One Observer: Traveling
ckerr4
to maximize Toad's opportunity to reach 100 posts in a single day.
First off, thanks to Rob for trying some of these ideas and letting me
Observe. It had been quite awhile, I was mighty rusty, and somebody
changed a bunch of rules on me while I was gone... But it was fun and
I don't think I did any harm -- probably a good motto for both
Observers and physicians.
I guess the three big experiments this weekend were: active travel
calls, active stall counts, and yellow/red cards. With any rule change
I think giving the different ideas a try is certainly worthwhile, but
interpreting the results from a single tournament can be sort of
tricky -- just not enough data points. The one thing these experiments
can help with is quickly identifying rule changes that are basically
DOA.
Based on what I saw, and on conversations with different Observers, I
didn't see anything that made me believe any of these rule changes
were obvious catastrophes that couldn't be made to work.
Which isn't to say I necessarily liked them all or thought they were
good for the sport.
Regarding active travel calls, I went into the games with the idea
that I'd call everything I saw. As a general principle, I think rules
should be black and white, leaving as little to the Observer's
judgment as possible. In short, "a travel is a travel."
I was going to call everything (or at least everything after a pivot
foot had been established, plus any really egregious violations on the
catch), and for the three games I Observed I averaged around 10-15
travel calls per game. But in the end, this was probably less than
half the travels I actually saw. I quickly stopped calling certain
types of the travels and below is my rationale for why I bailed.
The most common type of travel is an unweighted, or lightly weighted
pivot foot that slides or bounces around. You see this with new
players all the time and some of these travels I could probably make
from 70 yards away just by a the way a player holds the disc and looks
all skittish.
But there were also experienced players, players that clearly were a
team's central handlers, that just don't "stick" their pivot foot.
These players really need to focus on watching their feet and when
ever possible I'd tell them or a coach after a game that this person
needed to have a few "special" practices where someone needs to watch
this person's feet on every possession of a scrimmage.
I stopped calling these travels for two reasons: (1) it was clear the
marker had no intention on calling it, and (2) not only was the call
pointless, but, if anything, I think the call was frequently helpful
to the offense.
One case stands out in my mind: a UVa guy (I didn't write down the
guy's jersey number, but he was an experienced player) has the disc
about 15 yards out of the end-zone and with stall 4 he does a pivot
foot bounce. At that point the UVa offense was a mess, with a cloud of
guys running across the end-zone line, with nothing at all developing.
I call the travel, he looks over the now stationary receivers, some
eye contact, a shake of the head, and boom, the second the disc comes
back in (on five now) he throws a hammer to a receiver for a score.
The marker of the team UVa was playing, Maryland, would probably never
have made the travel call I made, and in effect at the expense of 1
second on the stall count, I gave UVa a mini-timeout.
I know dischoops dude is now going to jump in and say "see, traveling
should be a turnover", but I just disagree with such a harsh penalty
for an infraction that is completely inadvertent and gives the player
zero advantage. And I'll counter that with "see, this really should be
a call left up the players."
I'm not going to try and resolve this here, but it's an issue that I
think has to be looked at should the UPA go in this direction.
A couple other thoughts on active travel calls:
(1) An increasing number of players look now to be making "Thow-and-
goes" and this is a tough call for an Observer (or player) to make.
Was it a legit throw-and-go, or was it a "go-and-throw"? It's a split
second difference, and a certain percentage of these calls are going
to be blown. This is good, exciting, ultimate to play and watch, so as
a sport we definitely want to encourage it. #19 from Duke, who I saw
posted earlier, is very quick and was off after every short throw. If
I were his coach (instead of the legendary Christian Schwoerke) I'd
have him practice delaying his "go" for a 1/4 of second after the
release. Otherwise, no matter who's making the call, he's going to
pick up lots of bogus calls.
(2) You can tell some teams stress not traveling, while others clearly
don't. Although UVa won the tournament, and has plenty of athletes and
experienced players, as a team, I thought they had a bunch of folks
that travel. And as a team they traveled much more than some of the
other teams I Observed -- teams with significantly less talented
players. The UVa coach needs to bring the hammer down -- don't lose a
spot to Nationals (the region has, what 9 bids now?) over a travel --
no matter who makes the call.
(3) Calling immediate travels on a player that hasn't established the
proper pivot foot on an in-bounds play or on the end-zone line, just
seems kind of goofy. Not sure what the solution is, and I guess the
Observer could easily point to a spot on the line and say, "pivot foot
here" and I wouldn't blink. I don't know.
Finally, if you think active travel calls are the next step toward
full-fledged referees, I think you have every reason to be concerned.
To me, games with active travel calls felt very different: a little
bit more like soccer, a little bit less like ultimate. Currently,
Observers get involved almost exclusively at the tail-end of an event
where there's at least a momentary stoppage in play: is the player in
or out of bounds? There's a foul call, it needs to be resolved. Is the
player in or out of the endzone? etc.
With active travel calls, you've got a game flowing along, when
suddenly there's a stoppage of play that's 100% initiated by the
Observer. And you get that same delay you get with all refereed sports
where the players looks around and some guy looks all quizzically at
the referee and says, "you calling that on me?"
Even if active travel calls cut down on player's traveling (and it
likely would), you're going to have Observers jumping in stopping play
probably a dozen times or so a game.
With a few refinements I'm sure it can be made to work fine, but
there's absolutely no question in my mind that the ski tips are going
to be pushed that much further over the cliff.
Charles
Frank Huguenard
> I stopped calling these travels for two reasons: (1) it was clear the
> marker had no intention on calling it, and (2) not only was the call
> pointless, but, if anything, I think the call was frequently helpful
> to the offense.
These calls are not pointless and the only reason they were helpful to the
offense was because there is no penalty associated with them.
thaddeu...@gmail.com
Yeah, I have to agree with Frank on this point, although what penalty
could there be other than turnover? Loss of gained ground wouldn't
really make a difference unless the penalty was something along the
lines of back to half field/back to brickmark. In Kerr's example,
loss of a couple of seconds' time on the stall count wouldn't really
impact the play either. I don't see us going to turnover, but loss of
20-30 yards of gained ground might work.
Alex Morrone
I would have to disagree, a travel that in no way benefits the offense
does not need to be called. If it doesn't have any impact that why
stop the flow of the game.
Frank Huguenard
You can see how much it cleans up the game to have The Heisenberg principal
in affect (i.e. the simple act of adding an Observer to the equation changes
the outcome of the experiment).
The amount of traveling decreases an order of magnitude. You can clean up
the rest of the travels with making the penalty a turnover (and for Kerr to
say that balance isn't important and irrelevant is ridiculous).
I'll take a 20 yard drop in yardage anytime. Yardage is irrelevant in the
motion offense and 9 times out of 10, you're doing me a favor by resetting
the O.
There already is a precedent in the rules.
If you hold on to the disc for 10 seconds, the penalty is a turnover.
What's the big deal of applying this same penalty to a more egregious
offense?
Furthermore, it would still up up to the AO's discretion of when to enforce
this.
<thaddeu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16dc61c4-75a4-4703...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Frank Huguenard
everyone to see.
If there is no advantage to the offense, then don't do it. It's illegal.
"Alex Morrone" <morro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52b796ab-c5ec-4642...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
ckerr4
Under the rules we played with, calling certain types of travels was
pretty much pointless, maybe even beneficial to the traveling team.
If, in Frank-disc, a meaningless travel was a turn, then making the
call wouldn't be pointless.
Charles
davis...@bentley.edu
punished, even if it can be argued that its not calling it helps the
defense (putting that type of judgment on the observer, or player for
that matter, is not fair for a split second call). However, I do think
that for something that is as common or disputable as a travel, the
punishment should not be a turnover. What if it was something a
little bit more reasonable such as, the stall count stays the same, O
is frozen, and D has 20 seconds to set any set they want?
Alex Morrone
shoes and have anyone who knows me think I'm a crazy old fool.
The simple fact of the matter is that a turnover is a rediculous
penalty for traveling. Maybe this could apply to the elite levels but
any other level of play enforcing this rule would ruin the game.
Since you love references to other sports so much... this is the
equivalent of making a false start or holding call in football a
turnover. We can all agree that is dumb
H
CREATED A WHOLE NEW UNIVERSE with observers in The Equation, thus
branching off from the universe without observers. That's deep,
man.
Knappy
"equivalent" would be to basketball, where dragging a pivot foot/
traveling is a turnover.
Of course, the fact that there are likely more possessions in a
basketball game than in an ultimate game makes penalty = turnover more
onerous to an ultimate offense.
I would not necessarily be against making it a turnover in ultimate,
if it was an active call only by TRAINED officials/observers. They
would adjust their officiating based upon the level of competition.
For example, in youth b-ball, they look the other way on many travels.
Then, they start calling it tighter in HS & college. Then, they get to
the NBA and they travel on every pivot move & drive to the hoop.
Or, wait, that disproves my theory. Crap.
Baer
>
> The simple fact of the matter is that a turnover is a rediculous
> penalty for traveling. Maybe this could apply to the elite levels but
> any other level of play enforcing this rule would ruin the game.
> Since you love references to other sports so much... this is the
> equivalent of making a false start or holding call in football a
> turnover. We can all agree that is dumb
Yes, but those calls in football are penalized, and in most cases in
football, a penalty of 10 yards for holding is a huge setback, since
it negates the play, changes the next play call, and can impact a
whole series of downs. In football, you maintain possession by gaining
yards.
In Ultimate, you maintain possession by holding onto the disc for less
than 10 seconds at a time, so really an illegal move by the offense
can only be penalized by either a turnover or shortening your stall
count. If travels are to be penalized, those are your options.
Baer
>
> I would have to disagree, a travel that in no way benefits the offense
> does not need to be called. If it doesn't have any impact that why
> stop the flow of the game.
Because it's illegal and it's bad form. Since you brought up football
penalties, let's use that as a comparison. In football, lots of
penalties don't directly affect the play, but the ref still calls them
because it's his job to enforce the rules consistently. Hell,
sometimes the offense gets a break if a whistle is blown on a before
someone gets blown up in the backfield.
The difference in football is, unless it's a dead ball foul, the other
team has an opportunity to decline the penalty, but the flag is always
thrown if the foul is seen.
However, since football stops between downs and Ultimate is meant to
be continuous, maybe there are other ways to call these travels. In
hockey and lacrosse, the ref will call a delayed penalty, putting his
hand up if the defense does a no-no, but play does not stop until the
offense loses the puck. In Ultiamte, since it may be advantageous to
an offense on occasion if play stops on a travel call, what if the
official puts up a hand on a travel and only stops the play if the
next pass is complete (if it is thrown on a travel), and then allows
the defense to quickly reset after the call (on any violation). I
think the point should be (in any case) that the team who committed a
foul or violation should not be able to benefit from their act.
However, they should most certainly be called consistently.
Douglas T Lilley
> Then, they start calling it tighter in HS & college. Then, they get to
> the NBA and they travel on every pivot move & drive to the hoop.
>
> Or, wait, that disproves my theory. Crap.
I wondered where you were going with that one.
ager...@yahoo.com
> Even if active travel calls cut down on player's traveling (and it
> likely would), you're going to have Observers jumping in stopping play
> probably a dozen times or so a game.
---i'm a good observer.
i was on teams back in the day that knew travels when we saw them.
i want to call travels.
i look closely for travels.
i'd say, i concentrated on travels.
i called about 6 ALL WEEKEND.
what's wrong with me?
i called a SWEET travel against a kid from Wilmington Christian
Academy tonight...one of those hard to call travels when the guy ball
fakes one way, then goes the other but lifts his pivot foot
first.....the kind where, when it's called on TV...ya gotta watch it
in slow motion to see what the hell the ref called. i was fired up.
first thing i thought when i made the call....was.....how can i make
that sweet call....and only call 6 travels all week at a college
ultimate tournament????
know what.....i think that a lot of OTHER PEOPLE'S notion of what a
travel is........is gonna have to change.
Mike G
ager...@yahoo.com
> does not need to be called. If it doesn't have any impact that why
> stop the flow of the game
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---your disagreement is wrong.
a violation of the rules should be called.
play by the rules....whether it benefits you or not.
joad...@ec.rr.com
>
> I guess the three big experiments this weekend were: active travel
> calls, active stall counts, and yellow/red cards. With any rule change
> I think giving the different ideas a try is certainly worthwhile, but
> interpreting the results from a single tournament can be sort of
> tricky -- just not enough data points.
so.....back to the drawing board, eh? whos hostin the next "new
rules" event? maybe e and or b-sterns will step up and do some more
radical shit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one thing these experiments
> can help with is quickly identifying rule changes that are basically
> DOA.
such as.....
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Based on what I saw, and on conversations with different Observers, I
> didn't see anything that made me believe any of these rule changes
> were obvious catastrophes that couldn't be made to work.
is it their rules (or rule enfrocement processes), in other sports,
that make those sports catostrophic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Which isn't to say I necessarily liked them all or thought they were
> good for the sport.
"good for the sport"........in its attempt to preserve sotg? or to
progress and evolve???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Regarding active travel calls, I went into the games with the idea
> that I'd call everything I saw. As a general principle, I think rules
> should be black and white, leaving as little to the Observer's
> judgment as possible. In short, "a travel is a travel."
>
> I was going to call everything (or at least everything after a pivot
> foot had been established, plus any really egregious violations on the
> catch), and for the three games I Observed I averaged around 10-15
> travel calls per game. But in the end, this was probably less than
> half the travels I actually saw. I quickly stopped calling certain
> types of the travels and below is my rationale for why I bailed.
wasnt there a pre game observers meeting so that what would and
wouldnt be called was discussed, ya know, so that it would be called
consistantly. Surely you at least talked to your crew partner as to
how you would call it, for the sake of consistancy????
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I stopped calling these travels for two reasons: (1) it was clear the
> marker had no intention on calling it, and (2) not only was the call
> pointless, but, if anything, I think the call was frequently helpful
> to the offense.
thats why there needs to be a stonger deterant in place so people put
more effort into "not" traveling. Make it a turn, call it tight and
watch em start followin the rules. Cant you see that its the soft
sotg rules (with no harsh penalties) that enable the slackness "not"
to follow them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> One case stands out in my mind: a UVa guy (I didn't write down the
> guy's jersey number, but he was an experienced player) has the disc
> about 15 yards out of the end-zone and with stall 4 he does a pivot
> foot bounce. At that point the UVa offense was a mess, with a cloud of
> guys running across the end-zone line, with nothing at all developing.
>
> I call the travel, he looks over the now stationary receivers, some
> eye contact, a shake of the head, and boom, the second the disc comes
> back in (on five now) he throws a hammer to a receiver for a score.
well 1) make it a turn and he wont be doing anything but playin d. 2)
ifn you, as the official, controled resuming play then you could have
quickly assesed the penalty (????) and called "disc in" prior to
calling any eye contact isolation plays. werent you also supposed to
allow the "d" to reset......or was that just on offensive fouls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The marker of the team UVa was playing, Maryland, would probably never
> have made the travel call I made, and in effect at the expense of 1
> second on the stall count, I gave UVa a mini-timeout.
but thats only because the players micro managed that stopped time
into one......and more reason for the officials to control the
management process of "resuming play".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know dischoops dude is now going to jump in and say "see, traveling
> should be a turnover", but I just disagree with such a harsh penalty
> for an infraction that is completely inadvertent and gives the player
> zero advantage.
but you also disagreed with the travel being an active call to begin
with.....and that seemed to turn out ok.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I'll counter that with "see, this really should be
> a call left up the players."
based on what......the o gaining a mini t.o. advantage??? that can be
easily fixed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not going to try and resolve this here, but it's an issue that I
> think has to be looked at should the UPA go in this direction.
>
> A couple other thoughts on active travel calls:
>
> (1) An increasing number of players look now to be making "Thow-and-
> goes" and this is a tough call for an Observer (or player) to make.
> Was it a legit throw-and-go, or was it a "go-and-throw"? It's a split
> second difference, and a certain percentage of these calls are going
> to be blown. This is good, exciting, ultimate to play and watch, so as
> a sport we definitely want to encourage it.
then maybe the rule should be changed to make sure the disc is
released proir to the 4th or 5th ground contact, but any more than
that (without a significant pause) would warrent a travel. I say ya
create a balance by being more lenient with the letter of the law but
more harsh on the assesment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
#19 from Duke, who I saw
> posted earlier, is very quick and was off after every short throw. If
> I were his coach (instead of the legendary Christian Schwoerke) I'd
> have him practice delaying his "go" for a 1/4 of second after the
> release. Otherwise, no matter who's making the call, he's going to
> pick up lots of bogus calls.
not if the rule is changed to allow one more ground contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (2) You can tell some teams stress not traveling, while others clearly
> don't. Although UVa won the tournament, and has plenty of athletes and
> experienced players, as a team, I thought they had a bunch of folks
> that travel.
you know what they say.......if the ref dosent call it......it aint a
travel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And as a team they traveled much more than some of the
> other teams I Observed -- teams with significantly less talented
> players. The UVa coach needs to bring the hammer down -- don't lose a
> spot to Nationals (the region has, what 9 bids now?) over a travel --
> no matter who makes the call.
who cares, either way they get the disc back. and i'm sure they would
worry more about strategies than not traveling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (3) Calling immediate travels on a player that hasn't established the
> proper pivot foot on an in-bounds play or on the end-zone line, just
> seems kind of goofy. Not sure what the solution is,
how about instructing them on the proper way to stand as they approach
the line.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
and I guess the
> Observer could easily point to a spot on the line and say, "pivot foot
> here" and I wouldn't blink. I don't know.
wwgd
----------------------------------------------------
>
> Finally, if you think active travel calls are the next step toward
> full-fledged referees, I think you have every reason to be concerned.
but what if this makes us happy.....and we are looking forward to the
institution of refs in ulti?. you must be talking to the spirit
zealots here, eh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To me, games with active travel calls felt very different: a little
> bit more like soccer, a little bit less like ultimate.
in other words....a little more real sport-ish????
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently,
> Observers get involved almost exclusively at the tail-end of an event
> where there's at least a momentary stoppage in play: is the player in
> or out of bounds? There's a foul call, it needs to be resolved. Is the
> player in or out of the endzone? etc.
which isnt the mike g way
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> With active travel calls, you've got a game flowing along, when
> suddenly there's a stoppage of play that's 100% initiated by the
> Observer. And you get that same delay you get with all refereed sports
> where the players looks around and some guy looks all quizzically at
> the referee and says, "you calling that on me?"
is that how it goes down with you mike?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Even if active travel calls cut down on player's traveling (and it
> likely would), you're going to have Observers jumping in stopping play
> probably a dozen times or so a game.
so. deal with it quickly and move on. of course if the penalty was
harsher youde probably find that people do it less.
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> With a few refinements I'm sure it can be made to work fine,
yea, by giving throwers an extra step and making it a turn when
violated. Either way, its a ref call, so i like it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but
> there's absolutely no question in my mind that the ski tips are going
> to be pushed that much further over the cliff.
and then you drop in on a sweet face and ride it like theres no
toworrow!?! sounds like a good idea to me.
MRB
> What's the big deal of applying this same penalty to a more egregious
> offense?
Since when is traveling more egregious? As plenty of people have
mentioned in the thread, a lot of times the thrower doesn't realize
it, and gains no or absolutely minimal advantage. On the other hand,
holding the disc for an infinite length of team clearly gives huge
advantages to the offense. I think a sensible way to analyze how
egregious a violation is is to determine the advantage gained.
- MRB
ckerr4
> i was on teams back in the day that knew travels when we saw them.
If ANYONE knows a travel, it's you.
> i called about 6 ALL WEEKEND.
>
> what's wrong with me?
>
> know what.....i think that a lot of OTHER PEOPLE'S notion of what a
> travel is........is gonna have to change.
You did 10 games, I did 3. And I know we had a few teams in common
(Duke, FSU), but I probably called 30+ travels. Clearly we're looking
at this differently, and I bet I know what the difference is.
You called travels like I called travel as a player in a game. When
the thrower traveled as he was throwing. When the travel might
actually matter.
If Observers are making a travel call, I think that approach would be
perfectly legit.Of course, I'd much rather the markers makes these 6
calls in a weekend, but if Observers are making it, I think you can
make a case that they only call blatant non-throwing travels and call
the travels that matter. Travels on the actual throw.
And if we're only calling travels on throws, is a penalty needed here?
A turnover stands, or a good pass is coming back giving the thrower
another chance to turn it over.
If you wanted to get fancy, you could separate travels into classes of
throwing and non-throwing, track the non-throwing travels and after X
number of non-throwing travels a team could be assessed a timeout. Or
move the disc back to the reverse brick. Whatever.
Charles
Frank Huguenard
"MRB" <man...@reaxion.org> wrote in message
news:5ef82a01-754c-4ea5...@p37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> If you hold on to the disc for 10 seconds, the penalty is a turnover.
>> What's the big deal of applying this same penalty to a more egregious
>> offense?
>
> Since when is traveling more egregious? As plenty of people have
> mentioned in the thread, a lot of times the thrower doesn't realize
> it,
That's exactly the problem.
>> and gains no or absolutely minimal advantage.
That's simply not true. Against a competent marker, it's an enormous
advantage to travel, even a small amount.
> On the other hand,
> holding the disc for an infinite length of team clearly gives huge
> advantages to the offense.
No, not in my offense. Holding on to the disc is a huge advantage for the
defense.
disc...@yahoo.com
> Once again another mediocre player putting his arrogance of full display for
> everyone to see.
>
> If there is no advantage to the offense, then don't do it. It's illegal.
>
>
> news:52b796ab-c5ec-4642...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 4:23 pm, thaddeusgol...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 3:09 pm, "Frank Huguenard" <fr...@dischoops.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I stopped calling these travels for two reasons: (1) it was clear the
> > > > marker had no intention on calling it, and (2) not only was the call
> > > > pointless, but, if anything, I think the call was frequently helpful
> > > > to the offense.
>
> > > These calls are not pointless and the only reason they were helpful to
> > > the
> > > offense was because there is no penalty associated with them.
>
> > Yeah, I have to agree with Frank on this point, although what penalty
> > could there be other than turnover? Loss of gained ground wouldn't
> > really make a difference unless the penalty was something along the
> > lines of back to half field/back to brickmark. In Kerr's example,
> > loss of a couple of seconds' time on the stall count wouldn't really
> > impact the play either. I don't see us going to turnover, but loss of
> > 20-30 yards of gained ground might work.
>
> I would have to disagree, a travel that in no way benefits the offense
> does not need to be called. If it doesn't have any impact that why
> stop the flow of the game.
"> Once again another mediocre player putting his arrogance of full
display for
> everyone to see."
how can you say that with a straight face?
Frank Huguenard
>> how can you say that with a straight face?
Please don't confuse confidence with arrogance.
As Jim Herrick said, if I can back it up, it ain't bragging. If you think
I'm mediocre, I'll meet you anytime, anywhere for a little round of
juke-till-you-puke and we'll settle it.
Arrogance and ignorance are two sides to the same coin.
Anyone who makes the claim that travels that don't give an advantage
shouldn't be called is both arrogant and ignorant.
cole
ager...@yahoo.com
---i thought so........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the difference is.
> You called travels When
> the thrower traveled as he was throwing. When the travel might
> actually matter.
---but THAT's not even true.
i called travels when the thrower failed to place his pivot on the
goalline a couple times after bringing the disc up after a turnover.
i called 2 or 3 during the 'post catch slow down'
i called 1 on a huck and the guy did a little dance before actually
throwing, and that's what i called.
i called 1 on a kid that looked new and obviously lifted his foot in
the throwing motion.
the majority were not 'throwing motion' travels.
i was like......disappointed....to not be able to call MORE throwing
motion travels.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If Observers are making a travel call, I think that approach would be
> perfectly legit.
---it is NOT legit to predetermine which type of travels to call.
a travel is a travel is a travel and i want to call every one of them.
i just rarely saw them after a catch during the "fewest number of
steps to stop"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, I'd much rather the markers makes these 6
> calls in a weekend,
----well....therein lies the problem.
with the markers making THOSE 6 calls....they are also making 17
additional calls that I ALSO WOULDN'T SEE, i guess.....and that makes
for a bad game to participate in and to spectate....and to observe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but if Observers are making it, I think you can
> make a case that they only call blatant non-throwing travels and call
> the travels that matter. Travels on the actual throw.
---did i already say....it's wrong to predetermine the travels that an
observer should call.
call the travels.
i think it's possible that observers(and myself included if i'm not
seeing it right) will have to reconsider what the "fewest steps to
stop" is....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> And if we're only calling travels on throws, is a penalty needed here?
> A turnover stands, or a good pass is coming back giving the thrower
> another chance to turn it over.
---i don't believe a travel should be a turnover....that's not
ultimate.
i've been trying to take a guess at what a penalty would be......
maybe the stall could/would/should go to 7 automatically after a
called travel.
that is......open hand arm straight up, "TRAVEL", hand rotation 1.5
times, "SAYING 7"....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If you wanted to get fancy, you could separate travels into classes of
> throwing and non-throwing, track the non-throwing travels and after X
> number of non-throwing travels a team could be assessed a timeout. Or
> move the disc back to the reverse brick. Whatever.
---jesus christ no.
ckerr4
> i called travels when the thrower failed to place his pivot on the
> goalline a couple times after bringing the disc up after a turnover.
> i called 2 or 3 during the 'post catch slow down'
> i called 1 on a huck and the guy did a little dance before actually
> throwing, and that's what i called.
> i called 1 on a kid that looked new and obviously lifted his foot in
> the throwing motion.
> the majority were not 'throwing motion' travels.
> i was like......disappointed....to not be able to call MORE throwing
> motion travels.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hhhmmmm.....
I didn't call a single post catch slow down (not sure I would if I saw
one, but I didn't), but somehow I still called something like 10 times
more travels than you did per game. And, as I said, I could have
called more. And I think I know a travel when I see one too.
The only explanation I can find is that Mike G has mellowed. Could
that be it?
Two final points that I want to be clear about: (1) for the most part
I thought players didn't travel all that much. Nothing like in the
old, old days. Maybe they're solving this problem on their own. Maybe
there was just a heightened awareness for this tournament. (2) I think
without me the players would have called mostly throwing motion
travels, and there might have been 5 or so for the game. With the
exception of one travel call I just flat-out missed (sorry FSU), no
one protested any of my calls or non-calls.
But with a week of practice it won't matter who's calling the travel
-- players will just stick their pivot foot and be done with it.
Charles
In an earlier post Observer Mitch felt that Observers cut down on the
number of incorrect travel calls. My experience is that the vast
majority of travel calls by players are legit, with the one exception
being the throw-and-go with a quick step immediately after the disc
leaves the player's hand. Inevitably Observers or Markers are going to
occasionally get this one wrong. It's a split second thing.
ager...@yahoo.com
> that be it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---i'll still fight anyone on the ultimate field....and i was pile
driving opponents just a year or so ago.
no mellowing.....
Frank Huguenard
validating the ACC experiment and therefore was calling less travels to
provide evidence that adding AO resulted in fewer travels?
"ckerr4" <chas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33b4d235-e96d-46c1...@e22g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
ager...@yahoo.com
> Could it be that MikeG, consciously or subconsciously, was biased towards
> validating the ACC experiment and therefore was calling less travels to
> provide evidence that adding AO resulted in fewer travels?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---nope....that COULDN'T be.
doyl...@gmail.com
What about allowing the Defense to move when an observer calls travel?
i.e. Offense must stop, but defense can correct their positioning.
Gives a little more 'penalty' for travelling, without going to the
extent of a turnover. This would only work for when observers are
calling active travel calls.
Matt
ager...@yahoo.com
> What about allowing the Defense to move when an observer calls travel?
> i.e. Offense must stop, but defense can correct their positioning.
> Gives a little more 'penalty' for travelling, without going to the
> extent of a turnover. This would only work for when observers are
> calling active travel calls.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------i love it.
travel call....and the defense has only those very few brief moments
between the observer's call and signal....and those 2 or 3 seconds
while the marker is asking if the D is ready.....321 disc in.....
i love it.
that's a good penalty....and it's quick.
nice work Matt.
mgd....@gmail.com
> number of incorrect travel calls. My experience is that the vast
> majority of travel calls by players are legit, with the one exception
> being the throw-and-go with a quick step immediately after the disc
> leaves the player's hand. Inevitably Observers or Markers are going to
> occasionally get this one wrong. It's a split second thing.
I think there is one *MAJOR* difference between a marker and a
observer watching for travels. A observer isn't trying to get a point
block and hold the force. Markers watch the disc. They don't stare
at a pivot foot throughout the stall count to watch for travels
(unless they want to get continually broken). I would venture a guess
that the majority of travel calls during a throw are made by people
that weren't watching the thrower's foot whatsoever during the actual
throw.
As an observer ~10-15 ft behind a thrower, I feel I have a better
vantage point watching for a travel than a marker 0-2 feet away trying
to hold the force and block a throw.
Also, one item I haven't seen anyone mention in terms of the amount of
travels that occured was the actual field. I ran around on the field
for 6 games in my tennis shoes and never slid once. I surely wasn't
cutting like an ultimate player, but on some quick turns, i was
changing directions quickly and at a dead sprint the other way and
never had a problem. Those turf fields offer a consistent surface to
plant on, and the little shredded rubber particles in the turf offer
good friction. I witnessed, from ~6 ft away, two absolute sick
sideline grabs in the Duke-UNC semis by Duke players that were at a
dead sprint and slowed/stopped quickly to toe the line for a catch. I
don't think those catches occur on crappy fields, and maybe not even
good grass fields. I definitely agree with Mike G that players are
better at not travelling than 10 years ago, but I think those turf
fields really help.
joad...@ec.rr.com
yep, thats how we were assessing it back in 96/97 with the nua rules.
i personally prefer it be a turn though. give it some teeth.
MRB
> "MRB" <manz...@reaxion.org> wrote in message
>
> news:5ef82a01-754c-4ea5...@p37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> If you hold on to the disc for 10 seconds, the penalty is a turnover.
> >> What's the big deal of applying this same penalty to a more egregious
> >> offense?
>
> > Since when is traveling more egregious? As plenty of people have
> > mentioned in the thread, a lot of times the thrower doesn't realize
> > it,
>
> That's exactly the problem.
>
> >> and gains no or absolutely minimal advantage.
>
> That's simply not true. Against a competent marker, it's an enormous
> advantage to travel, even a small amount.
Of course, if the thrower isn't aware they're traveling, they don't
gain much of an advantage do they? This is for the travels that are of
the "foot slid 6" variety. Are people really breaking "around" as much
as they are over/under or simply putting the marker out-of-position.
Traveling in these situations is advantageous if: It allows the
thrower to put the disc in a place they couldn't have (say, needing an
extra 5 yards on a huck, which we've anecdotaly heard happens) and/or
they would have been point blocked by the marker. As point blocks are
rare, travel or no travel, I'd say travel is an "egregious" advantage
only in a very small number of instances, none of which could be
actually be proven. If you want a sweeping rule change to balance the
game, I think the onus would be on you to show the unfairness of the
current rule.
>
> No, not in my offense. Holding on to the disc is a huge advantage for the
> defense.
How? If I can hold the disc indefinitely, i'd be throwing completions
at a 99% no matter how good the defensive players. A defender simply
can't keep up with a receiver indefinitely, and a zone defense would
have to rely purely on mental mistakes and execution errors. Without a
stall, the defense can't apply pressure ever, since the handler can
simply hold the disc and wait it out, Old-School NBA style.
Frank Huguenard
On Jan 26, 10:14 pm, "Frank Huguenard" <fr...@dischoops.com> wrote:
> "MRB" <manz...@reaxion.org> wrote in message
>
> news:5ef82a01-754c-4ea5...@p37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> If you hold on to the disc for 10 seconds, the penalty is a turnover.
> >> What's the big deal of applying this same penalty to a more egregious
> >> offense?
>
> > Since when is traveling more egregious? As plenty of people have
> > mentioned in the thread, a lot of times the thrower doesn't realize
> > it,
>
> That's exactly the problem.
>
> >> and gains no or absolutely minimal advantage.
>
> That's simply not true. Against a competent marker, it's an enormous
> advantage to travel, even a small amount.
>> Of course, if the thrower isn't aware they're traveling, they don't
gain much of an advantage do they?
What? Are you trying to suggest that ignorance (and thereby abuse) of the
rules isn't an advantage?
>> This is for the travels that are of
the "foot slid 6" variety. Are people really breaking "around" as much
as they are over/under or simply putting the marker out-of-position.
>> Traveling in these situations is advantageous if: It allows the
thrower to put the disc in a place they couldn't have (say, needing an
extra 5 yards on a huck, which we've anecdotaly heard happens) and/or
they would have been point blocked by the marker.
No. I disagree with the basic assertion here. When I set up to point block
a thrower, I orient myself in a certain position relative (of course
depending on straight up, side, middle, etc.)
When the thrower shifts 6", I have to move my entire center of gravity 6" to
resestablish myself accordingly. The window of time that opens up while I'm
compromised is HUGE.
And if this goes on 2,3 and 4 more times, even if the shift if a few inches
each time, every time the thrower moves, I need to adjust and my ability to
get a point block is deteriorated significantly.
>> As point blocks are rare, travel or no travel,
Self fulfilled. The amount of point blocks with strict adherence to the
rules will go WAY up.
Markers will start marking differently knowing with confidence that the
rules are supporting their efforts. With the standard of traveling the way
it is right now, there's not a lot of incentive to focus on getting blocks
because the risk/reward is way out of whack.
To get a point block, there is some risk. You lunge, you commit, you take
chances, you gamble. If you do that and the thrower travels, you're screwed
because, as you say, in today's game, there are not that many stuffs.
>> I'd say travel is an "egregious" advantage
only in a very small number of instances, none of which could be
actually be proven.
Nope. A travel is a HUGE advantage everytime, especially when you take into
account that this 'incidental' travels perpetuate this myth that they don't
offer an advantage, which in and of itself, is an advantage.
>> If you want a sweeping rule change to balance the
game, I think the onus would be on you to show the unfairness of the
current rule.
It's not the fairness of the rule. It's the enforcement. You (and a
gazillion other cheaters) say "don't ask, don't tell" I won't call the
small travels on you and you don't call them on me and we'll label them all
as inconsequental or incidental. That's very convenient. You're all
agreeing that cheating is ok and now you tell me that the onus is on me to
prove that cheating isn't fair?
>
> No, not in my offense. Holding on to the disc is a huge advantage for the
> defense.
>> How? If I can hold the disc indefinitely, i'd be throwing completions
at a 99% no matter how good the defensive players.
But I always throw at 99%, no matter how good the defenders are and I
release the disc, on average, in less than 2 seconds.
As far as I'm concerned, 10 seconds is indefinitely.
ager...@yahoo.com
> observer watching for travels. A observer isn't trying to get a point
> block and hold the force.
---if i may....another major difference is.....the observer's not
trying to win the game.
Matt Johnson
> On Jan 26, 3:09 pm, "Frank Huguenard" <fr...@dischoops.com> wrote:
>
> > > I stopped calling these travels for two reasons: (1) it was clear the
> > > marker had no intention on calling it, and (2) not only was the call
> > > pointless, but, if anything, I think the call was frequently helpful
> > > to the offense.
>
> > These calls are not pointless and the only reason they were helpful to the
> > offense was because there is no penalty associated with them.
>
> Yeah, I have to agree with Frank on this point, although what penalty
> could there be other than turnover? Loss of gained ground wouldn't
> really make a difference unless the penalty was something along the
> lines of back to half field/back to brickmark. In Kerr's example,
> loss of a couple of seconds' time on the stall count wouldn't really
> impact the play either. I don't see us going to turnover, but loss of
> 20-30 yards of gained ground might work.
I think the loss of more than just 1 second could do some major good
for this idea. Imagine going from a stall 4 to a stall 7 because
traveling adds 3 seconds. Or having turns after stall 7.
I think there's still room to grow before the turn policy.
faddy
>
> - Show quoted text -
what did we do with the count? if not a turn, maybe D gets to reset
and an automatic "high count" (unless over that "high count" #), say
seven (coming in on 8) or so......
6 at minimum (7 sounds best IMO) and this assumes a stall of 10, not 8
or whatever.
ckerr4
> > i.e. Offense must stop, but defense can correct their positioning.
> > Gives a little more 'penalty' for travelling, without going to the
> > extent of a turnover. This would only work for when observers are
> > calling active travel calls.
>
This idea was actually discussed by Rob and the tournament Observers
and was very close to being implemented. In the end, the decision was
made to allow defenders to match up only on foul calls, not
violations.
One definite problem, as alluded to above, would be that for games
without Observers, this penalty would be a powerful incentive for
Markers to call ticky-tack, non-throwing, travels.
If possible, would seem like a good idea to avoid implementing rule
changes that only work with Observers.
Charles