Observer Experimentation: Active Travels
Colin
teams. Of 3 men's games and 1 women's game that I observed with
immediate referral travels, only 6 travels were called in total over
the course of four games. I also witnessed very few travels that gave
a meaningful advantage to the offense. By comparison, 12 active
travels were called in the Carleton vs. Oregon game, some of which
were meaningful and some of which were relatively minor.
The Good:
Eliminated spurious travel calls - it is great to take this call out
of the cheating players' hands. For many teams, however, I do not
think it would be an issue. Imposed some consistency in travel-
calling. Helped identify some major travels that the defense may not
have seen. Relieve players from having to watch for this.
The Bad:
I believe under active travels, more travels may be called in
general. I think many of them are relatively minor movement of the
pivot, with almost no impact on the game. I called all the "no ground
tap" travels, but only called a couple. I also reminded throwers to
touch the disc to the ground at the appropirate time. For most teams,
I do not think active travels is an improvement.
It is only an improvement if you are playing against a team that
travels all the time to its own advantage or you are playing against a
team of cheaters that makes bad calls. For most games, I see little
advantage to this. It is also somewhat distracting for the observer -
watching for travels means looking at a different place than watching
for marking fouls.
Summary:
I do not think that having active travels accomplishes much. In the
case of cheaters making bad calls, TMFs can address that. If you view
travel calls as a neat way to disrupt your opponent's offense and put
them at a competitive disadvantage based on a minor slip-up, then you
might like active travels -- until they harm you, too. If you view
travel calls as a way to make sure that both teams are given a fair
shot to play on the same terms, then you may not care as much. If you
believe, as I do, that there is not a lot of meaningful traveling
going undetected and uncalled by the defense, then you probably won't
be big on active travels. If you suspect that a lot of traveling is
happening, but players are somehow unable to seeit, then you might be
more supportive of active travels.
These statements represent only my own personal opinions and
experiences.
Reggie Fanelli
>
> I believe under active travels, more travels may be called in
> general.
---from my experience, that's not the case at all....and i've called
about 42 games with active travel calls in the past year.....with 16
more over the next two weekends.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I called all the "no ground
> tap" travels, but only called a couple.
--why in the world would you call 'no ground tap' violations?
did the thrower travel?...did the thrower approach the proper spot
with the disc waaay back behind them getting ready to huck before they
set a pivot?
that ground tap is a horrible rule....abolish it...don't encourage it!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I do not think active travels is an improvement.
---you're an OBSERVER saying that active travels don't improve the
game?????
that's absurd!
i wonder why all of our surveys from our events point the opposite
direction?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> It is only an improvement if you are playing against a team that
> travels all the time to its own advantage or you are playing against a
> team of cheaters that makes bad calls.
-----soooooooooooooooooooooooo......are you only going to have
observers in these games?
the trick would be to have observers in all games...so that NO TEAM
can travel without punishment...and no team can call bad travels to
benefit their team.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is also somewhat distracting for the observer -
> watching for travels means looking at a different place than watching
> for marking fouls.
---what?
i mean...obviously......but if YOU'RE the observer....the game
official....it's you job to watch more than one tiny specific
thing...and it's your job to move to improve your vantage point for
everything you ought to be watching for.
...weird...a game official that feels overburdened by counting the
stall and the travel and marker fouls.
don't try officiating any other sports!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I do not think that having active travels accomplishes much.
--sometimes when i finish observing a game...i think...whoa...i didn't
do anything out there.
and then i think...jeeze...what if i wasn't out there...???
could have been tons of horrible calls and disputes and
arguments......
i feel opposite than you about active travels.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the
> case of cheaters making bad calls, TMFs can address that.
---well...this opens a can of worms.
you don't hvae to be a cheater to make bad calls!
you can be honest as hell and still make bad calls!!!
you can be a cheater and MISS OBVIOUS travels.....
you think it's easier to DETERMINE if someone is 'cheating' by making
travel calls......and to TMF them up, rather than just be there to
call travels?
good luck!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ulticritic
>
> It is only an improvement if you are playing against a team that
> travels all the time to its own advantage or you are playing against a
> team of cheaters that makes bad calls.
thats the thing though. ya see, due to this thing called human nature
ANY AND ALL of us are more than capable of becoming "a team/player
that travels", a "cheater" OR a "bad caller".......ESPECIALLY in the
heat of the battle when the game is on the line. so by your logic
youre saying that the sport of basketball would be wise to let their
players initiate travel calls in that sport too.......which is pure
insanity
Reggie Fanelli
> youre saying that the sport of basketball would be wise to let their
> players initiate travel calls in that sport too.......
----no no no.....By his logic, basketball games where the athletes
travel are the only games where there should be an official there to
call the travels.
when the teams aren't travelling....his logic says that the players
should just call the travels.
or...
only when teams are travelling, does someone need to be there to call
the travels.
or....
only in games when a marker is cheating, there should be observers
there to give out TMFs........so.......we need a TMF police man on
each field in order to penalize the markers who call bad travels.
seems like...if the observer's there handing out TMFs for bad travel
calls....that he could also just call travels.....
ulticritic
.
>
> seems like...if the observer's there handing out TMFs for bad travel
> calls....that he could also just call travels.....
exactly!!!! "cuttin to the chase" is what i call that. colin isnt a
big fan of "cuttin to the chase", but then again, what spirit zealot
is? they are all about "preserving player control".......for what
reason i still cant figure out.
CapnGeetch
> general.
about 42 games with active travel calls in the past year.....with 16
more over the next two weekends.
Like I said in the other thread, I was looking for travels all weekend
at Tally Classic and only made 4 calls. I also didn't once have the
"man, I could've called a travel there" feeling. Additionally, I was
also thrilled at how well the abolishment of the ground tap worked.
Why wait? If the pivot is set and the marker is there, just start the
dang count already. Less time wasted in general. More throws. More
playing. More ultimate. Great modification I forgot to mention on the
other thread.
Drew out.
Colin
> > players initiate travel calls in that sport too.......
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ----no no no.....By his logic, basketball games where the athletes
> travel are the only games where there should be an official there to
> call the travels.
> when the teams aren't travelling....his logic says that the players
> should just call the travels.
Toad and Mike, logic is not your specialty. Give me a break.
thefan
From Colins' Post:
It is only an improvement if you are playing against a team that
travels all the time to its own advantage or you are playing against
a
team of cheaters that makes bad calls. For most games, I see little
advantage to this. It is also somewhat distracting for the observer
-
watching for travels means looking at a different place than watching
for marking fouls.
so, . . . what did they get wrong?
in cheater games and games with traveling throwers, having active
travel calls is an advantage, right?
so you think they should do it then right? but not other times? why
not just do it all the time?
you really need to explain yourself instead of sitting up on your
little chair and telling people they "just don't understand and you're
not going to explain it" explaining your position is how discussions
get done, no?
Colin
My point was very clear. Mike, as usual, is being intentionally slow
of understanding. I don't know about Toad. Are you honestly
confused?
I think the downside of having extra stoppages is generally not
counterbalanced by any benefit produced by having extra little travels
(and an occasional big one) called by the observers. There simply is
not that much significant traveling going on to need watching. So in
most games, having active travels is a detriment, in my view. That's
why to "not just do it all the time."
In cheater games and games with traveling throwers, active travels
have a more obvious benefit. But I think the cheaters can easily be
addressed with TMFs. And I'm not seeing all that many traveling
throwers among the top-level competition. If your B-team truly has 7
players on every line that cannot hold a pivot, as a player in that
game, I would probably prefer to just play the game, rather than
stopping play after every single pass.
In summary, having active travels is not worth the extra stoppages in
most games. Address the cheaters with TMFs. If there aren't tons of
throwers traveling significantly on Nationals-bound teams, then what
25 teams at the Tally Classic did has little bearing on whether to
vote for active travels at Nationals.
thefan
>
> - Show quoted text -
see, here is part of the problem. you keep saying things like
"traveling significantly", "little travels", "meaningful travels" and
you use the phrase "gain an advantage". no where in the rules is the
word "advantage" used in defining a travel. there is no definition of
an insignificant travel or a little travel. it just says "pivot moves
= travel" so, maybe what you are discovering is that nationals bound
teams don't like to call travels, or that they all travel a little, so
they all just let it go. it's kind of a classic East coast / West
coast thing. one Bonzi player a few years back said they (west coast)
played pretty while we (east coast) played petty. and that may be,
but the rules don't talk about pretty and advantage and all that
jizm. they say that if you don't keep your pivot then you have
traveled. even if it moves a little. or you gain no advantage. you
lose the pivot, you broke the rule defining travel. maybe if the west
coast kids that play so pretty had their "little travels" called by
active observers, they would work on their fundamentals more. then
they would be "pretty" AND "fundamentally sound".
so there. that's my question. that's what i don't understand. why
would you and so many others think that it's okay to break the rules
just a little. or if you don't "gain an advantage"? why cant you
just play by the rules the way they are written down in that little
book that every single one of us has access to?
they're not being intentionally slow. they can't wrap their head
around the reasoning for someone wanting to just let the rules be bent
a little bit and not worry about it.
Mitch
> In summary, having active travels is not worth the extra stoppages in
> most games. Address the cheaters with TMFs. If there aren't tons of
> throwers traveling significantly on Nationals-bound teams, then what
> 25 teams at the Tally Classic did has little bearing on whether to
> vote for active travels at Nationals.
I see an additional benefit to active travels....it makes the players
play better ultimate. I agree with you that for two teams that have
players that travel often, it may be better to leave the travels
uncalled.... for that particular game. But 1) those types of games
shouldn't be present at nationals, or maybe even regionals, and 2) at
the lesser tournies with more of those games, being called more often
will lead to the players adjusting their games, ie, become legal non-
travellers. Those players will get better faster if they are getting
called.
I worked one of the lower tier UOA 8's tournies and still called very
few travels. In doing Duke Scrimmages, '09 ACC's, '09 Queen City, and
UOA 8's, the only time I have seen even a moderate number of travels
called is when there is 1 particular bad offender. I don't see the
"additional stoppages" argument as a very strong one given there are
very few active travel games with very many "additional stoppages."
And if those additional stoppages are on particular egregious travels
that wouldn't have been called, are they particularly bad stoppages?
I saw a few non-calls at Club nationals that surprised me. Some big
hucks in some big games could have come back.
Active travels at league games may be a bit much, but I don't see much
down side at all at nationals, provided you have consistency among
observers.
Colin
> so there. that's my question. that's what i don't understand. why
> would you and so many others think that it's okay to break the rules
> just a little. or if you don't "gain an advantage"? why cant you
> just play by the rules the way they are written down in that little
> book that every single one of us has access to?
I get it. All this "significantly" and "advantage" business is for
the purpose of addressing exactly the difference that you mentioned.
Some players prefer one style of calling. Others prefer another. So
my feedback is intended to help those players make a decision on
whether active travels is something they want. It is not commentary
on what is or is not allowed by the rules.
I know the rules well and I play by them. On offense, I make a great
effort not to travel and I practice my fundamentals to avoid
traveling. On defense, I understand that the rules do not require me
to call a travel if I don't feel like it. I also understand that
playing under the rules to gain every little advantage at every
possible moment would cause the game to grind to a halt and be totally
unplayable. Nothing in the rules requires me to make calls in a way
that causes the game to grind to a halt, so I don't. Often my
opponents return the favor.
> they're not being intentionally slow. they can't wrap their head
> around the reasoning for someone wanting to just let the rules be bent
> a little bit and not worry about it.
I want the players to have the option to call or not call travels as
they see fit. And when I play, I prefer not to stop play all the time
for infractions that have very little impact on the game. This goes
back to the point I have made several times, which is that there
should be an announced standard as far as how travels are called. If
"call every single travel" is the standard, then players should think
about if that's how they want to play.
Mike G is a rule bender himself. He doesn't like the ground touch
rule, so he simply does not enforce it. How can he wrap his head
around allowing that rule-bending, but not wrap his head around
defenders preferring to allow play to continue rather than stopping it
to call minor infractions? Not calling things is not even rule-
bending -- it is 100% allowed by the rules.
The question is whether it is beneficial to take that right away from
the players to choose not to call infractions. I say that players'
choosing to not call minor stuff allows the game to flow better and
makes it more enjoyable to play and watch. And based on the few
significant travels and few cheating travel calls that I saw, I don't
think there's a great reason to take this right away from the players.
thefan
> If there aren't tons of
> throwers traveling significantly on Nationals-bound teams, then what
> 25 teams at the Tally Classic did has little bearing on whether to
>
this is more of the typical elitist stuff that gets Toad's goat up.
when i read this, i hear you saying that the nationals teams only
travel "a little" or don't "gain an advantage", which i've already
pointed out is not what the rules say. then you seem to think that
the play of 25 lowly, non nationls bound teams don't really matter
that much when it comes to playing by the rules at the sports highest
level event.
you know where active travel calls should be implemented?
everywhere. for the entire series. for as many games as possible.
League? no of course not. but sectionals? regionals? the stanford
invite? TiV? Easterns? yep. you know why? because that way all
the teams that qualify for nationals, that play ultimate at the
highest level will have gotten there under the same set of rules and
at least a mostly consistent enforcement of them. why would the west
coasters want to qualify for nationals letting all the "meaningless"
travels slide when they know that when they get there, there is going
to be some team with every marker having one eye glued to their pivot
foot, calling every "little" travel and having all of them upheld by
the observer who knows darn well that it doesn't say anything about
not gaining an advantage making it not a travel?
having calls like that in the hands of observers/referees brings every
game closer to being called under the same enforcement of the rules.
Mitch
> they're not being intentionally slow. they can't wrap their head
> around the reasoning for someone wanting to just let the rules be bent
> a little bit and not worry about it.- Hide quoted text -
>
I'm actually ok with the idea of small travels being ignored in favor
of making the game smoother. (i'm not saying that's how i call it,
just that i can see good logic behind the approach). The key is
getting consistency among observers. A flag can technically be thrown
on every NFL play. There's always a hold, slight false start, illegal
contact, interference, etc. But refs have a line drawn in the sand
(admittedly possibly subjective) that they use to define a penalty
versus "ticky tack." every year, they adjust where that line is
drawn. you see it in ultimate too. Some players play more physical
than others and have different opinions of what warrants a call.
thefan
i addressed this in a different thread, but it's a slow day at work.
because if i decide that my team is out of sync and i can get yours
out of sync by deciding not to honor this courtesy of letting the
little ones go, then i might start calling every little travel to
break your flow, or your focus. and you know what? it's well within
the rules for me to do that. then you're going to get your team to
retaliate by calling every little travel. then, at some point,
someone is going to call a travel just because they got broken or
beaten. now we have an argument, or a discussion, or arbitration.
and we get heated and talk about who started it, and who took it too
far and we get an observer in there to do something he has been
supposed to be doing the whole game, make a travel call. now why not
just avoid all that and let the orange guy get started right away?
you know what else happens? the travel calls remain consistent the
whole game. they don't suddenly spike up why you're up 2 on game
point. or when the momentum swing my way. they get called start to
finish consistently.
now, that ground tap thing. i hate it. and i know that for UOA
events Mike has written it into his "rules" that it is not required.
merely setting a pivot will do. why a ground tap? i don't know why
they did that. maybe because they didn't have observers to regulate
the setting of the pivot and restart of play. maybe they thought it
was cool, some people like to ground tap after a goal. it's weird,
but it happens. do i do it? not really. unless it's getting
called. usually i actually let the marker tap the disc in since he's
usually right there. it all gets the same place. now, if we had
observers calling active travels and active restarts, we could get rid
of the ground tap/tap in all together. but for the course of this
discussion, lets stick to the act of traveling by moving a pivot
foot. that is after all where we started and the great majority of
passes that occur in an ultimate game do not involve the ground tap
rule. we can hash that out another time.
thefan
> On Mar 8, 2:27 pm, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>. Some players play more physical
> than others and have different opinions of what warrants a call.
exactly, some PLAYERS. and there are something like 35-40 of them in
any given game. so that's 35-40 different opinions on what warrants a
call. let's narrow it down to 2 or 3.
Colin
Well, we're talking in the context of teams going to nationals voting
on what happens at Nationals. So they should be considering how it is
going to affect their experience. How many times Joe Schmo on
Northeastern Central Florida State travels per game is irrelevant to
that determination. Elitist? I don't know. Is it elitist for me to
say the Men's teams voting on how calls will be made for their games
should be unconcerned with how often the women's teams travel? Or
sexist? I'm just trying to keep the discussion limited to the
relevant stuff. For me, the discussion is whether teams going to
Nationals should vote to have certain experimental observer duties.
Again, the "minor/insignificant" comments are for the purpose of
helping players decide what kind of style of travel-calling they
like. If they want every travel to get called, then they should
probably vote for active travels as is. If they as players choose not
to call some travels, then they may not want to vote for it or may
want to urge the UPA to adopt a different standard. The important
thing is that the players consider this issue carefully and make an
informed decision. That is what I am trying to help with. I think
some others are less concerned with this and more concerned with
achieving goals on their personal agendas.
Tim-Haymaker
strictly that players will travel less as a result. The
players will still have the power to ensure that games flow
well. Instead of ignoring the rules, they can choose to
follow them.
Regardless, Mike G. has stated that he calls a travel when
he sees one, but no one from the 8's has come out and said
that there were way too many travel calls.
Based on the evidence (annecdotal and the ratings from those
surveys), giving the observers the power to call travels is
a relief to the players and makes the game more fair.
-Tim
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Colin
For me, the issue here is whether the teams going to Nationals choose
to have active travels or not at Nationals. Helping players improve
is a laudable goal, but not my primary concern in this setting.
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~
> Like I said in the other thread, I was looking for travels all weekend
> at Tally Classic and only made 4 calls.
--somethin' down here...
~~~~~~~~~~
I also didn't once have the
> "man, I could've called a travel there" feeling.
---whoa....nice work.
~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally, I was
> also thrilled at how well the abolishment of the ground tap worked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---yeah.....that's it.
the abolishment of the ground tap worked well.
most useless TRY at a rule ever...ever.
abolish it...get it off the books.
it IS a travel if the thrower has initiated the throwing motion prior
to establishing a pivot at the proper spot.
keep that disc in front of you before stepping on the spot!
thefan
> For me, the issue here is whether the teams going to Nationals choose
> to have active travels or not at Nationals. Helping players improve
>
well, when is the vote? cause if it's before the last regional "go
to" game has been played, well, then we don't know who is going to
nationals. i mean, we have a pretty good idea, but we don't KNOW.
remember last year when Florida shocked everyone by not qualifying for
nationals as the #1 team in the country? i do. and that means that
right now, somewhere in this nation, maybe even NorthEastern Central
Florida State University Collge is a team that you want to eliminate
from having this decision. now wether or not nationals, this year,
uses active travel calls or not will only affect the teams at
nationals this year. but since it is the UPA (or at least is supposed
to be) then the decision really lies in the hands of every college
ultimate player who plans on competing in the series.
Reggie Fanelli
> of understanding. I don't know about Toad. Are you honestly
> confused?
>
> I think the downside of having extra stoppages is generally not
> counterbalanced by any benefit produced by having extra little travels
> (and an occasional big one) called by the observers. There simply is
> not that much significant traveling going on to need watching. So in
> most games, having active travels is a detriment, in my view. That's
> why to "not just do it all the time."
>
> In cheater games and games with traveling throwers, active travels
> have a more obvious benefit. But I think the cheaters can easily be
> addressed with TMFs. And I'm not seeing all that many traveling
> throwers among the top-level competition. If your B-team truly has 7
> players on every line that cannot hold a pivot, as a player in that
> game, I would probably prefer to just play the game, rather than
> stopping play after every single pass.
>
> In summary, having active travels is not worth the extra stoppages in
> most games. Address the cheaters with TMFs. If there aren't tons of
> throwers traveling significantly on Nationals-bound teams, then what
> 25 teams at the Tally Classic did has little bearing on whether to
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....no....i get it now.
as clear as an unmuddied lake.
YOU are wrong about this....and have a view point that is lame.
you should just change your mind.
call the travels.
every one of 'em.
as someone...and myself have written....the players will adjust.
they seem to like it at our events.
i'm not just taking a guess that extra stoppages for either more or
less travel calls by the observer will balance out against all the
horrible travel calls that get made that you're going to give a TMF
for.
Reggie Fanelli
> would you and so many others think that it's okay to break the rules
> just a little. or if you don't "gain an advantage"? why cant you
> just play by the rules the way they are written down in that little
> book that every single one of us has access to?
---i mean...someone wrote that book.
someone invented the rules and took the time to write them down.
who are we to ignore THEIR efforts and time....by advocating NOT
playing by the rules.
think of them sometime....when you're picking and choosing which one
of their rules your ignoring....
personally...i'm gonna show them my respect...
Reggie Fanelli
> they see fit.
---yuck.
i prefer the game being WAY better BECAUSE the observers are calling
travels.
Reggie Fanelli
> rule, so he simply does not enforce it.
---whoa fella.
if you come and watch....i personally....do that damned goodidy assed
ground tap when i play.
so....calling me a rule bender is pretty off base, there fella.
i simply don't enforce it, at UOA events, because it ain't in our
rules.
we're counting the stall, and we're starting it when we should, and
we're calling travel if the thrower has initiated the throwing motion
prior to establishing a pivot foot.
sooooo.....guess again.
Heinousboy
> My point was very clear. Mike, as usual, is being intentionally slow
> of understanding. I don't know about Toad. Are you honestly
> confused?
>
We aren't confused, we just think your idea is stupid.
Reggie Fanelli
> rule, so he simply does not enforce it.
----i mentioned a moment ago, the ground tap not being in the uoa
rules......
when i am observing under upa rules in the series, i of course, uphold
any travel/violation calls when a thrower does not tap the disc
according to rule.
however, more often than not, i just smile and put my hands up in the
air when, for the 73rd time in a row at a upa event, the thrower
doesn't tap the disc in and the marker doesn't call that goofy useless
violation.....
stop mentioning that.......it is not good as support for your lame
views.
Reggie Fanelli
> helping players decide what kind of style of travel-calling they
> like. If they want every travel to get called, then they should
> probably vote for active travels as is. If they as players choose not
> to call some travels, then they may not want to vote for it or may
> want to urge the UPA to adopt a different standard. The important
> thing is that the players consider this issue carefully and make an
> informed decision. That is what I am trying to help with. I think
> some others are less concerned with this and more concerned with
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---JUST SAY IT!!!
you are going to be an observer at nationals and you're scared to call
travels.
for god sakes....it'll be OK!!
Reggie Fanelli
--WHO IS THIS GUY????
i love this guy.
Reggie Fanelli
> to have active travels or not at Nationals. Helping players improve
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---yo...i'm just tryin' to say.........
.....is....that all those teams who think they have a shot at going to
nationals....any year...this year...next year....the following
year......
........ya'll should ALL be coming to one of the UOA 8s Tournaments
and trying out our style of observing.
you'd love it.
you'd be voting for active travels....and you'd be demanding the
entire UOA crew be the bulk of the UPA Nationals Observer crew.
come on ya'll!!!!!
start making plans to attend!
3Jane.
We? Are you including Toad in the not confused group?
Mitch Sanford
violations?
did the thrower travel?...did the thrower approach the
proper spot
with the disc waaay back behind them getting ready to huck
before they
set a pivot?
that ground tap is a horrible rule....abolish it...don't
encourage it!
To me, this sounds like you encouraging an observer not to
enforce the rules being used by the tournament he was
observing at.
While you say that you do enforce the ground tap when
calling games with that in the rules, and respond to the
accusation of bending rules by saying that ground tap is not
in your UOA rules (both of which I take to be true), neither
of those excuse you suggesting an observer not enforce the
rules, which you also claim to be all for. The decision
about whether or not ground taps are in the rules is not the
choice of the observer.
Reggie Fanelli
> enforce the rules being used by the tournament he was
> observing at.
> While you say that you do enforce the ground tap when
> calling games with that in the rules, and respond to the
> accusation of bending rules by saying that ground tap is not
> in your UOA rules (both of which I take to be true), neither
> of those excuse you suggesting an observer not enforce the
> rules, which you also claim to be all for. The decision
> about whether or not ground taps are in the rules is not the
> choice of the observer.
---read up.
Bobus
> ---read up.
So I did. Mike said:
> when i am observing under upa rules in the series, i of course, uphold
> any travel/violation calls when a thrower does not tap the disc
> according to rule.
But, when Colin said that he made that call at a UPA sanctioned event,
Mike said:
> why in the world would you call 'no ground tap' violations?
> did the thrower travel?...did the thrower approach the proper spot
> with the disc waaay back behind them getting ready to huck before they
> set a pivot?
> that ground tap is a horrible rule....abolish it...don't encourage it!
That implies to me that Mike would NOT have been making that call at a
UPA-sanctioned event with active travel calls, which constitutes
downright willful negligence of tournament rules - something he claims
the UOA would never do. Hmmm....
Reggie Fanelli
> UPA-sanctioned event with active travel calls, which constitutes
> downright willful negligence of tournament rules - something he claims
> the UOA would never do. Hmmm....
--you're mixing things up.
Reggie Fanelli
> UPA-sanctioned event with active travel calls, which constitutes
> downright willful negligence of tournament rules - something he claims
> the UOA would never do. Hmmm....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--see...i've never worked a UPA game with active travel calls.
as stated a million times prior.....the rules of a given event are the
rules that i would call a game by.
Bobus
But Colin did and you so much as told him not to make those calls
remember:
> why in the world would you call 'no ground tap' violations?
> that ground tap is a horrible rule....abolish it...don't encourage it!
Just so we're not "mixing things up", you're now changing your tune
and saying that you *would* make those calls in accordance with
tournament rules, in the same way that Colin did. Well that clears
things up thanks.
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--yeah, you're right.
i would NEVER call a missed ground tap.
abolish that dumb rule!
Bobus
> i would NEVER call a missed ground tap.
We're gonna have to strip you of your best observer in the world title
Mike! ;-)
Reggie Fanelli
> and saying that you *would* make those calls in accordance with
> tournament rules, in the same way that Colin did. Well that clears
> things up thanks.
--i would never slow the game down by calling such a senseless useless
and wastefull violation.
the observer's job is to keep the game moving along in a speedy
manner....not for calling violations of rules that shouldn't exist.
when the players call it every time.....and when the players throw
their support behind the ground tap by DOING it and by CALLING it
every time on their own...is when i'll consider calling it.
however, until then....while NO ONE CARES about it or plays by
it....i'll just keep that part of the game in the hands of the players
and call the game accordingly.
ulticritic
The decision
> about whether or not ground taps are in the rules is not the
> choice of the observer.
if that observer is also the td it sure as hell is. it wasnt rosa
parks' "choice" to sit in the front of the bus but look what happened
when she made that "choice" anyways.......aside from "whitey" maken
that "choice" for her. point is, some rules are just so stupid that
the only real way to change them is to overtly disobey them.
Reggie Fanelli
> We're gonna have to strip you of your best observer in the world title
> Mike! ;-)
--guess again...........
Bobus
I'm not guessing. You admitted you would NEVER call a missed ground
tap in a UPA-sanctioned tournament with active travel calls.
Sorry, but the best doesn't blow those calls... stripped!
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--i bet you'd like to....you little vixon