Goaltimate Articles A Little History

A Little History on the Sport of Goaltimate

by Jim Parinella of the Wellesley Founders

Amenities 
Player Goodies
Organization
Styles of Play
Subbing
Observing
Differences from Ultimate

First, kudos and many thanks to the tireless Rick Conner and his wife Bibbi, who ran this thing. Rick dealt with lots of difficult frisbee people and kept a smile on his face the whole time. I think the tournament ran about as well as can be expected for something as new as this.

Amenities:

Fields: All fields were lined and had cones on the important boundaries.: The goal lines became obscured on the first day because of all the wear, and later games had more disputes as a result. Perhaps a wish list for the next tournament would include "reline goals halfway through Day 1." The fields themselves (San Diego Polo Club in Del Mar, site of the 1999 Jockey UPA National Championships) were great. Staff was great.

Player Goodies:

Awesome. Free airfare. Free uniforms manufactured by Gaia (I'm unsure how much this was paid for by the tournament and how much by Gaia). Gaia merchandise was offered at or below wholesale to players. Free dinner on Saturday, free champagne breakfast on Sunday. Medals for all players. Water coolers at all fields. No food provided during games, although a burger/hot dog/burrito tent sold food (and a supermarket was less than 5 minutes away). Lots of signs and radio ads announcing the event, which led to some number of spectators for the final (I wasn't paying attention, so I couldn't guess. There were certainly more non-players present than is typical). One little boy came up to our team after the final and asked us to autograph his new frisbee. Being a new professional athlete, I charged him $6 for it.

Organization:

Very good, although the format caused some slight difficulties. 6 pools of 3 isn't optimal. Most games had one team coming off a bye against a team who just played. Some series went only 30 minutes, while others lasted the full 90 minutes plus overtime. Most teams got to play less than is typical at an ultimate tournament. 6 teams played only two series (all series were games to 5, best of 5). 6 more played 4 series, and the other 6 played 5. However, with only 7 players per team (only 6 in any one game), and with the large decrease in down time per game, the amount of playing per person was better than the above would lead you to believe. My muscles are probably less sore than after a typical ultimate tournament, but that is also related to my team's style of play (half-court, less running than any other team). Games started on time, had two Observers always who kept track of score and time, water coolers were never empty, staff was readily available. Oh, some first round opponents had very similar colored jerseys, making it difficult for players to tell whether another player in his periphery was friend or foe.

Styles of Play:

The strategies were more varied than in Ultimate, but not by as much as I had expected. The clear line was far enough away (30 yards) such that the 2 point threat wasn't really much, no more than, say, an onside kick in football. We completed one 2 pointer out of maybe 5 or 6 tries. Almost every team played man to man, as far as I could tell. Some teams played man all over the field, others always kept one man back to play center field. Man to man defense made it tougher for the other team to clear it, but it also tired out the defense and opened up some fast break goals. Zone allowed free clears and gave the opponents a chance to rest. Offensively, teams had a wide range of styles. San Diego (Ground Zero) obviously knew the game and could score a lot of different ways. They jammed it in the corner, threw scoobers to the back of the end zone, and threw passes to cutters slashing in the side. When faced with our zone after a weekend of man to man, they quickly made the adjustments and figured out the gaps.

The scoober was a popular scoring tool. Other high throws took longer to get there and were often blocked by defenders standing on the goal line. Lots of players scored by jumping into the goal through the front, although that was always dangerous, with a few collisions (none too serious). Some teams put no one in the end zone. Some teams frequently worked the disc behind the goal, others never went there except in an emergency. Some relied extensively on high passes, some teams ran pick plays, some used lots of quick passes, and some played Ultimate on a Goaltimate field.

Subbing:

an underrated part of the game that made a difference. Teams subbed too infrequently and without purpose, in general. The subbing box was farther from the action than I thought the rules specified. Also, the rules were a little unclear on the logistics. I had heard that a player on the field calls for a sub and is immediately out of the game, at which point a sub is allowed to run on the field, and as soon as they tagged, the sub was active. However, in one game, an opponent called for a sub, the sub began running on the field while the first opponent was stalling and marking, and the two tagged after that pass was off. I complained to him, he countered with, "Nah uhh." Case closed.

Observing:

a thankless and difficult job, even more so than in Ultimate. Lots of people (including myself) gave them a hard time for perceived bad calls. I think the nature of the game means that there will be more close calls than in Ultimate. The goal scoring area is much smaller, and so many more of the catches are near the boundaries. The players are also much more bunched together, which increases the likelihood of contact. There is no prohibition against double- or triple- or even quadruple-teaming (I suppose the above mentioned team could have quintuple-teamed), so that led to more thrower-marker contact.

The short stall count meant not only that there would be more contested stalls, but also more swill passes would be put up at a high stall count. Finally, because the players are packed near the goal, the odds are higher that an Observer's view would be blocked, or that they couldn't get close enough to see for fear of interfering. I suppose one additional issue was that there probably were only 12 people on site who knew all the rules, since many of the kinks were being worked out over the last couple months and weren't finalized until the very end. Consider how clueless Ultimate players are about 10th Edition UPA Rules sometimes, and then imagine how it would be with a whole new set that are similar but with some significant and some subtle changes.

Differences from Ultimate:

Different skills were emphasized. Those teams that tried to play Ultimate were quickly relegated to the consolation bracket or knocked out completely. The short stall and four person teams meant throwing skills (with the big exception of hucking) were more important.
Short break mark passes were essential. A player has to be able to anticipate, since there is no time for plays to develop and because players might be open for only a second.
Play was more physical, but that too varied a lot from team to team. Some teams were very physical only in the goal as they tried to post up. Others were really tight on the mark.
Some were physical all over the field. For the most part, the two teams established what they thought was an acceptable level of contact, though, just like in Ultimate. The average level was probably akin to pro basketball. No pushing with the hands, only the body.

A hand on the back was okay so long as there wasn't a shove along with it. In general, I felt that if a player wanted to play physically, that's fine, but he shouldn't expect much sympathy on foul calls. Many Ultimate players would consider Goaltimate much less exciting. There are no hucks, not as many layouts, and less running.

On the other hand, there is a lot more finesse required, players had to be more creative with their throws, and there were still plenty of great opportunities for awesome catches, both on floaters and on bulleted passes.

My teammate Stu Downs won the hearts of many a fan with his great catching display in the finals. As a player, I found it very exciting. Reason #1 is that the game constantly required and earned my attention.

There were no 80 or 150 second breaks between points, or 10 minute halftimes. No OB pulls with a slow walkup. When I wasn't playing, I knew I was going to be back in play in a short time, not 5 or 25 minutes later when I might get called in again. Reason #2 was that I enjoy the aspects mentioned in the preceding paragraph. I got to throw several hundred passes (my 90% confidence range is 150-400). I had the opportunity to make some neat catches and throws (and drops and throwaways). And I got to play in some great battles against worthy opponents. Reason #3 is that the small teams made it much more personal.

There is not that much room for pure role players. And you can't hide when your thrower only has three potential receivers. Reason #4 is that it is a wide open book waiting to be written. You don't choose your strategies because "that's how everybody plays." There's no conventional wisdom to guide you. Everyone (except SD) began playing a few months ago.

As a fan, I'm less certain. Any disc sport has its drawbacks because the general populace doesn't know what we're doing out there. More Americans understand a trap block than an offside trap, so that's why our football is more popular than their football. There were plenty of confusing instances, especially with regards to calls. I think the game has to address these issues if it wants to become the sport of the new millennium (TM?). The pluses are that it's a smaller field, there are fewer breaks in the action, and there are fewer players to keep track of.

To "improve" the game for TV or the fans, I am guessing that something will be done to force it to be more wide-open. In hockey, they shrunk the crease and moved the back line. Football has made holding legal. Baseball narrowed the strike zone. Basketball prohibits the zone and has a shot clock. And soccer ought to change their damn offsides rule so that a 1-0 lead isn't insurmountable. Of course, purists decry all these changes, but the sports are more popular as a result. If you want, you can go back a longer ways to find examples like the legalization of the forward pass, the lowering of the mound, or the removal of the center jump after each basket.

I guess I'd do something with the stall count. A five second count is fine, but it's just not five seconds. I had an amusing exchange one point with an opponent. We were clearing the disc with a lot of short and quick passes, they were following us, and they initiated their stall counts without saying "Stall." I took exception to this, and a fan would have heard:

"One."      "Fast count."       Pass is thrown.
"One."     "Fast count."        Pass.
"One."     "Fast count."       Pass.

They then humored me by adding "Stall", but reverted when I wasn't looking. Anyway, I'd either let the Observer count the stall or require the marker to be within a certain distance of the thrower to initiate a count. With such a short stall count, it's even more important to be consistent and fair. The time cap was another controversial issue. My team held the disc for the final 11 minutes in our de facto semifinal game by using our three timeouts and working a four-corners offense.

I didn't particularly like the timeouts, partly because I didn't think they were necessary, although I could also see the arguments that it's just a time management strategy and that we earned the right to delay by working up a lead. I don't think the rules should allow a team to run down the clock by calling timeout. I think the NUA changed its time rules very quickly such that a timeout in the last x minutes of a half or game stopped the clock. Any tournament that has an official keeping time at the field (as opposed to a tournament that has one director at tournament central with one watch and an airhorn) can also keep track of the time cap on that field. Another game had to be extended after its apparent end because of a misunderstanding of the time rules.

Overall, a big thumbs up. I see looking back that I haven't given enough credit to the organizers. It was a blast for me. I plan on continuing to play, and hope to be in West Palm Beach in February for the next scheduled tournament. My complaints were minor and are meant as suggestions. For the first tournament ever, it was tremendously well-done. Now, if we can just shut down that damn scoober..

Jim Parinella

.