Open letter to the UPA and Ultimate Community (please disseminate widely)
tucker
We are writing this letter in protest of a decision that the UPA came
to tonight.
Ambush, the New York women's Ultimate team, made Nationals this year
for the first time since 2001. After we submitted the names of the 16
players we were taking to Sarasota, we heard back from the UPA that
there was a problem: one of the names had never been on Ambush's 2007
roster.
Ambush, like the city it hails from, sees many people come and go.
That makes this second-year player a weathered veteran and integral
part of our core. When she moved to Baltimore mid-season to take a job
clerking for a judge, she spent her weekends commuting five hours each
way to practice with the team, even when she was injured and could not
participate physically. She took a huge burden off the captains'
shoulders when she volunteered to call subs.
When we learned of our oversight, it was a shock. It seemed there must
be a way to clear up the misunderstanding. We have pictures of the
player in question with us almost every tourney, she's eligible, she
played with no other team - surely the UPA, made up of people who love
Ultimate, had the power to make judgments on a case by case basis and
the insight to understand that there was no malicious intent.
Indeed, the UPA agreed that the mistake had been an honest one. They
wrote, in a two-page letter: "It is clear that the omission of the
player from the roster was a 'clerical/administrative' error on the
part of the team." Nonetheless, not only did the UPA rule, on the
Monday of Nationals week, that the unrostered player was disqualified
from all of Nationals - a crippling blow, to the player, to our team's
psyche, and to our small roster - they also disqualified one of our
two captains, Alison Kling, as an "additional penalty" for our having
competed in the series with an illegal player.
This is Ali's second year as captain of Ambush, and fourth year on the
team as a player. For two years, she, and she alone, has been doing
our rostering, finances, our bidding to tournaments, hotel
accommodations - all the stuff that makes it possible for us to
compete and that no one else is willing to do. We do not have a coach.
She never asked to be team secretary: as the more organized of the
team's two captains, she naturally took on the responsibility.
We exist because of the time Ali has put in. If the oversight is Ali's
fault, it is my fault as well as co-captain for not checking the
roster. By the logic used to disqualify Ali, I should be disqualified
as well, and so on and so on.
The UPA says it is being lenient, because in fact, the whole team is
subject to disqualification. In reality, if our captain and one of our
players are not allowed to play, you have taken all the meaning out of
our experience anyhow.
We admit and take responsibility for our mistake, and are willing to
accept an appropriate penalty: a fine or a one-game or even one-day
disqualification, either for the two players in question or for the
entire team. But to bar these two players, who exemplify the grass-
roots energy that makes Ultimate what it is, is in direct conflict
with UPA's stated mission: to promote the sport and uphold the spirit
of the game. Trust in that spirit.
We have our plane tickets. Ali has booked our hotel. We are coming to
Sarasota. Please let us play.
Sincerely,
Becca Tucker
Co-Captain
AmBush
Alex Peters
degnan...@gmail.com
Vegas is also tilting the line very heavily towards them NOT going
back on the decision. Seems like they put a lot of thought into it and
they can't set a precedent of going back on it. Also bad precedent to
allow teams to not follow rules. Or as El Duderino put it.... well,
you know what he said.
winter...@hotmail.com
ugh. what a mess.
question - don't all people get an email from the upa now when they
are added to a roster? can you see everyone else on that roster when
you log on to approve your addition to the team? and can't you even
add people from when you register first and the day of sectionals when
your roster needs to be official? no one ever noticed that this woman
wasn't on the roster? oh ambush!
where is the josh faust exemption? legal precident set here from fall
of '97?
corey
jsus...@gmail.com
For those of you quick to comment on the above as another "rules are
rules" type situation, please ask yourself first why these rules are
in place and what is the purpose of the Board of Directors.
Did the members of Ambush intentionally violate the rules to obtain a
competitive edge? No. Was this an honest mistake? Yes. If the Board
had imposed a heavy fine for the team instead of individual
disqualifications, would that make it more likely that other teams
would attempt to abuse the roster system? Unlikely. (The Board makes
decisions on a case-by-case basis, and deliberate violations are
relatively obvious) If the Board had imposed a less severe punishment
instead of individual disqualifications, would that make it more
likely that other teams would neglect the roster system? Again,
unlikely. (This was not an act of conscientious laziness, and I doubt
teams would consider one ruling of compassion enough to risk their own
security just to avoid some paperwork)
For those of you that would expand this thread to encompass a
generalized roster debate, though I think that that topic is a very
important one, and one that still needs great and immediate attention
to be resolved (personally, I am deeply saddened and confused whenever
simple or understandable clerical errors result in players being
unable to compete - the purpose of the rostering system is to prevent
abuse of eligibility requirements not stifle growth) in this instance
we are looking for specific reactions.
The reason Ambush has posted this letter to a public forum is that we
are seeking support and understanding from the community in hopes that
the UPA Board may be swayed. Though we respect the decisions of the
Board and appreciate their efforts and consideration, we feel this
penalty is not justified and hope we can come to a mutual agreement.
We also respect everyone's opinions and we appreciate the feedback, no
matter what may be said.
All we ask is that those who might reply take some time to consider
this unique situation and post accordingly. And tell your friends ;)
much love
Julie
# 71 Ambush
ps- Last time I heard, the Dude abides. I don't know about you but I
take comfort in that. ;)
Paul P
one hand, it sounds from all accounts like it was an honest mistake.
On the other hand, as much as the team may hate to hear it: rules are
rules and this is a big one. "They are good people who mean well"
can't be the reason to let it slide because then the first time you
don't let it slide for a team you are saying that that team either
aren't good people or didn't mean well. You also end up with rules
that have a hundred subjective exceptions. I would rather play with
clearly marked sidelines and endzones than with boundaries that are
open to interpretation. It just makes things easier. And I don't
want to hear about how it isn't the same thing. Yes, it is. The exact
same thing.
Strictly by the letter of the rules, the team shouldn't be going to
Nationals at all if a non-rostered player played with the team through
sectionals and regionals. Rather than sacrifice the whole team, the
UPA threw one of the captains into the volcano. At first, I thought
that was unnecessary. Thinking about it for a moment, I could see why
they did it. They were bending over backwards to let the team go to
the show when, clearly, the rules say they can't.
I know how I would feel if I was the next team down the line that
didn't go to nationals and later found out that a team that did go
from my region had an ineligible player. I would be pretty damn
annoyed with the UPA.
The thing to do is to lobby for something to change in the rostering
rules for the NEXT season if you feel that the current system is
arbitrary or unfair I don't think it is either. I would bet that you
wouldn't if you weren't in this situation. I can't support not
enforcing a rule after the fact because of a mix-up resulting in a
rule that was broken.
But don't let any of what I wrote give anyone the impression that I am
not sympathetic. It is a lousy deal that totally stinks and I would
be quite upset - with myself.
Paul P
Todd
> are added to a roster? can you see everyone else on that roster when
> you log on to approve your addition to the team? and can't you even
> add people from when you register first and the day of sectionals when
> your roster needs to be official?
The UPA rostering system is much improved in the last few years. It's
a lot easier now for teams to check their rosters for completeness and
accuracy. Hopefully other teams will learn from this situation that
they need to check and recheck their online rosters early in the
series.
Situations like this might be caught sooner if there were meaningful
roster/ID checks at sectionals and regionals. Yes, all teams are
required to submit valid rosters of eligible players - but there are
few, if any, checks to make sure those are the players who show up for
the games. If we were asking for ID at sectionals and regionals,
clerical errors like this would be caught early on - in time to make
reasonable adjustments without tarnishing the glamor of nationals. It
would also reduce the potential for cheating at those stages.
I realize ID checks would add logistical challenges to the already
overwhelming task of running a sectionals or regionals tournament,
But it would be worth the investment in order to avoid the sad
necessity of punishing clerical errors after teams have made it to
nationals.
Todd
ultimate7
even in clerical errors the UPA will not allow the player to play.
But why disqualify the captain to compound the pain? If you are going
to go that far just disqualify the entire team.
The days of the Faust excepmtion are gone and have been for quite a
while.
Mike Gerics
Knappy
organizer is to "let them play."
And, in another case earlier this Fall, I was arguing for the same
"situational" approach to handing out bids at regionals. I'm usually
not a fan of inflexible rules & not taking all circumstances into
account. (For reference, I thought the NC team Keel Haul in MA mixed
deserved a bid to regionals, when one of the teams from another
section refused their bid. A rule I would still like to see amended to
be more flexible & reasonable, but I digress.)
On the other hand, making an exception here is not really fair to the
other 59 teams that submitted complete rosters & took great care to
make sure there were no omissions/mistakes. More importantly, the
integrity of the rostering system is essential to the competition &
the UPA invested tons of time & effort into creating an online
rostering system that actually seems to work well. I cannot see how
the UPA could allow the player who was not on your Series roster to
play @ Nationals.....honest mistake or not, it's just not reasonable
to expect that to happen. As for the co-captain & the additional
penalty, it's tough for the RSD public to make the call on that
without knowing all of the facts of what happened & the precedents
that were set in previous years.
I am glad the UPA did not enforce the harshest punishment here, and DQ
the entire team. They deserve credit for not holding hard & fast to
the rules on this. This is a crappy situation for all involved, and I
do feel for the team & the players involved. It just plain sucks that
this happened.
> > corey- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Krishna
for nationals.
This situation sucks, especially because it was entirely avoidable.
That being said, sorry Julie, I am a rules are rules kind of guy too.
I don't believe exceptions should be made except in exceptional cases
(and forgetting to double check a roster is not an exceptional
situation), and that punishments need to be significant.
(By the way, glancing at the club series the rules do not require the
UPA to disqualify the team or player at all, merely that they may. The
only way to get straight disqualified is to forfeit a series games)
But this issue has been debated a number of times on RSD and no one
has anything new to say. What I am confused about is the idea of
disqualifying one additional player. That penalty seems arbitrary. How
did they arrive at one player? Why not both captains? How about the O
line? Why was Alison picked? Was it because she was the team
organizer?
It seems to me there are three reasonable options:
1) Do nothing- hey this ultimate let'em have fun
2) Disqualify the non roster player- can't play if you are not on the
roster
3) Disqualify the team- you guys didn't follow the guidelines so you
can't play
What is the rationale for this specific punishment?
I don't mean to criticize, I think those folks at the UPA do they best
they can with a difficult job. Just wondering I guess...
Parinella
> in one sentence.....what happened with Ambush?
They forgot to put someone on their roster and the UPA DQ'ed that
player and one of the captains from Nationals.
Jim Biancolo
and I'm sure the UPA hates to be in this position as well. My
sympathies.
What would be the downside to a "pick your poison" approach?
Something like "either the following player(s) are disqualified, or
you must pay $[insert big fine here]". Both set precedents that
indicate the UPA takes rostering seriously, discourages future
clerical errors by other teams, etc. Teams that are angry at being in
the situation or who are too strapped for cash can DQ the offenders,
teams that aren't can pay through the nose. Setting the dollar amount
might be tricky, but all judgment calls are tricky, including who to
DQ.
Obviously, this would only be appropriate in true "clerical error"
cases, where the player didn't play for other teams, no cheating/no
advantage gained, situations.
Alex Peters
Oh Parinella, you enabler.
Parinella
Long overridden. There were mitigating factors in exceptions granted
during the '90s, namely that the UPA's system was full of holes and it
was a contributor to the mess. Back then, teams handed in rosters at
Sectionals (sometimes the official roster was handed out at Sectionals
and asked for by the end of the day). Now, all the responsibility for
this has to fall on the team.
Checking IDs at Sectionals wouldn't help since rosters are closed the
Tuesday before.
ab1...@gmail.com
suspend the captain for making a clerical error? In a sport where
last minute roster changes are common, it sets a terrible precendent.
Captaining a team comes with a lot of headache and little upside.
Who'd want to take it on if you run the risk of losing everything
you've worked for all season?
All of this smacks of an overeagerness to enforce rules for their own
sake. We're all weekend warriros, traveling hundreds of miles to
chase a plastic toy around a grass field. If the UPA wants to take
the fun out of that, why play? If the captains state that this was a
clerical error, it is encumbent on us to accept that and continue
playing. We do the same thing on the field a half a dozen times every
game. It's part of the spirit of the game: we place faith in each
other. Shame on you UPA.
Aru
> > AmBush- Hide quoted text -
Paul P
> What would be the downside to a "pick your poison" approach?
> Something like "either the following player(s) are disqualified, or
> you must pay $[insert big fine here]".
One downside of that is creating a class system wherein teams that can
afford the fines can get around the rules while teams that cannot,
well, cannot.
It is weird that a captain was barred from natties as well. Maybe it
was the one who submitted the roster? There must have been a reason.
I absolutely agree with the UPA that it has to be something larger
than barring only the non-rostered player for a lot of reasons, but I
can't work out what else would be appropriate. I don't like the idea
of a monetary fine for the reason stated above. DQing the whole teams
seems harsh in this particular situation, but what else do you do?
Yeah, it is a crappy deal all around. Crappy for the players, the
team, and the UPA.
Paul P
Handy
They got their roster in on time, she was an eligible player, they
made a clerical error. Couldn't they have just the captain stay home
and let the ineligible player play? I mean yeah, it sucks to be that
team right now, but imagine how pissed you are if you're the girl who
has been playing all season, busting your ass, paying your dues and
your team forget to put you on the roster so now you can't play at
naty's? I would be flipping out, and it wouldn't be at the UPA...
DQ the captain, fine 'em, let 'em play.
Mike Gerics
> They forgot to put someone on their roster and the UPA DQ'ed that
> player and one of the captains from Nationals.
>
---thanks for the summary.
of course the UPA should DQ a player NOT on the roster, right?
not sure why they would ALSO DQ a captain.
why is the captain DQd also?
was she responsible for omitting the teammate....and then tried to sneak her
in, or something mischievious like that?
Mike Gerics
>> > in one sentence.....what happened with Ambush?
>>
>> They forgot to put someone on their roster and the UPA DQ'ed that
>> player and one of the captains from Nationals.
>
> Oh Parinella, you enabler.
>
--actually......i'd say that Alex is the enabler.
i was the asker.
parinella was the answerer.
you're the fuck asking for some reply from me.
dmar...@yahoo.com
There is no question that there should be a penalty. The rules are
there for a reason -- to make sure players don't play for multiple
teams, club ringers don't play for college teams. But completely
banning two players for a cut-and-paste error is out of proportion to
the "crime". Perhaps the UPA needs to reconsider how harsh a
punishment is appropriate, especially in a situation where there is no
malicious intent, and no advantage gained. Amanda is not a ringer who
just moved into town, and has played for Ambush the entire season.
Enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing the rules sends the UPA down
an ugly path.
I've heard of players being banned for a game or a day of the
tournament before -- that is harsh and certainly a deterrent to
messing up, but at least reasonable. It would be terrible to see these
players receive a greater punishment just to make an example of how
the UPA is now "tough" on rostering.
Marino
russb
This was an innocent, non-intentional clerical mistake. To ban the
player and the captain is absurd. They both worked too hard for this
to be the result. I know the co-captain of Ambush very well and
consider her a close friend. She is perhaps the most ethical person I
know and would never try to take advantage of any situation. She has
also spent the past half decade willing her team into a position that
it will be able to play at Nationals. Indeed, she set herself a goal
that she would play at Nationals before her career ended and at 30 she
has finally achieved that goal. I have watched her at the track doing
ridiculous numbers of sprint repeats all so that she would be able to
compete at the highest level. Finally, after years of knocking on the
door they pushed their way in and are going to the big show. They
proved they belonged by winning their game to go 15-4, which certainly
indicates that the innocent participation of one non-rostered player
would not have made a difference in their winning their way into
Nationals. For the captain, is this the reward for years of efforts
in putting together a spirited, competitive and talented team? What
point is there in captaining if you are going to be singled out and
treated like this? The UPA is punishing exactly the sort of people it
should be helping. Instead of banning the players from participating
at Nationals they could have found a less draconian answer - suspend
them for the first game. There was no intentional conduct at issue so
there could - and should - be leniency. Boo UPA - terrible decision!
Let Amanda and Ali play!
Ryan Kircher
(sorry to whoever I replied to individually)
I don't think the UPA is being lenient in this situation. Ambush
wasn't DQ'd because the UPA is being nice to them. The UPA COULDN'T
DQ the whole team. They were never going to determine an appropriate
replacement and get them to FL in two days, and they didn't want
punish the rest of the teams at natties with a 15 team format.
Ambush is at nationals because the UPA needs them to go. They've been
reduced to a shell of a team that more or less filler at this point.
I don't agree or disagree with the UPA's decision. I just don't think
they're being as 'nice' as everybody says they are.
dsb
Sounds like a sucky situation...
But what gets me thinking is... people keep mentioning the option of
DQing the team - I don't think the UPA could do this. I think the
logistics of choosing a new team for nationals that could actually get
there and compete, at this point, would be too much. And not having
16 teams would totally screw up the format which you do not want at
nationals...
...which leads one to think perhaps Ambush could threaten to not show
up unless the players are reinstated. This is probably not worth the
ill will, but... I wonder what would happen.
Personally I am a pro-enforcement type, so you don't want to hear my
opinion.
henry...@gmail.com
UPA, th board of directors, or the rostering process, maybe you should
read the rules which are clearly stated. Everyone must be on the
roster. Sure, your intentions were not bad, but its just the rules.
Rules are there to follow, not to bend. Surely, there is nothing to
complain about, except that you forgot to put her on your roster.
oliver
they can't risk disrupting their showcase event. As a captain this
situation is my worse nightmare and I was incredibly careful about
dealing with our large roster this season. What is missing here is
full disclosure on why the captain is being DQ'd. It must be because
the unregistered player has now competed in sectionals and regionals
without being on the team roster. Clearly the entire process of
submitting rosters would carry less importance if there was no penalty
for playing with teams not on the submitted list. To me, however,
with the information we have been given it seems that both players
could not be responsible. Not everyone on my team received e-mails
from the UPA to let them know they had been added to the roster (some
have old memberships or something) and it was entirely up to me to
check to make sure everyone was correctly added. I am not sure what
the DQ'd player has done wrong in this situation? If she is
registered with the UPA and has a waiver on-file then she has done
nothing wrong individually. The captain, however, has made a
mistake. Personally, at this point, I think its harsh to DQ players
for this infraction at this point as it will greatly affect the
tournament for everyone on the team. . . we are (in the end) paying
members of the UPA and we are all paying a good bit of money to
compete at this tournament. If the player was truly eligible and not
on any other rosters then I think this type of mistake should be dealt
with a fine or a penalty for next season. It should have been caught
earlier but it was not. Let them all play.
-oliver
#12 Axis of C'ville
Monohan
What I'm wondering here is this:
The UPA is the 'ultimate players association'. But who if anyone was
an advocate for the team? A 'players' association' should act as an
advocate for their members. I doubt that happened here.
I'm just thinking of the parallel in other sports, where there is an
association that acts as an advocate and representative for their
members when dealing with the league.
BTW I'd fall on the side of let 'em play, with a one day penalty.
Mike Gerics
---it seems like the clerical mistake...no matter what adjectives are put
around it....is the reason for the athletes not being eligible to compete,
right?
fretbo...@yahoo.com
decade journey for most of them chasing this singular goal--and now
this. Anything less than having all of their players participate in
some way or another at the Show will mean more heartbreak than this
has already caused.
That said, having run sectionals in the past, I understand the need
here to follow the rules. I agree that a penalty of some sort should
be levied. But the rules say that a player or team "may" be DQ'd,
leaving a wide berth for a punishment that fits the specific
situation.
What's not being recognized is that the UPA HAS enforced a financial
penalty here. With the extremely late notice, they have forced Amanda
and Ali to eat their plane tickets and condo rentals (if not the
condo, then the entire team eats that, too).
With all the flexibility in the rules, why not have them sit the first
day of nationals? Why not assess a few points at the beginning of each
game? I've seen precedence for the former in past posts.
I don't envy the position of Will Deaver or anyone else who was forced
to make a decision on this. But this is not a time to be setting a new
enforcement precedent.
To the UPA: many believe you've met an error by Ambush with an error
of your own. These women were not trying to deceive, and you
acknowledged this in your note to the team. It was an honest mistake
by an overburdened captain in a division you are still trying to grow.
You still have the power and time to find a solution that will
penalize the team without ripping their hearts out.
Please reconsider.
RobDe...@gmail.com
explanation Ambush profferred-- that it was a clerical error and a
mistake-- but felt compelled to impose penalties anyway. As
participation in the sport of Ultimate increases at all levels,
perhaps there will be less space for exceptions to the rules.
Interpretations and consequent sanctions will have to become more
stringent as the volume of possible infractions increases. But right
now? It seems like the conduct committee had a little bit of time to
think about this... time enough to write a letter saying that they
understood it was not a conscious act of wrongdoing. It's not like
the UPA is an ominous, evil authoritarian organization. The board
members are ultimate players like everyone here (except maybe Frank).
We all play ultimate. We all love ultimate. We all hate it when
decisions are made that impede our ability to do so..
It is plain that the Ambush players regret the circumstances more than
anyone.. Their roster isn't huge, they did not intend to gain any
advantage... They did not even realize they were breaking the rules.
The player in question hasn't played with anyone else all season. For
all intents and purposes she was on the team.
As Julie said, rules are there for a reason.. if an advantage had
been gained or if it had been a planned deception, I would be better
able to understand the penalties. But everyone involved in the
situation acknowledges that nothing of this sort occurred. They
regret their mistake... let them play. It is my hope that the UPA
does not think that reversing or changing their decision would
negatively impact their legitimacy as a governing body. But I
certainly can't see any other impediment to making an exception in
this case.
Good luck Ambush.. I hope it works out.
On Oct 23, 10:07 am, Paul P <paulp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Leonardo
the UPA has some at-large voting for Board members going on now.
Perhaps these candidates can offer their opinion on roster violations
http://www.upa.org/bod/candidate/2008
And which committee and/or person(s), exactly, made the ruling to DQ
the player AND the co-captain?
http://www.upa.org/bod/currentboard
personally speaking, I am always in favor of "let em play." I thought
that what happened last year to the Phoenix Suns was wrong, and i feel
similarly about NC State, Ambush, and others.
TL
toru....@gmail.com
Okay, granted, *as stated* it's limited in scope and subject to
approval by the event organizers... but hey, sucky situations might
call for creative solutions or something.
I find it hard to believe that any of the opposing teams would prefer
to play against a team that's playing at less than full strength,
especially at Nationals. I mean, what is the tournament supposed to
be about if not spirited competition at its highest levels (or
something like that)? Don't cheapen my wins and all that...
There aren't that many teams going... maybe if the captains can agree
to it, then maybe the UPA has an out without looking like the IRS?
Could the penalty for a clerical error (assuming everything is on the
up and up and the DQ'd player isn't... wait, what would disqualify a
player anyway? this isn't college or juniors...?) be offset by the
delay in enforcement? Rosters at sectionals with a list of players
named "Chump" kinda indicate that the sport and its organizing body
(and subsidiary coordinators, god bless those poor bastards) are still
on the maturing side rather than the unilateral Old Testament rwar you
die now side of things? Unless this is some sort of delayed
reactionary... uhhh, action (in a different division... and at
Nationals, no offense to Matt Pippen and the Chumps who should, like,
totally have been disqualified)? What's the plus side to enforcing
this and to do so at this time...? I'm pretty sure letting Ambush
compete as Ambush is a better bet for the tournament, sport, and peace
in the Middle East than... whatever this is...
Apologies for the lack of gravitas.
Parinella
> As Julie said, rules are there for a reason.. if an advantage had
> been gained or if it had been a planned deception, I would be better
> able to understand the penalties. But everyone involved in the
> situation acknowledges that nothing of this sort occurred. They
> regret their mistake... let them play. It is my hope that the UPA
> does not think that reversing or changing their decision would
> negatively impact their legitimacy as a governing body. But I
> certainly can't see any other impediment to making an exception in
> this case.
I would be in favor of some administrative penalty or a lesser on-
field penalty to punish an administrative offense, but I can see why
there is a "no exceptions" policy. If the UPA allows the exception
with no penalty, then next year captains won't have to bother checking
in great detail since they know they can get a waiver after the fact
(would have saved me several hours of work this year). And there are
probably captains of other teams who similarly screwed up this year
but just had to say "sorry" to those omitted.
It sucks for everyone. The UPA might have DQ'ed the team had they
learned 3 weeks ago, but wouldn't want to do it now because of the
asymmetry of a 15 team format. But if faced with "let us all play or
we forfeit", they'd have to say "ok, see you later." A few years ago,
a team was DQ'ed on Day 1 of Nationals for intentional roster
shenanigans (a Women's team from the Central).
DJ
administrative error. Nothing about this situation was intentional so
your response is completely moot.
This has happened before, and in a situation like this, why don't we
have a "harmless error" clause to the rules? In cases like these,
where it can be proven that the player has been inadvertently left
offf the roster due to a clerical error, let'em play but issue a
warning. Only a single player exemption, and only granted once. Any
repeated violation can be dealt with harshly. If there's any evidence
of impropreity, screw'em and DQ the player, team etc.
I understand the UPA has a difficult job managing the series and the
thousands of people on the rosters but there seems to be little
downside to this type of exception. Again, we all play for the love of
the sport, and the penalty in this instance seems out of line. Where's
the spirit of the game in this instance?
jpt...@gmail.com
reading all of the posts backing them up [rules are rules etc.] I am
even more convinced that they have erred.
The UPA exists to facilitate players playing ultimate and the
rostering rules exist to make sure no one plays on multiple teams or
crosses from one division to another [eg. co-ed to womens if the co-ed
team doesnt move on]. Since club teams are free to pick up anyone who
has joined the UPA there can be no other reason for rostering [maybe
insurance but that doesnt really figure in this debate]. In this case
no one is arguing that she played only for Ambush and only in the
womens division. In that case what purpose is served by this harsh
penalty? If there is no reason other than rules are rules then i think
we can all agree that is petty.
If the UPA doesnt take extenuating circumstances into account then why
review each case on a case by case basis? And to say that other teams
would feel cheated to find out that some one who was otherwise
eligible but whose name was not in a spreadsheet somewhere had played
in their game is to say that teams are more worried about winning than
about playing the game. How is a name left off a list an unfair
advantage?
In the end I am sure the UPA will stick to their decision, perhaps on
the ground of not setting a precedent, perhaps because they think they
are right [please do not confuse this criticism with disrespect, the
UPA does many wonderful things and making judgements like this is not
easy], but the fair thing to do would be to look at the effect their
punishment will have on this team and ask themselves if it is
appropriate for a "clerical error".
The issue here is that the UPA has made a decision that cripples an up
and coming team with more respect for precendent and rules for rules
sake than the reality of the situation and the sport in general. I
think the rules should serve the players not the other way around. It
also occurs to me that "no harm no foul" applies rather well here. It
might be nice to hear from Ambush's upcoming nationals opponents here.
Anyone think they "cheated"? Anyone think this punishment is too
harsh? Anyone going to be satisfied playing a team missing two players
from an already small roster, one of them being the captain? Sounds to
me like the national tournament in general loses here. In fact i cant
see a winner, the only people who should benefit from the rules,
everyone who plays Ultimate Frisbee, are losing.
I have gone on far too long but only because i strongly believe this
is a wrong decision.
J2
PS. "And I don't want to hear about how it isn't the same thing. Yes,
it is. The exact same thing."
I cant help but correct your metaphor Paul when you throw down a
gauntlet like that. Have you ever argued with some one if you were in
or out? seems like interpretation of the rules leaves things not quite
so black and white!
PPS. I suck at spelling please forgive me.
Ryan Kircher
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's the goal of this thread? To open discussion on the topic?
fine, but that alone is not going to have any effect on the UPA's
decision. This thread could be 200 posts long with nothing but
sympathy for Ambush, and the UPA is not going to give a damn.
rsd can be used to generate ideas on how to approach the situation,
but all of us stating our opinions in this forum is not going to
accomplish anything.
What options do these 2 Ambush ladies have?
1) Stay home and take the punishment-Lame
2) Go to Fl anyway and party like a rockstar, and encourage your team-
Will be hard at first, but after a few beers you'll be fine (they
should at least get access to the beer tent)
3) Go to Fl and play, while disregarding the UPA's ruling-
Interesting, not sure what would happen in this case...
4) Stay home with your entire team- Kinda proves a point, but it'll be
forgotten in a year or two...
5) Somehow get the UPA to change thier ruling- Gonna be hard, and its
not gonna be through rsd banter.
La Maldad
>And there are
> probably captains of other teams who similarly screwed up this year
> but just had to say "sorry" to those omitted.
I doubt they said "sorry" They probably did what Ambush should have
done and said "shhhhhhhh."
I am with Tony Leonardo in the Phoenix Suns 'let-em play' side, and
also wonder, this being a player's association, who was advocating for
them, ala players' union rep.
>A few years ago, a team was DQ'ed on Day 1 of Nationals for intentional roster
> shenanigans (a Women's team from the Central).
Madison Johnny Cocktail was DQ'd, and it was at my first Club natties
ever, 2000, so it's been more than a while. That was an entirely
different situation, a player on their team played for a college team
in a different section and another team's player recognized her.
Frank Huguenard
>
> the UPA has some at-large voting for Board members going on now.
> Perhaps these candidates can offer their opinion on roster violations
>
> http://www.upa.org/bod/candidate/2008
The idea DQing two players due to clerical error roster violations without a
rule regarding roster limits is incompetent and entirely against the spirit
of the game.
"It is assumed that no player will intentionally violate the rules; thus
there are no harsh penalties for inadvertant infractions".
I guess the UPA doesn't consider DQing two players from Ambush for Nationals
as harsh.
Sarcasm aside, the UPA's decision was clearly arbitrary and not based on any
clear precedent or predetermined consequence.
> And which committee and/or person(s), exactly, made the ruling to DQ
> the player AND the co-captain?
You can't have it both ways UPA. Either you abide by spirit of the game or
you don't. Either rewrite the rules and chuck the preface, the ridiculous
rules that were derived out of the preface and make ultimate a real sport,
or let Ambush play with their full squad.
> http://www.upa.org/bod/currentboard
>
> personally speaking, I am always in favor of "let em play." I thought
> that what happened last year to the Phoenix Suns was wrong, and i feel
> similarly about NC State, Ambush, and others.
Comparing the Phoenix Suns situation with this is a joke.
Basketball is a real sport.
> TL
>
christoph...@gmail.com
at least on the field, we discuss it and find the best possible
outcome, that is, the most fair outcome. Was it a foul? Should we
just send it back to the thrower? Was it not a foul? There is room
for leeway, for creativity in ultimate, not everything is black and
white, not all rules are hard-line rules. That's probably because we
recognize, or at least hope, people don't break rules intentionally
and we are trying to abide by the spirit of the game. It's ultimate,
and this Ambush thing doesn't sound too fair, definitely doesn't sound
fair by ultimate standards. I say fuck it, let Ambush play, all of
them.
Jff...@gmail.com
Region feel about this? With the most onerous rostering system
imaginable, the player in question would have been DQ'ed before the
first game of sectionals. If the player in question played and it was
discovered after sectionals the whole team would have been
disqualified. With Ambush not making it out of their section, imagine
how things would have changed for the other players who have given a
lot to the sport and made significant sacrifices of time to train and
attend team practices.
Ambush has gotten off easy and will be able to play at Nationals. The
UPA staff and the board should be congratulated for comparing the
sectional and national rosters. Maybe complete rosters should be
required to be published in the Score Reporter by every team at the
same time it is submitted to the UPA. I am sure a few teams would
assist in the checks and balances ...
Mike Gerics
> to play against a team that's playing at less than full strength,
> especially at Nationals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---you're crazy!
i bet that every single team there...wishes that their opponent was short a
few of their best athletes.
ultimate7
review on a case by case basis is to determine whether or not to DQ
the team. I'm fairly certain had the roster violation been
intentional that the entire team would have been DQed.
It has happened before, one year a women's team was DQed during their
first or 2nd game at Nationals for having a player that had competed
at Sectionals/Regionals for a different team.
Paul P
> PS. "And I don't want to hear about how it isn't the same thing. Yes,
> it is. The exact same thing."
> I cant help but correct your metaphor Paul when you throw down a
> gauntlet like that. Have you ever argued with some one if you were in
> or out? seems like interpretation of the rules leaves things not quite
> so black and white!
I stand by my metaphor. What is argued is whether or not you were
in. There isn't debate on what should happen once that is determined.
Or, more accurately, my point is that there should not be.
Paul P
Mike Gerics
> Basketball is a real sport.
---you're a real fucking prick.
rqwil...@gmail.com
advance. I count two:
First (and of nominal importance): The UPA needs to be aware of which
specific individuals are participating in any given UPA-sactioned
tournament or event for reasons of liability/insurance. Although
players participate at their own risk, the UPA is deeply bonded and
insured and must be aware of the specific potential liabilities each
player, team, or event represents.
Second (and the thrust of Ambush's complaint): By and large, the UPA
must be able to create, foster, and uphold integrity within the
tournament system, both on the field and off. Whether through the
implementation of clearly-articulated rules of play, the adoption of
the contested-foul, or the advent of the observer system, there are
numerous and well-known mechanisms in place to "appeal" questionable
or potentially violative conduct during a real-time, in-game
situation. These are rules that players and teams know, understand,
and can rely on tourney-to-tourney. Kudos to the UPA for a job well
done.
However, as Ambush's current situation can attest, the behind-the-
scenes machinations of UPA procedure seems to be more than a little
nebulous. And for good reason: malicious roster tampering is
(arguendo) a far more egregious violation than a nefarious travelling
call or a wantonly accelerated stall count. This is where integrity
really matters, as we all understand how the presence of certain
players can change the face of a game or tournament, even at
nationals. This type of cheating is not tolerated. When an impact
player is wrongfully added to a squad, every success she creates for
her team becomes a black eye on the sport. When teams can't trust
each other to conduct themselves honestly and with forthright candor
when submitting a roster, the system has failed.
So this is what the UPA faces: If they let the ineligible member of
Ambush play, they'll create a precedent under which they believe
they'll one day be duped into letting a wrongfully rostered player
play. I understand the tradeoff.
But what is that maxim, 'better it is to let ten guilty persons go
free than to wrongfully imprison one?' That's the Legal System
talking! If this were a trial, Ambush would likely be able to admit
evidence (such as the numerous tournament pictures, etc) to establish
the omitted player's history with the team and prove that but for the
administrative error, the player belongs on the roster. It's a shame
that our legal system would be more lenient than the "benevolent" UPA
in this particular case.
The policies upheld by these particular rules are not compromised when
Ambush is able to effectively establish through other means that the
player has been on the squad and belongs on the squad.
Good luck in Sarasota!!
neurodancer
>
> This was an innocent, non-intentional clerical mistake. To ban the
> player and the captain is absurd. They both worked too hard for this
> to be the result. I know the co-captain of Ambush very well and
> consider her a close friend. She is perhaps the most ethical person I
> know and would never try to take advantage of any situation. She has
> also spent the past half decade willing her team into a position that
> it will be able to play at Nationals. Indeed, she set herself a goal
> that she would play at Nationals before her career ended and at 30 she
> has finally achieved that goal. I have watched her at the track doing
> ridiculous numbers of sprint repeats all so that she would be able to
> compete at the highest level. Finally, after years of knocking on the
> door they pushed their way in and are going to the big show. They
> proved they belonged by winning their game to go 15-4, which certainly
> indicates that the innocent participation of one non-rostered player
> would not have made a difference in their winning their way into
> Nationals. For the captain, is this the reward for years of efforts
> in putting together a spirited, competitive and talented team? What
> point is there in captaining if you are going to be singled out and
> treated like this? The UPA is punishing exactly the sort of people it
> should be helping. Instead of banning the players from participating
> at Nationals they could have found a less draconian answer - suspend
> them for the first game. There was no intentional conduct at issue so
> there could - and should - be leniency. Boo UPA - terrible decision!
>
Unlike russb, I don't know anyone on Ambush but as they practice at
the same fields at the same time as a pickup game I'm in, I've watched
them practice all summer and fall, every weekend they aren't at a
tournament. That, combined with a #16 seed, combined with winning the
game to go to get to the Nationals after years of trying left no doubt
in my mind who I'm pulling for in Women's this year.
I'm sure they'll handle this adversity with the class and
determination they've handled everything else this season but you can
count me in with the posters who think this decsion by the UPA is
unduly harsh. It seems to me that the rules could be enforced and the
appropriate messages sent by suspending one player for one day or
both players for one day each, one on Saturday, one on Sunday. Taking
their roster from 16 players to 14 for the whole tournament is pretty
brutal, and unneccessary.
ND
fretbo...@yahoo.com
reach out to those who made the decision. It's likely in the days
before nationals they are not sitting at a desk job reading RSD.
I believe it was the championship committee who made this decision.
A brief email or phone call to the following people--from a third
party, not on or related to Ambush (like me)--might be a step in the
right direction:
Director of Championships: Will Deaver
Championship Series Manager: Matthew Bourland
Their emails and the phone number for UPA HQ is listed here:
http://www.upa.org/upa/contacts
If you agree that an alternate penalty could be levied here, please
make your voice heard to the people that count.
-Mike
On Oct 23, 11:19 am, Leonardo <mistermalcont...@gmail.com> wrote:
fretbo...@yahoo.com
reach out to those who made the decision. It's likely in the days
before nationals they are not sitting at a desk job reading RSD.
I believe it was the championship committee who made this decision.
A brief email or phone call to the following people--from a third
party, not on or related to Ambush (like me)--might be a step in the
right direction:
Director of Championships: Will Deaver
Championship Series Manager: Matthew Bourland
Their emails and the phone number for UPA HQ is listed here:
http://www.upa.org/upa/contacts
If you agree that an alternate penalty could be levied here, please
make your voice heard to the people that count.
-Mike
On Oct 23, 11:19 am, Leonardo <mistermalcont...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jon rB Bauman
I'd say there is also some responsibility on the players to check that
they are rostered with the appropriate team. Even if your captain
doesn't put your email in on the rostering form, you should still be
able to log in to your account to see that you are on the correct team.
fretbo...@yahoo.com
reach out to those who made the decision. It's likely in the days
before nationals they are not sitting at a desk job reading RSD.
I believe it was the championship committee who made this decision.
A brief email or phone call to the following people--from a third
party, not on or related to Ambush (like me)--might be a step in the
right direction:
Director of Championships: Will Deaver
Championship Series Manager: Matthew Bourland
Their emails and the phone number for UPA HQ is listed here:
http://www.upa.org/upa/contacts
If you agree that an alternate penalty could be levied here, please
make your voice heard to the people that count.
-Mike
On Oct 23, 11:19 am, Leonardo <mistermalcont...@gmail.com> wrote:
toru....@gmail.com
Yeah, sorry, occasionally, the rank idealism tries to sub in for
actual gravitas.
Speaking of idealistic, I'll spell out an option beyond the 5 listed:
6.37) Contact the other captains in question informing them of the
situation. In the event that they play Ambush at Nationals, let them
decide prior to or at the beginning of their games whether or not they
a) want the best immediate competition b) want to make a minor blow
for the legitimacy of the UPA (or win with an * appended to their
record); both of which are totally valid options. Ambush plays each
game accordingly without any histrionics off the field while Tucker
lays down the one true rule of law on the field. All results and
decisions are listed publicly as precedent that will be ignored in
future similar situations. Tony Leonardo writes a new book
chronicling ultimate's growing pains... a tale of loss, confusion,
and ultimately... redemption... which may or may not be ignored
depending on how well he spins it.
Rock and roll.
quarant...@gmail.com
> not sure why they would ALSO DQ a captain.
>
> why is the captain DQd also?
> was she responsible for omitting the teammate....and then tried to sneak her
> in, or something mischievious like that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike, you don't remember when the UPA was considering DQ'ing a UNCW
captain at 2001 Nationals for failing to put numbers on jerseys?
Will Deaver approached me after our first game and said that the
Captain responsible for a lack of numbers would have to sit. That was
going to be Trey Snow, who already was out with a broken collar
bone.
After we played ourselves out of the tourney on Friday Will came back
to me and said that it was not an issue since we would not be
showcased on Saturday.
I guess the UPA puts a great deal of responsibility on Captains'.
-Daniel Q.
fretbo...@yahoo.com
reach out to those who made the decision. It's likely in the days
before nationals they are not sitting at a desk job reading RSD.
I believe it was the championship committee who made this decision.
A brief email or phone call to the following people--from a third
party, not on or related to Ambush (like me)--might be a step in the
right direction:
Director of Championships: Will Deaver
Championship Series Manager: Matthew Bourland
Their emails and the phone number for UPA HQ is listed here:
http://www.upa.org/upa/contacts
If you agree that an alternate penalty could be levied here, please
make your voice heard to the people that count.
-Mike
On Oct 23, 11:19 am, Leonardo <mistermalcont...@gmail.com> wrote:
Todd
> Tuesday before.
So?
If this problem was discovered at Sectionals:
- the team could have decided to play without the unregistered player
(avoiding the illegal situation before anyone has played, saving the
purchase of plane ticket(s) and lodging for Nationals and Regionals,
possibly keeping their captain eligible, etc.)
- the UPA would have had more realistic options to deal with the issue
(possibly allowing additions in obviously benign and/or exceptional
situations, changing the need to punish the captains, adding the
option of DQing an entire team in malicious situations without harming
the Nationals format, etc)
- rsd could spend Nationals week talking about the excitement of the
upcoming competition instead of head-scratching about roster issues.
Todd
On Oct 23, 9:58 am, Parinella <parin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 3:31 am, winterlea...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 10:22 pm, tucker <rebecca.tuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Open letter to the UPA and the Ultimate community:
> > > We are writing this letter in protest of a decision that the UPA came
> > > to tonight.
> > > Ambush, the New York women's Ultimate team, made Nationals this year
> > > for the first time since 2001. After we submitted the names of the 16
> > > players we were taking to Sarasota, we heard back from the UPA that
> > > there was a problem: one of the names had never been on Ambush's 2007
> > > roster.
> > > Ambush, like the city it hails from, sees many people come and go.
> > > That makes this second-year player a weathered veteran and integral
> > > part of our core. When she moved to Baltimore mid-season to take a job
> > > clerking for a judge, she spent her weekends commuting five hours each
> > > way to practice with the team, even when she was injured and could not
> > > participate physically. She took a huge burden off the captains'
> > > shoulders when she volunteered to call subs.
> > > When we learned of our oversight, it was a shock. It seemed there must
> > > be a way to clear up the misunderstanding. We have pictures of the
> > > player in question with us almost every tourney, she's eligible, she
> > > played with no other team - surely the UPA, made up of people who love
> > > Ultimate, had the power to make judgments on a case by case basis and
> > > the insight to understand that there was no malicious intent.
> > > Indeed, the UPA agreed that the mistake had been an honest one. They
> > > wrote, in a two-page letter: "It is clear that the omission of the
> > > player from the roster was a 'clerical/administrative' error on the
> > > part of the team." Nonetheless, not only did the UPA rule, on the
> > > Monday of Nationals week, that the unrostered player was disqualified
> > > from all of Nationals - a crippling blow, to the player, to our team's
> > > psyche, and to our small roster - they also disqualified one of our
> > > two captains, Alison Kling, as an "additional penalty" for our having
> > > competed in the series with an illegal player.
> > > This is Ali's second year as captain of Ambush, and fourth year on the
> > > team as a player. For two years, she, and she alone, has been doing
> > > our rostering, finances, our bidding to tournaments, hotel
> > > accommodations - all the stuff that makes it possible for us to
> > > compete and that no one else is willing to do. We do not have a coach.
> > > She never asked to be team secretary: as the more organized of the
> > > team's two captains, she naturally took on the responsibility.
> > > We exist because of the time Ali has put in. If the oversight is Ali's
> > > fault, it is my fault as well as co-captain for not checking the
> > > roster. By the logic used to disqualify Ali, I should be disqualified
> > > as well, and so on and so on.
> > > The UPA says it is being lenient, because in fact, the whole team is
> > > subject to disqualification. In reality, if our captain and one of our
> > > players are not allowed to play, you have taken all the meaning out of
> > > our experience anyhow.
> > > We admit and take responsibility for our mistake, and are willing to
> > > accept an appropriate penalty: a fine or a one-game or even one-day
> > > disqualification, either for the two players in question or for the
> > > entire team. But to bar these two players, who exemplify the grass-
> > > roots energy that makes Ultimate what it is, is in direct conflict
> > > with UPA's stated mission: to promote the sport and uphold the spirit
> > > of the game. Trust in that spirit.
> > > We have our plane tickets. Ali has booked our hotel. We are coming to
> > > Sarasota. Please let us play.
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Becca Tucker
> > > Co-Captain
> > > AmBush
>
> > ugh. what a mess.
>
> > question - don't all people get an email from the upa now when they
> > are added to a roster? can you see everyone else on that roster when
> > you log on to approve your addition to the team? and can't you even
> > add people from when you register first and the day of sectionals when
> > your roster needs to be official? no one ever noticed that this woman
> > wasn't on the roster? oh ambush!
>
> > where is the josh faust exemption? legal precident set here from fall
> > of '97?
>
> > corey-
>
> Long overridden. There were mitigating factors in exceptions granted
> during the '90s, namely that the UPA's system was full of holes and it
> was a contributor to the mess. Back then, teams handed in rosters at
> Sectionals (sometimes the official roster was handed out at Sectionals
> and asked for by the end of the day). Now, all the responsibility for
> this has to fall on the team.
>
> Checking IDs at Sectionals wouldn't help since rosters are closed the
> Tuesday before.
disc...@yahoo.com
phone or fax at the tourney hotel. There's a good chance they're not
checking email. I highly doubt they're checking RSD.
I don't quite understand the DQ of the captain. Maybe DQ the captain
for a game (or a day) and the unrostered player for a day (or the
tourney - either seems reasonable to me). DQ of the team over this
kind of mistake, even if it were discovered far enough in advance to
get a replacement team, seems overly harsh. Glad we didn't get to
find out where they were going on that one.
Jon rB Bauman
I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that you can't
always reliably determine if an error was truly unintentional and
harmless. I'm not trying to argue anything about the current
situation, just saying why having such exceptions would be so tricky.
The point of having all these picky rules is to provide consistency to
the players. The benefit of that has to be weighed against the
detriment of these sort of outcomes which nobody seems to really like.
Jon rB Bauman
<fhuguenard(no_spam)@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > the UPA has some at-large voting for Board members going on now.
> > Perhaps these candidates can offer their opinion on roster violations
>
> >http://www.upa.org/bod/candidate/2008
>
> The idea DQing two players due to clerical error roster violations without a
> rule regarding roster limits is incompetent and entirely against the spirit
> of the game.
>
> "It is assumed that no player will intentionally violate the rules; thus
> there are no harsh penalties for inadvertant infractions".
>
> I guess the UPA doesn't consider DQing two players from Ambush for Nationals
> as harsh.
Frank, please stop equating the rules of play with the series
guidelines. The have nothing to do with one another.
Parinella
> > Checking IDs at Sectionals wouldn't help since rosters are closed the
> > Tuesday before.
>
> So?
> If this problem was discovered at Sectionals:
>
> - the team could have decided to play without the unregistered player
> (avoiding the illegal situation before anyone has played, saving the
> purchase of plane ticket(s) and lodging for Nationals and Regionals,
> possibly keeping their captain eligible, etc.)
> - the UPA would have had more realistic options to deal with the issue
> (possibly allowing additions in obviously benign and/or exceptional
> situations, changing the need to punish the captains, adding the
> option of DQing an entire team in malicious situations without harming
> the Nationals format, etc)
> - rsd could spend Nationals week talking about the excitement of the
> upcoming competition instead of head-scratching about roster issues.
>
> Todd
Ah, good points. I meant that the player would still be ineligible.
In practice, if they didn't think they had a chance at Nationals, they
would have just played and no one would have been the wiser. Ambush
would still be in trouble, though. There would be a much higher
chance at getting caught at Nationals, maybe even in excess of 50%.
She wouldn't be on the roster, not in the program, she better not get
hurt or appear in any pictures or do anything noteworthy to draw the
attention of the UPA.
But that last point should be modified to say "the UPA could be
spending its time trying to run a tournament for the 1500 people who
followed the rules instead of fighting a fire for one or two who did
not."
The captain was responsible for the roster.
pevest...@gmail.com
some discretion when determining consequences. I'm not saying they
should or shouldn't DQ the player left off the roster in this case.
However, I do think each decision should be made using the facts and
circumstances of the particular situation. Zero tolerance policies
for certain issues are just void of reason in the workplace and other
places like this situation. Hopefully the UPA has/will come up with a
well defined process for handling these sorts of issues and act
reasonably given a set of facts. For the record I am a pretty black
and white person but I also don't immediately fire every person that
shows up late to work either.
Peterson
Malcolm
"t", and it's unfortunate that Ambush must suffer because of that.
The case facts that I have read clearly implicate that Ambush should
be an exception.
The UPA stated in there letter that it is clear that Amanda was
playing for Ambush all season. That being said, then it also clear
that Amanda's absence on the roster is an honest mistake. With this
situation if the law is followed verbatim then the UPA has the
decision it has already made. Unfortunately this approach to law has
some very severe problems. Here's a fun example: imagine that there is
no self defense clause for murder. Now imagine that an innocent person
was assaulted and during the struggle to defend themselves killed the
assailant. Now if that person were brought before the courts and tried
by the letter of the law they would be found guilty of murder. Even
though the circumstances obviously show that the person didn't do
anything "wrong". I understand that this example is extreme but it
still delivers the key point that laws and rules need to have
exceptions. Ambush, in this UPA case, defiantly deserves to be one.
My heart goes out to you ladies. Keep your heads up and play hard.
No matter what happens always remember that you have all earned the
right to compete at Nationals
Sincerely,
Malcolm
Mike Gerics
> -Daniel Q.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---DQ, i've been thinking aboutg DQ during this entire thread.
DQ this....DQ that......you're the real DQ.
DQ, the upa wouldn't DQ you, or they'd have to DQ me too.
cool that they DQd Trey since he had already been DQd.
alright DQ.
later.
MG
Mike Gerics
> captain at 2001 Nationals for failing to put numbers on jerseys?
> Will Deaver approached me after our first game and said that the
> Captain responsible for a lack of numbers would have to sit. That was
> going to be Trey Snow, who already was out with a broken collar
> bone.
> After we played ourselves out of the tourney on Friday Will came back
> to me and said that it was not an issue since we would not be
> showcased on Saturday.
> I guess the UPA puts a great deal of responsibility on Captains'.
---Hi Dan,
yes i remember Nationals in Boston.....UNCW played itself out of contention,
only after playing itself into the Best Game in College Nationals
History....AND....the Biggest Upset in College Nationals History.
captains are the liason, i guess between the upa and their teams.....and
that brings a lot of responsibility, yes.
Handy
My question is why is the palyer who wasn't on the roster being DQ'd?
She had no control over the situation, did she? Shouldn't this solely
fall on the captain?
jbrose
at on a case-by-case basis and the punishment here is way too severe
(provided the player was on the team the whole year). I doubt teams
will ignore the seriousness of proper rostering in the future if
Ambush were given a more sensible and fair penalty here. I also hope
those in charge are reading these posts and are willing to reconsider
because it would be much easier for them to get feedback this way than
to field a constant stream of phone calls. So, if you're out there
let us know. I respect the difficult position you are put in by this
mistake, but we are far too small a community for important decisions
like this not to be reconsidered after meaningful discussion by our
members.
Alex Peters
> My question is why is the palyer who wasn't on the roster being DQ'd?
> She had no control over the situation, did she? Shouldn't this solely
> fall on the captain?
Uh, no? All it takes is 5 seconds to look at your UPA account. She
didn't bother to do that. She never said "hey captain, I didn't get a
rostering email, make sure I'm in the system." If anything it is more
her fault then the captain. The rostering system won't tell the
captain "hey, you forgot someone!" that's up to the player (and hell,
none of her teammates took a look at the official roster and said,
whoah, this chick isn't on there?).
And she should obviously be DQ'd, if you're not on the roster, you
don't play. The only reason I can think of to allow a non-rostered
player to play, is if it's directly the UPA's fault that a player is
accidentally not on a roster (someone hit a button and deleted it,
website went down as you added her, etc).
DikEar
of attacking the UPA for this "travesty", perhaps people should be
lauding the fact they DID make an exception and didn't DQ the whole
team.
Good work UPA! That team fucked up and broke the VERY CLEAR roster
rules. In a moment of sympathy they only DG'd the "offenders", which
seems reasonably fair in my book. More fair than DQing the entire
team.
Did anybody cry when UCSB got DQ'd from the college series? Or
Minnesota? The whole team suffered from one person's mistake/bad
judgement. I know its not the exact same situation, but the rules are
pretty similar. A rule was broken. Punishment was doled out. Good job
UPA.
I don't believe "intent" has anything to do with the punishment, nor
can the UPA let it change the decision. When a baseball player is
found with steroids, it's always an "accident". They never knew they
were taking HGH. Should MLB say, "Oh, it was an honest mistake, carry
on hitting 70 homeruns"? I know the UPA has already agreed there was
no malacious "intent", but I also think that was a mistake on their
part to address that at all.
If people ever want ultimate to be a real sport, we're going to have
to follow the rules. The UPA is taking steps to legitimize this hippy
past time, and I support their efforts, if somewhat misguided at
times.
Sorry ladies. It sucks someone fucked up the roster and made it so two
of you can't play at Natties. But at least the REST of you get to
play!!
-dikear
hehe, you said disseminate
GO ROCKIES!!!!!
Joe Seidler
decision. Players are too close to the situation and often have no
perspective on the long term or other impacts. The UPA made a decision
based on what's best for the sport in the long run. The team should
have been DQ'ed as other teams have been in the past. They are very
lucky (but not deserving) to still being able to attend the Show.
On Oct 23, 8:19 am, Leonardo <mistermalcont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> to get down to brass tacks...
>
> the UPA has some at-large voting for Board members going on now.
> Perhaps these candidates can offer their opinion on roster violations
>
> http://www.upa.org/bod/candidate/2008
>
Becky
huge part of Ambush, then how could neither of the captains double
check the roster to make sure she was on it? Yeah you should be
penalized, like Alex was saying it is so fucking easy to look at your
roster and see if you are on it. The team should have been DQ'd at
regionals.
becky
scoop
> Sorry bout it.
>
. Or as El Duderino put it.... well,
> you know what he said.
"New facts have come to light?"
uncle d
captained by Lorne Beckham -- one of the guys who helped write the
then-current edition of the UPA rule -- accidentally left a woman off
of their Sectionals roster. She played at Sectionals; the team then
discovered the mistake and reported it to the UPA. The woman and
Lorne were DQ'd only for the first game of Regionals. This strikes me
as a much more reasonable approach.
Frank Huguenard
what's best for the sport.
"Joe Seidler" <j...@seidler.com> wrote in message
news:1193165025.6...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Frank Huguenard
> This is a good example where players should not be involved in the
> decision. Players are too close to the situation and often have no
> perspective on the long term or other impacts.
So I'm glad to see that you finally agree with me Joe.
Players should not be involved in any rules decisions as they are, as you so
eloquently put,
"too close to the situation and often have no perspective on the long term
or other impacts".
Seeing as I'm not a player and all of the board members and candidates are,
I'm the natural and obvious choice for the vote.
Drinks on the House for everyone!!!!
Vote Frank for change
www.dischoops.com/upaboard.htm.
ultimate7
2001 to a Chicago team, and the player was not allowed to play at
Regionals.
winter...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
i know it had been overridden. i just wanted to bring up the year
sockeye forgot to put josh on the roster! man, we had good laughs
over that.
this is less to laugh at, since they let josh play.
cs
Mike Gerics
> so eloquently put,
> "too close to the situation and often have no perspective on the long term
> or other impacts".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---are you talking about the rules of the game.....or the guidelines of
rostering?
i think that the "rules" that you're replying about, aren't rules of the
sport of playing ultimate, but rather consequences of improper
rostering.......
so...you prove my point exactly.....that ultimate is a non contact fool ade
drink.
Handy
You shouldn't have to check, you play on the team, you pay your dues,
you expect your captain not to screw it up. Besides that, I received
a rostering email but I had no idea I was supposed to receive one...
so how would I, for example, have known there was a problem?
dusty
> Uh, no? All it takes is 5 seconds to look at your UPA account. She
> didn't bother to do that. She never said "hey captain, I didn't get a
> rostering email, make sure I'm in the system." If anything it is more
> her fault then the captain. The rostering system won't tell the
> captain "hey, you forgot someone!" that's up to the player (and hell,
> none of her teammates took a look at the official roster and said,
> whoah, this chick isn't on there?).
So, every time I don't receive an email, I'm supposed to contact
someone and complain about it? Hmmm.... I've not received a lot of
emails over my time with access to email. In fact, I've not received
way more emails than I have received. More specifically, do you check
your roster every time you get an email like that? Should we be
expected to? I mean, in hindsight it is clearly a prudent thing to
do, but how many of us did that prior to today?
My point is not that we shouldn't check, but while a given player is,
in the end, responsible, how many of us would have noticed? Do any of
us set our clocks to make sure we get the UPA roster email? Shit, I
don't even remember seeing one. I mean, at some point I suppose I
remember them... but whatever. That might be from last year. As a
player, I know that I've paid my dues, I play for one team, and I've
submitted my info to my captain and to the UPA. I bet that the player
in question has done exactly the same amount of work that I've done.
She just got left off the roster. That sucks. That sucks hardcore.
As for the resultant decision, I'm not sure that it is the one that I
would have made, but it seems completely in-line with what the UPA has
the right to do, so I'm not sure how much I can argue with it. My
only question is what, exactly, is the point I'm supposed to take home
from this outcome. Should I be hyper-vigilant about my roster because
I could, accidentally, make my captain and myself ineligible? Okay, I
guess. I hadn't thought about it that way before, but I will now.
What other lesson am I supposed to take home from it? Will this set a
precedent? How does this inform me about the UPA? I don't really
know. I would like a UPA explanation, but then again... I suppose
that they can reserve the right not to explain it to me.
Let's get to something else here-- What is it that your post is
attempting to accomplish? Are you just trying to make all of the
Ambush players feel bad about not noticing? Or just the player and
the captain? Do you not think they feel shitty about that already?
Or that the player doesn't already know what else she could have done
now? Or that the captain doesn't now know? I mean... your post
essentially works to assign the blame for a clearly accidental
oversight.
Great. Let's play a rousing game of "Point the finger!" Woohooo!!!
music on tap: decemberists, picaresque
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
AKB
count?
Adam Tarr
> This is a good example where players should not be involved in the
> decision. Players are too close to the situation and often have no
> perspective on the long term or other impacts. The UPA made a decision
> based on what's best for the sport in the long run. The team should
> have been DQ'ed as other teams have been in the past. They are very
> lucky (but not deserving) to still being able to attend the Show.
My guess is that, if this had been discovered the day after regionals,
Storm would be going to nationals, a-la 2004 UCSD. The issue is that
it was too late to re-apportion the bid in a fair way.
I think it's also safe to assume that the captain who was suspended
was the official roster organizer (every team has at least one) and
had multiple chances to catch the mistake.
The UPA's options were roughly:
1) Let Ambush play with no penalty, thus setting up a precedent where
future teams could claim ignorance when a player was "accidentally
left off the roster".
2) DQ only the unrostered player, thus setting a precedent that
playing with an unrostered player is a no-lose proposition (i.e. worst
case is that you lose the player that you shouldn't have had anyway).
3) DQ multiple players, to provide some sort of penalty.
4) DQ the entire team, which in effect punishes other teams at
nationals.
Given those options, it's easy to see why the UPA made the choice it
did. You may not agree, but given the situation it's understandable.
It seems everyone agrees this was an honest (albeit quite careless)
mistake by Ambush, but the precedent issue is a very serious one IMO.
Speaking for myself only, and wildly speculating with no real inside
knowledge.
Alex Peters
> So, every time I don't receive an email, I'm supposed to contact
> someone and complain about it?
Unless it's your first time on a UPA roster, you should know that
sometime between pre-sectionals and nationals you were supposed to
receive confirmation that you are on a roster. If you don't receive
it, then yes, I would expect someone to inquire as to their status.
If it is your first time, well then I don't know what to tell you.
>More specifically, do you check
> your roster every time you get an email like that? Should we be
> expected to? I mean, in hindsight it is clearly a prudent thing to
> do, but how many of us did that prior to today?
Yes? I get an email it says ALEX PETERS, you have been added to the
roster for AMP for UPA CLUB SECTIONALS, you can check your roster
HERE. So I take the 5 seconds to check. In fact, looking at my email
now, I got one that says "Please review your roster for accuracy, and
have your team organizer contact us to correct any inaccuracies.
Currently, the following people are on your roster with you: [list]"
So when the player doesn't get the first one, she should ask, and when
everyone else on the team gets the second one, they should check.
>Do any of
> us set our clocks to make sure we get the UPA roster email? Shit, I
> don't even remember seeing one. I mean, at some point I suppose I
> remember them... but whatever. That might be from last year. As a
> player, I know that I've paid my dues, I play for one team, and I've
> submitted my info to my captain and to the UPA.
So basically what you're saying is, my brother could have been left
off Pike's roster, and you would have no clue, because it's kind of
lame to check about emails and rosters.
> Should I be hyper-vigilant about my roster because
> I could, accidentally, make my captain and myself ineligible? Okay, I
> guess. I hadn't thought about it that way before, but I will now.
You can do what you want, but knowing that if I wasn't on the roster I
wouldn't get to play, I made damn sure I was on the roster. I'm not
sure why anyone wouldn't.
>
> Let's get to something else here-- What is it that your post is
> attempting to accomplish?
I was answering the question that Handy posed, which was "why should
the player be DQ'd, she had nothing to do with it, it falls on the
captain." I'm sorry if she feels bad. I would feel bad too. That's
why I checked for myself.
scoop
> > This was an innocent, non-intentional clerical mistake.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---it seems like the clerical mistake...no matter what adjectives are put
> around it....is the reason for the athletes not being eligible to compete,
> right?
spot on mike.
scoop
> appropriate messages sent by suspending one player for one day or
> both players for one day each, one on Saturday, one on Sunday. Taking
> their roster from 16 players to 14 for the whole tournament is pretty
> brutal, and unneccessary.
> ND- Hide quoted text -
so the rules should be enforced for, ah, only the really good teams?
degnan...@gmail.com
I suppose he did say many things, but I was talking about
"This is a bummer man. That's a... that's a bummer."
More interesting in this situtation is: how did the UPA come to find
out that there was a player omitted from the Sectionals roster? My
guess -- after Regionals each team sends in an info packet to the UPA
for compiling into the Nationals program. Perhaps Ambush made a
(second) clerical error of including this person on the Nationals
roster (jersey #, height, sworn promise to have jersey # on shorts,
etc.) and the UPA simply cross-checked that one with the online
roster. News flash! Make sure your Nationals roster doesn't have more
people than your online roster.
Fool me once...
scoop
fuck off, frank.
Skip Hobbie
doesn't preclude the UPA from taking other, more appropriate
actions. Why not a steep fine? If they team/player was unwilling to
pay the fine for their mistake, then they are ineligible.
I just don't see how or why eligibility should even be a big issue in
the club world. From the UPAs standpoint when it comes to
eligibility, they should only care about the waiver and dues. This
isn't college where there are more substantive eligibility
restrictions. Provided the player isn't playing for multiple teams,
and meets the proper gender/age qualifications for their division, why
does this matter. And since there is no officiation, and rosters and
IDs aren't checked before games, how does on time rostering stop
someone from violating eligibility restrictions anyway.
Clerical error, they gained no advantage. Terrible handling of the
situation. I hate that the UPA keeps doing stuff like this that just
lends credibility to all those nay-saying about the UPA and their ways.
matt...@gmail.com
huge bummer on an admitted clerical error.
having said that, i'm the captain and organizer of my team, and i
chewed my nails down to nothing to make sure that i had all of my i's
dotted and t's crossed when it came to the roster.
it's really the single most important thing i had to do when i came to
the fall series, and i took the responsibility very seriously.
i'm not suggesting that Ambush's captain flaked out and did not take
her job seriously, but honestly, how does this happen? you've only
got 16 people on the roster! make a list, check it twice!!
somebody should have caught this before sectionals, and before
regionals and certainly earlier than a week before nationals.
the examples of UCSB and Minnesota (as previously stated in this
thread) mean that Ambush is lucky to be competing at nationals. very
very lucky. i'm sure there are teams in the northeast that would have
liked the opportunity. and they would have been entitled to their
spot.
by competing in the UPA Championship Series, we all agree to adhere to
certain rules and guidelines, among them the rostering rules. so
unfortunately, that's that.
Parinella
The funny part is that Faust actually was on the roster, along with
several other people on page 2, but Faust was the only one they
noticed, since he hadn't attended Sectionals and their captain noticed
it afterwards.
Handy
You shouldn't have to check, you play on the team, you pay your dues,
you expect your captain not to screw it up. Besides that, I received
a rostering email but I had no idea I was supposed to receive one...
so how would I, for example, have known there was a problem?
I'm not saying this team should go and be without penalty, that's
wrong, but DQing the non-rostered players sucks.
goldberg....@gmail.com
here it is. It is easy for people to say "rules are rules" when you
aren't suffering the consequence. As I put below, the best judges
consider the law (ie the UPA rules) against the facts. Rules without
consideration of facts do not produce the best results. Anyways, I'm
also just kind of sick with the UPA being about the series and not, as
someone else points out, the "Ulitmate Players Association."
Dear UPA,
I read today on RSD about the decision of the UPA to suspend two
Ambush players from Nationals. I am writing to urge you to reconsider
this decision.
Full disclosure: I played with Ambush from 2001-2005. Obviously, I am
biased. But I think I am also informed about this team and the
players as individuals and I understand them as people in a way
administrators are unable. I know what this opportunity meant to
them, both as a team and as individuals. And knowing them as
individuals, and what this decision will do to them, I am shocked,
upset and disappointed with this decision and this organization.
I can appreciate the position the UPA is in as the administrator. I
see that there is a need to set an example and implement
consequences. However, I feel decisions this decision is made to
preserve the competitive integrity of the series over the character of
the ultimate community and its growth, and to benefit top ultimate
teams at the expense of an unsung teams like Ambush. I object
totally to this thinking because it prioritizes the role of the UPA as
series coordinator over its role to support all players, even those
who aren't typically competitive in the series, and to grow the
support. Ultimate isn't just about Nationals.
Let's be frank: the need to strictly follow the letter of the rules in
this case, despite ample evidence that it was a pure administrative
error that did not impact the outcome of Regionals, is driven
primarily from the need to preserve the integrity of future UPA
series. The thinking is, I believe, if we allow this, we potentially
open up the system in the future to manipulation. Putting aside the
significant fact that this presumes that the UPA will not in the
future have the capacity to distinguish pure error from true ill
intent (afterall aren't the best judges ones who consider the law AND
the facts), this precaution has no benefit to a team like Ambush that
is not a regular competitor at Nationals nor likely to place high in
that series.
As you know, this is Ambush's first UPA appearance is six seasons.
With the four Northeast bids, that will most likely NOT occur again,
Ambush's future chances to return to Nationals are slim. I say that
not just based on past history, but also based on my knowledge of the
unique challenges presented by building a women's team in New York City
-where people come and go and are generally less concerned with sports
than the particular thing that brought them to the city, and where
there is zero field space and difficult transport and an extremely
high cost of living-and competing in a region that is large, including
all of Eastern Canada, and highly competitive.
I know that making Nationals was a dream for this team and for Ali,
who has played club ultimate for as long as I can remember (at least
2000 on) without ever having the reward of going to Nationals. Ali
and Ambush are typical of the majority of the ultimate community, if
not ultimate club players: they play because they love the sport and
the community despite the fact that they receive virtually no official
reward or recognition for the efforts. They are not discussed in the
UPA magazine. They do not get Gaia sponsorship. They are not (well
normally) discussed on RSD. And Ali may never again have this chance
to play at Nationals, now denied to her.
By making this decision to disqualify Ali, the UPA sends the message
that it cares more about rules, and as I said before, rules that
operate to allow the most elite teams a fair competition, at the
expense of unsung heroes like Ali and unsung teams like Ambush.
I fear that this message will trickle down to players in the New York
areas if not more broadly-again the numerous players who never benefit
from the "integrity" of the Nationals Competition-and sour their
perception of the UPA and the sport. This cannot be good for the
growth of the sport. So what could have been a tremendous opportunity
for the womens ultimate in New York-and everything it impacts-will now
be a negative, nightmarish, experience. And for what benefit?
Finally, I'd like to point out that the further decision to single out
a captain is really insensitive to the singular effort made by
captains on all teams. Without funding and (frequently) coaches,
club ultimate captains are the backbone of this sport. They make
everything happen! Why would you punish the individual who probably
put more into her team than anyone else? That is just unfair and
cruel and really suggests the UPA lacks an understanding of how this
community really operates.
I urge you to reconsider your decision to ban Ali and her teammate.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Goldberg co-captain, Scandal 07 season; former Ambush
captain, 03 and 04 seasons
neurodancer
Assuming that is not an intentional non sequiter, who said anything
about the team's level of play?
ND
dusty
>
> Unless it's your first time on a UPA roster, you should know that
> sometime between pre-sectionals and nationals you were supposed to
> receive confirmation that you are on a roster. If you don't receive
> it, then yes, I would expect someone to inquire as to their status.
> If it is your first time, well then I don't know what to tell you.
Yes, now that you mention it, I have always received those emails.
That being said, no one ever said "Hey dusty, make sure you get this
email from the UPA that shows you being on their roster for Pike. If
you don't get one, contact me." Instead, at some point in my time
with Pike, I began receiving these emails. I read the first one, and
I checked out the roster. I thought it was pretty neat, having my
teammates up there. Then I found out that this information was not
accessible to anyone. Then I thought it was less cool. On that
thought, I logged off and thought "That's a nice email for them to
send. Now I know who my teammates are. I won't have to ask that guy
with the crazy eyes who slapped my ass and and incessantly misuses big
words what his name is again."
The next year, when I actually knew the names of all of my teammates,
I didn't even open the email. I thought "Sweet. Now I know which
team I'm on." The next year, I already knew which team I was on and
never thought about the email. After that? Shit, I mean, I think I
get those emails, and I can probably search them down, but I don't
think about it.
I guess you can call me dense, but I wouldn't have remembered in
September that I needed to get an email in order to eligible for the
series. If someone asked me how I would know that I played for Pike,
I would say "Because Dan and J haven't yet seen fit to kill me in the
morning. Like they always threaten to before I go to sleep." Not
because the UPA sent me an email. If I was asked how I knew I wasn't
with Pike, I wouldn't say "Because I didn't see an email." I would
say something else. Like "I cut Pike, they didn't cut me!"
I mean, I'm from the age when important things weren't communicated by
email (and I'm still on Pike's damn young team!) so I usually figure I
can ignore emails. This is why I get in trouble with Online Billing.
That shit is bad news for someone who assumes his email account is
just there for amusement.
> Yes? I get an email it says ALEX PETERS, you have been added to the
> roster for AMP for UPA CLUB SECTIONALS, you can check your roster
> HERE. So I take the 5 seconds to check. In fact, looking at my email
> now, I got one that says "Please review your roster for accuracy, and
> have your team organizer contact us to correct any inaccuracies.
> Currently, the following people are on your roster with you: [list]"
> So when the player doesn't get the first one, she should ask, and when
> everyone else on the team gets the second one, they should check.
Yes. It was clear earlier that you are the sort of person who does
this. You probably read the instructions for IKEA furniture, too.
Right, she should ask. We've established this after the fact. My
point is not that your logic is flawed, given that you the assumptions
are correct. My point is that they are not necessarily correct. I
would wager that more people pay no attention to that email at all
than people who actually go and read the roster and check it all out.
You have to log in and shit. My password is UPA assigned, so I can
never remember it. I don't have my own computer, so I can't store
it. I have to look it up in my email because I sign in about 3x a
year (vote, register, mars roster). I usually don't feel like doing
that. It's a pain. And, as above, I'm pretty confident of which team
I'm on so I don't worry about it.
If you show me a survey of ultimate players and more of them read that
roster than didn't, then I might believe you. Until that point, we're
really just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which is fun. For me.
Not necessarily for anyone else.
> So basically what you're saying is, my brother could have been left
> off Pike's roster, and you would have no clue, because it's kind of
> lame to check about emails and rosters.
That is exactly what I'm saying. Except for the lame part. It isn't
that it is lame, it is that it never occurred to me. MY brother could
have been left of the roster and I wouldn't know. As we've mentioned,
I think I could have been left off of the roster and I wouldn't
know....... OH SHIT!!!! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO AMBUSH!!!!
If it is clear that someone can themselves be left off of a roster and
not be aware. In fact that the WHOLE TEAM would not be aware, how
could it be a surprise that your brother or my brother or anyone else
could have been left off of a roster?
> You can do what you want, but knowing that if I wasn't on the roster I
> wouldn't get to play, I made damn sure I was on the roster. I'm not
> sure why anyone wouldn't.
Too much faith in the system? Trusting people? Not worrying
incessantly about every detail of my life?
Again, Now that this has happened, I will be double-checking every
roster I'm on. Not that I'll be "privy to all the new shit," in the
parlance of our times, but I guess I would have a pretty good idea.
> I was answering the question that Handy posed, which was "why should
> the player be DQ'd, she had nothing to do with it, it falls on the
> captain." I'm sorry if she feels bad. I would feel bad too. That's
> why I checked for myself.
Okay, so she should be disqualified because she wasn't on the roster
or because she had something to do with it? Those are two different
reasons.
Is the player DQed because she is not on the roster?
or
Is the player DQed because *it is her fault* she is not on the roster?
Or some combination? If the first, your post and Handy's post about
whose fault it was, are at best irrelevant and poorly thought out
while at worst mean-spirited (Intentionally or not. Wait. This
brings up a good tangential point. Does your intent matter here?
Because you sound like a dickhead. If you claim that was not your
intent so you should not be assumed to be a dickhead, perhaps there is
some legitimacy to the argument of intent. If you claim that sure, I
didn't mean to sound like a dickhead, but you should treat me like a
dickhead anyway, because that's what I sounded like, well... you're
more of a man than most.) while if the the second, your post was right
in aim, but not necessarily in execution. What you should have done
is attempt to figure out how many people were at fault here. By
your above arguments, I'd bet you're sure that the player should be
suspended, but you do not establish your opinion on the co-captain, or
even the rest of her teammates, all of whom *you* pulled into the
discussion and reminded that they could have done something. What,
then, were you adding to the conversation?
Thanks for heaping it on though.
My argument is not with any of your points it is with your need to sit
back and say "I wouldn't have done that! That's so irresponsible!!!
Here are all of the things that *I* did to avoid this..." What is the
point of that????? You don't think that they already see that in
hindsight?
You're goddamn right you'd feel bad. How nice of you to say that, and
then in the next sentence be so fucking smug about checking for
yourself.
Goddamnit. I was going to end this post with something good natured.
But I'm too pissed off to do so.........
I'll just say this-- I've never had anything negative to say/think
about you before, Alex, so let's just assume this was a mistake. Or
that you didn't realize your post could be read that way. Or
whatever. Actually, I don't even care why. Maybe I'm a crazy
overreacting lunatic. People make mistakes. Anyway, have a drink
with me in Sarasota and we can shake hands and get over it.
Okay, so, maybe I wasn't too pissed off. I just had to get started.
music on tap: gillespie y machito
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
notapuller
just think, "Well, if this were me, with my same set of principles,
what would I want to happen?"
If you can honestly say, "Yes, I would want myself to be DQed for an
administrative error to set a precedent for the sport of ultimate in
the future, and I would want my captain to be DQed as an additional
penalty for having a player already compete illegally- albeit
accidentally illegally- in Sectionals and Regionals," then go ahead
and lend your support to the UPA's decision.
But OH MY GOSH. This is supposed to be fun. We are not
professionals. We play because we love it so much. Why on earth
would you ever want to take that away from someone? Waste their
money, time, and physical effort just to prove your point--- That
ultimate is a SERIOUS sport. We are HARDCORE. Someday we are going
to be in the OLYMPICS. Whatever, man. In my opinion, Amanda proved
over and over every weekend that ultimate is a serious sport by being
so dedicated more so than any rostering issue decision ever will. We
all take ultimate seriously by playing it and sometimes centering our
lives around it. And then the UPA shits on everything we try to prove
by saying this decision will help the sport in the long run. This
makes me want to quit the sport on a competitive level.
The UPA needs to focus on expanding the sport, making the rules
clearer, and checking that competition is fair. They've already
admitted competition is fair, and they were right. So what exactly is
the problem? Give Amanda a slap-on-the-hand penalty of not playing
the first game, or paying a fee like a late addition to a roster would
have to do (cause that's all she is anyway). Hell, give it to Ali too
if it makes you feel better, but the bottom line is: Competition
would still be fair and no one would even know about the error or UPA
decision if they would have just let her play. Fair competition and
spirit of the game would have been upheld, plus there would be no
heartbreak. Seems like a pretty logical outcome to me.
"Well, if this were me, with my same set of principles, what would I
want to happen?"
You'd want to play, because you deserve to play, because you did
nothing wrong.
thom...@stanford.edu
If my team played with an ineligible player, I would expect to be
disqualified from the series altogether. I think the UPA is being
lenient here, but really because they have no choice. Of course I
would want to play, but I wouldn't feel like we deserved to.
notapuller
> If my team played with an ineligible player, I would expect to be
> disqualified from the series altogether. I think the UPA is being
> lenient here, but really because they have no choice. Of course I
> would want to play, but I wouldn't feel like we deserved to.
That sounds like you are a UPA robot. I'm not saying you have to be as
emotional as I am about the issue, but honestly, you would have no
qualms with telling someone that they couldn't play if you didn't have
the title of "UPA committee" to protect you? And what makes you say
they "have no choice" but to be lenient in this case? Because if they
didn't they would anger the people that they represent? Hmm....
I don't mean to be rude, but I guess I just don't believe when you
say, essentially, that since your name was forgotten in an
administrative process that is part of a larger, laughable process,
you would truly believe that you are totally undeserving of playing in
the series. Their punishment is too harsh.
Okay, I'm too long-winded for rsd. Good night!
Knappy
with the crazy eyes who slapped my ass and and incessantly misuses big
words what his name is again."
Schmucker?
"Anyway, have a drink
> with me in Sarasota and we can shake hands and get over it."
Alex doesn't drink.
dusty
>
> "Anyway, have a drink
>
> > with me in Sarasota and we can shake hands and get over it."
>
> Alex doesn't drink.
Never? That's extraordinary.
I *specifically* didn't say "Meet me in the beer tent."
It's up to you (choose your own adventure!) to decide if I did that:
A) because I knew that Alex didn't drink
OR
B) because I didn't know if Alex drank
OR
C) because I didn't know if Alex was old enough to drink
and what that means about *your* assumptions. And about how much I
know!
I just assumed that at a tournament that was hot and potentially muggy
like Nationals, that Alex would like to quaff something that would
quench his thirst. Perhaps there would even be a beverage that he
enjoyed drinking above others. Fiji Water? Great Apple Cider (now's
a good time!)? A "5 Dollar Shake" "that you don't put bourbon in or
nuthin?" Whichever.
And *this* is what's keeping me from finishing up my Pre-Nationals
work... I wish someone would start talking smack about somebody
again. Isn't there someone playing with too much contact or with an
angry look in their eyes somewhere that we can berate? rsd is still
boring.
music on tap: little bobby zimmerman, highway 61 revisited
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
Alex Peters
You're right though, the first is fairly irrelevant, given that it is
a circular argument and merely points to the rule as it exists. The
second question as you stated it is equally pointless, because whose
fault it is doesn't matter, and refers back to the first question as
to why she is actually DQ'd. Now you're saying to yourself, aha, Alex
admits that discussing who's fault it is doesn't really matter, and is
simply a dick move. Well, yes and no. It goes back to the fact that
I am simply responding with my opinion to specifically what Handy
wrote, or at least what I think he wrote. This does not absolve me
from being mean, but I think it's important to see where I'm coming
from when reading my responses. What I read from Handy's post was "Why
should she be DQ'd for not being on the roster, when it is not her
fault/she had no control that she is not on the roster?" Though he
never directly stated the latter, his post seems much more like
statements in question form then actual questions. So Handy believes
that fault is at issue, thus I am compelled to address what the
options actually are, pointing fingers as it were, as he implicates
the captain as sole responsible party. I used my opinions about fault
and what actually could have been done to render his premise false.
We of course know that fault is not at issue, as the rule has nothing
to do with fault, and only to do with intention as it relates to
preventing the intentional at the expense of the unintentional.
Surely everyone on Ambush realizes now what could have been done, but
I was not replying to any of them, but rather to Handy and anyone else
who doesn't or didn't know, though tangentially I can see how it is
pouring salt in their wounds. Tact has never been one of my
attributes.
I'm not sure where Knappy gets these crazy rumors that I don't drink
though.
On Oct 23, 7:53 pm, dusty <dusty.rho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, so she should be disqualified because she wasn't on the roster
> or because she had something to do with it? Those are two different
> reasons.
>
> Is the player DQed because she is not on the roster?
> or
> Is the player DQed because *it is her fault* she is not on the roster?
>
> Or some combination? If the first, your post and Handy's post about
> whose fault it was, are at best irrelevant and poorly thought out
> while at worst mean-spirited (Intentionally or not. Wait. This
> brings up a good tangential point. Does your intent matter here?
> Because you sound like a dickhead. If you claim that was not your
> intent so you should not be assumed to be a dickhead, perhaps there is
> some legitimacy to the argument of intent. If you claim that sure, I
> didn't mean to sound like a dickhead, but you should treat me like a
> dickhead anyway, because that's what I sounded like, well... you're
> more of a man than most.) while if the the second, your post was right
> in aim, but not necessarily in execution. What you should have done
> is attempt to figure out how many people were at fault here. By
> your above arguments, I'd bet you're sure that the player should be
> suspended, but you do not establish your opinion on the co-captain, or
> even the rest of her teammates, all of whom *you* pulled into the
> discussion and reminded that they could have done something. What,
> then, were you adding to the conversation?
> My argument is not with any of your points it is with your need to sit
thom...@stanford.edu
Some of us like you better for it.
faceles...@gmail.com
a responsible person and this sort of thing would never have happened
to Alex Peters, because Alex Peters gets an email that says "ALEX
PETERS, you have been added to the roster for AMP for UPA CLUB
SECTIONALS, you can check your roster
HERE."
And then Alex Peters takes 5 seconds to check, unlike the people on
Ambush did. I sure bet those people on Ambush wish they were Alex
Peters or someone else who is responsible enough to check.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
katherin...@gmail.com
particularly lucky to not have been DQ'd from Nationals entirely. The
Club roster guidelines are fairly clear:
General Player Info
1. All players participating on a team for any and all Series events
must be listed on the team roster. If a player not on a team's roster
participates in the Series with that team, that player and/or team may
be disqualified from the Series.
...
5. Failure to abide by any of the above rules may result in the
immediate disqualification of the team or individual and possible
sanctions through the UPA conduct process.
And from the Club Coordinator Guidelines:
Administrative/Competition Issues
If a team or player is guilty of a roster violation (e.g.,
participation of ineligible players, roster fraud, etc.), that player
and/or team may be disqualified at the discretion of the event's UPA
coordinator. The coordinator, team, or player should take appeals for
further action in these circumstances to the National Division
Director.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think the UPA has built in a system for appeals here for a reason,
and Ambush is now *not* getting disqualified for violating a very
clear rule stated multiple times in the rostering information. It
does become a grey area to suspend the captain for Nationals, but it's
well within the UPA's jurisdiction to do so.
Adam Tarr laid everything out pretty plainly as far as the options the
UPA had to choose from when making their decision. And seriously, if
there are only 16 people on your roster, how do you miss that kind of
an oversight?
Really sorry Ambush, just go out and play that much harder.
--Katherine