3. "Shrink" the field

Adding players to a limited space creates difficulties for the offense in at least three ways.

1. There is a greater chance that a defender might poach a D. In a wide-open field it’s easy for throwers to recognize possible threats. With limited space this becomes more difficult.

2. The advantage per throw is diminished. For instance, on a huge field an in-cut might gain 30 yards, while in a small space it only advances the disc 15 yards. Similarly, a swing in a large space gives the offense a totally new look and the defense must adjust significantly. On a mini field the defense can maintain their positioning with very little adjustment.

3. The possible aspects of attack are limited. Play mini for 2 games and I can guarantee you’ll see at least 1 huck go out the back of the endzone. The smaller field takes away the huck option. “Shrinking” the field limits those margins for error.

So, what good are these hypotheticals? We can’t physically shrink the field, but we can position ourselves in ways that effectively shrink the field. A mark is one attempt to halve the field. Adding more people to a limited space is another.

Recognize that not all offensive players are real threats at all times. If your opponent is 2 seconds, or 2 throws, away from a position of engagement, you should be 2 seconds, or two throws, away. This is the fundamental aspect of team defense. It increases efficacy because individuals can take risks (layout, force handlers downfield) with confidence that they will be covered if their player takes off.

You might say this defensive philosophy advocates lazy poaching. A contraire mon player. True team defense is much harder than simplistic man-to-man.

The phrase “in-your-face-lockdown-D” has an idealistic appeal to it. But, if you’re not taking anything away from a viable threat, then you’re not doing enough. How many times have you seen a defender resting with his cutter near away from the play? Once again, get into a position where you can disrupt the O.