so....how were the 'observers' at the club championships in florida?

[Reggie Fanelli]

how were the observers at the club championships in florida last
weekend?
i received a personal email, wherein the observers were called
"unprofessional"......any comments?

[mvuong]

So how were any of your UOA events so far this year? No
writeups, no scores, no website updates? On field
professional you have down. Elsewhere, you may need to
improve.
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com

[Greg Southfield]

Share the personal email if you're going to throw somebody
under the bus.

[Greg Southfield]

Share the personal email if you're going to throw somebody
under the bus.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Share the personal email if you're going to throw somebody
> under the bus.

~~~~~~

--"share"....the "personal" email?
come on einstein.

[thefan]

http://www.rsdnospam.com/index.php?t=msg&th=36504&st
art=0&

found a write up.

[Greg Southfield]

Yes, share the personal email. You found it worthy enough
to publicly post every obserer at nationals was
unprofessional.

[Jeff]

probably similar to the emails that state the UOA is being
used as a tool to get the USAU to create a large observer
pool .....

[Hazera 36]

It's me. I said the observers at Club nationals were
unprofessional. I've worked with Mike and his UOA group
before and by comparison the UOA referee system/active
observer system (do we really have to call it that?) has the
USAU observer system topped BIG TIME. The standard USAU has
for their top observers is clearly a notch or two below what
Mike is asking of his UOA Academy. Anyone who's experience
both (UOA and USAU) should be able to say the same.

Frankie Hazera

[Greg Southfield]

Frankie - what exactly was unprofessional? How many games
were observed? Unless you played 15 games with new
observers each round, it's irresponsible to make a blanket
statement that applies to all of them. It would be like me
saying the only unprofessional observers were
Friday/Saturday when you went 0-5. Kinda stings, doesn't
it?

Gs

[Jeff]

http://www.rsdnospam.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=94371&
&srch=UOA+B+team#msg_94371

this seems to be a pretty consistent opinion of the UOA

[Vancer]

Cool, Greg is officially ceding any claim to the high ground
on any future argument. Good to know.

[Reggie Fanelli]

>  http://www.rsdnospam.com/index.php?t=msg&th=36504&st
> art=0&
>
> found a write up.

~~~~~~~~

---thanks for finding that write up that muvong couldn't find.

....can't wait to get you down here to officiate games with us!

[Hazera 36]

Observer Cons:
1) Out of position to make calls (in/out, receiver foul
call) too many times I saw an observer trailing the play by
WAY too much, or not hugging the sideline to make an in/out
call, or even cutting off a swing. I get that we're all new
to this but I think positioning is a fundamental part of
officiating, no?
2) Allowed for court room litigation and closing statements
from each player before making a ruling on a call Why are
we still allowing people to discuss calls on the field if we
have observers? "foul" "Contest" "Observer!" "NO FOUL"
that's 5 words if you were counting. I don't think we had a
foul/contest that was under 10 words (BEWARE THAT WAS A
BLANKET STATEMENT!)
3) Had a chambers session to discuss each call if there was
a stoppage
A simple hand signal to your partner is all you need not a
conference. In my opinion when I see an observer conference
I think "oh great neither of them saw it so they're going to
debate it" or "there's your typical ultimate player going to
lawyer his way into/out of a call". Call it like you see
it. Put yourself in the right place to make a call and
everyone will be confident you made the right call and will
continue to make the right call EVEN IF it doesn't favor
their team. If you didn't see it MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH YOUR
FELLOW OBSERVER AND GET A HAND SIGNAL FROM HIM/HER! If
you're still not sure THEN let's have a pow-wow. But every
time... COM'ON MAN!
Non-game related banter going on between the observers and
players of each team this is nip picky but really? Why are
we chit chatting with players? Don't we have a game to
watch and control?
Observers being assigned to observe the team from their home
city this is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure there were enough
observers out at USAUs to prevent conflict of interest.
Granted I don't think the observer influenced the game but
what IF it had, that would have looked REALLY REALLY BAD.
Anyone else thinking Italian Futbol?
Lack of the Observer's ability to control the game- In what
sport can a player spike the ball at or near an official
after a call is made which the player disagrees with and not
receive a penalty or ejection? Go to the yellow and red
card system and do away with the 15 (THIS IS AN EXADUATION)
TMFs a team has to get before a penalty is issued.
We need guys like this officiating the game -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierluigi_Collina
NO ONE second guesses or fucks with Collina!
Pros:
Consistent with players over the dotted line TMFs they
meant it when they said get back or you get a TMF. AWESOME.
I'm dead serious about this. I think it was great that the
Observers were giving one warning and then dishing out the
TMF. Only problem is a TMF doesn't do much on its own...
you gotta have an additional 3 before there is any actual
penalty.
Consistent with Off sides calls same as above.
We had observers! For all the [sort of] [not so]
constructive criticism I'm giving, I'm forever grateful we
actually had observers. And if the player chooses to they
could institute the immediate referral system by immediately
going to the observer. NO FUCKING WAY! Problem is we (the
players) are so ingrained with the litigating BS of ultimate
that when we're on the field as a player or an ex-player
observing we can't help but go back to our big city lawyer
ways and talk someone's ear off. Mike's system takes the
talking out of ultimate and allows you to play the game and
let the officials deal with the rules in a confident,
respectful, and professional way. The USAU might be trying
to do what Mike is doing but Mike is already doing it and
doing the whole officiating thing a whole lot better.

PS I'm sure I have some blanket statements in there. Greg,
please use my blanket statements to keep you warm at night
and not keep you up all night.

[Reggie Fanelli]

On Nov 4, 7:55 pm, Hazera 36 <Francisco.haz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's me.  I said the observers at Club nationals were
> unprofessional.

~~~~~~


---damn it Frankie.

say....curiously....and sincerely.....you play for Truckstop,
right?.....would your team be interested in playing at a UOA event?
your team is OFFICIALLY invited to compete at the UOA Summer Club
Championships here in Wilmington NC.
Let's work on getting a date set....and recruiting elite club teams to
compete...

[Reggie Fanelli]

> It's me.   I've worked with Mike and his UOA group
> before


---maybe the very first or second UOA event...possibly....
and you're welcome to return to officiate at any time.
~~~~~~~

and by comparison the UOA referee system/active
> observer system (do we really have to call it that?)

---the UOA is not a referee association nor an association of
OBSERVERS.
We are game OFFICIALS.....let's call it that.
~~~~~~~~~~
(the UOA official's system) has the

> USAU observer system topped BIG TIME.  The standard USAU has
> for their top observers is clearly a notch or two below what
> Mike is asking of his UOA Academy.

---whoa. plenty to like there.....
uh....yes. yes. ....and...Academy.
nice.
~~~~~~~~~~

Anyone who's experience
> both (UOA and USAU) should be able to say the same.

---and yes.

crazy huh?

[Reggie Fanelli]

Greg Southfield
~~~~~~~~~~

---HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Frankie - what exactly was unprofessional?

---i'm not frankie, of course.
i can make some zany guesses from 500 miles away with no idea......
-grizzly adams beards called 'neatly groomed' that look give the
impression of a hobo.
-mix matched hats....some orange, some black, some cowboy...should or
could or might match.
-'goal' hand signals that look like someone being held up by a gunman
in an ally.
-showing up late for your game.

[mvuong]

How about this, where is the write up for the SEC
tournament?

[Reggie Fanelli]

On Nov 4, 8:55 pm, Vancer <ryanpva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cool, Greg is officially ceding any claim to the high ground
> on any future argument. Good to know.

~~~~~~~~

---really.....
first time you've noticed that?
that guy is the worst sort of person.
has been since his phoney start.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> We need guys like this officiating the game -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierluigi_Collina

~~~~~~

---durn dude.....you quoted a ton of stuff outta the UOA Certification
Manual.

[Greg Southfield]

Good write up Frankie. Was this during 1, 2, or 3 games?

Your "blanket statement" jab was cute, but it doesn't
deflect that youse have worked with probably 6 observers and
cast a net that called all of them unprofessional.

Your write up suggests they weren't unprofessional - but
rather, just not good at getting into position and taking
too much time to confer to assure they had the correct call.
Perhaps they were conferring to make sure they implemented
the rules correctly? Whatever the case, too much conferring
looks bad.

On your con about letting the D and O make their case, the
observers have to rule only on what the players bring them.
The O and D have to make clear what the call is. Say a
handler travels by changing direction, then immediately
drags his toe after releasing the disc. If the marker calls
a travel for the toe drag, the observer isn't going to say
"no, the drag was after he released the disc, but he did
change direction."

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Yes, share the personal email.  You found it worthy enough
> to publicly post every obserer at nationals was
> unprofessional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--i don't see the logic in your argument.

[Reggie Fanelli]

it doesn't
> deflect that youse have worked with probably 6 observers

~~~~~~


---hold on......it doesn't deflect that 'youse have worked with'????

youse have worked with?

[Reggie Fanelli]

 You found it worthy enough
> to publicly post every obserer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--hey....gorg southernfried is really toad in disguise!
obserer?
what the heck is that?

[Reggie Fanelli]

youse have worked with probably 6 observers and
> cast a net that called all of them unprofessional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---sadly, it probably only takes one observer to cast that net.
AND...to be fair.....he WAS comparing the upsa observers to UOA
Officials.....
so.....

[Reggie Fanelli]

> On your con about letting the D and O make their case, the
> observers have to rule only on what the players bring them.
> The O and D have to make clear what the call is. Say a
> handler travels by changing direction, then immediately
> drags his toe after releasing the disc.  If the marker calls
> a travel for the toe drag, the observer isn't going to say
> "no, the drag was after he released the disc, but he did
> change direction."

~~~~~~~~


---yo.....which un-professional observer were you....as if we don't
know...

[Reggie Fanelli]

> On your con about letting the D and O make their case, the
> observers have to rule only on what the players bring them.
> The O and D have to make clear what the call is. Say a
> handler travels by changing direction, then immediately
> drags his toe after releasing the disc.  If the marker calls
> a travel for the toe drag, the observer isn't going to say
> "no, the drag was after he released the disc, but he did
> change direction."

~~~~~~

---they are hating it....the D, the O, the observers.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Yes, share the personal email.  You found it worthy enough
> to publicly post every obserer at nationals was
> unprofessional.

~~~~~~~~~~

---i didn't publicly post that every observer at nationals was
unprofessional.
i publicly posted that someone who wrote me said that the observers at
nationals were unprofessional.

[ulticritic]

On Nov 4, 5:30 pm, mvuong <marvinvu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So how were any of your UOA events so far this year? No
> writeups, no scores, no website updates? On field
> professional you have down. Elsewhere, you may need to
> improve.


funny you ask........as tiina booth has a "wright up"
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

[ulticritic]

On Nov 4, 6:40 pm, Jeff <Jffr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> probably similar to the emails that state the UOA is being
> used as a tool to get the USAU to create a large observer
> pool .....

you may have this backwards
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

[ulticritic]

On Nov 4, 7:55 pm, Vancer <ryanpva...@gmail.com> wrote:.

> Cool, Greg is officially ceding any claim to the high ground
> on any future argument. Good to know.

does ANYBODY even know who this "greg" person is. i mean, can anyone
vouch for him even being a real person? what team(s) have you played
on again "greg"?
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com

[ulticritic]

how about some elite cub level uoa events????? are all them
"clubbers" scared or somthing?

[ulticritic]

On Nov 4, 9:30 pm, Greg Southfield <greg.southfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good write up Frankie.  Was this during 1, 2, or 3 games?
>
> Your "blanket statement" jab was cute, but it doesn't
> deflect that youse have worked with probably 6 observers and
> cast a net that called all of them unprofessional.

i dont think hes really calling the individual observers
unprofessional as much as the system they were using. so maybe its
just that usau is unprofessional in reguards to basic game management
and rule enforcement in comparison to the uoa

[ulticritic]

On Nov 4, 10:04 pm, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@gmail.com> wrote:.

>  You found it worthy enough> to publicly post every obserer
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --hey....gorg southernfried is really toad in disguise!

he wishes.........but i get the joke. good one

[ulticritic]

On Nov 4, 8:21 pm, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@gmail.com> wrote:.

>
> ---the UOA is not a referee association nor an association of
> OBSERVERS.
> We are game OFFICIALS.....let's call it that.

glad to see that your back on the "calling em officials" train mike.
so is the officai org now know as the ULTIMATE "OFFICIALS" ASSOCIATION
(as opposed to the ultimate observers assoc)??? and just to clarify
to all the kids out there (for the zillionth time) if ya look up the
term "referee" it actually DESRIBES the role of the observer MORE than
an actual modern "referee"

ONE WHO IS REFERED TO IN CASE OF A DISPUTE.......REFEREE

[3Jane.]

Another sort of decent debate with some actual exchanges of views
dropped in the shitter by 6 or 7 ulticritic posts in a row that no
more than 4 (+/- 2)people will ever read. Well done toad, as usual
nobody trashes a thread like you, once you chime in, it's done- the
old usenet stake through the heart.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Your write up suggests they weren't unprofessional - but
> rather, just not good at getting into position and taking
> too much time to confer to assure they had the correct call.
>  Perhaps they were conferring to make sure they implemented
> the rules correctly?  Whatever the case, too much conferring
> looks bad.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---well...by SOME standards......i guess....this is super
professional....huh?

[Reggie Fanelli]

> glad to see that your back on the "calling em officials" train mike.
> so is the officai org now know as the ULTIMATE "OFFICIALS" ASSOCIATION

~~~~~~

--yes...it's official....we are no longer 'observers'...
the UOA is the Ultimate Officials Association
website...in the works!

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Another sort of decent debate with some actual exchanges of views
> dropped in the shitter by 6 or 7 ulticritic posts in a row that no
> more than 4 (+/- 2)people will ever read.  Well done toad, as usual
> nobody trashes a thread like you, once you chime in, it's done- the
> old usenet stake through the heart.

~~~~~~~~~



---i'd rather 100 of toad's posts...than one by a joker claiming
something that isn't the case.
i didn't see anything dropped in the shitter....until your post.

[ulticritic]

On Nov 5, 12:51 pm, "3Jane." <q3j...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Another sort of decent debate with some actual exchanges of views

none that are/were contributed by YOU......as usual
---------------------------------------

> dropped in the shitter by 6 or 7 ulticritic posts in a row

hows that? i mean, dont people post here so that they will get some
kind of response? why post otherwise? i mean, if ya dont want people
to respond to your posts then DONT FUCKING POST, right?

or are you just jealous that i dominate rsd in the way that i do?
---------------------------------------------------

that no
> more than 4 (+/- 2)people will ever read.

where do you get your numbers? and why do you think people dont read
what i say? and why would it be that because i post sucessivly that
others would stop?
---------------------------------------------

 Well done toad, as usual
> nobody trashes a thread like you,

you might want to look in there mirror there mcfly.......but are you
sure you didnt mean "thrashes a thread like me"? as i AM a thread
thrasher
----------------------------------------

once you chime in, it's done- the
> old usenet stake through the heart.

do you say that because you just disagree with what i say.......or is
it that you secretly agree but are just "put off"/"in a bag" over the
verosity in which i say it? i mean, i dont get it......isnt the
purpose of rsd ( and similar internet news groups) so that people can
communicate an exchange of ideas? and isnt that exactly what i'm
doing here.

or maybe its just that while you pussyfooters pussyfoot around the
subject i cut right to the heart of it, cutting though all the whamby
pamby bullshit, pealing back the layers, and exposing the cold hard
truth.......thus ending all the bullshit dialouge? now if THAT is
indeed the case then......thank you......as i DO, as the resident
expert, ALWAYS have the final word (just like on around the horn
jack!!!!!)

[Reggie Fanelli]

6 or 7 ulticritic posts in a row that no
> more than 4 (+/- 2)people will ever read.

~~~~~~~

---i have people tell me all the time, all over the place...that they
only read rsd for what toad writes...and they don't like rsd when he
takes a break from it.
hmmmm
i trust my sources.

[Greg Southfield]

Yes, Mike and Toad are both guilty of spamming the no-spam
board with their unnecessary line-by-line responses across
multiple posts.

And I call BS that Mike's hears from people "all the time"
that they only check out RSD for Toad's posts. What I hear
is he's a guy in his mid 40s arguing online with college
students.

[thefan]

mid 40s? college students? unnecessary posts? spam?

man, you really are confused.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> And I call BS that Mike's hears from people "all the time"
> that they only check out RSD for Toad's posts.

~~~~~

--oops...you're wrong....again.

[3Jane.]

Bullshit, I bet less than 5 people here read his incoherent spam. I
challenge 5 people to post here and say they read all his posts and
you can include Gerics-but I doubt he reads it either, why would any
sentient human waste that much time- but not Toad, no one who reads
what they write would post garbage like that so he obviously doesn't
reda it either.

[Reggie Fanelli]

On Nov 6, 4:05 pm, "3Jane." <q3j...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > And I call BS that Mike's hears from people "all the time"
> > > that they only check out RSD for Toad's posts.
>
> > ~~~~~
>
> > --oops...you're wrong....again.
>
> Bullshit, I bet less than 5 people here read his incoherent spam.

~~~~~~~~~

---you're dumb

[Greg Southfield]

Reggie Fanelli wrote on Sun, 06 November 2011 16:39

> On Nov 6, 4:05 pm,

> > > ~~~~~
> >
> > > --oops...you're wrong....again.
> >
> > Bullshit, I bet less than 5 people here read his
> > incoherent spam.
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---you're dumb

Mike- you're a regular Mark Cuban, except you're no Mark
Cuban...

[mvuong]

Reggie Fanelli wrote on Sat, 05 November 2011 19:47

> ---i have people tell me all the time, all over the
> place...that they
> only read rsd for what toad writes...and they don't like
> rsd when he
> takes a break from it.
> hmmmm
> i trust my sources.

Just because someone posts it on RSD doesn't make it true.
You taught me that Mike!

[Reggie Fanelli]

> > ---i have people tell me all the time, all over the
> > place...that they
> > only read rsd for what toad writes...and they don't like
> > rsd when he
> > takes a break from it.
> > hmmmm
> > i trust my sources.
>
> Just because someone posts it on RSD doesn't make it true.
> You taught me that Mike!

~~~~~

--i didn't write that i saw it posted on rsd.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Mike- you're a regular Mark Cuban, except you're no Mark
> Cuban...

~~~~

--never heard of him....

[Reggie Fanelli]

Say a
> handler travels by changing direction, then immediately
> drags his toe after releasing the disc.  If the marker calls
> a travel for the toe drag, the observer isn't going to say
> "no, the drag was after he released the disc, but he did
> change direction."

~~~~~~~

---that's your league, fella

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Share the personal email if you're going to throw somebody
> under the bus.
~~~~~

--Tiina Booth's got you shook up, huh?

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Yes, Mike and Toad are both guilty of spamming the no-spam
> board with their unnecessary line-by-line responses across
> multiple posts.

~~~~~~~~~~~

---what does 'spamming the no-spam board' mean?
and....if it's a 'no spam' board....that toad and i are filling
up....wouldn't logic lead you to the fact that what we're filling it
up with....isn't spam?
come on little fella.

are these google newsgroups no spam?

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Yes, Mike and Toad are both guilty of spamming the no-spam
> board with their unnecessary line-by-line responses across
> multiple posts.

~~~~~~~~

---what does unnecessary line-by-line response mean?
people don't normally talk to one another in huge long paragraphs or
in long winded speeches...right?
don't people normally exchange sentence after sentence after comment
to one another.....exactly as we reply?

you, on the other hand....don't have anything to communicate, other
than you admiration....and envy....

[Reggie Fanelli]

> And I call BS that Mike's hears from people "all the time"
> that they only check out RSD for Toad's posts.   What I hear
> is he's a guy in his mid 40s arguing online with college
> students.

~~~~~~~~~

---i don't follow the logic of your discussion.
i say that folks tell me all the time that they only read rsd for what
toad or i write(did i mention that they always dog you and yours out
for being a bunch of kooks...they do).....and you say 'toad's 40
arguing with college kids'

you don't make much sense....even for a ding-dong.

you say....toad's 40-ish and argues with college kids online.
really?
that's what ya got?

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Mike- you're a regular Mark Cuban, except you're no Mark
> Cuban...

~~~~~~~~

--you're a regular smarge mifferton, except you're no smarge
mifferton.

[Reggie Fanelli]

> Share the personal email if you're going to throw somebody
> under the bus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---worried, huh?