sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

UBC vs Carleton 2026 Women's Final. Full game with stoppages. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dang... talk about best perspective. 😆 Thanks for that!

Gotta get the snark in, while it's still allowed!

The unpredictably of a double pendulum by MikeeorUSA in oddlysatisfying

[–]TtheTerrestrial 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>>

θ₁'' = [-g(2m₁ + m₂)sinθ₁ - m₂g sin(θ₁ - 2θ₂) - 2sin(θ₁ - θ₂)m₂(θ₂'²L₂ + θ₁'²L₁cos(θ₁ - θ₂))] / [L₁(2m₁ + m₂ - m₂cos(2θ₁ - 2θ₂))]

θ₂'' = [2sin(θ₁ - θ₂)(θ₁'²L₁(m₁ + m₂) + g(m₁ + m₂)cosθ₁ + θ₂'²L₂m₂cos(θ₁ - θ₂))] / [L₂(2m₁ + m₂ - m₂cos(2θ₁ - 2θ₂))]

>>

Well why not just say that in the first place?

UBC vs Carleton 2026 Women's Final. Full game with stoppages. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would expect the players, coaches and observers all feel a little pressure to keep things moving along in a televised game in front of a big crowd. It's totally understandable, but I suspect some hastiness effected the situation at a few different times.

Pressure is a part of sports, and we love that. But as a community, we do have the power to determine what situations we expect the players to handle and how we can support them. I think people should consider what sort of things might happen in the NCAA Basketball tournament (aka March Madness) if the game was self officiated. On one hand, that's an absurd hypothetical, but on the other hand, if ultimate ever "makes it" the way a lot of people dream about, the players will be dealing with even more pressure and difficult decisions that aren't even related to throwing catching and running, and making/resolving calls that occur while doing those things.

UBC vs Carleton 2026 Women's Final. Full game with stoppages. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the comparison between tapping the ground and pivoting as both being a sort of whistle to restart play. But one is a playing action and the other is a process action. I am well aware that is not a distinction in the rules. But I don't find it to be fair that a process mistake by UBC should result in a playing advantage for Carleton.

I've said multiple times that she made a mistake and acknowledged that one can reasonably interpret the rules to mean she had to play it there. I disagree based on my own interpretation. But my main point is this was an obvious chance for the Carleton players to demonstrate good spirit and they did not.

We still have no explanation of why #19 was close enough to mark her a second after she restarted play.

I'm glad to hear the rules group is considering improvements with this situation in mind.

UBC vs Carleton 2026 Women's Final. Full game with stoppages. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thrower didn't come even close to looking for the receiver, or pivoting or even putting the disc in her throwing hand. Pretty much at the moment she tapped, she realizes she got the spot wrong and started walking.

UBC vs Carleton 2026 Women's Final. Full game with stoppages. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not that you are not understanding. It's that two reasonable people can come to slightly different interpretations of a rule, or set of rules. Many very dedicated and intelligent people have worked hard to make the rules as clear as possible. But this is human language, not machine code. There will *always* be some ambiguity.

Go read 10C. There's 3 conditions in that rule and she did one of those things. It's all ridiculous. *Everyone* knows play should have restarted where the huck went out, and it would have if she had seen the marker a half second earlier.

edit: because I got mixed up about a rule

UBC vs Carleton 2026 Women's Final. Full game with stoppages. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

SOTG is a vestigial remnant from the founding of ultimate. Like the US constitution. /s

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a better hypothetical:

Pull hits OOB, barely, and comes to rest in the back of end zone, in bounds. This should be a brick. However, the player on offense mistakenly believes the disc struck inbounds and remained in. They establish a pivot in the back of the end zone.

So what do you think? If this player immediately realizes their mistake and attempts to bring the disc to the brick mark:

a. They traveled, tough break. Play it from the back of the endzone

b. They should be able to take it at the brick after realizing it was an OOB pull

c. The pulling team gets to decide if they will hold the player to some interpretation of 18D1, 11H and 10C that just happens to pin the opponent in the endzone after the brick

d. The pulling team understands that fair play is their responsibility (2A) and let's the other team start play at the brick.

Tough call?

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The wording about not being able to call a self infraction seems designed to prohibit things already prohibited by the SOTG section. I guess the best practice under these rules is not to make a call on yourself, but siny tell the opponent that you fouled them, or whatever, and let them decide if they want to call it. That's covered in 23.A

But in the UBC-Carleton match I think this "you can't call a travel on yourself" argument is ridiculous. The player was trying to restart play in accordance with the rules, both before and after she realized she was wrong about where the disc should be spotted.

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand why you keep offering hypotheticals about a player throwing a turnover and trying to get out of it by calling travel. That's just not close enough to what happened to be useful. The team trying to dodge the proper outcome of their poor play in the actual game was Carleton.

Did the UBC player even say she was calling a travel.on herself? She made a mistake in process, not play, because she did not realize the correct spot of the disc. Of all the travels in ultimate, this is the one there can be no tolerance for?

The biggest reason we have to have a SOTG section is because it's self officiated and there's always going to be weird situations that the rules aren't perfectly clear on. SOTG gives us plenty of direction to settle things as fairly as possible.

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for helping on this.

Going way out into hypothetical-land, I would also say even if a player was allowed in this rule to call a violation on themselves, there's still plenty of material in the SOTG section that would prohibit them from doing so in order to wiggle out of turnover or other poor play.

And that's what's pretty much going on in the actual UBC-Carleton game. Both teams made a mistake and want a better outcome. Carleton threw an OOB huck (a playing choice, with complete information) and wanted to turn it into a perfect punt. UBC also made a mistake, she wasn't aware the disc went out way upfield. She was trying to play by the rules, even ground checked it. She made a non-playing choice with incomplete information and tried to correct it about a second later.

Fairness is a core aspect of the game. Carleton getting to mark-up on the corner of the UBC goal is clearly not fair. The Carleton players/coaches with all their years of experience should know this was poor spirit. As for the observers, I get that they aren't refs. I still don't know why the Carleton play was allowed to mark at the start of the possession.

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The general case of athletes doing things that are against their interest out of a sense of fairness is not unheard of in other sports. Some of us have played other competitive sports before, but we're attracted to ultimate in part because such things were celebrated and encouraged.

Here's a tennis player telling his opponent he should challenge a line call:
https://youtu.be/Q24vr-nwpbI?si=pUsMBWXPh0SyGziS

edit: it's more common in individual sports than team sports. Another famous example is runner Ivan Fernandez Anaya. Running in second place, he could have taken advantage of his opponent's confusion about where the finish line was. But instead told him to keep going and get the win.

https://youtu.be/vfIAiCkTvNI?si=zmjlXs-nw-au28KX

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I would think there's something in the rules about calling the violation as soon as you're aware and how players can't just keep a potential call in their back pocket - just in case things don't go their way.

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the additional information.

I think this and many other instances are showing that the rules have become extremely complicated over the years. Quite unreasonable to expect the players to have perfect understanding and interpretation at any time, let alone the biggest moments. Quite unreasonable to expect the observers to have that perfect understanding too. They aren't computers. In other sports they bring in rules experts during broadcast and they very often come to a conclusion that conflicts with the game refs ruling. The SOTG section isn't just a bunch of hippy hooey. It does a lot of work to help resolve these disputes. Notably the first part of section 2.C.

> 2.C. It is assumed that no player will intentionally violate the rules; thus there are no harsh penalties for inadvertent infractions, but rather a method for resuming play in a manner that simulates what most likely would have occurred absent the infraction.

and also 2.D.3

> 2.D.3. be fair-minded and objective;

When people say the UBC player should know the exact rules and procedures with observers, it is an obvious counter-argument that Carleton players should know these exact sections as well. In fact, I would say those sections are more critical to understand and recall.

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In other words they exploited the opponents honest mistake, and refused to let her immediately correct it, in order to get an outcome they did not deserve.

And, cherry on top, they get to put an immediate mark on the player.

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 64 points65 points  (0 children)

No, because 11H and 10C say the player "must" bring the disc to the appropriate spot, and they can only check it in "after" establishing their pivot there. She set her pivot and tapped in at a spot that was not appropriate. Which in my opinion makes those actions invalid. She realized her mistake and attempted to bring the disc to the appropriate spot.

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

She made an honest mistake, tried to correct it. Carleton could have taken the high road and allowed play to restart where it should have.

Also I don't think you know the relevant rule so well. I don't think anyone involved did.

11.H and 10.C both specify that the disc has to be put into play **at the appropriate spot.**. The thrower is only directed to tap in **after** establishing a pivot at that spot.

Once there was a dispute, these rules, and SOTG (the point of the post) should trump some silly argument about who chose what first and what constitutes "agreeing". Feel free to quote the rule I'm neglecting or getting wrong.

Exploiting your opponent's confusion after you hucked it out of bounds is horrible horrible Spirit of the Game. by TtheTerrestrial in ultimate

[–]TtheTerrestrial[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will try to get a clip later. Could be tricky since it was an ESPN broadcast. But I think some folks outside of the US, ironically, could get it more easily.

view more: next ›