CHC
tim hopp
semis were ECU over Machine 11-10
and Madison over Madcow 12-11
The showcase game was refereed, and kind of boring. Mostly
just offsides and travel calls. The flow of the game was
surprisingly smooth though.
--
www.rigmodisc.com
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Naji
the refs help at all?
Sounds like a great tourney and perfect pre-sectionals tourney. Lots
of close games for many teams.
colinmcintyre
offsides calls. Only the most egregious of downfield and
marking fouls got called. I think anyone who played in the
game can agree that there was a ton of downfield grabbing
and pushing that went uncalled, as well as some obvious
marking fouls.
I think the game itself was boring to watch because it was
sloppy with bad offense and minimal defense (with a few
notable exceptions). A better future experiment would be a
game between two high-level rival teams (madison vs.
machine?), with a little more advance organization in terms
of the referee system. This was a pickup game with
individual players of various skill levels from 30 different
teams or so.
I appreciate the effort to experiment with this. I would
not say this experiment is an indication that a referee
system is bad, simply because the game was boring. I do
think having 6 referees would be better and allow more of
the downfield cheating to get called.
-Colin
Matt
relatively unproductive experiment. The main reasons: the
refs focused heavily on travels and offsides, and the teams
were not playing high-level ultimate.
The refs called a lot of travels. The lesson: players
travel a lot more than is called in most games. I
personally got called for 3 or 4 in this game, and never got
called for a travel the rest of the weekend. Playing with
refs that are attentive to travels should lead over time to
players traveling less. But it didn't happen within this
game, and that really slowed things down.
The refs paid very little attention to contact away from the
disc. I and several other players actively tried to push
the boundaries of allowable contact, and we never got called
for it. I switched from watching my man on D to
hand-checking or holding him with one arm so that I could
survey the field; still no calls. Fouls on marks and
receptions were more likely to be called, but still at a
lower rate than in a typical open game. I think this was
because the refs were trained observers, who are used to
watching for calls that are contentious in the current
self-called game. The kind of off-disc fouls we were
playing around with would rarely happen in a normal game
(because they'd almost always be called), so observers
aren't used to watching for them.
Early on, the flow of the game was good, but it degenerated
into bad hammers and stupid hucks. Most folks were
uninterested in playing defense. Experimental games where
the results matter (in the context of the tournament, or
public opinion) are way more productive.
Still, it was pretty nice not having to think about calls -
just play until the whistle blows. I think the big changes
I would make for future experiments are (1) focus a bit less
on travels, for the sake of the experiment, and (2) focus
more on the kinds of "can I get away with it" violations,
like contact away from the disc, bumping on the mark, etc.
colinmcintyre
help. I do not think "attempt to call every single travel"
is a good standard. And I do not think anyone can reliably
call a movement of the foot of less than an inch or two with
the release on a fast pivot and release. At least, that's
the conclusion I reached after reviewing hundreds of video
clips of potential travels by several different throwers
from 3 camera angles in slow motion and frame-by-frame. I
was interested in determining what actually is or is not a
travel, based on objective proof. Others may have different
views and experiences, though.
Rather than guessing on these and being wrong 1/2 the time,
with the consequence of bringing back a legal throw, I think
the refs should forego calling these minor (<2")travels at
all, with the effect of being right 1/2 the time and
allowing minor travels with minor impact on the game to go
uncalled 1/2 the time. Minor movements of the pivot during
the course of play are sloppy and avoidable and probably
would get cleaned up if they were called. I do not
particularly care to see those calls made, but I could be
convinced either way.
One odd thing about the game was the whistles were really
hard to hear in a very slight breeze and play often did not
stop quickly. Maybe just a product of crappy whistles.
Also no misconduct system was mentioned and obvious,
intentional infractions went unpunished.
-Colin
ulticritic
>
> The showcase game was refereed, and kind of boring. Mostly
> just offsides and travel calls. The flow of the game was
> surprisingly smooth though.
dont ya mean UNsurprisingly smooth........cause, ya see, THATS what
refs bring to the table. just like NOT having refs makes tthe game
UNsurprisingly NOT smooth.
ulticritic
> The 4 refs had very little impact, aside from travel and
> offsides calls.
how about restarting play quicker......or communicating th the fans
what calls were
----------------------------------------------
Only the most egregious of downfield and
> marking fouls got called.
which can often NOT be the case when players get into there tit for
tat calls
--------------------------------------------------
I think anyone who played in the
> game can agree that there was a ton of downfield grabbing
> and pushing that went uncalled, as well as some obvious
> marking fouls.
so the refs were "lettin em play" eh?
--------------------------------------------
>
> I think the game itself was boring to watch because it was
> sloppy with bad offense and minimal defense (with a few
> notable exceptions). A better future experiment would be a
> game between two high-level rival teams (madison vs.
> machine?),
who DID play? i thought "showcased" games were supposed to be with
two contenders????
----------------------------------------
with a little more advance organization in terms
> of the referee system. This was a pickup game with
> individual players of various skill levels from 30 different
> teams or so.
yea, sounds stupid to use refs in a meaningless pickup
game.......especially with all the other games sitting right there.
------------------------------------------
>
> I appreciate the effort to experiment with this.
to bad usau isnt interested in bein "appreciated" as such.
-----------------------------------------------
I would
> not say this experiment is an indication that a referee
> system is bad, simply because the game was boring. I do
> think having 6 referees would be better and allow more of
> the downfield cheating to get called.
hook it up then
ulticritic
can anyone tell me why the governing body of this sport wouldnt be on
the forefront of such experimentations........they are, after all, the
GOVERNING BODY OF THE SPORT!!!!!
IS IT JUST ME OR ARE THEY EXTREEMLY LAME FOR NOT LEADING THE WAY IN
REFEREE EXPERIMENTATION??????
colinmcintyre
> On Sep 13, 9:20 pm, colinmcintyre
> > The 4 refs had very little impact, aside from travel
> > and
> > offsides calls.
>
>
> how about restarting play quicker......or communicating
> th the fans
> what calls were
> ----------------------------------------------
Nope.
ulticritic wrote on Tue, 14 September 2010 08:02
> > I think anyone who played in the
> > game can agree that there was a ton of downfield
> > grabbing
> > and pushing that went uncalled, as well as some
> > obvious
> > marking fouls.
>
> so the refs were "lettin em play" eh?
> --------------------------------------------
"lettin them cheat" yes.
ulticritic wrote on Tue, 14 September 2010 08:02
> > I appreciate the effort to experiment with this.
>
> to bad usau isnt interested in bein "appreciated" as
> such.
> -----------------------------------------------
Investing in experimentation for a system that doesn't work
well with fewer than 6 officials per game does not make
sense right now. There's plenty of work to be done to
improve the observer system. Put the resources towards
that. Push to dramatically increase the pool of qualified,
certified officials. Give the officials a more powerful
role. Then once you might feasibly be able to implement a
referee system, even on a small scale, consider
experimenting with it.
ulticritic wrote on Tue, 14 September 2010 08:02
> > I would
> > not say this experiment is an indication that a
> > referee
> > system is bad, simply because the game was boring.
> > I do
> > think having 6 referees would be better and allow
> > more of
> > the downfield cheating to get called.
>
> hook it up then
This isn't my primary area of interest. If something's
happening, I'm happy to contribute somehow (playing or
officiating), but I think there are better uses of my time
than organizing such an event. Nonetheless, you may recall
that I offered to come down and ref when you were talking
about holding an event a couple years ago.
George Zimmerman
What a great forum for ultimate players to come together and
discuss new ideas and the latest tournaments.
Nowadays, everytime theres a great thread with healthy
discussion about our sport (like this one) ulticritic and
agerics20 come in and post these stupidly long verbose
responses that no one wants to read, and the discussion just
dies.
I have them ignored, which helps in that I don't have to
read their posts, but that doesn't change the fact that good
discussions are killed by them all the time.
I guess you guys are trying to change the game, but really
you're just ruining RSD.