footbag.org

[Vince Bradley (procrastan8r)]

ok, I've read the stuff in other areas in this forum, and think it needs it's own home.

My long standing role as an administrator in footbag largely started when I chimed in on the rule establishing that an equipment foul must be superceded by a contact foul. ' A player kicked into equipment did not commit the greater foul' was my conclusion then, because the fair evaluation of skill must demonstrate that an infraction of a rule first is the over-riding demonstration of least skill.

For me, this is one reason why leaving the plane open makes sense - to cross a plane and contact nothing but footbag on the other side takes a ton of skill, and skill that I admire in a contest to control a footbag on a net court. On the flipside of this, an accidental overset can be viewed as less skillful and worhty of penalty, but if a partner can take a bad kick and make a clean kill of it, I suggest there is a balance between the two.

However, skill evaluation alone is not the only reason for the consideration of rules, and rule evolution. The development of the level of play of the players can be a more important consideration. Rules don't make for better rallies, only level of play manages that. Rules could inhibit or promote more exciting options for rallies, but they can't in and of themselves make for better or longer rallies.

A net player's primary skills are serving, digging, setting, spiking, volleying, blocking, and teamwork in doubles. More generically they are the skills that control the footbag offensively and defensively on the court. The 'valued skills' a tournament and rules must try and evaluate consistently and fairly are these same skills - who is the best athlete should be determined by who ultimately does all of these skills best. The rules and the enforcement of these rules (and the course of the actual event progression) must work to keep this as consistent and clear as possible. To this end, a point or side-out should occur in favor of the greatest skill demonstrated in a rally. This is actually why rules must exist; to establish what accomplishment is the greatest embodiment of all the valued skills.

As I see it, the open cross plane risks upsetting the balance of which skills are most important, defensive or offensive. I think this happens in two possible ways: the deliberate use of oversets, and the ability to steal sets or block on the setters side of the net.

This last aspect, he ability to defend by crossing the plane, is to me the more interesting. To me it is a pinnacle achievement to be able to transform an offensively oriented skill, spiking with a long reach, and puts it firmly in an oppressive position of blocking spikes or stealing sets, expanding both the range of defensive actions as well as the arsenal. Digressing (further), one of my greatest memories from the sidelines, and best footage I ever caught on film, was of Verdy steaing a set from Cote to Graton a good foot or two inside their airspace. Graton was going for a sweep. You can see them both moving their mighty wall of defense like clockwork as the team they are, and then experiencing utter confusion as the set was shtataff'd out of their choreography, a foot above the contact point where Graton would have slammed it from. I dont' think it won the point, however. The wall moved accordingly, even in confusion. I think it was Montreal '94 doubles finals. To me, this is simply heinous skill - if a player can do this consistently, then they will be very difficult to beat in doubles. Singles, you can always hope their back court game sucks ass. Doubles, the other guy can handle the back court. Offensive skills like this will rarely need the third set in an open plane format.

Moving from the digression, the potential of the open plane to upset the balance of skills may also occur from the viewpoint of defending the overset option. Not only is it a scary prospect just from the cross plane contact option, it's also just brute force power. In the course of normal play when an overset occurs, the typical mind from the receiving side would be waiting to see where the third set goes, sitting in a solid defensive formation. If that defensive format is not an 'I' formation, then the receiving team will not likely be able to receive an overset in the air as easily as the team doing the overset since one of their players is primed for an aerial volley on the set. This is probably the strongest reason an 'I' formation is valuable (is there a doc in the house? paging Dr Keehan); to free up one player to always be ready for aerial interceptions. "I" formations are difficult to manage well though - I'd have to estimate they depend heavily on well practiced teamwork. Side by Side formations, each player defensively can simply play singles on a half court, less actual teamwork necessary...

To try and sum up where I was heading in this last paragraph, the overset gives an advantage to the side that oversets, potentially shifting the skillset of the game to one of aggression and offset. This shift would potentially be mitigated by strong 'I' formation defenses in order to open up aerial defense as an option.

Leaving the plane open makes an overset, from a simple interpretation, twice as offensively powerful just by the options it creates - if it remains untouched, it will land in and likely very short, if contacted it offers a great kill shot potential as it pulls one defensive player in for the non spike volley possibilty.

An aerial volley on defense is necessary in order to effectively handle the overset against a team that can cross the plane for the kill. An aerial interception or spike block is the only way to effectively defend against the kill options inherent in an overset that can be cross plane spiked.

To me, this doesn't yet embody a need to establish a rule against an open plane. It does, however, explain how allowing cross plane volleys will change the course of play. If it is used effectively in consistent combination with oversets, it will necessitate better defensive teamwork over time, or it will dominate the course of the competitions.

Having a ready aerial defender at all times will increase the number of jousts. And increase the potential for cross plane collisions yielding injury.

I could use a greater knowledge of the history of Takraw.

Specifically:
- Was the rule against crossing the plane instituted completely, or did it go through a phase of contact-foul similar to where footbag is now?
- When did Takraw start including a 2 vs 2 format? Is the rule the same for both versions of the sport?

In terms of the need for the rule, Takraw obviously has a greater need - there is always a third player available to be in the air on both sides for every volley in 3 vs 3 format.

Back to footbag, would a cross plane foul improve the play of the game, or the development of the players into champions more quickly?

Probably not. To be a champion currently requires a stong ability in all footbag net skills areas. In current play, there is no domination of the sport occurring as a result of people taking advantage of an open plane. Verdy and Kenny probably should have been able to do this back in their primes, but it wasn't necessary, they dominated well without abusing this particular feature of the rules. Manu is doing the same. Landing on the net is a risk, getting kicked by another play is another deterrent.

Would it reduce injuries as a result of mid air collisions? Yes, if we ever reached a point where both sides always had a player ready to volley above the net, and the overset was a consistent deliberate strategy leading up to that point.

Putting both into a closer context, I suggest it's a natural course of development. That the level of play in footbag net doubles hasn't reached a point in tournaments where the rule makes sense yet.

That without the players developing the sense of teamwork necessary to always have a player ready-for-air, there isn't really a reason to impose the rule. And imposing the rule without that need will actually inhibit the development of the level of play.

So, for now, it makes sense to me that the plane must stay open in competition.

I will also suggest that in clubs where the players use "i" formations and play with enough regularity to develop teams that can do it well, there is a greater need for the rule. This may explain why Montreal and CHAOS are the only two clubs really siding for this rule development.

I will also suggest that these same clubs must make it a point to exploit the overset advantage if they truly want the rule to be put in place. Doing so will encourage other clubs to better develop their defensive play as teams. Staying off the net and trying to use Takraw style heavy hitting will actually only encourage more side by side defense, unless these players are taught the strategies of an "I" formation for aerial defense.

Anyway, I hope this discussion continues here.

Have a good day - spike high and well, and dig the perfect set, everytime.

-
vincent

[Jeremy Mirken (TheSpecialist)]

Vince, why would we want to give any more advantage to the offensive side of the net game? Isn't defense heavily disadvantaged already?

To expand, allowing offensive players the option to "go for" for their partners' oversets puts the defensive players (whether in I formation or not) in the position of having to prepare for 4 different things: 1) the super short "overset" that the opposite team doesn't hit, 2) the spike he has to dig when he's two feet from the spiker who actually gets to the overset, 3) the potential of being kicked by a flailing opponent's leg, and 4) getting kicked by an opponent (who reaches over to my side) when I am going for a spike because the opponent tries to steal the ball.

If defense is already hard enough because of the size of the ball and the sheer amount of court to cover, why would we want to encourage a rule that continues to give advantage to offense? Giving DEFENSE a break seems like it would encourage longer rallies and hence lead to more excitement.

[Vince Bradley (procrastan8r)]

i tried to not to advocate one over the other, but i did admit where i thought the current rule doesn't yet need a change. or rather, the players haven't demonstrated effectively in championship play, that it needs a change.

i suggested that if the offensive plays of the overset started dominating, and the use of an "I" formation didn't work out, and defensive plays weren't developed that could deal with it, that would suggest the need for a rule change.

until the overset is used overly much, however, that need isn't demonstrated.

i also suggested that clubs that practice more regularly and practice teachings learned from takraw would see this potential need more.

but that also doesn't demonstrate anything conclusive for footbag on a worldwide scale until the overset is used well enough to dominate victories thereby demonstrating a clear imbalance of the relevant skillsets the rules are supposed to evaluate.

[Anthony Intemann (aintno)]

while i understand Jeremy's sentiment progress in net skill/play and entertainment value will advance as a function of need and maturity - i.e. lesser skilled players will need to cultivate strategies and skills to effectively counter stronger opponents. rules serve to establish a consistent metric and framework, in part, to eliminate artificial inconsistencies and to help ensure that success is determined by skill and strategy. oversetting and crossplane play are cultivatable skills available to nearly any player willing to put in the time and need not be prohibited because some players will use it to greater avail.

As things are neither advantage nor injury demands a rule to prohibit crossplane play as a function of the overset. In fact, I would argue that oversets are not fundamentally advantageous to offense. A near net overset may be an opportunity for both teams and is, arguably, a high risk play that exposes the offense to problems identified by vince and Jeremy(#s 1 & 4) and as such may not be as often against evenly matched teams. Increased use and effectiveness of any skill or play against lesser prepared or skilled opponents is the nature of competition. (We mustn’t dismiss the role of sportsmanship in mitigating any uneven matchup.) Further, development of the I formation presented by vince is a viable option for teams of any level.

We do not need rules to even the playing field, we need to develop experience and skill as a communiity.

[Martin Côté (martincote)]

[Vince Bradley (procrastan8r)]

yeah, this is more the line I have in mind with oversets, that they aren't actually advantageous in any form as a result of being able to cross the plane. they are advantageous anyway. the most effective way to use them is to be able to hit them before they actually cross - this makes them a nastier prospect as a dink, and a safer play for the spiker.

in this manner, the current rule allowing cross plane to occur, but penalizing contacts, is demonstrated to actually work.

reckless players will go for anything and hope to not make contact or not get caught.

skillful players will pursue the best play they can, and that really probably never involves crossing the plane deliberately.

unless you're seba.

[Jeremy Mirken (TheSpecialist)]

[Grischa Tellenbach (grischa.tellenbach)]

I'm glad that you went lucky, Jeremy.

What happened to you is the exact example that I always use:
A Sun Back/Toe Reverse spike vs a Side-Kick block.
If the spiker gets "blocked" (kicked) before he completes his move i.e. went to the max of his amplitude, the block can be very dangerous. Crushing toes, the tibia, the ankle or blowing out the knee are possible consequences.
This really scares me.

G*

[Theodore Fritsch (yyz)]

This is interesting! PT says crossing the plane should be illegal,yet he crosses the plane, against and amatuer no less. Jeremy does not cross the plane and gets scared. So the ? i have is pt being skillfull or reckless going after and amateur on the amateur side of the net. Also was the shot you took blocked jeremy? If it was blocked it was most likely a skillful play gone wrong, If it was not blocked than it was most likely in the reckless catagory.
This game is hard and can be dangerous(thats why its not easy and everyone is not doing it). I still feel that this part of the game is one of the coolest to watch. Had pt crossed the plane and stole your set for a point jeremy, than this would have been real skillful and I would be real sad to have missed it.(really i am sad to have missed the tournament anyway)
So my feeling is if you are not comfortable taking certain shots,than don't, But please don't lobby to take away this cool and exciting aspect of net. see ya ted f

[Jeremy Mirken (TheSpecialist)]

The ball I was going for, which was at least 4-6 inches on my side. The player who fouled was trying to steal the set with a side kick. He was "late" and kicked me at the end of my follow through, and when he followed through, he pushed me back the other way, completely changing my momentum. Since I had mostly backed into the net, and was looking up at my set, I was unable to see what he was doing until he contacted me. I hope that explains it better.

[Russ Arsenault (Calumniate)]

Well, you can always pay some guy to foul you intentionally and I guess then the rest of us will start to realise that this is a big deal But if you heed my advice, please take some videos!

[Jeremy Mirken (TheSpecialist)]

Yes; actually after it happened, both the guy who did it and I were thinking about this discussion, since I have actually talked with him about it. Again, I didn't get hurt. I think if I were to have had a different body type, let's say a bit fatter, I probably would have been more injured. I might have fallen on my back, instead of being all the way spun around. However, I were much lighter, I may have been rag-dolled more extremely. Maybe I was just the right weight for this incident.

In any case, I didn't stage it, so of course I don't have the highlight. There IS a picture taken, only miliseconds before the contact, with both of us in the air, but I won't post it.

And Russ, don't worry. I plan on making a video to show just how I feel about plane fouls .

[Vince Bradley (procrastan8r)]

These are great examples, and basically what I'd hope to get going in terms of a discussion. This is how the community can grow to realize the need for changes to the game; clubs practicing more often see a lot of stuff in practice others don't. Discussion about that stuff is what can do the most for our sport- it will inspire people to have more practices, get more players, and to take more responsibility for how they play the sport, ideally.

Trying to address Jeremy's points from my point of view, 'skillful' at crossing the net or simply spiking, and being skillful at winning, aren't necessarily the same skill. Being able to spike well, and using that skill well and appropriately in the context of winning games and tournaments, is the difference.

Players that play high percentage shots to pursue victory are less likely to find reason to take risks in the air. The chance meeting above the net isn't worth the risk, just from the unwieldy aspect of knowing who fouled whom.

Even the example of PT follows this logic - against lesser player he can in the moment consider himself as taking a high percentage shot even in the cross plane contact attempt because his knowing the relative skill level makes it seem like a less risky shot. Hit higher, avoid contact, he is better at it than the other guy. If he chose a risky shot against a lesser player, then that really isn't a smart play since it would be an unnecessary (high) risk, and he'd probably agree with that assessment. Though it might be something he can only agree with after its done.

And yeah, it's also true that people with skill occasionally want to show them off, and occasionally (possibly always) this is unwise in addition to being unnecessary.

But i'd still say that in competition the more successful players at winning in tournaments probably avoid risk because they simply don't need it.

Putting jeremy's example of near injury in context, the decision that has to be decided for the course of the sport is which skill is more valuable to align our rules with - takraw style power spiking, or cross plane defense abilities. So far the discussion has only discussed the idea that crossing the plane is the problem and the lesser valued skill from the standpoint of the sport and its rules development.

See, really what I've been trying to say is that the rules have to be considered in a context of what promotes least injury and promotes the greatest advancement of skill in the sport. A part of this may (in my opinion, unfortunately) come down to choose which great skills will be chosen to be favored by the rules. But I definitely want the development of players to be at least equally considered as the context of potential injury, especially if the potential for injury and rule change is motivated by external influences instead of developing our own sport.

In the context of a sport where cross plane contacts IS ALLOWED, and a player has a strong side push blocking ability on the other side, and the set is 4-6 inches off the net, I suggest a strong consideration in a context of THIS SPORT is that any back -to-the-net spiking option here is dangerous and risky.

See, the rule is already in place. The player choosing to cross the plane is actually following the rules and making a potentially good play with how the rules are now.
Saying they are committing the wrong action is inherently false. Saying a rule should be put in place to discourage them from this being a good choice amounts to saying 'my spike is what should happen in this case, unchallenged in this way.' Which actually aligns with strong offensive more than strong defensive, options.

The person choosing a dangerous action in this context within THE CURRENT RULES is actually Jeremy, or his partner for setting that close to the net.

And I don't think either of those decision were irrational, or poor - that spike is a great choice for that set, but it is a risky choice that close to the net. Having an open plane is what makes it a risky choice.

Even if the rule weren't in place, when a set is only 4-6 inches off the net, it could be easily misinterpretted as an overset, and might even be one depending on its height and trajectory. The defending player might see an aerial attack as the only good defensive response.

Which skill should the rule favor in this instance? Currently it says if a player is going to cross the plane they must not contact any player on the other side of the net. Obviously this didn't work to discourage a player from accidentally making a contact. And no matter what additional aspects are imposed to enforce this rule, there will always be beginners thinking they can do actions like this safely.

In clubs where takraw style spiking is deemed the way to go in a sport that doesn't have takraw rules yet, there will be tons of issues. i propose this could actually be the problem. I'd have to look at the course of evolution in spiking in takraw. a third player in the game would naturally evolve to be a player with his back to the net and a wicked arsenal of spiking options in that formation.

However, a rule could be/have been imposed that any spike contact with the back to the net must be a certain distance from the net. this would yield greater safety, and create a situation that is actually easier to call judgements on.

And it would actually emphasize the defensive skills in rule arbitration, fulfilling Jeremy's earlier expressed desire to bring the offensive plays in check to help foster longer rallies.

But i'm not expecting this to be a popular ruling alternative. i'm expecting it to go over 'as well as a lead zeppelin'.

I merely propose it to try and illustrate again what needs to be considered in proposing rule changes.

The sport of footbag net has been defined with an open plane. the purpose of this definition would be to allow the development of aerial skills at the net.

The decision to limit aerial options above the net needs careful consideration for the impact it will have on the development of the sport.

Choosing to develop the sport based exclusively on what happened or is happening in a similar, but not same, sport, to me is actually awfully wrong. It creates the potential for this kind of problem, and possibly these kinds of injuries. Players will devote skills development and biases in ways that simply may not be best aligned for their development within this sport. And that in turn will inhibit the ability of the sport to grow effectively from what it actually is.

[Jeremy Mirken (TheSpecialist)]

Air Jer says:

Since I'll be gone for a couple of weeks Vince, this may be my last chance to respond to your arguments. You made some good points, however, I am still hung up on several "problems."

You say that footbag net is and has been "defined" by an open plane. I just want everyone to keep in mind that the original rules of a sport are created largely based on the ability of the players of that original generation. Now, when abilities and new technologies are added which change the dynamic of the game, players and organizers DO seriously need to consider modifying the original rules to reflect advancement, and in some cases, player safety.

I am also perturbed by thoughts like "absolute committal" to chasing a ball (be it on an over set or stealing a set), which is quite dangerous. I believe this is what happened to me: The defensive player's thought might be: "Well, that shot looks gettable! I don't really know if the set is on my side or not, and I'm not sure if the offensive player is going to kill it, but no matter what I'm going to go get it. Here I go! Oh shit, he's going for it and I'm totally going to kick him . . . oh well, now I need to go even harder in order to win the joust. Oh shit, I'm really sorry dude. I didn't mean to knock you on your head like that. I was totally committed though, there was nothing I could do."

Consequence? Oh, it was just a side out anyway, I didn't even lose anything.

And Vince, when "avoiding risk" means not trying to kill MY sets that are on MY side of the net by 6 inches, defensive players are playing too dangerously. If the net community cannot see this, then they are blind.


If we take a quick look at the players who regularly hit "new" and "advanced spikes," it is easy to see that they are, or have been, some of the very best players in the game: Flo, Manu, Patrick Shrickel, Eric Wulff, PT, Chris Seibert, JF Lemieux, Sebastien Verdy. Is the message that we are trying to send to newer players, "Don't become great at our sport by developing kill shots like these players did. It is too risky because defensive players frequently put your career at risk by trying to steal your sets or block you. You should learn to hit safer shots from far off the net, like sole push."

[Vince Bradley (procrastan8r)]

In terms of new spikes, all I said was that the current rule suggests spikes done with the back to the net are dangerous, especially if the set is withing stealable range.

This encourages the development of new hard hitting spikes further off the net, increasing the necessity for higher hits, and stronger setting.

The notion that the offense is too strong was a point that was brought up earlier, and not actually by me. However, if the sport needs better rallies, having a rule in place that keeps players off the net would do the job. Allowing players to develop devastating shots above the net, wouldn't.

I agree players with the mental attitude of going harder to win the joust does need to be changed, but I don't see that as an issue with the rule. Going harder doesn't reduce the chance of a contact on the other side of the net.

As for the rules being based on the skills of the prior generation, that's a bit of a throwback. 1) No one is really demonstrating a mastery of cross plane spiking. No one ever has. 2) Ken Shults was probably instrumental in the survival of the open plane back when the boys at the WFA were contemplating how to resolve the injuries issue back in 1993. Ken is pretty good at looking out for the sport's future in my opinion, though freestyle did exceed his wildest expectations.

In case people didn't know, yes, this rule was considered before. It was determined that the rule to move forward with is the one we have currently instead of shutting down the open plane.