Intro
By and large, ultimate has a great rule set. The vast majority of the rules add up to produce a game that runs smoothly and is a lot of fun. In a sense, the rules are the game that we all know and love. However, of course, the rules are imperfect. In this post I'll discuss the rules that I think should be changed. I'll focus on the USAU ruleset as that is the most widely used ruleset, as well as the ruleset used at the highest level. It's also the ruleset that I am most familiar with.
Some proposals are inconsequential and some are somewhat consequential, but none of them would fundamentally change the game. Some proposals are minimally controversial and some are very controversial. There's one additional rule that should be changed (one that I call the worst rule ever) that I won't discuss here. I'll devote a separate blog post to it.
For reference, here's the current edition of the USAU rules.
Defensive check
Controversy 🔥 / 5
Impact on the game 🥏 / 5
Current rule
9.D.3. When the situation is resolved, the player determined to be in possession offers the disc to the marker for a check.
a. The marker restarts play by touching the disc in the thrower's possession. If the thrower attempts a pass before the marker checks the disc, the pass (whether complete or incomplete) does not count and the thrower regains possession.
b. Any stall count in effect resumes according to 15.A.5
9.D.4. Offensive self-check: If play is to restart with a check, but no defensive player is near enough to touch the disc in the thrower's hand, play restarts with an offensive self-check. To restart play using an offensive self-check: [[Determine this distance based on the thrower standing upright and extending the disc toward the marker.]]
a. the defense must acknowledge readiness; and
b. the thrower establishes a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field, touches the disc to the ground and loudly announces “in play.”
9.D.3. When the situation is resolved, play restarts with an offensive self-check. To restart play using an offensive self-check:
a. the defense must acknowledge readiness; and
b. the thrower establishes a pivot at the appropriate spot on the field, touches the disc to the ground and loudly announces “in play.”
c. Any stall count in effect resumes according to 15.A.5
d. If the thrower attempts a pass before completing 9.D.4.a or 9.D.4.b, the pass (whether complete or incomplete) does not count and the thrower regains possession.
Normally, after a stoppage a defender has to tap the disc (if they are in range) to restart play. My proposal is to eliminate that - i.e., the offender always checks the disc on the ground. The reasoning behind this is that the defender is at a disadvantage when tapping the disc in. Sometimes to tap it in they have to lean forward which makes them off balance, and always to tap it in they must extend their hand forward, which means they are susceptible to being broken by a step-through throw right away.
The downside of this change is that now the offender has to ground-check, which is disadvantageous for them. My opinion is that this is a less impactful disadvantage than the current disadvantage for the defense, especially as throwers generally have a leg up on the mark.
Self-mac
Controversy 🔥 / 5
Impact on the game 🥏 🥏 / 5
Current rule
16.A A player may bobble the disc in order to gain control of it, but purposeful bobbling (including tipping, delaying, guiding, brushing or the like) to oneself in order to advance the disc in any direction from where it initially was contacted is considered traveling. [[Tipping, brushing, etc. to someone else is legal. It is legal to tip/brush your own throw. However, if after a tip/brush, one is the first player to touch the disc, then it is deemed a tip/brush to oneself and it is a travel.]] [[Remember, you can bobble for the purpose of gaining control, so kicking the disc up to yourself to help catch it would be legal. But tipping the disc for the purpose of evading a defender would not be legal.]]
no rule
I can't think of a good reason why you shouldn't be able to mac it to yourself. Maybe someone else can, but I can't. The self-mac seems like it would fit within the spirit of the rules and wouldn't add a huge advantage to offensive receiving. Plus, it would be cool when someone bobbled the disc for a long gain of yards, and especially devastating when someone tried to self-mac and dropped it. In my mind, it's similar to watching someone milk it in / jump it in (exciting!) or watching someone drop it trying to do the same (yikes!). It would also be fairly rare - probably more rare than the situation of someone milking it or jumping it in, as the risk of bobbling is higher.
Uncontested receiving fouls in the endzone
Controversy 🔥 / 5
Impact on the game 🥏 🥏 🥏 / 5
Current rule
If a team gains or retains possession of a dead disc in the end zone that they are attacking, the disc is checked into a live state where the infraction occurred, and the thrower then proceeds according to 11.B. [[For example, after an uncontested receiving foul.]]
If a team gains or retains possession of a dead disc in the end zone that they are attacking, that team is awarded a goal. [[For example, after an uncontested receiving foul.]]
I'm not sure if my proposed rule fixes this in exactly the right way. If I were actually writing the ruleset I would think through the rule to ensure that the only siutation that this rule change applies to is after an uncontested receiving foul. The spirit of the proposed rule change is that if you are about to catch a disc in the endzone and are fouled (uncontested), you should be awarded a goal, the same as a strip.
The counterpoint is that there is some uncertainty, i.e. if the foul had not occurred, the receiver might not have caught it anyway, so it is fairer to take it to the front of the endzone. However, that's not in line with the spirit of the rest of the rules - generally, in committing a foul you give up your chance at what else you might have done. This is the case for receiving fouls on any other part of the field. When you foul an offender but could have gotten the block even if you didn't, the offender keeps the disc rather than it going back to the thrower.
I would also be okay with a less severe version of this change, something like “if both players agree that the receiver would have easily caught the disc in the endzone if the foul had not occurred, that player is awarded a goal” - so the current rule stands, unless there's an uncontested receiving foul where both players see that it's obvious the player would have scored.
Disc abuse
Controversy 🔥 🔥 🔥 / 5
Impact on the game 🥏 / 5
Current rule
No rule
Appendix B.2 Behavior Warranting Sanctions
J Disc abuse
1 Spiking a disc so hard that it is punctured or warped in a way that makes it unusable even after reasonable attempts to fix it.
To be clear, I am not against spiking or other celebratory shows of joy or triumph. The only thing that rubs me the wrong way is when someone spikes a disc edge-down so hard that it is unusable. This is a very rare thing - even nearly all edge down spikes don't meet the bar of actually making the disc unplayable. I think if you spike a disc hard enough to break it you should be given a TMF or some other minor penalty. Drawing a line here is more important than the punishment itself. Maybe you should have the $10 cost of the disc added to your dues.
Stalling within ten feet
Controversy 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 / 5
Impact on the game 🥏 🥏 🥏 🥏 🥏 / 5
Current rule
3.Q.6 Marker: The defensive player within ten feet of the thrower's pivot or of the thrower if no pivot has been established. If the disc is not in a player's possession, a defensive player within ten feet of a spot on the field where the disc is to be put into play is considered the marker.
3.Q.6 Marker: The defensive player within twenty feet of the thrower's pivot or of the thrower if no pivot has been established. If the disc is not in a player's possession, a defensive player within twenty feet of a spot on the field where the disc is to be put into play is considered the marker.
(there are other places where a marker is referred to as within ten feet that likewise would be changed) Discussion
This feels like a rule that has not been updated to reflect the times.
There's a lot of value in playing with the depth on the mark. Marking closer takes away a large slice of the field but less effectively; marking farther away takes away a smaller slice of the field but with more certainty. Nowadays, all the best marks know this, but in the olden days my understanding is everyone marked much closer because fouling on the mark was more accepted and that was the most effective tactic.
There are a lot of times when it's more effective to mark from more than ten feet away (and if there aren't, this rule change doesn't matter), but the marker is needlessly bounded by the ten foot radius if they want to be able to stall. I think it's time to update the rule to increase the distance you can mark from. I'm not sure that twenty feet is exactly the right number - it might be twenty, it might be twenty-five, it might be something else.
"Ultimate is a non-contact sport"
Controversy 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 / 5
Impact on the game 🥏 🥏 🥏 / 5
Current rule
1.A Description: Ultimate is a non-contact, self-officiated disc sport played by two teams of seven players.
17.I Fouls: It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible. [[Avoid contact in every way reasonably possible, while still playing ultimate. Some contact is inevitable, but players have an affirmative obligation to make reasonable efforts to avoid contact.]]
1.A Description: Ultimate is a limited-contact, self-officiated disc sport played by two teams of seven players.
17.I Fouls: It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way reasonably possible, while still playing ultimate. [[Some contact is inevitable, but players have an affirmative obligation to make reasonable efforts to avoid contact.]]
This is another rule that needs to be updated to reflect the current state of the sport. In this case, this rule seems to have not been updated because of pushback from people who consider themselves purists and try to convince themselves that ultimate is a non-contact sport. Ultimate is a game that inevitably involves contact (as the rule states, “some contact is inevitable”) and every game I have ever played in has involved contact of some kind, including the games I played as a fourth grader. The phrase “avoid contact in every way possible” is neat and tidy, but is not accurate to the way the game is played or the way the rest of the rules are written.
I have only ever seen this phrase invoked by people who are ignorant of the specifics of the foul rules or who are intentionally trying to muddy the waters to get a foul call upheld when there was only non-dangerous incidental contact. Too many players use this phrase as a defense to misunderstand what constitutes a foul. These conversations often go like this:
Player 1: A foul occurred because there was contact and I didn't catch the disc
Player 2: Did the contact affect the outcome of the play?
Player 1: No.
Player 2: Was the contact dangerous?
Player 1: No.
Player 2: The contact was incidental and not dangerous, so it does not constitute a foul.
Player 1: But ultimate is a non-contact sport. It is the responsibility of all players to avoid contact in every way possible. Foul!
Changing this rule would more clearly communicate what constitutes a foul to streamline these discussions, as the rest of the ruleset outlines correctly. Other places in the rules get it right. For example,
3C. Foul: Non-Incidental contact between opposing players (see 3.F for a definition of incidental contact).
Also: 17.I4.B.1 (footnote): Incidental contact, by definition, is not a foul.
Incidental contact is a natural part of the game and not altogether avoidable. If that's the rule, which it is and should be, 17.I and 1.A need to reflect that. This is not so much a rule change as a language change.
On the preamble, specifically: this is a minor language change, but important for the framing of the sport. The word “non-contact” is nonsensical because it is not accurate. “Limited-contact” or “low-contact” would be more appropriate.
Team timeouts
Controversy 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 / 5
Impact on the game 🥏 🥏 🥏 🥏 / 5
Current rule
7.B Team Timeout: Each team has two team timeouts per half in a standard game.
No rule
I'm pretty sure this will be my most controversial take. But, try as I might, I can't see how timeouts improve the game.
From what I've seen, timeouts are included in ultimate's ruleset because many other sports have timeouts and there is a force of habit and history that comes along with playing the game. It would feel like a breach of tradition to eliminate timeouts. It would just feel weird. But feeling weird is not a reason to not do something.
Another argument I often hear is timeouts serve to break up long points and to prevent sloppy play. Without timeouts, as the reasoning goes, long points will run on with increasing sloppiness [1], which no one likes. How can we ensure clean ultimate without timeouts? The answer is that we already play the version of ultimate that has no timeouts. That version of the game exists in every ultimate game after a team has used all their timeouts. The game does not become dangerously tiring or egregiously high-turnover.
I would still keep injury, technical, and spirit timeouts (though spirit timeouts merit their own discussion). All of those timeouts have a clearly defined purpose that are necessary for the game to run. The purpose of a team timeout is to provide a strategic and physical break for each team, which does not justify the amount of time we spend not playing the beautiful game.
The downside of timeouts is obvious: any moment we spend standing around is a moment we don't spend playing ultimate. Timeouts erode the game in the worst way, by creating times where we're not allowed to play. Ultimate already has too many stoppages and pauses. Let's get rid of team timeouts and let the players play.
Conclusion
Those are seven USAU rules I would change. I think they all apply to the WFDF ruleset too, but I haven't checked. There are certainly additional rule changes I haven't thought of, and some of these I'm probably off base about.
There is one additional rule that I think is even more detrimental to the sport than any of the ones in this article. I believe it is the worst rule ever - badly motivated and antithetical to the game of ultimate. I need more space to complain about it, so I'll discuss it in its own blog post.
Resources
[1] I also disagree that sloppy/high-turnover play is inherently worse. But I'll accept it for the sake of this argument.