Ultimate 2.0

Where we left off:
In my last post, I described what I perceive to be the biggest problem with ultimate frisbee: the lack of an incentive in the rules to reward taking chances and punish playing it safe. As promised, here is my solution:


The New Rules
1. Two new lines are drawn from one sideline to the other, seperating the field into thirds.

2. Upon gaining possesion of the disc, a team has 45 seconds to move the disc to the next line. Note: 45 seconds is an arbitrary time, to be modified as deemed neccesary.

3. If the team manages to cross the line, the count is reset. The count CANNOT be reset by moving the disc backwards across a line.

Other potential rule additions:
1. Different point values are awarded for scores thrown from different thirds of the field. For example: a score from the near third would be 3 points, from the middle third would be 4 points, and from the far third would be 5 points.

2. The stall count would be removed in place of a silent count frm an official. So the audience would understand what was happening, the official would raise a hand after he reached "7" to signal a warning, then tick off the remaining three seconds with sweeps of his other hand (like a basketball ref marks off seconds in the backcourt).


Argument for the Shot Clock
The shot clock (or "possesion clock"?) attempts to amerliorate this problem. The division of the field into thirds is aimed to provide an incentive for teams to move quickly instead of cautiously. The division of the field into three zones is also important to flow. This way, if the shot clock is about to expire while you're stuck in your own endzone, you don't need a full-field huck to reset the clock, just a medium pass. The time limit should be set up to give a team a reasonable time to work it up, so long as they keep moving steadily forwards.


Defending the idea
Here are some objections to the idea, and my responses:

Objection #1: It will lead to Huck n' Hope offense, where teams just throw deep when the stall count gets high.
Response: This is absolutely true: a team that squanders its possesion without making any gains would be forced to take a chance down field, just as a baseball player down 2 strikes has to swing at bad pitches, or a football team that has gone no where must throw the ball down field or punt. This is an integral idea in succesful spectator sports: rewarding those who take chances, punishing those who are too cautious.
The ultimate community is disdainful of teams that bomb it deep and never make any attempt to work it up the field. While that strategy is certainly a bad one in the current rule structure, I firmly believe that this the fact that long passes are sneered at is one of the biggest signs that something is wrong with ultimate. The rules must strike a balance between taking chances and playing it safe, and right now they err too far towards the latter.

Objection 2: Teams will play zone defense in response.
Response: This is also true! Good zone offense is very fun to watch. It's only boring for the same reason that man-to-man offense can be boring: when a team grinds out gains half a yard at a time. With the shot clock you have to get on a fast break or lose the disc.

Objection 3: Bad weather will be even worse with a shot clock
Response: This is the best argument I've seen. With a stiff wind, it would be harder to reset the shot clock. My intial response: so be it. Sometimes the conditions are bad in other sports, and you just have to make the most of it. In football, for example, rainy games probably mean lower scoring and more punts. So it goes.
However, if it did prove to be too much of a problem, perhaps the referees should be able to add a certain number of seconds per possesion before the game.

Objection 4: The added lines would make the field too complicated.
Response: Can you think of a sport with a simpler field than frisbee? There are 6 lines on an ultimate field, including the out-of-bounds lines. I can think of no other sport with less, and I challenge anyone else to come up with one. Two more lines would not be a big deal.



Relevant Comparison: Lacrosse
A good parrallel is lacrosse. Lacrosse, long a popular high school and college sport, decided to make the transition into a professional, spectator sport. The rulemakers recognized that long, uneventful possesions drove away fans, and Major League lacrosse incorporated a shot clock and two-point line. This is a great example of how a sport rich in tradition can succesfully be modified to make it more spectator-friendly.

Ultimately flawed

Introduction
Utlimate frisbee is a sport still in its formative years. It is growing in popularity and immensely fun to play, but I believe that a fatal flaw is holding it back from becoming a great spectator sport.

Analysis of what makes ultimate spectator-unfriendly
As it stands, ultimate in an offense-dominated game. It is expected and probable that an offense will score. Most games are decided by which offense screws up more. This creates an incentive to be careful and to not take chances, not a good recipe for a spectator sport.

Incentives in sports:
Baseball players have to take a chance and swing or strike out. Football teams must take a chance to maintain possesion. Basketball teams, likewise, must take a chance or the shot clock will run out.

Soccer is another example of another sport without an incentive to take a chance. Though I love soccer, it has trouble competing in America because it has relatively less action than the major sports here. Soccer's problem is also one of incentives: teams have little motivation to attack and lose possesion, especially if they're ahead. Hence, much of the game is passed with one team playing it safe, shots on goal and fast breaks are infrequent, and ties are common.

This phenomenon is certainly present in ultimate, both by the UPA (games played to a certain number of points) and MLU (timed games) rules. In the case of the UPA, teams are rewarded for efficient, high percentage throws and punished for taking chances. With the MLU rules, teams that are ahead will quickly hit on the idea to have everyone but 2 or 3 players go sit in the endzone, while those couple players bleed out the clock playing keep-away.

The stall count as a failed incentive:
When ultimate was conceived, the stall count was implemented to provide the impetus to keep the game moving, but players have gotten good enough to keep the disc alive by making short passes without a significant risk. Thus, the stall count no longer serves its intended purpose, and elite-level ultimate features teams moving cautiously down the field until they have a high percentage chance.

Furthermore, a team coming from behind in ultimate has no real incentive to start taking risks. Games are played until a team has scored a certain number of points, so if you fall behind there is no incentive, as there is in any other major field-sport, to attack quickly before time runs out. Even in tournament play, where games can be capped by time, you aren't beat until the other team scores, so the incentive again is to be cautious and not take risks.

Next time, on Eclexia:
Stay tuned for the next post, which will outline a strategy for getting ultimate back on track as an exciting spectator sport.