8 May 2010

Time caps and points caps

I feel like I spend too much time during games checking what the time cap and points cap are, and calculating what my team is playing to.

Over the years, tournament directors have decreed too many different ways for games to end in their tournaments.

This is a call for two systems: we play with the official WFDF points cap and time cap at major tournaments, and we play with a simplified points cap and time cap at all other events. Call them Championship caps and Recreational caps.

It's tricky enough that we need two caps to decide when a game is over, without having multiple possible time caps, points caps, within-one-add-one, and within-two-add-one complications. I understand the reasons for having both caps - let's keep it as simple as possible beyond that.


  1. Roger that Owen, i'm with you mate.


  2. lets make ultimate continuous. In a first to 15 game no game will ever get near 90 mins. in any ultimate game at least 30 mins is spent between points. There is no continuity whilst playing and is boring to watch. An added benefit is to limit the importance of starting on offence.

  3. Wouldnt continuous mean that starting on O is extremely important? If you start on O and not turn it over, you win 15-0?

  4. Currently if you have no O turnovers and you go first then you win anyway so there is no problem. It sucks though in the current format when you lose and have the same number of turnovers as your opposition. Continuous play would mean that teams would have +-1 the number of turnovers as their opposition but would have the chance to score multiple points, and it would be goals scored, not turnovers that decide games. It would also bring more exciting strategy with regard to substitution, attacking/defensive players, stamina versus power athletes etc.
    One problem that it would have is if there is a definite scoring end with the wind, but the current format has that problem too so no harm done.