Eugene Solstice - observer rules
pgw
will be used at Solstice in Eugene this weekend. In most respects we
observers will behave as we normally do so I will just list the
differences:
1. Time between points is shortened to 60 seconds (45 for O to give a
hand)
2. 4 time outs per half - two full between-point timeouts, 2 30-second
on-field during-play timeouts (no players from sidelines allowed on
field)
3. Field position penalties are basically the same but you don't get a
free offsides or time between pulls violation - one strike and you're
out
4. Close to an immediate referral system - if a call is made the
observer starts walking to the players and when he gets there, he asks
whether they have resolved it - if not he makes a call
5. Active up/down calls
6. In some games we will make active travel calls. In others, on
travels it is immediate referral - so we will rule on all travels
(unless the offense beats us to the punch by admitting it.)
joad...@ec.rr.com
how about whistles in showcased and or final games and instead of
having the disc go back in play when the D taps it in, have it start
on the officials whistle.
pgw
"experiment." Teams are being given the opportunity to give more
structured feedback but here are my thoughts as well as an
unscientific picture of what I was hearing from the players during and
after the tournament.
I ended up making active travel calls in every game. By and large the
teams wanted it - I think both because they were interested in
continuing the experiment, and they were finding they liked it. After
the tournament several players gave positive feedback about it. Some
sounded surprised to find that they had liked having the observers
making the call. I did not hear many people saying they didn't like
it, but again this isn't the result of an actual survey. There will
be one of those so don't rush to any conclusions.
Anyway in terms of the effect on the game, I thought having the
observers making travel calls was nice. I think people were far less
likely to get away with traveling. Although we inevitably heard
complaints about missing a call (some valid and some not), how many
times have you seen a huge travel on a huck, and none of the players
notice? We were always watching, so these would definitely get called
- and conversely, the bogus travel call where the mark looks down
AFTER the release and the pivot foot has moved (but had not moved
before the release) was also eliminated. Some throwers habitually
move their pivot almost instantly after making the throw, and these
folks are a challenge, but when all you're focusing on is traveling
and marking fouls, it's not that hard to get the call right.
Also I think the deterrent effect of having observers rather than
opponents making the calls is higher. When your opponent is calling
travel on you all game, you can convince yourself that he's the
cheater - foot-watching, trying to win with calls rather than
outplaying you, being nitpicky, whatever. When it's a neutral
official, it is much harder to rationalize this. I noticed certain
players get called for it a few times and begin to make more of an
effort not to travel, or at least start to analyze what they were
doing. That was nice.
The biggest challenge was observing games in which one team or a few
players on one team were much more habitual travelers than the other
team. Both teams ended up angry - either because we were making too
many calls, or not enough. And of course, we heard the tired old
argument that they shouldn't be called if they're not giving the
thrower any advantage. Although we did let some go, we called plenty
where there wasn't any obvious advantage gained. My response to those
who say that this needlessly slows down the game is that they ARE
getting an advantage out of it. A thrower who lazily travels all game
long is ignoring a rule that his opponents are putting mental and
physical effort into complying with. His mark may also have to move
more, or more quickly, to challenge break throws. If you want the
game to move along - stop moving your feet.
Lots of people were annoyed that we were calling travel when they
failed to touch the disc to the ground when putting it into play
someplace other than where it had come to rest. Although again there
has been no survey done yet, my observation was that many people (a)
don't understand this rule very well; and/or (b) hate it. In one
game, the teams captains-claused us out of making this call although
we kept reminding them that they were supposed to do it. (Personally,
though, I hate this rule too and have since its inception - as I have
made clear on this here blog in the past.)
Active up/down calls were far less controversial. It doesn't come up
too often, and players pretty quickly learned to deal with it. The
fact that there was never an up/down argument was pretty awesome.
The 30-second timeout was also a neat innovation. I thought it would
be nice if they could also call full TOs during play, not just between
points.
The penalty for a bricked pull was disc at midfield, not the brick
mark. And what do you know, very few pulls went out of bounds.
Just a smattering of thoughts on the details. Overall, I gained some
insight into the pros and cons of both self-officiation and third-
party officiation. Although one early-season tournament is far too
little to go on, maybe where the sport is headed in this regard is
that there are certain infractions that are more well-suited to self-
officiation and others that it's better to have a neutral calling.
For example as a player, I like that I can "decline the penalty" on
picks and fouls - if the marker bumps early in the count, I want to be
able to shrug it off and hit a cutter a couple seconds later. If I'm
being grabbed during a cut, I want the chance to run through the
contact and get open anyway. If I get picked deep in the stack at
stall eight, I want to have the ability to decide for myself that I
can fight through it and our defense will be better off than if the
play gets stopped. On the other hand - as a player I don't need to
waste my mental energy watching feet, sidelines or blades of grass.
The guys in orange are better at it anyway.
Jon "rB" Bauman
Regarding the ground touch that is required when the disc is put into
play other than where it came to rest: you say you hate this rule, but
what would you prefer. A change in the 11th now prevents markers from
starting the stall while the thrower walks the disc up, so I find the
ground touch necessary to know exactly when I can start my stall count
and get into a proper marking position. I think the only problem with
this rule is players' ignorance of it.
danfri...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed. This is a good rule, and it has been in place since 2002! It
is time for players to adapt.
pgw
> Regarding the ground touch that is required when the disc is put into
> play other than where it came to rest: you say you hate this rule, but
> what would you prefer. A change in the 11th now prevents markers from
> starting the stall while the thrower walks the disc up, so I find the
> ground touch necessary to know exactly when I can start my stall count
> and get into a proper marking position. I think the only problem with
> this rule is players' ignorance of it.
What I would prefer would be the way it was in the 9th. As for when
to start your stall, when the thrower puts a body part on the line/
cone/brick mark, stall away. (I know, I know - what about unlined
fields?)
Anyway - it's still not keeping me up at night. But I said years ago
when they instituted this rule, and claimed that it was in part there
to codify the way that people already play, that this was untrue.
This past weekend convinced me that five years later, I'm still right
about that.
Seamus
> this rule is players' ignorance of it.
Amen!
Jackson
> maybe where the sport is headed in this regard is
> that there are certain infractions that are more well-suited to self-
> officiation and others that it's better to have a neutral calling.
This would be the best direction for the rules to go.
colinm...@gmail.com
I prefer being able to pull-huck after every turnover that occurs in
the endzone. This new-fangled ground-tap rule makes it a lot more
difficult. I also don't like that it creates confusion when I try to
indicate a goal with faux humility. Instead of a ground-tap, why
don't we have players raise both arms vertically in the air to
indicate that they've arrived at the correct spot? It's easier to see
from everywhere on the field and it doesn't force the thrower to be in
an off-balance position when the stall starts.
Seamus
dueling: I really enjoyed playing with the experimental observer
system at Solstice.
Obviously, active travel calls were by far the centerpiece of the
experiment, and I personally thought it went very well. Twice, during
stoppage time, opponents mentioned (and I agree) that observers making
travel calls draws off a lot of tension between teams, since this is
the biggest space for 'ticky-tacky' or petty call-making. I thought
that by-and-large the observers did a good job of keeping to a ratio
of getting 90% of the egregious travel-hucks, 70% of fake-dancing and
break mark travels, and one or two well-timed make-up calls.
The hardest travel call to make, it seemed to me, was a pass made in-
motion (give-and-go), legitimate according to the rules but a very
subjective move depending on the player's mechanics and the observer's
position. The bulk of the calls most disagreed with were these-- not
the catch-and-turn-the-corner groaners but ones where it was unclear
what equation of catch, plant, ac/decelerate, and release had been
used.
One complaint I heard, and that PGW mentions, is the bemoaning of
ground-check enforcement.
I disagree with PGW, and endorsed Bauman's comment above, since it
comes down to a) familiarity with the rule and b) the common courtesy
that's to some extent behind it. Again, and perhaps Bauman said it
better, it indicates when it's appropriate to start stalling.
The downside of the ground-check conservativeness was that it does
away with a congruent common courtesy that is NOT in the rules.
Specifically, many people proffer the disc for the opponent's check at
the goalline or brick, when it's not a requirement but when the mark
has often been standing and waiting. Yes, it's often wrong or
inappropriate to make this gesture (we've all seen rookies who think
that the opponent's check is a necessity, as in half-court b-ball),
but in the other instances, and when it's clear that both parties
understand what's going on, to have the observers call a universally
acknowledged 'in-play' disc a travel because of the specific formality
was frustrating.
The other riders to the experiment were by-and-large agreeable: I
liked playing to higher scores, I liked playing for longer, the ten-
minute halftime break made me feel unaccountably pampered. I'm a fan
of the time-out system used (two long, two tiny time-outs per half).
I appreciated being rushed between points, but I think another five or
ten seconds would be better. Specifically, it was next-to-impossible
to call 7 specific matchups-- which, if you hold the spectator as the
highest cause as some toadly folks do, is partly a good thing because
mismatches are exciting and partly bad because it encourages teams to
have a bigger arsenal of junk.
Last, I enjoyed the combination of berating and heckling the observer
which resulted, instead of the headhunting of call-happy players which
often occurs during heated games. I may personally have used the term
'creamsicle' once.
I think the experiment was largely successful in part because of the
nature of this mentioned heckling, pleading, and head-shaking directed
at the observer: nearly all of the time in these instances, it was
because the observer did not make the call, rather than because of the
call, which is in direct opposition to how many heated self-observed
games go.
In conclusion, put me in the PGW's column of 'pleasantly surprised.'
I do think there are calls that should never be made actively due to
their subjective nature-- fouls and especially picks-- but active
travels calls by observers get a thumbs-up from
Shane
Rhino #33
joad...@ec.rr.com
> A brief, informal report on the results of the Solstice observer
> "experiment." Teams are being given the opportunity to give more
> structured feedback but here are my thoughts as well as an
> unscientific picture of what I was hearing from the players during and
> after the tournament.
lets just hope that the upa keeps their slimey hands off the data.
They will twist the results for sure.
---------------------------------------------------------
it. Some
> sounded surprised to find that they had liked having the observers
> making the call.
like i've been sayin for years....."try it, you'll like it"
-----------------------------------------------------------
> Although we inevitably heard
> complaints about missing a call (some valid and some not),
this is somthing that will NEVER change, no matter who calls it
------------------------------------------------------------
> - and conversely, the bogus travel call where the mark looks down
> AFTER the release and the pivot foot has moved (but had not moved
> before the release) was also eliminated.
which is really the whole point in having impartial active
arbitration. kind of a no brainer, eh?
-------------------------------------------------------
> , but when all you're focusing on is traveling
> and marking fouls, it's not that hard to get the call right.
are you suggesting that this can be hard to do as a player, when ones
"focus" is on playing?
---------------------------------------------------
>
> Also I think the deterrent effect of having observers rather than
> opponents making the calls is higher.
Of course it is......even though you still need more structured
deterants even within the ref/observer hybrid system you guys used
there.
------------------------------------------------------
When your opponent is calling
> travel on you all game, you can convince yourself that he's the
> cheater - foot-watching, trying to win with calls rather than
> outplaying you, being nitpicky, whatever. When it's a neutral
> official, it is much harder to rationalize this.
damn this arguments sounds familiar to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed certain
> players get called for it a few times and begin to make more of an
> effort not to travel, or at least start to analyze what they were
> doing. That was nice.
so are people starting to understand how the current soft self
officiation rules actually ENABLE cheating???
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The biggest challenge was observing games in which one team or a few
> players on one team were much more habitual travelers than the other
> team. Both teams ended up angry - either because we were making too
> many calls, or not enough. And of course, we heard the tired old
> argument that they shouldn't be called if they're not giving the
> thrower any advantage. Although we did let some go, we called plenty
> where there wasn't any obvious advantage gained. My response to those
> who say that this needlessly slows down the game is that they ARE
> getting an advantage out of it. A thrower who lazily travels all game
> long is ignoring a rule that his opponents are putting mental and
> physical effort into complying with. His mark may also have to move
> more, or more quickly, to challenge break throws. If you want the
> game to move along - stop moving your feet.
if you really want him to "stop moving his feet" make the violation
result in a turn. Dont be half ass about it. Youve finally figured
out tha proper process.....now match it with a proper deterant.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Lots of people were annoyed that we were calling travel when they
> failed to touch the disc to the ground when putting it into play
> someplace other than where it had come to rest.
rather than everyone further discussing this issue, why not entertain
the notion of giving the stall to the observer and resolve the whole
delema toot sweet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Active up/down calls were far less controversial. It doesn't come up
> too often, and players pretty quickly learned to deal with it.
and i'll bet those watching appreciated not dealing with what would
have inevitably resulted in ult-debates.
---------------------------------------------------------
The
> fact that there was never an up/down argument was pretty awesome.
this was a very cool dynamic that i noticed during the initial reffing
experimentations with nua comp in the mid 90's. One time a guy
instinctually started arguing the (up/down)call but before he could
get a word out his guy cut deep and he shut up and chased him.
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The 30-second timeout was also a neat innovation. I thought it would
> be nice if they could also call full TOs during play, not just between
> points.
no subbing allowd during to's???
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The penalty for a bricked pull was disc at midfield, not the brick
> mark. And what do you know, very few pulls went out of bounds.
And never a need or desire for a repull i bet......yet another idea i
suggested to greg connally that he snuffed.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just a smattering of thoughts on the details. Overall, I gained some
> insight into the pros and cons of both self-officiation and third-
> party officiation. Although one early-season tournament is far too
> little to go on
EXACTLY......we need more experimentation......and who better to
facilitate that (with logistical, volunteer and financial support)
than the org that is sittin on 500k OF our COLD HARD CASH. Of which,
did you guys receive any grant money for doing this???
----------------------------------------------------------------
, maybe where the sport is headed in this regard is
> that there are certain infractions that are more well-suited to self-
> officiation and others that it's better to have a neutral calling.
maybe my ass.......DEFINITELY!!! on its way to being fully officiated
that is.
----------------------------------------------------
> For example as a player, I like that I can "decline the penalty" on
> picks and fouls - if the marker bumps early in the count, I want to be
> able to shrug it off and hit a cutter a couple seconds later.
add the dynamic of personal foul limits and you might change your
tune. Think about it....the only reason you like the "decline" by not
calling is that there is no incentive for play to be stiopped because
there is not a strong enough deterant for the defender not to violate
his opponent in the first place. And him being aware that you arent
likley to call it due to this lack of incentive just exasterbates the
problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If I'm
> being grabbed during a cut, I want the chance to run through the
> contact and get open anyway.
wouldnt you rather not get grabed in the first place and dont you
think thatere are risk/consequence formulas that could be put into
place to deter such actions even moreso than the blanket, "sotg" honor
code.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> The guys in orange are better at it anyway.
you mean you didnt go with zebra stripes????? how about using
whistles......any experimentation there???
joad...@ec.rr.com
> Toad might be surprised to hear, after all of our ref/spirit zealot
> dueling: I really enjoyed playing with the experimental observer
> system at Solstice.
not at all.... i've always thought that you were one of the level
headed people around here. but if you did poo poo it in the past i
knew it was simply because you had never tried it first hand. thats
the case with a good number of zealots.
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> Obviously, active travel calls were by far the centerpiece of the
> experiment, and I personally thought it went very well. Twice, during
> stoppage time, opponents mentioned (and I agree) that observers making
> travel calls draws off a lot of tension between teams
yes....it redirects the cross team anamosity that can arise when calls
get sketchy. Yet another positive dynamic that i learned early on
with nua comp.
-------------------------------------------------------
, since this is
> the biggest space for 'ticky-tacky' or petty call-making. I thought
> that by-and-large the observers did a good job of keeping to a ratio
> of getting 90% of the egregious travel-hucks, 70% of fake-dancing and
> break mark travels, and one or two well-timed make-up calls.
oh yea......you can never underestimate the merrits of having the
ability to call a "well-timed make up call".
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The hardest travel call to make, it seemed to me, was a pass made in-
> motion (give-and-go), legitimate according to the rules but a very
> subjective move depending on the player's mechanics and the observer's
> position. The bulk of the calls most disagreed with were these-- not
> the catch-and-turn-the-corner groaners but ones where it was unclear
> what equation of catch, plant, ac/decelerate, and release had been
> used.
this is why i say that you need to give the thrower an extra ground
contact and then balance that allowance with a turnover when violated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> One complaint I heard, and that PGW mentions, is the bemoaning of
> ground-check enforcement.
yea, this whole issue is so stupid and can be easily resolved by
letting the observers become refs in this senerio too by having them
manage the stall.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Again, and perhaps Bauman said it
> better, it indicates when it's appropriate to start stalling.
forget the grond check and let the observers initiate an "appropriate
start to stalling". On instances where play stops the ref should also
initiate the re-start of play........with a toot on a whistle.
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The other riders to the experiment were by-and-large agreeable: I
> liked playing to higher scores, I liked playing for longer, the ten-
> minute halftime break made me feel unaccountably pampered.
no "stopped time" experimenting???
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a fan
> of the time-out system used (two long, two tiny time-outs per half).
> I appreciated being rushed between points, but I think another five or
> ten seconds would be better.
maybe teams just need to anticipate and adjust to the stricter time
constraint. I remember in college fb when the reduced the play clock
there was some scrambling "between plays", but they adjusted.
------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, it was next-to-impossible
> to call 7 specific matchups-- which
maybe the o just needs to line up quicker. either way, once teams get
used to this constraint i'm sure the will try to be more efficient
with that alotted time.
---------------------------------------------------------
, if you hold the spectator as the
> highest cause as some toadly folks do, is partly a good thing because
> mismatches are exciting and partly bad because it encourages teams to
> have a bigger arsenal of junk.
whatever pays the bills, but i really think a team thats on its toes
could match up effectivley without a problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Last, I enjoyed the combination of berating and heckling the observer
NO FUCKIN SHIT. This is almost a god givin right that ultimate
players are deneyed because there simply arent refs. I hear so much
talk about the heckling aspect of ultimate but it aint nearly as
fun(or effective) to heckle a player ref as it is a ref. with refs in
ultimate, heckling will undoubtedly reach new hights.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think the experiment was largely successful in part because of the
> nature of this mentioned heckling, pleading, and head-shaking directed
> at the observer: nearly all of the time in these instances, it was
> because the observer did not make the call, rather than because of the
> call, which is in direct opposition to how many heated self-observed
> games go.
Well, you got to have the call savy type of player out there observing
AND it would help to pay em so that they are simply held more
accountable. there is a big difference between a good n0-call and a
ref simply swallowing his whistle though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In conclusion, put me in the PGW's column of 'pleasantly surprised.'
> I do think there are calls that should never be made actively due to
> their subjective nature-- fouls and especially picks-- but active
> travels calls by observers get a thumbs-up from
so it looks as if traveling will be the next in a short line of REF
calls by ultimate observers
Which will be next? up/down or the stall count?
Bob Koca
Excellent. only thing I would add is stall count.
Bob Koca
richarda...@gmail.com
Up/down was #5, they did it. This was a good experiment in that it
didn't change any rules, but tweaked the observer's role; I'm
impressed. I'm glad it was a success. Can you elaborate on what the
"one strike and you're out" penalty was for violations?
Seamus
failure to be ready for pull (6 or 8 on the line, etc.)
This weekend the first offense was punished.
Also, one other big thing that hasn't got much talk, and also (I
think?!) is a departure from the written rules, is that an OB pull was
an automatic half-field brick.
On Jun 24, 12:07 pm, "richardaustinw...@gmail.com"
aaron....@gmail.com
Here's a quick summary of my thoughts, starting with the more
controversial ones:
Active travel calls - Having observers call these definitely made it
so that all calls were made fairly. I didn't realize how much we all
travel until this weekend. The ground check thing was slightly
annoying, but people were already used to it by the end of the
weekend. A teammate pointed out a potential flaw in this though: If
the handler wanted to halt play so that he could make a play call, all
he'd have to do is intentionally travel. Perhaps the active travel
call should have to be accepted by the marker for it to take effect.
Mid-field penalties for out of bounds pulls and offsides - This worked
well, and I think way more discs landed in bounds. There were lots of
offsides, but people would get used to it quickly too.
Time-outs - I liked the 2.5 minute between point timeouts, but didn't
think there was much use for the 30 second on-the-fly timeouts.
Usually timeouts are called to catch your breath, refocus and to setup
a play, but 30 seconds was way to short for anything more than
resetting up the offense. I definitely think there needs to be enough
time to get water, so say 45 or 50 seconds.
Time between points - Awesome! A perfect amount of time. It
heightened the intensity of the game, and I think forced teams to go
deeper into their rosters because players wouldn't have enough time to
rest between consecutive points. I think more time would be required
for anything other than the elite teams.
Other - Games to 19 were great, though they still finished in about
the same amount of time. Active up/down & in/outs stopped any kind of
arguing - this seems like a no-brainer. However, I think that a team
should be able to overrule an observer though if they know the
observer made the wrong call. TMFs - I actually got one for bumping a
guy a little too hard by accident. TMFs should be given out all the
time for bumping in order to stop all of the intentional fouling on
the mark at low stall counts.
Moses
Blackfish
pgw
> A teammate pointed out a potential flaw in this though: If
> the handler wanted to halt play so that he could make a play call, all
> he'd have to do is intentionally travel. Perhaps the active travel
> call should have to be accepted by the marker for it to take effect.
I don't see a good way for this to work - nor can I imagine many
situations where the marker would want to decline the penalty. I
think we could just PMF the guy who intentionally travels in this way.
> Time-outs - I liked the 2.5 minute between point timeouts, but didn't
> think there was much use for the 30 second on-the-fly timeouts.
> Usually timeouts are called to catch your breath, refocus and to setup
> a play, but 30 seconds was way to short for anything more than
> resetting up the offense. I definitely think there needs to be enough
> time to get water, so say 45 or 50 seconds.
I think others will disagree with this - most teams used a lot of 30-
second timeouts, and usually they checked it back in way before the
clock ran out. They are strategic. If you're disciplined about it
there is even time to huddle up and grab a swallow of water.
> Active up/down & in/outs stopped any kind of
> arguing - this seems like a no-brainer. However, I think that a team
> should be able to overrule an observer though if they know the
> observer made the wrong call.
Um, I don't understand the premise there.
Jed
> On Jun 24, 12:14 pm, aaron.koe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > A teammate pointed out a potential flaw in this though: If
> > the handler wanted to halt play so that he could make a play call, all
> > he'd have to do is intentionally travel. Perhaps the active travel
> > call should have to be accepted by the marker for it to take effect.
>
> I don't see a good way for this to work - nor can I imagine many
> situations where the marker would want to decline the penalty. I
> think we could just PMF the guy who intentionally travels in this way.
In soccer oand rugby, the ref will sometimes wait a few seconds to
decide whether making the call will disadvantage the team that it
should benefit. Maybe a similar approach would work? I.e. if I have a
high stall count, and I travel (possibly trying to get a call &
stoppage), wait to see if I get a throw off before calling the travel.
The PMF is a good idea too, and could be used in combination with this.
H
an active observer call is 'disc in'. I always see a call happen, it
gets resolved however it does (and however long it takes to do it),
and then after all of that hullabaloo, the thrower holds the disc
behind his back and starts calling plays/directing the offense/
quarterbacking. Sure, there are provisions in the rules with the
delay of game stuff but they're rarely used by the players. But if
the observer could just say "disc is here, count is at X, offense and
defense ready?, disc in!" then it would speed up the play.
H
joad...@ec.rr.com
> Yeah: otherwise, you normally get a warning for an offsides pull or
> failure to be ready for pull (6 or 8 on the line, etc.)
> This weekend the first offense was punished.
>
> Also, one other big thing that hasn't got much talk, and also (I
> think?!) is a departure from the written rules, is that an OB pull was
> an automatic half-field brick.
did the refs facilitate replacing the disc? and hopefully more
effeciently that the observers at college nationals...
joad...@ec.rr.com
> I too really enjoyed playing with all of the experimental rules.
> Here's a quick summary of my thoughts, starting with the more
> controversial ones:
>
> Active travel calls - Having observers call these definitely made it
> so that all calls were made fairly. I didn't realize how much we all
> travel until this weekend.
does that mean you wont realize how much you hack on the mark untill
thats an active call too? i see a trend here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ground check thing was slightly
> annoying,
active stall......problem(s) solved.
----------------------------------------------------------
but people were already used to it by the end of the
> weekend. A teammate pointed out a potential flaw in this though: If
> the handler wanted to halt play so that he could make a play call, all
> he'd have to do is intentionally travel.
so much for sotg........aint it great!
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the active travel
> call should have to be accepted by the marker for it to take effect.
just make it a turn.......problem solved
-----------------------------------------------
>
> Mid-field penalties for out of bounds pulls and offsides - This worked
> well, and I think way more discs landed in bounds. There were lots of
> offsides, but people would get used to it quickly too.
you mean that you people cant even stay on sides without
reenforcement???? thats shameful
-------------------------------------------------
>
> Time between points - Awesome!
giddy up
---------------------------------------------
>
> Other - Games to 19 were great, though they still finished in about
> the same amount of time. Active up/down & in/outs stopped any kind of
> arguing - this seems like a no-brainer.
seems????
--------------------------------------
However, I think that a team
> should be able to overrule an observer though if they know the
> observer made the wrong call.
whaaaaaaaaaaat?????.........ummmmm no. no overruling. not until you
can hook up some instant replay
-------------------------------------------------
TMFs - I actually got one for bumping a
> guy a little too hard by accident.
why in the fuck isnt that a "pmf".......or beter yet just a "f"
joad...@ec.rr.com
> In response to the quoted text below, something I'd like to see become
> an active observer call is 'disc in'.
YES, ONLY USE A WHISTLE!!!!! duh
doctor...@yahoo.com
emails around on tuesday, found a team, thought I was in the elite,
talked to some sockeye free agents. i got there, found out I was
playing with UofO, and I was pretty psyched (i mean, open, elite, it's
just a pickup tourney for me, and I loved playing with some of the
young players from the school that gave me ultimate). humorously, a
couple of my pals from sockeye showed up, started playing with
thompson high (they thought that was the team i was on... and got
CUT!!!. And if you knew who it was, you'd laugh too).
I watched some of the games in 'elite' and here are my observations.
Elite is younger than it's ever been. 'Old' players like Mike Payne
or half of furious stood out like sore thumbs. The 'elite' division
was full of skilled young players who thrilled with what can best be
described as 'fast turnovers.'
I'm anti H-stack. I think you should go look at Jim Parinella's
discussion of the 'turnover compact' for his thoughts, but it was in
effect. The H-stack does provide nice isos for the deep cuts, but too
many throwers take that look, and there were far too many
turnovers.
The Rhino / thompson high split will weaken the teams, but Thompson
stands to benefit. Rhino was VERY young, playing HS kids, but being
plenty athletic. Thompson High will be fine, but it's questionable if
Oregon can support 2 'L33T' teams. they were buoyed by strong play by
lou and blaine, who hooked up on a couple easy long shots.
The calls were fair, (on the travels) and handled civilly but I wonder
if it improved the game.
In my opinion, clock management was the best involvement of the game.
And the best place for teams to be 'coached.' I.e., how to reset on a
restart, or travel, how to manage the short timeouts...
Minor thoughts: The field is much bigger than a basketball court:
Maybe the short timeouts should be longer: Say, 45 seconds? Maybe
you should have a 'tv timeout' or a a 'quarter' timeout when someone
gets to 5. Say, 3 minutes there, 7 minutes at half, 3 minutes at 15.
The travels are manageable: and it eliminates 'handler hop' travels,
egregious pivots, etc. The net effect is to shift the balance
slightly back to the defense; If we allow active stall counting...
it'd go back the other way a little (remove the arm wrapping 'franken-
mark'. that might be the simplest way to deal with it, is to control
the mark with the ref-servers.
I think if you want refs, you need at minimum:
2 line judges, and maybe 4. (to make a true line call, you have to be
ON THE LINE, not near it)
2 on field refs, and maybe 4.
Now the NBA makes it work with 2, but on a much smaller field: one
that fits easily in the endzone of a frisbee field. Now soccer makes
do with 3, but the focus of the game on the NETS not an endzone means
that you can get by with less: let's just say that 2 for frisbee is
too few to ref, 8 is too many. 4 might do it (2 line judges, 2
officials).
4 officials would allow refs to run 'away from the play' to avoid
interfering, but still be in position to make calls.
A note to todd, i got no beef with heckling refs. However, i think if
your going to try to regulate these games, you need to hire a cop to
be on duty to deal with the occasionally truly unruly fan.
I'm o.k. with this, but i'm not sure how the rest of the frisbee
public feels about tightening up the sideline.
Oh, one last point: The sidelines were lame. no one, i mean NO ONE
was watching the semis. There was a bit of the crowd for the
'showcase games.' Not me, I was playing goaltimate.
Here's a thought: Solstice is a 16 team tournament. They went 8 open,
8 elite. In the Elite division, There was a group of 4 (and congrats
to voodoo for making the elite) who was slightly better, but I'm not
sure the tournament needed an elite bracket: Furious, yes, thompson
high and rhino is basicaly rhino A and Rhino B, revolver, blackfish,
i'm just wondering if you would not be better served by 4 pools of 4,
with (if necessary, and i don't think it is) a crossover game. top 8
to quarters, semis, finals. Mix up the pools so that everyone plays
above and below their level, goal is to grow the game:
Note, I didn't really care: I played the same all day, and my
personal experience was that in open, everyone was running plenty
fast, just that a lack of depth led to longer points. I had a great
time, and it was pretty cool to connect with some players who were
like, 3 when i first played disc in eugene in 1990. Just a thought.
Let's grow the sport. Give every team an 'outside' chance to advance.