How to preserve SOTG
Heino...@hotmail.com
Simply put, SOTG is a system established by the players, and for the
players. When a player or coach participates in an ultimate game SOTG
feels natural. We know how the rules work. We learn to take advantage
of them as we play, but we come to expect that and are prepared for it.
It doesn't affect a players devotion to the game, or the meaning he
finds in winning or losing.
When people complain about SOTG it is almost always the few fans or
relatives who are viewing a game from the outside. Fans can't
participate in the arguments and lose interest in the game as it is
decided by the players banter and protests instead of skill.
Thus, the best way to allow SOTG to prevail is to make sure ultimate
revolves around the players. Without an audience there are no
complaints about SOTG. Don't allow non participants to watch a game.
Give em a score. Maybe a highlight reel if people want to see the
action.
I see no reason to compromise the SOTG by catering to an audience.
Remember, Ultimate, for the players, by the players.
It will be interesting to see how CSTV edits the finals. I hope they
got some on field microphones and we can hear good player to player
discussions. Was Zip or Beau "Miked up at the Half." Something tells
me we won't here much about the 82 stoppages of play in the edit. But
we will hear how great SOTG is.
Jon Bauman
> When people complain about SOTG it is almost always the few fans or
> relatives who are viewing a game from the outside.
I would tend to disagree. I've played recreational leagues for quite a
few years, and been to my fair share of tournaments, none of which ever
had a significant spectator presence. As a player, I've experienced
plenty of players who were lacking in SOTG, and I felt it made the game
less enjoyable for everyone.
> Without an audience there are no complaints about SOTG.
> Don't allow non participants to watch a game.
I totally disagree, and discouraging spectators strikes me as
ridiculous.
I think numerous stoppages of play are disliked by players as much or
more as they are by fans. Either numerous violations of the rules are
occurring, or numerous erroneous calls are occurring. Actually, it's
almost certainly some combination of the two. In any case, to combat
this, we need to increase knowledge of the rules to reduce the bad
calls, but I'm not exactly sure what the best way to decrease the
number of legitimate violations is. That's obviously an active topic of
discussion.
Someone told me recently that as you progress into higher levels of
competition, spirit must necessarily be sacrificed. In my experience,
there can be great spirit along with intense competition; the problem
is ego. The higher the level, the greater number of players with
inflated egos, who must win to prove their greatness and cannot respect
their fellow players who they view as inferior.
Wagenwheel
where the players respect each other and at the end of the game they
can have a pow-wow together. Both played hard, one team was victorious
and the other was defeated. But no one likes to be cheated out of a
victory, and unfortunately that happens on every level of play. During
a recent league game the opposing team on double game point catches one
in the end zone close to the sideline. Our player convinces her that
she could not possibly be sure she was in if she was looking at the
disc, not at her feet. Disc goes back to the thrower because the more
experience player out-argued the newbie. Our team won, but it was not
the kind of victory that was sweet, but a victory nonetheless. Note, I
was on the other side of the field and had no perspective of the call.
Toad Leber
"Jon Bauman" <bau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118796979....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Heino...@Hotmail.com wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what the best way to decrease the
> number of legitimate violations is.
I'm exactly sure.....refs!
The higher the level, the greater number of players with
> inflated egos, who must win to prove their greatness and cannot respect
> their fellow players who they view as inferior.
Hey, that is the core of what high drama sports entertainment is all about.
0Madison0
you have been watching a little too much fox news.
As a lover of Spirit, I find the question "how to preserve spirit of
the game" to be slightly misdirected. Surely, it is important to
discuss SOTG as happens in every fifth thread on RSD. However, Spirit
of the Game must live and be alive if it is to be meaningful.
Preservation is for the dead and dying. Preservation is for the
fearful. For Spirit to be alive, we must actively engage it and shape
it, for it will change and move and be new (that, I think, is the
nature of Spirit).
I wonder if the necessity of preservation (or the perception thereof)
means that Spirit is already dead.
I believe it is not. I also believe that the best way o f
participating in the Spirit of this game we love so much as to spend
absurd amounts of time reading and writing about it here is to
constantly engage and create it.
Preservation is for museums.
Let's live the Spirit.
peace,
Chris Limburg
Madison
Heino...@hotmail.com
Spirit works for games when the point of the game is for a group of
players to have fun.
That's where it ends. For anything more it doesn't work. To create a
spectator friendly event that involves ultimate you have to give up
SOTG.
Why is it so important for spectators to have impartial arbitration.
Without it the spectator cannot accept the results of the event. As
soon as a player can change the outcome of the game by arguing the game
loses its legitimacy.
This is why players are not alowed to bet against themselves in a
contest.
This is why players are fined for talking badly about refs or saying
theirs a conspiracy to cheat a team out of a win.
This is why the XFL didn't work. Jim Mcman, prowrestling. It has to
be fake. Even if it is real just the idea it could be fake takes away
the interest.
Ok, so refs are necesary for creating spectator friendly ultimate. Why
should we care.
Cause as much fun as ultimate is, it's a hell of a lot more fun with a
big crowd watching. Every finals I've ever played in. The couple
minutes we got to play in front of the freshman class in college.
Those exciting games when the sidelines are packed from the other teams
watching. There's something special about those games.
Why put it off any longer?
ultimatep...@gmail.com
i'm tired of this discussion. i'm tired of
toad and wagenwheel.
i'm tired of a bunch of complainers.
ultimate is still in its infancy in terms
of organization in many places. there
are so many ways that it could be improved
with a little effort (in terms of local and regional
development) that complaining about one thing
over and over again is just plain tiresome, and
if you really do care about the sport, and not
just your ego, you people would get off
your butts and get something done.
And by something, I mean more than talk
up a tournament that you dont' have the
organizational ability to make happen.
mike gerics can be a pain in the butt
in terms of RSD, but he has earned
the respect of lots of rsd folks through
his organizational efforts, and the
impact that he's had on the observer
system. that didn't just happen
because he complained.
he actually went out and volunteered.
why don't you guys run for the gddmn
board of directors, if you're so dmn into
your ideas. as we've learned, it doesn't
take a whole lot of votes to get elected.
j...@seidler.com
Jon Bauman
> "Jon Bauman" <bau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118796979....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > number of legitimate violations is.
>
> I'm exactly sure.....refs!
I'm not opposed to the idea of trying ultimate with refs. I just think
it's too much of a burden financially and logistically to be the
standard way of playing the game. I'd like to see it as an option for
more important games just as observers are today. We shouldn't give up
the tradition of self officiation when the average game is not an 80+
stoppage call-fest.
> > The higher the level, the greater number of players with
> > inflated egos, who must win to prove their greatness and cannot respect
> > their fellow players who they view as inferior.
>
> Hey, that is the core of what high drama sports entertainment is all about.
Egotistical or not, I would argue that in professional sports, most
players at least have a fair amount of respect for their fellow
players' abilities. Still, it seems to me that refereeing in ultimate
would be most similar to basketball, and I really don't enjoy watching
players trying to draw fouls and flop. The most exciting plays are the
clean ones.
Wagenwheel
volunteered. Toad has contributed more to the game of Ultimate than
you, Mike G and the rest of the UPA board combined. Any asshole can
research and write a book. I teach at at University so I know! Any
asshole can buy an expensive camera and take photos, I know cause I
have expensive cameras. And any asshole can spout their pro spirit or
pro agenda on RSD. Who do you think taught Mike G how to run a
tournament? It takes a group of teams to make a tournament. If they
don't want to play with refs they don't have to. So stop reading
shutterbug, especially if your tired of it. Never underestimate the
enemy.
Heino...@hotmail.com
That'd be pretty rediculous. I'm aying for any event, where you are
trying to appeal to an audience. Where you are trying to produce
something that's not just a chance for a bunch of players to play
ultimate you need refs.
It's not that I'm so against SOTG. I just want people to accept that
maybe, on some level, probably in games they'll never play in, that
refs are an option. If the general ultimate communittee could at least
accept that it would make it possible to actually do something to
further the game instead of complaining.
Mike Gerics
> in terms of RSD,
--huh?
Mike Gerics
> tournament?
---sincerely....i made it up, mostly.
as a college player, i never had any idea about what went on at or before a
tournament.....even those hosted here in my backyard.
Brian P. Canniff
<Heino...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118791026....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I see no reason to compromise the SOTG by catering to an audience.
For one thing catering is expensive, and even bad catering will draw in a
crowd.
fph
in it but not everybody (not even close to everybody). SOTG assumes 100%
compliance, which we don't have. Todd is right to use the word Dogma to
describe the situation.
Some people will argue that my running intentional picks outside of 9'10" is
against the spirit of the game since it violates the spirit of the rules.
That's fricken nuts. What athlete doesn't know and understand the rules to
be able to compete at his best without resorting to cheating?
I realize that using words like fascist, Stalinist or Nazism to describe a
culture or society where the individuals are required to accept an assigned
belief system but what else do you call it when you either have to conform
to someone else's ideals or be shunned? SOTG does not feel natural to me.
You can't force your religion on me and it's ridiculous to assume that you
can. And don't for a second assume or think that I'm an unsportsmanlike
player because I haven't taken the UPA credo.
I can respect my opponents but I DO NOT RESPECT THEIR BULLSHIT CALLS,
especially when I get called for picks when I'm 20' away or I get called for
traveling on some of my best moves. Fuck it. This system does NOT work.
Learn some of my moves and then get a zillion inaccurate calls and then tell
my how natural SOTG feels. Frankly, I feel violated so unless you consider
feeling violated a natural feeling, you may want to rethink your rhetoric.
<Heino...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118791026....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
fph
Preserving something assumes that the something is still alive. Perhaps you
can start the SOTG preservation society and host a museum with TK and Irv
Kalb saying 'nice bid'.
I have done something more than complain (although deriding the dissenting
opinion has always been part of the culture--you're either with us, or
you're against us).
I've authored a revised set of rules with a mechanism that replaces
individuals on field making calls with their counterparts on the sidelines
and a system that has built in deterrents for abhorrent or undesirable
practices.
I would like to try it out in a tournament.
I have no tournament director experience.
I'm not popular in the community (nor is mine, or Todd's, etc. position).
I need some help from someone within the UPA to try to evolve the rules
(Mike, Elizabeth, anyone??).
I'm willing to put in what ever time I need to but I'm going to need some
help from the UPA.
<ultimatep...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118811686.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
scoop
some
help from the UPA"
Maybe they'll give you a hug and some prozac too, you whiner. Host a
tournament. Reserve fields. Invite people. How frickin hard is that?
You claim you've been involved in ultimate since the 1980s and you
haven't figured out how tournaments are run?
You spend half your time trashing the UPA and now you're all "boo-hoo,
will someone from Boulder come hold bwilly's hand while he tries to
change the world" and then wonder why you're not taken seriously. Earth
to billy: It's not because you're a rebel. It's not even because you've
been such an asshole (though, no doubt it helps).
It's because your shit is week. I mean, you do realize that to the
average RSD reader who hasn't seen you play (accept for idris' video of
your lazy, poaching, huck it away into triple coverage ass at Fools)
these two things seem clear:
A. Billy imagines he has special ultimate powers no one else has.
B. He thinks the game can be improved by being designed to favor
billy's special powers over all other types and styles of play.
This is the point at which, to me, your persecution complex and
meglomania get really fascinating. Here you are, a guy in his forties,
who thinks he's perhaps the greatest to ever play the game, but has
never been to nationals. It's troubling. How could this be? How could
others have been winning championships, building teams, spreading the
game and cementing life-long friendships while you just drifted from
pickup team to pickup team in some back eddy of the East Bay. Then the
light goes on: "Of course! The game is broken!,'' goes up the cry at
Chez Billy. "That's why other's have succeeded while I've failed. It's
all those petty, mean, little people on elite teams who've been
conspiring to keep me down. Now that i've rent the fabric of the lie,
the world must be told!" And then you put on your tinfoil hat and
teetered over to your computer to tilt at windmills in cyberspace.
It's at times like this that I'd ordinarily seek solace in the eternal
wisdom of the timecube. But since you're a basketball fan, allow me a
few choice passages from the "Waltoncube."
"Waltoncube is absolute economy of thought.
Cubeless thinking begets common sense.
Cubeless thinking allows for REASON GOD.
Your IGNORANCE of Waltoncube is evil.
Basketball is not a single game
Baskteball is 4 games cubed 4 × 1/4,
producing quarterly cube halved.
You are so stupid that you were educted
to think one game is single and not cubed.
Learning and attentiveness has RETARDED you.
TIME CUBE explains only 1/4 UNIVERSAL LAWS
Spectatorship is evil without cubic thought.
Waltoncube invalidates all common logic.
Bill Walton understands quartered professional game.
Attentive fans are EVIL to embrace single game thought.
Bill Walton is quartered superior to REASON GOD.
Bill Walton can accept simultaneous greatness
because of cubic thought.
Every player can be "greatest of all time" because
of WALTONCUBE paradigm that invalidates REASON GOD.
Every team can be simultaneously "worst of all time"
because Waltoncube logic negates reason paradigmn."
fph
tournament. Reserve fields. Invite people. How frickin hard is that?
You claim you've been involved in ultimate since the 1980s and you
haven't figured out how tournaments are run?
-I've been playing since 1979. I ran a one day, 8 team tournament once.
You spend half your time trashing the UPA
-I thought I spent all my time trashing the UPA.
and now you're all "boo-hoo,
will someone from Boulder come hold bwilly's hand while he tries to
change the world" and then wonder why you're not taken seriously.
-I never gave it a second thought. If you think asking for help is either
pathetic or whining then there's not much point in even trying, is there.
Earth to billy: It's not because you're a rebel. It's not even because
you've
been such an asshole (though, no doubt it helps).
-whatever.
It's because your shit is week. I mean, you do realize that to the
average RSD reader who hasn't seen you play (accept for idris' video of
your lazy, poaching, huck it away into triple coverage ass at Fools)
these two things seem clear:
A. Billy imagines he has special ultimate powers no one else has.
-My name if Frank. There is nothing special about my abilities except for
the fact that no one else seems to play like I do. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but is there anyone else who has ALL of:
lefty sidearm give and go
righty sidearm give and go
lefty-righty up and under move
righty-lefty up and under move
lefty backhand give and go
lefty lift give and go
lefty high release give and go
righty back hand give and go
righty lift give and go
righty high release give and go
righty push pass give and go
lefty push pass give and go
righty dropstep give and go
lefty dropstep give and go
-Since no one else seems to be able to penetrate and break down a defense
like I can, it's probably a little difficult for you to relate to me
philosophically. Just because I think that they way most of you play
ultimate is flat out dumb doesn't mean you have to get nasty.
B. He thinks the game can be improved by being designed to favor
billy's special powers over all other types and styles of play.
-No, that's completely wrong. I think the game was designed by a high
school PE teacher for PE students and not for world class competition.
Double teams is an example of the lowest common denominator mentality that
is pervasive throughout the rules. Do the rules changes favor me? Of
course they do, I've got more skillz than you do.
-I think the game can be improved by people learning how to become triple
threats. Watching you guys play ultimate is watching a basketball game with
absolutely ZERO dribbling. It's quite goofy.
This is the point at which, to me, your persecution complex and
meglomania get really fascinating. Here you are, a guy in his forties,
who thinks he's perhaps the greatest to ever play the game, but has
never been to nationals.
-You're funny.
-I have been persecuted.
-I've never said I'm the greatest. I've said I'm that I'm extremely
different and therefore I'm the best at what I do.
-For the record, until we have a system that assures even competition,
anyone's attendance at nationals is fairly meaningless to me. "No, I
haven't heard of you, should I have?"
It's troubling. How could this be? How could others have been winning
championships, building teams, spreading the game
-Spreading the Game? The game is a shell of it's former self.
and cementing life-long friendships while you just drifted from
pickup team to pickup team in some back eddy of the East Bay. Then the
light goes on: "Of course! The game is broken!,'' goes up the cry at
Chez Billy. "That's why other's have succeeded while I've failed. It's
all those petty, mean, little people on elite teams who've been
conspiring to keep me down. Now that i've rent the fabric of the lie,
the world must be told!" And then you put on your tinfoil hat and
teetered over to your computer to tilt at windmills in cyberspace.
-That's not nice.
-Could it be that I'm right? Could it be that the game is riddled with
subjective, arbitrary and inconsistent calls. Could it be that there is
something endemic in the culture that breeds stagnation? Could it be that
the game would have evolved much further than it has had the framework not
been built on a house of cards? Could it be that traveling violations occur
at epidemic proportions? Could it possibly be that ulimate players actually
ARE a bunch of closed minded bigots?
-I don't think you've listened very well. Without a meaningful form of
measurement, NO ONE has succeeded (except that they've forged lifelong
friendships, etc, I'll give you that one). You went to nationals? Whoop di
fucking do. You know how many times last week at Cal States I saw a player
commit a massive travel, huck the disk into the endzone for a score and have
the whole team running on to the field as if they had just one nationals?
It's a God Damn joke. Why don't you guys play with some real rules,
penalties and normalized enforcement and then you can cheer when you score,
but not when you cheat.
Nathan Stock
> a culture or society where the individuals are required to accept an
> assigned belief system
You mean like a belief system that states 'All me are created equal'? Just sayin, I think that's the definition of a culture or society.
As for SOTG, I think it's a shame that it's dying away. But it seems a pretty much inevitable occurrance as ultimate expands and an increasingly diverse group of people participate. Competition reigns supreme in sports, and although competition and SOTG are by no means mutually exclusive, at their extremes they do make strange bedfellows
Nathan Stock
fph
>> I realize that using words like fascist, Stalinist or Nazism to describe
>> a culture or society where the individuals are required to accept an
>> assigned belief system
>
> You mean like a belief system that states 'All me are created equal'? Just
> sayin, I think that's the definition of a culture or society.
Hmm. I thought 'all men are created equal' was a self evident fact.
Telling me that I have to respect my opponents calls is not a self evident
fact, it's a dogmatic attempt at uniformity. "Placing the responsibility
for fair play on the player" isn't a self evident fact, it's a basis for a
belief system; a belief system that I don't necessarily care to take part
it. The rules themselves are not fair and yet you place the responsibility
for fair play on me?
> As for SOTG, I think it's a shame that it's dying away. But it seems a
> pretty much inevitable occurrance as ultimate expands and an increasingly
> diverse group of people participate. Competition reigns supreme in sports,
> and although competition and SOTG are by no means mutually exclusive, at
> their extremes they do make strange bedfellows
The expression that I quoted "SOTG is dead, that's why it's called a spirit"
I borrowed from a friend who used it circa 1986. It's been downhill ever
since.
Strange bed fellows indeed.
fph
Jim Strathmeyer
> Telling me that I have to respect my opponents calls is not a self
> evident fact, it's a dogmatic attempt at uniformity. "Placing the
> responsibility for fair play on the player" isn't a self evident fact,
> it's a basis for a belief system; a belief system that I don't
> necessarily care to take part it. The rules themselves are not fair
> and yet you place the responsibility for fair play on me?
How can a set of rules that treats all players equally be unfair?
--
Jim Strathmeyer
scoop
But I will address this: "Spreading the Game? The game is a shell of
it's former self."
There are now 521 college teams, more than triple the number of a
decage ago. About 200 high school teams now compete at UPA events. Ten
years ago, no more than 20. Current UPA membership about 19,000, up
from 8,000 in 1993. More people are playing more ultimate at more
levels than at any other time.
Heino...@hotmail.com
growing as fast as it could. We can't just go, oh, more people are
playing therefore we are doing the best we can. How has our growth
compared to soccer or lacross or rugby or skate boarding. When you
invest money do you accept 3% growth per year just because, hey my
saving is growing. Shouldn't you be asking yourself, could I get more
money putting my money elsewhere.
... According to the sport's governing body, US Lacrosse, 354,361
people played the game in 2004, compared to 253,931 in 2001.
... Since 1995, the number of varsity high school lacrosse programs
increased to 2,332 from 808.
Youth membership (ages 15 and under) in US Lacrosse has doubled since
1999 to over 60,000.
The National Federation of State High School Associations reported that
in 2001 better than 74,000 students played high lacrosse.
In 1999, there were only 5,500 CIPP registered youth players. At the
end of the 2002, that number has jumped to close to 13,000 CIPP youth
registered players.
So are we really growing that fast?
Mike Gerics
> growing as fast as it could.
>
> people played the game in 2004, compared to 253,931 in 2001.
>
> ... Since 1995, the number of varsity high school lacrosse programs
> increased to 2,332 from 808.
>
> Youth membership (ages 15 and under) in US Lacrosse has doubled since
> 1999 to over 60,000.
>
> The National Federation of State High School Associations reported that
> in 2001 better than 74,000 students played high lacrosse.
>
> In 1999, there were only 5,500 CIPP registered youth players. At the
> end of the 2002, that number has jumped to close to 13,000 CIPP youth
> registered players.
>
> So are we really growing that fast?
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---the history of ultimate only goes back 30-ish years total.
Lax....man....that sport's been being played since waaaayy back befoooorre
the day....right?
scoop
established that he's completely out of touch with reality.
As for you, I think the growth has been pretty impressive. And yes, I'd
take 11% a year on my money (ultimate's current growth rate) and ask no
questions. Is the growth rate for lacrosse relevant? I can't see how.
It's a ball sport (as opposed to the goofy frisbee-disc), and has been
established in at least some American high schools since at least the
1930s, and the game has been played in something resembling it's modern
form for about 100 years.
Could Ultimate's growth be faster? Sure. Do I have any idea about how
to make it faster? No. As I see it, Ultimate's various powers that be
are handling things much as they should. More money for a more
aggressive juniors outreach would be a good thing, but it doesn't grow
on trees. And remember, lack of popularity doesn't equal fundamental
problems with a game. Is team handball a "shittier" game than
basketball because it's less popular than basketball? No. Could one
imagine some radical rule change to team handball that would help it
supplant basketball? No. Or at least I can't. So what's you're point
heinous? Do you think ultimate should be growing faster, and if so, how
do you propose to make it so?
j...@seidler.com
order to see how the world is working around us. But I would guess
those sports have had a large number of people in their national
organizations focused on growth for a long time.
The UPA only had full time paid staff starting a few years ago. It has
only been about two years that the UPA has had a staff of three or
more. The UPA's focus on youth ultimate growth started in earnest when
Kyle was hired in 2002 (I think). We are just now beginning to see the
results of his efforts. When, and if, the UPA hires a full time person
to focus on college growth, or club growth, or masters growth, etc.,
I'll bet we would begin to see the fruits of those efforts within a few
years too.
The average 10% growth rate over the past 20 years or so has come from
natural grassroots growth. That sounds pretty good to me. With a well
staffed administation working to promote growth, we could see the
overall growth rate spike and continue that way for years.
I don't see our ability to grow as the issue. I wonder what type of
growth the current players want. Is it important to the majority to
have a large number of spectators at most games? I'm not sure players
care if a lot of parents and non-ultimate folks are watching. It seems
perhaps that it's more important to have their peers watching. At
nationals with most of the participants watching the finals, it is
hugely exciting. But would it be (more) exciting if there were also
another few hundred parents and friends? I don't know.
If the rules have to change to promote growth, does the majority want
that? How important is it to the majority to want ultimate to grow to
the point that millions of kids are playing a la AYSO? I suspect no one
knows what the majority want because I don't think there has been any
polling. But it seems to me (an avid non-playing spectator) that most
current players are playing for their own personal enjoyment rather
than the cheers of the spectators.
fph
That's what I'm talking about.
<Heino...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118944362.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
fph
We're clearly lagging the rest of the country in both high school and club
teams. Perhaps that lends a bit to my perspective on the game being
dramatically different from yours.
If you take those 360 new collegiate team's memberships (~7200) and high
school team's memberships (~3500), using 20 and 15 players per team
respectively, that almost entirely accounts for the new memberships.
There are also a lot of memberships now that apply to city league players
who are required to get a UPA membership for insurance purposes.
Furthermore, if you then shift the number of memberships that are now
playing mixed that were playing in open (let's say on third???), the you've
got men's and women's open divisions a shell of their former selves, as
evidenced by last weekend's Cal States tournament in Santa Cruz.
The Santa Barbara Memorial Day Classic, which used to be the west coast's
showcase event with 24-32 Men's teams over a three day weekend has shriveled
to the point that it doesn't even have a Men's division.
There are clearly a lot LESS people playing in the open divisions, probably
the fewest since before 1980. Do you have any statistical evidence to
indicate that this trend is reversing? From where I'm sitting, the Bay Area
is down to three teams, KAOS, Oaks and JAM, down from an all time high of at
least 16 teams and there's nothing to me that indicates that this is going
to get righted any time soon. I understand other pockets of enthusiasm
exist in the country where the game is expanding at the open level and
that's great.
I'm happy that the sport is going through a renascence in other areas of the
country/world in the other levels.
fph
> Look, the original idiot said "Shell of its former self." So, it's
> established that he's completely out of touch with reality.
I may be a lot of things but I'm not an idiot. In California, and certainly
in the open divisions, the participation in the sport has shrunk. That's a
fact.
> As for you, I think the growth has been pretty impressive. And yes, I'd
> take 11% a year on my money (ultimate's current growth rate) and ask no
> questions. Is the growth rate for lacrosse relevant? I can't see how.
> It's a ball sport (as opposed to the goofy frisbee-disc), and has been
> established in at least some American high schools since at least the
> 1930s, and the game has been played in something resembling it's modern
> form for about 100 years.
>
> Could Ultimate's growth be faster? Sure. Do I have any idea about how
> to make it faster? No.
I got an idea. How about making it a real sport to attract more main stream
athletes (that's not a slight against any athletes that do play). Self
officiating and the lack of penalization does not a real sport make.
> As I see it, Ultimate's various powers that be
> are handling things much as they should. More money for a more
> aggressive juniors outreach would be a good thing, but it doesn't grow
> on trees. And remember, lack of popularity doesn't equal fundamental
> problems with a game. Is team handball a "shittier" game than
> basketball because it's less popular than basketball? No. Could one
> imagine some radical rule change to team handball that would help it
> supplant basketball? No.
So, just because you can't radically improve team hand ball means you can't
improve ultimate? In 38 years, has there been any radical rules changes to
the sport? No. Is there a particular reason that you are opposed to
radical changes in the sport?
We could argue ad nauseum on RSD whether or not sugar is sweet but it's a
lot easier to put it on your tongue and find out for yourself.
> Or at least I can't. So what's you're point
> heinous? Do you think ultimate should be growing faster, and if so, how
> do you propose to make it so?
Make it funner.
fph
> The UPA only had full time paid staff starting a few years ago. It has
> only been about two years that the UPA has had a staff of three or
> more. The UPA's focus on youth ultimate growth started in earnest when
> Kyle was hired in 2002 (I think). We are just now beginning to see the
> results of his efforts. When, and if, the UPA hires a full time person
> to focus on college growth, or club growth, or masters growth, etc.,
> I'll bet we would begin to see the fruits of those efforts within a few
> years too.
I'd like to hope your right on this one. I wonder what a full time person
such as Kyle could do to reverse the trend in the club division.
> The average 10% growth rate over the past 20 years or so has come from
> natural grassroots growth.
I think it needs to be broken down into segments. At the club level, we've
incurred a 50% reduction over twenty years (at least in California), not a
10% growth while at the youth level, we've had 50% growth.
> That sounds pretty good to me. With a well
> staffed administation working to promote growth, we could see the
> overall growth rate spike and continue that way for years.
>
> I don't see our ability to grow as the issue. I wonder what type of
> growth the current players want. Is it important to the majority to
> have a large number of spectators at most games? I'm not sure players
> care if a lot of parents and non-ultimate folks are watching. It seems
> perhaps that it's more important to have their peers watching. At
> nationals with most of the participants watching the finals, it is
> hugely exciting. But would it be (more) exciting if there were also
> another few hundred parents and friends? I don't know.
>
> If the rules have to change to promote growth, does the majority want
> that?
Is it possible that rules changes will actually make the game more FUN and
therefore that should be the underlying motivation (as opposed to growth)?
Of course a bi-product of more fun would be growth. Or to say it the other
way around, if you're suggesting that rules changes could drive growth,
could it be that the current rules stunted growth. All blabbering
rhetorical questions. I know.
> How important is it to the majority to want ultimate to grow to
> the point that millions of kids are playing a la AYSO? I suspect no one
> knows what the majority want because I don't think there has been any
> polling. But it seems to me (an avid non-playing spectator) that most
> current players are playing for their own personal enjoyment rather
> than the cheers of the spectators.
Again, the sport can be a lot more enjoyable than it currently is. I can't
imagine any player not wanting the sport to be more enjoyable. We don't
need a poll for that.
There is a prevailing sentiment that the subjective, inconsistent,
arbitrary, inaccurate and loosely interpreted nature of the game takes a lot
of joy away from playing the sport. Just because the sport is experiencing
growth at the youth/collegiate level doesn't mean that we can't dramatically
improve on it.
Polling to see if the majority thinks that rules changes will make the game
more enjoyable is like polling people about whether or not they like the new
U2 album before it has even come out. Isn't it? You might not even like
the new album the first time you've heard it but by the time you've listened
to it ten times, it's grown on you and you like it. The point being that
trialing a set of radical changes over a single weekend will not yield the
same results as trialing the same set of rules changes over a longer period
of time.
move...@yahoo.com
viewer(whoever that may be). But at the same time, those same people
don't really know how our sport works. It is still a players sport, and
the primary watchers are players or parents and relatives. This has all
been said, but the majority of fouls called in the college finals were
likely (and I wasn't there) pick and travel calls. I say this because
that is where the majority of calls come from in club. And college is
rapidly approaching club. When good players square off against other
good players in high stakes games, the players make more calls because
if they don't the price to paid will be to steep. If you step around me
at Mudbowl, and put up a some shady throw that somehow gets caught, I
will be able to live with myself. But if the same player does the same
thing at champies, I can't let it go. There are far to many great
athletes at that level to let it roll on a 50/50 chance. What is the
solution? Not referees for goddamn sure (despite what those jokers in
NC will tell you) Why don't the better players start telling the less
better players what is up? We do this already, but more respect needs
to be paid to those who have come before. NOT introducing a third
element to muck things up with their perspective. How is that a
positive?
So if the question is, "how do we make Ultimate games more watcher
friendly" then we need to educate and expand our audience. Golf and
NASCAR are great examples of sports with a broad fan base that don't
have active referees, yet are two of the most popular sports in the
country. Stay true to how the sport was created in a general way, and
the future will take care of itself.
Why would we want to conform anyway? Making Ultimate like soccer and
football goes against the whole idea of what this sport is about.
Referees suck! and you can take that to the UN.
GoTTa
grill
responsibility to implement "radical rule changes to the sport". It's
also not CvH's job, Adam Tarr's job, or any of the other UPA employees'
job. The UPA exists, among other reasons, to provide some continuity
and stability for the sport.
Even if everyone agreed that it made sense for travelling to be a
turnover, the UPA would be remiss to unilaterally implement such a
change without it first being tested out at some tournaments, allowing
the membership experience what it was like to play under the proposed
rule change, and knowing how it would effect play. No one wants to
play a sport where the rules are always drastically changing, sometimes
getting better, sometimes getting worse.
I'll be blunt: if you want all (or any) of your proposed changes to
actually happen, if you aren't content with mere intellectual
masturbation all over RSD, you need to gather together some people who
might agree with you, and organize some tournaments. I'd be willing
play in one, if only to have a weekend without Frank posting to RSD,
and I expect other people would too. But since I think that most of
your proposed changes are rediculous, I'm certainly not going to waste
my time organizing the tourney for you.
Bottom line: organize a frickin' tourney under your new rules, or pay
someone else to do it, whatever. Until you actually DO something
(rather than expecting us all to bow down to your obviously superior
intellect and swallow all the rule changes on your assurance that
they'll improve the game), nobody is going to take your proposals
seriously. If the changes really do improve the game, we'll all be
online after the tourney, talking up how sweet it was to play with the
experimental rules. Then everyone else will want to try playing with
them, and someday they'll make their way into the UPA rules. Even if
they don't improve the game, at least you'll have tried to actually DO
something, instead of just jacking your mouth off on RSD.
MillerForehand
just whining because Ultimate in the bay area apparently sucks worse
than it used to. Die.
grill
> job.
hahaha, did i say employees? volunteers.
Heino...@hotmail.com
scoop wrote:
> As for you, I think the growth has been pretty impressive. And yes, I'd
> take 11% a year on my money (ultimate's current growth rate) and ask no
> questions. Is the growth rate for lacrosse relevant? I can't see how.
> It's a ball sport (as opposed to the goofy frisbee-disc), and has been
> established in at least some American high schools since at least the
> 1930s, and the game has been played in something resembling it's modern
> form for about 100 years.
11% a year on my money would be great. Unless I could get %25
somewhere else. The question I'm raising is whether or not Ultimate
growth is beating a sport participation benchmark. The only way to
judge that is to look at the growth of other sports. And if one does
they'll realize that ultimate isn't growing any faster than any of the
other sports.
> Could Ultimate's growth be faster? Sure. Do I have any idea about how
> to make it faster? No. As I see it, Ultimate's various powers that be
> are handling things much as they should. More money for a more
> aggressive juniors outreach would be a good thing, but it doesn't grow
> on trees. And remember, lack of popularity doesn't equal fundamental
> problems with a game. Is team handball a "shittier" game than
> basketball because it's less popular than basketball? No. Could one
> imagine some radical rule change to team handball that would help it
> supplant basketball? No. Or at least I can't. So what's you're point
> heinous? Do you think ultimate should be growing faster, and if so, how
> do you propose to make it so?
Well the UPA could be more agressive teaching PE teachers how to teach
ultimate in Junior High. I have been part of a training session in
Chicago and the response from the teachers was great. One of the
reasons the response was so positive was because we didn't mention SOTG
at all. We just presented the basic rules, taught some throws and let
the teachers experience playing the game. Most PE teachers just want
an activity that's different from the rest of the sports students know,
that'll get lots of students involved, and is good exercise. That
sport is ultimate. The teachers that already heard about ultimate
either online or other teaching sessions seemed relieved that they
didn't have to worry about self officiating.
Obviously the UPA would never do this because it'd go against they're
mission statement. It wouldn't be prudent to teach ultimate to PE
teachers because they might not teacher the SOTG to the students which
the UPA holds so dear. They would rather employ grass roots techniques
that ensure the SOTG is taught and also ensures that ultimate only
grows where a strong ultimate communittee already exists.
grill
> ultimate in Junior High. I have been part of a training session in
> Chicago and the response from the teachers was great. One of the
> reasons the response was so positive was because we didn't mention SOTG
> at all.
How do you know? Have you been part of a training session in which you
*did* mention SOTG, with less enthusiasm from PE teachers? Have you
been part of many training sessions, both mentioning and not mentioning
SOTG, and focus-grouped the PE teachers afterwards on what they liked /
didn't like?
Seems to me that you probably haven't (if you have, I'd love to hear
about it).
Handy
> ultimate in Junior High. I have been part of a training session in
> Chicago and the response from the teachers was great. One of the
> reasons the response was so positive was because we didn't mention SOTG
> at all.
As someone who has introduced ulti to PE teachers, I can't imagine that
this is true. Why would a PE teacher want ref's? Why wouldn't they
like SOTG? PE is all about teaching both physical lessons and more
importantly responsibility in the athletic realm. In fact I've found
SOTG to be one of the BEST selling points of ultimate. For that
matter, how could you possibly ascertain that "the response was so
positive because we didn't mention SOTG at all."
What "part" did you play in the training session in Chicago? That
vaguery is puzzling. Were you helping to give the training session to
the teachers? And if so did you and the others giving the session
unilaterally agree to not mention SOTG?
Considering the Windy City vrs. NYNY games, maybe you're not lying,
maybe you just hate SOTG. I still struggle nonetheless with this
apparent vacuousness of SOTG that you offhandedly suggest and the
acceptance thereof of teachers.
-Handy-
Kyle_W...@brown.edu
> Well the UPA could be more agressive teaching PE teachers how to teach
> ultimate in Junior High. I have been part of a training session in
> Chicago and the response from the teachers was great. One of the
> reasons the response was so positive was because we didn't mention SOTG
> at all. We just presented the basic rules, taught some throws and let
> the teachers experience playing the game. Most PE teachers just want
> an activity that's different from the rest of the sports students know,
> that'll get lots of students involved, and is good exercise. That
> sport is ultimate. The teachers that already heard about ultimate
> either online or other teaching sessions seemed relieved that they
> didn't have to worry about self officiating.
The UPA has a very strong PE outreach program that has been in
existance for 2 years now. We have attended over 20 state, regional,
and national PE conferences in that time, presenting an Ultimate
training session at the large majority of them, having an exhibit at
every single one, and giving away free equipment including discs, dvds,
rulebooks and a teaching curriculum. Our sessions tend to be among the
most popular drawing between 20-100 PE teachers. Along the way we've
given out over 2500 kits (each with 8 discs, rule book, and teaching
guide) as well as over 1000 of our new instructional DVDs (which I get
the impression that Frank doesn't like). The only way we could be more
aggresive is if we kidnapped them, tied them down, and taped their eyes
open while we taught them how to teach Ultimate and then followed them
back to their classrooms and whipped them until they taught their kids
(I've purchased several whips and am looking for volunteers to help out
with this project).
As for teaching the Spirit of the Game and self-officiating, we talk
about it at every session and it is covered in all of our instructional
material. We've found that generally teachers love the spirit of the
game/self-officiating for a number of reasons. (When I say that
teachers "generally" love the spirit of the game, I mean I've heard
many teachers say a lot of good things about it and no teachers say bad
things about it. Not every teacher has mentioned it, but we could
expand our whipping program to encourage more positive feedback if we
get more volunteers and the board designates more money in my "whips"
line item).
First, PE teachers, more than anyone, see that there is an epidemic in
sports of trying to take advantage of the rules - players learn in
officiated sports that they not responsible for their own actions
unless the ref sees them. This trickles down into their classes when
they play sports. Several PE teachers have mentioned that they teach
Ultimate as their first team sports class and then carry the
self-officiating ideals over to their other team sports. Second,
becuase it places responsibility on the players it means that the
teachers can focus on other aspects like teaching skills, strategy, and
technique.
Finally, they tend to like that Ultimate's SOTG gets at the basic
reason for playing sports - social interaction and physical excersise.
Why is it that 80% of young athletes drop out of organized athletics by
the time they are 14 years old while in Ultimate the vast majority are
over 14 years old? Perhaps the focus on winning in traditional sports
is misplaced. This is not to say that winning and competition can't go
along with social interaction and physical exercise; I've played in 7
college and club championships and can only think of one game in which
I think the outcome would have been different with refs. I count
dozens of people who I've only interacted with as opponents on the
field as friends.
In a survey we have done we've found that over 50% of PE teachers
currently teach the sport of Ultimate, of those that teach it over 80%
teach that the sport is self-officiated. Anecdotally, when we started
going to these conferences in the Fall of '03 we found ourselves
explaing the sport to teachers all of the time, now everyone we talk to
knows the sport. We talked to over 600 pe teachers two months ago at
the National PE conference in Chicago, of those, we only had to explain
the sport to three of them.
As for a couple of other items in this thread that I thought it would
be good to clarify:
Scoop said "More money for a more aggressive juniors outreach would be
a good thing, but it doesn't grow on trees."
The UPA has done a great job of financially backing the UPA youth
program. The limiting factor (if there is any) is finding volunteers
to put in time to support their local youth Ultimate scene. We've got
some great but overworked volunteers in a number of places. Minnesota
has shown what can happen with a good group of volunteers - there are
now 500 HS players playing in their league where there were only a
couple of teams 4 years ago (aside to any Championship level players
still reading: this has single handedly earned the Central the growth
bid each of the last two years).
Frank has said a lot about the growth of the sport dwindling. It seems
to me that the sport is growing to the point where players can just
play in leagues around their city and so they don't need to form
travelling teams. Look at your Bay Area leagues and let me know what
the difference in number of players/teams is from 20 years ago. Does
it more than make up for the loss in teams at UPA sectionals?
I hope that clears up a few things about PE teachers and, Heinous, if
you're intersted in posting more about what the UPA is doing or not
doing, feel free to call me and find out first.
Sincerely,
Kyle Weisbrod
Paideia '94-'97
Brown University '98-'02
Johnny Bravo '02-
CO HS Ultimate League Coordinator '04-
Monarch HS Ultimate Coach '03-
Director of Youth Development
Ultimate Players Association
scoop
wanting to get bageled by Jam at sectionals particularly good). But is
it really the case that 50% of PE teachers teach ultimate? That seems:
A. Great. B. Hard to believe.
Dan
Beer 1989-1993
? -- 1994
Ultimate Player - 95-present
All Heckle Team, Southeast Asia Division 1996-2003
Baghdad Ultimate MVP (have a flick) - 2004
Etc...
Larry D. Hols
> open while we taught them how to teach Ultimate and then followed them
> back to their classrooms and whipped them until they taught their kids
> (I've purchased several whips and am looking for volunteers to help out
> with this project).
That sounds like a job for me. By the way, hold onto the whip--I'll
bring a big stick with me.
Larry
swill...@yahoo.com
abused to the advantage of the 'more competitive' player. I mean one
can argue many situations down to a stall count 6 or a re-do.
"If a dispute arises concerning a foul, violation, or the outcome of a
play (e.g., a catch where no one had a good perspective), and the teams
cannot come to a satisfactory resolution, the disc is returned to the
thrower and put into play with a check, with the count the same or at
six if over five." (10th ed.)
I suppose that's what the orginial poster was implying. In a worst
case scenario let's suppose my opponent is drawing fouls, stopping
plays/flows, and making hazardous bids (of course contesting any foul
calls). What course of action do I have except to use the rules to my
full advantage?
The counter argument is that everyone should know the rules verbatim
but again, the best case scnenario on a bullshit call is either more
time on the stall or a re-do.
On a side note, I was thinking of how hard it is to reset the shot
clock in basketball versus ultimate. Furthermore I can't think of a
single legitimate sport that has a 're-do' policy. All sports do have
their 'abuse' or rules, but then again all sports have an unbiased,
albeit at times blind, referee. Taking that last one a bit further,
ALL SPORTS ON THIS PLANET WE CALL EARTH HAVE AN UNBAISED THIRD PARTY
REF OR OFFICIAL. Basketball, baseball, football, hockey, soccer,
rugby, cricket, swimming, fishing, archery, horseback riding,
gymnastics, curling, track/field, arm wrestling, tennis, badminton,
volleyball, surfing, deep sea diving, lacrosse, judo, taekwondo,
boxing, kickboxing... This game is awesome. But until you get a
ref/official as part of the rules and not an option, then its only a
game...
vanh...@gmail.com
but that doesn't mean that the game can't be improved.
I agree with Heinous. I don't think that he's arguing that we should
teach kids to bend the rules or win at all costs. There's a difference
between teaching kids (people) to play the right way and using SOTG to
govern a sport.
Ultimate needs to leave the post game cheer for summer league and treat
itself as a real sport with clearly defined rules and active calls with
consequences. Play hard, play fair and play by the rules. If you
don't, there should be somebody with impartiality who has the authority
to call you on it even if you don't agree with the call. You can still
argue on RSD.
I like the TOS system and I know that refs cost money, but it seems to
me that using (or trying to use) SOTG to govern play is indeed holding
the sport back.
I don't see how incorporating refs is mutually exclusive from fair
play. 82 calls in a finals? The best teams in the country can't do
better than that? Something isn't working...
Also, I want to play lacross. It appears that everyone's doing it.
Later,
-Scott
PS it was indeed great playing in the stadium, on the turf, in front of
1000s of freshmen...for 15 minutes...and then back to obscurity.
Ultimate can get there, but it has to evolve first.
Benjamin Lloyd Wiggins
> Vanhenge wrote:
> There's a difference between teaching kids (people) to play the right
> way and using SOTG to govern a sport.
False. What you mean by "playing the right way" is exactly Spirit of the
Game.
Other sports just call it sportsmanship. We call it by a more grandiose
name because, being self-officiated, we need to focus on it more.
> I don't see how incorporating refs is mutually exclusive from fair
> play. 82 calls in a finals? The best teams in the country can't do
> better than that? Something isn't working...
Any game can be perfectly fair and well officiated, by the players or by
refs, and still have 82 calls. (Why is no one bemoaning the overly
physical marks and constant traveling? It seems that these were the
real cause of the call total...) Citing this number as evidence that the
system isn't working does not make sense. If you want to make a point, you
either need to
a) convince me that players were abusing the rules to gain an
advantage (I was there, and they weren't),
or,
b) convince me that referees will make less calls while
upholding the same standard of play (and since every refereed sport can
and does have games that degenerate into unappealing callfests, I know
this isn't necessarily true).
blw
swill...@yahoo.com
Name one sport that does not include an impartial third party for
officiating? Sportsmanship works for half-court games, flag football,
kickball leagues, and some softball games. Basically any improptu team
sports will require sportsmanship.
About the 82 calls, for myself, the issue isn't the calls themselves
but rather who is making these calls. Imagine basketball players
calling their own fouls. Baseball players calling a ball fair. Soccer
players designating offsides. Hockey players fessing to cross checks.
In the adult world of sports, that shit doesn't fly.
Can I get an Amen?
vanh...@gmail.com
> Any game can be perfectly fair and well officiated, by the players or by
> refs, and still have 82 calls. (Why is no one bemoaning the overly
> physical marks and constant traveling? It seems that these were the
> real cause of the call total...) Citing this number as evidence that the
> system isn't working does not make sense. If you want to make a point, you
> either need to
>
> a) convince me that players were abusing the rules to gain an
> advantage (I was there, and they weren't),
>
> or,
>
> b) convince me that referees will make less calls while
> upholding the same standard of play (and since every refereed sport can
> and does have games that degenerate into unappealing callfests, I know
> this isn't necessarily true).
>
> blw
I agree with you on both points...but when the 2 best teams in the
nation can't (won't?) adhere to the rules it seems that something is
wrong with the current system. Is it lack of SOTG? Penalties for
marking fouls? Turnovers on uncontested travels? Foul limits?
Observer overruling limits?
How do you keep players from knowingly (or unknowingly) violating the
rules, or playing in such a way to create the opportunity for so many
calls?
I think that part of it is that the officiating is in the hands of the
players, who are not impartial...and that's just my opinion, and I'm
pretty sure it's still the minority. At least people are discussing
new options.
I wasn't at the finals, and maybe it was great ultimate...close game,
fun to watch, fun to play and whatnot. I'm not trying to badmouth that
particular game, but what I see in general.
Later,
-Scott
Larry D. Hols
> um, I guess I'll re-throw that gauntlet...
You appear to have missed it when we flung that back at Frank...
> Name one sport that does not include an impartial third party for
> officiating?
Professional golfers call themselves and each other with regularity.
Larry
truk
assign penalties for rules violations.
Larry D. Hols
> For what it is worth, golf and NASCAR both have active referees that
> assign penalties for rules violations.
The players call themselves and each other. The players consult with
officials. The officials also make calls.
Sounds eerily similar to ulty--players make calls, can call on
observers to make calls, and observers can make some calls themselves.
Wow! Who woulda thunk it? Ultimate officiating strongly resembles
that of a major professional sport.
Larry
Wagenwheel
>Can I get an Amen?
Amen.
Heino...@hotmail.com
Mr. Weisbrod
As someone who has both taught ultimate sessions to Middle School
children during their gym class and someone who was a substitute
teacher for a year and found himself in various PE classes I have some
idea of what goes on during a typical gym class. So lets look at the
reality of the situation.
First of all, we are talking about a high school gym class. Guess what
one thing you won't see in a high school gym class. Refs. Though you
might guess that the class teacher would act as a ref he/she has a heck
of a lot more to worry about(40 kids who don't want to be at school,
unleashed in a gym or outside, are a lot to handle).
Next you have a teacher who is learning a new game. They are going to
be stressed out because their students are going to ask them questions
they know they don't know the answer to. To simplify the teachers job,
and let him/her focus on all the new skills and rules of the game, we
could just tell the teachers to officiate the game the same way they
officiate their other team games, i.e. letting the kids make the calls,
and entering into the game if there is an arguement or irreconcilable
dispute.
Finally consider the student learning the game. Adolescent boy/girl
who is certainly not happy he's at school that day. He's got his one
chance for freedom, hoping he'll have fun in whatever activity he's
going to learn that day. The one thing he doesn't want to do that day
during his one hour of supposed freedom is learn something.
Now I know the UPA wants to change the world with their sport, and
teach their philosphy to hundreds of thousands of youth. But why not
teach that philosophy as a general aspect of sport activity. Let the
teachers decide how and where they want to impliment it. Surely they
would rather deal with an activity they are more familiar with like
basketball, or dodgeball, while having to teach an idea that's
completely foreign to them. The teacher you say teaches ultimate
before other team sports is doing a great disservice to ultimate. Her
students are going to forever equate ultimate with that sport they had
to learn in HS so they could learn about self officiating.
Proposal.
Create two new curricula for PE Conferences.
Curricula one explains the rules of ultimate excluding SOTG. In
addition to basic rules it gives advice on how to best present ultimate
to new players(smaller field, small team sizes, avoid windy days
etc..). Use the universal send the disc back to the thrower rule for
all disputes. Stress the historical high level of sportsmanship in
ultimate(arguable) and that players should continue that high level of
sportsmanship.
Curricula Two. Explain the ideals of SOTG. Explain self officiating
and the lessons that students should learn through self officiating.
Use popular well known sports to demonstrate the process of SOTG.
Includes ultimate only as a possible sport to include in this
curriculum.
Teach these two curricula and the current ultimate curriculum at
various PE conferences. Get feedback from teachers before and after
they finish the curriculum. Also get feedback from students to
determine which approach they enjoyed the most.
Heinous
Heino...@hotmail.com
ckerr4
Observers) will be bigger than virtually any of these sports. Each year
there are more college and high school ultimate teams, more players and
the athletes keep getting better. On the other-hand, in the US many of
these other sports are in decline in terms of youth participation.
Tell me again why we'd want to change what seems to be working?
In the battle to attract the next generation of players to ultimate
adopting refs is a total loser with no upside.
Charles
scoop
Toad Leber
"Benjamin Lloyd Wiggins" <be...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.61b.05...@dante75.u.washington.edu...
>> I don't see how incorporating refs is mutually exclusive from fair
>> play. 82 calls in a finals? The best teams in the country can't do
>> better than that? Something isn't working...
>
> Any game can be perfectly fair and well officiated, by the players or by
> refs, and still have 82 calls. (Why is no one bemoaning the overly
> physical marks and constant traveling? It seems that these were the real
> cause of the call total...) Citing this number as evidence that the system
Its the weak arbitration system, as a whole, that allows for the excessive
number of calls and stoppages that occur at these upa "showcased games".
With refs and a legitamate risk/consequence process, #1......many calls
simply wouldnt of been called and #2 once violaters experienced the
consequence of.....say traveling (turnover of course) they would make better
attempts to not travel. Presently, there is little to no risk in making a
violation and there is, for the most part, absolutly no consequence in being
charged with a violation or making a bad call. Seems pretty obvious.
>
Toad Leber
logical, thinking person.
<vanh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119303670.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Toad Leber
The point being that
> trialing a set of radical changes over a single weekend will not yield the
> same results as trialing the same set of rules changes over a longer
> period of time.
Actually the results may be more impactful than you might think...... but
these "radical changes" must be tried for a first time prior to getting
judged (which was kinda your point). So many denounce refs and have never
experienced it. My personal feeling is that once players get to try it and
watch it (reffed ulty) it will snowball and the majority of players will,
not only, embrace it but also demand it....especially at the higher level
events. And lets face it, when the sponsorship dollars start rollin in, the
sponsors will demand it as well.
Toad Leber
<swill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119302945.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In the adult world of sports, that shit doesn't fly.
>
> Can I get an Amen?
>
muthafuckin AMEN!
Toad Leber
<swill...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119298779....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Toad Leber
"ckerr4" <cke...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1119324356.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
.
>
> Tell me again why we'd want to change what seems to be working?
Now youv'e changed you tune from "what works perfectly fine" to....."what
seeeeems to be working". Well let me tell you this.....In the world of
sports entertainment (which i think is the business that CSTV is in) the
idea, concept or goal is to MAXIMIZE the entertainment value. Obviously, at
almost every upa showcased event (nationals finals) there are large numbers
of complaints of the low level of entertainment value which is in direct
corolation to the exessive number of calls which is in direct corolation to
the fact that the arbitraitors are not only partial but as well active
opponents to one another..........KOO KOO!
>
> In the battle to attract the next generation of players to ultimate
> adopting refs is a total loser with no upside.
Your wrong there in a big way. Refs will increase the entertainment value
thus allowing it more opportunities to be used as a form of telivised sports
entertainment thus allowing potential participants to not only view and
discover the sport but as well to aspire to reach the skill and athletic
levels of said telivised participants. In a more general scenerio, when
joe public is surfin the chanells on his/her tv and runs accross ulty do you
want him to stumble upon it as they are in some lame, tit for tat call fest
using the tedious observer referal system or do you want to convey the
continuity and professionalism that impartial active refs provide so that
the skill level and action is the dominant focus of the presentation? As a
true sports fan....i'd prefer the latter.
>
> Charles
>
Heino...@hotmail.com
imagine the post game interview.
"So tell us a little about that call at the end of the game."
"Well I used a 'We gave it to you last time' and a 'you can't seriously
think you didn't foul me'. When you came back with a 'that's the
biggest bunch of bull sh*t I've ever seen' I knew the best we were
going to do was a redo. We got another chance and this time we put it
in."
"Sounds exciting, how about all those foul calls on the mark."
"Well, getting broken leads to scores, so we tell our players 'Don't
get broken no matter what'. That means no pivots to the break side.
It works well considering the consequences of the foul calls. We also
say to not contest 50% of the calls or any call with a stall less than
4 just to seem like we're honest. That can pay off later when we need
a call to go our way later in the game."
Heino...@hotmail.com
don't want to have refs.
SOTG is more important than ultimate in their minds.
A question for all the proponents of SOTG.
If we could get a Noon spot on ESPN2 for a two month period featuring 2
of the best ultimate teams in the nation every week with the one
requirement that the game have referees should we do it?
You can answer here, but I'm going to start a new thread with this
question.
Adam Tarr
> Mr. Kerr would obviously rather have the tit for tat fest. I can just
> imagine the post game interview.
You seem to be forgetting (or more likely never knew) that CKerr was one
of the architects of the current observer system, which does not allow
for the sort of tit-fot-tat crap you're talking about.
Lost in the discussions of the 80+ stoppages in the finals is the
question of whether the calls were, in fact, bad calls. I would be
interested in knowing how many observer overrules there were in the
game, since that's really the measure of whether self-officiating was a
failure. If the vast majority of the calls were upheld, then we had a
very well called game by the 14 refs on the field. A call-fest,
perhaps, but a well-called call-fest.
If, on the other hand, the simple fact that there were 80 stoppages is
your problem, then your issue is not self-officiating, but the lack of
incentive to not foul (particularly on the mark). While this has
something to do with SOTG, it's not a problem stemming from
self-officiating.
Toad Leber
"Adam Tarr" <atarr...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:42B86AF1...@purdue.edu...
> Heino...@Hotmail.com wrote:
> If, on the other hand, the simple fact that there were 80 stoppages is
> your problem, then your issue is not self-officiating, but the lack of
> incentive to not foul (particularly on the mark). While this has
> something to do with SOTG, it's not a problem stemming from
> self-officiating.
>
Indirectly it is. You are right about the lack of incentive (or risk) which
stems from little to no consequence. The consequence (or lack there of)
stems from the fact that the players have both the obligation and the right
to initiate any and every call. And that right is what allows such
showcased games to be marred with so many stoppages........I mean, you cant
have a travel result in a turnover (now there's your incentive) within the
self officiation sotg system.....that would be INSANE!.......hummmm....what
does that tell you about sotg .......and human nature.
Adam Tarr
> Adam Tarr wrote:
>
>>If, on the other hand, the simple fact that there were 80 stoppages is
>>your problem, then your issue is not self-officiating, but the lack of
>>incentive to not foul (particularly on the mark). While this has
>>something to do with SOTG, it's not a problem stemming from
>>self-officiating.
>
> Indirectly it is. You are right about the lack of incentive (or risk) which
> stems from little to no consequence. The consequence (or lack there of)
> stems from the fact that the players have both the obligation and the right
> to initiate any and every call. And that right is what allows such
> showcased games to be marred with so many stoppages........
Once again, not unless those calls were bad. If the calls were right,
then it was the fouls, travels, and picks THEMSELVES that led to the
stoppages.
> I mean, you cant
> have a travel result in a turnover (now there's your incentive) within the
> self officiation sotg system.....that would be INSANE!
Travelling resulting in a turnover doesn't make sense anyway, even if we
had perfect officials.
But there are plenty of more powerful tools that could be put in the
hands of observers to prevent bogus calls. The "uglimate revisited"
thread had some good ones.
Toad Leber
> Toad Leber wrote:
>
>> Adam Tarr wrote:
> >
>>>If, on the other hand, the simple fact that there were 80 stoppages is
>>>your problem, then your issue is not self-officiating, but the lack of
>>>incentive to not foul (particularly on the mark). While this has
>>>something to do with SOTG, it's not a problem stemming from
>>>self-officiating.
>>
>> Indirectly it is. You are right about the lack of incentive (or risk)
>> which stems from little to no consequence. The consequence (or lack
>> there of) stems from the fact that the players have both the obligation
>> and the right to initiate any and every call. And that right is what
>> allows such showcased games to be marred with so many stoppages........
>
> Once again, not unless those calls were bad. If the calls were right,
> then it was the fouls, travels, and picks THEMSELVES that led to the
> stoppages.
Not if one team starts calling the violations really tight (ticky-tack...if
you will) and then the other team does the same. Refs dont usually go down
that road. In fact they often do the oppisite (call the game loose) knowing
that noone will enjoy the game if they are techno-wienies about every single
violation.
>
>> I mean, you cant have a travel result in a turnover (now there's your
>> incentive) within the self officiation sotg system.....that would be
>> INSANE!
>
> Travelling resulting in a turnover doesn't make sense anyway, even if we
> had perfect officials.
But giving the disc back to the offender for a second try does??????
Believe me....make it a turn and they will stop traveling....or at least
make alot more of an effort not to. I guess you think it makes no sence to
have travels in b-ball be assesed as turns.
>
> But there are plenty of more powerful tools that could be put in the hands
> of observers to prevent bogus calls. The "uglimate revisited" thread had
> some good ones.
That shit was insane....why complicate the whole process by reinventing the
wheel? The writing is on the wall.......REFS!
>
swill...@yahoo.com
> But ultimate does not resemble any major professional TEAM sport.
And so for that reason Ultimate should ignore or refuse any aspect
associated with any other TEAM sport? I mean, jeezusbeezus even
CURLING has a ref.
There seems to be this 'culture' associated with Ultimate. More
specifically, a sub-culture. Aspects include a strong belief in:
- camradery
- respect
- honesty
With all due respect, Ultimate is a game (sport) and NOT A RELIGION OR
CULTURE. Yes, Ultimate came from such a supportive and open culture
but then again it was the late 60's and the original group were
geeks/stoners that were h.s. friends. (also it was 20 vs 20 and the
year prior it was called frisbee football so whoever says change is a
bad thing, well you're wrong)
SOTG (reminder: spirit of the GAME) was the basis for the formation of
this sport. It didn't exist before, no rules, and a group of friends.
Yes, SOTG will do the trick.
Fast forward 30 yrs, set rules and regulations in place, thousands of
teams and hundreds of thousands of players and SOTG will do the trick
now and forever? Won't this lead to the exclusion of those interested
in the sport and not in the subculture?
I stand by my argument. This game needs refs/officials and not as a
last rule option.
Tae Bo
Jim Strathmeyer
> But giving the disc back to the offender for a second try does??????
> Believe me....make it a turn and they will stop traveling....or at
> least make alot more of an effort not to. I guess you think it makes
> no sence to have travels in b-ball be assesed as turns.
...but players already try not to travel because the throw will come
back. How can you try harder not to do something that you're already
trying your hardest not to do?
> That shit was insane....why complicate the whole process by
> reinventing the wheel? The writing is on the wall.......REFS!
Haven't you repeated yourself enough? Now it seems that you're tired of
people debunking your assertions so you're just going to post this over
and over. Didn't we learn anything from the NUA? Why do you think things
would be different now?
--
Jim Strathmeyer
Toad Leber
"Jim Strathmeyer" <strathWHATEVERIGE...@ipass.net> wrote in
message news:ueSdnWbQJYQ...@adelphia.com...
> Toad Leber <t...@ec.rr.com> schrieb:
>> But giving the disc back to the offender for a second try does??????
>> Believe me....make it a turn and they will stop traveling....or at
>> least make alot more of an effort not to. I guess you think it makes
>> no sence to have travels in b-ball be assesed as turns.
>
> ...but players already try not to travel because the throw will come
> back. How can you try harder not to do something that you're already
> trying your hardest not to do?
by uppin the ante! The threat of a do over is hardly valid motivation for
some to abuse it in an attempt to get away with it going uncalled (often due
to the opponents reluctancy to stop play over and over).
>
>> That shit was insane....why complicate the whole process by
>> reinventing the wheel? The writing is on the wall.......REFS!
>
> Haven't you repeated yourself enough? Now it seems that you're tired of
> people debunking your assertions so you're just going to post this over
> and over. Didn't we learn anything from the NUA? Why do you think things
> would be different now?
Cause then i was a promoter and now i am a critic!
>
> --
> Jim Strathmeyer
swill...@yahoo.com
Tae Bo wrote:
> Deep sea diving?
Don Steg
> Name one sport that does not include an impartial third party for
> officiating?
Ultimate, and that's the way people like it. It's part of the reason
some people play this sport.
> About the 82 calls, for myself, the issue isn't the calls themselves
> but rather who is making these calls. Imagine basketball players
> calling their own fouls. Baseball players calling a ball fair. Soccer
> players designating offsides. Hockey players fessing to cross checks.
> In the adult world of sports, that shit doesn't fly.
It's because athletes in other sports have learned to abuse rules, to
try to get away with shit. In Ultimate players learn from the get-go
that they and their opponents will call fouls. Get rid of that and
intentional fouls and trying to get away with shit become the norm. I
don't want that, and thank God the people that are in charge don't want
that either.
Has anyone thought that maybe self-officiating has some appeal to
sports promotion people?
> Can I get an Amen?
Shut the fuck up.
I'm also beginning to think that all you ref people are a bunch of
cheaters, and that you play with cheaters.
Toad Leber
"Don Steg" <don....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119503081.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> swill...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Has anyone thought that maybe self-officiating has some appeal to
> sports promotion people?
Yea......maybe as some reality show crap but i prefer to invision the
marketing of ultimate as a form of SPORTS entertainment.
>
>> Can I get an Amen?
>
> Shut the fuck up.
such harsh tone comming from a spirit zelot?.....just think how he must
react on the field.
>
> I'm also beginning to think that all you ref people are a bunch of
> cheaters, and that you play with cheaters.
No....we just have a realistic and rational view on the matter.
>
unrul...@yahoo.com
>In Ultimate players learn from the get-go
> that they and their opponents will call fouls.
Here is the problem: They know their opponent will call fouls, but they
intentionally foul anyway. Reason - no ramifications for fouls.
People that play sports don't foul intentionally because if they do,
there will be repercussions. People that play games, such as ultimate,
can foul intentionally and still call themselves spirited because they
don't contest.
Handy
ramifications, it's just that qualitatively, the foul seems like a
better choice than what would happen were the foul not committed. In
ultimate right now, should you intentionally foul (and not call
yourself on it) you are doing something very unspirited that may result
in a catch anyway if you foul the person. With officiating the person
can weigh "is this foul worth the foul on my record" because it's a
completely viable move as long as spirit is removed in favor of active
observing.
And no, they can't call themselves spirited merely because they don't
contest. People's erroneous concepts of spirit that would allow for
intentional fouls is not spirited, and is not the issue at hand.
swill...@yahoo.com
following: Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, or blind&deaf&without legs)
Don Steg wrote:
> swill...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Name one sport that does not include an impartial third party for
> > officiating?
>
> Ultimate, and that's the way people like it. It's part of the reason
> some people play this sport.
Don, that is a SOLID argument to keep things exactly the same. I mean
everyone knows that majority rules and any attempt at discussion, by
the supposed minority, is a waste of time and really stupid. (vote GOP
in 2008!! :)
Even Twister TM has an impartial third party observer.
> > About the 82 calls, for myself, the issue isn't the calls themselves
> > but rather who is making these calls. Imagine basketball players
> > calling their own fouls. Baseball players calling a ball fair. Soccer
> > players designating offsides. Hockey players fessing to cross checks.
> > In the adult world of sports, that shit doesn't fly.
>
> It's because athletes in other sports have learned to abuse rules, to
> try to get away with shit. In Ultimate players learn from the get-go
> that they and their opponents will call fouls. Get rid of that and
> intentional fouls and trying to get away with shit become the norm. I
> don't want that, and thank God the people that are in charge don't want
> that either.
You think Ultimate is some how immune to this inherent factor of any
competitive athletic team sport? Ultimate is a game/sport, not a
religion or culture. All things being equal you honestly believe
implementing third party officials will lead an increase in an abuse of
rules?
>
> I'm also beginning to think that all you ref people are a bunch of
> cheaters, and that you play with cheaters.
You're RIGHT! Furthermore, while I was busy manipulating my company's
stock value and cooking the books, I contacted the DOJ and SEC and
requested an audit. I am a brilliant.
I get the sense you're part of that subculture in Ultimate. Part of
your belief system is that if I don't put my full faith into SOTG as
the basis of officiating, then I need to start another organization or
find another sport. Why is it I sense exclusion based upon my support
for something that I truly believe is impartial and fair to all
participants? Is it because it is contrary to the orginial
'anti-authoritarian 60's culture' from which ultimate emerged from?
Nathan Stock
Enter ultimate, a game founded by the latter based on principles which encourage - practically require - good faith, sportsmanship and spirit. Self refing required honesty, sincerity and respect, attributes which were prevalent among those founders. Now ultimate grows and expands, incorporating a more diverse group of people. The former group of people seep in, slowly at first, but faster and faster as competition within the game ramps up and ultimate presents itself as a viable alternative to 'mainstream' sports. Self-refing becomes a liability, because these people focus more on winning, play by the mantra tit for tat and always look to gain an edge.
The people with mindsets akin to the founders become frustrated but ultimately will do little to reverse this trend. By nature, they are not nearly as confrontational - they do not scream the loudest - and eventually this game truly enters the mainstream of sports with full referring at the highest level, a small but devoted audience, and rivalries famous for their bitterness. Those founders, of course, will still be taken care of... it'll be a long time, if ever, before we see referees in summer leagues and pick-ups games...
Is this an eventuality? It makes my heart sink, but it seems like it is. Fundamentally, the question boils down to which group of people do we cater to? The sad truth is the cut-throat competitors are not compatible with ultimate in its current form, but the easy-going play-to-improve types ARE compatible (though not ideally) with the every-team-for-itself form.
When I play this game, I lose myself in playing intense, hard fought ultimate. I am by no means the ideal of SOTG (To anyone from UDel, I still feel badly about that sideline altercation during regionals), but I try to call it as I see it and focus on the game, not the faults. I have played both with and against those people who make referees seem like a necessity and I realize the gapping difference between them and me. I'm a little ashamed to say it, but often I wish they would just leave the game and find some sport where they can be themselves. There's plenty of them out there, to be sure. You can have your hockeys and your basketballs and your soccers, but can't you leave a sport for people like myself who love to play high level but don't adhere to a win-at-all-costs mentality? Ultimate is uniquely competitive and friendly, at least at its best. To sacrifice this ideal - and sacrified it surely will be, bit by bit - to those who have a myriad of other choices seems not!
only unfair, but also a tragic waste. Almost seems akin to 'nice guys finish last.'
Well, enough of my whining. Carry on
Nate
Mike Gerics
> ramifications, it's just that qualitatively, the foul seems like a
> better choice than what would happen were the foul not committed. In
> ultimate right now, should you intentionally foul (and not call
> yourself on it)
---weird....there are no "ramifications" for intentional fouling in
ultimate....no foul limit, no red cards, no nothing really....
but...still....there are no more intentional fouls in ultimate than in other
sports.
like...the ole reach from behind and hook the hucker's arm to prevent an
open deep goal. It doesn't happen very often at all really....
less than intentional fouls in basketball...a sport that DOES have foul
limits.
so...does this mean that ultimate needs refs? or doesn't need them?
Mike Gerics
> marketing of ultimate as a form of SPORTS entertainment.
---like....professional wrestling?
Jim Strathmeyer
>> Yea......maybe as some reality show crap but i prefer to invision the
>> marketing of ultimate as a form of SPORTS entertainment.
> ---like....professional wrestling?
XUL - Xtreme Ultimate League
--
Jim Strathmeyer
Heino...@hotmail.com
Professional wrestling is fun to watch till you realize it's fake.
Ultimate is fun to watch till you realize the players are making all
the calls.
Mike Gerics
---i got a D in Logic class...but i am not sure how the third point, follows
the second.
wrestling is fun to watch, even after knowing for 25 years that it has been
fake all along.
ultimate is fun to watch...except when i don't know or care about the
athletes competing.
wrestling is fun to watch, despite it being fake.
i prefer playing ultimate so much...that i never really actually have 'fun'
watching it...and then i have less fun when i see and have to hear dorks
actually having fun watching ultimate.
some of the most fake wrestling is the most fun to watch.
players making the calls ranks about 73rd on my list of what prevents me
from having 'fun' watching ultimate....possibly 74th.
Toad Leber
"Mike Gerics" <des...@digitizing4embroidery.com> wrote in message
news:cMBue.4$wR6....@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> Yea......maybe as some reality show crap but i prefer to invision the
>> marketing of ultimate as a form of SPORTS entertainment.
>
>
> ---like....professional wrestling?
>
>
contact (FCU...full contact ultimate) aint a bad idea. Players might have
to get a little padded up but it could make the game a little more fun to
watch (like Australian rules football).
Toad Leber
>> People do foul intentionally in other sports and there are
>> ramifications, it's just that qualitatively, the foul seems like a
>> better choice than what would happen were the foul not committed. In
>> ultimate right now, should you intentionally foul (and not call
>> yourself on it)
>
>
>
>
> ---weird....there are no "ramifications" for intentional fouling in
> ultimate....no foul limit, no red cards, no nothing really....
I thought there were yellows, reds and tmf's. Didnt some guy on ring get
red carded at nationals last year?
>
> but...still....there are no more intentional fouls in ultimate than in
> other
> sports.
>
> like...the ole reach from behind and hook the hucker's arm to prevent an
> open deep goal. It doesn't happen very often at all really....
>
> less than intentional fouls in basketball...a sport that DOES have foul
> limits.
>
> so...does this mean that ultimate needs refs? or doesn't need them?
It actually has little to do with it. The dynamic of the third party
initiating the calls (as a service to both the players and the fans) is what
really provides the continuity and impatiality that is otherwise lacking
without refs. All the intentional fouling stratagies and tactics will
simply replace the current tactical rule loopholes that are now being
practiced.
>
>
Toad Leber
"Nathan Stock" <nst...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:35004.128.2.113.59....@128.2.113.59...
> Enter ultimate, a game founded by the latter based on principles which
> encourage - practically require - good faith, sportsmanship and spirit.
> Self refing required honesty, sincerity and respect, attributes which were
> prevalent among those founders.
If this is indeed the case then why were the authors of the first set of
ultimate rules wise enough to add a section called "officials"....which
stated.... that if teams so desired that they could use refs to call their
game and that the refs calls were final. See now, that's the big
misconception about the origin of the sport, the rules, refs and sotg.
somewhere along the line the sport got kidnapped by the spirit zealots.
Jim Strathmeyer
> If this is indeed the case then why were the authors of the first set
> of ultimate rules wise enough to add a section called
> "officials"....which stated.... that if teams so desired that they
> could use refs to call their game and that the refs calls were final.
> See now, that's the big misconception about the origin of the sport,
> the rules, refs and sotg. somewhere along the line the sport got
> kidnapped by the spirit zealots.
How do you see Ultimate having evolved without these spirit zealots? How would
it change how the game is played now? How would it have changed how ten
of thousands of people have experienced the sport?
--
Jim Strathmeyer
Toad Leber
> Toad Leber <t...@ec.rr.com> schrieb:
>> If this is indeed the case then why were the authors of the first set
>> of ultimate rules wise enough to add a section called
>> "officials"....which stated.... that if teams so desired that they
>> could use refs to call their game and that the refs calls were final.
>> See now, that's the big misconception about the origin of the sport,
>> the rules, refs and sotg. somewhere along the line the sport got
>> kidnapped by the spirit zealots.
>
> How do you see Ultimate having evolved without these spirit zealots?
More mainstream and proffessional. I traveled to events from the late 70's
to the mid 90's and i always liked the ones that were promoted and presented
more as a sporting event as apposed to an unorganized sand lot
gathering........I got enough of that following the dead on a couple of
tours.
How would
> it change how the game is played now?
Well the game would have refs, uniforms would be a norm at every event along
with all the other tourny upgrades and more due to the heavy sponsorship
presence. There would be more business opportunities for individuals as
more money would be injected into the sport thru sponsorship and incresed
participation. I would imagin actual play would be a little more
competitive and intence but more fun due to the facilitation of said
enhancements. I would assume there would still be plenty of comrodity and
parting amoungst players(as with rugby).
How would it have changed how ten
> of thousands of people have experienced the sport?
It would have simply enhanced it.
>
> --
> Jim Strathmeyer
G. Detson
> Yea......maybe as some reality show crap but i prefer to invision the
> marketing of ultimate as a form of SPORTS entertainment.
See ... now this is where some ref people and some ultimate players
differ. A lot of ref people are trying to market the sport, turn it
into a profit-generating venture. But, unlike every other sport out
there (as far as I know), ultimate is governed exclusively by its
players. Anyone is free to go off and do their own thing, but don't
come at the UPA trying to change shit like a jackass.
You blame the teams when your huge tournament falls through and you've
been railing against self-officiation the whole time. I think the best
thing for y'all to do would be to host a small tournament with quality
teams under your experimental rules. Those Texas fellas, with the
LiveLogic shootout? That was small, but quality. And now they have the
clout to potentially expand the field next year.
jim
Heino...@Hotmail.com wrote:
> Ultimate is fun to watch till you realize the players are making all
> the calls.
.....or, ultimate is taken seriously until people realize the players
make their own calls.....then it turns into a joke!
Rufio
the XFL didnt work because it sucked (did not fit its audience). it
interested people at least to the point where they checked it out. the
first week's ratings were through the roof! from there they died off.
vince was the only reason people started watching it that first week.
youre not going to watch me try to sky someone on channel 2 when alex
nord is trying to sky someone (and probably succeeding) on channel 5.
no one is going to watch joe schmo tackle on channel 2 when ray lewis
is lighting TO up on channel 5.
also, somebody is gonna be pissed no matter what about the way things
are called in the games. refs piss the fans off all the time. there
have been some absurdly bad calls in pro sports by the refs just as
there are some absurdly bad calls in utlimate by the players. at least
in ulty we have the ability to decide the outcomes of games as players
and we dont have arbitrators deciding who wins and loses.
remember when jerome bettis called tails and he lost the flip? there
have to have been some terrible calls that have decided
games/championships, anyone remember any?
bangarang!
Toad Leber
"Rufio" <hwns...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119828768....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> the XFL didnt work because it sucked (did not fit its audience). it
> interested people at least to the point where they checked it out. the
> first week's ratings were through the roof! from there they died off.
> vince was the only reason people started watching it that first week.
> youre not going to watch me try to sky someone on channel 2 when alex
> nord is trying to sky someone (and probably succeeding) on channel 5.
> no one is going to watch joe schmo tackle on channel 2 when ray lewis
> is lighting TO up on channel 5.
The thing is, xfl was a summer time football league, just as arena fb (and
euro nfl too) is so there would never a situation in which you would have to
choose which teir athleat to watch. But.....if ultimate (not the upa) ever
creates a league with the best talent they better find a space in time when
there arent alot of other sports entertainment spectating
opportunities......like from now till nfl pre-season.
>
> also, somebody is gonna be pissed no matter what about the way things
> are called in the games. refs piss the fans off all the time. there
> have been some absurdly bad calls in pro sports by the refs just as
> there are some absurdly bad calls in utlimate by the players. at least
> in ulty we have the ability to decide the outcomes of games as players
> and we dont have arbitrators deciding who wins and loses.
And at least with refs we know calls are being made by impartial
individuals. And as for the flopping issue that came up in some other
posts....just think of how much of an idiot you would look like if you were
to TRY and flop to draw a foul (say as a defender) and while you were on
your ass, your man did a quick give and go for a goal.
>
> remember when jerome bettis called tails and he lost the flip? there
> have to have been some terrible calls that have decided
> games/championships, anyone remember any?
And remember the very next season when they changed the official process of
the flip so that the call(heads/tails) was made prior to the actual
flip........constant and immediate refinement.
>
> bangarang!
>
RSD Poster
reffing have been spaced out and not terribly clear. I'm very
interested to hear if there are other legitimate points for either side
of the debate that aren't listed here. This is long, and may annoy
many of you. I apologize if I missed any arguments or am rehashing a
lot of stuff, I haven't had time to read all the posts about reffing.
I'm also a little biased because I'd like to try ultimate with a
ref...
Arguments for reffing.
1) Players are not qualified to make their own calls: a player is
focusing on playing the game. This concentration makes it hard for to
realize if there was "too much" contact, or if the disc hit a blade
of grass before I caught it, or if my foot was inbounds (I'm looking
at the disc), or if you traveled when you threw the disc.
COUNTER: Players are often the best person to be able to determine if a
foul has occurred. Only the player will know if the catch occurred
before the defender hit the disc, or if they had control of the disc
when a foot hit the ground for a sidelines play.
2) Intentional Fouls: At what point does a foul become intentional and
at what point is it "good hard defense"? What if I move as a mark
to prevent a break mark throw, but the movement is likely to be a foul.
I'm not "intentionally" fouling you, there is always that chance
that you'll release the disc early and I'll get a clean D.
COUNTER: see arguments against reffing below. There will be more
intentional fouling, not less. Playing hard defense should be
encouraged.
3) Lack of consequences for fouling. Sure players don't intentionally
foul other players, but shouldn't there be some consequences for
behaving in a way that is very likely to commit a foul?
COUNTER: nothing wrong with good hard defense. Maybe a player happens
to be in a situation where they think they can make a clean bid on a
disc many times in a game. That doesn't mean they are playing
particularly unsportsmanlike and they shouldn't be punished.
4) Games get too personal and players are biased: when players are
calling their own fouls, it becomes easy for poor spirit to beget poor
spirit. A poor spirited team (making biased calls) has a huge advantage
over a team that doesn't "sink to their level".
COUNTER: have better spirit.
Arguments against reffing:
1) Intentional Fouls: people will foul (maybe grab your jersey) when a
ref isn't looking. They will feel that it is no longer their
responsibility to behave with spirit and "cheating" will just
become part of the game.
COUNTER: "cheaters" will run the risk of having a foul called on
them. If there is a foul limit, they may have to leave the game. If
there is a "team foul" limit, they risk pushing towards the limit
beyond which a foul could be a turnover or something.
2) This would be impossible to implement. Refs would cost money, how
would youth ultimate find refs? Refs would be untrained and it would
take a long time before there were enough qualified refs to make good
calls. The rules/consequences would take a while to figure out.
COUNTER: It would not be easy. Not all games would need refs.
3) This game was founded on spirit of the game. Spirit of the game
exists at every level of ultimate and is the core of ultimate.
COUNTER: poor spirit also exists at every level of ultimate. You can
still have sportsmanship with refs.
4) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I still love ultimate and there
are no refs.
COUNTER: some would say it is broke especially at elite levels of
ultimate, or will soon be broken. Also, to make the sport more
mainstream will require tighter regulation.
5) If you like reffing so much, organize a damn tournament.
COUNTER: it is tough to gauge if teams will attend. Before sinking in
hundreds of dollars and many hours of work into a tournament, why
can't people see if there is enough support from the community to get
serious competition at the tournament.
Toad Leber
"RSD Poster" <rsd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120002466.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to try ultimate with a
> ref...
Well go do it.......its a free country.......what the fucks stopping you. I
mean I hate to be harsh but its not rocket science. Get a designated crew
together at your next practice, have a pregame discussion about how the game
will get called and play........its THAT simple.
then get back to us and tell us how it went.
Heino...@hotmail.com
Makes the results of the game legitimate to the fans. Fans might
actually pay attention and care who the winner of the game is, and
therefore be more willing to watch the game.
Pgoss
outcome is what is holding ultimate back from having Dennis Miller doing
commentary for Monday Night Flatball.
While one could certainly question whether it is truly 'sport' - look at
pro-wrestling. It has at least particular aspects of sport, has
historically at least pretended to be a sport, has "refs," and has a
multitude of fans and major tv contracts. And it has all of this
despite having little to no pretense of legitimacy.
Similarly, I would say from a personal note that I'm more prone to
question the result of certain NBA games due to questionable officiating
(which I have quite a bit in the last year) than I have with ultimate.
While I can appreciate where you are coming from, your personal reaction
is as personal as is my own. I don't know that it can be easily
extrapolated to what is holding the masses back from ultimate or reeling
them in to the NBA. Particularly given that masses are often drawn to
spectacle moreso than they are to some ideal of 'legitimacy' (which refs
may or may not add regardless)...
That said, I do agree that a broader fanbase would probably appreciate
fewer/shorter on-field discussions, or at least mic'd players so that
they can tune in on the argument. Whether or not refs is the best way
to accomplish fewer/shorter is another discussion altogether.
-p
Toad Leber
table it would be natural to be more drawn to the presentation........as a
fan at a showcased game that is. Now as a player (even in a normal
scrimmage game) you experience those enhancements and more, which is what I
was trying to impart in my previous post. Those that are pro-ref need to
just try it for the first time, share your experiences, and then there is
allot better chance of the idea becoming a reality.
To add to Hboys' comments......the added attentiveness of the fans could in
turn motivate players to play at higher levels. Combining these dynamics
could really help the sport snowball into a lucrative (for allot more than
just 6 people) form of sports entertainment.
Its also a little ironic that the main fears of attaching corporate
sponsorship to ultimate is that the rules will get "tinkered with" and there
will no longer be player control yet these are the elements of sport and
competition that will inevitably liberate ultimate to a mainstream sports
level which, in turn, will allow it to be enjoyed by a much higher number of
people as both participants and spectators. How could you not want that for
your sport?
<Heino...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120044049.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...