MLU Feedback?
Wagenwheel
E.
matt.be...@gmail.com
players. I asked one ref how officiating was and he said it was
difficult, but that as it matures and the roles of each ref are more
well defined it will be better.
As a spectator I think having only 15 minute halves was a bit too
short. I would prefer to see at least 20 minute halves. I did see one
overturned travel call (one ref called a travel on a throw for a score,
then the refs convened and came out saying it was a goal). I did see a
few fans/players giving the whole "how was that not a foul" spiel to
the ref near the play. I only saw about 2 whole games worth of play
(most of the championship game + random bits of others) and only saw 3
or 4 stalls called. I think on every stall the opposing team picked up
the disc and threw it without waiting for the signal from the referee,
so it always had to come back.
Overall I think there were less than half the stoppages of play
compared to a regular elite game (in my spectating experience).
On a more pedantic note, I'm not sure i like how whistles sound. It
didn't sound like the classic ref whistle, or maybe it's been so long
since i've heard one I don't remember what it sounds like.
Jeff Eastham-Anderson
>
> Overall I think there were less than half the stoppages of play
> compared to a regular elite game (in my spectating experience).
This is not surprising as only about a quarter of the fouls were
called. The additonal stoppages of play were from players being
confused on when the disc had to be "whistled" in, and errantly started
playing.
Some additional, brief, observations.
-The ruleset had undergone major changes the week prior. This resulted
in a general confusion on how play was started, stopped, etc., and made
these games seem much rougher than Ultimate.
-To my knowledge, only one person picked up 4 personals, and fouled
out.
-Personally, it was immensely frustrating to be fouled and not be able
to call it. The obviously intentional fouls on a fast-break or "no
huck" call were similarly frustrating, as both the offense and defense
were allowed to set up before play resumed.
-Certain active calls were nice, like travels and receiving fouls, but
the rest was sporadically and inconsistently enforced.
-The overall system needs some work. For example, a defensive foul on
a throw that is completed is a whistle, followed by a ref saying "play
on", but in general a whistle means stop playing. Maybe change this to
a ref saying "Foul on the throw" and whistling if it is incomplete and
play should stop.
-Additionally, not being able to hear the stall count is a big
adjustment to make. True, if this sport is ever played in a huge
stadium with a deafening crowd a 3rd party stall will be necessary.
However, we are not _quite_ there yet.
-The two point line did add some excitement, and some novel strategies,
and teams were still adapting to this new twist.
-I didn't see any examples of teams "running out the clock" if they
were up by several points, but I think this may be attributed to the
lack of a highly visible game clock, and teams not wanting to revert to
a "boring" style of play.
> On a more pedantic note, I'm not sure i like how whistles sound. It
> didn't sound like the classic ref whistle, or maybe it's been so long
> since i've heard one I don't remember what it sounds like.
Maybe they were east-coast whistles? I was willing to cut them a
little slack, because being a ref is difficult and, to my knowledge,
without benefits or thanks.
On a final note, this was an interesting experience, but not one I
would reccommend highly as "the future of the sport". There are some
interesting lessons to be learned from these sorts of events, but more
direction and play-testing of the rules should be conducted before such
a similar event is held.
----Jeff----
Wagenwheel
Awesome feedback!
I too, found it frustrating when I was fouled and there was no call in
the first game i played. You feel helpless. After playing Ultimate
for 18 years and making all the calls, now we are dependent upon (in
your instance) untrained, inexperienced refs to make the call and he
doesn't! After all who knows better when you get fouled than yourself.
Abouthe the third or fourth you learn to play until told to stop.
Great point on continuations and when the whistle gets blown and when
it doesn't. I think there should be a 3 foul limit personally.
I feel certain that there will be much more "real time" experiments
happening between now and 2007 season. Thanks for your patience and
I'm sure the MLU staff will take your concerns seriously. It seems
this was truly an experiment. In another post, I wrote: "Mistakes
will be made, It will not be perfect, Accept it and move on" Thanks
for the feedback and participating in the experiment.
Happy days!
P 500
(Finals). First of all, I want to thank Ian for setting everything up
and all the players for participating.
I want to say that this event was definately an experiement with each
game we refined our approach.
As a crew the refs decided on a few points to focus on over the
weekend. We decided right off the bat that we were only going to make
calls that gave signifigant advantage to one player. This resulted in
a lot of travels and fouls on the mark going uncalled. In most cases
where I spotted a bump on the mark or a little bit of a straddle I
considered blowing the whistle but a completed pass went off before I
got the whistle to my mouth. Same thing with travels. If a little
walk happened but then no throw went off I simply didn't find it
neccesary to make a call. I think this gave people the impression that
the refs were shy to make calls, but these non-calls were intentional.
I found that this vastly improved the flow of the game and did not
benefit any particular team one way or the other.
We also decided to strongly focus on pics. We usually had two or three
refs watching the stack for fouls and pics. In one case a team even
called a pic play assuming the refs wouldn't notice the illeagle
activity. In fact pushing the envelope of what they could get away
with seemed to be a tactic of certain teams. I even heard players
directly ask Ian about rules and how they could take advantage.
Positionting and responsibilities of the refs was something we really
had to work on throughout the games. We usually had a ref directly
behind the thrower counting the stall and watching travels, (I did a
lot of this.) We had another positioned downfield behind the stack
watching cutters and defenders. This person took over the stall count
responsibilities on a turnover. Finally depending on how many more we
had, we had 1 or 2 refs on each sideline. In finals we had 2 on one
sideline and one on the other. On the side with two we had one
watching for pics and one watching for fouls on the mark.
The rules still need to be ironed out, A few times players tried to
explain to me why the rules were bad or unfair and i just pointed them
towards Ian.
The refs and the players had some growing pains waiting for the
whistle to restart. but by finals the refs were able to control the
game with the whistle.
The teamwork of the refs vastly improved over the weekend, culminating
in a very important conference to overturn a game changing call in
finals.
Players seemed to eventually get used to not counting the stall and
stopping play on the whistle.
A few rule changes I would suggest are a running clock to better
regulate game length. The first half of the first game took over an
hour! Not resetting the stall count on a timeout. flipping for pull
duirng overtime.
Sorry this is sort of fragmented. Thoughts on the game and the weekend
are still swirling in my brain. I had a really fun time this weekend
and I think all of the games were 10 times smoother than your average
elite match up. Thanks again to Ian and all the players.
tf
> -Additionally, not being able to hear the stall count is a big
> adjustment to make. True, if this sport is ever played in a huge
> stadium with a deafening crowd a 3rd party stall will be necessary.
> However, we are not _quite_ there yet.
In Pro Beach Ultimate when the Head Observer (Ref) counts the stall, it
is out loud where the Thrower & Marker and anyone else can hear it.
> -The two point line did add some excitement, and some novel strategies,
> and teams were still adapting to this new twist.
Not a new twist. I introduced with Dee Rambue the Jose Cuervo 2 point
Gold Shot in the early 1990s. Back then it added excitement and new
strategies. In one of the semifinal games between New York and I
believe Boston's Dog. New York was up by 2 points, time was about to
run out and they were pulling the disc to Boston. So, instead of
pulling the disc deep allowing Dog to have an easy chance to go for the
2-point play, they pulled the disc about a foot in front of their
endzone, making Dog dump the disc behind the (45 yard line) Gold Shot.
Dog was unsuccessful in dumping it back, turning it over on a bad pass.
New York picked it up and scored, winning the game.
The Jose Cuervo fields were 90 yard fields x 40 yards with 15 yard
endzone. The 2-point Gold Shot was set at the 45 yard line.
TF
Ryan
a continuation, it should work like the soccer "advantage" rule. No
foul is called, play continues, and if it's a drop or turnover, then
the whistle is blown and the disc goes back to thrower.
Larry D. Hols
> So, instead of
> pulling the disc deep allowing Dog to have an easy chance to go for the
> 2-point play, they pulled the disc about a foot in front of their
> endzone, making Dog dump the disc behind the (45 yard line) Gold Shot.
> Dog was unsuccessful in dumping it back, turning it over on a bad pass.
> New York picked it up and scored, winning the game.
So, to keep a two point line in play the entire game, there should
also be a line to reach for pulls?
Larry
left...@hotmail.com
I reffed all 7 games and that's the way the rules were written - for
marker/thrower involved fouls we were to raise a hand to indicate a
foul and only stop play if the outcome of the throw was to the
disadvantage of the fouled player. We sometimes blew the whistle too
early, which we'll get better at over time. The foul, BTW, was
assessed to the player regardless of whether play stopped or not.
tf
short. New York took the new rules and worked it to their advantage.
Maybe, had the Cuervo tournaments continued to be played over the past
15 years, we would have made some adjustments to the rules where
needed. Much like what will happen to any game of Ultimate that uses
Referees or any special new rule.
toad
matt.be...@gmail.com wrote:
> I too am interested on hearing the thoughts of the refs and the
> players. I asked one ref how officiating was and he said it was
> difficult, but that as it matures and the roles of each ref are more
> well defined it will be better.
i often have compared reffin to being on a game show.....its not so
hard when you are sitting on your couch, but when you are there in real
time there is preasure. There is only a small window of opportunity to
make a call and if you dont make it you have to let it go. This is why
call savvy players will always make the best refs.
>
> As a spectator I think having only 15 minute halves was a bit too
> short. I would prefer to see at least 20 minute halves.
Actually the half got cut to 12 mins due to the short rounds. The best
case scenerio would be to have 4 ten min quarters so that you get twice
the excitment of last second throws as the clock winds down. Of course
without the enhancement of a visible clock (and scoreboard) this
dynamic is missing.
I did see one
> overturned travel call (one ref called a travel on a throw for a score,
> then the refs convened and came out saying it was a goal). I did see a
> few fans/players giving the whole "how was that not a foul" spiel to
> the ref near the play.
thats pretty comon in any sport with refs.....actually it happens quite
often in traditional ultimate.....only the ref happens to be playing.
I only saw about 2 whole games worth of play
> (most of the championship game + random bits of others) and only saw 3
> or 4 stalls called. I think on every stall the opposing team picked up
> the disc and threw it without waiting for the signal from the referee,
> so it always had to come back.
>
> Overall I think there were less than half the stoppages of play
> compared to a regular elite game (in my spectating experience).
giddy up!!!
>
> On a more pedantic note, I'm not sure i like how whistles sound. It
> didn't sound like the classic ref whistle, or maybe it's been so long
> since i've heard one I don't remember what it sounds like.
yes, those were legit "fox vally" whistles.
toad
Jeff Eastham-Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Overall I think there were less than half the stoppages of play
> > compared to a regular elite game (in my spectating experience).
>
> This is not surprising as only about a quarter of the fouls were
> called. The additonal stoppages of play were from players being
> confused on when the disc had to be "whistled" in, and errantly started
> playing.
The hopes of MLU was that the NW could have produced a set crew to do
all the games and get some practice prior to the event. This did not
occur and many players filled in as refs during byes.......somthing
that will not happen in the 07 season.
>
> Some additional, brief, observations.
> -The ruleset had undergone major changes the week prior. This resulted
> in a general confusion on how play was started, stopped, etc., and made
> these games seem much rougher than Ultimate.
Yes, we could have been much more prepared but in the end it was what
it was and there was much learned from the 1st go round.
> -To my knowledge, only one person picked up 4 personals, and fouled
> out.
And that was in a game in which players were intentionally pushing the
envelope with the refs.
> -Personally, it was immensely frustrating to be fouled and not be able
> to call it.
I'm sure it was and with practice and some rule adjustments the calls
should become more accurate.
The obviously intentional fouls on a fast-break or "no
> huck" call were similarly frustrating, as both the offense and defense
> were allowed to set up before play resumed.
I'm surprised that "intentionals" werent called in those situations.
Of course if only 3 personals are allowed this might not be as
previlant.
> -Certain active calls were nice, like travels and receiving fouls, but
> the rest was sporadically and inconsistently enforced.
again, i'm sure that the consistancy will be vastly improved with
proper preperation.
> -The overall system needs some work. For example, a defensive foul on
> a throw that is completed is a whistle, followed by a ref saying "play
> on", but in general a whistle means stop playing. Maybe change this to
> a ref saying "Foul on the throw" and whistling if it is incomplete and
> play should stop.
Great idea. In NUA comp we (refs) would raise a flag on a potential
continuation/advantage scenerio and blow the whistle if need be. I
informed ian of this process prior to the event...i guess it was too
late to be implamented.
> -Additionally, not being able to hear the stall count is a big
> adjustment to make. True, if this sport is ever played in a huge
> stadium with a deafening crowd a 3rd party stall will be necessary.
> However, we are not _quite_ there yet.
Another big adjustment. There were some suggestions of coming in at 5
with the audio count.....maybe this will be changed.
> -The two point line did add some excitement, and some novel strategies,
> and teams were still adapting to this new twist.
Yes, i herd about the junk zones to combat the long bomb.....maybe a
"illegal defence rule needs to be implamented to deter this.
> -I didn't see any examples of teams "running out the clock" if they
> were up by several points, but I think this may be attributed to the
> lack of a highly visible game clock, and teams not wanting to revert to
> a "boring" style of play.
with the 2 point line stalling is a risk. Also we've all seen b-ball
teams get out of sinc by going into stall mode late in the game only to
allow a momentum shift for the opposing team.
>
> > On a more pedantic note, I'm not sure i like how whistles sound. It
> > didn't sound like the classic ref whistle, or maybe it's been so long
> > since i've heard one I don't remember what it sounds like.
oh it was the clasic fox vally sports whistle.
>
> Maybe they were east-coast whistles? I was willing to cut them a
> little slack, because being a ref is difficult and, to my knowledge,
> without benefits or thanks.
No doubt, those that volunteered stepped up bigtime. I was a proponent
for budgeting in pay for refs (at least 20 bucks a game) but MLU is
currently on a no/low budget so many thanks to the refs for doing a
thankless job!!!!
>
> On a final note, this was an interesting experience, but not one I
> would reccommend highly as "the future of the sport". There are some
> interesting lessons to be learned from these sorts of events, but more
> direction and play-testing of the rules should be conducted before such
> a similar event is held.
Well the ref system has some catching up to do for sure but it is not
likley that MLU will abandon its philosophy, vision or event schedule.
>
> ----Jeff----
toad
P 500 wrote:
> So I reffed 3 MLU games this weekend: NE V SW, NW V SE, and NW V SW
> (Finals).
you are the man!
First of all, I want to thank Ian for setting everything up
> and all the players for participating.
Ian was a complete dynamo in organizing MLU from recruiting the players
to writing the rules to securing the unies. Way to be mr. commish.
>
> I want to say that this event was definately an experiement with each
> game we refined our approach.
thats the best approach to take under those circumstances.
>
> As a crew the refs decided on a few points to focus on over the
> weekend. We decided right off the bat that we were only going to make
> calls that gave signifigant advantage to one player. This resulted in
> a lot of travels and fouls on the mark going uncalled.
Did the "no huck" marker fouls go uncalled?....seems like the "D" would
get an advantage there. Maybe the marker needs to be backed up a
little by law.
In most cases
> where I spotted a bump on the mark or a little bit of a straddle I
> considered blowing the whistle but a completed pass went off before I
> got the whistle to my mouth.
Yea, there is no time to hesitate or you miss the chance and let the
players set the standard/tone.
Same thing with travels. If a little
> walk happened but then no throw went off I simply didn't find it
> neccesary to make a call.
travels you can let slide.....no need to be to nit picky unless there
is constant abuse or ,as you stated, the thrower gets an advantage.
I think this gave people the impression that
> the refs were shy to make calls, but these non-calls were intentional.
You got to love a good no-call.
> I found that this vastly improved the flow of the game and did not
> benefit any particular team one way or the other.
> We also decided to strongly focus on pics.
Picks are tough and its good that you guys were focusing on them. If
they counted as personals you'de probably see players more actively
avoiding them.
We usually had two or three
> refs watching the stack for fouls and pics.
proper field mechanics is one of the three elements of being a good ref
(good judgement and knowledge of the rules being the others)
In one case a team even
> called a pic play assuming the refs wouldn't notice the illeagle
> activity. In fact pushing the envelope of what they could get away
> with seemed to be a tactic of certain teams. I even heard players
> directly ask Ian about rules and how they could take advantage.
there will be a need for constant refinement to hone down on how the
rules and rules process will be structured to maximize fairness and
entertainment......constant.
>
> Positionting and responsibilities of the refs was something we really
> had to work on throughout the games. We usually had a ref directly
> behind the thrower counting the stall and watching travels, (I did a
> lot of this.) We had another positioned downfield behind the stack
> watching cutters and defenders. This person took over the stall count
> responsibilities on a turnover. Finally depending on how many more we
> had, we had 1 or 2 refs on each sideline. In finals we had 2 on one
> sideline and one on the other. On the side with two we had one
> watching for pics and one watching for fouls on the mark.
pretty work!
>
> The rules still need to be ironed out, A few times players tried to
> explain to me why the rules were bad or unfair and i just pointed them
> towards Ian.
thats all you can do.
>
> The refs and the players had some growing pains waiting for the
> whistle to restart. but by finals the refs were able to control the
> game with the whistle.
good to hear.
>
> The teamwork of the refs vastly improved over the weekend, culminating
> in a very important conference to overturn a game changing call in
> finals.
word.
>
> Players seemed to eventually get used to not counting the stall and
> stopping play on the whistle.
A privlidged facilitation they will come to appreciate.
>
> A few rule changes I would suggest are a running clock to better
> regulate game length.
like soccer? eh...to arbirtary.
The first half of the first game took over an
> hour! Not resetting the stall count on a timeout. flipping for pull
> duirng overtime.
Yea, i herd the SE got kind of screwed on that one in their OT against
the NW,
>
> Sorry this is sort of fragmented. Thoughts on the game and the weekend
> are still swirling in my brain. I had a really fun time this weekend
> and I think all of the games were 10 times smoother than your average
> elite match up. Thanks again to Ian and all the players.
In reality, being a ref gives you the best seat in the house. Its a
hard job but very satisfying in the end.
toad
Yes, only the personal would be recorded at the next stoppage. The MLU
foul structure resembles b-ball more as soccers system is slightly more
arbitrary.
mapler...@yahoo.com
CodyTCT
had an hour-long half... was that typical or were halves usually
shorter than that?
Ian
Potlatch.
We cut it down to 12 minute halves after the first game.
Each 12 minute half took about 45 minutes.
We've learned a lot, and we'll schedule better next time.