ring).

Random thoughts/notes from the weekend –
* The D team claims that they are no longer Chain Lightning, which now apparently consists of only the O team, but rather the Junkyard Dogs. The split seems to be amenable to the O team as well, who never cared for being associated with those ruffians.
* Seems like every defender (read raping marker) is arguing that the foul occurred before the throw and is bringing the disc back. I’m not sure what the answer is, but this rule is going to be the biggest argument generator until something is changed.
* I had a very strange foul called on me this weekend. I juked towards the disc and then turned to take my guy to the rack. My defender steps on my heel, trips and calls foul on me as I’m running away. First, he argues that if I had fallen down and the disc had gone up I would have called a foul on him. His next argument is that I was too close to him and that was the result of the contact. I tried to explain that as the offensive player, I’m actually trying to get away from the defense, not get really close…In the end we just had to agree to disagree.


parinella said...

Wow, it's like looking into my own mind.

Except for that tournament-killing part, of course.

I had that some foul called on my by "FG hack" Mike Enns in Tuneup finals in 1998. (And I haven't forgotten it.)

Tarr said...

Seems like every defender (read raping marker) is arguing that the foul occurred before the throw and is bringing the disc back. I’m not sure what the answer is, but this rule is going to be the biggest argument generator until something is changed.

Interesting. Of course, they have to actually argue that it was before the throwing motion, not before the throw itself. Most contact after the throw isn't a foul anyway.

I saw Will Deaver go out on the field this weekend to convince Timmy Paymaster that he had in fact double-clutched when he called foul, and that the resultant turnover should therefore stand. Firstly, this is a rare example of a teammate actually intervening to keep a teammate from making a bad call. But this also anecdotally shows that people are still abusing this rule both ways - both trying to get the free throw when they weren't throwing, and trying to get every foul-throw brought back.

Just once, I'd like to see an elite team tell their opposition before the game, "we don't want to be fouled on the mark this game, so we're calling everything." The first few points would probably be a crawl, but it would be interesting to see what effect it had.

Oh, and you have some funny teammates.

Flo said...

There is one easy argument against the "before the throw" argument by the defender, and there is actually nothing he can do about it. It goes like this:
"Yes, I agree that you fouled me before the throw, but that's not what I am calling. I am calling the foul that was during the throwing motion, and I am sticking to it. You may contest that there was a foul during the throwing motion, but this doesn't change the outcome of the play."
Off cause, since we are playing Ultimate, you don't use this argument unless he actually did foul you during the throwing motion.
The rule is not broken, nothing needs to be fixed.It's just the rapers who need to learn that fouling before AND during the throw doesn't take away the continuation.

Keith said...

I know the "cost the team" feeling. When I was on Paideia JV, I was supposed to be a go to guy, and we were game point with our rivals, Paideia's OTHER JV team. Theyve got the disc in the Red Zone, throw goes up to some new kid (totally unathletic), and Im in a good poach spot, so I layout and slap down at the disc. Of course, the disc pulls up and right into the guys hands. Im pretty sure had I not touched it, it would have been either been too low for him to grab or have hit the ground. Sigh.

parinella said...

I for one would like the rule changed such that this throwaway would not be a turnover. My preference would actually be to allow the free throw, perhaps not as much as in the NBA, but a lot more than the UPA. But I would also like a rule that just made the disc dead at the time of the marking foul unless it's in the act of releasing.

I was on the field for the Deaver/Paymaster incident and saw the foul, but didn't opine at first because I don't think it's fair that it's a turnover. (I eventually joined in the rhubarb because some of the other non-participants invoked questionable logic in a somewhat belligerent tone.) Really, the defender fouls you to prevent a breakmark throw, you double-clutch and throw it anyway a quarter second later, and that's a turnover? It strikes me as giving an advantage to a rules violator.

Flo, it's tough to make that argument when you call the foul before the final throwing motion. You would have to say, "Yes, I called a foul during the pivot, but I am also calling a foul on the throwing motion. To be honest, I am quite lucky that you are such a cheater that you fouled me there too or else it might be a turnover."

Tarr said...

Well, if you call both fouls, then the disc is coming back no matter what. The only recourse if you want the free throw is to delay the foul call until you begin the throwing motion (and are still being fouled).

Doug (the marker on the play) did say "I don't like the rule, but that's a turnover".

At the end of the day, I agree with Flo that the rule is not broken. The delayed free throw is, at best, a very inconsistent and abuse-prone way to punish fouls on the mark. This is not to say that fouls on the mark are not a problem, just that this is not the ideal solution.

Anonymous said...

I find that the biggest problem that occurs here is this sequence:

1. The thrower, seeing an opportunity to pivot and break the mark, decides that he will do so.
2. While pivoting to break, the thrower is fouled.
3. Having already made up his mind to get the throw off, and often after being coached/told to "get the throw off no matter how hard the foul" the thrower continues through the faoul and releases the disc.
4. The Problem is that he instinctively said "Foul" as he was pivoting (And being fouled) but before his arm started moving specifically to throw the disc.
5. The marker, being either an astute cheater or a a little obsessive about the the intricacies of the rules says "I fouled you on your pivot, not on your throw."

At this point, the thrower has no real recourse if the disc was turned over, other than to steadfastly claim that he was fouled while throwing. Everyone knows that this isn't quite right by the book, but it surely seems more equitable than turning the disc over after being hacked on the mark.

The other side is after a pass is completed it is brought back because the foul happend too early for continuation.

Just play the game, stop fouling me strategically. The end result of strategic fouls is foul limits. The end result of foul limits is the implicit sanctioning of strategic fouls. WE need to work to avoid this.

I wish it were reasonable to call all of the marking fouls... it simply removes every advantage that the offense has. Even if only for a point or two, it could easily lose you the game.

Flo said...

If you can call a foul before you throw it, then you also have enough time to not throw it. If that is a problem for you because you were taught to always throw it, then you should think about relearning that part of the game.
I don't think the free shot is a good idea to address the raping marker problem. With the free shot, every contact will result in the thrower flinging a long shot that would have never been thrown otherwise.
Calling every foul on the marker where you don't have an immediate advantage from not calling it might be a good start. Then, after the 10th foul call you might kindly ask the other D to stop cheating. If they don't stop, you can ask them again 5 fouls later and suggest that you will start cheating yourself if they continue their ways (a blatant/funny way of actually doing this would be the intentional three meter travel on a high stall count). This doesn't work quite as well if your own D line pulls the same bs, though. Then you are pretty much out of luck, and all you can do is picking good times to call the fouls, and always trying to get fouled on the throw (the old lean back and let the over aggressive mark jump you move).
So take the high road. Preach your own D line not to cheat. Call out the cheaters.

Chimpo said...

Flo, you said that you can pull a three meter travel at stall 8 for a funny solution to the problem, but does the stall count drop after a travel?

If not, please explain why it is lustig.

aj said...


If the count's over 5 it comes back in as "stalling 6" on a travel call....you should know flo doesn't believe in joking when it comes to the rules.


Jon said...

Continuing with Flo's concept of the intentionally egregious travel at a high stall count:

An intelligent marker will not call travel on you when the stall is high unless you are actually throwing because they realize it will reset the stall to 6. The logical conclusion is that you have to run and get 3 meters away from the marker, resetting the stall to 1. This will hopefully lead to the most amusing scene of a thrower sprinting across the field with a marker (still stalling) in close pursuit.