Which Ultimate Rules should be Changed in 2025

[@pekkaranta6237]

Early years picks were allowed. It led dangerous situations. That’s the history.

[@flyingdics1]

Yeah, I thought this was obvious. Legal picks will incentivize and increase contact in all games immediately. It's hard to see who wants that outside of maybe a minority of UFA players.

[@manzell]

I think the Pick analysis doesn't take into account "What if offensive players were incentivized to get in the way of defenders" regarding the collisions issue.

[@HiveUltimate]

Rule 18.3.3. 'All players should take reasonable efforts to avoid the occurrence of picks', exists and I do not want to change that.

[@ucbluman]

​@@HiveUltimateand what's the penalty for not doing that?

[@jb17415]

@@ucblumanyes this is important because the punishment really determines if a rule is followed or not. If it’s just a finger wag then it’ll keep happening

[@maxshally3731]

definitely agree about stall time decrease, i think 8 seconds would be ideal! personally i think the rules about contesting stall outs also need to change, so often they end up getting contested after the fact because the stall in total just 'felt' a little fast. i think if you are going to call a fast count it should have to be during the stall, and if you do get stalled out you should only be able to challenge that last second if they rush getting to the last number not the entire stall. also, i think some reworking is needed for offensive/defensive fouls on the mark, as the mark is almost never truly 'stationary' and it's always a real grey area!

[@Rakkerrr]

The problem is that the current ‘10 seconds’ already tend to be 7 to 7,5 seconds, especially in high level club play in North America or Australia. (And I’ve also seen quite some European high level players counting too fast.) So if you reduce the stall to 8, the actual stall out may come at (or below) 6 seconds already.

[@pekkaranta6237]

Indoor games are already played stall 8.

[@ImJoegath]

@@Rakkerrrbingo. Stall reduction to 8 will be effectively the same time because it’s going to result in a much more frequent fast count call. Which is probably good still. It would get the enforcement of “real” second counting to trickle down a bit. I’m pretty tired of having to pull out my phone to prove to someone they’re counting twice as fast as they ought to be 😂

[@HiveUltimate]

Don't agree about contesting the stall count - sometimes those final seconds come way too fast and that takes more than a second of stall count to recognise and verbalise. Agree on defensive marking fouls the fact that 'there is non-minor contact [with a legally positioned marker] resulting from the thrower and the defender both vying for the same unoccupied position, prior to the release' is definitionally a defensive marking foul is nuts. I think we could rewrite the defensive marking foul rule using the principles of who initiated the contact from rule 12.7.

[@MrCho14]

@@Rakkerrr I don't know why this is a problem. The goal would be to reduce the amount of time of a full stall. If a 10 count is too long, then you reduce it. It doesn't matter if that translates into 10 seconds down to 8 seconds or 7 seconds down to 6 seconds. And if stalls are consistently faster than 1 second, then as already stated it may result in more fast stall calls which is fine. It just makes things more accurate and allows for further adjustment of the count later if desired.

[@MikeTheis]

Legalize running with the frisbee.

[@ManifoldSky]

That sport already exists. It's called Frisbee football. Ultimate isn't that.

[@jb17415]

@@ManifoldSkywhoosh

[@jb17415]

I wanna see a stiff arm 😫

[@macdavidson3814]

USAU says a pick is when the movement of an offensive player causes a defender to be obstructed by any player from the person they're guarding. At 4:30, this is a game played under USAU rules and should not have been called a pick as the obstruction was created by the independent movement of a defensive player. I'd like a clarifying annotation on that, and for the WFDF to change their pick rule to be more like USAU.

[@lsmith77]

I am pretty sure the WFDF rules previously also stated that the pick must be caused by the movement of the offense but it doesn’t in the current iteration.

[@travisfinucane]

I disagree with your take on picks, though I appreciate your point about the inherent unfairness of defenders basically blocking each other on purpose. The JPN CAN play you cite for pick is an example of how the pick rule helps balance the game toward defense. The defender poached the lane, taking a risk in leaving his player. Offense needed to cut off his route, knowing he's going to cause a pick by sprinting past the poacher. I have a bit of a soft spot for picks because I once sent an opponent to the hospital following a collision from a pick.

[@tusharjamwal]

which should actually be more reason to not allow pick calls when two defenders trying to guard the same person block each other. You are basically protecting and rewarding them for a dangerous act. "hey let me collide with my teammate so we can call pick"

[@travisfinucane]

​@@tusharjamwal In the video's JPN CAN play, the cutter had time to react, swerving around the defender. That means he had time to break off his cut, and not run his defender past the pick. If offensive players were allowed to use poachers to set screens, the vert stack would be unstoppable.

[@tusharjamwal]

@@travisfinucane First let me say that I also think that the offense is too favoured and weakening the pick rule will indeed disadvantage the defense even more. But I still stand on what I said and we need other methods to tip the rules in the favour of defense. If someone is poaching in means they are currently not guarding a specific player but rather a space. This is a choice they made not the offense. When an offensive player attacks said space and is able to get past this defender without contact. They have beaten this defender fair and square. This is even without another defender trying to guard the same offender. Now if another defender is guarding this offender you effectively double team the offender. If the two defenders in this case collide with each other, this is an even bigger mistake for the defense. In no way should the offense be punished for it. And the pick making the play invalid is in effect punishment. By contrast if two players of opposing teams are standing together on the field and an offensive player runs between them and their guard is blocked by either, I agree that this should be a pick and not allowed. The defender in this case is reacting to a different player.

[@iangough8874]

9:22 is an incredibly dangerous play and, imo, should not be permitted in the game

[@HiveUltimate]

It already is not permitted

[@johnbob3999]

this is what i mean soon we are gonna make playing hard a foul

[@nukeofficial1103]

lmao I've never even heard of the Hat style rule, that's so ridiculous

[@HiveUltimate]

WHO IS THIS RULE FOR?!

[@flyingdics1]

This rule started in the 2000s when they started televising games. They started requiring matching jerseys and shorts with numbers on both, and color-coordinating accessories (hats, base layers, tights, etc.). I've never seen it enforced and I doubt I've watched a single game where a team was in full compliance in the 15+ years since it's been on the books.

[@HiveUltimate]

@flyingdiscs1 it has been sporadically enforced at some wfdf events post pandemic

[@alcoolwarriors]

this silly rule was enforced on my team by advisors at WUMCC 2022 for a streamed game. I had a black and white hat, my teammate had a black and white hat but with different logo and they allowed just one of the two on the field.

[@timothydavis2568]

well thought out and articulated, agree with all of your suggestions

[@wheaties2k2]

Injury calls should be a continuation (i.e. did it affect the play?). I've seen too many teams benefit from an injury because it occurred as they were throwing a disc away somewhere else on the field.

[@iTzMeNeLsoN]

BASL Indoor Winter 2023 Finals, Swill vs Baddy Daddies :(

[@HiveUltimate]

16.3 'Regardless of when any call is made, if the players involved from both teams agree that the event or call did not affect the outcome, the play stands. This rule is not superseded by any other rule.' Applies as always. In fact I think that perhaps the rule is a touch too harsh, if a deep shot is up and you're clearly gonna catch it then you pull your hamstring should you retain possesion of the disc/should it go back - I could be convinced that it should even tho as it stands the rules necessitate this is a turn. I'm particularly talking about rule 19.1.6. 'If the disc was in the air when the injury stoppage was called, play continues until either a player establishes possesion, or the disc hits the ground. If the injury is not the result of a foul by an opponent, the completion or turnover stands, and play restarts there after the stoppage.'

[@wheaties2k2]

@@HiveUltimate Quite right. Both WFDF 16.3 and USAU 17.C.1 allow players to agree that any call had no affect on the play and the outcome should stand. I stand corrected!

[@challenges-dl3yu]

i wanna talk about rules about boundry. since the defenders are always considered in-bound, and when two players make a play on a disk which is flying outside the boundry, the defender can run outside boundry and hit the disk or block the way of the offensive player. this looks very unfair. 2, I happended to see one scene, upon a stoppage, one defensive hided in the sideline, and ran out of nowhere to block the disk, which is technically not against the rules, but very tricky. so I think the rules shall clarify that. before the game starts or resumes, all players should be inbound; if a player is making a play on the disk, the player must jump from inbound.

[@jccalhoun4972]

I want A LOT more clarification on “dangerous play”. I’ve never seen it called in a situation where there wasn’t contact, and multiple people on the field agreed it was a correct call. I’ve seen dangerous plays that resulted in contact, and those were called, and generally agreed upon. But the point of the rule is to improve safety by preventing that contact, and I don’t feel like that’s what is happening.

[@Mellowyellow8888]

i feel like some of your suggestions sound good as coming from the player you want to balance the offense and defensive opportunities (not going to pick on the minutia of a concurrent catch and many other plays that lean towards the offence....) but if you step back and think.. if this game wants to move towards a spectator sport.. like other sports ie basketball/ american football and many others.. offense will always have the advantage.. the game at its highest level is.. whom on defense can make those few plays to stop offense.. its never been the defense having an equal opportunity to offense...

[@HiveUltimate]

Hmm I'm not sure - football (soccer) the defence certainly has an advantage. The perfect game of football finishes 0-0, yet it the most popular spectator sport in the world. Nevertheless ultimate will always be an offensively dominated sport but I just wanna tip the scale slightly towards the defence with a reduction.

[@tusharjamwal]

this is not valid for many other sports from different cultures. Which have good viewership in their region.

[@AllUpOns]

I disagree that offensive output is what creates a successful spectator sport. Just look at basketball and soccer. They're basically complete opposites in this regard, but they're both wildly successful. What really causes a sport to take off is star power, which the rules can only indirectly affect.

[@Mellowyellow8888]

@@AllUpOns look at all popular team sports out there.. (baseball is the exception.. because of innings and a orderly change from offence to defence taking turns).. most other major spots also with your exception to soccer.. all thrive on scoring.. we have to also note that a tie tends to be acceptable with soccer.. (except in some championship games.. and like very limited substitutions..)

[@joshw604]

i feel the vagueness of "did it affect play" for picks needs to be clarified. i've seen offensive players actively decide not to go for a disc that is in the air and claim that they stopped play because they heard a pick call when in reality they may not have been able to reach the disc or it would have been highly contested. to me, a pick call already advantaged the offense and getting the disc back to the thrower by just deciding to stop play further advantages the offense. ive even seen players have throws hit them square in the chest but not attempt to catch the disc, because if they attempted and dropped it then it would be a turnover, whereas if they claimed they stopped playing then the disc would go back to the thrower (it would go back even if they caught it anyway because their defender was picked)

[@tasmanmillen]

Make the delay of game rules harsher (maybe 3 sec once a defender is within 3m and any offensive player is within 10m?); and minimize time between points. Both of which leads to more ultimate vs standing around.

[@SharkBaitSHRKB]

i disagree with the stall count rule. as we saw at d1 nationals people count fast

[@HiveUltimate]

It still feels like a long time even given the climate of fast counting

[@flyingdics1]

Yeah, going from 10 to 8 would mean going from 7 real seconds to about 5.

[@MrCho14]

@@flyingdics1 If the goal is to reduce the amount of time allowed, then isn't that accomplishing the goal? We just have to acknowledge there isn't a 1 to 1 ratio between count and seconds currently. There should be better enforcement of fast counts which likely will happen if the count is reduced.

[@flyingdics1]

@@MrCho14 I guess I don't see the value in prioritizing reducing the amount of time allowed in general. I also don't see how there will be better enforcement of fast counts with less time. It's hard enough with nominally 10 seconds (which is really 7.5), so why will it be easier with 7 seconds (which will really be 4.5)?

[@MrCho14]

@@flyingdics1 "I don't see the value in prioritizing reducing the amount of time allowed in general." "It's hard enough with nominally 10 seconds (which is really 7.5)"

[@adriancisneros6374]

There should be some rules set in place when a thrower literally throws into a defender and calls foul gets abused sometimes like im more than a disk away and you leaned into me just to call a contact so you can lower stall

[@RareEarth70]

For some reason I thought a defender-on-defender pick required both defenders to be close to different offensive players.

[@t7110]

I think your pick suggestion is a good one in spirit, but the wording is a little narrow and clunky. The USAU rule pretty succinctly covers the stuff you're worried about: "A pick occurs whenever an offensive player moves in a manner that causes a defensive player guarding an offensive player to be obstructed by another player." If you are poaching off someone to try and get a block and then obstruct a teammate, the obstruction was not caused by the offensive player, and isn't a pick.

[@HiveUltimate]

I totally agree that the wording is a little clunky - although it is trying to be narrow, its too narrow in that a pick could be called if a obstructing defender had just very recently stopped marking a player before they obstruct the other defender. And it's a fair suggestion that the USAU wording of the rule may be better, but I personally very strongly dislike this wording because I philosophically disagree that an offensive player ever causes a pick. There's an assumption made that when a offensive move moves a defensive player follows - meaning the offensive player is causally responsible for the movements of the defender and I don't agree with this implication - I'd rather we place full responsibility for every player to move into space of their own accord and if they cause contact or are obstructed in any way thats on them.

[@jccalhoun4972]

I agree more with your pick adjustment in the video than the change you’re arguing for here. Making the change above (if I’m interpreting your rule correctly) would make the sport much more like basketball, and intentional picks would become rampant. As far as the pick rule change you say in the video, I would make the rule specifically say “if a pick occurs between to defenders, they must each be actively guarding, and within [the prescribed distance in WFDF] different offensive players”. To your point though maybe that would be too clunky of a rule.

[@HiveUltimate]

@jccalhoun4972 That wording goes farther than I'm suggesting. With that wording of the rule a defender assassinating an attacker in a zone could not call pick if they were obstructed by a defender zonally marking - to me that seems like a reasonable pick call.

[@jccalhoun4972]

Thank you for the reply! I fundamentally disagree with you that your zone scenario is a legitimate pick (or should be by what I think should be the rules of the sport). BUT at some point, reasonable minds can disagree. Play on!

[@ucbluman]

in your situation wouldn't the player calling pick just be the defender (A) guarding the offensive player, as this defender (A) would be reacting to the offensive player who runs close to the poaching defender (B) and thus causing defender A to be obstructed by another player (B). i guess you would then have to argue about "cause", but I think it's clear a pick could still rightfully be called here.

[@ManifoldSky]

Simultaneous catches in the end zone are fundamentally different than simultaneous catches anywhere else, and as such, it makes absolutely perfect sense to treat them differently, both from simultaneous catches elsewhere, but also any other rule that treats offense and defense equally. A score in Ultimate is defined as a successful possession of the disk in the opposing team's end zone. The disk being in both teams possession does not change the fact that the disk is in the offensive side's possession in the opposing team's end zone. Even if you argue both teams possess the disk, the offense possesses the disk, in the opposing team's end zone. So since the defense failed to prevent this possession from happening, it's a score. Per se. This is in line both philosophically as well as in practice, with pretty much every other end zone scoring type sport. This also removes any judgement call re: the rules and whether or not a score occurred. I agree the no pick rule is dumb, and pointless, and should be eliminated in its entirety. It made sense when the game first started, informal games amongst friends, on often tiny, impromptu fields, sometimes even paved parking lots or other potentially dangerous surfaces, where collisions could easily have serious consequences. It makes little to no sense in the modern era, with much more serious athletes, on relatively huge fields of play, often turf, where such rules are entirely unnecessary. Rather, a set of much more specific offensive interference and contact calls, especially dependent on proximity, would make far more sense. More in line with football and basketball. But the number one pointless, totally arbitrary, and IMO counterproductive rule, is the no disk stalling/ tipping rule. Allowing disk stalls (stalling/delaying the disk, NOT the game!) would open up potentially spectacular running plays, liven up the game, and make it more exciting (though I could accept a ("no scoring on a running stall" rule). The no tipping rule it just plain dumb. Both rules are entirely arbitrary, chosen for no particular logical reason, at the birth of the game, serve no real purpose, and IMO detract from the excitement of the game.

[@rjhberg]

I say we mandate matching hats for everyone!!! You MUST wear a hat - let's be sunsmart! /s

[@HiveUltimate]

Helmets for safety in ultimate when?

[@ericdeng7024]

thoughts on removing the double team rule? i wonder where that would take wfdf ultimate..

[@ericdeng7024]

probably not good for lower levels of play

[@Rakkerrr]

Not at all for lower levels.

[@travisfinucane]

Works great for AUDL, from what I've seen--kind of a desperation D that will get beaten by high level handlers, but can help stave off a fast break. As others have said, definitely not for lower level play.

[@pekkaranta6237]

I would move brickpoint in the middle of the field. Pullers should concentrate more to make good pull. In other sport you would loose point due to bad pull.

[@HiveUltimate]

Like others I think it would be bad news for lower level play - but I think that like youth leagues etc could add the rule back in (I've heard of zones being banned in low level play which I'm not a fan of at all but it does set the precedent that adjusting the rules for low level play is plausible. The other thing that I think would uniquely effect WFDF play compared to UFA play is that a removal of the double team rule is a real buff to cup style aggressive zones. In the UFA that's kinda offset by the much larger field - in WFDF it wouldn't be so the question becomes do zones become more the meta and do we want that - I'd suggest maybe we don't. Personally match with a lot of switching and poaching and a sprinkling of some zone D points makes for the most interesting games. I'd also be really interested in the effect it would have on handlers hanging out behind the disc. Would it be less viable because it would facilitate sneak attack double team Ds (like the one in the Singapore game)?

[@SharkBaitSHRKB]

what did aj merriman have to say about the strip call? and how he def didn't get it first? like after the fact? cuz in the moment I'm sure he felt he got it first

[@HiveUltimate]

I'm sure he did, if only they had waited 15 seconds for Nathan Kolakovic's perspective we saw in the video like they did multiple times in the World U24 finals ...

[@SharkBaitSHRKB]

@@HiveUltimate yeah

[@Hogi1091]

Apparently Nathan was keen to show the camera but they didn’t consult him - pretty sure he said this on his insta story one time. My big grievance with USAU rules (appreciate you’re talking WFDF in this vid) is only one party has to decide to go to the observers and the call is out of the hands of the players; the “fouler” (for want of a better word) doesn’t have to contest the call; they can go to the observer and chance a 50:50 that they didn’t see it properly. I’m not saying AJ did it like this. I’m just saying there’s benefit to going to observers over contesting and giving the last thrower the disc back, and that seems wrong

[@IamMaxC]

Wow, what a cool, safe, and unsuccessful bit at 5:07

[@HiveUltimate]

Shade of Kurt Gibson WUGC open final 2016 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mYKtlIiYrd-sp7ssi=5h6xi_1tfeyVjRyB&t=100s

[@pndaemon]

Hard disagree on "what actions in the game define the game logic", blocks and defensive actions being game defining is great for the spectator. I also think people look at all time great games and then use that to make rules. look at an average game of (pro) ultimate, there is usually more offensive turnovers than goals, just because the defense doesnt convert doesnt mean there arent opportunities. I also think it just makes the sport suck for new comers. Im not a great player and am on the older side (played my first nationals in 09) so i might just be out of touch but I love defence defining games and watching NYE defence in past seasons was amazing

[@HiveUltimate]

Yeah it's definitely more feelings than logic on that point. But I think that unfortunately most turnovers are the result of offensive miscues rather than defensive magic or some kind of massive block.

[@HiveUltimate]

Reminder to vote on my rule suggestions (and see how others voted) here forms.gle/B6qz4iUuVAzsvYbh6

[@georgelane6350]

I completely agree with the redittor that suggested clarifications around dangerous play in the upline space. I recently played a game in which an opposing player hospitalised themselves. The opposing player made an upline cut that was overthrown and floated, she curved her cut 90 degrees and dived headfirst - directly into my teammates hip. The opposing team called foul because my teammate was 'running on her blind side'. The whole thing got captured by the event photographer. The opposing player took ten steps, turned 90 degrees and dived without looking into that space once. My team mate took 4 step, looking directly where he was going and slowed to minimise the danger. But the rules aren't clear that this is a foul by the offense. I'd love the rules to clariify that all players must ensure that a change in direction or speed will not result in contact with another layer. This would rebalance the game a lot more in favour of the defense.

[@AllUpOns]

IMO, this is already very clearly laid out in the dangerous play rules, which explicitly supersede every other rule. One of the examples given is even "diving around or through a player that results in contact with a player’s back or legs". Basically anytime you dive and make significant contact, that's a dangerous play on the diver.

[@lindyswing4368]

How about this, once the offense looses possession of the disk in the case it lands on the ground, the member of the defence closest to the disk pick up the disk. This can reduce the gap in play and give us a more fluid game. Else we have to wait for the handler to come and we have set up the field and its boring to watch happen.

[@MrCho14]

Aside from deciding which player should have picked it up, what is the punishment for a player making a D and running away from the disc on the ground? Giving possession back seems....excessive. Allow pre-stalling?

[@lindyswing4368]

@@MrCho14 the idea is to make it a culture where the person that makes the D doesn't run away and picks the D up......the punishment is a little irrelevant at this stage of this rule suggestion.

[@squidge903]

Terrible idea. That's not what makes Ultimate boring. Letting teams set up and make plans makes the game more interesting. It adds a strategic dynamic to the 'plot' of the point, vs just brainless movement. A bit of a slow down means more interesting play to occur.

[@AllUpOns]

@@MrCho14 Pre-stalling seems like a good idea. It prevents outright play stoppage while still allowing for meaningful decision-making in the moment, which is always good.

[@russadams36]

I would not alter the "dangerous play" rule, there's just too many times an Offensive player is making a cut that leaves them vulnerable to a blind side incursion from the Defender. I'm a D Line guy and I know I often have the better perspective as I'm making a move to get the block, especially if I poach off my guy because I can see the play unfolding downfield in front of me and I'm jumping the route of a different O player. We should error on the side of safety - I'd keep this rule as is.. The other reason not to alter this rule is as two players sprint to catch a disc, the O player almost always is running at a controlled speed, while the D player, knowing that all they need to do is get a hand or finger on the disc and smack it/alter it's direction, is almost always accelerating to the disc, and this difference in attack acceleration can make a play imbalanced and much more dangerous. I agree that in limited circumstances, an O player might be initiating the dangerous play, for example, on a floating "hospital pass." That's not uncommon. I would agree that O players have a shared responsibility to watch the field and know where they are going, but the downfield handler cut example kind of proves my point, because at some point that cutter has to look back for the pass or has to turn their gaze downfield a bit late on a leading pass downfield. Either way they are in a vulnerable position. I just think the probabilities & related responsibilities tend to weigh towards the attacking D player This is also one of those moments where a dangerous bid can destroy a player's knees due to a low flying collision. We really must guard against that. Great defenders know how to get the block and avoid the collision. Regarding your disc space comments, I'm intrigued with collapsing the rule, but playing at the Masters - Great Grand Masters levels, our team has encountered a lot of bad marking, wrapping, etc. It happens a lot more than you said. Otherwise, as always, I like your take on rule reforms and love your videos. GO HIVE!

[@timothypilli]

I agree with the removal of picks if it was caused by a defender on a fellow defender. Finding a way to force the offense to comply with 18.3.3 is the challenge here.

[@TehFingergunz]

Lowering the stall would make watching ultimate more exciting, agreed. Maybe at the highest levels it should even be five...

[@johnbob3999]

i feel like this game needs refs (like the UFA) because as your saying 2 people cant just decided what happened especially when you start playing for money

[@speedracer55]

make traveling a turnover, for real. jump stop on a running catch if you have to.

[@emrecan7]

Beach ultimate should be 6v6