I think this is an interesting topic, debating the fine line between what is and isn't allowed positioning wise in ultimate. @Rueben - thanks for your continuous work for the WFDF and answering all these questions.
With what I have read up to now, I am getting the feeling that theory and practice differ a lot. More and more teams are trying to apply a 'physical' defense, use their bodies and positioning to dictate offense where to cut and get open. The first issue of High Release is on this topic. This his magazine has it origins in the states, but the principles are also applied in games under WFDF rules. This results in games like these:
. I think ultimate in Europe and other countries outside North-America will develop in this direction.
As such - isn't the above no to much a theoretical exercise ? And - how does the WFDF feel about this development ?
This probably more of a general question belonging in another, separate post. At the same time I'll give you my 2 cents (I certainty can't speak for the WFDF)
As I'm sure you're aware the "increased physicality" of play is being discussed more and more in games, blogs and other articles. I think that you are over-simplifying the issue a little when come to the conclusion that physicality which is illegal under the rules will continue to become more common.
Firstly. The video you provided (I only watched some snippets) seems to have a very high frequency of calls ans stoppages which is definitely not desirable for any player or spectator and this effect alone will provide a great motivation for those teams wanting more physicality to think twice about how it is achieved.
Secondly. Even among players and teams who play with more physicality that the rules allow seem to be in agreement that there must be a mutual agreement between the teams to play in this style. For the most part these teams will also argue for consistency throughout each game on what does and doesn't constitute a foul. I think, (to a degree) as long as both teams are in agreement they can play as they wish, but in most cases finding this agreement will be difficult during high stakes games, so for the most part I think that non-contact rules will continue to be used.
sjoerddruiven wrote: As such - isn't the above no to much a theoretical exercise?
When I have encountered players who continue to break the rules I find having a clear knowledge of the exact breach to be very useful, especially if they continue to contest calls. Discussions like this one help players to find the exact boundary between incidental contact and a foul and to implement that in the calls they make.