Everything #3

I'm picking up from where my latest post ended: Thursday afternoon - after Chain's quarterfinals win over Invictus from Canada. I spent thirty minutes that afternoon in the computer lab, partly writing on the huddle's blog and also moving towards the quarters showcase game between Boston and Seattle.

I enjoyed watching Ironside and Sockeye fight it out - partly cause it didn't look like either team would be strong enough to take down Chain's 26-deep big-man game. Watching the game was also fun because most of Chain was sitting together joking, cheering, and throwing things. Que the picture of Kid chucking a disc into the rafters. On the field, Sockeye came from behind after being down a break or two at half and became our Friday morning opponent.

Semifinal game

I want to say two things first off about how we approached this game. First, this is a good old-fashioned rivalry. We may not play Sockeye as often as Chain plays Doublewide from Texas. But there's something about the character of each team and the recent history of our games -- we came in with a chip on our shoulder.

Unfortunately, the second thing I have to say about our approach to this game completely contradicts and counteracts the first. Chain had been enjoying the feeling of a national championship for the last eight months, reveling in having kept Sockeye to single-digits at Nationals last year. We had also been riding the confidence train all week of being the number one seed and going undefeated. So the intensity of men in battle, athletes with something to prove (chip on their shoulder), whatever comparison there is to make -- we were lacking a bit in intensity.

On to the game: Not too much happened in the first half. Chain expects to have worn down the opponents enough in the first hour of play to be able to make a huge run in the second half. With all of our athletes, there was no way Sockeye could keep sending out new bodies to move the disc 70 yards - and it was out of the question that our fresh legs on offense would give up more than a break or two.

You can see from the scoring sheet and from my incremental photos in this post that our strategy was working. An unexciting first half quickly gave way to Chain getting two breaks early in the second half. If this was to be anything like the Doublewide game, Chain would extend the lead with more defensive breaks and win the game by a handful.

Let me mention before diving into the more contentious play and call of the day that there was some confusion about the halftime cap. I believe it was 49 minutes at the time Sockeye scored to make it 8-7. The WUCC staff overseeing the game did not blow their 50-minute half-time whistle until about 20 seconds after that Sockeye score, meaning the current point (the pull to Chain's offense) should occur before breaking for half. So instead of handing the disc right back to Sockeye after half with the chance to go up 9-7, we would potentially have one more O point, score to make it 8-8 for half, then pull to Sockeye for either team to make it 9-8.

As things seemed to go over the week (and especially in this game), Chain's objections about the half-time time cap were ignored. Half-time ensued, during which a pump-up speech sets us on course. We score five out of the next six points - fairly unprecedented in such a tight game. From being down 9-7, we go up 10-9 and break again two points later to make it 12-10.

On to the more serious play and call of the game. Chain is on offense, up 15-14, game to 16. From memory, Sockeye's running a vertical stack and Chain's forcing towards the sideline that I'm standing on. A Seattle player cuts across the field towards the back of the stack and a Chain player calls pick. Simultaneously, the Seattle thrower releases a flick to a different downfield cutter. The throw soars a good 12 or more feet in the air and falls several meters out of bounds. Uncatchable pass. Happened about the same time as the pick call. Under "normal" competition rules - UPA for Sockeye and Chain - this is an obvious change of possession.

But we're playing in a WFDF tournament, under WFDF rules. And one of the major rule differences between UPA and WFDF has to do with continuation on a pick call (continuation in general on violations or infractions). The WFDF continuation rule states that "play may continue after a call... 1. If the thrower is called for an infraction and subsequently attempts a pass [or] 2. if the thrower was already in the act of throwing or the disc is in the air at the time of the call" page 2.

To sum it up,I believe the truth on the play to be that a thrower was in the act of throwing as "pick" was called in the stack. The disc went incomplete and should result in a turnover - according to WFDF rules. But the problem with the outcome of the play wasn't just that I wanted to be right. We all know there can be multiple versions of "the truth" on an ultimate field and in the world.

So, in the spirit of self-officiating, two sides should come together and negotiate the best possible outcome. In the minute or two that everyone was reacting to the play, Wiggins and AJ had probably the most central role in the conversation - at least from what I remember. At one point, AJ asks me - I'm on the sideline - when I thought pick was called. I say, ignorant of the repercussions because I didn't know how the rule is written, that the pick was called while the thrower was in the act of throwing. The pick occurred simultaneous to the throw. I say it not sure whether that will support our case or hurt it - just cause that's what I know to have happened. After this, Wiggins huddles up with a couple of his teammates (I think MC ?).

I always appreciate teammates talking about what should happen with a captain or teammate with a good perspective. But what happened next was really the most confusing part of the whole scene. Wiggins emerges from his huddle with a certainty about what should happen. He walks to the sideline, hands the disc back to the thrower, and mumbles something about how "it shouldn't be this way, but..." And what can Chain say? There was no real attempt after the Sockeye huddle to agree with Chain what would happen. Sockeye's air of authority basically rolled over Chain's temporary confusion.

Shortly after, Chain taps the disc in and blows a second then third chance to advance to the finals of Worlds.