Dealing with fast counters
Jon Bauman
Check" worked so well at Gender Blender, I thought I'd ask about
another rule issue I ran into there: fast counting.
Lots of players seem to be in the habit of starting the stall count
"StallingOne...Two..." rather than "Stalling...(pause remainder of 1
second)...One...Two...". According to XIV.C.1 this is wrong:
1.The count consists of the marker loudly announcing "stalling" and
counting from one to ten loudly enough for the thrower to hear.
a) All intervals between the beginning of one word and the beginning
of the next are to be a minimum of one second.
b) All stall counts, whether initiated, re-initiated or resumed, must
start with the word "stalling."
So, I tried calling "fast count" when people did this, and even after
a discussion about what was happening, people usually refuse to change
their style. I had a discussion with a captain of a team where pretty
much everyone was stalling this way, and her response was "what's the
big deal about half a second?", and "I can't tell everyone on my team
to change the way they stall".
Now, I can't very well wait until the end of the stall to call "fast
count", since I have to call violations "immediately" (XVI.J.2). On
the other hand, I do care about that half second (and abiding by the
rules in general), so what's the right thing to do here?
-Jon, Viscous Coupling #3
Peter Washington
> "StallingOne...Two..." rather than "Stalling...(pause remainder of 1
> So, I tried calling "fast count" when people did this, and even after
> a discussion about what was happening, people usually refuse to change
> their style. I had a discussion with a captain of a team where pretty
> much everyone was stalling this way, and her response was "what's the
> big deal about half a second?", and "I can't tell everyone on my team
> to change the way they stall".
>
> [snip other stuff] so what's the right thing to do here?
Keep calling fast count, over and over and over. Two of three things will
result: No matter what, (1) you'll get yourself some more time (to which
you're entitled) every time; and either (2) the other team will eventually
grow tired of this routine and start playing by the rules, or (3) you'll
really piss them off. Either way, you're winning the battle.
Larry D. Hols
> Now, I can't very well wait until the end of the stall to call "fast
> count", since I have to call violations "immediately" (XVI.J.2). On
> the other hand, I do care about that half second (and abiding by the
> rules in general), so what's the right thing to do here?
Poke them in the eye with a pointy stick!
Heh. Seriously, if it were me, I'd keep calling the fast count. Each
and every time.
Larry
Kevin
I do this pretty regularly. In general, it pisses people off. I've
even had people argue with me that "Stallone" is the correct way to
start the count.
If the game is on the rec side, like a hat draw or small tourney or
league, after getting fast counted this way I usually tell my defender
that there has to be one second between the ess of "Stalling" and the
wuh of "One" and that if they start the call with "Stallone" I'm going
to call fast count (which can be hard to do while running around).
But if it's Regionals or some tourney where folks should know better I
just call fast count.
Most of the time when you call fast count (even when it isn't about
stallone) people don't know what to do and they just kind of pause and
keep counting, so you usually have to call it a second time, which is
a check. Again, this tends to piss people off, but my position is
that rules is rules and not only is this one is stated very clearly in
the rules, but it would piss me off to lose possession if I had been
fast counted and I hadn't bothered to call it - it's too late to make
a case of it after you've punted or they've said "Ten".
kh
Elizabeth Murray
klh...@yahoo.com (Kevin) wrote:
> I've
> even had people argue with me that "Stallone" is the correct way to
> start the count.
He peaked with Rocky. It's been downhill from there.
Garrett Dyer
wrote:
>> even had people argue with me that "Stallone" is the correct way to
>
>He peaked with Rocky. It's been downhill from there.
Word.
Launchpad
supposed to, it will generally startle them enough that you will
reclaim the half second that you lost. Then, if you need to call a
fast count or double team later in the same possession, play stops and
the disc is put into play with a check at "stalling one". There is no
harm in calling that fast count immediately. You are especially right
in this situation, as it is spelled out so very clearly in the rules.
LP
googl...@umich.edu (Jon Bauman) wrote in message news:<3d06e500.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> Since following the advice a received in "Ground Check versus Hand
> Check" worked so well at Gender Blender, I thought I'd ask about
> another rule issue I ran into there: fast counting.
>
> Lots of players seem to be in the habit of starting the stall count
> "StallingOne...Two..." rather than "Stalling...(pause remainder of 1
> second)...One...Two...". According to XIV.C.1 this is wrong:
Gimpeltf
>>
>>He peaked with Rocky. It's been downhill from there.
>
>Word.
But she drew First Blood with the Rocky comment.
Gimp
J Hubbz
Yeah, my team ran into a similar situation with the other team
traveling alot, all you have to do is keep calling it eventually they
get pissed and frustrated which is their fault in the first place, and
you should worry about that half a second because it then cuts your
overall time in half unless you are suggesting a rule change to a 5
second stall, i wouldnt be to opposed to a 7 second stall if we could
get everyone to stall correctly.
tsl
Heres a ccrrraaaaazzzzzzyyy idea, how bout let the observer count.
That way you have someone who is impartial controling it which lends
itself to consistancy and fairness ( two concepts the upa has
sacrificed to maintain their sport-hoarding and power-trip aganda )
Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
half court line. Oh yea,(sarcasm) i forgot, ultimate players are at a
much higher and capable level of honor and piety which enables only
those select few to practice such an inlightened and idealistic
process. Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
russ
> Heres a ccrrraaaaazzzzzzyyy idea, how bout let the observer count.
The Observer does count.
> That way you have someone who is impartial controling it which lends
> itself to consistancy and fairness ( two concepts the upa has
> sacrificed to maintain their sport-hoarding and power-trip aganda )
It soudns to me like _you_ have a problem being consistent and fair, and
are pushing it off on the rest of the UPA.
> Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
> ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
> half court line.
Why is it stupid? Because it's different, and different things are
stupid? Sounds like a maze of circular logic, built on a weak premise.
I think maybe you just want to make everything easier on the athletes.
If that's the case, why play at all?
> Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
Hmm... someone's starting to sound a little shrill and looney.
russ
Mike Gerics
> > Heres a ccrrraaaaazzzzzzyyy idea, how bout let the observer count.
--observers do...sort of...keep the count.
as in boxing, when the ref "picks up" the count from the ring side time
keeper when a fighter gets knocked down(is that right or am i making that
up)......i get close enough to the action to be able to hear the marker
stall.......and then sort of 'pick up' his count and try to determine if it
is reasonable, in terms of the speed of the count.
if i can't hear an individual's count, or a team's count...i get both teams'
attention between points and announce something like...."if you want help on
a STALL or a FAST COUNT call during this game, please count louder so that
we observers can hear your count"
i don't try to count FOR the marker....or in his place...
because that would simply be too tough.
MG
Launchpad
count as it increases. If the observer counts, then he has to be
focused on when the mark gets within ten feet, whether the mark is
actually marking, whether there is a double team call, etc all while
making sure he can be heard by the thrower. I would think that would
make him less effective in his actual observing duties. It also isn't
realistic for the majority of ultimate games played, which certainly
don't have observers.
LP
t...@ec.rr.com (tsl) wrote in message news:<605c1170.0406...@posting.google.com>...
Dan
> That way you have someone who is impartial controling it which lends
> itself to consistancy and fairness ( two concepts the upa has
> sacrificed to maintain their sport-hoarding and power-trip aganda )
> Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
> ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
> half court line. Oh yea,(sarcasm) i forgot, ultimate players are at a
> much higher and capable level of honor and piety which enables only
> those select few to practice such an inlightened and idealistic
> process. Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
Damn, your crap is hard to read. It's like you're not even trying.
Try this: http://www.dictionary.com
D
degs
> That way you have someone who is impartial controling it which lends
> itself to consistancy and fairness ( two concepts the upa has
> sacrificed to maintain their sport-hoarding and power-trip aganda )
> Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
> ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
> half court line. Oh yea,(sarcasm) i forgot, ultimate players are at a
> much higher and capable level of honor and piety which enables only
> those select few to practice such an inlightened and idealistic
> process. Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
Down the line (maybe eight, ten years) I think a shot clock style
clock would be the best. Big, red digits counting up to ten, an
official on the sideline resetting it everytime a pass is caught ...
yeah, that's the way to go.
degs
buried_in_spam
> That way you have someone who is impartial controling it which lends
> itself to consistancy and fairness ( two concepts the upa has
> sacrificed to maintain their sport-hoarding and power-trip aganda )
> Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
> ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
> half court line. Oh yea,(sarcasm) i forgot, ultimate players are at a
> much higher and capable level of honor and piety which enables only
> those select few to practice such an inlightened and idealistic
> process. Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
i obserbved at easterns a few years ago and used a stopwatch.
everytime a receiver would catch the disc, i would start the timer.
it didn't tell me where the stall was, it could be legitamtely be
slower (marker counts slow, or starts counting after i had started the
timer), but it did tell me what the max the count should be. I think
charlie kerr (?) once said to me "the average ten count is really only
about 8 seconds." i found that to be conservative, it was more like
6.5.
it was a pain to always be starting stopping, and resetting after each
throw, (you do get used to it though) and i didn't use it to tell
defenders where the stall should be, etc, it was more just for my
reference.
Pete
> Lots of players seem to be in the habit of starting the stall count
> "StallingOne...Two..." rather than "Stalling...(pause remainder of 1
> second)...One...Two...". According to XIV.C.1 this is wrong:
>
> 1.The count consists of the marker loudly announcing "stalling" and
> counting from one to ten loudly enough for the thrower to hear.
> a) All intervals between the beginning of one word and the beginning
> of the next are to be a minimum of one second.
> b) All stall counts, whether initiated, re-initiated or resumed, must
> start with the word "stalling."
<snip>
>so what's the right thing to do here?
>
> -Jon, Viscous Coupling #3
Jon, your question got me thinking about another "fast count" problem,
and I'd be interested to hear what people think about how to approach
it.
Now, most of us count as close to one second per stall as we can. But
clearly, some of our "seconds" are longer than others. This might
lead an industrious (or obsessed) person to time their own stall
counts and see how close to actual seconds they are. I did this and
discovered that I am normally counting way too slowly. So, I sped up
my count at a recent tournament; but not so much that I was
fast-counting (I can be relatively sure about this having called
stalls with a stopwatch for way too long the previous day when I was
supposed to be working). Of course, I was called for a fast count.
How do you argue with a fast count call when you know that you're not
fast-counting? It's everyone's responsibility to know the rules and
make correct calls, but can we hold a thrower responsible for knowing
what a second is and not calling fast count if their personal second
is longer than a real second? You can't contest it.
Do you: keep counting without dropping two since no violation actually
occured?
(The violation is predicated on counting fast, not on being called for
it.)
Do you: drop two and tell the thrower later on that they should make
sure they know how long a second is?
What do you think?
Pete #11
Chris Nutter
seconds equals no stall:
"Stallone....
Van Damme....
Vin Diesel....
Schwartzengger....
Toby Macguire....
Wesley Snipes...
Hugh Jackman
Steven Segal....
Billy Berrou....
David Hasselhoff...
stick
Mike Gerics
i know that what i am about to write is pretty much opposite of this
thread's intended topic...
but....
when i am called for a fast count....by someone that i sincerely feel is
making a lame call...or by someone that is simply calling fast count to get
the stall lower...or by someone who i think is cheating....
i stop counting altogether.
i give them no stall count.
i allow them to have as long to throw as they want.
no count.
take all day...ya fucking cheater.
i mean....how many legit, uncontested stalls are there per game? 1/2? 1/3
per game, maybe? 1/4?
so...if they are gonna call that cheap fast count......i stop counting.
Jon Bauman
> That way you have someone who is impartial controling it which lends
> itself to consistancy and fairness ( two concepts the upa has
> sacrificed to maintain their sport-hoarding and power-trip aganda )
> Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
> ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
> half court line. Oh yea,(sarcasm) i forgot, ultimate players are at a
> much higher and capable level of honor and piety which enables only
> those select few to practice such an inlightened and idealistic
> process. Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but it brings up an
interesting point. I've always felt that if ultimate ever progresses
to gain wide acceptance, there would have to be a more standard method
for timing the stall. Something like a shot clock in basketball. In
the meantime, I don't think it would be a bad idea for observers to
keep track of the stall. I have heard that fast counting was a problem
at college nationals, but since I wasn't there, I can't say from
experience.
However, this doesn't really help my situation. Tournaments like
Gender Blender don't really have the resources to have observers for
every game. Really, observers are the exception rather than the rule,
so I think the majority of ultimate will continue to be played with
players dong the stall count.
P.S. I am somewhat cheap, but if I were really cheap, I'd give up
ultimate and play only disc golf. Am I apathetic? I had to look up the
definition to be sure:
1 : having or showing little or no feeling or emotion : SPIRITLESS
2 : having little or no interest or concern : INDIFFERENT
No, of course not. If I were apathetic I wouldn't care about people
fast-counting me. I put a lot of time and effort into this game, I'm
certainly not apathetic.
Jon Bauman
> you should worry about that half a second because it then cuts your
> overall time in half unless you are suggesting a rule change to a 5
> second stall, i wouldnt be to opposed to a 7 second stall if we could
> get everyone to stall correctly.
Unless you're being sarcastic, I don't think I follow you. How does
losing a half second cut my time in half? By my math, it reduces my
time by 5%. However, I maintain it IS important, as I think anyone
who's ever contested a stall would. I also think that 10 seconds is
just fine.
Mike Gerics
> However, this doesn't really help my situation. Tournaments like
> Gender Blender don't really have the resources to have observers for
> every game.
---- i don't know the format.....but.....are there byes for any teams?
teams with byes supply the observers.
there you have it.
tsl
> tsl wrote:
>
> > Heres a ccrrraaaaazzzzzzyyy idea, how bout let the observer count.
>
> The Observer does count.
Out loud (at least the last few seconds) while being the sole counter
is what im talkin about
>
> > Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
> > ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
> > half court line.
>
> Why is it stupid? Because it's different, and different things are
> stupid?
You know, i really dont know why its stupid, i guess its just so
obviously stupid to the point that one usually dosnt have to explain
such stupidity. Then theres the fact that no other field sport in the
whole world has such an absurd arbitration process.
>
> I think maybe you just want to make everything easier on the athletes.
Now youre finally getting it, sherlock. Seperate the freakin tasks so
the players can focus on playing!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> > CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
>
> Hmm... someone's starting to sound a little shrill and looney.
why, because i swore?
>
> russ
tsl
> That is a crazy idea. As it stands, the thrower is able to hear the
> count as it increases. If the observer counts, then he has to be
> focused on when the mark gets within ten feet, whether the mark is
> actually marking, whether there is a double team call, etc all while
> making sure he can be heard by the thrower.
yes, and who better to do this than an IMPARTIAL person that is
CONSISTANT
I would think that would
> make him less effective in his actual observing duties.
Its not rocket science, its just counting to ten, if players can do
it while focusing on playing then.....and, its been done
It also isn't
> realistic for the majority of ultimate games played, which certainly
> don't have observers.
well pry open your wallets and quit being so cheap. facilitate your
sport
tsl
yea i'm not a very good speller and an even a worse typer, but you
know you hear what the fuck im sayin!!!!
tsl
Yes, finnally a progressive thinker contributes
tsl
> t...@ec.rr.com (tsl) wrote in message news:<605c1170.0406...@posting.google.com>...
> > Heres a ccrrraaaaazzzzzzyyy idea, how bout let the observer count.
> > That way you have someone who is impartial controling it which lends
> > itself to consistancy and fairness ( two concepts the upa has
> > sacrificed to maintain their sport-hoarding and power-trip aganda )
> > Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
> > ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
> > half court line. Oh yea,(sarcasm) i forgot, ultimate players are at a
> > much higher and capable level of honor and piety which enables only
> > those select few to practice such an inlightened and idealistic
> > process. Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> > CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
>
> i obserbved at easterns a few years ago and used a stopwatch.
> everytime a receiver would catch the disc, i would start the timer.
> it didn't tell me where the stall was, it could be legitamtely be
> slower (marker counts slow, or starts counting after i had started the
> timer), but it did tell me what the max the count should be. I think
> charlie kerr (?) once said to me "the average ten count is really only
> about 8 seconds." i found that to be conservative, it was more like
> 6.5.
Yet another proven inconsistancy in the arbitration process of ultimate
>
> it was a pain to always be starting stopping, and resetting after each
> throw,
with a little practice its pretty easy to get consistant and accurate cadance
Mike Gerics
> Out loud (at least the last few seconds) while being the sole counter
> is what im talkin about
---bzzzt.
not gonna happen.
tsl
> googl...@umich.edu (Jon Bauman) wrote in message news:<3d06e500.04061...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Lots of players seem to be in the habit of starting the stall count
> > "StallingOne...Two..." rather than "Stalling...(pause remainder of 1
> > second)...One...Two...". According to XIV.C.1 this is wrong:
> >
> > 1.The count consists of the marker loudly announcing "stalling" and
> > counting from one to ten loudly enough for the thrower to hear.
> > a) All intervals between the beginning of one word and the beginning
> > of the next are to be a minimum of one second.
> > b) All stall counts, whether initiated, re-initiated or resumed, must
> > start with the word "stalling."
> <snip>
> >so what's the right thing to do here?
> >
> > -Jon, Viscous Coupling #3
>
> Jon, your question got me thinking about another "fast count" problem,
> and I'd be interested to hear what people think about how to approach
> it.
> Now, most of us count as close to one second per stall as we can. But
> clearly, some of our "seconds" are longer than others. This might
> lead an industrious (or obsessed) person to
Emplament refs into the sport at long last
time their own stall
> counts and see how close to actual seconds they are. I did this and
> discovered that I am normally counting way too slowly. So, I sped up
> my count at a recent tournament; but not so much that I was
> fast-counting (I can be relatively sure about this having called
> stalls with a stopwatch for way too long the previous day when I was
> supposed to be working). Of course, I was called for a fast count.
> How do you argue with a fast count call when you know that you're not
> fast-counting?
with todays technology youde think there would be a way
It's everyone's responsibility to know the rules and
> make correct calls, but can we hold a thrower responsible for knowing
> what a second is and not calling fast count if their personal second
> is longer than a real second? You can't contest it.
> Do you: keep counting without dropping two since no violation actually
> occured?
> (The violation is predicated on counting fast, not on being called for
> it.)
> Do you: drop two and tell the thrower later on that they should make
> sure they know how long a second is?
> What do you think?
Boy, talkin about goin around your elbow to get to your asshole. you
people kill me. Why complicate things and reley on the inconsistancies
that partial players bring to what should be an impartial arbitration
process. As george carlin said when acting as a special guest on "the
simpsons" - "simplify man, simplify"
>
> Pete #11
Jon Bauman
Interesting idea, but I doubt most players would be up for it. With a
lot of games to play out in the hot sun, most teams took their bye
time to get in the shade, eat some lunch, drink a little water and
discuss strategy for the next game. As much as I support the observer
concept, I don't think I would have wanted to be running around in the
sun getting tired when I could have been resting for my next game.
Mike G, have you ever had to resolve an argument over a fast count
call like this? If so, what did you say to the people involved, and
how did it play out subsequently.
Jon Bauman
> and I'd be interested to hear what people think about how to approach
> it.
omitted]
> How do you argue with a fast count call when you know that you're not
> fast-counting? It's everyone's responsibility to know the rules and
> make correct calls, but can we hold a thrower responsible for knowing
> what a second is and not calling fast count if their personal second
> is longer than a real second? You can't contest it.
> Do you: keep counting without dropping two since no violation actually
> occured?
> (The violation is predicated on counting fast, not on being called for
> it.)
> Do you: drop two and tell the thrower later on that they should make
> sure they know how long a second is?
> What do you think?
Well, as much as I'd like to believe that the person who's "right"
should always prevail, I don't think there is any recourse against a
bad violation call. At best, I think you should drop your count, but
keep the same tempo if you believe it to be correct and have a
discussion during the stop disc if the thrower calls fast count a
second time. Maybe try calling your count very loudly so other people
can weigh in with their opinions afterward. If you want to get REALLY
technical, you could call "violation" on the marker if you believed he
violated XIV.6:
"Fast count: If the marker counts more quickly than at one second
intervals, or if the marker fails to use the word 'stalling' to
initiate or resume the count, the thrower may call 'fast count.'"
That way, it would be offsetting calls, and the stall would resume
where it was, or at 6 if it was over 5.
The problem with simply ignoring a call that you view to be erroneous
is that it's inherently your opinion. Certain things, like whether or
not someone hit your hand, you can say with a great deal of certainty,
but the perception of time is SO relative, how can you be sure? I
imagine everyone's stall tempo varies depending on how fast their
heart is beating and how the game is going at that moment as well as a
number of other factors. I don't think I could ever condone ignoring
the call of another player, no matter how bad. It's a slippery slope;
once you start ignoring calls the rules cease to have meaning.
By the way, what text in the rules give you the impression that the
outcome of the stall is based on whether there was actually a fast
count rather than whether it was called? All the text I can find says
the stall count adjustments occur after the fast count "call", not the
occurrence of a fast count. If the outcome were based on the
occurrence of the violation, the marker would be obligated to reduce
his count if he realized he was counting too fast even in the absence
of a call from the thrower. That certainly would never happen.
-Jon, Viscous Coupling #3
P.S. Pete, you got called for fast counting at Blender? That's rough.
I assume you didn't ignore the call for fear of tanking your team's
Spirit score.
Launchpad
> > That is a crazy idea. As it stands, the thrower is able to hear the
> > count as it increases. If the observer counts, then he has to be
> > focused on when the mark gets within ten feet, whether the mark is
> > actually marking, whether there is a double team call, etc all while
> > making sure he can be heard by the thrower.
>
> yes, and who better to do this than an IMPARTIAL person that is
> CONSISTANT
>
> I would think that would
> > make him less effective in his actual observing duties.
>
> Its not rocket science, its just counting to ten, if players can do
> it while focusing on playing then.....and, its been done
As I said, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. It
seems to me that it is not trivial to be a good observer. I would
much rather have a less than stellar observer placing all his
concentration on making the appropriate calls and being aware of the
field. If he is to maintain an accurate stall count, I assume he'll
be looking at a watch. Otherwise, I see no reason for him to keep the
count. Most observers are players. Most players fast count. I don't
want to base the ten seconds that I'm entitled to on some impartial
but consistent fast-counter. In any case, if my marker fast counts me
and I call it, he certainly gains no advantage as the rules are now.
> It also isn't
> > realistic for the majority of ultimate games played, which certainly
> > don't have observers.
>
> well pry open your wallets and quit being so cheap. facilitate your
> sport
Seems to me that observers are most often volunteers. You seem to
propose a different set of rules for competitive ultimate than for the
majority of ultimate played. I don't think the average pick-up game
that struggles to get 14 players is going to arrange for an impartial
stall counter. It's not a matter of being cheap. It's a matter of
being realistic.
LP
Launchpad
> Now, most of us count as close to one second per stall as we can. But
> clearly, some of our "seconds" are longer than others. This might
> lead an industrious (or obsessed) person to time their own stall
> counts and see how close to actual seconds they are. I did this and
> discovered that I am normally counting way too slowly. So, I sped up
> my count at a recent tournament; but not so much that I was
> fast-counting (I can be relatively sure about this having called
> stalls with a stopwatch for way too long the previous day when I was
> supposed to be working). Of course, I was called for a fast count.
>
> Pete #11
Did you time your stall count just sitting in a chair? A better
indicator of your stall count would be to sprint for a while and clock
yourself immediately afterwards. Or maybe clock yourself while
holding a burning match. Just because you can sit around relaxing and
counting 10-second stall counts doesn't mean you don't fast count in
games.
Now, as far as incorrect fast count calls, there isn't much you can
do. You might say "that's not a fast count" and then continue
counting where you are. In fairness, it gives them a second or two,
but it also probably deters a second lame call. If the person is just
a flat-out cheater, then you're stuck.
LP
rollinnufffatter
> people kill me. Why complicate things and reley on the inconsistancies
> that partial players bring to what should be an impartial arbitration
> process. As george carlin said when acting as a special guest on "the
> simpsons" - "simplify man, simplify"
After reading a lot of your posts, i have come to realize that you
watch way too much TV. Don't sit too close to your television!
rollinnufffatter
> people kill me. Why complicate things and reley on the inconsistancies
> that partial players bring to what should be an impartial arbitration
> process. As george carlin said when acting as a special guest on "the
> simpsons" - "simplify man, simplify"
do yourself a favor and don't sit too close to the television!
russ
> russ <news...@rlm3.com> wrote in message news:<casc0s$7bm$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>...
>
>>tsl wrote:
>>>Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
>>>ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
>>>half court line.
>>
>>Why is it stupid? Because it's different, and different things are
>>stupid?
>
> You know, i really dont know why its stupid, i guess its just so
> obviously stupid to the point that one usually dosnt have to explain
> such stupidity.
No better way to convince than to take your points as given. Heh.
You know, offensively players have to count to make sure they're not in
the key for more than three seconds... I don't don't see why it woudl be
so damned tough for the defense to do it as well.
> Then theres the fact that no other field sport in the
> whole world has such an absurd arbitration process.
You've missed a lot of old discussions on this topic, apparently.
Competitive tennis does self-arbitration. So... not a fact at all! Just
FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). I don't expect to get through to you,
the only reason I respond to many of your posts is because you (and many
before you) like to spread untruths to support their position. Debate on
point, with facts, is fine. FUD is bad.
>>I think maybe you just want to make everything easier on the athletes.
>
> Now youre finally getting it, sherlock. Seperate the freakin tasks so
> the players can focus on playing!!!!!!!!
Playing by the rules is playing. Like I said, it's growing obvious that
you cannot handle all the tasks involved in playing ultimate. That's ok,
but don't ruin it for those more skilled than you. Don't try to bring
the everyone's game down to your level. You don't see me asking people
to play a walking game cuz I'm not fast enough.
>>>Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
>>>CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
>>
>>Hmm... someone's starting to sound a little shrill and looney.
>
> why, because i swore?
Nope, because you yelled with ALL CAPS about something that made no
sense. Cheap? Apathetic? Neither seem related to not being able to think
while you play, which I think you're admitting is your problem.
justruss
russ
> >[short stall count description snipped]
>
> Yet another proven inconsistancy in the arbitration process of ultimate
With a simple rmedy, already in place.
>>it was a pain to always be starting stopping, and resetting after each
>>throw,
>
> with a little practice its pretty easy to get consistant and accurate cadance
Hmmm... it does sound pretty easy. Why not let the players do it? If
accuracy isn't the issue, why bring it up?
justruss
russ
tsl wrote:
> Emplament refs into the sport at long last
> with todays technology youde think there would be a way
> Boy, talkin about goin around your elbow to get to your asshole. you
> people kill me. Why complicate things and reley on the inconsistancies
> that partial players bring to what should be an impartial arbitration
> process. As george carlin said when acting as a special guest on "the
> simpsons" - "simplify man, simplify"
Add technological gear and extra people to the game is making it
simpler... hmm.
Sounds like more unsupported FUD.
justruss
tsl
> t...@ec.rr.com (tsl) wrote in message news:<605c1170.0406...@posting.google.com>...
> > Launchpa...@hotmail.com (Launchpad) wrote in message news:<a6860546.0406...@posting.google.com>...
> > > That is a crazy idea. As it stands, the thrower is able to hear the
> > > count as it increases. If the observer counts, then he has to be
> > > focused on when the mark gets within ten feet, whether the mark is
> > > actually marking, whether there is a double team call, etc all while
> > > making sure he can be heard by the thrower.
> >
> > yes, and who better to do this than an IMPARTIAL person that is
> > CONSISTANT
> >
> > I would think that would
> > > make him less effective in his actual observing duties.
> >
> > Its not rocket science, its just counting to ten, if players can do
> > it while focusing on playing then.....and, its been done
>
> As I said, it is more complicated than you make it out to be. It
> seems to me that it is not trivial to be a good observer. I would
> much rather have a less than stellar observer placing all his
> concentration on making the appropriate calls and being aware of the
> field.
this is what i mean by apathetic, quit coming up with excuses, put in
the required time, money, and resourcesand demand a higher standard!
If he is to maintain an accurate stall count, I assume he'll
> be looking at a watch.
Have you ever seen a basketball game that was reffed, well when one
team scores the other team has 10 seconds to get the ball across
midcourt once it is in-bounded. Youll notice the ref waiving his arm
in a lateral motion. This is basically the ref stalling the offence.
(i cant believe i'm having to explain this) As the ref stalls he IS
NOT looking at his watch but in fact he is watching for any other
potential fouls or violations. And if you ask me the throwers in ulty
shouldnt even get to hear the stall, they dont in b-ball with the 10
second or the 5 second violation, they have to go by feel. Offences
in ulty already have enouph advantages. I think lowering the stall and
backing off the marker would even things out and make it faster with
even more flow.
Otherwise, I see no reason for him to keep the
> count. Most observers are players. Most players fast count. I don't
> want to base the ten seconds that I'm entitled to on some impartial
> but consistent fast-counter.
Its really not that dificult to learn to count at an accurate tempo.
Also when theres an impartial ref counting there is no motive to count
fast, unlike when your opponent has this power.
In any case, if my marker fast counts me
> and I call it, he certainly gains no advantage as the rules are now.
other than disrupting the game and taking away from the continuity of
the sport
>
> > It also isn't
> > > realistic for the majority of ultimate games played, which certainly
> > > don't have observers.
> >
> > well pry open your wallets and quit being so cheap. facilitate your
> > sport
>
> Seems to me that observers are most often volunteers.
Pay them and they will be professionals(by definition any ways)
You seem to
> propose a different set of rules for competitive ultimate than for the
> majority of ultimate played. I don't think the average pick-up game
> that struggles to get 14 players is going to arrange for an impartial
> stall counter. It's not a matter of being cheap. It's a matter of
> being realistic.
no argument there
>
> LP
tsl
thats a strong assertion, but just for fun, my paycheck against yours
that it happens eventually?
tsl
> tsl wrote:
>
> > >[short stall count description snipped]
> >
> > Yet another proven inconsistancy in the arbitration process of ultimate
>
> With a simple rmedy, already in place.
if its so simple, why is it an issue?
>
> >>it was a pain to always be starting stopping, and resetting after each
> >>throw,
> >
> > with a little practice its pretty easy to get consistant and accurate cadance
>
> Hmmm... it does sound pretty easy. Why not let the players do it? If
> accuracy isn't the issue, why bring it up?
because they have been PROVEN to be inaccurate (that is the issue) and
inconsistant, and more than that they are PARTIAL. According to your
argument it would make just as much sence for the offensive player to
count himself, Of corse then youde have to implament a slow-count
clause.
>
> justruss
Adam Tarr
Brilliant bet. Either you win his paycheck, or the bet continues on
until "eventually".
Replace "eventually" with "within seven years" and "happens" with
"happens in an official game at a UPA or worlds event" and you've got an
interesting bet.
I bet it would have seemed pretty radical in 1997 to say that every game
at college nationals would have two on-field officials. And that was
true by, what, 2002?
buried_in_spam
> FUCK observers
I second this notion, but only when he is speaking to attractive
female ultimate players. :)
<--- observer
tsl
my idea was to hold a small mechanism that could provide an accurate
caidance(it could be attachced to a whistle or simply be hand held) to
help refs stay consistant. Of corse after a while they would get good
at it and be able to do it in there head or by a simple wrist motion
(like in basketball). We kept stall counts in the nua games. we did
it with 4 officials per game and it wasnt a problem at all and there
were absolutly no complaints from players. It did take them a while
to adjust but ultimatly it was a burden they were free'd of.
>
> Sounds like more unsupported FUD.
what the hell is fud?
>
> justruss
look man, if youve never seen or played in a refed ulty game then you
are formulating your arguments from complete ignorance. Ive seen it
both ways so i know what i;m talkin about.
tsl
> tsl wrote:
>
> > russ <news...@rlm3.com> wrote in message news:<casc0s$7bm$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>...
> >
> the key for more than three seconds...
yea but their count dosnt mean shit, its the refs count that matters
I don't don't see why it woudl be
> so damned tough for the defense to do it as well.
again thats like saying - lets let the offencive thrower count himself
and if the marker thinks its to slow he calls "slow-count"
>
> > Then theres the fact that no other field sport in the
> > whole world has such an absurd arbitration process.
>
> You've missed a lot of old discussions on this topic, apparently.
> Competitive tennis does self-arbitration.
maybe lower levels, but every tennis match ive seen they got about 8
people callin balls in or out. Shit, they even got computer generated
replays that show exactly where the ball landed......any way thats one
sport...name another
So... not a fact at all! Just
> FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).
your the one who is afraid of loosin your gay-ass arbitration system
I don't expect to get through to you,
> the only reason I respond to many of your posts is because you (and many
> before you) like to spread untruths to support their position. Debate on
> point, with facts, is fine. FUD is bad.
is it not a fact that people cheat and take advantage of the soft
rules on a regular basis. If not then why are observers becoming more
prevelant in higher levels of comp.
>
> >>I think maybe you just want to make everything easier on the athletes.
> >
> > Now youre finally getting it, sherlock. Seperate the freakin tasks so
> > the players can focus on playing!!!!!!!!
>
> Playing by the rules is playing. Like I said, it's growing obvious that
> you cannot handle all the tasks involved in playing ultimate. That's ok,
> but don't ruin it for those more skilled than you. Don't try to bring
> the everyone's game down to your level. You don't see me asking people
> to play a walking game cuz I'm not fast enough.
please read disc forums meadiated chat with the best plaer in the
game. Thats mike grant not jim parrinella. and, dude, you come up
with the lamest analogies ive ever herd.
>
> >>>Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> >>>CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
> >>
> >>Hmm... someone's starting to sound a little shrill and looney.
> >
> > why, because i swore?
>
> Nope, because you yelled with ALL CAPS about something that made no
> sense. Cheap? Apathetic? Neither seem related to not being able to think
> while you play, which I think you're admitting is your problem.
awwww, did i hurt your feelings when i yelled. I guess i was just
trying to point out that to make somthing great (which is what the
sport of ultimate deserves) you need to invest time, money and
resources. If you want a sub-par and unprofessional appearing sport
then dont facilitate it with third party arbitration.
>
>
> justruss
girin
girin guha
tsl
> tsl wrote:
> > "Mike Gerics" <des...@digitizing4embroidery.com> wrote in message news:<rRrAc.44609$wH4.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> >
> >>>Out loud (at least the last few seconds) while being the sole counter
> >>>is what im talkin about
> >>
> >>---bzzzt.
> >>not gonna happen.
> >
> > thats a strong assertion, but just for fun, my paycheck against yours
> > that it happens eventually?
>
> Brilliant bet. Either you win his paycheck, or the bet continues on
> until "eventually".
>
> Replace "eventually" with "within seven years" and "happens" with
> "happens in an official game at a UPA or worlds event" and you've got an
> interesting bet.
make it 10 years and ill take some of that action
>
> I bet it would have seemed pretty radical in 1997 to say that every game
> at college nationals would have two on-field officials. And that was
> true by, what, 2002?
no, thats not really radical at all to me. In the mid 80's i was
sayin travels would be turnovers, thats radical. In 1990 Nob
predicted ultimate would be a proffessional sport 10 years down the
road, that would have been radical. Just now catching up level of
arbitration that the local 5 year old soccer league
boasts.......radical??? not hardly
boss
Ultimate will continue to be a PICK UP game/scrimmage sport until it
has officials (call them referees, observers, umpires, judges....the
term you use to describe this position isn't a point to
make.....whether the position is necessary is the point)
Especially if people like Stick continue to run the sport....don't
care how long you've been around....but stay there, and let Ultimate
become a sport that is made up of atheletes....with
competition....with people trying to win....cause if it ain't about
winning....why keep score or hold nationals??????
stick...@yahoo.com (stick) wrote in message news:<13d82452.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> t...@ec.rr.com (tsl) wrote in message news:<605c1170.0406...@posting.google.com>...
> > Launchpa...@hotmail.com (Launchpad) wrote in message news:<a6860546.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Call it immediately. Even if they don't drop their count, as they are
> > > supposed to, it will generally startle them enough that you will
> > > reclaim the half second that you lost. Then, if you need to call a
> > > fast count or double team later in the same possession, play stops and
> > > the disc is put into play with a check at "stalling one". There is no
> > > harm in calling that fast count immediately. You are especially right
> > > in this situation, as it is spelled out so very clearly in the rules.
> > >
> > > LP
> > >
> > > googl...@umich.edu (Jon Bauman) wrote in message news:<3d06e500.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Since following the advice a received in "Ground Check versus Hand
> > > > Check" worked so well at Gender Blender, I thought I'd ask about
> > > > another rule issue I ran into there: fast counting.
> > > >
> > > > Lots of players seem to be in the habit of starting the stall count
> > > > "StallingOne...Two..." rather than "Stalling...(pause remainder of 1
> > > > second)...One...Two...". According to XIV.C.1 this is wrong:
> > > > Now, I can't very well wait until the end of the stall to call "fast
> > > > count", since I have to call violations "immediately" (XVI.J.2). On
> > > > the other hand, I do care about that half second (and abiding by the
> > > > rules in general), so what's the right thing to do here?
> > > >
> > > > -Jon, Viscous Coupling #3
> >
> >
> > Heres a ccrrraaaaazzzzzzyyy idea, how bout let the observer count.
> > That way you have someone who is impartial controling it which lends
> > itself to consistancy and fairness ( two concepts the upa has
> > sacrificed to maintain their sport-hoarding and power-trip aganda )
> > Just think, how stupid it would be to hear a b-ball player counting to
> > ten as he's preasuring his guy when trying to get the ball accross the
> > half court line. Oh yea,(sarcasm) i forgot, ultimate players are at a
> > much higher and capable level of honor and piety which enables only
> > those select few to practice such an inlightened and idealistic
> > process. Face it (not sarcasm) you muther fuckers are just a bunch of
> > CHEAP and APATHETIC bastards!!!
>
>
> FUCK observers
russ
> Stick wrote...........FUCK observers.
>
> Ultimate will continue to be a PICK UP game/scrimmage sport until it
> has officials (call them referees, observers, umpires, judges....the
> term you use to describe this position isn't a point to
> make.....whether the position is necessary is the point)
Why in the world would you care enough about ultimate to post this
falsehood here if it were just a pick-up sport? There are plenty of
pick-up sports out there for you to play, why do you care so much about
this one?
justruss
Mike Gerics
> Mike G, have you ever had to resolve an argument over a fast count
> call like this? If so, what did you say to the people involved, and
> how did it play out subsequently.
--never observed a game that had a serious 'fast count' argument.
Launchpad
> Launchpa...@hotmail.com (Launchpad) wrote in message news:<a6860546.04061...@posting.google.com>...
> > t...@ec.rr.com (tsl) wrote in message news:<605c1170.0406...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Launchpa...@hotmail.com (Launchpad) wrote in message news:<a6860546.0406...@posting.google.com>...
> backing off the marker would even things out and make it faster with
> even more flow.
Yes, an accurate stall count to 7 or 8 would be no different than many
of the current counts. I also agree about the mark. Backing off the
mark will reduce stoppages of play and will also make it clearer if a
thrower is just lunging into the mark and calling a foul (I think the
mark is generally at fault, as it stands).
> Its really not that dificult to learn to count at an accurate tempo.
> Also when theres an impartial ref counting there is no motive to count
> fast, unlike when your opponent has this power.
And will he automatically drop one and reinitiate the stall count on a
double team? Is the thrower required to make the double team call
loud enough for the observer to hear, or should there perhaps be a
signal with the off-hand? Or should the observer be given power of
active double team calls as well? You are right that if he has a
metronome, keeping the stall would not be too difficult. If he
doesn't, then I don't want him counting the stall on me (I can at
least call "fast count" on the marker if he's wrong).
> In any case, if my marker fast counts me
> > and I call it, he certainly gains no advantage as the rules are now.
>
> other than disrupting the game and taking away from the continuity of
> the sport
It doesn't disrupt the game at all if I only call it once. If I call
it twice, then he loses any advantage when he has to start his count
over. Taking away from the continuity of the sport is not
advantageous for anyone.
> > > well pry open your wallets and quit being so cheap. facilitate your
> > > sport
> >
> > Seems to me that observers are most often volunteers.
>
> Pay them and they will be professionals(by definition any ways)
As professional as the umpires at rec and ed baseball games? I hope
not. Professional by definition isn't good enough. I'd much rather
have an ultimate player eager to help out with an event volunteer to
observe than have some kid looking to make a few dollars. I would
have no problem paying observers who had received some sort of
certification (testing on knowledge of rules and application to game
situations, required experience observing games under supervision,
etc). I think the observers would still end up being enthusiastic
volunteers, but in this case we'd be giving them a little money.
-LP
Anne Marie Wissman
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Launchpad wrote:
> As professional as the umpires at rec and ed baseball games? I hope
> not. Professional by definition isn't good enough. I'd much rather
> have an ultimate player eager to help out with an event volunteer to
> observe than have some kid looking to make a few dollars. I would
> have no problem paying observers who had received some sort of
> certification (testing on knowledge of rules and application to game
> situations, required experience observing games under supervision,
> etc). I think the observers would still end up being enthusiastic
> volunteers, but in this case we'd be giving them a little money.
This kind of training is already happening, albeit on a reduced
scale from what I think you're proposing. EK did a great job as CNats
head observer: holding a clinic in Seattle, setting up observer practice
at spring league games, making sure observers were comfortable with some
of the most common calls and onfield situations, pairing up
less-experienced observers with more-experienced ones, and having
rulebooks available in case anything needed to be looked up. All
observers also had to pass an online rules test. I would like to see an
expansion of the training program, i.e. a more comprehensive rules test
(the one they have now is kind of short), and more clinics and practice
opportunities in different parts of the country (not just the host city
for nationals) - something along the lines of the regional coaching
clinics that the UPA started running this year. But I think we're headed
in the right direction. I've never reffed any other sport, so I don't
know how this compares to the training and certification of, say, soccer
refs or baseball umpires.
As an "enthusiastic volunteer," I found observing to be a very
rewarding experience. I don't think that money is what's holding people
back from buying into the system (so to speak). I think it has more to do
with the lack of infrastructure, and the fact that most of the
experienced, rules-savvy folks are still playing in the club division.
Is a few bucks an hour going to make the difference to your average
retired former-elite player, to induce them to come out to observe at
Sectionals?
-AM
Fetch
that all works.
fetch
JT
maybe cause he plays at an elite level and has won a championship and
can see what this sport can be.
why do you play?
jt
Frank Kearney
> > falsehood here if it were just a pick-up sport? There are plenty of
> > pick-up sports out there for you to play, why do you care so much about
> > this one?
> >
>
> can see what this sport can be.
>
He cares because he plays at an elite level? Bzt.
He attains an elite level because he cares.
Now, why does he care about the game so much if, as he claims, it's just a
pickup sport?
I think the answer to the rhetotical question was russ's retort: It's not a
pickup sport.
Frank
Pgoss
>>etc). I think the observers would still end up being enthusiastic
>>volunteers, but in this case we'd be giving them a little money.
>
What, you don't think that free licorice, soda, and goldfish are
sufficient inducement to getting enthusiastic observers?
In response to Anne Marie's post, certification not only varies by
sport, but by level and location. In addition to observing ultimate, I
spent several years as a soccer ref back in Minnesota. I reffed middle
school up to college junior varsity and don't know that I was ever
"certified" in any real sense. (But I did was experienced and did get
paid reasonably well)
On the other hand, my roommate is a ref/ump for baseball and basketball,
and had to get certified in Oregon to work at the high school level, and
being certified helps him get city league and recreational gigs because
there are a lot of people competing for at least the best slots.
Personally, I wouldn't be against a more formalized "certification"
process, but really what we lack most are opportunities to get
experience. Not many observed games or tournaments means even people
who can pass the test don't get a chance to get their feet wet
(literally?) in an actual game until the bigger tournaments of the year.
The college NW folks did a good job by getting observers into games
during every round at regionals, so that by sunday even the new
observers had a few games in hand.
-p
chewie
vs. Johnny Bravo.
I belive it was typical Tempe conditions. 95 degrees on turf that
might as well be asphault, and an ice cream truck waiting off the
field.
Soft cap already on. Condors have the disc about 15 yards from the
goal to seal the game. Then the crap began to set in which kept me
from fudge-pop. A series of "Fast Count!" "Stall" "Contested Stall"
"Pick" "Equipment" "Ouch my Hemorroid" "who knows what else they
complained about" went out bringing the throw back 3 times!! The
dispute finally ended, with Condors scoring via a high release
backhand to the middle of the field that SO should have been D'ed by a
stud who REALLY wanted a victory.
The hundreds of folks watching from the sidelines were left thinking
to themselves "Well, that was hardly ELITE. I'm gonna see what's
happening in masters." What took the cake is that both teams spoke
shit to the observer. HEY, HE DIDN'T CHEAT.
And now I ponder whether or not to post this reply. For it will most
probably not be read and certainly not taken seriously by those who
are serious offenders. And by serious offender I don't mean someone
who can score at will. For certainly if one could do that, they
wouldn't resort to cheating like the little piece of cat shit that
they are!
chewie
"Mike Gerics" <des...@digitizing4embroidery.com> wrote in message news:<RhrBc.64253$2o2.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
boss
All I know is that the only time Ultimate does not feel like a pick-up
game/scrimmage.....is when there are observers.....which has happened
twice in my ultimate career....both at Nationals, collegiate and club.
EVERY other tournament is important, but for some reason the UPA
feels that ONLY nationals needs observers......WHY???????
(i am sure other tournaments have used observers, but i have not
played in those)
If nationals has observers, the whole series should have
observers....beginning with sectionals, on to regionals and then
nationals.
the bigger tournaments should have observers as well, to give it that
"nationals" feel of "damn, this is an important tournament".
If the UPA feels nationals( the highest repected tournament in the
nation...which every team wants to win) needs observers....then the
SPORT needs observers at all competitions that count towards
something....otherwise every other tournament is a "just for the fun
of it tournament".....which every sport that currently have
referees/umps/etc. does.
Ultimate NEEDS to make this transition happen.
Those that want to compete, can with observers....they can attend the
tournaments that have observers, cause they know they are going to be
playing against other COMPETITIVE athletes...and NOT Spirit Of The
Game diehards.
Everyone does not need to play with observers...if you like you can
play pick-up sports anywhere.
"Frank Kearney" <fkea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cb7g3a$gup$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>...
Frank Kearney
I think we'll see this transition. I think we're already seeing it.
Observers are being used at college regionals a lot now. Not so much or at
all just 3-4 years ago.
The UPA has little control over what most tournaments do, nor do I think
they need to become involved. If they added it as a criteria for the
UPA-sponsored 'stars' that would be cool.
And, I don't think playing without observers makes it pickup. I haven't
played in an observed game in club, but many of the games I have played in
have been just as competitive. Sometimes people call bad fouls, yup. Sucks
when it happens, but it doesn't make it pickup.
As for the rest: Agreed, I'd like to see more tournaments with Observers. I
think a lot of teams would like to go to more tournaments with Observers
(...maybe No Surf '05). College has it easier since the club players can
observe. There's no such easy pool from which to draw for Club observers.
So how do you get more observers? If I wanted to run a tournament with
Observers, where would I get them? You've expressed what you want to see,
but not how to obtain it. The onus can't just be on the UPA to take care of
it.
Maybe you have the team thats on a bye observe. No guarantees on quality,
there. Eventually that system would provide quality observers, but not in
the near-term.
Maybe you offer pay - but still the best observers are committed players who
would rather play in your tournament than observe at it.
Maybe as we have more retired players we'll have more of a base from which
to draw observers and things will be easier.
Other ideas?
Frank
Mike Gerics
> If nationals has observers, the whole series should have
> observers....beginning with sectionals, on to regionals and then
> nationals.
>
--teams with byes supply the observers.
russ
> Maybe as we have more retired players we'll have more of a base from which
> to draw observers and things will be easier.
Woohoo!
russ