Monday, November 27, 2006

WFDF congress

WFDF held their Congress at Worlds this month, apparently. Here’s the link to the minutes. Some comments:
  1. It seems that every single request for player eligibility was approved, even the one where there was a comment “at some point we’re actually going to have to enforce these eligibility rules.” WFDF still seems to have the old UPA mindset of “yeah, ok, I guess.” Which is good in many ways, and more in line with how ultimate used to be, just not what the UPA is doing now.

  2. There were many comments on the World Games and what to change, but nowhere did it mention even considering changing from Mixed to either Open or Women’s play.
  3. WFDF is considering alternating 4 men/3 women and 3 men/4 women for Mixed rather than offense chooses. The recommendation was to switch them “every other point”, but I’m not sure if they mean “two points with 4 men, then two points with 4 women” or “one of each”. The former is better, since the latter would have one team always going upwind with 4 women (or 4 men, take your pick) and the other going that way with 3.
  4. There was some discussion of bid allocation for the next World Clubs, and a new, semi-formal system put in place. These allotments always depend on the showing at the previous WUCC and WUGC. 25% (about 7-10 for Open) go for strength and 10% for attendance. It could mean that Japan gets more bids to the next one than does the US. Although everyone in the world who cared to attend this world championship did attend, in 2010 it will likely be in Europe and may be limited to “80-90 teams” for all divisions.
  5. They are looking to update the rules, and the rules sub-committee includes some of the usual suspects, but it's odd that they made no mention of the fact that the UPA is also in the process of updating their rules. Golf recently made a great effort to get the USGA and the R&A to iron out differences in the two sets, but now ultimate might be splitting further. Of course, there is an unreconciliable difference regarding Observers, but there are other things being changed in the 11th edition of the UPA rules that will probably not be in the WFDF's new set. I suppose I could look, but nah. But here are some things I did see:
    • 2.7. Teams are guardians of the Spirit of the Game, and must:
      2.7.1. take responsibility for teaching their players the rules and good spirit,
      2.7.2. discipline players who display poor spirit; and
      2.7.3. provide positive feedback to other teams about how to improve their adherence to the Spirit of the Game.
    • No exposed metal on cleats or wristwatches, even one with a strap and no metal. Not sure how that could be dangerous, other than someone getting into a fight because of an argument about timing.
    • Pick distance is 5 meters.
    • Ok, it says that men and women alternate 4/3 after every two points.
    • Time limit is 75 seconds, not 90 as it is here.

  6. Let’s give Corey an asterisk, just because.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

World Games has ruined everything.

WFDF should go back to the every-other-year-system.

Like:

'06 Worlds
'07 Club Worlds
'08 Worlds

At least they get it right in juniors...every two years.

parinella said...

Weren't there at least two other factors in the shift? One was to give regional championships (Pan-Ams, European Clubs?) a chance to develop. The other was that the same core of players was traveling every year to some faraway place and that changing it to every other year would make it easier on them and more special. I'm not sure whether DoG's skipping WUCC in 1997 was an influence on the change, but someone probably noted it.

But four years might be too long of a cycle. How about three years? With WUCC being held this year Down Under, there are probably a lot of elite ultimate players in the world who will never play at Worlds. Even for DoG, only a handful of guys have done so, and a lot of those who haven't won't be around in 2010.

Anonymous said...

4 years is long damn time, agreed.

wristwatches can cause some problems. more injury on impact, a chance of getting your finger stuck in the loop, glass, etc. There really isn't a single cogent argument *for* being allowed to wear a wristwatch. I can't think of a single sport with incidental contact where a player is allowed to wear a wristwatch.

Pocketwatches, of course, are encouraged.

Anonymous said...

Any comments on observers at WFDF events?

It was very difficult to deal with blatant bad calls at the tournament without any recourse besides stooping to the other person's level and threatening hard retalition fouls.

Anonymous said...

I preferred not having observers! Only two incidents stick out in my head, one where a player called a pick call from the other side of the field which under the worlds rules is legal. The other was when one of our players called a foul then pivoted and threw a turnover. Both teams were uncertain whether there was continuation. We knew for a pick there was no continuation but had no idea about a foul. After alot of discussion one guy, who seemed like he knew what he was talking about, said it was a turnover. He later apologized when he learned that in World's rules there is no continuation after a foul call. The call was in a close battle but the final score showed that the one call had little affect on the outcome of the game. Definitely happier without observers.

parinella said...

Observers: I was dumbfounded when WFDF announced last year that Observers were forbidden. I appreciate that they want the players to be in control, but it seems a little self-righteous not to have them when you need them. In some way, it all goes back to everyone thinking that players with a different worldview are unspirited.

parinella said...

In some way, Observers are like insurance. If there is no flood, you're happier not having paid the insurance premium. If you don't live in a flood zone, there is no real reason to have insurance, but if the cost is small, then why not?

I believe that WFDF overestimates the cost of having Observers. anonymous, why would it have made you unhappy for the one incorrect call to have been corrected? No one is trying to say that the player making the incorrect call is cheating, just that he's mistaken about the events (or, in this case, doesn't know the rule). I think that is the hurdle that the anti-observer camp needs to overcome, that you lose something by having an impartial judge for disputed events.

Anonymous said...

The biggest thing that's striking to me was that the issue of World Games being Mixed didn't even come up. Wouldn't a Mens and Womens World Games competition be better, at least in terms of hoping to eventually bridge the gap to Olympic Games in the distant future?

Anonymous said...

I can't speak for this previous world games but when i went there were only 60 player spots alloted to ultimate. Not enough for seperate divisions, so a compromise was made. That being said I remember hearing that the olympic representative watching our games was very impressed with the quality of play, mixed format, and the lack of referees.


marc TC, FG 13

parinella said...

The meeting notes from WFDF said that they are going to lobby for larger teams at the next World Games. Space is limited, though, so they might end up compromising with a shorter schedule. WFDF would prefer prefer more players per team to more teams.

Olympics are so far off that we shouldn't even consider it a path to take. They're cutting down on athletes and events as it is.

lily said...

i had a big problem with the lack of observers. i was playing on a lower level mixed team (FDGO), and maybe that had something to do with it, but a lot of calls degenerated into squabbles. we had games where almost every turnover had a foul call attached. to complicate matters, no one really knew the rules, and that coupled with the language barrier issues slowed the game down a lot. i would've traded all the free beer in the world for some observed games.

Adam said...

5 meters (metres, whatever)? We could blow 75 seconds just walking that off.