Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe)
joe
past weekend. Carleton started on O and worked the disc about halfway
up the field before a turnover. Eli Janin picked up the disc and
hucked it for the gamewinning score, only to have it brought back on a
travel call from across the field (after the disc was caught).
I've never been an advocate of reffed ultimate, but calls like this
might change my mind...
The clip:
Edelman
call. i hope black still won.
--
http://www.quotidianword.com/default.aspx?sig=true
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Stephen
defending champs. C2W!! woop-woop! but maybe they were
nice about the call.
McB
If the disc was out of bounds when the thrower picked it up, a ground
check is required. That's the only way that's a violation. I
definitely saw no foot movement.
Colin
Many of the players I have seen do not hold themselves to any kind of
standard when it comes to "recogniz[ing] that an infraction has
occurred." Instead, whenever they think there might possibly have
been an infraction, they announce that there WAS an infraction and
bring the disc back. Many Carleton players since 2005 have fallen
into this group.
Yet these same players would be furious if they received that
treatment from an opponent. And if everyone did that crap the game
would grind to a halt.
Having reviewed hundreds of clips of players frame-by-frame and in
extreme slow motion, I feel comfortable stating that it's really
difficult to properly identify the close travel calls. And lots of
things that players would call as egregious travels simply are not
travels.
Solutions, in order of extremity: TMFs for shady calls, active
travels, refs.
I'd like to start with TMFs for these close calls. The message sent
is that calling things based on maybes is not acceptable. The
observer shouldn't be ruling a do-over just because you made a shady
call that was too close for the observer (or you) to tell if it was a
travel. Instead, the call should be overruled and you should get a
TMF. But we need improved observer training for this to happen.
And yes, this deters players from making calls. This is a good
thing. Whether a player's foot moved 1 cm before or after the release
is not going to make a difference in anything. But making calls
irresponsibly has a huge negative impact on the game.
Combine that with TMFs for being a jackass and you've got a pretty
tough, effective system.
josh murphy
Wow! Absolutely no question about it. That is a horrible call.
It should not be possible for that call to change the outcome of a
serious match in a well-regulated sport. SOTG definitely did not
"work" in this case.
Slade
have the best perspective (closely followed by in/out).
With receiving fouls, marking fouls, even up/down calls, the
players involved will usually have a better idea of what
occured (if they are honest) than the observer. But active
travels are a no-brainer.
Crazy
is it possible you're looking at the wrong foot?
If the disc was out of bounds, the pivot foot should have been on the
sideline and the right foot OB. If both feet were in, with the right
foot on the sideline, the right foot would have to be the pivot foot.
Either way, I think travel calls like this give legitimate travel
calls a bad name.
ulticritic
> might change my mind...
why in the fuck do you think refs exist in the first
place.........wake up bro!
ulticritic
> that is horrible. i'm ashamed for the dude who made that
> call. i hope black still won.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PRE GAME SPIRIT PEP TALKS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO
ELLIMINATE SUCH SUCK CALLS??????? did yall not get "european" enough
for that peptalk to last the whole game?
ulticritic
>
> If the disc was out of bounds when the thrower picked it up, a ground
> check is required. That's the only way that's a violation. I
> definitely saw no foot movement.
what a gay rule. i'd violate it intentionally every time just to
protest its gayness
ulticritic
>
> Having reviewed hundreds of clips of players frame-by-frame and in
> extreme slow motion, I feel comfortable stating that it's really
> difficult to properly identify the close travel calls.
not all that hard to identify that allowing partial players to
"control" it is a recipe for disaster though, eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And lots of
> things that players would call as egregious travels simply are not
> travels.
THATS THE THING THOUGH......they dont even have to be travels at all
for them to be called and honored. me thinks people figured this out
many moons ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Solutions, in order of extremity: TMFs for shady calls, active
> travels, refs.
whats the difference in making the call active and having refs? isnt
the act of making it active essentially what would transform an
observer INTO a ref? Oh, and that youre just spinnin your wheels with
that first "incentive".......just streamline it and make it active.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'd like to start with TMFs for these close calls.
good thing the uoa is making that idea a thing of the past. you need
to get with the times on thios one colin.
----------------------------------------------
The message sent
> is that calling things based on maybes is not acceptable.
why go thru that process though when they can just "enforce" whats
acceptable by making it active?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
> observer shouldn't be ruling a do-over just because you made a shady
> call that was too close for the observer (or you) to tell if it was a
> travel. Instead, the call should be overruled and you should get a
> TMF. But we need improved observer training for this to happen.
i think ya just need to adapt and adopt. baby steps are for babies.
ultimate is over 40 now......time to ditch the training wheels.
------------------------------------------------------
>
> And yes, this deters players from making calls.
not as much as taking away the allowance altogether
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is a good
> thing. Whether a player's foot moved 1 cm before or after the release
> is not going to make a difference in anything. But making calls
> irresponsibly has a huge negative impact on the game.
duh.......but what do you expect from a bunch of humans?
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Combine that with TMFs for being a jackass and you've got a pretty
> tough, effective system.
pretty drawn out system. little tip for ya.......us sports fans like
out arbitration to be delt with in a quick and effecient manner. the
more streamlined the better. allowing players to take part in the
process AT ALL just complicates things.
ulticritic
>
> Wow! Absolutely no question about it. That is a horrible call.
why are you so surprised? NUMBER ONE WHY PEOPLE CHEAT IN
LIFE.......because they can. make it harder for them to cheat and
they wont be able to "can".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It should not be possible for that call to change the outcome of a
> serious match in a well-regulated sport.
it isnt.......its just that ultimate is far from being well regulated
-------------------------------------------------------
SOTG definitely did not
> "work" in this case.
and thats the crux of sotg.............in ANY case THAT ONE SO CHOOSE
it never works.
you people are idiots
ulticritic
> Traveling = the only situation where an observer will always
> have the best perspective (closely followed by in/out).
>
> With receiving fouls, marking fouls, even up/down calls, the
> players involved will usually have a better idea of what
> occured (if they are honest) than the observer.
then why arent the players allowed to take part in the process IN ALL
OTHER SPORTS if this is the case?......or your argument for keeping
fouls and up/down calls in the hands of players.
----------------------------------------------------
But active
> travels are a no-brainer.
why arent full on refs a no brainer.........especially when they seem
to be in all other sports. I mean, aside from you people being a
bunch of spirt twerps, whats the big difference.
ulticritic
>
> Either way, I think travel calls like this give legitimate travel
> calls a bad name.
isnt it more like what gives the whole self officiation system a bad
name. and by "like this" dont you meant "partially motivated
ones".....which begs the question, why even give someone thats
OBVIOUSLY PARTIAL the opportunity to have a say in the first fuckin
place. so its your own damn fault for playing under such an IDIOTIC
system. bunch o stupes
Hammie Chen
oreo
yea. terrible call, white should be ashamed. play better defense and
you wont have to make shitty calls
richarda...@gmail.com
Here's the correct question. It's a borderline travel call for this
reason, he picks it up from directly beneath but declares his pivot as
the left. That's a travel. Is that a call to make on universe point
when you've just turned it over stupidly? That's the real question.
stephenghubbard
I can definitely see them taking a big hit in the candc25
poll and im sure this will be talked about for a while on
RSD. I wonder if abstract online scorn is sufficient to
prevent this from happening in the future.../(end sarcasm).
I actually do think the Observer TMF system has the
potential to deal with calls like this. I bet if the UPA
passed out new Observer guidelines and increased the rate of
TMFs 5 fold, we would see a LOT of the current problems go
away. TMF in the first point for an overturned travel call
that was obviously a guess: no more BS calls for the rest of
the game. But like Colin said, we need more and better
trained observers.
-Pumba
Colin
Active travels are good if...
1) You establish a good standard for what gets called. As a player, I
see far more travels occur than I call. Why? Because I don't care
about them. They are minor. I don't whip out my protractor to see if
a cutter changed direction slightly after catching the disc. It is
more valuable to me to keep the game moving and not stop play.
2) The observers are trained at this. Frankly, I'm unsure that
observers can reliably call travels and marking fouls at the same
time. The ideal positioning is different for each. If we're going to
go with active travel calls, then every observer should have to pass
some kind of quiz to determine that they're competent to call this
stuff. A video quiz might suffice.
So far, nobody has proposed a good solution for 1) or 2). If this
issue gets put up for a vote by the players again without addressing
1) and 2), then that's just poor planning again.
The intermediate solution should be to deter shady travel calls
through use of TMFs.
ulticritic
> I really dislike how this thread just got killed off...
who says its dead. i just got started with you clowns.
ulticritic
> Way to hijack a thread and respond to yourself multiple times. But
> yea. terrible call, white should be ashamed.
pfffft, YOU are the one that should be ashamed.......for playing with
a rules set where such STUPID player allowances are.........allowed
----------------------------------------------------
play better defense and
> you wont have to make shitty calls
get refs and you wont have to put up with such shitty calls.
ulticritic
>
> Here's the correct question. It's a borderline travel call for this
> reason, he picks it up from directly beneath but declares his pivot as
> the left. That's a travel. Is that a call to make on universe point
> when you've just turned it over stupidly? That's the real question.
if the player CAN......FUCK YES. i get what you are trying to say
here though.....not only do you want all partial players to make
impartial judgements but also to use discretion when they call them.
HA.....you cant even get people to be honest and you expect them to be
honest AND let the little technical shit slide. You mf's are in a
dream world.
ulticritic
wouldnt simply making it active be a much more effecient way to deal
with it?
Colin
Yes, I like your thinking, Pumba.
But even a totally incompetent observer incorrectly overturning calls
and handing out TMFs would put a halt to this behavior. If the
observer says "I'm 90% sure that that was too close for me to call,"
then that should be enough for a TMF. I't's not going to ruin the
game for players to be hesitant and not call a few legitimate
travels. But it does ruin the game for players to call tons of shady
travels. And we're not taking the game out of the players' control as
observers if we do this. It will be the players that try to turn the
game into a travel call-fest and the observers just administer
appropriate sanctions to keep things under control.
We also have the 2 warning TMF safety net, which reduces the impact of
an improper TMF. Another reason to not be hesitant about giving them
out. Even a bunch of questionable TMFs would be better than the
current system with lots of improper failure to issue TMFs,
accompanied by a whole lot of undeterred cheating and other bad
behavior.
Of course, I should mention that in the vast majority of games that I
have played in, even this more aggressive TMF enforcement would not
have an impact. Lots of games go very smoothly without any issues,
even at Nationals. Observed and unobserved. But if we have a system
for addressing those problem games, then we should enforce it in a way
that is not completely toothless for the first 80% of the game.
Even under the relatively mild TMF enforcement, Carleton is one of the
few teams that has managed to earn a Misconduct Penalty (2009).
ulticritic
>
> 1) You establish a good standard for what gets called. As a player, I
> see far more travels occur than I call. Why? Because I don't care
> about them. They are minor. I don't whip out my protractor to see if
> a cutter changed direction slightly after catching the disc. It is
> more valuable to me to keep the game moving and not stop play.
but thats just you. there are 13 other refs out there that may use a
different standard AND interpretation (not to mention AS A BAILOUT
CALL). so wouldnt it be MUCH easier to establish a standard between 2
IMPARTIAL observers than 40 some PARTIAL players? Your whole argument
there hinges on everybody being just like you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2) The observers are trained at this. Frankly, I'm unsure that
> observers can reliably call travels and marking fouls at the same
> time.
they do in b-ball.......along with a plethera of other violations.
-------------------------------------------------
The ideal positioning is different for each. If we're going to
> go with active travel calls, then every observer should have to pass
> some kind of quiz to determine that they're competent to call this
> stuff. A video quiz might suffice.
them uoa guys seem to be doing it with GREAT SUCCESS.......and i dont
know about any quizes theyve taken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So far, nobody has proposed a good solution for 1) or 2).
i'd say the the uoa itself IS the solution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If this
> issue gets put up for a vote by the players again without addressing
> 1) and 2), then that's just poor planning again.
well, that would just go to show that the kids prefer poor planning to
the ill conceived inherant flaws that exist in the "player control"
system. Theyre no dummies. Lucily the uoa trained officials will be
there to pick up the peices, nit if, but WHEN that happens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The intermediate solution should be to deter shady travel calls
> through use of TMFs.
pfft, thats the old school way to do it.......youde better get with
the times ther colin
Peri Kurshan
then more heavy-handed TMF use is a much better way to achieve that
goal than active travel calls, which while they might reduce some
bogus calls, will also introduce a whole lot of other non-bogus (but
unimportant) calls that players wouldn't call themselves.
I am a big fan of more aggressive TMF use to curb the problem of bogus
calls- the best thing about it is that it only affects teams that make
bogus calls- everyone else can just play the game.
-peri (own personal opinion)
ulticritic
> and handing out TMFs would put a halt to this behavior.
not as quickly OR EFFECIENTLY as simply taking the call out of their
hands altogether. think about it.
----------------------------------------------------------
If the
> observer says "I'm 90% sure that that was too close for me to call,"
> then that should be enough for a TMF.
in which, if active, he would simply NOT call it right? so why even
put in the part where ya not only have to monitor for the violation,
but also for a violation of calling the violation when you didnt think
there was a violation to begin with. can you say "clusterfuck".
seriously colin......ever herd of the term "simplify"?
---------------------------------------------------------
I't's not going to ruin the
> game for players to be hesitant and not call a few legitimate
> travels.
nor would it if the observers just cut out all the bullshit and called
it themselves........IN FACT, it would probably improve it.
wait......it ALREADY DID IMPROVE IT. see your local uoa game for
proof
------------------------------------------------------------------
But it does ruin the game for players to call tons of shady
> travels.
good thing such a STUPID ALLOWANCE is easily fixable(reversable)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And we're not taking the game out of the players' control as
> observers if we do this.
theres your first mistake.
-------------------------------------------------
It will be the players that try to turn the
> game into a travel call-fest and the observers just administer
> appropriate sanctions to keep things under control.
an around the elbow to get to the asshole plan if there EVER was one.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We also have the 2 warning TMF safety net, which reduces the impact of
> an improper TMF.
wouldnt ya rather just not even have to bother with all that bullshit
though?
-----------------------------------------------------
Another reason to not be hesitant about giving them
> out. Even a bunch of questionable TMFs would be better than the
> current system with lots of improper failure to issue TMFs,
> accompanied by a whole lot of undeterred cheating and other bad
> behavior.
why some of you people feel the need to reinvent the wheel i'll NEVER
GET
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Of course, I should mention that in the vast majority of games that I
> have played in, even this more aggressive TMF enforcement would not
> have an impact. Lots of games go very smoothly without any issues,
> even at Nationals. Observed and unobserved. But if we have a system
> for addressing those problem games, then we should enforce it in a way
> that is not completely toothless for the first 80% of the game.
so what do you do when someone pulls out a shitty call late in the
game when they have plenty of tmf's to give prior to any tangible
consequense. wont you just be asking teams to use those up in the
same way people (like you maybe) feel they would "use up" personal
fouls in an unspirited manner if they were limited.
Blake
> Even under the relatively mild TMF enforcement, Carleton
> is one of the
> few teams that has managed to earn a Misconduct Penalty
> (2009).
When/how did that happen?
I regards to the video posted, it also seems dubious that
the player that called the travel was the one who had just
turned it over.
Torre
Colin
I believe it was the semi-final game against Stanford. I do not
remember the exact details.
ulticritic
> I agree- I think if your goal is to reduce the number of travel calls,
> then more heavy-handed TMF use is a much better way to achieve that
> goal than active travel calls,
pffft, your crazy
AND DONT YOU HAVE A BLOG THAT NEEDS UPDATING PERI. why dont you worry
about that and let the professionals at uoa headquarters deal with
refining the observer system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
which while they might reduce some
> bogus calls, will also introduce a whole lot of other non-bogus (but
> unimportant) calls that players wouldn't call themselves.
If it suits them eh? another point of having impartial onlookers
calling them ALL. theres no picking or choosing to speak of and you
get a much more constistant result.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> I am a big fan of more aggressive TMF use to curb the problem of bogus
> calls-
In other words, YOU ARE A BIG OPPONENT of it becoming active. Which
means your a big opponent of the uoa. oh well, cant wait til memorial
day to see the KIDS change the history of this sport FOREVER.
Just think peri, youre gonna get hammered with an active travel AND an
"observer quick ruling" all at once. I assume you arent all that
jazzed up about the prospect of that, are ya?
--------------------------------------------------------------
the best thing about it is that it only affects teams that make
> bogus calls- everyone else can just play the game.
not as seemlesly as when its OUT OF THE PLAYERS HANDS. do your
homework peri. and dont dismiss it untill you witnessed competent
officials enforcing it.
NOW GET ON BACK TO THAT BLOG AND STAY THE FUCK OFF RSD.......unless
you got somthing to communicat to the membership that isnt from a
complete SPIRIT ZEALOT perspective.
Andrew Olson
the disc was out of bounds and he either didn't check it in
or he didn't establish his pivot foot on the sideline or
both.
Joaq
That sort of travel has to be called when the infraction occurs, not
after the winning goal is caught. Eli pivots on his left foot a
second or two before he throws, they'd have to call it then. What's
to stop Cultimate from changing the result of the game if they chose
to?
Colin
My personal opinion on the rules issue:
Just to clarify, the rules don't require a check. A check only
happens after a stoppage of play.
To put a live disc (like walking the disc from O.B. to the line), you
need to establish a pivot at the right spot and touch the disc to the
ground.
In this case, it looks like the thrower places his foot (likely on the
line) and then leans over and picks up the disc. There's never any
confusion as to whether the disc is in play. The thrower is not
gaining any momentum. The marker begins marking and stalling right
away. All of the purposes of the requirement to touch the disc to the
ground have been accomplished.
If that was the basis for the travel call, then that is even worse
than just being wrong/dishonest about a dragging foot. At least a
cheater knows he's cheating. A rules weenie thinks he's somehow right
in behaving how he's behaving.
-Colin
Torre
> On Feb 8, 2:21 pm, Andrew Olson
the same thing that is keeping the team that called the
travel from taking it back and conceding the victory. . .
nothing.
Alex Korb
call. I watched the throwers pivot foot very closely and it did not
move. However, if the disc was out of bounds, which it looks like it
was, then he was supposed to ground check it. And whether the disc
was out of bounds or on the line the thrower is supposed to establish
his pivot foot on the line. When Joaq says the thrower pivots a
second or 2 before the throw, it's really only a tiny step. His big
pivot is pretty much as he throws. A defender likely wouldn't notice
this small pivot. The defense can't call travel until the thrower
pivots, and the thrower didn't pivot clearly until just as he was
throwing. If he had chosen to use his right foot as his pivot, then
this wouldn't have been a travel, but as soon as he decided to make
his left foot the pivot, and his left foot was not on the line, then
it's a travel. I change my viewing of this from "bogus call" to
"exactly the kind of call one should expect on a huck, and definitely
at double-game point." If the thrower wants to avoid such foul calls
then make sure to place his pivot foot on the line. -Alex
As an aside: I think clearly lined fields are more important than
observers for reducing arguments.
Heinousboy
> I agree- I think if your goal is to reduce the number of travel calls,
> then more heavy-handed TMF use is a much better way to achieve that
> goal than active travel calls, which while they might reduce some
> bogus calls, will also introduce a whole lot of other non-bogus (but
> unimportant) calls that players wouldn't call themselves.
Maybe instead of hypothesizing how active travel calls would affect
the number of travel calls in a game maybe you should ask someone like
Mike G who has run a tournament with active travel calls and find out
how it affects the number of travels called.
Brooks
travel calls. I want to make sure that a uniform standard is
applied to travel calls in a given game. I mean, does anyone
honestly think that an observer ("showing great hustle", as
Mike G would say) placed a handful of yards away from the
thrower has a worse perspective than a marker whose head
naturally turns every time that disc gets released?
I see an awful lot of travels get called by markers who look
down a half second late. And I don't care what's absolutely
a travel or not- if I watch 2 consecutive NBA games, I can
guarantee that the definition of a foul changes, game to
game. Adjusting to your observer is part of the game when
you have an impartial third party, and it's easily
accomplished. You also have the added benefit of knowing
that the other team has the same standard applied. Sure, I
hope some kind of training gets put in place, but this
really seems like a no-brainer to me.
I got to play in the ACC Championships last year, the first
time I had played with active travels. It made the game less
contentious, more fair, and more fun. Look at the feedback
coming out of the 8's- an overwhelming majority of college
players who have the opportunity to play with active travels
agree that it improves the game. I am pretty sure the UOA
doesn't have some intensive video-laden training course to
achieve that result.
I mean, I'm in favor of observers taking control of the game
more with liberal use of TMF's, but again, this really just
seems simple. I see nothing wrong with conceding that the
observer could call fairer travels than my opponent, whose
attention should (ostensibly) be focused elsewhere while
we're playing.
ulticritic
> On Feb 8, 3:54 pm, Peri Kurshan <pkurs...@gmail.com> wrote:.
the obvious eludes her. maybe she didnt notice this past weekends
football superbowl game featured FULLY ACTIVE REFS either.
jacob
"if the disc was out of bounds, which it looks like it was, then he
was supposed to ground check it."
I thought you only had to ground check after a stoppage of play. What
a bad rule. If your opponent throws it OB, they should not get the
benefit of a ground check, as you should not have to waste any time on
a ground check running your fast break in the other direction.
Besides this, the marker and other defenders were set up and active
immediately, so there was no harm done or surprise caused by the lack
of ground check here.
"And whether the disc was out of bounds or on the line the thrower is
supposed to establish his pivot foot on the line. When Joaq says the
thrower pivots a second or 2 before the throw, it's really only a tiny
step. His big pivot is pretty much as he throws. A defender likely
wouldn't notice this small pivot. The defense can't call travel until
the thrower pivots, and the thrower didn't pivot clearly until just as
he was throwing. If he had chosen to use his right foot as his pivot,
then this wouldn't have been a travel, but as soon as he decided to
make his left foot the pivot, and his left foot was not on the line,
then it's a travel."
Yeah, but
1) The thrower is actually worse off by setting up his pivot foot off
the sideline rather than on the sideline (it's easier to huck the
closer you are to the sideline), so Janin had no advantage here and
CUT was better off for this oversight; and
2) Janin is a well-known player- I'm pretty sure the CUT guys know he
is not a left and that his right foot is not his pivot foot.
"I change my viewing of this from 'bogus call' to 'exactly the kind of
call one should expect on a huck, and definitely at double-game
point.'"
Are you saying that it's more acceptable to make borderline calls on
hucks than on other throws? On game-point plays than on plays made
earlier in games? I realize that there is a difference between "You
should expect ___" and "____ is acceptable", but it sounds like you
are muddling the two. Can't we expect such calls and at the same time
think they are weak?
"If the thrower wants to avoid such foul calls then make sure to place
his pivot foot on the line."
Alex, you are assuming that this was the basis for the call, when it
is just as likely or even more likely that this call was made in
response to the marker's belief that Janin moved his left foot prior
to or during the throw. If a player makes a call for a specific
incorrect reason, that call is not made legitimate simply by there
being a separate basis for the call made known to that player only in
hindsight.
Heinousboy
And there were fewer calls made the entire game than some ultimate
points. Amazingly clean play by both teams.
Colin
Heinousboy, maybe instead of hypothesizing about people's knowledge,
you should brush up your own. Your persistent failure to reason is
kind of unbelievable. The 2009 Stanford Invite had active travel
calls. Centex had active referral. Nationals had active referral for
men (was it just standard for women?). UPA Observers. Feedback
collected. Some data on numbers of calls. Made available to UPA
officials. It seems like you are the one in the dark here,
Heinousboy, as usual. While on the topic of your ignorance, are you
familiar with possible variations in how the UOA treats Rule XVI.J(1)
(d) ("The thrower fails to touch the disc to the ground when
required") in calling travels?
Again, the important thing here is that players get to vote
intelligently knowing what they're going to get at Nationals. If what
they're going to get is observers with no formal training in calling
active travels, then they should know that. If what they're getting
is rules weenies in orange calling every single tiny technical travel
that occurs, then they should know that.
Hopefully, if any new experiments are going to be put to a vote for
the 2010 College Series, the UPA will give some indication of how this
would work and what training the observers would receive. I'm excited
for experimentation by the UPA, but again hoping that enough time is
allowed for players and observers to understand and adjust to any
changes that might be made for Nationals.
Colin
The Puppy Bowl game featured fully active refs also.
But Toby was just beating on Yums for an extended period of time
without any intervention. After ten minutes or so, the ref finally
stepped in and ejected Toby. As an observer, I'd have booted him way
earlier. You can't bite opponents. Period.
If this is what it means to have refs, then I sure don't want Ultimate
to be any part of it.
Diablo
guys I saw emerge from the ground on horses on my drive back to the
airport.
stephenghubbard
understanding of where some of them might be coming from.
Imagine if one of the marker's teammates came up to him
amidst the crowd's yelling , pulled him aside and quietly
explained to him exactly why that was NOT a travel. Imagine
if that marker goes back to the thrower and says "Im sorry,
I realize not that you didn't travel. I take back the call,
you guys win."
That possibility, that awesome possibility which is missing
from other sports, holds great sway in some peoples' minds.
It is a beautiful and complex and abstract idea. Maybe you
don't feel this way, but I think this potential is what
sustains people's desire to keep the game "in the hands of
the players".
I acknowledge that the aforementioned turn of events seems
unlikely, especially on DGP, but it DOES happen. More than
big calls, self-regulation happens through the whole game.
There is something gained when a game is played hard but
under player control. Yes, that something is hard to
describe and not necessarily television friendly, but it
exists, at least in some subset of the Ultimate community.
Disagree, but at least try to understand.
-Pumba
Jackson
you want. But, I will NOT stand for criticism of any kind
towards the Puppy Bowl.
shirt...@gmail.com
of where Eli set his pivot. The CUT player argued (from across the
field) that Eli moved his foot.
Colin
wrote:
> The disc was not out of bounds, and the travel wasn't called because
> of where Eli set his pivot. The CUT player argued (from across the
> field) that Eli moved his foot.
When did the CUT player say that the release happened? Or wasn't he
watching that, since it was on the opposite side of the thrower's
body, also obscured by the marker? Maybe he saw it. But that's a
real tough view.
Slade
1) The thrower is actually worse off by setting up his pivot
foot off
the sideline rather than on the sideline (it's easier to
huck the
closer you are to the sideline), so Janin had no advantage
here and
CUT was better off for this oversight;"
The closer you are to the sideline the more challenging the
huck... I would happily walk every OB disc to the middle of
the field if I could. And that doesn't effect the legality
of the throw.
2) Janin is a well-known player- I'm pretty sure the CUT
guys know he
is not a left and that his right foot is not his pivot
foot.
..and yet he hasn't traveled until he moves his right foot
off the line. His right foot COULD be his pivot foot if it
keeps him from violating the rules.
But someone elsewhere said that the disc was not OB, so it's
irrelevant.
DanD
Well if the disc was out of bounds, then his left foot must be his
pivot (he doesn't walk it back in so if the disc is out of bounds then
his right foot has to be set out of bounds as wll be since its further
right then the disc).
So I see three possibilities, one being:
the disc was out of bounds, he places his left foot on the sideline,
picks up and plays without a ground check: travel.
But the problem with this is that you would expect this to be called
as soon as the throwing motion started (all the rules say is that you
have to check before you throw so the call should wait for the
throw). Instead the call came very late, also the call came from a
player with no perspective on whether the disc was picked up in or
out. unless you were standing on the cone, I feel like making that
call is pretty impossible without a lined field.
Second situation is that it rolled out and then rolled back in: in
that case he should have walked it to where it rolled out so again a
travel, but also you expect that call at the latest when the pivot was
set, not when the disc was being caught, and the perspective is tough
from the center of the field...
The last possibility is that the disc landed in and I think everyone
agrees that there was no visible travel in that case, but again the
camera does have a poor angle on whether the foot moves forward.
I think if you wanted to be technical and if you had the right
perspective, in the first two cases a travel call is justified, but
according to another poster it seems as though the Carleton kid was
calling the third case, which, from the video is a BS call but then
again he has a completely different perspective from us, and if the
foot moved 2 inches directly away from the camera it would be a hard
to see that on film. Still I think the call comes very late and from
a pretty obstructed view point...
DanD
Colin
> So I see three possibilities, one being:
> the disc was out of bounds, he places his left foot on the sideline,
> picks up and plays without a ground check: travel.
> But the problem with this is that you would expect this to be called
> as soon as the throwing motion started (all the rules say is that you
> have to check before you throw so the call should wait for the
> throw).
Wait, I don't understand. Why should the travel call wait until the
throw? I don't think the rules say "check (or ground touch) before
you throw." XIII.B, XVI.J(1)(d), II.R(1) & (2).
I'm with you on the idea of the call having to be prompt, though I
can't hear the call on the video, so I didn't really focus on that
issue. If the call doesn't happen until the defender points in the
video, then it does seem really late.
Second, it's more accurate and less confusing if you do not use the
word "check" in this situation. There is no stoppage of play here and
no check is required. "Touch the disc to the ground" is what happens
here, but everyone is free to run around during this whole process.
If there is not a stoppage, there is not a "check" (VIII.D).
The only thing "ground check" can describe is an offensive self-check
(VIII.D.4) where no defender is close enough to touch the disc on a
check, so the offense touches the disc to the ground and announces "in
play" after the D acknowledges readiness.
I say this not to be persnickety, but because a lot of people do get
confused over this, so it's good to try to clarify potential sources
of confusion.
-Colin
DanD
sorry- by check I was referring to a ground tap, and the reason I said
the call doesn't need to come till the throw is that in a situation
where I'm the marker and the offense is walking it in, as soon as the
pivot is set in bounds I start stalling, and its their responsibility
to ground tap it, they can't throw till they tap it in so if they just
assume they're good and throw it I can call it back. That's pretty
dick though, normally I'll let it go or remind them to tap it mid
stall.
DanD
Colin
Gotcha. Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page. "ground tap"
is definitely better.
As for the timing of the call, it is true that it is a travel if the
thrower throws before touching the disc to the ground. The thrower
has to establish a pivot at the right spot and touch the disc to the
ground before "putting it into play" (II.R, XIII.B). But "to put the
disc into play at a particular spot" is redundantly defined as "to
establish a pivot at that spot."
In any case, what it comes down to is that it's not just the throw
that triggers the travel. Any other kind of play, like pivoting/
faking, surveying the field for open cutters, etc. also triggers the
travel. So basically if the thrower establishes a pivot at the spot
and does anything other than touch the disc to ground, that is your
opportunity to call a travel. Otherwise, you've missed your window to
call it "immediately" (XVI.A) and cannot call it. But if a player has
caught the disc and run out of bounds, you may easily have started to
stall and reached stall 2 or 3 before he returns and commits the
travel.
From a reasonableness standard, that makes sense. The point of the
ground touch is to let the marker (and other players) know the disc is
in play. So if the thrower surprises somebody by playing before the
ground touch, they can call a travel. But once the thrower is playing
and people know the thrower is playing, they can't later claim to be
surprised by the failure to touch the ground.
Sounds like we play a pretty similar style. I'll often remind the
thrower to touch the disc to the ground, too, as he's approaching the
spot. Then I'll generally only call the travel if I was somehow
surprised by the thrower playing before I was ready. So long as we
both know what's going on, I'm happy to just play, ground touch or
not.
-Colin
(personal opinions and interpretations)
Felix
> guys know he
> is not a left and that his right foot is not his pivot
> foot.
It could be irrelevent... but if I know the pivot should be on the
sideline, and the thrower sets themselves up with right foot on the
line, left foot 1m inside the field, and holds the disc in their right
hand, I want to be thinking about pressuring the switch-of-hands-lefty
backhand huck up the line whilst watching out for the quick righty no-
pivot throw or even the lefty sidearm, and avoiding the instinct to
treat their left foot as their pivot just because they have the disc
in their right hand. I'd also be quietly admiring/cursing how much
harder he's made my job of marking by setting up as he has. If he
moves his right foot then that changes the whole situation and I call
travel.
I DON'T want to be thinking about whether he's made a mistake with
where he's put his foot, and having to factor the "possible mistake"
into my plan for where to add the pressure and what to look for (a
change of hands for example) to react to, etc. If I assume he's made
a mistake and then he pulls out his lefty backhand huck completely
unpressured, I'm the chump.
It's not very hard to simply put your pivot foot on the line, I'd
rather play a clinical game than a sloppy one.
This is irrelevent to the clip really.
Flo
1. The caller imagined some travel that never happened =>
Colin's statement about bogus/borderline calls.
2. The disc was OB and the caller called the missing ground
touch => bogus call, as the thrower first set the pivot and
then touched the disc to the ground as he was picking it up
(it was still touching the ground when he picked it up,
nowhere does it say you have to pick it up and then touch it
to the ground after the disc lost ground contact... the
carrying to the field part is not necessary when the disc is
so close to the field).
And: if at all, this call needs to be made immediately when
it is clear that the thrower missed the ground touch (as in,
starts pivoting and looking for a receiver).
And: It's a weenie call.
3. The disc was OB and the caller called the foot not being
on the line. That call would be legit but
a) should have been made right away (and if he didn't see it
right away, how did he see it later while knowing at the
same time that the thrower did not move his foot?)
b) complete rules weenie
4. The disc was IB, and the caller called the wrong pivot
spot (he set his foot not exactly at the place of the disc
as he first set his foot and then picked up the disc). Then
a) the call must be made immediately,
b) it's a weenie call.
-Flo.
Reggie Fanelli
> > check is required. That's the only way that's a violation. I
> > definitely saw no foot movement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---did someone already say.......
abolish the ground tap.
worst rule in.......heck......any sport.
Reggie Fanelli
> I actually do think the Observer TMF system has the
> potential to deal with calls like this.
. But like Colin said, we need more and better
> trained observers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--you can avoid the TMF by simply having the observers rule on the
travel calls.
AND...you don't need more or better or better trained observers....you
only need....observers.
observers who are told...when you see a travel....call it.
when you see a travel that you would call in a game...call it.
and...if you miss a travel...and in your brain think, i think i just
missed a travel call.....LOOK HARDER!
simple as that.
no extra training...no more training.
Reggie Fanelli
> observers can reliably call travels and marking fouls at the same
> time. The ideal positioning is different for each.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---UOA observers don't have this problem.
Felix
point, because if they haven't moved either foot yet (and one foot is
on the correct point), then you don't know which might be used at the
pivot - even if they're holding the disc in their right hand or
whatever. There's a lefty Irish player currently playing for Clapham
who was a big player at Europeans in September, and he'd always hold
the disc in his right hand before pivoting for the lefty huck - makes
a huge difference.
Ground tap doesn't exist in WFDF rules by the way, it does seem a bit
strange to see it happen in UPA games.
Reggie Fanelli
> was supposed to ground check it."
>
> I thought you only had to ground check after a stoppage of play. What
> a bad rule. If your opponent throws it OB, they should not get the
> benefit of a ground check, as you should not have to waste any time on
> a ground check running your fast break in the other direction.
> Besides this, the marker and other defenders were set up and active
> immediately, so there was no harm done or surprise caused by the lack
> of ground check here.
--THANK YOU!
abolish the ground check...............as i've been saying for as long
as it's been a rule.
abolish the ground check!
Reggie Fanelli
> you should brush up your own. Your persistent failure to reason is
> kind of unbelievable. The 2009 Stanford Invite had active travel
> calls. Centex had active referral. Nationals had active referral for
> men (was it just standard for women?). UPA Observers. Feedback
> collected. Some data on numbers of calls. Made available to UPA
> officials.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--how can heinousboy brush up on his knowledge, if, as you say, the
data was made available "to upa officials"
the UOA made our survey data available to everyone in the world.
the feedback was super positive about active travel calls.
Reggie Fanelli
> familiar with possible variations in how the UOA treats Rule XVI.J(1)
> (d) ("The thrower fails to touch the disc to the ground when
> required") in calling travels?
---the UOA doesn't even know what rule xvi.j(1) is!!!!!
but....if it's about the ground tap..............we're in the future
with that one too!
we do not recognize the need to ground tap....
come on everyone else.....come to the future with us on this one too!
abolish the ground tap.
call the travel IF and ONLY IF the thrower is in the throwing motion
prior to establishing a pivot foot at the proper spot on the field.
Reggie Fanelli
> ground touch is to let the marker (and other players) know the disc is
> in play.
---i thought that the point of being on defense was knowing that the
other team had the disc....
Reggie Fanelli
> strange to see it happen in UPA games.
--the WFDF seems to have this one right.
Colin
UOA observers may be just as wrong as every player and observer out
there who has never objectively determined what is and is not a travel
(with video confirmation). The fact that he's calling what he'd call
in a game and what he thinks is a travel does NOT mean that he's
right. The fact that he's been calling it the same way for 20 years
does not make him right.
ulticritic
>
> Again, the important thing here is that players get to vote
> intelligently knowing what they're going to get at Nationals.
well 11 of em voted "intellegently" last year........so hopefully more
will follow suit and vot that way this year
---------------------------------------------------------------
If what
> they're going to get is observers with no formal training in calling
> active travels, then they should know that.
wouldnt it just be easier to get em all up to speed and working with
the active tracel as much as possible........and ONLY THE UPA CAN
CONTROL WHAT KIND OF TRAINING THEIR OBSERVERS GET. they should rely
on outside orgs to train their observers for them. SO YA SEE.....this
is a clear case of them not leeping up with the trends......kinda like
with the whole risk management thing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If what they're getting
> is rules weenies in orange calling every single tiny technical travel
> that occurs, then they should know that.
well thats easily accomplished.......JUST TELL THE PLAYERS HOW YOUR
GONNA CALL THINGS AT THE PRE GAME CAPTIANS MEETING
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hopefully, if any new experiments are going to be put to a vote for
> the 2010 College Series, the UPA will give some indication of how this
> would work and what training the observers would receive.
HA......relying on the upa to have their shit together is a pipe
dream.......so like i said.......JUST BE GLAD THAT THE UOA BOYS WILL
BE THERE TO "PICK UP THE PEICES".
I mean come on colin.......if the upa isnt going to fully prepare
itself for an ACTIVE TRAVEL VOTE THIS YEAR based on last years vote,
THAT WAS ONLY ONE VOTE SHORT, then they have noone to blame but
themselves for not having their shit together AND THEY ARE COMPLETE
IDIOTS FOR NO BEING PROPERLY PREPARED. this is whats known as
"keeping up with the trends".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm excited
> for experimentation by the UPA,
colin.......the upa HAS left the upa in the dust......so maybe you
should shirt that excitement to the progress THEY are makin........as
THEY will likely be the ones "carrying the load" when it comes right
down to it.
I cant believe you dont see this issue as somewhat of a mirror image
of the feasco they are making with SIDELINE SAFTEY.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
but again hoping that enough time is
> allowed for players and observers to understand and adjust to any
> changes that might be made for Nationals.
well they surley have had plenty of time to prepare since last years
nationals.......the question is, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH THAT TIME.
I sure havent herd of EXPERIMENT ONE with active travels......or any
other innovative stuff........like the uoa is DOING.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ulticritic
> I'm no "Spirit Zealot", but I think I have some
> understanding of where some of them might be coming from.
>
> Imagine if one of the marker's teammates came up to him
> amidst the crowd's yelling , pulled him aside and quietly
> explained to him exactly why that was NOT a travel. Imagine
> if that marker goes back to the thrower and says "Im sorry,
> I realize not that you didn't travel. I take back the call,
> you guys win."
>
> That possibility, that awesome possibility which is missing
> from other sports, holds great sway in some peoples' minds.
yes, but this "possibility you speak of cant BE POSSIBLE without the
darker, evil, cheating outcome ALSO BEING A POSSIBILITY. iTS S DOUBLE
EDGE SWORD THAT CAN CUT BOTH WAYS.. this is why other sports ar glad
to shelf this "POSSIBILITY" YOU SPEAK OF with the simple ref
facilitation
------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is a beautiful and complex and abstract idea.
dont forget "stupid" too
------------------------------------------------
Maybe you
> don't feel this way, but I think this potential is what
> sustains people's desire to keep the game "in the hands of
> the players".
eh, i see it more of just being too lazy to facilitate it and too
cheap to pay for it. I mean, you people sell out in every other
aspect of your lives.....why not just do the same with ultimate. its
just a sport after all
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I acknowledge that the aforementioned turn of events seems
> unlikely, especially on DGP, but it DOES happen. More than
> big calls, self-regulation happens through the whole game.
> There is something gained when a game is played hard but
> under player control.
not if it turns into a tit for tat call fest.......OR even if it ends
the way this one did with only ONE POTENTIALLY GAME CHANGING SUCK ASS
BAILOUT CALL. SO YA SEE, it dont take much "human nature" to
COMPLETELY RUIN the thing youve gained.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that something is hard to
> describe and not necessarily television friendly, but it
> exists, at least in some subset of the Ultimate community.
ehhhhh, that shit can be easily found at your local church........SO
JUST LEAVE ANTHING THATS SPORTS RELATED THE FUCK OUT OF SUCH A
DOGMATIC NEED
DanD
I'm fine with getting rid of the rule as long as you have a way of
preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in, up
here we can't play every game with UOA observers so the ground tap is
what forces players to stop their momentum and throw.
DanD
ulticritic
>
> I'm fine with getting rid of the rule as long as you have a way of
> preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in,
how about letting the observer make that JUDGEMENT.....and call it
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------
up
> here we can't play every game with UOA observers
why.......i'm sure you have dozens of other sports being played in
your area where they seem to be able to provide that facilitation.
are you saying that you , as ultimate players, dont have the where-
with-all to figure out how to accomplish that? c'mon, i thought
ultimate players prided themselves on being bright, intellegent
people??? yet as simple of a concept as sports arbitration eludes
you??? i'm extreemly embarrased for you if this is actually the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so the ground tap is
> what forces players to stop their momentum and throw.
its not so much the ground tap itself as much as its who gets to
monitor and judge wheather the ground tap (or any other act) was, or
wasnt, in violation of the rules. if ya cant facilitate your comp
with qualified and i,mpartial people to do such (and compensate them
for their efforts) then you will be FOREVER STUCK WITH AN ARCHAIC
SYSTEM THAT NOT ONLY ALLOWS BUT ALSO ENABLES PARTIALLY MOTIVATED CALLS
THAT FAVOR ONE OPPONENT OVER THE OTHER.......which will drive you even
further from the sotg gaol you are trying to achieve in the first
place.
i think its just a matter of wakin up and smellin the coffee.
DanD
well other sports have organizations to train refs locally, Neither
the UPA or UOA provides this service. I don't think high school
basketball refs drive 6 hours to get to their certification
clinics...
I'm not some SoTG nut, and I would love there to be refs at every game
but its just not feasible right now with the current organizations.
The UPA is the only group that has the money to do it on a national
scale and they haven't be exactly pushing refs. If someone was really
motivated then they could do it on a smaller more regional scale like
the UOA has but that person isn't me, I'd rather play than be a ref.
If you look at youth basketball a lot of the refs and coaches are
people that played when they were younger and many of them have kids
that play now, maybe its because I play college but in ultimate I
don't see that generation running the game so much, the current
players are the ones involved so they would rather just play instead
of refing I feel like.
If you had 10 high school basketball players in a gym they wouldn't
play 4 v 4 and have two refs. I would love there to be refs at every
game of ultimate but I don't think this will happen till there is the
money supporting refs, and until there is a large number of retired
players that still want to be involved.
DanD
Reggie Fanelli
> there who has never objectively determined what is and is not a travel
> (with video confirmation). The fact that he's calling what he'd call
> in a game and what he thinks is a travel does NOT mean that he's
> right. The fact that he's been calling it the same way for 20 years
> does not make him right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---and you think that hours of video watching will cure the observer
called travel?
Reggie Fanelli
> preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in, up
> here we can't play every game with UOA observers so the ground tap is
> what forces players to stop their momentum and throw.
---to begin with....we COULD play every game with UOA Observers....if
more TDs would start inviting us to their events to train their local
observers, and if Leagues started inviting us to demonstrate the LOS,
and if the UPA gave us the green light to start reprogramming their
observers and observer trainers!!!
next......UOA rules that the thrower may not be in throwing motion
when they place their pivot foot at the proper spot.
we define 'throwing motion' as the initial backwards movement of the
disc prior to the forward throwing motion.
so...pretty much, the disc has to be in front of a thrower's belly as
they step on the spot.
much of anything else, we consider running up to the spot to momentum
huck....
the upa should change their rules to reflect our version.
that's a sincere suggestion.
abolish the ground tap.
Reggie Fanelli
> > preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in,
>
> how about letting the observer make that JUDGEMENT.....and call it
> accordingly.
---we've tried to make it more CONCRETE even......as you can read in
another post, or 12.
....the thrower cannot be in the throwing motion until they've
established a pivot foot at the proper location.
throwing motion is the backward motion of the disc prior to the
forward throwing motion.
so...no wind up.
Reggie Fanelli
> the UPA or UOA provides this service. I don't think high school
> basketball refs drive 6 hours to get to their certification
> clinics...
-----we've been trying to set up tournaments...and plan to/want to/
hope to do so in the future.
we're going some places, and were invited to some others....and we
invite folks to travel here to observe, who we hope will go home and
spread the word.
we're pretty low budget, but we're on the move!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If someone was really
> motivated then they could do it on a smaller more regional scale like
> the UOA has but that person isn't me, I'd rather play than be a ref.
---regional scale.
i like that.
you can play and observe, that's what's pretty extra cool about it....
ulticritic
either way, however the rule may be written, as long as you have
players allowed to call it they WILL take advantage of that
opportunity as a TACTIC to either slow down play OR, as we see here,
nulify a completed pass that may or may not have resulted in a goal.
Now if you have an observer there to refer to(a la upa) the players
bogus call then that helps.......but if the observewr has the final
say anyways, ya might as well make it his call. obviously you, mike,
grasp this concept.
Colin
Remind me of the data. How many travels were called? Heinousboy can
brush up on his knowledge by getting a clue about what experimental
events were going. That information was readily available.
Colin
Watching video. Reviewing video. Watching live action. Reviewing
video of that same live action. Lots of possibilities here.
ulticritic
>
> well other sports have organizations to train refs locally,
well START ONE......then youll have one. done....and done
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neither
> the UPA or UOA provides this service.
the upa should......but we all know they suck......so i wouldnt rely
on the for much of anything........besides preserving
sotg.........which might be viewed on as a "conflict of interests"
from developing refs.
i would think the uoa would be glad to help you get a "chapter"
started in your area if you showed interest. OR you could just copy
cat em. it aint rocket science ya know. Just get the players to chip
in and pay your guys a fair wage. and incorporate officials into your
rec leagues (GREAT WAY TO TRAIN AND RECRUIT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think high school
> basketball refs drive 6 hours to get to their certification
> clinics...
thats because they pay hs basketball refs well enough to which there
is plenty of "supply". Just use basic economic principals and the
formula should be quite easy to grasp.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not some SoTG nut, and I would love there to be refs at every game
> but its just not feasible right now with the current organizations.
then propose to adjust the organizations......like the uoa is doing.
They are taking a "quality over quantity" approach to tourny formats
and making them smaller so that all games are able to be appropriately
facilitated. so whats your excuse again?????
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The UPA is the only group that has the money to do it on a national
> scale and they haven't be exactly pushing refs.
money isnt the issue here......its administrative effort. the money
that it will take to pay the potential "officials" should just come
out of the players that benefit from its' pockets......in a "pay to
play" scenerio.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If someone was really
> motivated then they could do it on a smaller more regional scale like
> the UOA has but that person isn't me
then suffer........sucka
-------------------------------------------
>, I'd rather play than be a ref.
the irony there is that you are forced to do both with out
them.......simultainiously at that.......so it seems the jokes on you
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you look at youth basketball a lot of the refs and coaches are
> people that played when they were younger and many of them have kids
> that play now,
plus, basketball in general never spread a bunch of nonsensical anti
ref propaganda or tried to turn their sport into some kind of hybrid
religion. on the contrary, they have embraced the ref facilitation
concept since the beggining of the sport. but i think money is the
simple solution here. its amazing what you can get people to do if ya
pay em......and surly there are some ulti players in your town looking
to make an extra buck here or there.
------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe its because I play college but in ultimate I
> don't see that generation running the game so much, the current
> players are the ones involved so they would rather just play instead
> of refing I feel like.
wouldnt ya rather know than "feel like". and youll never know til ya
try, ask, experiment
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you had 10 high school basketball players in a gym they wouldn't
> play 4 v 4 and have two refs.
so your basically saying that ultimate is doomed to be religated to be
a pick-up sport forever? damn good thing people that played all those
other reffed sports werent so lame and chickenshit about establishing
the proper system. Of course i blame it mostly on the original
stewards of the sport that got all caught up in the hippy, anit sport
angle they took on developing the sport from the get go.......and then
of course the current upa admin that propagates that same idiotic
philosophy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would love there to be refs at every
> game of ultimate but I don't think this will happen till there is the
> money supporting refs,
chicken and the egg my man.......chicken and the egg. so.......take
up a collection and theres your money.......then ya got NO EXCUSE for
it not to "happen", right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and until there is a large number of retired
> players that still want to be involved.
eh, ive herd of 14 year old boys reffing highschool soccer. you
people just got to get creative and think outside the box........and
QUIT COMING UP WITH EVERY FUCKIN EXCUSE UNDER THE SUN NOT TO HELP MAKE
IT HAPPEN. You dont need the upa or uoa to hold your hand through the
process of hosting a tourny.....or running a summer league do
ya?......so why do you insist on coming accrosss a completely inept
and incapable of doing somthing that is really pretty damn elementary?
ulticritic
>
> Remind me of the data. How many travels were called? Heinousboy can
> brush up on his knowledge by getting a clue about what experimental
> events were going. That information was readily available.
i dont think he, or anyone else for that matter, dosent consider it to
be basic common knowlege that the upa simply hasent run enough
"experimental events" to have ANY concrete data to support either side
of this issue one way or the other. In fact, i'd say that the upa has
probably run as many events as the upa......but of much vaster depth
and content.
ulticritic
>
> Watching video. Reviewing video. Watching live action. Reviewing
> video of that same live action. Lots of possibilities here.
whats that saying again......"experience IS the best teacher"