View topic - zone defence

zone defence

"Rant on your Soapbox" Revived!

zone defence

Postby Wartank » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:26 pm

BIRT TUC should disallow zone defence in C-Low divisions.

Many teams in div 9 and 10 are composed of one or two good players who have started a team, maybe a few with a bit of experience, and the vast majority who are just starting out.

When a team like this is confronted by a zone defence, they can do one (or more) of the following three things:
a) rely on their experienced players to handle the disc to get it past the cup,
b) share the handling responsibility equally, and/or
c) panic and throw the disc away repeatedly because they don't know what's going on,

the problem with a) is that the newer players don't get to touch the disc nearly as often, and do not get as much game experience.

the problem with b) is that inexperienced players either won't want to pick up the disc (resulting in situation a) because they don't want to face a cup, and they don't want to let the team down by turning it over on the goal line, or they pick up the disc, they throw it away (either right away, or eventually after dumping and swinging once or twice) and they get disheartened, appear to gain nothing for themselves or the team, and frustrated.

the problem with c) is that it's very likely to happen. i don't think that most teams, let alone those in C-low, practice on a regular basis. I don't see how they can be in any way prepared to face a zone defence, either in the game they're currently playing, or any game during that season, or maybe even the next.

While offense is difficult and frustrating, defence can also be a nightmare. Players are unused to finding/choosing a person to defend, and the other team can easily exploit mismatches because the defence also isn't experienced enough to handle defensive switches.

I'm all for low-level teams practicing and learning and getting better, but a zone defence is often too big a hurdle for most new teams to overcome. C-Low is also a division meant to bring in new people to the sport, but faced with a zone defence, and heaven forbid on a windy day as well, the result is nothing but an exercise in frustration for the new or recreational team.

Let's get people used to throwing around one person before they have to throw around three. Let everyone get involved in the play.
"I do not like swimming. It is too much like . . . bathing." - Worf
User avatar
Wartank
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:55 pm

Postby jason » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:41 pm

Poppycock!

I used to play on a "lowly C" team. Our team had a very typical make-up. A few experienced/athletic people with the balance of the team being rather green. Our game featured lots and lots of hucking and on any given line-up there were 2 or 3 players that rarely got touches.

We were pretty successful. We won lots of games, and because of this there was little motivation for the weaker players to improve, or for us to incorporate the green players into our offence. That ended when we started meeting teams in the playoffs that could run an effective Zone defence.

We were forced to change our game a lot. We promoted two of our women players as "handlers", and over the course of a few seasons we became a very well-rounded and deep team.

During the regular season (now in High B) we still meet teams that win while only using a few players and hucking. We're older and slower, but we can run an effective Zone defence. So we smoke them.

Playing Zone against poorer teams may seem unfair, but its also a good way to demonstrate how you need lots of good handlers on any decent Ultimate team.
User avatar
jason
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:17 pm
Location: spidermonkey

Postby Mortakai » Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:59 pm

I think that suggesting no zone is similar to suggesting no hucks if the logic is to get more people involved. For the C-level hucking team, how often is it only one or two people who always do the hucking to only one or two people who are always alone in the end zone.

For me, when I first started playing (and on a low C team), we were faced with a zone in one of our first few games. We learned the basics of the dump and swing to tire out the cup, which we mastered over the next few points. We did NOT have more than one or two good handlers but were still able to maintain possession long enough most times to move it up the field and get most people involved in the play and touching the disc.

It worked out well, and actually built up our confidence and skill much faster than if we'd not been allowed to zone for a few years.... besides, waiting that long still means you're still going to suck at zone the first few times you try it.

caveat: my use of the words "mastered" and "good handlers" need to be read in the context of C-level... nowhere near a master or good if you compare it to anything else. :)
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby Wartank » Fri Oct 01, 2004 1:07 pm

while i wholeheartedly endorse your use of the word "poppycock", i have to admit that our seeing eye to eye in this discussion, at least thus far, diminishes rapidly from this point onwards.

i won't argue that depth at the handler position is vital to any decent team. i can't say that learning zone defence is not useful. I won't even say that being forced to play against a zone defence isn't sometimes a valuable trial by fire.

In my defence, my low-C team isn't a run and gun team. We practice regularly, but we focus on the basics. Throwing, cutting, spacing, the stack, the force, etc. That's a hell of a lot of material to cover right there. and that's all while some of them are trying to figure out if they like the sport, and while they are trying to gain confidence and experience. And this is a team that practiced every week from april to september.

I just find it frustrating to teach my team how to run a stack and flow it down the field, but that's nothing compared to the frustration of some of my teammates when they can't execute the things we practiced, and when on a windy day we can't get an open cut downfield to get by the cup, and three patient dump-swings will generally result in a drop.

i dont want to tell people that on any team there are set handlers, and work on only those skills for certain people. i want to get people involved all 'round.

I think it's a great testament to the sport that we are seeing more experienced players and plays all the way down through to tier 10. On the other hand, new players have to start somewhere. If that somewhere is losing badly on a windy day against a zone defence, that's a poor and unfair introduction .
"I do not like swimming. It is too much like . . . bathing." - Worf
User avatar
Wartank
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:55 pm

Postby webdummy » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:11 pm

Wartank wrote:while i wholeheartedly endorse your use of the word "poppycock", i have to admit that our seeing eye to eye in this discussion, at least thus far, diminishes rapidly from this point onwards.

i won't argue that depth at the handler position is vital to any decent team. i can't say that learning zone defence is not useful. I won't even say that being forced to play against a zone defence isn't sometimes a valuable trial by fire.

In my defence, my low-C team isn't a run and gun team. We practice regularly, but we focus on the basics. Throwing, cutting, spacing, the stack, the force, etc. That's a hell of a lot of material to cover right there. and that's all while some of them are trying to figure out if they like the sport, and while they are trying to gain confidence and experience. And this is a team that practiced every week from april to september.

I just find it frustrating to teach my team how to run a stack and flow it down the field, but that's nothing compared to the frustration of some of my teammates when they can't execute the things we practiced, and when on a windy day we can't get an open cut downfield to get by the cup, and three patient dump-swings will generally result in a drop.

i dont want to tell people that on any team there are set handlers, and work on only those skills for certain people. i want to get people involved all 'round.

I think it's a great testament to the sport that we are seeing more experienced players and plays all the way down through to tier 10. On the other hand, new players have to start somewhere. If that somewhere is losing badly on a windy day against a zone defence, that's a poor and unfair introduction .


i totally hear where you are coming from warren. i have the similar frustrations with my team. although, if you don't introduce zone in low C, where would you do it? might as well learn it at this level than in low B...gotta start somewhere. don't ya think?
User avatar
webdummy
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:06 pm

Postby Bird » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:24 pm

I am also one that thinks removing zone 'D' from the lower levels can only improve players individual skills.

First of all I hate playing zone and playing against zone...so I am bias...what is zone defence???to me it is more of a strategy than anything else...you don't improve your individual defensive skills in anyway...as far as I'm concerned...learning to tire out a cup...is not improving your skills(other than being patient...which is important)...and 9 times out of 10 it will be your better handlers with the disc in their hands because people who are not as strong become intimidated...they don't look up field(because their throws have to be so precise)...and resort to become excellent at dumping the disc...and even at higher levels your looking for one crack in the zone so that you can make that pass up field...and this can take along time to happen...if you are new to the sport and you make a cut 3 or 4 times and never get the disc...what incentive are you going to have to make the next one.

Just like ever sport...the most important things to work on to develop your game are the basics...like Warren said...cutting, throwing, spacing, the stack, the force...these are the things that will allow people to develop as good ultimate players.

How many teams can say they are prepared or have a zone offense in mind when a cup is put on them...let alone having any type of flow...and flow in this sport is what makes it so great.

Our team started out in Hamilton...move on to the 'Big Smoke'...we are now playing 'A'...and I can probably count on one hand the number of times we have played zone...and when we have it has been because the other team started playing it first so we had to adjust...now we have been fortunate have a very athletic team...and produced some good players...but to me it is because we can get more people involved on an all around basis by play man 'D'.

I think zone 'D' can be an effective way to win games...but even if you look at Touring teams...zone is rarely played...why???because it is stupid!!!so take that.
Lloyd: What is the soup de jour?
Waitress: It's the soup of the day.
Lloyd: Mmm, that sounds good, I'll have that.
User avatar
Bird
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Aerosol Headcheese, GiF, The Bad Larry's, GT

Postby Flynn » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:39 pm

Poppycock does not seem nearly strong enough. How about :evil:

Why don't we make up some other new rules while we are at it. Such as no throwing flicks because that throws new players off. How about no forcing one direction, that really throws people off.

Zone is part of the game. We were all beginners at some point, the only way to improve and learn about the game is to come up against something new, be that a new offence or defence, and find a way to beat it.

Correct me if I am wrong (as if I had to say that :) ) but Sport and Social has some odd rules: no zone, no hucks, mini-field. I have more than once played teams or groups of people that have moved to TUC from Sport and Social. Even when they have the throwing skills or the athleticism to compete it is the strategy that beats them.

Why would we want to teach a different game to beginners?
Flynn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:01 pm

Postby Flynn » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:43 pm

Bird, just read your post.

Junk, clam, poaches, all forms of zone played at a higher level. Not to mention traditional zones and variations thereof. Check out the UPA womens final on Stacked. Exciting to watch, maybe not, but zone at the highest level of competition.

If people want to handle against a zone then head out and practice.
Flynn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:01 pm

Postby slackerjack » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:45 pm

Bird wrote:First of all I hate playing zone and playing against zone...so I am bias...what is zone defence???to me it is more of a strategy than anything else...you don't improve your individual defensive skills in anyway...as far as I'm concerned...learning to tire out a cup...is not improving your skills(other than being patient...which is important)

This is probably true. It's a bit like comparing stop-time hockey to shinny. Stop-time is better organized, but you learn way more playing a few hours of disorganized shinny.
Our team started out in Hamilton...move on to the 'Big Smoke'...we are now playing 'A'...and I can probably count on one hand the number of times we have played zone...and when we have it has been because the other team started playing it first so we had to adjust...now we have been fortunate have a very athletic team...and produced some good players...but to me it is because we can get more people involved on an all around basis by play man 'D'.

I think zone 'D' can be an effective way to win games...but even if you look at Touring teams...zone is rarely played...why???because it is stupid!!!so take that.

Well, you're kind of stating the obvious there.

Zone is normally effective when:

(a) playing a team that lacks good handlers
(b) playing in really windy and/or wet weather

You might also choose to play zone if you feel that you don't matchup very well against the other team (i.e. they are way faster than you).

Teams with good handling can almost always rip a zone apart. Which is why on a nice calm day, you rarely see zone defense being played by high level teams.

Anyhoo...

The arguments in both directions make sense. If you don't know how to beat a zone, playing one can be very frustrating. But if C-Level teams never get a chance to play zone, they'll never learn how.

Maybe TUC needs to offer some more strategy clinics over the summer or something? That and maybe a strategy guide?
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
-- Jack Handy
User avatar
slackerjack
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby Wartank » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:54 pm

Mortakai wrote:I think that suggesting no zone is similar to suggesting no hucks if the logic is to get more people involved. For the C-level hucking team, how often is it only one or two people who always do the hucking to only one or two people who are always alone in the end zone.

.... besides, waiting that long still means you're still going to suck at zone the first few times you try it.


ah, the slippery slope argument. i think it's valid -- more to the point, what about poaching? i don't have all the answers, but just because you have to choose an arbitrary point to draw the line, doesn't mean that one should be be drawn (or considered) at all.

certainly, while i dislike it, tcssc's "no-half" rule is there for a reason, and it's not entirely crazy. less hucks = more touches for everyone. it happens to be past the line that i want to draw, but i see the value nonetheless.

another point raised by mortakai and others is that "you're going to have to learn it sometime". i totally agree. my suggestion is that you do it at a time when you are comfortable with the basics.. like, oh i dont know... being able to throw a disc, before you worry about all the patience and precision and team coordination that is required to take a zone defence down. bird's comments about the frustration on the part of the cutters is another great point.

also, i just think that zone should be disallowed in tier 10 only (yes, i may have been wishy on this in a previous post. pls ignore that). you can learn about zone defence in any of the tiers from 1-9. you can learn about it in practice. you can learn about it in clinics. you can learn about it in indoor hat league, or tournaments, or pick-up, or from a friend.

that being said, one of my other complaints about zone offence is that it's hard to teach. for people who might have one lowC team which is dedicated enough to even have practices, how often do you have 2 full lines around so that you can show a proper example of all the offenders and defenders?

don't get mad, flynn. i'll post later on about how that lowC teams should only be allowed to play during fair weather, and that any above average athletes should be banned, or that ultimate lingo like "bid" and "lay out" and "flick" is too confusing for new players.

for now, all i know is that i've encountered a lot of difficulty and frustration from new players, in terms of practice, execution, skills, confidence, etc., etc., when competing against a zone D. And i think that withholding a more advanced part of the game would be a worthwhile and more friendly simplification for new players, while not detracting very much from what ultimate has to offer.
Last edited by Wartank on Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I do not like swimming. It is too much like . . . bathing." - Worf
User avatar
Wartank
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:55 pm

Postby Wartank » Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:59 pm

also:

volleyball is a mainstream sport in which low levels of league competition often sport modified rules.

a few examples:
- max 5 serves per player
- men may not hit from in front of the attack line
- on 3-hit plays, one of each gender must touch the ball.
- rules like lifts/double touches, etc. are more relaxed.

to any decent volleyball player, these could be considered absurd restrictions to a great game. however, they are accepted as justifiable limitations in early levels so that a) teams don't rely on one or two strong players, and b) in a game where core skills are so important to team performance, it incentivises learning and contact for every player.
"I do not like swimming. It is too much like . . . bathing." - Worf
User avatar
Wartank
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:55 pm

Postby webdummy » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:01 pm

Wartank wrote:also:

volleyball is a mainstream sport in which low levels of league competition often sport modified rules.

a few examples:
- max 5 serves per player
- men may not hit from in front of the attack line
- on 3-hit plays, one of each gender must touch the ball.
- rules like lifts/double touches, etc. are more relaxed.

to any decent volleyball player, these could be considered absurd restrictions to a great game. however, they are accepted as justifiable limitations in early levels so that a) teams don't rely on one or two strong players, and b) in a game where core skills are so important to team performance, it incentivises learning and contact for every player.



hmmm...sounds like TCSSC... :lol:
User avatar
webdummy
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:06 pm

Postby Bird » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:09 pm

Forgive my computer retardation on not knowing how to quote something.

Flynn wrote: "Even when they have the throwing skills or the athleticism to compete it is the strategy that beats them."

This thread was started because some people view that individuals will grow and develop better if there was no zone 'D' in the lower levels of TUC...the statement above is referring to winning...not developing...we are not discussing who at the end of the day is going to win...we are discussing how players can improve the best in the early stages of the game...true strategy is something that helps win those close games and is something you gain through experience...but if the basic fundamentals aren't there...you can have the best strategy in the world...but no execution.

Flynn wrote: "If people want to handle against a zone then head out and practice."

I am in full agreement with you...practise...practise...practise!!!
Lloyd: What is the soup de jour?
Waitress: It's the soup of the day.
Lloyd: Mmm, that sounds good, I'll have that.
User avatar
Bird
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Aerosol Headcheese, GiF, The Bad Larry's, GT

Postby jason » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:17 pm

Wartank,

While I agree with most everything you're saying in terms of the frustrations of coaching a new team, I just don't think that outlawing zone defence is the answer.

For example, what about more mature C teams that are looking to move into B? You've created a situation where they are hindered (i.e., not being able to play a zone in a real-life game). Unfortunately, each team is unique and it would be very difficult to create such a rule in a fair manner.

For what its worth, almost all C teams fumble in the dark for many years before learning what's going on. It sounds like your team is in for some 'short term pain' for 'long term gain'. My C teams would never even practice at all!
User avatar
jason
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:17 pm
Location: spidermonkey

Postby lennox » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:19 pm

Wartank, I have to speak up and suggest that you are way off base.

In my second year of playing, with a team full of other 2nd year players, we were able to win Thursday night. We practiced once a week for both years and taught ourself zone defense and zone offense. We didn't have anybody to teach us how to play and we didn't have 2-3 ringers who were handling against the zone. We managed to do it, and we learned in the process.

Without learning in the 10th teir, teams that eventually move up will be confronted with zone (a good one too) and will be sent back down in to the 10th teir again where they can't practice against it or run it themselves.

There is no reason why we need to segregate the league. Once we do, a large rift will form between the teams that know how to play zone and the teams that do not. This is not a suitable future for Toronto ultimate.
User avatar
lennox
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby beachbum » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:24 pm

Ah, the age old "sink or swim" vs. "nurture" debate. You guys could go on forever on this and I guarantee you that you won't come to a definitive conclusion.

For the record, I'm in the "sink or swim" camp. My first experience with zone was at my first ever touring team game: sectionals at Geneva Lake in New York, aka the wind-surfing capital of that area of the world. Needless to say, it was a mighty windy fall day back in October of '93. Even though I felt as if I was running around like a chicken with my head cut off, I had the good fortune of playing with a lot of experienced and patient ulty players, John Harris among them. It was a valuable lesson which I used to better myself as I toured in the future.

My point, if I really have one, is that you're going to face a lot of different scenarios and experience is the best developer. If you never faced a challenge, how would you improve? The second point is that zone is a fact of Ultimate and it should therefore be experienced at all levels. But we as an organisation might want to consider augmenting teams with patient, learned teachers. I'm not the first to suggest that in this thread. Maybe make it a stipulation that every "C" team has an "A" player/coach.
beachbum
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:31 pm

Postby GregS » Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:46 pm

One thing that I think has been missed in all the discussion is that it can actually be more frustrating for an inexperienced player to play against a man defence than a zone. Let's leave aside for the moment whether it is easier for a newbie to get the disc against man or a zone; it's a different strategy you have to use, but I think roughly similar difficulty.

In my experience (being one of the most experienced on a low C team), once the newbie has the disc, it is much harder for them to get it to someone making a cut under man coverage: the throw has to be fairly precise, or it will be D'ed or uncatchable. Against a zone, they just have to wait a couple seconds for the cup to get set, and there will be a nice easy open dump pass available. Their completion percentages will be much higher, leading to greater confidence.

My C team loves to play and play against a zone, because it gives everyone a chance to play to their strengths, rather than being forced into uncomfortable situations. Oh, plus we're mostly old and lazy and find it's better to have three people running than all seven. :lol:
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Mortakai » Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:13 pm

Bird wrote:I think zone 'D' can be an effective way to win games...but even if you look at Touring teams...zone is rarely played...

Not at all true. Many touring teams use zone a lot, right up to the Women's UPA finalists last year (Fury/Riot n'est-ce pas?)
User avatar
Mortakai
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:28 pm

Postby Bird » Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:25 pm

I am not saying that zone is never played...but it is my opinion that Man 'D' is used the majority of the time at the touring level...from what I've seen...but who know...maybe my eyes aren't that good.

With regards to the UPA Women's Finals...if my memory is correct that game was played on a very windy day...of course under those circumstances zone can be a much more favourable strategy...but if my memory is correct again...the Open Final was also very windy...and I do not recall a zone 'D'...or at least very little.

Regardless...this is not the point of this thread!!!to me it is whether or not it is good for the development of beginners.
Lloyd: What is the soup de jour?
Waitress: It's the soup of the day.
Lloyd: Mmm, that sounds good, I'll have that.
User avatar
Bird
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Aerosol Headcheese, GiF, The Bad Larry's, GT

Postby Nigel » Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:23 pm

The Condors played a few points with transition zone against the Monkey's D line - i.e. if the Condors turned it over in the FG endzone, they played zone. I think it worked for a turnover once, and a point once. Someone on RSD noted that one of the reasons the US women's team may not have fared as well as anticipated at world's was that their zone D was less effective in calm conditions.
Nigel
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:10 pm

Postby Jane » Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:14 am

jason wrote:Wartank,

For example, what about more mature C teams that are looking to move into B? You've created a situation where they are hindered (i.e., not being able to play a zone in a real-life game). Unfortunately, each team is unique and it would be very difficult to create such a rule in a fair manner.


Except he amended his statement to say "in tier 10 only". The mature teams who are looking to win C/move into B likely wouldn't be playing in Tier 10.

Also, Bird, to quote someone, you just have to click on the little "quote" sign on the top right-hand corner of that person's message.
User avatar
Jane
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:00 pm

Postby ashunter » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:15 am

It looked to me that at least /some/ of your Disciples had learned to beat a zone in your game agaist the Ninjastars on Sunday ;)
User avatar
ashunter
TUC Board of Directors
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 3:52 pm

Postby Wartank » Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:59 pm

damn, hunter, you beat me to the board!

For the record, not more than 2 days after my post on the subject, i hear about it in a post-game cheer. This is what i love about the ultimate community.

ashunter wrote:It looked to me that at least /some/ of your Disciples had learned to beat a zone in your game agaist the Ninjastars on Sunday ;)


haha different disciples. They're multiplying, i tell you! And as per jane's comment, many are HiC players looking to advance..

GregS wrote:Against a zone, they just have to wait a couple seconds for the cup to get set, and there will be a nice easy open dump pass available. Their completion percentages will be much higher, leading to greater confidence.


Well, i never got the sense with my developing players that making successful dump passes was a huge confidence builder. Also, even rudimentary zones these days, yes, all the way in tier 10 (and incidentally, i consider this a credit to those teams who have been able to pull it off) use some kind of trap as the 'clincher' to their zone defence. Mostly this occurs on the sideline, but the end result is a clamping down of the zone on weak handlers or in other advantageous situations such that no pass is easy to make, and there is an intimidating ring of defenders all around them.

lennox and lionel - while i see your point, i feel i also must reiterate that you both seem to be much more committed to ultimate than the average player in tier 10 (at least, in my experience). Not everyone is in the game for the challenge and the development and the competition, much in the same way as recreational volleyball. I'm talking about a slightly more 'friendly' environment for learning the basics of the game.

lennox wrote:There is no reason why we need to segregate the league. Once we do, a large rift will form between the teams that know how to play zone and the teams that do not. This is not a suitable future for Toronto ultimate.


i'm pretty surprised at this comment about 'segregation' and ruining the future of toronto ultimate. teams and players are fluid. tuc outdoor summer isn't the only ultimate people see. many teams move quickly out of tier 10. i don't see at what point this turns into roving bands of guerrila tier 10 outsiders who, by virtue of their protection against zone defences, will poison the minds of enough TUC players to incite a bloody revolution. This is, very simply, an idea to help newer players focus on the absolute fundamentals of the game .

(oh btw, please don't ask me about my opinions on revoking women's suffrage and legal gay marriage, and having a different league for visible minorities with only half the rules and double the fees.)

a big part of the reason i started this thread was to hear peoples' ideas. thanks all. i think i've repeated myself enough here by now :$
Last edited by Wartank on Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I do not like swimming. It is too much like . . . bathing." - Worf
User avatar
Wartank
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:55 pm

Postby lukefraser » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:32 pm

As the captain of tier 9 (ie. lowest tier) team who played zone I'd like to chime in.

Our team played zone because we weren't as fast as other teams, but we are probably a bit better organized. However, it's not like our zone defense devasted the opposition. Our team played zone almost exclusively all summer, and we started in tier 9 and finished in tier 9 (perhaps we should have played more man, but that's another issue). If anything, I'd think that we helped other teams learn to play against a zone because we sort of kept things together, but generally were easy to break.

I think that if you are a tier 9 team and you play a good zone very shortly (within 5 games) you'll be a tier 8 or 7 team and you won't be a problem for the developing players anymore. And if you don't move up, then clearly other beginning teams aren't doing too badly against you, so does it really matter what defense you play?
User avatar
lukefraser
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:43 pm

Postby Colonel » Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:02 am

Time to chime in...

It's a little funny reading some of these posts - like listening to politicians answer questions by entirely missing what was being questioned. Wartank is asking about the possibility of a tier(s) that is non-competitive: it is not concerned with winning nor moving 'up'. He alludes to (almost all) volleyball leagues (and tournaments) that do the same with attack line and passing rules. I will also throw in hockey leagues that have tiers with no checking.

I hope that everyone here can agree that it is conceivable for some people to be more concerned about catching and throwing than strategy and winning. Yes, *we* all learned how to play and break different zones. Why should we insist it on others who have no interest in it (yet)? I think if we remember back to the first time we were trapped on a line, double teamed because we didn't even know what that was, we could all admit that it was a bit intimidating. I can imagine some people not liking it, not wanting it and having no interest in it. I think we should respect that.

I don't think we have to be purists about the sport just yet - there is room to allow variations to form for different groups (think shinny, touch football). They would all still fundamentally be ultimate and keep 'spirit of the game' at its core. The goal would be to *introduce* the game of ultimate to newcomers who could then *decide* whether they wanted to learn about the sport more. I agree with Wartank - there should be a *non-competitive* tier. And, at least with TUC, it would be 7 a side on a more or less regulation field... a big step up in itself from TCSSC.
Colonel
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:48 pm

Postby jed » Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:00 am

Why do we need a step between TUC and TCSSCSCSSCSC? (Sorry Rol, couldn't resist).

TUC is for people who want to play ultimate the real way (more or less - don't get me started on foot blocks). If people want to learn at a less competitive level, they have other options (pickup, TCSSC, etc..

Besides, as Spuke mentioned, a tier 10 team is only going to be facing a tier 10 zone. It won't take long to learn how to play against them - and then you'll be wanting to learn zone yourself, so you can get your a$$ out of tier 10!
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby Lockie » Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:24 pm

Dammit, Jed! :evil: How can I argue that introducing different rules at different level is segregationist when you've already pointed out that having foot blocks illegal at lower levels has created different rules for different tiers??
:P
Lockie
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:18 pm

Postby Marteau » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:02 pm

Lockie,

Although I might be wrong, foot blocks are not allowed at any level in TUC. The captain's clause can override the TUC rule but by default, foot blocks are not allowed. So we are not a segregationist organization per se. :D
Stephane
User avatar
Marteau
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Postby slackerjack » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:36 pm

Jed wrote:TUC is for people who want to play ultimate the real way (more or less - don't get me started on foot blocks). If people want to learn at a less competitive level, they have other options (pickup, TCSSC, etc..

Careful Jed, you might be projecting a wee bit there. Unless you secretly conducted a league wide survey, I'm not sure how you know what's in the hearts and minds of people outside Tiers 1-3.

Also, isn't it a little dangerous to entirely cede the low end of a market to a competitor? If TUC gets (I guess it already has) the rep of being a high-end league of elitist bastards, you might find that other leagues will attract more new players and grow at TUC's expense. I'm sure TCSSC loves the fact that TUC is so dogmatic about the rules they play with. It certainly helps them differentiate themselves, and makes them a more attractive option to beginner players.

Admittedly, league growth in Toronto is constrained by a lack of field space, but you should get the idea.

I'm having trouble seeing the downside of having a more restrictive ruleset in the lowest (or lower) tier(s).
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
-- Jack Handy
User avatar
slackerjack
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby jason » Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:42 pm

slackerjack wrote:I'm having trouble seeing the downside of having a more restrictive ruleset in the lowest (or lower) tier(s).


The downside is you're making an arbitrary judgement that people in lower tiers *want* to play with a different set of rules. So a Tier 9 or Tier 10 team that really wants to work hard and move up is disadvantaged, since they can't play a zone in games. So when they get bumped to Tier 8, they're screwed.
User avatar
jason
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:17 pm
Location: spidermonkey

Postby jed » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:09 pm

slackerjack wrote:
Jed wrote:TUC is for people who want to play ultimate the real way (more or less - don't get me started on foot blocks). If people want to learn at a less competitive level, they have other options (pickup, TCSSC, etc..

Careful Jed, you might be projecting a wee bit there. Unless you secretly conducted a league wide survey, I'm not sure how you know what's in the hearts and minds of people outside Tiers 1-3.


I'm doing no such thing; but to change rules for a certain tier would be doing just that. Should these people be denied the chance to play a more or less pure brand of ultimate, just because they haven't managed to play their way out of their current tier?

Also, isn't it a little dangerous to entirely cede the low end of a market to a competitor? If TUC gets (I guess it already has) the rep of being a high-end league of elitist bastards, you might find that other leagues will attract more new players and grow at TUC's expense. I'm sure TCSSC loves the fact that TUC is so dogmatic about the rules they play with. It certainly helps them differentiate themselves, and makes them a more attractive option to beginner players.

Carl Lewis just called; he wants his huge leaps back.

I don't quite follow the jump from allowing teams to play defence within the rules, to the "high-end elitist bastards" label. We've got 10 freaking tiers for chrisakes; are you telling me that's not accomodating less competitive teams? In fact, forcing lower tiers to play under more restrictive rules is more likely to get us closer to the elitist label.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that by continuing to apply the same rules accross all tiers, we'll lose a significant percentage of our teams to the TCSSC?
Admittedly, league growth in Toronto is constrained by a lack of field space, but you should get the idea.

I'm having trouble seeing the downside of having a more restrictive ruleset in the lowest (or lower) tier(s).


Without getting into the merits of this particular rule, isn't there enough confusion over rules already, without teams having to play by different sets as they switch tiers?
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby slackerjack » Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:08 pm

Jed wrote:I'm doing no such thing; but to change rules for a certain tier would be doing just that. Should these people be denied the chance to play a more or less pure brand of ultimate, just because they haven't managed to play their way out of their current tier?

I don't think I'm following your logic Jed.

Nobody is being forced to play the "less pure" brand of ultimate. The suggested idea, the way I was reading it, was to introduce a new division "class" that is more suited to beginner players. Demand would dictate how many tiers end up playing with that set of rules. Just like volleyball and hockey.

By the way, do you not think the phrase "less pure" sounds elitist?
I don't quite follow the jump from allowing teams to play defence within the rules, to the "high-end elitist bastards" label. We've got 10 freaking tiers for chrisakes; are you telling me that's not accomodating less competitive teams? In fact, forcing lower tiers to play under more restrictive rules is more likely to get us closer to the elitist label.

As it's been pointed out by other posters in the thread, there are other sports that have "less pure" rules, depending on the level of experience and competitiveness of the players who sign up. What make ultimate so special that its purity must be observed?

And by the way, have you noticed the current ruleset is called the "10th Edition"? The rules are obviously not set in stone.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that by continuing to apply the same rules accross all tiers, we'll lose a significant percentage of our teams to the TCSSC?

Yes.

If there's better alternatives on offer from competing leagues, then why wouldn't demand for spots in the TUC Summer League drop?
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
-- Jack Handy
User avatar
slackerjack
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby slackerjack » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:39 pm

Bad form, but I think I need to reply to my own post.

In Jed's defense, many posters in this thread were favour of having some divisions declared "zone free", regardless of how many teams were actually requesting this. Which would force some teams into something they don't want.

What I'm in favour of is demand based -- if on any given night, enough teams ask for that restriction, I don't see any issue with fulfilling the demand. Furthermore, in an effort to get enough concentration of beginner teams to form a few divisions, you could restrict it to certain nights.

I'm also congizant of the fact that if/when one of these teams moves up and faces a zone for the first time, they won't know what hit them (though I expect they will be quick studies). I can also see a problem with the end of season playoffs -- do all teams get thrown into the same division? Or do you have zone-free playoffs divisions? (which I have to admit sounds a little ridiculous).
"Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
-- Jack Handy
User avatar
slackerjack
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby Wartank » Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:25 am

oh boy, where to start?

spuke: nice points. i agree that i did not see the other side, which is "what if you need a zone to compete"? or "what if you use a zone to compete, but aren't threatening anyone?". my only response is that 1) the rule would be implemented to try to get to an overall good, knowing that no rule pleases everyone; and 2) part of my concern about zone was that it discouraged people who tried, or from even trying, to handle in a zone.

colonel (nice to "hear" from you, buddy) : it's a good point about a non-competitive tier, though that wasn't my original intention. surely though, and this is something slack talked a lot about as well, it's about TUC offering a range of products to the market. more offerings means more exposure, followers, etc.

and i don't think this is betraying ultimate either (stay tuned for when i have to break out my opinions on "spirit of the game", which i hope to be even more contentious than this). the idea, which colonel hit on so well, is to introduce the sport to newcomers, and to transition them into the whole nine yards when they are ready.

and this goes back to spuke's point. okay, under this proposed rule, a slower team would not have access to a strategy that would help them cope. very well, but in volleyball, a rec team with one good male player would be best off if they could take advantage of this players' hitting in the front row as per the full rules of the game, but would this be the most welcoming model to newcomers?

i find the argument ridiculous, that not being able to play a zone in tier 10 disadvantages you to such a large degree. this is about taking things one at a time. you learn a zone when you have gained confidence and ability in throwing. who would have an easier time learning how to combat a zone? a team with a year or two of throwing and catching and cutting experience, or one armed with little confidence, and, if they're lucky, a neat vertical stack offense that they had just started learning?

but jason - you're right. this was all based on one person's opinions and observations. obviously the need/desire for this would have to be determined.

finally, slack - yeah... logistics are another thing entirely. i think step one would be determining if this would actually be a) a more friendly and productive atmosphere for new players, and b) desired. i don't think anyone said "demand be damned, make tier 10 zone-free".
"I do not like swimming. It is too much like . . . bathing." - Worf
User avatar
Wartank
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:55 pm

Postby lennox » Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:13 am

One thing dawned on me on the way to work:

NBA, no zone allowed
International, zone allowed

I think we all know what happened to the "dream team"

Anyway, just thought I would point that out... very tiring thread.
User avatar
lennox
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby beachbum » Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:38 am

The NBA now allows zone defence, as of several years ago if I'm not mistaken.
beachbum
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:31 pm

Postby lennox » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:10 am

lwcole wrote:The NBA now allows zone defence, as of several years ago if I'm not mistaken.


Sorry, let me rephrase ... NBA doesn't play zone because of the rules that govern defense. The zone that is played is a lax zone because of the defensive 3 second rule. When you get to international play and you see a real zone, the NBA players have no idea what to do because the NBA version of zone isn't real.

So, if we disallow zone in tier 10, does this also disallow poaching, and how exactly would you govern poaching, or how much someone poaches. The NBA, when they disallowed zone, allowed to some extent poaching but it was up to the refs to call the illegal defense.

I don't know ... it seems like a lot of work to go easy on the 4-6 teams that stay in tier 10.
User avatar
lennox
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby beachbum » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:54 am

We finally agree on something: no zones in lower tiers is a bad idea.

If we're going to talk about zones in the prefessional ranks, however, we should discuss the elimination of the "left wing lock" aka the neutral zone trap. It should be declared a zone then shot and p*ssed on. It's almost single-handedly ruined the NHL.
beachbum
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:31 pm

Postby Fab » Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:08 pm

I agree with the underlying principle behind the idea, i.e. help people learn to play one step at a time but I still think that it would be better to handle this issue (like so many others) using the captain?s clause.

If your team is still in a development phase, it seems to me it wouldn?t be unreasonable to ask the opposing team?s captain to disallow zone defense for that one game. If I were a Tier10 captain, I can?t imagine myself refusing such a demand from another captain.
User avatar
Fab
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:30 am

Postby webdummy » Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:41 pm

Fab wrote:If your team is still in a development phase, it seems to me it wouldn?t be unreasonable to ask the opposing team?s captain to disallow zone defense for that one game. If I were a Tier10 captain, I can?t imagine myself refusing such a demand from another captain.


i would agree to this...however, this would lead us to another issue, that is SOTG. what if my team refuses and says "i'm sorry, but my team would like to work on zone." would that be poor sportsmanship for refusing such a request?
User avatar
webdummy
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:06 pm

Postby Sir Poach-a-Lot » Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:50 pm

Trying to regulate something like this in ultimate is simply OB. If you are the captain of a Tier 10 team throwing a zone and you get a big lead.... stop zoning and switch back to man? If your team is being destroyed by a zone and the game is obviously lopsided.... ask the other captain to ease up on the zone (of course the team should have already figured out they didn't need to continue zoning). This isn't neurosurgery people..... some call it SPIRIT. I remember many games where we elected to stop zoning because it was obvious the other team was not prepared to play against it. This was done out of spirit and everyone enjoyed the game. Pretty sure that COOL did that against Headcheese in our first meeting this year. 8)

That allows teams to practice zone and face the reality that they will have to learn to play against a zone.... without silly rules and regulations.

By the way... whoever suggested outlawing poaching :shock: ... don't even joke about that!
User avatar
Sir Poach-a-Lot
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:52 pm

Postby Flynn » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:40 pm

So beating a team badly using a style of play that is not illegal is bad spirit? Give me a break. We keep score for a reason, we are playing to win (before I get a bunch of flack for this, are we playing to lose?)

If a team decides to stop playing a certain defence to stop beating a team down, that is their option. But it is not bad spirit to keep playing zone, hard man, poaching in the lanes etc. etc., whatever it is that they are having success doing.

I would NEVER ask a team to stop playing zone because it was beating my team. I would try to figure out how to beat it, not suggest it was bad spirit to be so good.
Flynn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:01 pm

Postby Fab » Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:31 pm

Flynn wrote:So beating a team badly using a style of play that is not illegal is bad spirit? Give me a break. We keep score for a reason, we are playing to win (before I get a bunch of flack for this, are we playing to lose?)

If a team decides to stop playing a certain defence to stop beating a team down, that is their option. But it is not bad spirit to keep playing zone, hard man, poaching in the lanes etc. etc., whatever it is that they are having success doing.


I totally disagree. For the same reason a baseball team stops bunting or stealing bases or an ultimate team stops using end-zone-to-end-zone hucks when leading by a large score, it?s not unreasonable or weak (as you seem to imply) to go ask the other captain to stop using the zone defense for the sake of having a real game going. I've never seen anyone do this before, but it wouldn't be an unreasonable request.

As captain, i would actually agree to it. It would be a total display of good sportsmanship, aka SOTG in ultimate. Anyways, need i remind you that we're talking Tier10 league games here, not championships, tournaments or playoffs...
User avatar
Fab
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:30 am

Postby lennox » Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:34 pm

I wonder how long this discussion will go on? I say at least until the AGM.
User avatar
lennox
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 2:42 pm

Postby Sir Poach-a-Lot » Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:39 pm

Classic misrepresentation Dave... at what point did I suggest being good at ultimate was bad spirit? What I am trying to convey here is the sentiment that there are a lot of ways to win. If you seriously feel better about yourself on the way home because you beat a team down by 13 points instead of 5 then maybe you have some issues to work out. As for asking someone to ease up.... if the winning team is well spirited you shouldn't have to.... if you CAN'Tt then that's just a pride issue :oops: Who truly enjoys a blowout score?

Think about it... why bother stopping a fight in boxing... don't let up! Why have a mercy rule in little league... the kids will have to learn it's a rough world out there. For that matter we should get rid of that crappy Etiquette section in the Rules of Ultimate..... I mean if a newbie doesn't know the rules it isn't my fault... why bother stopping the game to explain it to them? I guess my thinking is this; just because you can or you are entitled to doesn't mean you should. I remember games where the other team was obviously letting up. Happy Camper once went so far as to come offer our team pointers after an ugly loss at midseason. Our team appreciated the gesture and improved as a result. We didn't feel it was patronizing... obviously owed in a large part to the way the advice was offered.... it was a class act and a great illustration of what makes this game different from others.

I'm not saying people don't play to win or suggesting they shouldn't. Yes we keep score.... to tell who won. We're talking about new players here... I don't think that in Tier 10 the plus minus as important as making sure everyone enjoys the game and has some room to improve.
User avatar
Sir Poach-a-Lot
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:52 pm

Postby beachbum » Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:53 pm

Here here! Wow... me agreeing with a touchy, feely SOTG sentiment! Go figure!! I'll spare you all my usual santimonious, preachy, holier-than-thou, self-righteous, indignant diatribe and leave you with an anecdote.

I was playing a mid-to-high tier Thursday game this summer and we were coming out like a house on fire, crushing them. I pulled to them and it drifted in low to one of the opposition, incidentally hitting him in the shins - don't ask me how, it just kinda hit him. I yelled out "turnover" right away... paused for a split second, explained it to them and then told them to contest it, which they did. I pulled again, they scored and that marked a turning point for their comeback. We pulled the game out in the end but it was a fun barnburner.

Yes, I wanted to win. But, following Chappy's example, Spirit isn't Spirit if you stick to the rules like gospel.
beachbum
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:31 pm

Postby Flynn » Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:49 pm

Nothing like bringing up spirit of the game to get the old blood boiling.
Flynn
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:01 pm

Postby corchard » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:28 am

This is my first post. Be gentle with me.

My Hat team over the summer played lots of different zone defences: 2 person cup, clampy cups, no mark cups, wall zones... None of them were particulaly effective but we played them anyway we sort of had to. As a hat team we played savage a fair amount.

There are many different ways to deal with zones in the lower leagues. My favourite was when playing the junior team Dirt in the mid season. We stymied their O with one of our zones. After a couple of points I simply whispered to a couple of their players on the field how to break it. They did and we swithced to a different D. This may have been a special situation as privately as a team we had agreed to play them for skill (e.g.not to huck over their heads). The little Bast**ds used their spunkyiness and speed against us (not to mention throwing skills, better organization...)

The point to all this is that it is frustrating as hell for a new player to to be stymied. We lost a couple of newbies from our team for this reason. The skill of opposition outpaced their learning and my ability to teach them (man or zone). With those new players that remained, we cleared out the backfield so that the newbie could dump it to Bob, every time, zone or not.

I don't believe legislation is the way to keep players in the lower league. Ultimate is too fluid a game, as opposed to vollybawl (yawn) and the rules are complicated enough.
Charles
corchard
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Postby jed » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:55 am

If your opponent lets up on the strategies and tactics that they are using to beat you, how will you learn and improve as a team? To be honest, I would be more likely to be offended if an opponent let up - like it was a sign of disrespect. What kind of satisfaction do you get from scoring on a team that isn't doing their best to stop you?

I don't mind letting the occasional call slide, along the lines of what Lionel described. I just don't think mercy should be expected. Any athlete's goal should be to give 100% at all times. If you think this is against SOTG, you're wrong.
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby BJ » Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:34 am

It always starts the same way. I am in the garden airing my terrapin Jetta when he walks past my gate, that mysterious man in black.

'Hello Roy,' I say. 'What are you doing in Dusseldorf?'

'Attending to certain matters,' he replies.

'Ah,' I say.

He apprises Jetta's lines with a keen eye. 'That is a well-groomed terrapin,' he says.

'Her name is Jetta.' I say. 'Perhaps you would like to come inside?'

'Very well.' He says.

Roy Orbison walks inside my house and sits down on my couch. We talk urbanely of various issues of the day. Presently I say, 'Perhaps you would like to see my cling-film?'

'By all means.' I cannot see his eyes through his trademark dark glasses and I have no idea if he is merely being polite or if he genuinely has an interest in cling-film.

I bring it from the kitchen, all the rolls of it. 'I have a surprising amount of clingfilm,' I say with a nervous laugh. Roy merely nods.

'I estimate I must have nearly a kilometre in the kitchen alone.'

'As much as that?' He says in surprise. 'So.'

'Mind you, people do not realize how much is on each roll. I bet that with a single roll alone I could wrap you up entirely.'

Roy Orbison sits impassively like a monochrome Buddha. My palms are sweaty.

'I will take that bet,' says Roy. 'If you succeed I will give you tickets to my new concert. If you fail I will take Jetta, as a lesson to you not to speak boastfully.'

I nod. 'So then. If you will please to stand.'

Roy stands. 'Commence.'

I start at the ankles and work up. I am like a spider binding him in my gossamer web. I do it tight with several layers. Soon Roy Orbison stands before me, completely wrapped in cling-film. The pleasure is unexampled.

'You are completely wrapped in cling-film,' I say.

'You win the bet,' says Roy, muffled. 'Now unwrap me.'

'Not for several hours.'

'Ah.'

I sit and admire my handiwork for a long time. So as not to make the ordeal unpleasant for him we make small talk on topical subjects, Roy somewhat muffled. At some point I must leave him to attend to Jetta's needs. When I return I find he has hopped out of my house, still wrapped in cling-film. The loss leaves me broken and pitiful. He never calls me. He sends no tickets. The police come and reprimand me. Jetta is taken away, although I get her back after a complicated legal process.

There is only one thing that can console me. A certain dream, a certain vision...

It always starts the same way.
User avatar
BJ
 
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:12 pm

Next

Return to Rant and Rave!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron