WHAT ARE ALL THE SPIRT ZEALOTS GONNA DO.......
ulticritic
they validate and quantify spirit when refs are enforcing it? and
where WILL they get their morals and ethics from?
jermleeds
boring.....
thefan
no, it will be exciting. a faster moving game void of those pesky
stoppages, discussions and confusions. you'll see. people will still
play without cheating just as they do now, and those that do try to
take advantage of the rules will be held in check.
it's going to be awesome. just wait.
ulticritic
well, it aint like it isnt gonna eventually gonna happen......so i
dont see how speculating as to how people will react is boring. i
find that speculating as to what the future of ultimate will be like
rather compelling. of course, as a spirit zealot, i can see how YOU
would rather not even think about it.
ulticritic
well obviously the sport and the product will be better but the
question relates more to how the anti ref spirit zealots will deal
with the whole trasition. will they simply cave, throw up the
surrender flag, say "uncle" and conform.......or will they go down
with a fight......or will they branch off and start their own
organization whose main goal is to preserve the sotg tradition.
either way, its gonna be interesting to watch it all unfold
thefan
> well obviously the sport and the product will be better but the
> question relates more to how the anti ref spirit zealots will deal
> with the whole trasition. will they simply cave, throw up the
> surrender flag, say "uncle" and conform.......or will they go down
> with a fight......or will they branch off and start their own
> organization whose main goal is to preserve the sotg tradition.
> either way, its gonna be interesting to watch it all unfold-
low profile toad, low profile.
deeper underground.
ulticritic
what can i say, i just cant resist.
thefan
> what can i say, i just cant resist.
i'll grant you that. it is exciting to think about.
3jane.
Unlike you they'll probably be playing Ultimate.
ulticritic
also i'm guessin that there are such a small percentage of potential
progressionists that frequent or even give a shit about rsd that it
shouldnt hurt the movement.
thefan
in a semi related subject, it isn't just you and me, the
progressionists or the ref pushers that notice that the game could be
improved by the introduction of 3rd party officials. i got bored and
started watching some of the COTDs that Rob puts up. there is one
titled "College Open Finals" that shows a point between CUT and
Colorado.
i don't know what the position of the two announcers is on refs, or
even who they were for that matter, but in their commentary there is
an acknowledgment that allowing players to make their own calls
affects the game. right after the sponser pages as the pull is about
to go up, the announcers are discussing that if the game gets close,
some player would probably be in every point. then one of them
questions, without any prompting, "Do you think we're going to see
more calls?" to which the other replies "depends on how close it
gets."
i just don't understand how the spirit zealots, as you call them,
don't see that taking that question out of the game will improve it.
why should there be more calls just because the game gets closer? it
wouldn't if refs were making the calls. the amount of calls made
would depend on the number of rule infractions commited on the field
and would be independent of the score.
exactly as it should be.
jim
> why should there be more calls just because the game gets closer?
This happens all the time...in competitive ultimate.
And is the PRIMARY reason i stopped playing competitvely.
It's a fun sport the way it is for summer league....not fun in
competition when people start calling everything to gain
advantage...it's all about what one thinks is a foul, and it's
impossible to argue against that cause it won't do me any good!!
it
> wouldn't if refs were making the calls.
AGREE 100%
the amount of calls made
> would depend on the number of rule infractions commited on the field
> and would be independent of the score.
DUH...so much so that I don't understand anyone who argues against
having refs.
good points fan, couldn't agree more!!!
Colin
Since I guess I'm labeled a spirit zealot, I should say that I do see
that taking that question out of the game will improve it. It's just
a question of how to resolve it. I think that a strong penalty/
enforcement system would improve the game by providing a strong
disincentive for infractions and bad calls. It would be very risky
for players to chance getting a yardage (or other) penalty late in the
game, so they'd be less likely to make. But this is not unique to a
referee system. Given the practical difficulties of having a
widespread referee system, it seems to me to make more sense to first
implement a penalty system under observers. If it later becomes clear
that we need referees, then it will be an easier transition, having
already taken a big step in that direction.
Really, it's just a question of timing. Toad and his magic money tree
say that we need to transition to refs immediately. But instead of
providing us access to the magic money tree, he calls us all cheap
bastards and tells us all to shell out to implement his plan. I'm
perfectly happy to have referees if necessary, but not before pursuing
the obvious, readily available intermediate option.
Just as Toad urges people not to knock referees until they try them, I
urge him and the ref-zealots not to knock an observer system with
meaningful penalties and strong enforcement until they've tried it.
At the same time, I urge those in charge of the observer system to
shift it in that direction so that we are able to try it. However,
instead of engaging in meaningful discussion over the merits of
different officiating methods, Toad just closes his ears, recites the
same tired lines pointing to other sports, and refuses to actually say
anything of substance.
-Colin
jim
It's weird how you seem to reference toad so much in your
post....replying to thefans comments.
You probably could have said everything you wanted to without saying a
word about toad.
I think he (toad) has gotten to you a bit.
Colin
Good point, sort of. The first paragraph was substantive and
responded directly to the topic. The second two paragraphs were to
clarify the debate for thefan, since he didn't seem to fully grasp the
Toad/other positions. Since I expect thefan might have reasonable
ideas to contribute, I figured I'd lay out a good starting point,
which does not assume (as might have been suggested previously) that
so-called spirit zealots are completely in the dark.
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
a bit???? im all in those fuckers heads. they probably dream about
me.
ulticritic
aint no guessin to it
-----------------------------------------------
I should say that I do see
> that taking that question out of the game will improve it. It's just
> a question of how to resolve it.
and the only question there is "how do ALL OTHER SPORTS resolve it?"
with refs!!!!! how much more simple does it have to get?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that a strong penalty/
> enforcement system would improve the game by providing a strong
> disincentive for infractions and bad calls.
but you are a proponent of a week one........weak in that you support
player involvement. which is IN FUCKING SANE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be very risky
> for players to chance getting a yardage (or other) penalty late in the
> game, so they'd be less likely to make. But this is not unique to a
> referee system.
oh yea???? what other system has that?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Given the practical difficulties of having a
> widespread referee system,
whats any more dificult about havin refs than observers?
---------------------------------------------------
it seems to me to make more sense to first
> implement a penalty system under observers.
but thats just because you are a spirit zealot. you people are very
limited in your thinking
--------------------------------------------------------
If it later becomes clear
> that we need referees, then it will be an easier transition, having
> already taken a big step in that direction.
thats total bullshit. players are ALREADY REFS. so whats the big
difference as to whether or not they are playing........aside from the
obvious partiality factor?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Really, it's just a question of timing.
and as they say....."theres no time like the present"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toad and his magic money tree
> say that we need to transition to refs immediately.
well really i say that we should have transitioned to refs 40 years
ago, but i got no problem with starting out with some
experimentation. On the other hand, we already have refs in this
sport.......its just that they are also players. like the song says
"ya got to keep em separated".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But instead of
> providing us access to the magic money tree,
aint no need for a majic money tree.......and i never saw any majic
money trees evey time my kid played soccer or baseball, yet they still
provided refs/umps. its simply a pay to play proposition. what could
be more equitable than that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he calls us all cheap
> bastards and tells us all to shell out to implement his plan.
isnt that what all sports do though......shell out for their ref
systems. who do you think pays all those refs/umps???? surley you
dont think they work on a voluteer system like the upa uses do ya?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm
> perfectly happy to have referees if necessary, but not before pursuing
> the obvious, readily available intermediate option.
again......this thinking is what makes you the half stepping spirit
zealot that you are
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just as Toad urges people not to knock referees until they try them, I
> urge him and the ref-zealots not to knock an observer system with
> meaningful penalties and strong enforcement until they've tried it.
well wouldnt it have to be created first? and is this a system in
which observers DID OR DIDNT call active "ref style" travels?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> At the same time, I urge those in charge of the observer system to
> shift it in that direction so that we are able to try it.
youre gonna have to do more than "urge", cause them "in charge" upa
mutha fuckers are LAME. why dont you take a tip from mike g and start
this fantasy observer program of your in your local rec league? cause
if you wait on the upa to initiate it you'l be old and grey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
However,
> instead of engaging in meaningful discussion over the merits of
> different officiating methods, Toad just closes his ears, recites the
> same tired lines pointing to other sports, and refuses to actually say
> anything of substance.
how is referencing other sports tired. ultimate IS a sport to you
isnt it. so why shouldnt this sport use the same tried and true
aspects that other sports use when it comes to rule enforcement and
game management? it would be like someone starting a fast food
resaraunt chain and not using the same techniques that mcdonalds has
mastered after 60 years of trial and error.
ulticritic
>
> Good point, sort of.
sort of my ass. jim nailed you plain and simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first paragraph was substantive and
> responded directly to the topic. The second two paragraphs were to
> clarify the debate for thefan, since he didn't seem to fully grasp the
> Toad/other positions.
fuck off colin. the only one haveing trouble grasping ANYTHING here
is you. jimmy and me are COMPLETELY in league on the ref issue, TRUST
DAT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I expect thefan might have reasonable
> ideas to contribute, I figured I'd lay out a good starting point,
then why come accrosss as a pretentious prick?
--------------------------------------------------------
> which does not assume (as might have been suggested previously) that
> so-called spirit zealots are completely in the dark.
nope, sorry, you fucks are in the dark. there aint no two ways about
that. the sad part is that as long as your kind are in charge of
things, thats where ultimate is too.......in the dark
pinto
> then one of them
> questions, without any prompting, "Do you think we're going to see
> more calls?" to which the other replies "depends on how close it
> gets."
You don't think refs call games differently based on score? When the
refs didn't call LeBron's travel in the final seconds against
Washington a few years back, weren't all the commentators mentioning
that the refs wouldn't want to decide a game with their whistle?
You certainly have a point in as much as games are called tighter by
players when the game is close. Why is that such a bad thing? If
you're team is down 10-1 and you travel, that travel doesn't have
nearly the impact on the game that it might have on universe point.
Most pro sports have an understanding for these concepts. Clock
management is fast and loose for most of the game, but gets super-
precise (even to the point of film review) in the waning moments.
There are booth reviews in the NFL, at the end of the game.
The concept here is that not all plays have equal weight.
If it's a tied ball game and the fans rush the court, with the ball in
play, and 10 seconds left on the clock, the ref will have something to
say. If it's a 30 point blowout and the point guard is just dribbling
the clock out... who cares?
> i just don't understand how the spirit zealots, as you call them,
> don't see that taking that question out of the game will improve it.
> why should there be more calls just because the game gets closer?
Because... if the game isn't close... the calls don't matter? Ever
see a basketball team start fouling with 1 minute left and a 30 point
deficit? Yeah, me neither.
> it
> wouldn't if refs were making the calls. the amount of calls made
> would depend on the number of rule infractions commited on the field
> and would be independent of the score.
I'd accept that refs would hew closer to the rules than players who
just want to wrap the game up and go home, but I wouldn't accept that
refs behave independent of score either. I'm not sure what reffed
sports you've played or watched, but that hasn't been my experience,
especially at non-pro levels (i.e., when you're not on TV). Refs get
faster and looser in blow-outs too.
~p
MD
> i just don't understand how the spirit zealots, as you call them,
> don't see that taking that question out of the game will improve it.
> why should there be more calls just because the game gets closer? it
> wouldn't if refs were making the calls. the amount of calls made
> would depend on the number of rule infractions commited on the field
> and would be independent of the score.
>
> exactly as it should be.
Interesting points from thefan, but I'm gonna have to disagree with
this last paragraph. Specifically the "why should there be more calls
just because the game gets closer? it wouldn't if refs were making
the calls" part.
I agree that having refs would eliminate the ticky-tack travels and
bogus foul calls late in the game, but at the end of a close game,
both teams are going to be doing everything they can to win. This
would likely include more aggressive/fouling marks and more physical
play all around. Defenders could intentionally push, pull, hold,
trip, etc. the cutters that they are covering in the stack, and it
would be hard for the refs to see every instance of that. Just look at
the NBA . . . much smaller court, 4 fewer players compared to
ultimate, and even then there's a lot of jersey-pulling, elbows, etc.
that the refs miss. The only way to stop this kind of stuff, as Colin
alluded to, is to have a strong, widespread enforcement system with
harsh penalties. I think that this is a separate idea from refs, since
as Colin said, you can have this system with observers.
Playing soccer growing up, the assumption was that "it's not a foul if
the ref doesn't see it/call it". This lead to trying to take advantage
of the rules by fouling when the ref wasn't watching or by flopping to
exaggerate fouls, which you see all the time in soccer games on TV
nowadays. I could see these things happening in ultimate, especially
at the end of a close game, so I don't think that merely introducing
refs would REDUCE the number of calls at the end of a close game. BTW,
having an increase in the number of calls at the end of a close game
would DETRACT from the watchability from a fan's perspectice, IMO.
There are some valid pro-ref arguments, but I don't think that
"reducing the number of calls" is necessarily one of them.
jermleeds
> On Jul 9, 12:19 pm, jermleeds <jermle...@gmail.com> wrote:
refs would be boring. I rarely find Ultimate boring. I was suggesting
that Toad and his endless flogging of the same points over and over
again, is boring.
ulticritic
>
> Most pro sports have an understanding for these concepts.
most pro sports, correctinon, NO PRO SPORTS, allow players to initiate
judgement calls.
ulticritic
> I agree that having refs would eliminate the ticky-tack travels and
> bogus foul calls late in the game,
what other reason do you fuckin need besides that to incorporate them
------------------------------------------------------------------------
but at the end of a close game,
> both teams are going to be doing everything they can to win.
which is precisely why its STUPID TO ALLOW THEM TO INITIATE CALLS(or
contest them).........YOU FUCKING DUMBFUCK!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
> would likely include more aggressive/fouling marks and more physical
> play all around.
not if there were foul limits and harsh penalties, to which, dont know
if youve read the spirit of the game clause lately but i'm pretty sure
they bring up the fact that sotg negates those.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defenders could intentionally push, pull, hold,
> trip, etc.
cant they do that now......with even less consequense
---------------------------------------------------------
the cutters that they are covering in the stack, and it
> would be hard for the refs to see every instance of that.
6 on 6
--------------------------------------------------
Just look at
> the NBA . . . much smaller court, 4 fewer players compared to
> ultimate, and even then there's a lot of jersey-pulling, elbows, etc.
so
---------------------------------------
> that the refs miss. The only way to stop this kind of stuff, as Colin
> alluded to, is to have a strong, widespread enforcement system with
> harsh penalties.
BINGO! I THINK THATS WHAT WE ARE SAYIN REFS WOULD BRING TO THE TABLE
-------------------------------------------
I think that this is a separate idea from refs, since
> as Colin said, you can have this system with observers.
then you would think some other sport would have already come up with
such a system, no? and lets face it, ultimate players arent the
sharpest tools in the shed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Playing soccer growing up, the assumption was that "it's not a foul if
> the ref doesn't see it/call it".
what do you expect.....thers only one ref. so avoiding that creed is
an easy fix
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This lead to trying to take advantage
> of the rules by fouling when the ref wasn't watching
oh yea, ultimate players NEVER take advantage of the rules, do they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or by flopping to
> exaggerate fouls, which you see all the time in soccer games on TV
> nowadays. I could see these things happening in ultimate, especially
> at the end of a close game,
not with good refs, equitable penalties and a proper risk/consequence
dynamic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so I don't think that merely introducing
> refs would REDUCE the number of calls at the end of a close game.
we do
-----------------------------------------------------------
BTW,
> having an increase in the number of calls at the end of a close game
> would DETRACT from the watchability from a fan's perspectice, IMO.
well thats what you get with self officiation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are some valid pro-ref arguments, but I don't think that
> "reducing the number of calls" is necessarily one of them.
what are they then?
ulticritic
> On Jul 9, 10:32 am, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jul 9, 12:19 pm, jermleeds <jermle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fan, I could have been clearer here. I wasn't suggesting Ultimate with
> refs would be boring. I rarely find Ultimate boring. I was suggesting
> that Toad and his endless flogging of the same points over and over
> again, is boring.
how is whitnessing two opposing forces clashing with each other, or
speculating about their clashing, boring. again, i find it to be a
very compelling proposition
>
>
>
> > > On Jul 9, 10:07 am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > once the progressionists take over the upa and ultimate.? how will
> > > > they validate and quantify spirit when refs are enforcing it? and
> > > > where WILL they get their morals and ethics from?
>
> > > boring.....
>
> > no, it will be exciting. a faster moving game void of those pesky
> > stoppages, discussions and confusions. you'll see. people will still
> > play without cheating just as they do now, and those that do try to
> > take advantage of the rules will be held in check.
>
> > it's going to be awesome. just wait.- Hide quoted text -
Colin
If you have any new questions that I have not already answered, feel
free to list them. I'll answer them after you answer my question
about what that final step from an upgraded observer system with
effective penalties to a ref system accomplishes and why it's
important and worth the added resources.
dylanz
BS, Toad. - Tennis players can and do challenge line calls. They even
show the results on live TV.
Reggie Fanelli
> just because the game gets closer? it wouldn't if refs were making
> the calls" part.
---game management.
ulticritic
> > .
>
> BS, Toad. - Tennis players can and do challenge line calls. They even
> show the results on live TV.
chalenging and initiating are two total seperate things. and these
are black and white line calls not judgement calls, big difference.
shit, if tennis was smart theyd tich the people and use cyclops on
EVERY CALL.
ulticritic
> On Jul 9, 5:19 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 3:33 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Since I guess I'm labeled a spirit zealot,
>
> > aint no guessin to it
> > -----------------------------------------------
>
> > I should say that I do see
>
> > > that taking that question out of the game will improve it. It's just
> > > a question of how to resolve it.
>
> > and the only question there is "how do ALL OTHER SPORTS resolve it?"
> > with refs!!!!! how much more simple does it have to get?
>
> > I think that a strong penalty/
>
> > > enforcement system would improve the game by providing a strong
> > > disincentive for infractions and bad calls.
>
> > but you are a proponent of a week one........weak in that you support
> > player involvement. which is IN FUCKING SANE
>
> > It would be very risky
>
> > > for players to chance getting a yardage (or other) penalty late in the
> > > game, so they'd be less likely to make. But this is not unique to a
> > > referee system.
>
> > oh yea???? what other system has that?
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Given the practical difficulties of having a
>
> > > widespread referee system,
>
> > whats any more dificult about havin refs than observers?
> > ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > it seems to me to make more sense to first
>
> > > implement a penalty system under observers.
>
> > but thats just because you are a spirit zealot. you people are very
> > limited in your thinking
> > --------------------------------------------------------
>
> > If it later becomes clear
>
> > > that we need referees, then it will be an easier transition, having
> > > already taken a big step in that direction.
>
> > thats total bullshit. players are ALREADY REFS. so whats the big
> > difference as to whether or not they are playing........aside from the
> > obvious partiality factor?
>
> > > Really, it's just a question of timing.
>
> > and as they say....."theres no time like the present"
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Toad and his magic money tree
>
> > > say that we need to transition to refs immediately.
>
> > well really i say that we should have transitioned to refs 40 years
> > ago, but i got no problem with starting out with some
> > experimentation. On the other hand, we already have refs in this
> > sport.......its just that they are also players. like the song says
> > "ya got to keep em separated".
>
> > But instead of
>
> > > providing us access to the magic money tree,
>
> > aint no need for a majic money tree.......and i never saw any majic
> > money trees evey time my kid played soccer or baseball, yet they still
> > provided refs/umps. its simply a pay to play proposition. what could
> > be more equitable than that?
>
> > he calls us all cheap
>
> > > bastards and tells us all to shell out to implement his plan.
>
> > isnt that what all sports do though......shell out for their ref
> > systems. who do you think pays all those refs/umps???? surley you
> > dont think they work on a voluteer system like the upa uses do ya?
>
> > I'm
>
> > > perfectly happy to have referees if necessary, but not before pursuing
> > > the obvious, readily available intermediate option.
>
> > again......this thinking is what makes you the half stepping spirit
> > zealot that you are
>
> > > Just as Toad urges people not to knock referees until they try them, I
> > > urge him and the ref-zealots not to knock an observer system with
> > > meaningful penalties and strong enforcement until they've tried it.
>
> > well wouldnt it have to be created first? and is this a system in
> > which observers DID OR DIDNT call active "ref style" travels?
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > At the same time, I urge those in charge of the observer system to
> > > shift it in that direction so that we are able to try it.
>
> > youre gonna have to do more than "urge", cause them "in charge" upa
> > mutha fuckers are LAME. why dont you take a tip from mike g and start
> > this fantasy observer program of your in your local rec league? cause
> > if you wait on the upa to initiate it you'l be old and grey.
>
> > However,
>
> > > instead of engaging in meaningful discussion over the merits of
> > > different officiating methods, Toad just closes his ears, recites the
> > > same tired lines pointing to other sports, and refuses to actually say
> > > anything of substance.
>
> > how is referencing other sports tired. ultimate IS a sport to you
> > isnt it. so why shouldnt this sport use the same tried and true
> > aspects that other sports use when it comes to rule enforcement and
> > game management? it would be like someone starting a fast food
> > resaraunt chain and not using the same techniques that mcdonalds has
> > mastered after 60 years of trial and error.
>
> If you have any new questions that I have not already answered, feel
> free to list them. I'll answer them after you answer my question
> about what that final step from an upgraded observer system with
> effective penalties to a ref system accomplishes
A more streamlined system that results in a final product that has
more continuity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
and why it's
> important
because it give the sport more of a professional and modern feel aside
from allowing the players to simply focus on playing the game rather
than using (or being able to use) tactical provisions to manipulate
rules.......not to mention that iliminates partialy motivated calls.
Now if you penalized players for making bogus calls or eronious
contests AND setting equitable limits THEN youde be doing
somthing......but when ya get to that point, and the observers has
final say, it just makes obvious sence that you would streamline the
process and let the refs initiate the calls. THEN there is the aspect
of all the trial and error that other sports have already gone thru to
get where they are with there systems that ultimate would be foolish
not to take into account.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and worth the added resources
well, ya pay for what ya get is what i always say.......and when teams
dont pay ANYTHING for their voluteer observers, well, you do the math.
thefan
> > i just don't understand how the spirit zealots, as you call them,
> > don't see that taking that question out of the game will improve it.
> > why should there be more calls just because the game gets closer? it
> > wouldn't if refs were making the calls. the amount of calls made
> > would depend on the number of rule infractions commited on the field
> > and would be independent of the score.
>
> > exactly as it should be.
>
> Interesting points from thefan, but I'm gonna have to disagree with
> this last paragraph. Specifically the "why should there be more calls
> just because the game gets closer? it wouldn't if refs were making
> the calls" part.
>
> I agree that having refs would eliminate the ticky-tack travels and
> bogus foul calls late in the game, but at the end of a close game,
> both teams are going to be doing everything they can to win. This
> would likely include more aggressive/fouling marks and more physical
> play all around.
you are not disagreeing with my statement here though. the comment i
was referring to in the COTD was in direct reference to the phenomenon
of players making extra calls "just because the game gets close" the
phenomenon you are referring to is that defenders start to buckle down
and play more aggressively because the game is close. this is not
changing the way the game is called based on the score, this is
changing the frequency of calls based on the changed frequency of rule
infractions (or in your example, increased fouls)
Defenders could intentionally push, pull, hold,
> trip, etc. the cutters that they are covering in the stack, and it
> would be hard for the refs to see every instance of that. Just look at
> the NBA . . . much smaller court, 4 fewer players compared to
> ultimate, and even then there's a lot of jersey-pulling, elbows, etc.
> that the refs miss. The only way to stop this kind of stuff, as Colin
> alluded to, is to have a strong, widespread enforcement system with
> harsh penalties. I think that this is a separate idea from refs, since
> as Colin said, you can have this system with observers.
it could be done separate of refs but why. now you are giving the
observers some extra powers to implement penalties but not the power
to make calls. also, in your scenario, the observers would have to
determine whether they want to hand out penalties for the extra rule
infractions or for the superfulous calls that are being made as the
game comes down to the wire. make it easy, take the calls out of the
players hands, take the responsibility of determining bogus calls away
from the "observers" and give them the power to call the game in a
consistent manner from start to finish.
>
> Playing soccer growing up, the assumption was that "it's not a foul if
> the ref doesn't see it/call it". This lead to trying to take advantage
> of the rules by fouling when the ref wasn't watching or by flopping to
> exaggerate fouls, which you see all the time in soccer games on TV
> nowadays. I could see these things happening in ultimate, especially
> at the end of a close game, so I don't think that merely introducing
> refs would REDUCE the number of calls at the end of a close game. BTW,
> having an increase in the number of calls at the end of a close game
> would DETRACT from the watchability from a fan's perspectice, IMO.
hey, refs are human, they are going to miss calls. and players are
going to cheat. but those players are the same ones who now have the
ability to cheat by asserting their "referee" powers and by fouling,
grabbing, what have you. if you introduce refs and a penalty system
you will deter these players from their cheating ways. you will take
away the ability to cheat by making bogus calls and you introduce an
incentive not to take advantage of the rules through a penalty
enforcement system such as fouling out, yellow cards, etc.
refs are not there to REDUCE the calls at the end of a close game.
that is not what i said. refs are there so that extra calls are not
being made at the end of the game just because it is close. if the
infractions go up, the calls go up. do not put words in my mouth. go
back and read what i said. and increase in the # of calls at the end
of a game could detract from the watchability of the game just as it
does in basketball, but with a penalty system in place the late game
fouling would be brought down from where it is now since there is no
incentive what so ever for players to limit their fouls.
> There are some valid pro-ref arguments, but I don't think that
> "reducing the number of calls" is necessarily one of them.
i don't want to "reduce the number of calls" i have never said that
any more than i have said that refs will get every call right.
i want the game to be called consistently and fairly from start to
finish irrespective of the score of the game. more fouls equals more
calls and vice versa.
thefan
> If you have any new questions that I have not already answered, feel
> free to list them. I'll answer them after you answer my question
> about what that final step from an upgraded observer system with
> effective penalties to a ref system accomplishes and why it's
i want to tackle this one too and you can compare toad and my
responses.
the advantage is that in your proposed system the observer must keep
track of not only infractions of the rules, but also abuse of the
rules by players initiating the bogus calls. why not take one of
those things off of his mind completely, let him make the calls and
decide when players are abusing the rules with their play and not with
their calls.
The Fan
Colin
If you're saying that is an advantage of the ref system, does that
mean you are suggesting the task of keeping track of misconduct from
plays and calls is too large of a task for officials to handle? I
really do not think it's so much to keep track of. But if we simply
disagree on this, I at least appreciate you bringing up a substantive
point in this discussion. Is this alone sufficient reason to go a
step further and get refs, or are there additional advantages that you
see?
Colin
Ok. So it's foolish not to model ourselves after other sports. I've
heard that one.
Penalizing players for making bad calls/contests is exactly what I'm
talking about when I refer to an observer system with meaningful
penalties and strong enforcement. The bad calls and contests are
worse than the infractions in most cases (except marking infractions,
which are totally out of control). This is why I'm asking what the
advantage is of the referee system. If a bogus call yields a big
penalty, then the players are going to be really reluctant to make
bogus calls. If it appears that players are making bogus calls
whenever they think it's worth the cost of the penalty, then stronger
penalties (like ejection-type stuff/PMFs) can be used.
So now that we're both on the same page, talking about an improved
observer system with penalties for bad infractions, bad calls, bad
contests, etc., what is it that justifies moving over to referees?
I want to know why you say "it just makes obvious sense that you would
streamline the process and let the refs initiate the calls" instead of
just sticking with the suped up observer system. Once we've reduced/
eliminated the bogus calls and we have the observers stricly limiting
any post-call discussions, how much streamlining is left to be done?
Is there any streamlining benefit to having players have the option
NOT to call infractions? Is it a positive thing for such infractions
to always/never be called by officials or just arbitrarily called, as
the officials see fit?
Just referencing officiating in other sports doesn't cut it. Pretend
(shouldn't be hard, if you already assume it, right?) I know
absolutely nothing about other sports, so you'll need to explain.
ulticritic
> Ok. So it's foolish not to model ourselves after other sports. I've
> heard that one.
>
> Penalizing players for making bad calls/contests is exactly what I'm
> talking about when I refer to an observer system with meaningful
> penalties and strong enforcement.
youll have to be more specific
-----------------------------------------------------
The bad calls and contests are
> worse than the infractions in most cases (except marking infractions,
> which are totally out of control).
and youll propose to deal with that (out of control marks how)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why I'm asking what the
> advantage is of the referee system.
i thought i elaboorated already
10 simplifies
2) streamlines
3) adds more continuity
4) more normal/professional/aceptable
5) alows players to focus on the game
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a bogus call yields a big
> penalty, then the players are going to be really reluctant to make
> bogus calls.
again, youll have to be more specific
-----------------------------------------------------------
If it appears that players are making bogus calls
> whenever they think it's worth the cost of the penalty, then stronger
> penalties (like ejection-type stuff/PMFs) can be used.
well couldnt ya do the same with bogus fouls.......so its really no
different. i just dont see the point in being different just for the
sake of being different. seems like the logical thing to do is set it
up with a system people migrating from other sports are already used
to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So now that we're both on the same page, talking about an improved
> observer system with penalties for bad infractions, bad calls, bad
> contests, etc., what is it that justifies moving over to referees?
what justifies not? seems like if you are gonna take it to the level
you propose youde need just as many eyballls with just as much
experience and training. the effort would be essentially equal so the
costa/value would be the same. so you give me your reason to allow/
obligate the players to initiate all calls.
----------------------------------------------------
>
> I want to know why you say "it just makes obvious sense that you would
> streamline the process and let the refs initiate the calls" instead of
> just sticking with the suped up observer system.
done
-----------------------------------------
Once we've reduced/
> eliminated the bogus calls and we have the observers stricly limiting
> any post-call discussions, how much streamlining is left to be done?
just the part where you cut out the middle man/men (the players)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Is there any streamlining benefit to having players have the option
> NOT to call infractions?
yep.......the added time it takes, and the focus it takes away from
their game
-------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a positive thing for such infractions
> to always/never be called by officials or just arbitrarily called, as
> the officials see fit?
ya lost me on that one.........but arent the same officials that
arbitrarily "call" it goann also have to arbitrarily "refer" on it? i
dont see how its any different in that respect.
------------------------------------------
>
> Just referencing officiating in other sports doesn't cut it. Pretend
> (shouldn't be hard, if you already assume it, right?) I know
> absolutely nothing about other sports, so you'll need to explain
consider it done
Colin
Ok. We're assuming that there is some sort of penalty system that
will effectively control player behavior (whether under refs or
otherwise), right? So let's just say it is foul limits or yardage
penalties or some combination. The penalty system is not unique to
refs/observers, as far as I can tell. Under an improved observer
system, you would impose this effective penalty for bad calls, bad
contests and bad infractions (standard for "bad" can be whatever we
deem best). If it would work with refs imposing penalties for
infractions, then why would it not work for observers imposing
penalties for bad calls/contests, as well as infractions? Seems like
that would just mean more potential penalties i.e. a bigger incentive
to play fairly.
A few points/issues/comments/questions:
1) How significant is the streamlining benefit from refs? Does it
come from more than eliminating discussion over calls? If the
observers are limiting discussions and the penalties are deterring
bogus calls, then all we have is the occasional discussion and/or
referral to the observers. Promptly uncontested calls are no slower
than refs.
2) Is having refs certain to improve continuity? By this, am I
correct to assume you mean reducing the duration and frequency of
stoppages? Seems reducing the duration is kind of like streamlining.
As for the frequency, are there legitimate infractions that would not
be called by players, but would be called by refs, or vice versa? How
do you expect that shakes out, and why?
3) Allows players to focus on the game. This is a legitimate reason
for wanting refs.
4) Simplifies. Eliminates the need to have players know the rules.
This is a good one, too, although harsh penalties provide a pretty
quick incentive to learn the rules, so maybe this isn't as big of a
deal.
5) Let's say in a given period of time there are 10 clear infractions
committed. The officials see all of them. In an observed system,
players might call 7 of them and the observers would rule correctly.
In a referee system, would the referees call all of them? Or none of
them? Or some arbitrary portion of them, based on their discretion?
Is the resulting set of calls made by the referees preferable? If the
referees call none of them, that seems unfair. If the referees call
all of them, that seems like it is a negative impact on continuity
(shortening the average period of continuous play). If the referees
call some of them, but not all of them, based on some unknown
considerations, that would seem unacceptable to the player who would
have called one of the infractions not called by the ref.
6) If we are dealing with unlimited resources, then having 4-6
officials per game would be great and many of the issues associated
with refs would be resolved and the ref/observer debate is a much
closer question. However, given limited resources (say 12 officials
for 12 games), I predict the overall average outcome of an infraction
would be much fairer with 6 games observed by teams of two observers
and 6 games unofficiated than with any of the following: 6 reffed by 2
refs, 6 unofficiated; 3 reffed by 4 refs, 9 unofficiated, 3 observed
by 4 observers, 9 unofficiated.
Therefore, until we have the resources to have fully or almost fully
reffed tournaments, I would prefer to stick with the observer system
and improve it so that we can maximize the fairness of play over the
many games being played. I do not think many people favor playing
mostly unofficiated games up until the big game, which will have refs.
So keep up the good work in trying to expand the observer pool. When
we get a pool of officials large enough to put 4 officials on every
game at a tournament, we can have a more meaningful discussion of
refs. But in the meantime, let's try to get as many games officiated
as effectively as possible, converting these spirit-zealots in droves
on the benefits of third party officials. Then, since it's such a
small leap over to a referee system, you'll have things right where
you want them.
I will push for more good questions on payment of officials on the
next set of surveys to help the discussion move along. I am not
opposed to paying observers, if we have some good support for it,
other than overly simplified notions of the market that ignore the
many factors causing our current low number of observers. Hopefully
the questions will be neutral and will provide helpful data in this
regard.
.
ulticritic
>
> Ok. We're assuming that there is some sort of penalty system that
> will effectively control player behavior (whether under refs or
> otherwise), right? So let's just say it is foul limits or yardage
> penalties or some combination.
sorry, not specific enough. heres an example....in b ball you get x
number of personal fouls per player and x number of team fould at
which point players get fre throw for said violations,,,,bla bla bla.
i need specifics and detains prior to giving this fantasy sytem of
yours a second look
-----------------------------------------------------------
The penalty system is not unique to
> refs/observers, as far as I can tell. Under an improved observer
> system, you would impose this effective penalty for bad calls, bad
> contests and bad infractions (standard for "bad" can be whatever we
> deem best). If it would work with refs imposing penalties for
> infractions, then why would it not work for observers imposing
> penalties for bad calls/contests, as well as infractions?
i'm noit saying it nessesarily wouldnt.....heres the thing though.
ive seen ultimate played without refs and ive seen ultimate played
with refs. ive seen just about every other sport played the same
(both with and without refs), BUT ive never seen ANY sport played with
this system you suggest. that means the burden of proof is on you.
so hook it up and get back with us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like
> that would just mean more potential penalties i.e. a bigger incentive
> to play fairly.
are you talking about allowing both players and observers the right/
obligation to initiate calls?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1) How significant is the streamlining benefit from refs?
ask david stern
---------------------------------------------
Does it
> come from more than eliminating discussion over calls?
well, that and the ability for players to stop plays by making calls,
which they would be able to do a lot more freely than by tactically
intentionally fouling.......and refs could always use discretion and
not call a tactical/stop play foul (remember the last seconds of the
ncaa basketball championship two years ago?)
--------------------------------------------------
If the
> observers are limiting discussions and the penalties are deterring
> bogus calls, then all we have is the occasional discussion and/or
> referral to the observers.
thats too much downtime and it makes the presentation lose continuity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Promptly uncontested calls are no slower
> than refs.
yea but with foul limits whos not gonna contest? what about the non
contested ones? would your fantasy system still allow for a
threaputic conflict resolution process?.....or are you talkin about a
straight up irs?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2) Is having refs certain to improve continuity? By this, am I
> correct to assume you mean reducing the duration and frequency of
> stoppages?
nope.....i'm talking about maximizing the efficiency of the process
and providing immediate gratification......and also providing a game
management system that is at the desired standard sports fans have
come to expect.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seems reducing the duration is kind of like streamlining.
> As for the frequency, are there legitimate infractions that would not
> be called by players, but would be called by refs, or vice versa?
depends on the crew, depends on the teams. I'd think refs would let
things go that players wouldnt.....of course with this fantasy sytem
of yours its all a mystery. go try it, and then come here and talk
your trash
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How
> do you expect that shakes out, and why?
well i know how it shakes out with refs. with your system, its
anybodies guess. of course i still dont know the specifics of your
system, so how can i say one way or the other?
------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3) Allows players to focus on the game. This is a legitimate reason
> for wanting refs.
duh
------------------------------------------------
>
> 4) Simplifies. Eliminates the need to have players know the rules.
> This is a good one, too, although harsh penalties provide a pretty
> quick incentive to learn the rules, so maybe this isn't as big of a
> deal.
well, i'm also thinking along the lines of what jimmy said. makeing
judgement calls on others judgement calls just seems redundant
redundant. just cut out the middle man and let the official do his
job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5) Let's say in a given period of time there are 10 clear infractions
> committed. The officials see all of them. In an observed system,
> players might call 7 of them and the observers would rule correctly.
is this a scenerio that would happen in an observed game the way they
are presently manages or your fantasy one with foul limits, penalties
and bogus call penalties. cause all that shit will change the way
people call and how often.
-------------------------------------------------------------
> In a referee system, would the referees call all of them?
i dont think its as important how many they call as long as they call
it consistantly. some crews will allow em to probably be a little
more phisical than others.
------------------------------------------------------------
Or none of
> them? Or some arbitrary portion of them, based on their discretion?
> Is the resulting set of calls made by the referees preferable?
yes, because they arent partially motivated and they are consistant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If the
> referees call none of them, that seems unfair. If the referees call
> all of them, that seems like it is a negative impact on continuity
> (shortening the average period of continuous play). If the referees
> call some of them, but not all of them, based on some unknown
> considerations, that would seem unacceptable to the player who would
> have called one of the infractions not called by the ref.
point being?
---------------------------------------------
>
> 6) If we are dealing with unlimited resources, then having 4-6
> officials per game would be great and many of the issues associated
> with refs would be resolved and the ref/observer debate is a much
> closer question. However, given limited resources (say 12 officials
> for 12 games), I predict the overall average outcome of an infraction
> would be much fairer with 6 games observed by teams of two observers
> and 6 games unofficiated than with any of the following: 6 reffed by 2
> refs, 6 unofficiated; 3 reffed by 4 refs, 9 unofficiated, 3 observed
> by 4 observers, 9 unofficiated.
ya lost me again. but i still dont know how you think your fantasy
system would require less people for it to work just as good as a ref
system.....when they have to make the same exact judgements either way
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Therefore, until we have the resources to have fully or almost fully
> reffed tournaments, I would prefer to stick with the observer system
> and improve it
well you arent talking about simply improving the observer system, you
are talking about a complete over haul fantasy system with all kinds
of limits and penalties and other shit. dont change the discussion
about this specific overhauled system (which you said was almost
exactly like refs) to some kind of general present day observer system
with a few tweaks.......at least when you are talking about resourse
requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------
so that we can maximize the fairness of play over the
> many games being played.
are you suggesting you would support the use of refs for formats that
COULD supply an ample number of refs. how about single game events?
like the ones that all other hs varsity sports usualy schedule?
------------------------------------------------------
I do not think many people favor playing
> mostly unofficiated games up until the big game, which will have refs.
you might think wrong.....ever thought of that?
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> So keep up the good work in trying to expand the observer pool. When
> we get a pool of officials large enough to put 4 officials on every
> game at a tournament, we can have a more meaningful discussion of
> refs.
and when you provide specifics and make that fantasy system of your
into a reality we can talk more about that too. seem like youve got
your work cut out for ya
-----------------------------------------------------------
But in the meantime, let's try to get as many games officiated
> as effectively as possible,
ok.....why dont you start with your local rec league. maybe just some
pilot ones at first to see how people like it.....then go into a fully
observed league.....in which interested parties ac train and
improve......and even make a few extra bucks on the side.
---------------------------------------------------------------
converting these spirit-zealots in droves
> on the benefits of third party officials.
eh, i'll worry about the apathetic progressionists......you worry
about the crazy spirit zealots
----------------------------------------------------
Then, since it's such a
> small leap over to a referee system, you'll have things right where
> you want them.
but we'll likely skip over your around the elbow fantasy system.
shit, i'm raedy to ref a game right now. have whistle will travel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I will push for more good questions on payment of officials on the
> next set of surveys to help the discussion move along.
well ask em to yourself cause youll need just as much jack for your
fantasy system as any ref system. its all a pay to play proposition
anyways, so there isnt any need to question any further about that
------------------------------------------------------
I am not
> opposed to paying observers,
thats a new one on me. why is all ive ever herd from you on the
subject to date IS opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
if we have some good support for it,
> other than overly simplified notions of the market that ignore the
> many factors causing our current low number of observers.
ya mean the idea that not many people do it because it pays NOTHING?
you dont think thats valid?
Colin
>
> read more »
I see no reason why a harsh penalty that effectively deterred illegal
play would not also deter illegal (dishonest/irresponsible/incorrect)
calls and contests. So I'll just keep pushing for the minor
adjustments to the current system that would produce my "fantasy
system" and you just keep harvesting the magic money tree and posting
the same sort of stuff on RSD and we'll see where we end up. At
worst, you'll be funneling money into my pocket, which I guess is
alright.
Answers to a couple of your questions:
1) If people want to put on events with refs, that's perfectly fine
with me. If they have to be single-game events due to personnel
constraints, that's fine. I think it's great when experimentation
happens. I remember reading about NUA and being excited, but unable
to attend. I just don't see any reason the UPA should be throwing
money at a referee system specifically, since improving the observer
system will take us several steps in that direction anyway, while more
efficiently using the resources (financial and personnel) currently
available.
2) If paying observers will attract enough new, good observers to make
it worth the cost, then that's fine and I support it. But first I'd
want some evidence that there were people out there just waiting to
get paid before they'd be willing to observe. I was under the
impression that the reason a lot of people do not observe is because
they are playing in the tournaments in question. If that is the case,
then we'd have to pay a wage high enough to attract people away from
the tournament, which is much higher than a wage to attract an already
receptive potato off the couch. At least among the current observers
and players, I do not think I am alone in saying that if I am unable/
unwilling to observe a tournament for some reason, it's probably a big
reason, and it's going to cost way more than a fair wage to get me to
come observe.
ulticritic
>
> I see no reason why a harsh penalty that effectively deterred illegal
> play would not also deter illegal (dishonest/irresponsible/incorrect)
> calls and contests. So I'll just keep pushing for the minor
> adjustments to the current system that would produce my "fantasy
> system" and you just keep harvesting the magic money tree and posting
> the same sort of stuff on RSD and we'll see where we end up.
damn, i was really hpoing to get all the details on this fantasy
observer system of yours.......because why i am partially mocking you
i have also said before that if you are gonna have observers work
properly you really need to penalize people when they make bad or even
simply inaccurate/overturned calls. Of cours i've also said that once
you are to that level you are but a tweak away from full on refs so ya
might as well cut to the chase.
The things i wonder about, with this system, is
1) does it use the irs
2) what are the foul limits (player and team)
3) are travel calls active
4) are both players AND observers allowed to initiate calls
--------------------------------------------------------
At
> worst, you'll be funneling money into my pocket, which I guess is
> alright.
i thought you werent all about the money. why such a change of heart
all of a sudden?
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Answers to a couple of your questions:
>
> 1) If people want to put on events with refs, that's perfectly fine
> with me.
ditto with this fantasy observer system of your right? personally i
dont see why both systems shouldnt and couldnt be experimented with
(under the auspisious of the upa) simutainously. do you?
------------------------------------------------------
If they have to be single-game events due to personnel
> constraints, that's fine.
well, i dont think they would have to be......i'm just saying you
would want them to be......especially in a place like pittsburg where
there are that many schools with teams where they could schedule a
normal "single game" season........you know, like how other sports do
it. the ole quality over quantity approach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's great when experimentation
> happens. I remember reading about NUA and being excited, but unable
> to attend.
uhmmm, where do you live again....or should i say, where did you
live. either way, if you are talking about the N/S allstar game, you
missed a duzzie
--------------------------------------------------------
I just don't see any reason the UPA should be throwing
> money at a referee system specifically
how about because a % of the membership wants em to.
----------------------------------------------------------
, since improving the observer
> system will take us several steps in that direction anyway, while more
> efficiently using the resources (financial and personnel) currently
> available.
well, taking such baby steps is fine for some but to others its
insuffecient. we ant to cut to the chase. there is nothing more
dificult or costly about experimenting with refs than there is
observers.......especially the one you seem to be talking about.
------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2) If paying observers will attract enough new, good observers to make
> it worth the cost, then that's fine and I support it.
well, i'm glad you seem to have come to your senses on this obvious
issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
But first I'd
> want some evidence that there were people out there just waiting to
> get paid before they'd be willing to observe.
well the only real way to provide any evidence is to do a comparison
and contrast, right. and sinces we know how people react to the
thought of getting certified in order to observer for free, NOW lets
start using a standardized pay wage as motivation and see what that
yeilds. Now you are aware that the phili invite observer clinic was
canceled due to lack of interest, arent you? Also, i would suspect
that there is some kind of evidence SOMEWHERE that would suggest that
people are more likely to take part in a task if they were to get paid
in comparison to doing that same task for free.
seriously collin??? seriously????
I GOT AN IDEA......heres a little experiment you can do yourself to
prove this theory. Next time your grass needs mowing, put a sign out
front thats says 'LOOKING FOR VOLUTEERS TO CUT MY GRASS". see what
kind of response you get. Then, a couple weeks later, put a sign up
that says. "WILL PAY $20 BUCKS TO CUT MY GRASS" (or whatever amount
is equitable for the size of your yard and the time it will
take)......and compare it to the response you get when asking people
to voluteer.
OR, SIMPLY ADVERTISE THAT YOU NEED YOUR GRASS CUT......initially ask
the people that respond if they would be willing to do it for
free......once they tell you to "eat shit", THEN negotiate a price and
see what the average cost is that most will negotiate the job for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was under the
> impression that the reason a lot of people do not observe is because
> they are playing in the tournaments in question.
well, when ther is really nothing (financially) in it for ANYBODY, how
is one to know. Dont you think if someone could make a quick $20
bucks during a bye they would be alot more likely to sacrifice the
time and effort? you really astonish me as to how naive you are with
this very elementary concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the case,
> then we'd have to pay a wage high enough to attract people away from
> the tournament, which is much higher than a wage to attract an already
> receptive potato off the couch.
you are speculating though colin. I thought you wanted evidence?
well........how in the fuck do you(or the upa.....because they
obviously are in league with you on this) expect to get any evidence
without thorough comparisons and contrasts? of course, for me, i tend
to resort to the tried a true concept of looking at what other sports
(as well as ALL bussiness' accross the country) do........WHICH IS TO
PAY PEOPLE A FAIR WAGE FOR THERE TIME AND EFFORT.......and pass the
expense onto those benefiting from it. Isnt all this shit covered in
economics 101?
------------------------------------------------------------------
At least among the current observers
> and players, I do not think I am alone in saying that if I am unable/
> unwilling to observe a tournament for some reason, it's probably a big
> reason, and it's going to cost way more than a fair wage to get me to
> come observe.
well i know i aint budgin unless i gets PAID!!! and i know i'm a damn
good ultimate official. HAVE WHISTLE, WILL TRAVEL!!!!
Colin
1) Immediate referral. This works on some stuff. Like marking
violations called as violations, contested stalls, etc., where it's an
objective determination that the observer knows immediately. No
reason to sit around and debate on that, usually. But for foul calls,
you need to know what's being called (is the thrower calling the hand
slap and playing through the body contact?). Almost immediate
referral makes more sense, in terms of letting the official rule on
the correct call.
But in terms of the "therapeutic discussion," I'm happy to minimize/
eliminate it. I think there is a sportsmanship-related benefit to
having players agree on the resolution of calls, but that can happen
efficiently. It is not worth having lengthy discussions on this
stuff, if we could just have a ruling from the observer and get back
to playing. There are lots of other ways to demonstrate
sportsmanship, which do not slow down the game, like by not making bad
calls/contests in the first place or by playing fairly, or having a
sideline discussion where you demonstrate your respect for your
opponent, etc
2) Foul limits. I am not sold on foul limits without significant
format/roster adjustments. In the finals, you should not be able to
throw your 10 expendable roster players at the opponent's best player
to draw fouls and get him kicked out of the game. That's not
exciting. Would any players really want this to be how it's done? I
prefer yardage penalties. I'd also be receptive to a penalty box. I
don't like kicking players out of the game, nor do I think it is a
necessary regular part of the game. I'd keep that option open in the
form of yellow/red cards and/or PMFs, where the other penalties are
not deterring a given player. The first thing to do is start giving
out TMFs freely and see what happens. We can do that without any
changes in anything, and it'll at least get us along the road of
penalties and we can make tweaks (or major changes) based on those
results. The system has already been designed and approved, so it's
really just a matter of instructing/allowing the observers to
implement it aggressively.
The current Misconduct Penalty System has a bit of a dead zone when
the teams have moved to the limits of the yardage penalty. This is
where it could use some tweaking and/or supplementation with the PMFs/
cards. But even as it's written, we're in position to have a major
positive impact on the game, if we start giving them out more freely.
There has been a recent trend to give them more freely - Misconduct
Penalties have been assessed for the first time at the most recent
Club and College Championships. I'd like to see that trend
accelerated and intensified. For example, I want to give TMFs
immediately in instances of bad conduct, rather than waiting for a
pattern.
3) Active travel calls. If that's what the players want, then we
should do it. The real issue here is that too much stuff is called a
travel. Actively calling pivot-dragging, corner-rounding and failure
to stop makes a lot of sense. Set and announce a standard and we're
good to go. Then call failure to ground touch (or otherwise signal
"in play") something else and let the players call that. Probably
also let the officials actively call the "pivot in the wrong spot"
travel, but set the standard fairly loosely. The goal here is to call
the competitive travels, but not to stop play all the time for the
minor administrative travels - leave the players the option of letting
those slide.
4). Players and observers making calls? Not on the same calls. If
we make it an active call because the observer has the best view, then
keep it active and don't allow play to stop because a player with an
inferior view thinks an infraction might have happened. Otherwise,
the players are given the option to not make a call and if the players
exercise that option, we don't want the observers butting in. And let
a player overrule an observer's call to his own detriment, if he so
chooses.
5). Economics. Simple, overly basic economic ideas are not useful
because they fail to take into account the other factors. This is
what I want data about - the other factors. Taking your lawn-mowing
example and tweaking it slightly, say you have 50 lawns to mow this
weekend and you have volunteers mowing 20 of them already. You decide
to pay a fair wage ($20/lawn) for lawn-mowing to attract more lawn
mowers. Unfortunately, most of the potential lawn-mowers are on
vacation or have work or family obligations. In the end, you are only
able to attract mowers for 5 more lawns. So you just spent $500 to
get 5 extra lawns mowed. Was it worth it? There's evidence that
payment would attract some potential observers and would not attract
others. We need some feedback from players on what they're willing to
pay and from potential observers on what it would take to get them to
observe (and if there are insurmountable conflicts currently
preventing them from observing). Some of this data has already been
collected. It could stand to be reviewed, supplemented and updated,
though.
6) Experimentation. The experimentation with observers can yield
immediate widespread beneficial results without any need for increases
in personnel or additional training. That is why I think it is the
better allocation of resources. The impact of the change is big and
it can happen right away (instant gratification). Experimenting with
refs provides no immediate benefit to the sport because even if we
like them, we're not in a position to effectively implement them. So
resources should be allocated toward expanding/improving the observer
system, which will bring us to a point where we could transition to
refs, at which time experimentation with refs makes perfect sense, if
that's what a significant portion of the membership wants.
pinto
> 2) what are the foul limits (player and team)
For foul limits, I say we take the player limit from football, and the
team limit from hockey. Then, just to show that we're tough on crime,
I say we double them both.
Yup, that'll do nicely.
~p
Reggie Fanelli
>
> For foul limits, I say we take the player limit from football, and the
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---i prefer the foul limits from soccer.
ulticritic
>
> 1) Immediate referral. This works on some stuff.
what are you basing that contention on. have you ever used it or seen
it used?
----------------------------------------------------------------
But for foul calls,
> you need to know what's being called (is the thrower calling the hand
> slap and playing through the body contact?). Almost immediate
> referral makes more sense, in terms of letting the official rule on
> the correct call.
and again.....are you expecting me to buy this contention in the
absense of any experience or first hand knowledge?
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> But in terms of the "therapeutic discussion," I'm happy to minimize/
> eliminate it. I think there is a sportsmanship-related benefit to
> having players agree on the resolution of calls, but that can happen
> efficiently.
well to maximize that efficiency theres the irs......and with refs its
even maximized moreso
--------------------------------------------------
It is not worth having lengthy discussions on this
> stuff, if we could just have a ruling from the observer and get back
> to playing.
i dont think its worth having ANY discussions. thats what i like
agout refs simply making the call and then immediatly enforcing it.
its a BAM, BAM scenerio
-----------------------------------------------------
There are lots of other ways to demonstrate
> sportsmanship, which do not slow down the game, like by not making bad
> calls/contests in the first place or by playing fairly, or having a
> sideline discussion where you demonstrate your respect for your
> opponent, etc
well demonstrating sportsmanship is a non factor to me but for those
that have that need it can also be provided with refs (just as it is
in all other reffed sports)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2) Foul limits. I am not sold on foul limits without significant
> format/roster adjustments.
thats why i asked you for specifics
-------------------------------------------------------
In the finals, you should not be able to
> throw your 10 expendable roster players at the opponent's best player
> to draw fouls and get him kicked out of the game.
is thats whats done in other reffed sports???
---------------------------------------------------
That's not
> exciting. Would any players really want this to be how it's done?
whos to say that would nessisarily happen?
----------------------------------------------------
I
> prefer yardage penalties. I'd also be receptive to a penalty box. I
> don't like kicking players out of the game, nor do I think it is a
> necessary regular part of the game. I'd keep that option open in the
> form of yellow/red cards and/or PMFs, where the other penalties are
> not deterring a given player. The first thing to do is start giving
> out TMFs freely and see what happens.
i think the first thing is to differentiate a PF from a PMF......and
TMFs should completey redefined or eliminated or just replaced with
simple TF's.......kinda like how basketball separates fouls from
technical fouls.......and then a certian number of player fouls
accumulated by one team would increase the penalty when the next PF
was commited
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We can do that without any
> changes in anything,
nothins wrong with changing stuff that needs to be changed......and
can be done so relitively easily. but this is why the upa should be
more urgant with experimentation. how can ya really institute change
without proper and thorough comparisons and contrasts
-----------------------------------------------------
and it'll at least get us along the road of
> penalties and we can make tweaks (or major changes) based on those
> results.
yea, kinda hard get change off the ground when you have an
administration that is reluctant to see such change in the first place
-------------------------------------------------
The system has already been designed and approved, so it's
> really just a matter of instructing/allowing the observers to
> implement it aggressively.
again, not a direction this current admin wants to see the sport take.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The current Misconduct Penalty System has a bit of a dead zone when
> the teams have moved to the limits of the yardage penalty. This is
> where it could use some tweaking and/or supplementation with the PMFs/
> cards. But even as it's written, we're in position to have a major
> positive impact on the game, if we start giving them out more freely.
> There has been a recent trend to give them more freely - Misconduct
> Penalties have been assessed for the first time at the most recent
> Club and College Championships. I'd like to see that trend
> accelerated and intensified. For example, I want to give TMFs
> immediately in instances of bad conduct, rather than waiting for a
> pattern.
>
> 3) Active travel calls. If that's what the players want, then we
> should do it.
well thats what they wanted at college nationals....yet we didnt do
it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The real issue here is that too much stuff is called a
> travel. Actively calling pivot-dragging, corner-rounding and failure
> to stop makes a lot of sense. Set and announce a standard and we're
> good to go. Then call failure to ground touch (or otherwise signal
> "in play") something else and let the players call that.
i say, give that managerial responsibbility to the refs/
observers......and have em use a whistle to signify it. thats for
after calls. on walk ups i would allow the thrower to simply
establish a pivot foot and if there was any discrepency the observer
would simply call it or quickly correct the thowers position
--------------------------------------------------------------
Probably
> also let the officials actively call the "pivot in the wrong spot"
> travel, but set the standard fairly loosely. The goal here is to call
> the competitive travels, but not to stop play all the time for the
> minor administrative travels - leave the players the option of letting
> those slide.
i thought the goal was to provide incentive for players NOT to
travel. Of which, giving the thrower another try is hardly incentive
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4). Players and observers making calls? Not on the same calls. If
> we make it an active call because the observer has the best view, then
> keep it active and don't allow play to stop because a player with an
> inferior view thinks an infraction might have happened. Otherwise,
> the players are given the option to not make a call and if the players
> exercise that option, we don't want the observers butting in.
the officials NOT buttin in???? thats just such a foriegn concept to
me, as thats prettty much their job. In fact that would be like
tellin a parent not to but in when his/her child is in need of
disipline or regulation.........crazy!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And let
> a player overrule an observer's call to his own detriment, if he so
> chooses.
players overruling calls????? pretty wierd. i can see video eidence
challenges but we aint nowhere near that.
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5). Economics. Simple, overly basic economic ideas are not useful
> because they fail to take into account the other factors.
only if you let em though
--------------------------------------------------------
This is
> what I want data about - the other factors. Taking your lawn-mowing
> example and tweaking it slightly, say you have 50 lawns to mow this
> weekend and you have volunteers mowing 20 of them already.
what fantasy world do you live in where you get 20 people to voluteer
to mow lawns. just pay em a fair wage and you have em lining up for
the work
---------------------------------------------------
You decide
> to pay a fair wage ($20/lawn) for lawn-mowing to attract more lawn
> mowers. Unfortunately, most of the potential lawn-mowers are on
> vacation or have work or family obligations.
eh, lawn mowers are a dime a dozen. And i'm pretty sure i can find a
qualified 14 year old to do it just about as easy as my local soccer
league organizers can find a qualified 14 year old to ref one of their
soccer games. Whats ultimates excuse is what i want to know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, you are only
> able to attract mowers for 5 more lawns. So you just spent $500 to
> get 5 extra lawns mowed. Was it worth it?
well when ya set it up from the beggining as a voluteer program but
then pay the stragelers you are setting yourself up for a mess. 1st
there has to be more opportunities to try it, practice it and master
it (rec leagues). then you use the ole supply and demand formula and
pay the potential observers based on that. Its basic
economics.....nuthin mysterious about it.....and yet another area in
which ultimate could and should reasearch how its done in other
sports. I know you have a problem with that but in this case it seems
like quite the no brainer, no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's evidence that
> payment would attract some potential observers and would not attract
> others.
what evidence is that? and are you saying some people would be
DEtracted because they would be gettin paid???????
-------------------------------------------------------------
We need some feedback from players on what they're willing to
> pay and from potential observers on what it would take to get them to
> observe (and if there are insurmountable conflicts currently
> preventing them from observing). Some of this data has already been
> collected. It could stand to be reviewed, supplemented and updated,
> though.
well, talk to your spirit zealot breatheren and sistren at upa hqts
about all that. i wouldnt expect too much on that front though
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 6) Experimentation. The experimentation with observers can yield
> immediate widespread beneficial results without any need for increases
> in personnel or additional training.
why not do both as it seems the REALLY big problems are 1) the limited
supply and 2) the very very limited amout of opportunities they get to
practice. resourses dont seem to be an issue preventing
experimentation, its just that no one from the upa admin is proposing
anything to actually program said experiments. they seem to be
leaving that (along with a lot of other stuff) up to the membership to
tackle on their/our own. kinda lame imo
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why I think it is the
> better allocation of resources.
what kind of resourses do you think it would take to do a little
experimenting with refs......besides voluteer manpower?
-----------------------------------------------------------
The impact of the change is big and
> it can happen right away (instant gratification).
eh, i still say the major road block for the whole observer system is
the sever lack of opportunities to do it
-------------------------------------------------------------
Experimenting with
> refs provides no immediate benefit to the sport because even if we
> like them, we're not in a position to effectively implement them.
they can be implemented at the elite levels where a marketable version
of the game is presented and promoted. AND youde be killing two birds
with one stone. Refining and developing the system on the one hand
and getting more exposure for the sport by making it more fan friendly
on the other. and the whole while you can STILL be working with more
generic observers systems for the masses at the lower levels of comp
and marketability
----------------------------------------------------------
So
> resources should be allocated toward expanding/improving the observer
> system, which will bring us to a point where we could transition to
> refs, at which time experimentation with refs makes perfect sense, if
> that's what a significant portion of the membership wants.
that tortise approach just dont cut it for me. I tell you what
though.... i wish my business competitiors had your overly cautious,
baby step philosophy. leavin em in the dust would be a breeze
ulticritic
>
> ---i prefer the foul limits from soccer.
as in....playing a man down???? thats got to be the worst rule in any
sport ever
Colin
> On Jul 11, 3:06 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> have you ever used it or seen it used?
Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> are you expecting me to buy this contention in the
> absense of any experience or first hand knowledge?
No. See above.
--------------------------------------------------------
> is thats whats done in other reffed sports???
Yes. Sort of. Not that they're comparable.
---------------------------------------------------
> whos to say that would nessisarily happen?
Who's to say that what would necessarily happen?
----------------------------------------------------
> what fantasy world do you live in where you get 20 people to voluteer
> to mow lawns?
The fantasy world where it's possible for you to understand simple
analogies.
---------------------------------------------------
> eh, lawn mowers are a dime a dozen. And i'm pretty sure i can find a
> qualified 14 year old to do it just about as easy as my local soccer
> league organizers can find a qualified 14 year old to ref one of their
> soccer games. Whats ultimates excuse is what i want to know.
Ultimate is not in the business of lawn-mowing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> well when ya set it up from the beggining as a voluteer program but
> then pay the stragelers you are setting yourself up for a mess. 1st
> there has to be more opportunities to try it, practice it and master
> it (rec leagues). then you use the ole supply and demand formula and
> pay the potential observers based on that. Its basic
> economics.....nuthin mysterious about it.....and yet another area in
> which ultimate could and should reasearch how its done in other
> sports. I know you have a problem with that but in this case it seems
> like quite the no brainer, no?
I would not observe for free if others were being paid. Your "no
brain" approach to addressing issues fails again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> and are you saying some people would be
> DEtracted because they would be gettin paid???????
No. You came up with that idea on your own.
-------------------------------------------------------------
> what kind of resourses do you think it would take to do a little
> experimenting with refs......besides voluteer manpower?
I don't know. Why don't you whip up some numbers and submit a
proposal for an innovation grant from the UPA? Or would actually
doing something productive interfere with your online "journalism"?
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think that answers all your questions. Didn't catch any comments
that demanded response.
ulticritic
> On Jul 11, 7:30 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 3:06 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > have you ever used it or seen it used?
>
> Yes.
WHERE AND WHEN?
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > is thats whats done in other reffed sports???
>
> Yes. Sort of. Not that they're comparable.
THEN WHY OFFER THE COMPARISON?
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> > whos to say that would nessisarily happen?
>
> Who's to say that what would necessarily happen?
that teams would throw 10 expendable players at the other teams star
in an effort to get him ejected.........wasnt that your cotention/
fear? try and keep up colin.
----------------------------------
> > what fantasy world do you live in where you get 20 people to voluteer
> > to mow lawns?
>
> The fantasy world where it's possible for you to understand simple
> analogies.
well i guess the upa is able to round up people to observer for free.
dont know what other sport youd find such suckas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > eh, lawn mowers are a dime a dozen. And i'm pretty sure i can find a
> > qualified 14 year old to do it just about as easy as my local soccer
> > league organizers can find a qualified 14 year old to ref one of their
> > soccer games. Whats ultimates excuse is what i want to know.
>
> Ultimate is not in the business of lawn-mowing.
neither are local soccer associations.......yet they somehow develop
and maintain referee organizations to facilitate THEIR comp. Do
ultimate people just not have to where with all to accomplish such
tasks or somthing?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > well when ya set it up from the beggining as a voluteer program but
> > then pay the stragelers you are setting yourself up for a mess. 1st
> > there has to be more opportunities to try it, practice it and master
> > it (rec leagues). then you use the ole supply and demand formula and
> > pay the potential observers based on that. Its basic
> > economics.....nuthin mysterious about it.....and yet another area in
> > which ultimate could and should reasearch how its done in other
> > sports. I know you have a problem with that but in this case it seems
> > like quite the no brainer, no?
>
> I would not observe for free if others were being paid.
uhmmm, now that statement might contradict some things youve said in
the past concerning standardizing a fair wage. like that youde donate
that earned money back?????
----------------------------------------------------------
Your "no
> brain" approach to addressing issues fails again.
how? dont most people that "work" usually get paid? so isnt their a
pre existing expectation there?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > and are you saying some people would be
> > DEtracted because they would be gettin paid???????
>
> No. You came up with that idea on your own.
ON MY OWN???? wasnt it you that said.....
There's evidence that
> payment would attract some potential observers and would not attract
> others.
SO EITHER WAY......it can ONLY act as an attractor as those that
wouldnt do it for payment wouldnt likey do it anyways right?
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > what kind of resourses do you think it would take to do a little
> > experimenting with refs......besides voluteer manpower?
>
> I don't know.
well specualte then.......as you seem to do so well when offering
negitive speculations about refs and ref experimentations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't you whip up some numbers and submit a
> proposal for an innovation grant from the UPA?
cause they suck and would likely slow/water down the whole program
once they got their INCOMPETENT hands on it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or would actually
> doing something productive interfere with your online "journalism"?
you tell me......as i dont see you making ANY efforts towards your
FANTASY new and improved observer system. I mean i have at least done
some practical experimenting with my ref system.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think that answers all your questions. Didn't catch any comments
> that demanded response.
well when ya conviently ignore/avoid em i can see how that happens
thefan
> If you're saying that is an advantage of the ref system, does that
> mean you are suggesting the task of keeping track of misconduct from
> plays and calls is too large of a task for officials to handle? I
> really do not think it's so much to keep track of. But if we simply
> disagree on this, I at least appreciate you bringing up a substantive
> point in this discussion. Is this alone sufficient reason to go a
> step further and get refs, or are there additional advantages that you
> see?
okay, let me get back in one at a time here Colin, may take me a bit
to catch up to you two.
i wouldn't say that its "too hard" i would say "why complicate it?"
we all agree that reffing ultimate, any sport is hard. look at the
NBA, those guys are professional referees, that's what they do, and
they miss calls, big calls. so why complicate their job?
let them call the game. let the players become accustomed to the way
the refs call the game and just play.
is that alone a reason to go from suped up observers to refs? maybe.
but i have more. one, communication with the crowd, in essence one of
the reasons to improve the presentation of the game would be to
attract a crowd. refs like to make signals that immediately tell the
crowd what has happened, why has play stopped.
two, consistency. players don't have to try to figure out how 14 of
their opponents are calling the game, and don't have to adjust when
the games gets close at the end and the calls start flying loosey
goosey all over the place. one team of refs with a relatively similar
style of calling the game, remaining consistent from start to finish.
Jimmy
thefan
> Ok. So it's foolish not to model ourselves after other sports. I've
> heard that one.
it's foolish not to take some things from sports that are wildly
successful.
>
> Penalizing players for making bad calls/contests is exactly what I'm
> talking about when I refer to an observer system with meaningful
> penalties and strong enforcement. The bad calls and contests are
> worse than the infractions in most cases (except marking infractions,
> which are totally out of control). This is why I'm asking what the
> advantage is of the referee system. If a bogus call yields a big
> penalty, then the players are going to be really reluctant to make
> bogus calls. If it appears that players are making bogus calls
> whenever they think it's worth the cost of the penalty, then stronger
> penalties (like ejection-type stuff/PMFs) can be used.
>
> So now that we're both on the same page, talking about an improved
> observer system with penalties for bad infractions, bad calls, bad
> contests, etc., what is it that justifies moving over to referees?
well, you kind of hit the nail on the head there. bogus calls are
still calls. they still stop play unnecessarily. no matter how
quickly the observer takes care of it, it's still a stoppage of play
and it has still served it's purpose in some cases by stopping the
fluid motion of the offense.
and you're right, sometimes bogus calls are worse than the actual
breaking of the written rules. but how do you rate them? are they
always worse? which calls are worse? is a bogus travel call the same
as a bogus foul call? is a hard marking foul worse than the bogus
foul call by the thrower on 9? if you're going to hand out penalties,
you have to have some measure, or the referee has to keep track of
teams and players and the infractions they commit and any abuse of the
rules through bogus calls. again, why make it so hard on the refs.
let them make the calls and the players play the game.
>
> I want to know why you say "it just makes obvious sense that you would
> streamline the process and let the refs initiate the calls" instead of
> just sticking with the suped up observer system. Once we've reduced/
> eliminated the bogus calls and we have the observers stricly limiting
> any post-call discussions, how much streamlining is left to be done?
> Is there any streamlining benefit to having players have the option
> NOT to call infractions? Is it a positive thing for such infractions
> to always/never be called by officials or just arbitrarily called, as
> the officials see fit?
>
> Just referencing officiating in other sports doesn't cut it. Pretend
> (shouldn't be hard, if you already assume it, right?) I know
> absolutely nothing about other sports, so you'll need to explain.
the refs could themselves not call infractions. certainly you've
heard of soccer right? the ref has the option not to call a foul on
the defense if calling the foul would take away the advantage from the
other team. translate to ultimate, the ref has the option not to call
the throwing foul if the pass is completed. in soccer, the ref even
has the ability to go back and yellow or even red card the offending
player once play has stopped of the advantage has been lost.
they do the same thing in hockey, though hockey is canadian so i don't
like it. but there is something about the ref holding his hand up to
communicate that there has been a penalty, but the non offending team
has the puck, so they keep playing until the offending team gets the
puck, at which time the whistle blows and the offending team is
penalized.
why streamline part of the way when you could streamline all the way?
observers and penalty could greatly reduce the bogus calls in theory,
but refs would eliminate them entirely. there will still be cases
where the beaten defender decides it is worth the penalty to make that
bogus travel call on a deep throw. in this case a defender has taken
away an advantage, possibly a score from the other team without having
even to give the effort to get into position to make a hard foul. all
he has to do is say travel. perhaps the observer quickly over rules
it and the score is good. but if the throw is shorter, how much
advantage is lost by the flowing offense in that very brief stoppage
due to the call?
jimmy
ulticritic
FUCK!!!.....talk about droppin some knowledge!
thefan
again with this "at every tournament" stuff. you don't start there.
you start by implementing referees at the highest level. nationals
say. or some new experimental league that is affiliated with the UPA
and has some support from the UPA in the interest of progressing the
sport. so maybe you have 6 tournaments around the country where in
you give players around the country the opportunity to see refereed
ultimate. you've also got a smaller pocket of players who are playing
reffed ultimate who can give their feedback in order to tweak the
system or scrap it.
once reffed ultimate takes hold you can start to work on the trickle
down into some of the other tournaments, the series and what have
you. no different than was done with observers and is being done to
this day.
tmfs, yellow cards, foul limits, whatever, there are going to have to
be some penalties. playing a man down is not a good option for our
sport, and i don't know how well a penalty box would work, you are
probably on to something with the roster limits thing and i don't know
what you would do with excessive team fouling, but it really doesn't
make a difference what these details are until we can agree that
reffed ultimate is some thing that we want to move forward with. if
people are against the notion of having refs make the calls in a game
then i don't see why we would bother to discuss the fine points of the
system.
now i know you'll say you want to know what we're getting in to here
with all these refs and shit, but the main crux of the argument lies
in thinking the game will improve from having the calls made by an
impartial third party or continuing to have the calls made by the
players playing the game. if you don't think it will be better with
an impartial referee, you probably don't care what the foul limit rule
would be
jimmy
3jane.
<snip some good stuff and referring to a couple of recent posts by the
fan in this and other threads>
> now i know you'll say you want to know what we're getting in to here
> with all these refs and shit, but the main crux of the argument lies
> in thinking the game will improve from having the calls made by an
> impartial third party or continuing to have the calls made by the
> players playing the game. if you don't think it will be better with
> an impartial referee, you probably don't care what the foul limit rule
> would be
It's refreshing to see the pro ref arguments made in a coherent and
persuasive manner.
ulticritic
what would be even more refreshing would be for someone to heed those
coherent and persuasive arguments