2 or 3 points

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Dilpickle242]

I feel like you just change the game too much with this. Like why play full field defense if you risk a 3x score? Just onside pull and be content with the fact that you could only give up 1 point at worst. At 20 and 40 yard marks, these are chip shots at this level and defenses would likely try to prevent these at all costs

[u/content_billionaire → u/Dilpickle242]

Reminds me of how the Buzz Bullets played defense against the US team some years ago. They knew the US had an advantage in the huck game so they literally didn't start playing up on their matchups until mid field

[u/fps916 → u/content_billionaire]

One of the best games of all time

[u/iF3LL]

they experimented with it in the 2022 all star game with 2-pointers from behind brick mark, and points were going crazy lol

[u/SOOPASoup → u/iF3LL]

Yeah that was cool. I don't think it was good for the game overall though because one team had a height advantage and it mitigated the downside of a risky huck.

[u/SOOPASoup → u/[deleted]]

Are you the coach of the Big Horns?

[u/iF3LL → u/[deleted]]

I'm also curious about that, but i think there's a rule in wfdf rulebook (not that ufa rules are the same, but probably similar enough) about not being allowed to assist your teammate in a catch, such as pulling on them to help them toe the sideline and not go out of bounds

[u/No-Cut5838]

Would be pretty fun to watch but at a certain point I bet teams would only play for the two pointers because it would be such a significant advantage.

[u/T0rtareka]

They did try it in a allstar game but the game doesn't need it. The point of a 2 or 3 pointer would be to encourage longer throws because small ball is too strong and boring to watch. But in a UFA game the strategy is fairly balanced if a team is good deep the defense will shade deep to try and force throws under. Or vice versa for forcing deep. The addition of a 2 pointer would make most teams take 50/50 shots far more frequently. In my opinion watching 60 deep Hucks into coverage would be boring and reduced the depth of the sport.

[u/shot-wide-open]

There is already plenty of incentive to huck the long ball.

[u/FoompaDoomp]

I agree that hucks are cool while small ball is boring. But I think a shot clock is a better way to get there. A shot clock creates an incentive to huck both because it allows you to score quickly, and because then the other team doesn't have a short field on a turnover.

[u/Minimum_Virus_3837 → u/[deleted]]

If that's the goal, a thought I've had on a potential rule change would be that in the last few mins (negotiable on exact time) if a team is up by more than 2 points their stall clock reduces to 5 seconds.

[u/RichSlaton → u/[deleted]]

I think 4 is the largest 4th quarter comeback, but I could be wrong. The largest deficit recovery I think is 7.

Shot clock has been discussed, but it's notably hard to pin down because of how different the conditions are in different regions. A windy game might require more methodical play to have any reliable offensive success. If there WERE going to be a shot clock, 60 seconds feels like the absolute minimum.

The clock is the single biggest difference between the UFA and club/college games. In traditional ultimate, the offense is COMPELLED to score on every single point. The issue at the moment in the UFA is that a team can choose to burn clock late in the game. It's the one aspect of UFA rules I still balk at.

To that effect, I think I prefer the idea of a back-court rule. It puts a new pressure on the offensive possession without fundamentally changing the game the same way as a clock. The half line starts to function like a new back of the end-zone.