I completely agree that adding refs will lead to "whatever you can get away with", and also to "flopping". I also agree with others who say, purely self-officiated is unworkable because of the inevitable unresolvable disagreement, not to mention that self-officiated is a system too, just like refereed is a system, and there are many people out there who will game the system, whatever the system is.
Observers is an attempt to have the best of both worlds, or to avoid the worst of each world. Observers should be given a good chance to succeed or fail in practice. -- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Ok that was rediculous. But where the hell was the ref? She should have gotten about 5 Red cards there? She shoulda been gone after the first dangerous from behind tackle. Whoever that ref was needs to be fired.
> (of Course Todd will tell you that this is what the fans want..)
are you talking about c c c c cat fights???? actually what todd will tell you is this is why you dont emulate soccers 1 ref system to cover a field that big. so in this case as well, it was the officiating standard of soccer in general that enables this.
On Nov 6, 4:34 pm, John <hornedsph...@yahoo.com> wrote: .
> Observers is an attempt to have the best of both worlds
actually it was an attempt to save money and effort(realistically speaking...........or it was an attempt to save the world (idealistically speaking). what you deem to be "the best of both worlds" is just a byproduct of that apathy. -------------------------------------------------------------------
, or
> to avoid the worst of each world. Observers should be given > a good chance to succeed or fail in practice.
> > to avoid the worst of each world. Observers should be given > > a good chance to succeed or fail in practice.
> why shouldnt refs get a fair chance as well?
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read every post you've made on the ref topic. Given the speed of the game, and the myopic focus it takes to reel in a tricky disc, that 100% self officiated play is unrealistic.
However, you seem to be rather fervent about this, so I've got to ask: besides posting on RSD, what have you done to make ref's happen? Have you put together prototype training manuals for refs, covering the ways in which they'll interact with the game and what powers they'll be granted? Have you made proposals for how many there will be, what their division of labor will be, who will have decision authority between conflicting refs, what role video playback might have in dispute resolution? Have you run the numbers on referee training? How long it will take to train a ref, how many ref's per game, how many crews you'll need to complete a college/club series? How much will this training cost, what equipment will a ref need, how much will they be paid to ref a game, how will seniority/skill be factored into pay? Have you put any thoughts down regarding how changes to this system will be administered if refs are adopted? What role will refs have in rules changes? Who will oversee changes in regulations for on- field ref behavior? Have you put any of this into practice, organizing a tournament (even a small, informal local one) that uses refs to provide some tangible support for all this? Assuming you put together a few tournaments and it yields all the magnificent results you hope refs will bring to the sport, how do you extrapolate that model across the US/internationally?
Again, I'm all for experimentation with refs, and think that a ref- esque figure might clean up the sport and bring it a fair measure of legitimacy. But at least go as far as Frank did, and provide a well thought out solution.
> (of Course Todd will tell you that this is what the fans want..)
This is a reply to the original post;
Your argument is flawed on two accounts: 1 One of the things Toad proposes could be a result of adding refs to the sport of ultimate is that it will be more popular and make TV. well, there you have it. everyone, everyone is talking tonight about two mediocre teams in the mountain west or Pac 10 conference that will not scare the sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. that means they wouldn't make nationals. everyone is talking about these two mediocre teams, they're on ESPN. last weekend 3 teams won a national championship. No one cares. Fury won their 37th national title in a row. one of the greatest dynasty's in team sports, no one gives a rats ass. Chain won the first national title of their history and the first from the south region. Who gives a shit? Axis didn't even make nationals last year. That could be a story if anyone gave a flying fuk about ultimate. so, yeah. if you add refs you get popularity and television coverage. Shit, if somebody pulled that shit at nationals this year there wouldn't even be video coverage to show anyone.
2. That is probably the dirtiest, most cheating ass highlight reel ever put together by any one athlete in the history of sports. not one, or two cheating ass, dirty plays, but 6! 6 that they showed or caught on camera. and no one buys the argument that if you add refs, all of the sudden people are going to start cheating. cheaters cheat and those that don't cheat don't. the difference between with and without refs is that right now, they are cheating you and it's within the rules and there is nothing you can do about it. Add some refs and at least you can hope that the official sees the cheating and does something about it.
Observers you say? good on you. a start. but when it comes down to it, an observer is a watered down ref. Quit futzing around and get on with it already. stop trying to be different. join the real sports world, buck up and get some ref action going. you're only fooling yourself. and the rest of the sports world would be laughing, if they had ever heard of ultimate.
> > (of Course Todd will tell you that this is what the fans want..)
> This is a reply to the original post;
> Your argument is flawed on two accounts: > 1 One of the things Toad proposes could be a result of adding refs to > the sport of ultimate is that it will be more popular and make TV. > well, there you have it. everyone, everyone is talking tonight about > two mediocre teams in the mountain west or Pac 10 conference that will > not scare the sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. that means they > wouldn't make nationals. everyone is talking about these two mediocre > teams, they're on ESPN. last weekend 3 teams won a national > championship. No one cares. Fury won their 37th national title in a > row. one of the greatest dynasty's in team sports, no one gives a > rats ass. Chain won the first national title of their history and the > first from the south region. Who gives a shit? Axis didn't even make > nationals last year. That could be a story if anyone gave a flying > fuk about ultimate. so, yeah. if you add refs you get popularity and > television coverage. Shit, if somebody pulled that shit at nationals > this year there wouldn't even be video coverage to show anyone.
Love it.
> 2. That is probably the dirtiest, most cheating ass highlight reel > ever put together by any one athlete in the history of sports. not > one, or two cheating ass, dirty plays, but 6! 6 that they showed or > caught on camera. and no one buys the argument that if you add refs, > all of the sudden people are going to start cheating.
There's 100000 more people playing other sports besides ultimate. That makes it 100000 times more likely that some crazy shit like this could happen at one of those events. And since almost all of these events have referees then this kind of thing needs to happen 100000 times more often outside of ultimate for there to be any corelation to the use of referees. I think we do have our head butt spit in other peoples face sideline clearing brawl in our past.
Is anyone out there really thinking, I can't wait till I play in a ref'd game so I can mark up behind the first long haired dude I match up with and yank him to the ground by his pony tail just to see if I can get away with it? And if you are please stop playing ultimate.
On Nov 6, 4:34 pm, John <hornedsph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I completely agree that adding refs will lead to "whatever > you can get away with", and also to "flopping".
this is the spirit zealot argument??????
for real??????
so if the incorporation of refs lead to this then how does a spirit zealot explain the fact that there are zillions of other sporting events with refs in which this kinda behavior DOSENT take place????? I think this was a very rare display of unsportsmanlike behavior (although it dosent surprise me that it took place in soccer as that sports arbitration system((one ref and all)) seems to enable that sort of play) and thats why they aired it.
I will take this moment to warn ultimate players NOT to adopt any of soccers reffing practices due to this though......like carding or having people out there qualified to observe be subjigated them to being just a "lines man"........OR not having enough to begin with........which lets face it......THATS what enabled that chick to go agro the way she did. as the announcers eluded to though.......THER WAS NO EXCUSE FOR THE REF NOT TO CATCH/SEE ANY OF THIS..........which is why they simply need more of them out there.......kinda a no brainer, eh?
either way.......john........this is about as piss poor of an argument you could come up with to show opposition for refs.
On Nov 6, 10:53 pm, James <quickfl...@gmail.com> wrote:.
> > > to avoid the worst of each world. Observers should be given > > > a good chance to succeed or fail in practice.
> > why shouldnt refs get a fair chance as well?
> I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read every post you've made > on the ref topic. Given the speed of the game, and the myopic focus > it takes to reel in a tricky disc, that 100% self officiated play is > unrealistic.
> However, you seem to be rather fervent about this, so I've got to ask: > besides posting on RSD, what have you done to make ref's happen?
if you dont know you better axs sombody -------------------------------------------------------
Have
> you put together prototype training manuals for refs, covering the > ways in which they'll interact with the game and what powers they'll > be granted?
or even just doing a serch here on rsd might answer these questions. ------------------------------------------------------------
Have you made proposals for how many there will be, what
> their division of labor will be, who will have decision authority > between conflicting refs, what role video playback might have in > dispute resolution?
dont make it more complicated than it has to be.......referee(ing) is as easy as one two three. seriously, youde be AMAZED at how much having fully active refs actually simplifies the whole rule enforcement process. ever herd of the term "streamline"?.....THATS what effect refs have on ultimate.......and any sport for that matter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
Have you run the numbers on referee training?
> How long it will take to train a ref, how many ref's per game, how > many crews you'll need to complete a college/club series? How much > will this training cost, what equipment will a ref need, how much will > they be paid to ref a game, how will seniority/skill be factored into > pay? Have you put any thoughts down regarding how changes to this > system will be administered if refs are adopted? What role will refs > have in rules changes? Who will oversee changes in regulations for on- > field ref behavior? Have you put any of this into practice, > organizing a tournament (even a small, informal local one) that uses > refs to provide some tangible support for all this? Assuming you put > together a few tournaments and it yields all the magnificent results > you hope refs will bring to the sport, how do you extrapolate that > model across the US/internationally?
dude......again, dont over think the whole thing. Having refs in sports is as normal as the day is long. All these questions are easily answered and delt with once we decde as a membership organization the accept and adapt to the sport being reffed. It aint brain surgery thats for sure. And many of these questions would/could be easily answerewd simply by reasearching how other sports facilitate this service demand.
I mean, are people that play and organize other sports SMARTER than the people that play and organize ultimate? They seem more than capable enough to pull it(reffing) off. Are you suggesting that ultimate people just arent that smart? if so, you might be onto somthing. whats that saying again......"stupid is as stupid does (or dosent)". if so fat so.......you seem to be saying that ultimate people are just too stupid to pull it off. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Again, I'm all for experimentation with refs, and think that a ref- > esque figure might clean up the sport and bring it a fair measure of > legitimacy. But at least go as far as Frank did, and provide a well > thought out solution.
the incorporation of refs IS the well thought out solution. Its just that the lack of ref incorporation is whats got the sport where it is today. all the other stuff is just time, money and effort. So if its just the case that you people arent willing to afford any extra time moiney or effort to make the transition and see this thing through then thats a different story
What about giving the observers more calling power. Allow the players to continue to "self officiate", but let the observer call what they see. Let the players make the final call if there was a foul. If they cant agree than the observers call stays. If you go to an all ref system you take away a lot of what ultimate is about. You lose a lot of the spirit aspect.
How many times have you watched a game on tv where the ref mademade a bad call. Even the replay shows their mistake. I would rather take a shitty call from my opponent than some person that thought they saw something. -- Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
On Nov 12, 12:16 pm, Grant <eschman...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What about giving the observers more calling power. Allow > the players to continue to "self officiate", but let the > observer call what they see. Let the players make the final > call if there was a foul. If they cant agree than the > observers call stays. If you go to an all ref system you > take away a lot of what ultimate is about. You lose a lot > of the spirit aspect.
FIRST OFF....me thinks ther is a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG difference in what you people think ultimate is SUPPOSED to be IDEALY about and what its REALLY about (which is people being too cheap and lazy to facilitate the service of 3rd party arb.) and DISPLAY UNSPIRITED BEHAVIOR FAIRLY REGULARLY
SECONDLY.....if you people REALLY wanted to test and tout you spiritual superiority youde get refs to call EVERYTHING and let players take back or change calls when the refs got it wrong.......AS STEVE PETERSON SO GEINUSLY SUGGESTED MANY THREADS AGO --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
> How many times have you watched a game on tv where the ref > mademade a bad call. Even the replay shows their mistake. I > would rather take a shitty call from my opponent than some > person that thought they saw something.
see now, i find that a person that has bought into, and play by, an honor system being intentionally DIShonorable("shitty calls" and whatnot) to be MUCH MORE deplorable, appauling and unappealing.
On Nov 12, 12:16 pm, Grant <eschman...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What about giving the observers more calling power. Allow > the players to continue to "self officiate", but let the > observer call what they see. Let the players make the final > call if there was a foul. If they cant agree than the > observers call stays. If you go to an all ref system you > take away a lot of what ultimate is about. You lose a lot > of the spirit aspect.
> How many times have you watched a game on tv where the ref > mademade a bad call. Even the replay shows their mistake. I > would rather take a shitty call from my opponent than some > person that thought they saw something. > -- > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
So you prefer that shitty calls come at crucial points in the game, as often as an opponent sees fit and directly related to attempting to gain an advantage for one team versus randomly, as infrequently as possible and without bias towards either team? That seems ridiculous
---i didn't click, of course, is this the girl soccer player pulling hair and punching and tripping out of control?
if so....i would have punched that bitch in the side of the head and knocked her ass out the VERY FIRST time she tried any of that shit on me.....and no ref would have seen it....and that would have been that. no highlights of her at all. same for any dude that tried it.
> ---i didn't click, of course, is this the girl soccer player pulling > hair and punching and tripping out of control?
> if so....i would have punched that bitch in the side of the head and > knocked her ass out the VERY FIRST time she tried any of that shit on > me.....and no ref would have seen it....and that would have been > that. no highlights of her at all. > same for any dude that tried it.
> ---i didn't click, of course, is this the girl soccer player pulling > hair and punching and tripping out of control?
you really should........this bitch is crazed. in fact, it was surprising to me that she didnt fully comprehand the level of he unsportsmanship. I guess these are the kind of thing that happen to otherwise good natured people when they compete in sports........and probably the reason that refs were invented. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> if so....i would have punched that bitch in the side of the head and > knocked her ass out the VERY FIRST time she tried any of that shit on > me.....and no ref would have seen it....and that would have been > that.
yet another reason why soccer could use an extra ref on the field........too easy to get away with cheap plays.....whether initiated or retalitory. but this is the case with any sport really. One can get away with ANYTHING the ref dosent see.......and even in ultimate it would be quite hard for a player ref to make a call on someone when he is "knocked out".
i think we were all wondering how no ref or linesman saw even one of this crazed bitches cheap plays. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
no highlights of her at all.
> same for any dude that tried it.
yea, but the highlight would have been of you then.......and soccer would still have a flawed ref system.
I think a big reason so much of her shenanigans weren't called was that there was one (or few, as I haven't seen any actual reporting on the ref himself) marginally-skilled referee at this game. If this were an international game she would have been red carded about 5 times. To those claiming that having one ref is a problem, what say you to this: wouldn't the game have been better officiated if there were a system where each player had the ability to police each other? Having 14 "refs" (or 22, if we're still talking about soccer) with sufficient checks and balances would have seen all of these infractions and taken action. Second, I haven't yet heard the point brought up that this is a Women's Soccer game in a low-level conference. They wouldn't throw their money away hiring 5 refs/ linesmen for this meaningless game (they didn't - empirical evidence of market forces at work), so why would you assume that the overall unpopular sport of Ultimate would spend more on the same?
>SECONDLY.....if you people REALLY wanted to test and tout you >spiritual superiority youde get refs to call EVERYTHING and let >players take back or change calls when the refs got it wrong.......AS >STEVE PETERSON SO GEINUSLY SUGGESTED MANY THREADS AGO '
this sounds like a terrible idea...if players are going to overrule the refs why bring the refs at all? __________________________________________
>Your argument is flawed on two accounts: >1 One of the things Toad proposes could be a result of adding refs to >the sport of ultimate is that it will be more popular and make TV. >well, there you have it. everyone, everyone is talking tonight about >two mediocre teams in the mountain west or Pac 10 conference that will >not scare the sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. that means they >wouldn't make nationals. everyone is talking about these two mediocre >teams, they're on ESPN. last weekend 3 teams won a national >championship. No one cares. Fury won their 37th national title in a >row. one of the greatest dynasty's in team sports, no one gives a >rats ass. Chain won the first national title of their history and the >first from the south region. Who gives a shit? Axis didn't even make >nationals last year. That could be a story if anyone gave a flying >fuk about ultimate. so, yeah. if you add refs you get popularity and >television coverage. Shit, if somebody pulled that shit at nationals >this year there wouldn't even be video coverage to show anyone.
I'm all for experimentation and continuing the great debate about player control and refs and observers and refzervers, but cmon...your statement is full of non-sequiturs and gaps in reasoning. Toad says adding refs will make ulti popular. That's cool, and IMO there are a lot of other factors that adding or not adding refs will eventually have greater effect, but I don't need to debunk this thread. Refs didn't make this particular incident popular. The violence and blatant lack of sportsmanship (and the catfights) made this story popular.
Everyone knows what Soccer is. Not everyone knows what Ulti is - so at this point, any publicity is good publicity. "if you add refs then you get popularity and television coverage" doesn't follow. There are a LOT of steps missing between the if and the then...and I hope one of them isn't "people will start hitting and fouling each other and we'll get a viral video on ESPN".
This all sounds like great stuff Max. Why don't you call up the NCAA and explain how self officiating will solve their problems and prevent this from ever happening again. I'm sure they're ready to change their system and all the women who play college soccer probably hate having a ref in the games they play.
Oh, and the idea of allowing players to overrule a refs call (which was my idea Toad I don't know where you got Steve Peterson) only applies if the ruling is in your favor. In other words you can call yourself out if the ref ruled you were in but you can't rule yourself in if the ref ruled you were out. And you could rule your opponent in if the ref ruled he was out but not vice verse. Seems way more spirited than the current system where people pretty much only make calls that go in their favor. Not much spirit..gag..sportsmanship there.
On Nov 13, 6:51 pm, Max <liebermanm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a big reason so much of her shenanigans weren't called was > that there was one (or few, as I haven't seen any actual reporting on > the ref himself) marginally-skilled referee at this game. If this > were an international game she would have been red carded about 5 > times. To those claiming that having one ref is a problem, what say > you to this: wouldn't the game have been better officiated if there > were a system where each player had the ability to police each other? > Having 14 "refs" (or 22, if we're still talking about soccer) with > sufficient checks and balances would have seen all of these > infractions and taken action. Second, I haven't yet heard the point > brought up that this is a Women's Soccer game in a low-level > conference. They wouldn't throw their money away hiring 5 refs/ > linesmen for this meaningless game (they didn't - empirical evidence > of market forces at work), so why would you assume that the overall > unpopular sport of Ultimate would spend more on the same?
> >SECONDLY.....if you people REALLY wanted to test and tout you > >spiritual superiority youde get refs to call EVERYTHING and let > >players take back or change calls when the refs got it wrong.......AS > >STEVE PETERSON SO GEINUSLY SUGGESTED MANY THREADS AGO '
> this sounds like a terrible idea...if players are going to overrule > the refs why bring the refs at all? > __________________________________________
> >Your argument is flawed on two accounts: > >1 One of the things Toad proposes could be a result of adding refs to > >the sport of ultimate is that it will be more popular and make TV. > >well, there you have it. everyone, everyone is talking tonight about > >two mediocre teams in the mountain west or Pac 10 conference that will > >not scare the sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. that means they > >wouldn't make nationals. everyone is talking about these two mediocre > >teams, they're on ESPN. last weekend 3 teams won a national > >championship. No one cares. Fury won their 37th national title in a > >row. one of the greatest dynasty's in team sports, no one gives a > >rats ass. Chain won the first national title of their history and the > >first from the south region. Who gives a shit? Axis didn't even make > >nationals last year. That could be a story if anyone gave a flying > >fuk about ultimate. so, yeah. if you add refs you get popularity and > >television coverage. Shit, if somebody pulled that shit at nationals > >this year there wouldn't even be video coverage to show anyone.
> I'm all for experimentation and continuing the great debate about > player control and refs and observers and refzervers, but cmon...your > statement is full of non-sequiturs and gaps in reasoning. Toad says > adding refs will make ulti popular. That's cool, and IMO there are a > lot of other factors that adding or not adding refs will eventually > have greater effect, but I don't need to debunk this thread. Refs > didn't make this particular incident popular. The violence and > blatant lack of sportsmanship (and the catfights) made this story > popular.
> Everyone knows what Soccer is. Not everyone knows what Ulti is - so > at this point, any publicity is good publicity. "if you add refs then > you get popularity and television coverage" doesn't follow. There are > a LOT of steps missing between the if and the then...and I hope one of > them isn't "people will start hitting and fouling each other and we'll > get a viral video on ESPN".
On Nov 13, 1:27 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This all sounds like great stuff Max. Why don't you call up the NCAA > and explain how self officiating will solve their problems and prevent > this from ever happening again. I'm sure they're ready to change > their system and all the women who play college soccer probably hate > having a ref in the games they play.
I'm not saying that they should abolish the arbiter, I'm just directly responding to the point that there aren't enough eyes on the field to handle all the infractions going on. There ARE enough eyes, but under the current system they don't have the power to do anything about it.
> Oh, and the idea of allowing players to overrule a refs call (which > was my idea Toad I don't know where you got Steve Peterson) only > applies if the ruling is in your favor. In other words you can call > yourself out if the ref ruled you were in but you can't rule yourself > in if the ref ruled you were out. And you could rule your opponent in > if the ref ruled he was out but not vice verse. Seems way more > spirited than the current system where people pretty much only make > calls that go in their favor. Not much spirit..gag..sportsmanship > there.
Thanks for clearing that up - that sounds acceptable to me.
|
