My thoughts on Wilmington 8's/Experiemental Observer Rules
Sean Keegan
have a few thoughts. First and foremost, this was the first Mike G
run tournament I've been to and it was perfectly run. In terms of the
tournament itself, everything was smooth, quick, and clear. From the
very beginning, both Mike G and Jason Weddle were incredibly quick and
helpful with giving information and responding to emails. At the
tournament, the fields were clearly lined and spaced well. There was
PLENTY of water, fresh fruit, laminated schedules for each team, a
trophy for the winner team(hanging in my living room now!) rule books,
and a blown up score reporter page centrally located. The rounds were
clearly announced. As far as running tournaments go, this was as
smooth as any I've ever been to and fully recommend attending one of
Mike G's tournaments. As one of my teammates said about the tourney,
"It's like he literally thinks of every little thing a team could
bitch about for a tournament and makes sure that doesn't happen at
his." Delaware will definitely be looking to attend a Spring 8's.
Now, onto the observers and rules.
8 observers ready to work 8 full length games in the fall?? That's
awesome. Props Mike for making that happen not once, but twice this
fall. As for the experimental rules,
I was a bit skeptical about the observers counting stalls and
travels. I was consistently stalling people throughout the first half
of our first game but progressively was able to break the habit pretty
quickly. By the middle of the 2nd game, I was completely comfortable
with the observers stalling. As the thrower, you know you don't have
to worry about focusing on how quickly the mark is stalling. The
observers did a GREAT job of initiating the stall count, and giving
the count for 5,7,8,9, 10. At no point as a thrower was I not aware
of what the stall was(you should know when stall 5 is coming up even
if its silent) The observers don't care if a team gets stalled or
not, so when the count gets high (8,9,10) you don't have to worry
about the arbitrary stall counter getting excited and counting 8,9,10
in .5 seconds. In 8 the games I played, I believe I only saw one
stall called. I think observers keeping the stall count provide a
constant and well kept stall count. As an offensive player, since the
trailing observer (observer behind the disc, facing downfield from the
thrower) is the one keeping the stall count, when they loudly
announced stalls 5,7... the downfield cutters, and defenders for that
matter, know exactly what the stall is which is a plus for everyone.
Another thing I loved about observers counting stalls was the fact
that they didnt start stalling UNTIL the offensive player set a pivot
foot. Way too often defenders start stalling when their man is slowing
down to set a pivot or even sometimes when the disc is still in the
air just about to be caught. People can bitch about some observers
counting faster/slower than others, but it doesn't matter because that
observer is going to count to 10 at the same pace no matter which team
has the disc. Just like in basketball when a team is inbounding the
ball, I'm sure some refs count to 5 quicker than others, but that same
ref is going to count to 5 the same speed no matter which team is
inbounding the ball. My thoughts: PRO Observer stall count.
Observers calling travels: loved it. As a thrower, I knew I wasn't
going to get bogus travel calls. I could successfully huck the disc
and be confident it wasn't going to come back on a travel call simply
because the other team didn't want us to score a goal (a la wisconsin/
florida of a few years back.) Even with observers that are not
calling travels, players still have the option to call travels and
disrupt the flow (popping in a zone.) In short, my thoughts: PRO
observer stall count.
Observers initiating play: This is one of the rules I was neutral
on. Personally, I think even after this weekend I would still like
players to initiate play. I DO like the observers speeding up the
process of getting play started, but I wasn't entirely comfortable
starting play on a verbal cue as opposed to a ground check or defender
tap in (I know we'll disagree here Mike) Now. If there was a way for
the observers to initiate play that would allow the downfield players
to more easily hear/see, this might be a different story. I'm
thinking whistles?? Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to play in
one of the games in which Mike experimented with whistles, but I think
this is something to definitely consider. all in all: NEUTRAL on
observers initiating play.
Observers on up/down: perfect system with 2 observers. This wasn't
the first time this idea has been used and it's for good reason:it's a
fine system. In the 8 games I played in, there were ZERO "do overs."
A do over is bullshit. Even if the observers blow a call at least
they're making a call and there's no downtime in the game. With 2
observers hustling on the field, they should always be in good
position to make an up/down call, and at the 8's they were. No do
overs and quick calls. PRO up/down calls.
The IRS system: FANTASTIC. No bullshit arguing between teams, no do-
overs/send it backs (notice how i keep coming back to this.) Even if
I didn't always agree with the ruling the observers made, it was great
to have them make a QUICK final call on any disputed calls. The
observers gave the players a few quick moments to come to an
agreement. In all the games I played in, the moment the observer knew
there wouldn't be an agreement, they came in and made a call.
Beautiful. VERY PRO IRS system.
I can think of 2 situations where the observers admitted they made the
wrong call against my team (this was a training tournament for them
also, so no big deal) I can live with these calls because observers
aren't perfect, but they're making a call and sticking to it. Also,
I'm sure we were the beneficiary of at least one "blown call." It all
works out.
All in all, I liked a lot of the things Mike G and his crew did this
weekend. If the UPA reads RSD or cares about the thoughts of one
individual who's played with these experimental rules, please consider
observer stall counts/travel calls! In my experience, it drastically
improved the game in many aspects.
Thanks to Mike and all the observers who gave their time this weekend
to make it a great experience for me and my team. Hope to see you
guys again in the spring.
-Sean Keegan
U Del
PS. These thoughts are strictly my own and do not reflect any of my
teammates thoughts or opinions.
Alex Peters
>>that they didnt start stalling UNTIL the offensive player set a pivot
>>foot. Way too often defenders start stalling when their man is slowing
>>down to set a pivot
That's probably because they are not required to wait by the rules. A
marker may stall a thrower as soon as they have possession (XIV.2) and
only has to wait for the thrower to set a pivot foot if the possession
is directly after a turnover. Possession of the disc does not require
ground contact. The observers should not be waiting until the
throwers have a pivot to start the stalls unless they aren't calling
this rule by the 11th edition.
Reggie Fanelli
> >>that they didnt start stalling UNTIL the offensive player set a pivot
> >>foot. Way too often defenders start stalling when their man is slowing
> >>down to set a pivot
---to be clear.....UOA observers do not 'wait for a pivot foot'.
It may seem that way sometimes....simply because we DO NOT start the
stall count until there is a definate marker within the 3 meters.
the markers counted all weekend....and most often they were at 3 when
i was starting my count...or at 7 when i shouted 5.
we start the stall later than 97% of the markers...which may lead
keegan to have the feeling that we start at the pivot foot.
but...be assured, many stall counts began before the pivot was
set....sometimes while the thrower was still out of bounds after
making a catch(as long as his defender was at the spot where the disc
was to come into play)
if an observer mentioned/said that we wait for a pivot...that is a
misunderstanding that will be corrected.
thanks for the KILLER FEEDBACK about the event, sean.
Mike G
UOA
Colin
> Another thing I loved about observers counting stalls was the fact
> that they didnt start stalling UNTIL the offensive player set a pivot
> foot. Way too often defenders start stalling when their man is slowing
> down to set a pivot
"XIV.A.2 . . . the marker (II.K) may initiate or continue a stall
count . . . anytime a thrower has possession of a disc that is live or
in play . . ."
> Observers initiating play: This is one of the rules I was neutral
> on. Personally, I think even after this weekend I would still like
> players to initiate play. I DO like the observers speeding up the
> process of getting play started, but I wasn't entirely comfortable
> starting play on a verbal cue as opposed to a ground check or defender
> tap in (I know we'll disagree here Mike) Now. If there was a way for
> the observers to initiate play that would allow the downfield players
> to more easily hear/see, this might be a different story.
How did the observers initiate play? Was it not a loud "3-2-1 in
play" for all the players to hear?
> Observers on up/down: perfect system with 2 observers. This wasn't
> the first time this idea has been used and it's for good reason:it's a
> fine system. In the 8 games I played in, there were ZERO "do overs."
> A do over is bullshit. Even if the observers blow a call at least
> they're making a call and there's no downtime in the game. With 2
> observers hustling on the field, they should always be in good
> position to make an up/down call, and at the 8's they were. No do
> overs and quick calls. PRO up/down calls.
In my experience, there are dead zones in the 2 observer system where
there is great potential for the observer to have an obstructed view.
It's not a matter of hustle, though hustle clearly helps make it
better.
I don't doubt that you had a weekend without any issues with this.
Close up/down calls don't happen every game and not in the dead
zones. But it's at least something to be aware of. Maybe your team
just doesn't almost-turf passes too much - consistent with winning the
tournament.
However, if you are willing to sacrifice the occasional missed call in
favor of speeding up the game, then that's fine.
> All in all, I liked a lot of the things Mike G and his crew did this
> weekend. If the UPA reads RSD or cares about the thoughts of one
> individual who's played with these experimental rules, please consider
> observer stall counts/travel calls! In my experience, it drastically
> improved the game in many aspects.
>
> Thanks to Mike and all the observers who gave their time this weekend
> to make it a great experience for me and my team. Hope to see you
> guys again in the spring.
Great to hear some player feedback on these experiments. I'm a big
fan of people putting on tournaments and experimenting with rules and
its awesome to read some intelligent comments about them afterwards.
Reggie Fanelli
> play" for all the players to hear?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--lead observer holds straight arm flat palm up and gets all athletes
back to where they were when the foul/violation occured...tells them
to hold their spots...then lowers arm to point at the disc as if to
tell the trail observer, 'we're all set, restart play'.
trail observers annonces the stall count..."coming in at
4"...pauses....says "defense set!"...not asking them, telling
them......."3-2-1 DISC"....and resumes "stalling 4-5...7-8-9"
it was nice work.
above, sean mentions maybe not hearing it too well as the up field
athletes......which i find hard to believe if IIIIIII was the trail
observer, because i'm pretty loud/project well.
Jason Weddle
Thanks a lot for the note Sean.
Congrats on being a Fall Wilmington 8's Champion.
Good luck with the up coming Spring and Delaware is most definitely
welcome back in the Spring.
jw
ulticritic
> The observers don't care if a team gets stalled or
YES....this is the nature of an active "ref style"
approach.........its whats known as "impartialality"
------------------------------------------------------------
> not, so when the count gets high (8,9,10) you don't have to worry
> about the arbitrary stall counter getting excited and counting 8,9,10
> in .5 seconds.
i think i would have used a different word than excited...........like
"unspirited fast counting cheater". seriously.....where does sotg fit
in with the inability to count in actual seconds. this whole
"assesment" seems to be somewhat of an indightment on spot.....or at
least self officiation.........or both(arent they one in the same)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 8 the games I played, I believe I only saw one
> stall called. I think observers keeping the stall count provide a
> Another thing I loved about observers counting stalls was the fact
> that they didnt start stalling UNTIL the offensive player set a pivot
> foot.
is this another reference to how an active "ref style" approach FIXES
the cheating ways that the "player controled" system ENABLES???????
me thinks it is!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Way too often defenders start stalling when their man is slowing
> down to set a pivot or even sometimes when the disc is still in the
> air just about to be caught.
so......in other words........."way too often defenders CHEAT".
----------------------------------------------------------
People can bitch about some observers
> counting faster/slower than others, but it doesn't matter because that
> observer is going to count to 10 at the same pace no matter which team
> has the disc.
great point to emphisize the IMPARTIAL aspect of the "ref count"
dynamic........but the refs should still practice their cadance so
that they are as consistant as possible
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> My thoughts: PRO Observer stall count.
buy, people sure seem to appreciate when the observers take on a more
active "ref like" role.........who woulda thunk.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Observers calling travels: loved it.
which becons the question.......when an observer calls an active
travel is he REALLY still an observer????? i mean, in this particular
instance anyways, cant we agree that he has crossed over to "ref"
status.........at least on this one call (and all others that are
active too)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a thrower, I knew I wasn't
> going to get bogus travel calls.
so there is a trust issue at hand.........and you seem to imply that
there was much MORE trust with impartial NON players making those
judgements..........AGAIN, this dont bode to well for the whole
concept of sotg and self officiation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> Even with observers that are not
> calling travels, players still have the option to call travels and
> disrupt the flow (popping in a zone.)
yep.....this IS the inherant problem with allowing partial competitors
to simultainously be impartial judges. its a basic conflict of
intrests that people have been ignoring for over 40 years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Observers initiating play: This is one of the rules I was neutral
> on. Personally, I think even after this weekend I would still like
> players to initiate play.
wwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?????????????????? really?
----------------------------------------------------
I DO like the observers speeding up the
> process of getting play started, but I wasn't entirely comfortable
> starting play on a verbal cue as opposed to a ground check or defender
> tap in (I know we'll disagree here Mike) Now. If there was a way for
> the observers to initiate play that would allow the downfield players
> to more easily hear/see, this might be a different story. I'm
> thinking whistles??
YES, whistles.......BRILLIANT!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In the 8 games I played in, there were ZERO "do overs."
> A do over is bullshit.
do overs are an inevitable byproduct of sotg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Even if the observers blow a call at least
> they're making a call and there's no downtime in the game.
exactly.....its a trade......a trade that favors the "ref"/active call
system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With 2
> observers hustling on the field, they should always be in good
> position to make an up/down call, and at the 8's they were. No do
> overs and quick calls. PRO up/down calls.
>
> The IRS system: FANTASTIC.
why thank you sean. i surte hope prei etal(upa hq) is hearing this.
"they" dont like it at all because it elliminates the "conflict
resolution process" that comes with the ole ultDEBATE. I guess if ya
dont allow players time to resolve their differences there is never
the chance for that "spirit zealot", prodegigal son, "take ones call
back" situations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No bullshit arguing between teams, no do-
> overs/send it backs (notice how i keep coming back to this.)
I AM!!!! but i doubt the spirit zealots are. In fact, i think most
of em are gonna be in a serious state of denial when it comes to
confronting this groundbreaking evolutionary transition towards refs
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I can think of 2 situations where the observers admitted they made the
> wrong call against my team (this was a training tournament for them
> also, so no big deal) I can live with these calls because observers
> aren't perfect, but they're making a call and sticking to it. Also,
> I'm sure we were the beneficiary of at least one "blown call." It all
> works out.
exactamundo!!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> All in all, I liked a lot of the things Mike G and his crew did this
> weekend. If the UPA reads RSD or cares about the thoughts of one
> individual who's played with these experimental rules, please consider
> observer stall counts/travel calls! In my experience, it drastically
> improved the game in many aspects.
wow, how DO the upa officials that are anti ref deal with such info.
they CANT just ignore it can they??????????? all i know is that THIS
is gonna be an interesting season rules and enforcement wise.
ulticritic
>
> However, if you are willing to sacrifice the occasional missed call in
> favor of speeding up the game,
WHO ISNT!!!!!! because lets face it, missed calls are frequently
sacrificed NOW for the sake of preserving sotg.......AND that
resolution process often takes WAY too long.
Sean Keegan
So I was definitely wrong before about observers not stalling until a
pivot foot was set. None of the observers said that to me. As Mike
mentioned above, it probably just seemed that way because they were
counting at a normal pace and the observer wasnt at stall 4 when I
looked up field after catching an in cut like some markers manage to
do.
As far as not being able to hear the observers initiating play, maybe
I just wasn't accustomed to it and it was one of the experimental
rules that took me longer to get used to. I was generally able to
hear the countdown. It really wasn't much of an issue but I guess I
was more used to a ground tap/player tap in.
Jason Weddle
-- As an observer, one of my favorite things about the weekend was the
observer re-start.
There were far less violations called by the players for moving before
the disc was tapped in. And far less waiting on offense to call a
play or players complaining about where the other player should be.
Everyone got to where they should be and play was resumed QUICKLY.
I loved it. The trail observer was instructed to tell the players to
"hustle to your spot". Look at the lead observer and say "defense
set?" If the D was set the lead observer would go from raised hand to
arm chop, letting the trail observer know the D was set....
So it was... "hustle to your spot"...... "defense set"....... arm chop
by lead observer........ trail observer would then say "3-2-1 Disc,
Stalling 1-2-3......... " It was that quick.
It without a doubt kept the game moving at a quicker pace.
Oh... Did any games get capped Mike? I can't remember? I don't think
ANY games got time capped? That's pretty cool.
elondisc08
plush tournies, mike g that is
ulticritic
> hate playing against him
why? what is the implification here?
Mitch
> As an offensive player, since the
> trailing observer (observer behind the disc, facing downfield from the
> thrower) is the one keeping the stall count, when they loudly
> announced stalls 5,7... the downfield cutters, and defenders for that
> matter, know exactly what the stall is which is a plus for everyone.
> Another thing I loved about observers counting stalls was the fact
> that they didnt start stalling UNTIL the offensive player set a pivot
> foot. Way too often defenders start stalling when their man is slowing
> down to set a pivot or even sometimes when the disc is still in the
> air just about to be caught.
I was an observer in your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th games. I guarantee you I
never waited for you to set a pivot. Possession and a defender within
3 meters was all it took. The difference you are seeing is a true 10
second rather than the 6-8 second range you are used to from
players....and a defender within 3 meters rather than the guy who's
guarding you starting when you are about to catch it from 20 feet
away.
> Observers initiating play: This is one of the rules I was neutral
> on. Personally, I think even after this weekend I would still like
> players to initiate play. I DO like the observers speeding up the
> process of getting play started, but I wasn't entirely comfortable
> starting play on a verbal cue as opposed to a ground check or defender
> tap in (I know we'll disagree here Mike) Now. If there was a way for
> the observers to initiate play that would allow the downfield players
> to more easily hear/see, this might be a different story. I'm
> thinking whistles?? Unfortunately, I did not get a chance to play in
> one of the games in which Mike experimented with whistles, but I think
> this is something to definitely consider. all in all: NEUTRAL on
> observers initiating play.
It's interesting that you say you could hear us downfield when action
is going during the stall but couldn't hear us downfield putting the
disc in play when action is stopped. I would think that is easier to
hear us when action is stopped. If you ever can't hear observers,
tell them to get louder. They may or may not, but doesn't hurt to
ask.
Sean, thanks for putting on a great show for us this weekend. I tell
people I observe to get "the best seat in the house." I had by far
the best view for the best play of the weekend, you going up and
around a defender to grab a swill stall 9 blady flick in the corner of
the endzone and come down toeing the line to take half. It was a
thing of beauty.
Mitch
Colin
> As far as not being able to hear the observers initiating play, maybe
> I just wasn't accustomed to it and it was one of the experimental
> rules that took me longer to get used to. I was generally able to
> hear the countdown. It really wasn't much of an issue but I guess I
> was more used to a ground tap/player tap in.
When I observed under the experimental rules at Centex, the observer-
initiated check definitely took some adjusting by the players, too. I
think it'll smooth out a bit as players become familiar with it and
I'm happy to hear Jason's comments above about it speeding up play.
It also avoids the marking foul and instant "no contest"-and-tap-the-
disc-and-start-counting, which is a favorite move of cheaters across
the country.
3Jane.
> > to make it a great experience for me and my team. Hope to see you
> > guys again in the spring.
>
>
> Congrats on being a Fall Wilmington 8's Champion.
>
> Good luck with the up coming Spring and Delaware is most definitely
> welcome back in the Spring.
Sounds like the UOA is getting it done, well done guys. I look
forward to watching a tournament in DC this spring.
Reggie Fanelli
> approach.........its whats known as "impartialality"
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---actually......it's an observer style of impartiality.
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---EVERY GAME reached the score of 15.
2 reached 16.
and 1 reached 17 points.
Reggie Fanelli
> plush tournies, mike g that is
--WHAT YOU MEAN IS....
ya hate playing against him AND he does a pretty good job running
tournaments.
Reggie Fanelli
> forward to watching a tournament in DC this spring.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---we're working on dates.......so stay tuned.
Dave S
First Wilmington 8s we had a couple games go to cap.
dave
Jason Weddle
> dave
-----------------
-- Hi Dave...How does it feel to be a UOA 8's Championship game
observer?
hope you're good.
~jw
Reggie Fanelli
--three games at the Nov 7-8 UOA 8s failed to reach 15.
Reggie Fanelli
ulticritic
well, technically, "activly" counting the stall is more of a ref type
role. In fact, any active call(travel, offsides. in/out, up/down,
force out) on the part of the official essentially makes you a ref on
"those calls". With the traditional observer system "player control"
dictates that the "player" must count........which can bring in that
"partial" element that regularly results in a fast(partial) count.
where as any call that ISNT actively controled by the official (in
which said official retains the "referal" role) there still remains
the opportunity for players to act partially.
see the distinction?.......so its only on the REF type calls are the
judgements not tainted with a potential of partial motivation.
Eliminate player interaction and you eliminate any partiality
dynamic. Eliminate player interaction and you eliminate the
traditional "observer" role........and are left with the modern
referee role.
I'm pretty sure sean eluded to that same "impartial" application with
the active "ref-like" travel call too.......where as NOW(in uoa comp
anyways) teams are not able to use their "partial motivations" to
tactically slow play by simply making the call.......like they are
still able to with fouls and picks.......of course with the IRS those
using siad tactic dont get the same desired effect......of killing the
opposing teams mo.
like it or not mike, you guys are more ref than observer......no
matter WHAT you call yourselfs.
anakin gerics
>
> well, technically, "activly" counting the stall is more of a ref type
> role.
--well...i was there....and i counted the stall....and i was an
observer.
so...technically.....and literally....it was an observer style.
anakin gerics
> matter WHAT you call yourselfs.
---100% observer.
you...like it or not.
ulticritic
not according to the upas' standards of what distinguishes a "ref"
from an "observer".........wnich, I THINK, is "player control. now
you tell me, where is the "player control" in the whole dynamic of
observeras "controling" the stall count..........ITS
NOWHERE......thats where. I mean, i know its just samantics and all,
but will you still be such the proponent of the term "observer" once
ultimates officials are givin the power/responsibility/CONTROL to
activly jusge on fouls and picks too???? just because that was the
original/traditional name.
To me this new uoa observer role is a new, more modern (still a ways
to go though) and updated. seems fitting that there should be a new,
modern and updated "term" to match it.
I personmaly prefer "official" as observer just has too much of a
passive, unenvolved sound to it...........and i still cant figure why
you bailed on that "officials" campaign you started. On top of that,
the irony of the term referee being the most acurately descriptive
term of the passive, referal role while at the same time being a taboo
term in the world of ultimate is humorous.
ulticritic
mike, think of it like this......
its highly doubtful that the upa will adopt the active "observer
controled" stall count.......(which begs the question, is an observer
really still an observer when HE is in "control", rather than the
"player"?).......soooooo the player control aspect (that goes hand in
hand with the traditional AND UNIQUE sotg observer system) will still
be partially controled (which essesntiall means "intentionally counted
inacurately to help maximize the benefit of the COUNTER, and his
team"). So once the upa snubs some of your more active role
proposals, observers will regain their passive role AND partiality
will reenter the process.
where as with the traditional "ref" role its become universally
accepted that REFS CONTOL EVERYTHING......thus removing any partial
action on the part of the player. Its not like i made this shit
up......its just the way it is.
Reggie Fanelli
> ultimates officials are givin the power/responsibility/CONTROL to
> activly jusge on fouls and picks too????
--yes.
i wouldn't mind calling picks....but i DO LOVE the athletes calling
the fouls.
LOVE IT!
Reggie Fanelli
--what about Field Judge?
i don't really care for it...but i've heard it before....
Reggie Fanelli
> proposals,
---i don't think that i've been invited to the Observer Committee
Meeting to propose ANY of the UOA's more active observer duties.
i don't think i'm going there to discuss active stall counts, active
travels, active up down, active restarts, nor "In a few moments"
Referal System.......
ulticritic
ulticritic
what the hell are yall gonna do then........talk about how everythings
gonna stay the same? I think you may have opened the proverbial
"flood gates" with this uoa movement. no need to be coy. maybe they
intend to finally give you your proper position as HEAD OF OFFICIATING
within the upa?????
ulticritic
sure, you love it when they let everthing go but wait till it gets
chippy. This is a new system, so it may take time for players to
fully adjust but i could see where players are makin calls as
"bailouts" in the same fashion they do now with travels. Its just
human nature to adapt and then try to one-up the system. and as long
as there is little to no consequense players will tactically foul when
nessesary. I guess ther could become a fine line between the players
"lettin each other play" and it turnin into a "tit for tat" foul
fest.....especially when the stakes are high........and at that time,
if appropriate, its good to know that you guys see the action well
enough to fairly judge it. In the end, keepin the game clean(AND
ENTERTAINING) should be the goal so whatever it takes imo.
Reggie Fanelli
> gonna stay the same? I think you may have opened the proverbial
> "flood gates" with this uoa movement. no need to be coy. maybe they
> intend to finally give you your proper position as HEAD OF OFFICIATING
> within the upa?????
---uhhhh.....I'D TAKE IT!!!!!!!
i think i'll ask.....
ulticritic
hate to burst your bubble mike......but i was kinda being facicious.
I mean I BELIEVE that you should be made head of observers (like years
ago) but them guys are probably gonna be a lot more "careful" about
who they "give the keys to". First, i would think that they would
choose one of their own......not saying you havent done a 180 turn
around since your "bad boy" days AND proven yourself to be somewhat of
a company man. My thinking is that they just percieve you as somwhat
as a loose cannon that would have to be kept on a very short leash.
And rather than worry about that they would probably give you some
honorary position so that they can keep you close enough to tap into
your obvious skills and experience but out of the circle enough to
keep you in check when and if needed.
On the other hand you have fully expresses your loyalty to the
"observer" concept (on some levels at least) but in another way you
have shown EVERYBODY that the current (upa) system still has a lot of
room for improvement(and is waaayyyyy outdated)......its just that
said improvement is somewhat of a detriment to the preservation of
player control and thus sotg. THEN there is the dynamic of some
people in their cushy little positions of power that are simply
threatened with the notion of change.......AND the change-OR. you
know how people are with their egos.