Re: One great thing about ultimate
ckerr4
> Ultimate players, I know this is hard to hear, but
> believe it's true. You are not any better people than the
> players of any other sport. There are as many cheaters
> and dishonest people among you as there are in any sport
> and the sooner you realize this, the better off the sport
> will be.
No one is claiming any specialness for ultimate players.
It's about expectations for the players.
It's the 2020 National Championships, score tied, capped
game, next goal wins. Just to be totally black and white,
here's the scenario: throw in the end zone, player (let's
call him Clark #8) lays out for the catch, hand stretched
out, 50,000 fans in the stands, 12 cameras, audience of
millions on Justin.TV...
Did he catch it, or did it hit the ground? It's #8's call.
Basically the same deal Henry could have been facing. Game
is on the line. Either it's a catch, game over, or we play
on.
As a spectator, I really want to see this. In a second I'm
going to see it all in super slow-motion, but how's Clark
going to call this?
I watch Ronaldo play soccer and I feel like I kind of know
his personality. By the way he takes on players, looks over
a dead ball, you get a feeling of his arrogance and as a fan
I might (or might not) identify with him personally.
You give me Ronaldo under the pressure of making a call,
watching his brief interactions with other players, and I'm
going to feel like he's a member of my family. Maybe my
favorite younger brother. Or maybe not.
I watch #8 get up. If he calls it down I'm impressed. If he
calls it up (which I can tell it wasn't and super slow-mo is
about to confirm), as I fan I'm going to really learn
something about old #8. I'm going to learn, cause it's his
call, not a referees, that #8 is a cheat.
Charles
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
weston
i love it. we are on the same page.
Heinousboy
This is a great post showing the personality of the person who finds
SOTG soooo important. If you are wondering why the UPA has such a
negative position regarding referees read this post.
Heinousboy
Now you want to make this a reality, here's what you'll have to do.
First you establish a real, serious league fully officiated that
carries an air of legitimacy. Get it on TV with copious advertising
and turn the players in the league into celebrities.
Then you can have an annual no ref allstar game where players are just
out having fun. Fans will still watch cause they won't care who wins
and they might not change the channel during the ulti-debating because
they actually care who the players are and how they act. You can even
have the announcers poke fun at old school ultimate saying that it's
how ultimate used to be played all the time.
Legitimate league first, refless chaotic allstar game second.
ckerr4
Thierry Henry is an insincere cheat who has tarnished his
reputation for good
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6922619.ece
In soccer, Henry's taking the goal. In ultimate he won't.
Same guy, different expectations. Different canvas.
It's important and it's something will help us build the
sport.
With good Observers, running a good system, the speed of
play is very similar to refs. No spectator is going to
complain about the speed of play and think "if only they had
refs." It's not an issue.
Don't compare referees with a non-Observed game with
argument breaks -- that's a straw-man argument. Compare
referees with something like the ACC Championship games and
those Observers. The difference in speed of play between
full referees and Observers would be minuscule.
Your dream of "First you establish a real, serious league
fully officiated that carries an air of legitimacy. Get it
on TV with copious advertising..."
..is going to take energy, creativity, and marketing
smarts. Whether the sport has Observers or referees will
have little to nothing to do with it. But I like our chances
going down the Observer route better.
Throw
"Cheating in all its guises is slowly killing football and if Henry
had held his hands up again and admitted to the referee that he had
handled the ball and the goal should not stand, he would have earned
the admiration of the entire sporting world. "
Hank & Co.
www.thisisultimate.com
Joshua
this is bringing the discussion to a higher level
Heinousboy
> With good Observers, running a good system, the speed of
> play is very similar to refs. No spectator is going to
> complain about the speed of play and think "if only they had
> refs." It's not an issue.
>
> Don't compare referees with a non-Observed game with
> argument breaks -- that's a straw-man argument. Compare
> referees with something like the ACC Championship games and
> those Observers. The difference in speed of play between
> full referees and Observers would be minuscule.
>
Not sure who or what this is a reply too, maybe a no spam post?
> Your dream of "First you establish a real, serious league
> fully officiated that carries an air of legitimacy. Get it
> on TV with copious advertising..."
>
> ..is going to take energy, creativity, and marketing
> smarts. Whether the sport has Observers or referees will
> have little to nothing to do with it. But I like our chances
> going down the Observer route better.
You may like your chances but there's this thing called reality that's
in your way. As you stated creating a marketable product featuring
ultimate is going to be a big investment of time and money. It'd it
be difficult enough to get investors to put up money for such an
unrecognized sport as ultimate now you're going to throw some kind of
experimental arbitration system on top of it. I think the sponsors
would rather go with tried and true methods first.
But you like observers better so go for it, humor me.
Heinousboy
> From that Times of London article:
>
> "Cheating in all its guises is slowly killing football and if Henry
> had held his hands up again and admitted to the referee that he had
> handled the ball and the goal should not stand, he would have earned
> the admiration of the entire sporting world. "
Sounds like the spirit of the game clause to me. Ultimate could have
it, if it had refs.
jermleeds
In other words:
"Ultimate could have thing it would need to mitigate the issues refs
would create if it only had the refs to create the issues in the first
place."
Ummmm...ok.
Heinousboy
So you're saying that ultimate could avoid the issues caused by
bringing refs into the game(at least the points the spirit zealots
like to bring up). I'm glad we agree. Did you have another point.
Did the UPA all of a sudden stop the bogus foul call, stop flow travel
call, continuous prevent the pivot mark, low stall count bump on
every catch problems it currently has?
jermleeds
No it hasn't, but there are solutions note short of implementing refs
for the problems you note- various combinations of Observers, TMFs,
and moderate rule changes to dis-incentivize those infractions. That
those solutions haven't been implemented yet is not evidence that they
don't exist. That those solutions are not yet in place, is not an
argument for bypassing them in favor of a solution with a much, much
larger footprint.
Heinousboy
>
> - Show quoted text -
The solutions exist but they are stigmatized by the dogma of
ultimate. But the SOTGC allows ultimate to have its cake and eat it
too.
Throw
Poor heinousboy.....always trying to live up to the moniker he chose.
Lance Marput
Jaws
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dude, adding refs will not suddenly make ultimate a marketable
product. Refs will not suddenly get ultimate on TV. You have no
evidence for this whatsoever.
Heinousboy
I know it won't be on TV without em. But I love listening to the
spirit zealots. I mean, Kerr's post about the stadium full of fans
all in anticipation of the players call. That's just comedic gold.
Maybe he's being facetious. I really can't tell. Please post some
more.
blueclark8
not any more perfect. But I'll take 90% correct calls that
are 100% fair over 90% correct calls that are 0% fair. The
thing that makes sports great is that they are fair.
Ultimate's rules are fair, but how they are enforced is not.
Cheaters benefit from cheating more in ultimate than in any
other sport. Diving, shirt tugging can already exist in
ultimate, except you don't actually have to dive. Just yell
the word foul, or travel, or pick and you've suddenly gained
an advantage. Amazing! You can tug the shirt all you want
too. When you get called, just say "contest." Or say "no
contest." Either way, you won't be penalized and you just
gained an advantage. Congrats, you just gamed the system!
Where's the moral ambiguity in soccer? They have refs and
we all know Henry cheated! There's no ambiguity there. He
cheated, he just didn't get caught. People cheat in
ultimate too. Sometimes they get caught, and sometimes they
don't. There's no penalties though so there's really no
difference between the two.
If it takes getting caught by an authority figure before you
admit to something, whether it's a player in ultimate or a
ref in soccer, then you're really not that "spirited" to
begin with, so what does it matter? If soccer were
self-officiated, but no one on the other team saw his
handball, do you think he'd be more likely to admit to it?
Fuck no! If the ref does see it, is he more likely to argue
the call than he would be to contest a call by a player-ref?
Fuck no! It's the same no matter what authority figure
makes the call. He cheated. If he gets caught by an
authority, he admits to it. Otherwise he doesn't. So your
basic argument boils down to being that 11 player-refs are
more likely to see a handball than a few refs are. Without
a doubt. They're also way more likely to make a bullshit
call that benefits them than a ref is. And when a ref makes
a bullshit call, at least it's not a biased bullshit call.
jacob
called, just say 'contest.' Or say 'no contest.' Either way, you
won't be penalized and you just gained an advantage. Congrats, you
just gamed the system!"
Yes that's true, but:
1) Would you agree that just as SOTG allows some to cheat, it also has
influenced others not to cheat, and maybe even influenced those who do
cheat to cheat less (like by only fouling on the mark, but not by
tripping opponents)?
2) If your answer to # 1 is yes; do you think the presence of refs
would reduce the phenomenon described in # 1?
3) If your answer to # 2 is yes, don't you think it's at least worth
considering whether the introduction of refs may in fact lead to more
net cheating?
4) If your answer to # 3 is yes, then (leaving aside the frustration
felt over each isolated incident of cheating) isn't the fact that
cheating in ultimate is less likely to be penalized than cheating in
other sports just one of many factors to consider when judging SOTG,
rather than the dominant factor?
Jaws
Actually, I think ref-less ultimate has been broadcast on CSTV (or
whatever it is called now). It ain't "Monday Night Ultimate," but it
does represent a measure of growth. It happened without refs. I'm not
saying the observer system wouldn't have to be improved/streamlined
for bigger TV venues... I'm just saying that sponsors/TV execs/etc.
can and will embrace ultimate, even if it games are overseen by
observers rather than refs. So, tell me how you "know" that ultimate
won't be on TV without refs? I'd like to hear how you know this.
blueclark8
other sports. Cheaters will cheat, and honest people won't.
If we're talking specifically about the aspect of SOTG that
requires self-officiation then I would suggest it encourages
cheating by people already prone to cheating.
2) N/A
3) N/A
4) It's not the dominant factor. The dominant factor is
that by definition, biased players can not make fair calls.
My primary concern is having a rules arbitration system in
ultimate that is fair. My desire for real penalties comes
from the fact that I don't believe that in a fair game a
team should be able to benefit from cheating. In ultimate
as it is, a cheating team can benefit whether it gets caught
or not. With penalties, a team only benefits if it doesn't
get caught and is put at a disadvantage if it is. This
creates a disincentive to cheating.
You're confusing people who are morally motivated to follow
the rules with those who aren't. Morally motivated people
will follow the rules whether they are governed by SOTG or
basic sportsmanship. People who aren't are going to try to
game the system regardless. Provide real onfield authority
for those people and we can provide real penalties to
discourage their actions. Very simple.
jacob
cheat, it also has influenced others not to cheat, and maybe even
influenced those who do cheat to cheat less (like by only fouling on
the mark, but not by tripping opponents)?"
blueclark8: "No. Well, not more than the concept of sportsmanship in
other sports. Cheaters will cheat, and honest people won't ...
morally motivated people will follow the rules whether they are
governed by SOTG or basic sportsmanship. People who aren't are going
to try to game the system regardless."
Life's not that black and white. Most (but not all) people are a
combination of cheater and honest person, and the external conditions
to which they are subject will often influence which direction they
lean. There is plenty of sportsmanship displayed by those who play in
reffed games, but in general, less sportsmanship is expected from and
demonstrated by those who are being officiated. Yes, plenty of guys
who play ultimate make bad calls and contest legit calls, but it is
very rare to see a player violate the rules by intentionally making
dangerous contact with an opponent. How do you explain this in
relation to soccer and basketball? It can't just be that money is on
the line in these other sports, because they have violent fouls in
even small-time games.
blueclark8: "If we're talking specifically about the aspect of SOTG
that requires self-officiation then I would suggest it encourages
cheating by people already prone to cheating."
Interesting that you seem to acknowledge that external conditions
(lack of refs) can effect the conduct of dishonest people (by making
them do more dishonest things), yet you do not believe the same
conditions can similarly effect the conduct of honest people (by
making them behave more honestly than normal).
blueclark8: "Biased players can not make fair calls. My primary
concern is having a rules arbitration system in
ultimate that is fair. My desire for real penalties comes from the
fact that I don't believe that in a fair game a team should be able to
benefit from cheating. In ultimate as it is, a cheating team can
benefit whether it gets caught
or not."
I agree, although I'm not sure how a cheating team can get "caught"
under SOTG.
blueclark8: "With penalties, a team only benefits if it doesn't get
caught and is put at a disadvantage if it is. This creates a
disincentive to cheating."
If this were true, then established sports would have less overall
intentional rules violations then ultimate. I think that is
debatable. It is a fact that having refs will eliminate players
making bogus calls and/or contesting legit calls. It is a matter of
opinion whether having refs will lead to a net reduction in cheating,
as making bogus calls is only one type of cheating.
"You're confusing people who are morally motivated to follow the rules
with those who aren't."
No, but I do find this statement a bit confusing.
"Provide real on field authority for those people and we can provide
real penalties to discourage their actions. Very simple."
Life is always simple when you dismiss the arguments of others without
thinking them through.
blueclark8
who play in
reffed games, but in general, less sportsmanship is expected
from and
demonstrated by those who are being officiated."
This is a completely made up "fact." You have no evidence
that this is true whatsoever.
Jacob: "Yes, plenty of guys
who play ultimate make bad calls and contest legit calls,
but it is
very rare to see a player violate the rules by intentionally
making
dangerous contact with an opponent. How do you explain this
in
relation to soccer and basketball? It can't just be that
money is on
the line in these other sports, because they have violent
fouls in
even small-time games."
Intentionally violent fouls are rare in all sports. In
ultimate you don't hear about the few that happen.
Professional and college level sports have ESPN to capture
it and dissect it for a whole week. We can watch 13 NFL
games a week and if anything at all happens, we're gonna
hear about it, but almost never do you see someone trying to
intentionally hurt someone else. And that's in an
inherently violent game. How often to do you sit and watch
13 full ultimate games in a week? Probably never.
Jacob: "Interesting that you seem to acknowledge that
external conditions
(lack of refs) can effect the conduct of dishonest people
(by making
them do more dishonest things), yet you do not believe the
same
conditions can similarly effect the conduct of honest people
(by
making them behave more honestly than normal)."
Let me clarify then. I believe SOTG encourages cheating by
everyone. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of
people are honest enough to not cheat anyways (most of the
time, everyone has weakness).
Jacob: "I agree, although I'm not sure how a cheating team
can get "caught"
under SOTG."
Say I foul on the mark. If he calls it, I got "caught."
Otherwise, I didn't. Either way, it benefits my team and
hurts his. That's stupid.
Jacob: "If this were true, then established sports would
have less overall
intentional rules violations then ultimate. I think that is
debatable. It is a fact that having refs will eliminate
players
making bogus calls and/or contesting legit calls. It is a
matter of
opinion whether having refs will lead to a net reduction in
cheating,
as making bogus calls is only one type of cheating."
I believe that established sports do have less cheating than
ultimate, and I have no reason to believe this isn't the
case.
Jacob: "Life is always simple when you dismiss the
arguments of others without
thinking them through."
Don't accuse me of not thinking through your arguments. I
read your arguments, I thought it through. But I completely
disagree with your first assumption and therefore found no
need to continue working through your logic. The only thing
that sets SOTG apart from Sportsmanship is that SOTG allows
no place for referees. This in turn encourages cheating by
disallowing the penalties which would disincentivize
cheating.
And to be fair, the rest of your logic kind of works, I
think. But the basic premise is wrong, and that's kind of
important.
jacob
who play in reffed games, but in general, less sportsmanship is
expected from and demonstrated by those who are being officiated."
blueclark8: "This is a completely made up 'fact. You have no evidence
that this is true whatsoever.
See below
me (prior post): "Yes, plenty of guys who play ultimate make bad calls
and contest legit calls, but it is very rare to see a player violate
the rules by intentionally making dangerous contact with an opponent.
How do you explain this in relation to soccer and basketball."
blueclark8: "Intentionally violent fouls are rare in all sports. In
ultimate you don't hear about the few that happen. Professional and
college level sports have ESPN to capture it and dissect it for a
whole week. We can watch 13 NFL games a week and if anything at all
happens, we're gonna hear about it, but almost never do you see
someone trying to
intentionally hurt someone else. And that's in an inherently violent
game. How often to do you sit and watch
13 full ultimate games in a week? Probably never."
Funny that you should contrast the NFL to ultimate, as I intentionally
did not compare these two, but chose to cite basketball and soccer.
Football is a game where defenders are supposed to hit offensive
players and where the rules keep getting changed to protect offensive
players, so it's a perfect cocktail for violence which is technically
illegal but also kind of part of the culture of the game. Are you
really sure that "intentionally violent fouls are rare in all
sports"? Maybe you are just defining violence more narrowly than I
am. It is fact, not opinion, that intentional fouls are common near
the end of close basketball games. It is my opinion that these fouls
are rarely intended to cause harm. However, the level of physicality
of these fouls (I'm specifically referring to fouls which occur when
an offensive player is driving to the basket) is something that
ultimate players rarely have to deal with. Similarly, soccer
regularly has pushing and tackling fouls which would be shocking if
used in ultimate.
me (prior post): "Interesting that you seem to acknowledge that
external conditions (lack of refs) can effect the conduct of dishonest
people (by making them do more dishonest things), yet you do not
believe the same conditions can similarly effect the conduct of honest
people (by making them behave more honestly than normal)."
blueclark8: "Let me clarify then. I believe SOTG encourages cheating
by everyone. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people are
honest enough to not cheat anyways (most of the time, everyone has
weakness)."
me: I think you are blaming SOTG for regular old human weakness. We
agree that SOTG allows players a rather unique opportunity to cheat;
making bad calls and/or contesting legit calls. Allowing something to
happen is not the same as encouraging it. When your kid gets his
driver's license and you allow him to borrow your car, you will not be
encouraging him to speed. The dilemma of SOTG is that it encourages
honesty while allowing cheating.
me (prior post): "If this were true, then established sports would
have less overall intentional rules violations then ultimate. I think
that is debatable. It is a fact that having refs will eliminate
players making bogus calls and/or contesting legit calls. It is a
matter of opinion whether having refs will lead to a net reduction in
cheating, as making bogus calls is only one type of cheating."
blueclark8: "I believe that established sports do have less cheating
than ultimate, and I have no reason to believe this isn't the case."
Can you please clarify what type of cheating you are talking about? Do
you really think that defenders in ultimate foul receivers in the
endzone the way defenders in basketball foul opponents who drive to
the basket, or shove opponents the way soccer players do? Other than
marking fouls (which, while annoying and unethical, are typically not
that physical), can you cite a specific type of foul consistently and
intentionally committed by ultimate players?
me (prior post): "Life is always simple when you dismiss the
arguments of others without thinking them through."
blueclark8: "Don't accuse me of not thinking through your arguments.
I read your arguments, I thought it through."
OK, sorry, that was a cheap shot.
bleclark8: "But I completely disagree with your first assumption and
therefore found no need to continue working through your logic."
Now you sound like my wife.
bleclark8: "The only thing that sets SOTG apart from Sportsmanship is
that SOTG allows no place for referees."
Yes, but this cannot be trivialized!
blueclark8: "And to be fair, the rest of your logic kind of works, I
think. But the basic premise is wrong, and that's kind of
important."
What is the basic premise? That people tend to be more ethical when
told that they are in charge of policing their own ethics? Here is a
link to a Harvard study which pretty much conclusively proves that
point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfwHNojVBR4&feature=related
ulticritic
>
> > Ultimate players, I know this is hard to hear, but
> > believe it's true. You are not any better people than the
> > players of any other sport. There are as many cheaters
> > and dishonest people among you as there are in any sport
> > and the sooner you realize this, the better off the sport
> > will be.
>
> No one is claiming any specialness for ultimate players.
> It's about expectations for the players.
NO ONE?????? seriously chuck?????? have you never read ANY spirit
zealot propaganda from this newsgroup??????
now maybe you dont feel that way but PLEASE dont go around say "no
one" else does............when its as clear as day they do!!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's the 2020 National Championships, score tied, capped
> game, next goal wins. Just to be totally black and white,
> here's the scenario: throw in the end zone, player (let's
> call him Clark #8) lays out for the catch, hand stretched
> out, 50,000 fans in the stands, 12 cameras, audience of
> millions on Justin.TV...
>
> Did he catch it, or did it hit the ground? It's #8's call.
>
> Basically the same deal Henry could have been facing. Game
> is on the line. Either it's a catch, game over, or we play
> on.
>
> As a spectator, I really want to see this.
see what???? a player TRY to make an impartial call in the heat of
battle when he fiercely wants to win????? I sure dont? I want to se
an IMPARTIAL PERSON who is emotionally DEtatched make that call. All
i want to see outa that player is to watch him PLAY (not ref too)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a second I'm
> going to see it all in super slow-motion, but how's Clark
> going to call this?
WHO GIVES A FUCK. Isnt the REAL excitement in sports comp in the
action........not the deliberation to decide if said action was leagle
or not........right? i mean wouldnt that kinda be like saying you
watch sports for the referees interjection and edge of chucks' seat
decisions. Your a bizarro sports fan chuck!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I watch Ronaldo play soccer and I feel like I kind of know
> his personality. By the way he takes on players, looks over
> a dead ball, you get a feeling of his arrogance and as a fan
> I might (or might not) identify with him personally.
cant you get that same sense form watching any player in any sport?
--------------------------------------------------
>
> You give me Ronaldo under the pressure of making a call,
> watching his brief interactions with other players, and I'm
> going to feel like he's a member of my family. Maybe my
> favorite younger brother. Or maybe not.
whats up with the idiot wind chuck? this shit you are spewing is
WACK!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I watch #8 get up. If he calls it down I'm impressed. If he
> calls it up (which I can tell it wasn't and super slow-mo is
> about to confirm), as I fan I'm going to really learn
> something about old #8.
why are you so needy that you need to learn somthing about him? why
not just appreciate the athletisism and skill that he brings to the
table and let the refs handle the reule inforcement aspect of it. as
for the sportsmanship dynamic, there is always that "to each his own"
or "beauty is in the eye" aspect where each fan can judge this based
on THEIR OWN PERSONAL tolerance level and standard of what THEY(the
fan) deems to be acceptable behavior under the circumstances
presented. like Henry said......."i'm not the ref.......i'm not the
one that missed the call"(or somthing like that).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to learn, cause it's his
> call, not a referees, that #8 is a cheat.
oh well. hes a product of his environment the way i see it. If
soccer had a better officiating system then it wouldnt temp and enable
players to try and cheat to begin with. IE, bring in instant replay
and watch all that little "shit that that one ref cant see" change to
"shit the one of 20 camera angles WONT MISS!!!!!!!!"
your a trip chuck. i dont know what happened to you along the line
where you developed such a distrust for refs, the referee system OR
players competing under that system. Nor do i see how you fail to
accept that there is rampid cheating in ultimate(largely due to the
lazi-fare rule enforcement proces) and attribute it to ultimates
toothless game management process.
ulticritic
>
> i love it. we are on the same page.
uhm, too bad its a completly different BOOK from all other sports. In
fact i think this "page" you guys are on is in the book intitled
RELIGILOUS!!!!!!
ulticritic
>
> Legitimate league first, refless chaotic allstar game second.- Hide quoted text -
BUT WHY NOT GET THE BEST OF BOTH THOSE WORLDS NOW!!!!!!!!
I'm telling you people, IF YA REALLY WANT TO FLOURISH SOTH and put all
the players levels of sotg under a microscope all ya have to do
is..........
!) incorporate full on refs
2) allow players to "correct" inaccurate calls on behalf of the refs
BUT ONLY when those calls go AGAINST their own team.
its really THAT easy. This way one gets the speed and effeciency of a
properly managed game while at the same time having the accuracy of
more and better positioned eyeballs watching action, AND (the icing on
the cake) chuck and friends can feel as though this athlete is now
part of your family(although why you would want this i have no idea)
by seeing if they actually have the piety level to overturn calls that
go their way. NOW I ASK YOU......what better way than this is their
to showcase the integrity level of the players while at the same time
allowing them to primarily focus on "playing the game" and making a
paletable sports presentation???????.
ulticritic
> From the Times of London
>
> Thierry Henry is an insincere cheat who has tarnished his
> reputation for good
BFD......and are you sure it was henry that did this or the soory ass
officiating system that caused the OBVIOUS infraction to be missed in
the first place. I mean, henry was fully aware of the risk associated
with making such a play........yet he did it anyways..........so you
got to look at the big picture and ask yopurself........"why would
henry take such a risk??????"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6922619.ece
>
> In soccer, Henry's taking the goal. In ultimate he won't.
c'mon chuck.........who you kiddin? AND, isnt this self rightious
attitude of yours kinda like, as you say, "claiming a specialness for
ultimate players"?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Same guy, different expectations. Different canvas.
different rule set different amount of eyeballs(that matter) watching
and judging action. AND you could easily say that this wouldnt have
been the case (OR, WONT BE THE CASE) as soon as they empliment IR. I
mean, had that play been "REVIEWABLE" do ya really think henry would
have risked trying it????? take your head out your ass chuck!!!!!!
self officiation IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's important and it's something will help us build the
> sport.
if by building the sport they mean "improving the accuracy of the call
by using availiable technology" then, GIDDY UP!!!!!! WHAT ARE THEY
WAITING FOR?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> With good Observers, running a good system, the speed of
> play is very similar to refs.
but why be "very similar" when you can be "the same, and just as good
(maybe even better)"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No spectator is going to
> complain about the speed of play and think "if only they had
> refs." It's not an issue.
then IR IS the answer, right? for soccer anyways. OF course in the
eighteenthcentury the "right answer" for soccer was to shelf the honor
system and bring in an impartial ref. so i guess ultimate just hasent
figured out that part of the equasion yet............dumbasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Don't compare referees with a non-Observed game with
> argument breaks -- that's a straw-man argument.
bullshit, its a completely valid argument. partial players 1)
shouldnt be involved in the impartial judging process to begin with
based on logic and common sense AND 2) the players are too wrapped up
in their own little world to worry about the effeciency factor of game
management and, as a result, there is a HUGE and OBVIOUS difference in
the orderly way refs handle the rule enforcement process and
incorporate "stopped time effeciency" and how players seem to
endlessly ult-DEBATE over the most pedestrian issues.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compare
> referees with something like the ACC Championship games and
> those Observers. The difference in speed of play between
> full referees and Observers would be minuscule.
minisule to you maybe. go talk to the network president about how
miniscule those network seconds are. I think you are being a little
naive as to how things work in the real, professional world of
television entertainment. Its just that the value of that airtime is
too great to be wasting it on a sport that hasent got ther shit
together in the asreas of rule enforcement and game mangement. Also,
the vast majority of viewers are not anything like your typical needy
spirit zealot ultimate player that prioritizes ways of revealing
integrety as more valuable than the action, intensity and grit that
goes hand in hand with sports competition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your dream of "First you establish a real, serious league
> fully officiated that carries an air of legitimacy. Get it
> on TV with copious advertising..."
>
> ..is going to take energy, creativity, and marketing
> smarts.
you forgot to include "conforming to the modern and accepted sports
presentation model"........which has nothing to do with all this
spirit shit you are all wrapped up in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether the sport has Observers or referees will
> have little to nothing to do with it.
isnt that like saying that whether a sport has IR or not "has little
to do with it". the environment created by evolutionary advances in
sports has EVERYTING to do with how players react and what they risk.
You can see this first hand when watching uoa games.........or simply
seeing that players dont actually respect the offsides rule in
ultimate unless ther is an im,partial person there to enforce it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I like our chances
> going down the Observer route better.
oh well, theres always one(fool) in every crowd
ulticritic
> From that Times of London article:
>
> "Cheating in all its guises is slowly killing football and if Henry
> had held his hands up again and admitted to the referee that he had
> handled the ball and the goal should not stand, he would have earned
> the admiration of the entire sporting world. "
i dont know about everybody else but i dont admire him any more or
less from that act. In fact i would say that most people view it as a
smart play.......but this is largely because he got away with it. Had
he got caught it would have been viewed as a dumb (overly risky) play.
To me the wierd thing is that we are crucifying henry when we should
be crucifying the system that allowed it to happen.
ulticritic
>
> You may like your chances but there's this thing called reality that's
> in your way.
BURN!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------
As you stated creating a marketable product featuring
> ultimate is going to be a big investment of time and money. It'd it
> be difficult enough to get investors to put up money for such an
> unrecognized sport as ultimate now you're going to throw some kind of
> experimental arbitration system on top of it.
so true.......which is why ultimate would be smart to adopt the modern
model NOW........not 20 years from now........which is an arbitrary
time period but one in which ultimate should be able to (AND MOST
LIKELY WILL) make said transition.
-------------------------------------------------
I think the sponsors
> would rather go with tried and true methods first.
this is part of the obviousness of it that eludes chuck
etal..........that i fail to understand
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> But you like observers better so go for it, humor me.
i'm not even so sure how crazy chuck is about even this new, more
active, observer model. AND, unfortunatly for chuck, this new breed
of uoa observer is A LOT more ref than observer.........so the joke is
on him.
ulticritic
>
> No it hasn't, but there are solutions note short of implementing refs
> for the problems you note
HEY DUMBSHIT.......do you have ANY idea of how soccer will likely deal
with such "get away with" actions by their players??????? THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT INCORPORATING INSTANT REPLAY. which means they will be
adding more officials AND eyeballs(in the form of cameras) to the
equasion.
So in what world would you be able to come up with somthing analogious
with ultimate in how the two sports are dealing with "cheaters".
Soccers critics are calling for more advanced forms of
officiating.........YOU and your spirit zealot pals seem to say that
LESS advanced forms would be better. Do you not see the absudity in
your stance......or see how soccers solution to THEIR problem will in
no way shape or form help support a "more passive" spirit zealot
approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- various combinations of Observers, TMFs,
> and moderate rule changes to dis-incentivize those infractions.
but why try and reinvent the wheel from stage one when you have a far
advanced and superior model at your fingertips? seems
stupid.........but while we are being stupid.......how about the idea
of having refs BUT provide for some wacky allowance for players to
overturn calls that just go against their team??????
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That
> those solutions haven't been implemented yet is not evidence that they
> don't exist.
sorry but, yes it is. I mean do ya really think some stoned hippies
that are largely anti sport to begin with(and whos intentions include
creating an anti sport) would come up with a better system than jocks
and businessmen that have been professionally developing and refining
such systems in there sports for over a century? DO YA REALLY?????
If so.......you ar one ate up mf.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That those solutions are not yet in place, is not an
> argument for bypassing them in favor of a solution with a much, much
> larger footprint.
only difference is that you are wanting ultimate to regress and remain
archaic rather than evolve, become more progressive and actively
embrace(or at least experiment with) the modern sports model. And one
more thing ther dip shit............there is NO way in hell that
ultimates little sotg "footprint" could even get to be a fraction of
the size the modern reffed system "footprint is"........so i dont know
where you are coming from with all this fantasy bullshit.
ulticritic
>
> Dude, adding refs will not suddenly make ultimate a marketable
> product. Refs will not suddenly get ultimate on TV. You have no
> evidence for this whatsoever.
getting ultimate on tv is like a thousand milke journy that begins
with a first step. having refs incorporated into the game is just ONE
of those "first steps". I think you SZ's just fail to see the
importance of the sequential order of things. Its like building a
house.......FIRST you need to build the foundation.......and without a
stong foundation, you know........so, in essence, one could consider
the refs to be like the rebar and wwm in a concrete foundation that
"holds the cement(foundation) in place"(thus adding to the strength of
the foundation BUT, just as importantly, gives the home the proper
credentials and 3rd party varification required to compete in the
market).
but since ultimate is currently under no code enforcement means they
dont have to add rebar to the cement........ONLY THING, if you cant
prove that your house meets certian STANDARDS and is "up to code" you
cant take it to market(because you have no CO)........and i think this
is the same delema ultimate has found itself in. Its not that its a
"bad" house.......its just that its builders ignored the codes and now
have a product that is weaker and un-sellable.
ulticritic
>
> I know it won't be on TV without em. But I love listening to the
> spirit zealots. I mean, Kerr's post about the stadium full of fans
> all in anticipation of the players call. That's just comedic gold.
its gold jerry,,,,,,GOLD
-----------------------------------------------------
> Maybe he's being facetious.
sadly he isnt
ulticritic
> Let's address all the questions, shall we? Referee's are
> not any more perfect.
isnt it easier to be more perfect when you are less partial though?
youve conviently failed to address the partiality factor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I'll take 90% correct calls that
> are 100% fair over 90% correct calls that are 0% fair.
uhmmm, maybe you ARE addressing the partiality factor......its a
little unclear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
> thing that makes sports great is that they are fair.
giving people the allowance to overtly cheat is fair????? for who????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ultimate's rules are fair, but how they are enforced is not.
ok, now i'm with ya
--------------------------------------------------------
> Cheaters benefit from cheating more in ultimate than in any
> other sport. Diving, shirt tugging can already exist in
> ultimate, except you don't actually have to dive. Just yell
> the word foul, or travel, or pick and you've suddenly gained
> an advantage. Amazing! You can tug the shirt all you want
> too. When you get called, just say "contest." Or say "no
> contest." Either way, you won't be penalized and you just
> gained an advantage. Congrats, you just gamed the system!
yea, cheating in ultimate just comes from a completely different
angle. I mean whats the need to try and draw a foul when you can just
simply call one. Its the bizzarow sport......no doubt about that
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Where's the moral ambiguity in soccer? They have refs and
> we all know Henry cheated! There's no ambiguity there. He
> cheated, he just didn't get caught. People cheat in
> ultimate too.
people cheat in EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!! we simply cant be trusted. and i
think this is where we see the split in philosophies. Those that are
more idealistic in the ways of human nature want to give human nature
a chance to triumph over our "evil side"......yet those that are more
REALISTIC understand that persuing such idealistic and unattainable
goals is foolish and would rather build in a system that deals with
the REALITY of human nature and its inherant evilness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes they get caught, and sometimes they
> don't. There's no penalties though so there's really no
> difference between the two.
to SZ's there is.........but this is why they are delusional
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> If it takes getting caught by an authority figure before you
> admit to something,
like that the sport of soccer needs A LOT of help with its rule
enforcement system?.........which includes everything from more refs
to IR
-----------------------------------------------------------------
whether it's a player in ultimate or a
> ref in soccer, then you're really not that "spirited" to
> begin with, so what does it matter?
but chuck etal want to believe that their "spirited" side will defeat
their evil side...........and i guess they consider it entertaining
when they get to watch that. Spirit zealots are needy like that.
personally, i'd rather see a bench clearing brawl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If soccer were
> self-officiated, but no one on the other team saw his
> handball, do you think he'd be more likely to admit to it?
> Fuck no! If the ref does see it, is he more likely to argue
> the call than he would be to contest a call by a player-ref?
> Fuck no! It's the same no matter what authority figure
> makes the call. He cheated. If he gets caught by an
> authority, he admits to it.
AND, he's fully aware of the consequenses that go with that risk to
begin with.........which takes us back to the MAIN PROBLEM (with
soccers system anyways).......which is, what is it about the system
that enabled him to take such a risk by cheating in such an overt and
ious fashion??????? THATAS the real question here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otherwise he doesn't. So your
> basic argument boils down to being that 11 player-refs are
> more likely to see a handball than a few refs are. Without
> a doubt. They're also way more likely to make a bullshit
> call that benefits them than a ref is.
therefor canceling each other out.......
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And when a ref makes
> a bullshit call, at least it's not a biased bullshit call.
and the victory goes to the reffed system..........based on its
"impartial" dynamic. CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!
ulticritic
> blueclark8: "You can tug the shirt all you want too. When you get
> called, just say 'contest.' Or say 'no contest.' Either way, you
> won't be penalized and you just gained an advantage. Congrats, you
> just gamed the system!"
>
> Yes that's true, but:
THERE ARE NO BUTS TO IT!!!!! ITS SEVERLY FLAWED AND EASILY
FIXABLE......but i will humor you and respond to the rest of your post
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1) Would you agree that just as SOTG allows some to cheat, it also has
> influenced others not to cheat,
so. the goal of sports is not to rehab people......its to serve as a
competitive outlet, an athletic chalange. Its meant to be physical
and mental.....not spiritual.......or at least not spiritual in the
pious and dogmatic sense that SZ's subscribe to.
----------------------------------------------------------
and maybe even influenced those who do
> cheat to cheat less (like by only fouling on the mark, but not by
> tripping opponents)?
again, who gives a fuck. i'm not out there for the sake of people
that didnt get proper parenting......or to live up to some arcahic
hippy ideal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2) If your answer to # 1 is yes; do you think the presence of refs
> would reduce the phenomenon described in # 1?
what if my answere was "so what"? either way, yes, the proper reffing
system DEFINITLY deters would be cheaters from cheating. BUT you must
rremember two very vital points.
1) the system must be constantly refined to keep up with smart
competitors that find rules loopholes
2) its human nature for smart competetors to find rules
loopholes.......and use them for their benefit.
so one can EASILY see the inherant conflict of interests in
simultainiously being a smart competitor and an impartial arbitrator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3) If your answer to # 2 is yes, don't you think it's at least worth
> considering whether the introduction of refs may in fact lead to more
> net cheating?
i'm going back to my answer of question 1........"who gives a fuck".
and at least now there is a tangible and IMMEDIATE
consequense.......that also serves to create an effecient presentation
that people can actually watch without getting nausious........so,
again, advantage refs!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4) If your answer to # 3 is yes, then (leaving aside the frustration
> felt over each isolated incident of cheating) isn't the fact that
> cheating in ultimate is less likely to be penalized than cheating in
> other sports just one of many factors to consider when judging SOTG,
> rather than the dominant factor?
i thought "no harsh penalties" WAS/IS the dominating factor of sotg
ulticritic
>
> Actually, I think ref-less ultimate has been broadcast on CSTV (or
> whatever it is called now). It ain't "Monday Night Ultimate," but it
> does represent a measure of growth.
first off, the only reason ultimate was on cstv was because herny
thorn was buying votes by bankroling it as a company expense of some
kind. secondly, it wasnt on cstv last year and wont likely be next
year. Of course one would have to ask the financier henry thorn to
find that out. Of course it was us members that financed the other
half of that production so it might be more of a measure of our
membership dues surplus than actual growth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It happened without refs. I'm not
> saying the observer system wouldn't have to be improved/streamlined
> for bigger TV venues...
why cant it be streamlined just for the sake of streamlining it. my
kids soccer games rule enforcement and game management processs' are
just as streamlines as mls's........and nobodys puttin my kids games
on tv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I'm just saying that sponsors/TV execs/etc.
> can and will embrace ultimate, even if it games are overseen by
> observers rather than refs.
i think i'm gonna have to
call............................................................bullshit.
if that were the case the nfl wouldnt be constantly refining their
system.............and world cup soccer wouldnt be talking about
refining their system with IR. Its all about EVOLVING. The uoa ref
system (and i'm calling it a "ref" system because they have much more
of a "ref" presence than traditional observers AND, by definition,
they ARE the ones "refered to" in case of dispute) is a HUGE
evolutionary step for ultimates officials...........so dont think
there wont be more "steps" in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, tell me how you "know" that ultimate
> won't be on TV without refs? I'd like to hear how you know this.
because there is a certian STANDARD in the sports entertainment
industry that requires their presense.......dumbass. Dont be so naive
about the bloody obvious.
ulticritic
refs are......so are their jerzeys. kidding aside.......the offsides
rule in ultimate sure is, yet with this kooky sotg enforcement process
even that rule becomes grey. Point being, the rules are as grey as a
sport, its rulres, its refs make them. with sotg EVERYTHING IS
GREY.......and thats largely because sotg itself is grey. very poor
foundation for a sprt to have for a ruleset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most (but not all) people are a
> combination of cheater and honest person, and the external conditions
> to which they are subject will often influence which direction they
> lean. There is plenty of sportsmanship displayed by those who play in
> reffed games, but in general, less sportsmanship is expected from and
> demonstrated by those who are being officiated.
and the fact that there is often less sportmanship displayed in
ultimate means exactly what about the concept of sotg?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, plenty of guys
> who play ultimate make bad calls and contest legit calls, but it is
> very rare to see a player violate the rules by intentionally making
> dangerous contact with an opponent.
whats you comprison? rare in relation to what? pick up b-ball? do
they intentionally make dangerous contact frequently?
-----------------------------------------------------------
How do you explain this in
> relation to soccer and basketball?
its the same.......in the self officiated versions of those sports
------------------------------------------------------
It can't just be that money is on
> the line in these other sports, because they have violent fouls in
> even small-time games.
where does this happen? and does it get more violent that kicking
someone square in the mouth whe his back is turned(this happened in SL
ult!!!)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> blueclark8: "If we're talking specifically about the aspect of SOTG
> that requires self-officiation then I would suggest it encourages
> cheating by people already prone to cheating."
>
> Interesting that you seem to acknowledge that external conditions
> (lack of refs) can effect the conduct of dishonest people (by making
> them do more dishonest things), yet you do not believe the same
> conditions can similarly effect the conduct of honest people (by
> making them behave more honestly than normal).
yea, neither does organized ANY SPORT from the pee wees to the bigs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> blueclark8: "Biased players can not make fair calls. My primary
> concern is having a rules arbitration system in
> ultimate that is fair. My desire for real penalties comes from the
> fact that I don't believe that in a fair game a team should be able to
> benefit from cheating. In ultimate as it is, a cheating team can
> benefit whether it gets caught
> or not."
>
> I agree, although I'm not sure how a cheating team can get "caught"
> under SOTG.
oh they can get caught.......the just cant get "harshly penalized"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> blueclark8: "With penalties, a team only benefits if it doesn't get
> caught and is put at a disadvantage if it is. This creates a
> disincentive to cheating."
>
> If this were true, then established sports would have less overall
> intentional rules violations then ultimate.
they do! dont you realize how quickly aggressive markers would foul
out if they were as careless in an officiated game of b-ball? wake yp
man!
--------------------------------------------------
I think that is
> debatable. It is a fact that having refs will eliminate players
> making bogus calls and/or contesting legit calls. It is a matter of
> opinion whether having refs will lead to a net reduction in cheating,
> as making bogus calls is only one type of cheating.
but a very easy and obvious one........and far too accessible for
partial opponents........of the human persuasion anyways. maybe
klingons could pull that off, but not humans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "You're confusing people who are morally motivated to follow the rules
> with those who aren't."
>
> No, but I do find this statement a bit confusing.
whats confusing about it?
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Provide real on field authority for those people and we can provide
> real penalties to discourage their actions. Very simple."
>
> Life is always simple when you dismiss the arguments of others without
> thinking them through.
c'mon jake, sotg has been thoughten through every which way but
loose.......IT DONT WORK IN OFFICIAL SPORTS COMP. its irrational,
illogical and there is emperical evidense of far superior models.
ultimates had 40 years in its present stat and it hasent
taken......why cant you accept this point?
jacob
loose.......IT DONT WORK IN OFFICIAL SPORTS COMP. its irrational,
illogical and there is emperical evidense of far superior models.
ultimates had 40 years in its present stat and it hasent
taken......why cant you accept this point?"
I do. I favor refs in elite men's ultimate, at least at the big
tourneys. I'm just pointing out that there is something to be lost by
leaving SOTG. blueclark8's argument overlooks this, and I was just
trying to point that out. I actually feel a bit sorry for you both
that you are unable to see the level of camaraderie between opponents
fostered by sotg.
ulticritic
> "c'mon jake, sotg has been thoughten through every which way but
> loose.......IT DONT WORK IN OFFICIAL SPORTS COMP. its irrational,
> illogical and there is emperical evidense of far superior models.
> ultimates had 40 years in its present stat and it hasent
> taken......why cant you accept this point?"
>
> I do. I favor refs in elite men's ultimate, at least at the big
> tourneys. I'm just pointing out that there is something to be lost by
> leaving SOTG.
to which i say .....good riddins
--------------------------------------------------------
blueclark8's argument overlooks this, and I was just
> trying to point that out. I actually feel a bit sorry for you both
> that you are unable to see the level of camaraderie between opponents
> fostered by sotg.
and i feel sorry for you that you are unable to see that the exact
same level of camaraderie between opponents fostered by a referee
system.
ulticritic
can jake come out and play?
ulticritic
> blueclark8 wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 09:35
>
> > Ultimate players, I know this is hard to hear, but
> > believe it's true. You are not any better people than the
> > players of any other sport. There are as many cheaters
> > and dishonest people among you as there are in any sport
> > and the sooner you realize this, the better off the sport
> > will be.
>
> No one is claiming any specialness for ultimate players.
> It's about expectations for the players.
>
> game, next goal wins. Just to be totally black and white,
> here's the scenario: throw in the end zone, player (let's
> call him Clark #8) lays out for the catch, hand stretched
> out, 50,000 fans in the stands, 12 cameras, audience of
> millions on Justin.TV...
>
> Did he catch it, or did it hit the ground? It's #8's call.
>
> Basically the same deal Henry could have been facing. Game
> is on the line. Either it's a catch, game over, or we play
> on.
>
> going to see it all in super slow-motion, but how's Clark
> going to call this?
>
> his personality. By the way he takes on players, looks over
> a dead ball, you get a feeling of his arrogance and as a fan
> I might (or might not) identify with him personally.
>
> watching his brief interactions with other players, and I'm
> going to feel like he's a member of my family. Maybe my
> favorite younger brother. Or maybe not.
>
> calls it up (which I can tell it wasn't and super slow-mo is
> about to confirm), as I fan I'm going to really learn
> call, not a referees, that #8 is a cheat.
>
s