Monday, November 14, 2005

Why DoG finished T-15th in Spirit voting at Nationals

I'm not sure whether the article itself (Nov 11 entry, in case there are more recent ones) or having to give a bunch of free hits to those meddling kids pains me more.


luke said...

well, at least no one will be calling y'all the 'nicest cheaters in the world anymore'..

you could have just cut and paste their post in... you know, to save bandwidth...

parinella said...

Only one real comment over there so far, but a strong one. I'm surprised more people haven't jumped in/on yet, even though they have 326 visits (a PR). C'mon people, don't hold back.

I'm pretty sure cutting and pasting is against SotB, as well as the law. Doesn't seem to stop, though.

dix said...

It must be the Ivy Leaguers. Back in the day there was only Alex. Now you have 9.

j-co said...

Thanks for the love, Jim. Although I'm not sure the d team is the reason we didn't place so well in the spirit standings. The d team is generally quite pleasant. You o guys are a different story, though...

Besides, you can't blame me for trying to gain back the respect of my fellow d-teamers.

Justin R said...

I wonder if the solution to agressive marking is to modify the continuation rule to allow a thrower to continue a throw if they are fouled by the mark.

As it stands now, if you are not "in the act of throwing" when the foul occurs, you do not get the advantage of the "free" throw. For example, if you get bumped by the mark when step out to throw, your choice is (a) ignore the foul and throw; or (b) call the foul but lose significant advantage of the open throw. See Rule XVI (G)(2).

If being "in the act of throwing" included the step into the throw then it would be like defensive offsides in football. The O gets to decide to keep the result of the play or enforce the penalty.

People may argue this would make offense too easy by forcing the mark to play further off the thrower in order to avoid an easy foul call. Maybe it would, but I think it brings the game closer to where the rules and (I think) the majority of players expect it to be played.

cash27 said...

I've tried to figure out an appropriate response to the post.

I don't know that there is really one. At least you can tell people you are an honest cheater (not directed at you Jim), I suppose. You honestly know you are cheating.


Kyle said...

I would say that Josh's post captures very well why I thought DoG deserved a low spirit ranking. After a point one of our (Bravo's) cutters (Lope) asked his defender to stop iniating contact when he was setting up his cuts. The response was "You can just call the foul." Lope responded "The foul slows down our offense, just play by the rules." To which the DoG defender responded "Either call the foul or stop whining."

Josh's blog entry makes it sound as if he is basing his play off his perception of how everybody plays the game. I don't think that perception is accurate. But if that becomes "common knowledge" then intentional fouling will become the way the game is played.

I think the only way to combat that is for players to not play the game that way and to speak out and say "that's not how the game is played" and hopefully the community pressure will keep teams/players in line. I think this is a great example of how the spirit rating system can actually encourage players and teams to play the game the way the rest of the community wants it to be played.

mark said...

Kyle, you seem to be implying that DoG was one of the teams that was "out of line" at nationals. So is the early contact on the mark that is ubiquitous with elite teams ok, but contact in the lane isn't? Or is it the attitude that you're complaining about?

The way the game is being played seems to go along Rob's comment from RSD: "fouling on the mark is now accepted in elite ultiamte. There isn't a team that doesn't do it, and most throwers won't call it before stall 3 or 4." That makes it sound like "everyone" agrees that hacking early and backing off late is acceptable. For me, that this is accepted is already a travesty, but DoG is hardly the only offender.

parinella said...

I think it's important to clarify what we mean by "everyone." Every team has such players, and it's really the fault of those of us who don't play that way that we allow our teammates to do it. We may bitch at them during practice, but once the real games start, we let it go, and kid ourselves that it's ok because some guys on the other team also do it.

Please estimate what % of the players on the elite teams do this, and what the range is from team to team (e.g., 60% of the D guys and 20% of the O guys on team A does it).

cash27 said...

I tend to look at the teams and the general region in which they play first. Just like Europe and the US have different definitions of what 'spirit' is, the US can have different locations where spirit may be defined differently.

Take Ring. They are known to play a very physical form of Ultimate. Is that unspirited? In their own region, probably not as the region in general plays hard physical ultimate. Now, those players who are you are referring to will be much more visible when placed in a location where the spirit rules are different. And that will always be the case.

Then there is the Condors. They don't play as physical as Ring. They're just assholes (caveat, Corey, you're alright if you are reading this:). So, they define spirit as to how big of an a$$hole you can be.

Basically, I think most of it is perception. If you play outside what is considered spirited play for the location you are playing, then you will be branded unspirited or a cheater, or both. Just like DoG :)

Take a look at the region that DoG plays do you think they would characterize DoG's spirit? If it is considered poor in your own region, then there would appear to be an issue. If not, I think it could be attributed to how different regions interpret spirit


Kyle said...

I don't think that hacking on the mark is acceptable at any level of Ultimate. Jim's point is correct; Not "everyone" does it and stating otherwise makes it acceptable for everyone to actually do it.

I played O this year and my D "buddy" was pretty bad on the mark. He was called for several fouls at ECC and after each one I was yelling at him to "move his feet." Finally, I took him aside and told him that hacking the breakmark throw, in addition to cheating, was a lazy and not efficient way to prevent the throw. He improved over the fall, but was injured and did not play at Nationals.

At some level though, I don't see hacking on the mark as being as bad as initiating contact on a cutter. On the mark, the thrower can take advantage of it by throwing and calling the foul. The cutter, on the other hand, can either call the foul, stopping the offense's flow, or just concede that advantage to the defense.

parinella said...

So let's come up with a list of defensive role models out there, guys who do a good job on defense without resorting to lots of contact on the mark or bumping downfield.

cash27 said...

Kyle, and here I thought you were talking about Matty.

Most of the people I would mention would be west coasters, of course...but even then, only a few stand out.

Jeff Eastham
Alex Nord
Mike Namkung
Al Bob
Enns - FG
Jon Zalisk

I am probably one of the more physical players on our team. So probably not me :) But I don't hack either.


parinella said...

Enns is on my list of hacks. I joked about it once with Lugsdin, I think, and he jokingly agreed.

cash27 said...

I can't say that I'm surprised...I was a bit tentative to put him on a list...but I've never really seen him be a hack this year and is probably FG's best defender. I'll keep a closer eye on him next year :)