Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Static)
(No Ratings Yet. Click to Rate!)
Loading ...Mark (Static) | Mark (Dynamic) | Downfield
This is easily the most powerful role on the ultimate field. DO NOT SLACK OFF ON THE MARK!!!
While a mark cannot be expected to take away a whole section of the field with any consistency, a mark can and should be able to make offense difficult in a number of directions by a number of strategies.
Making an adjustment using the mark has two flavors: static and dynamic. The latter involves smart use of the former, so I’ll keep this post limited to static adjustments.
Static adjustments are long-term changes (point to point, perhaps throw to throw).
For example, as referenced in the original post, the mark can make a static adjustment to take away the IO break option if a team is routinely exploiting it. This adjustment can take a couple forms:
- The “Flat Mark”
- The “Stagger”
- The “Step Off”
This allows the mark to shuffle or set up a bit more in-line with the thrower, almost in a straight-up force. This can be effective against IO breaks that are made with a wide step; however, throwers who break by stepping through the mark are unlikely to be stopped.
This is my preferred way to make the adjustment. Taking a cue from Ben Wiggins’ talk on marking at the ’06 UCPC, the mark can stagger with one foot back:
In this instance, the mark’s left foot is further back; this allows the mark to “block back” more, and creates extra space that a step-through break thrower has to penetrate. This still allows for some open-side pressure, but it’s not as imposing as the “flat” mark, applying a bit less pressure.
This is perhaps the “best” (read: most consistent) way to take away the IO. Check Force Flick for a bit more on the merits of this (he’s describing something slightly different, but the same idea applies).
Essentially, by stepping off, the extra buffer space you’ve created makes it near impossible for the thrower to step through the mark, or to get a quick release past you (extra space means extra time to react). The big trade-off, of course, is that this mark really concedes the around–perhaps not an attacking around for yards, but a dump cutter can be led pretty easily into the backfield for good horizontal position. You’re trading the certainty of stopping breaks to your specific area for less pressure on throws to other spaces.
Adjustments to take away the around employ similar methods to the “flat” mark, only the mark is angled to take away the backfield while conceding the inside a bit more; a “staggered” mark or a “step off” mark can work too, but unlike the inside, where the mark’s ability to penetrate the mark is essential, an around break goes around the mark (duh), so the crucial thing is less to prevent the throw and more to pressure as many angles as possible–it’s difficult to stop the throw entirely without completely conceding upfield throws, but you can at least force passes into a smaller lane or backwards.
All of these adjustments have their weaknesses, of course. Once a team/player is capable of making static adjustments, the next level is making the mark dynamic, able to shift between states on the fly during the stall count. More on this in a later post. Again, look at Force Flick for ideas on how this should work.
i think its easier to be a better marker than a better thrower. the mark should inherently have a slight advantage because breaking a mark is something that takes time to learn, and although experience helps, its proportionally less difficult to just learn how to put on a decent mark.
ive found that just by being more perceptive, keeping in mind the thrower's tendencies (primary handler? inexperienced cutter?) and what they want to do with the disc, shuffling to cover more ground, reading their eyes and fakes (with many players its not hard to figure out what they want to do), you can shut a player down when they have the disc. i see too many players put on the same mark regardless of who theyre guarding, which doesnt make any sense.
what i started doing this year was to shuffle all the way over to the break side/almost slightly behind the thrower to take away the around break at all costs. if you trust your dump D to stop the upline, the only thing you have to worry about is a really difficult, big extension/low release around break or some sort of IO, often low percentage throws on stall 6+. ive also taken half a step off while doing this, and things get way difficult (ring ring)
Most teams will not step off the mark like that because they want to be able to stop the huck by fouling (*cough* cheating *cough*), so the opposite lesson for throwers is: if somebody's up in your business on the mark, you should be able to step past them, throw the io, and probably get a foul out of it.
CP,
I don't know the mark is necessarily at an advantage on its own–the thrower might have a bigger learning curve, but the thrower has the advantage of knowing where his targets are while the mark does not.
Of course, if the mark DOES know these things–as you allude to, if you trust the D behind you to take throws that you aren't–it becomes a force.
Bill,
I had forgotten about the huck-stopping factor; we definitely ran some marks last year that, while not fouling, were much closer in order to pressure the huck (most throwers are not fully comfortable throwing when it looks like they could follow-through into the mark or otherwise have to throw through somebody). I sure do love the step-through IO, though!
Have you experimented with staggering the mark at all? I've found you can still apply good pressure on long throws and step-throughs if you're blocking back.
This article is a weak hodgepodge of strategies, and isn’t very well thought out. There’s no way a frisbee player on any level can read this and actually use the information to make themselves a better player. So, unfortunately it’s worthless.
Hi frisbeemaster69,
Could you be a bit more specific? Is your criticism geared around poor organization? Are the diagrams too unclear in terms of field orientation for you?
I like to publish information that a frisbee player on any level can read and use to make themselves better, and would appreciate your insight on how to improve.
Thanks!
Hi,
There is a lot more to marking than what’s in this article. An advanced player knows there’s way more than what’s written in this article and therefore must disregard this. A beginner would like at this, not realize there’s way more, and think that marking is all about arbitrary preference. So it gives a beginner a false confidence that he has a complete picture of marking.
So, to be specific about what’s missing, is basically the strategy in deciding which mark to have, what the goals of the mark are, and what makes a successful mark. A lot of beginners think that it’s their job to stop every throw. After you play for a while you realize this is impossible without a major size or athleticism advantage. So you have to pick what throws to stop. You have to pick whether you’re trying to force a bad throw, get a handblock, get a footblock, for a certain kind of throw (dump, short, link, non-break, force break(?)).
I know you can’t cover everything in one article. But to be a good article all you have to do is define what scenarios youre talking about, what your goals are, and the best way to achieve your goals.
So perhaps the article says “This is the best way to stop the IO, here are 3 strategies” or “This is the best way to get a handblock” or maybe “Here’s why you should be trying to stop IO — and not worry about actual handblocks”. That’s where your creative license as a writer, and your expertise as a frisbee player comes in and decides what your focus is, and what kind of advice you want to give.
Well, good luck. I’d love to see a well written article on such a tough subject. They’re few and far between!
-FrisbeeMaster69
Wow, lots of typos. Do the best you can (not a well written comment)
*like=look
*for=force
*link=long
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re looking for more by way of extending what I’ve written to in-game application, while you see this post as essentially a compilation of strategy without context, yes?
You’re certainly right that a lot of this is missing the big-picture view of the strategic context within which it’s used–you’re right that it’s tough to write about, and I made the choice to opt for a broad-strokes description of tools one can use and leave application up to the reader rather than imposing my views of how ultimate should be played.
I try to write actionable material as much as possible, so the fact that you’re finding this post worthless means I’m not doing my job(hobby) as well as I could. Are you finding similar issues with the post on dynamic adjustments?
I’ve been dancing around doing more bona fide strategy stuff for a while (I don’t consider it my strong suit); I’ll definitely put more thought into how I structure posts on it going forward.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond again and in constructive detail after what struck me as a rather trite attack; always good to get feedback of any kind. Thanks!