Do coach-called live-disc timeouts work?
Analyzing a wrinkle in the semi-pro ruleset
In the Western Ultimate League & Premier Ultimate Leauge, coaches can call timeouts from the sidelines during play. Teams can also substitute freely during timeouts. A common strategy is to call a timeout to sub on the team’s “O-line” players after an opponent’s turnover.
Can coaches add value to their team by calling timeouts at the right moment? I'm not so sure they can.
A smart coach shouldn't just assume timeouts work because they "make sense". Other sports have taught us we shouldn't just assume the strategies we like work. For years, football coaches assumed punting on fourth down was almost always the best strategy. They've since realized they were wrong. For years, basketball coaches assumed their team shouldn't shoot too many three-pointers. They've also been proved wrong.
So if a semi-pro frisbee coach says—of course a timeout is a good idea here, it'll give my team a moment to settle down and focus, I’ll sub in the O-line to make it more likely we score—we shouldn't just take them at their word.
What's the goal of calling a timeout? We can assume there's one main goal: the timeout-caller thinks a timeout increases the likelihood their team scores. Given that goal, it's suspicious how often we see teams call a timeout and then turn the disc over.
I recognize that "the plural of anecdote is not data". The examples below are not me saying I'm convinced timeouts are bad. I'd just like someone to actually collect the data and figure it out instead of blindly doing what everyone else does.
Here are a few examples I've collected from this year's games:
June 1, 2024: San Diego Super Bloom vs. Colorado Alpenglow (3:11 1st quarter). San Diego calls a timeout as they're starting a give-and-go that ends with a Super Bloom player catching the disc in the endzone a moment after the timeout was called (It's possible—but not really clear to me either way—that the Alpenglow defenders eased up because they heard the timeout whistle). When the disc comes back in (timestamp here) there's a first-throw turnover.
June 1, 2024: San Diego Super Bloom vs. Colorado Alpenglow (4:18 2nd quarter). Later in the same game, San Diego calls a timeout 25 yards from the endzone. When the disc comes back in, there's a turnover on the third throw (There's a questionable foul called on the second throw which also would've been a turnover if not for the call).
In both cases Super Bloom subbed on "O-line" players. As the announcers pointed out, these players had to play a lot of extra defense after the turnovers, which may have led to extra fatigue later in the game.June 1, 2024: Utah Wild vs Bay Area Falcons (4:54 1st quarter) Bay Area calls a timeout 10 yards from the endzone. I can't fault this decision because the timeout was called a moment before the thrower released a late-stall-count prayer throw that was easily blocked by the defense.
But when the disc comes back in it's a first throw turnover. The timeout briefly saved the possession, yes, but it didn't generate better offense after the timeout.April 20, 2024: Portland Rising vs New York Gridlock (7:04 2nd quarter). Portland picks up the disc after a turnover and calls a late-stall-count timeout as the players on the field complete a centering pass. The disc comes back in and they complete a number of passes but end up turning the disc over only about 10 yards closer to the endzone than they started.
March 23, 2024: San Diego Super Bloom vs Seattle Tempest (10:09 4th quarter). Seattle calls a timeout as the players on the field are completing a pass for a score. When the disc comes back in, they turn it over on the third throw.
That's right, there were (at least) two times this WUL season where a team called a timeout that negated their own score and then turned it over after the timeout.
I've collected these five examples just from games I've happened to be watching. I'm curious what the data says if we consider all the timeouts—though I'm probably not going to work on this myself.
Again, I'm not convinced timeouts are bad for your scoring chances. I'm just not convinced timeouts improve scoring chances, either. And if calling timeouts to sub on your O-line players isn’t actually helping you score, you’re better off searching for other ways to use timeouts to gain an advantage.
I'd default to not calling timeouts if I'm not convinced they work. The downside of timeouts is the signal it sends your players. Leaving players on the field sends a signal that you trust them. Calling a timeout to sub them off is, in a way, a public vote of no confidence.
Personally, I like playing frisbee more for offense than for defense. One of my motivations to play great defense is the opportunity to score after a turnover. Putting players out to play defense and then not letting them touch the disc after a turnover risks reducing your players' motivation. (Though I recognize here that not all players will feel the same way I do.)
If you clicked through to watch the clips, you may have seen the Super Bloom player whose assist was negated throwing up their hands at the timeout call—seemingly in exasperation—which I think lends credence to my theory that timeouts can frustrate players:
There really haven't been that many games in the history of the WUL, it wouldn't take that long to skim through them on 2x speed and note the live disc timeouts. If anyone's interested in a little data analysis project, I'd love to see what we can learn from the full data set.
P.S. Ian at bettereveryday coaching has written a post on how to use timeouts intelligently. (But he doesn't touch on these coach-called live-disc timeouts since he's operating under club, not semi-pro, rules.)
[Update 2025-04-23]: Early in the 2025 semi-pro season, I’ve already seen at least two timeouts that negated scores. (I swear I don’t even watch that much frisbee!):
April 19, 2025: Bay Area Falcons vs Oregon Soar. Just under 4 minutes left in the 4th quarter, Bay Area calls a timeout that negates a score, then turns it over a few passes after play restarts.
April 12, 2025: New York Gridlock at Philadelphia Surge. At 10:23 left in the 2nd quarter Philadelphia calls a timeout that negates a 55-yard huck for a score. Post-timeout, they end up turning the disc over in the endzone after a long possession.
I definitely agree with your skepticism (about TOs helping) but maybe for a somewhat different reason than you articulate here.
You said: "The downside of timeouts is the signal it sends your players." I think the main downside of timeouts is that they provide the other team an opportunity to set up and get ready to defend. That is, calling a TO on a turn loses you the initiative. I assume the thinking is that, after getting a turn, your D line (who now has possession) is discombobulated and out of breath, so taking a TO to let them catch their breath and get organized (and ya, maybe sub on some O specialists) will help. And all other things being equal, I'm sure it does help. But the question shouldn't be whether the TO helps your team. It should be whether it helps your team more than it helps the other team. And I think there's a strong case that however out of breath and discombobulated and not-good-at-O your D-line is in that moment, the other team's O-line is probably even more discombobulated and more out of breath and more not-good-at-D.
Anyway, I think taking TOs after winning possession with a block/interception (which one sees all the time in regular ultimate, not just the leagues where coaches can call TOs and make subs during them) is very often a terrible idea for this reason. People under-estimate the value of having and keeping the initiative.