Pennsbury and Carleton Congratulations??
Brian Buck
written to make a point about what we are teaching is okay in the
sport of ultimate.
The basis of this is that Carleton won this years upa college
championships and finished dead last in spirit rankings (this was not
a case where all the other teams scored 4.5 plus and they were a
victim of that) Carleton finished with a 3.143 about .7 below the next
closest teams Wisconsin and Kansas. That is unquestionably dispicable,
in a sport that bases itself on some interpretation of spirit of the
game. This leads into players being cocky instead of humble, being
taught how to foul on the mark (or being led to believe it is
necessary) instead of learining how to vary depth to avoid contact. I
know these sorts of things cause I played at a college and within a
region that is not known for its bad spirit (especially in the time I
was there), and I was taught similar tactics and thought it was part
of the game too.
Believe me this is only part of the game because you make it that way
and because other teams, and people don't publically condemn this
behavior. If your not going to acknowledge that spirit of the game or
I will jsut flat out call it sportsmanship and not cheating because I
don't mean all the implications that otherr people so by SOTG.
The bottom line is that you don't play the game the way it is supposse
to be played, and it is making a negative impact of all levels of the
game. Look at the high school easterns standings Pennsbury #1 overall
but 13th in spirit scores, North Hills 3rd overall last in spirit
scores with a 3.00. This is the fault of schools like Carleton who
don't see sportsmanship as a big issue... take responsability for the
sport you love to play, and play it the right way.
Observers will help with some questionable calls in big games, but
they arn't going to fix the problem. Stop playing the game like an
a**hole, play it as a sport you love, and you will not only figure out
ways to actually stop people/ teams by playign within the rules (which
is probably just a little more rewarding), but you'll have more fun.
Like I said in the beginning this isn't written just to call out
Carleton, Pennsbury, North Hills or any other schools I indirectly
mentioned, it is written in an attempt for accountability, and to help
our sport. Cause to be honest videos like this are hopefully what is
going to help our sport. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6i4wD2-_fw
Its one thing to play the game like a dick, its another thing all
together to teach other people to play the game that way. If youa re
the coach of any of these high school or college teams or a leader on
the team please revaluate the way you are teaching the game. It's
never too late to change the way you play, or to alter the environment
you are put in by working hard and having a good attitude.
Bbuck
Ballometrics Captain #19
Cause Ballin' outside of the rules isn't really Ballin' at all.
3jane.
> taught how to foul on the mark (or being led to believe it is
> necessary) instead of learining how to vary depth to avoid contact. I
> know these sorts of things cause I played at a college and within a
> region that is not known for its bad spirit (especially in the time I
> was there), and I was taught similar tactics and thought it was part
> of the game too.
I still can't believe that people think intentionally fouling on the
mark is an acceptable strategy. No matter what you think about SOTG,
that is just lame. If it's an observed game, the second time someone
does that should be a misconduct and the third should be an ejection
and the team should play with 6, you should not get to replace someone
who was ejected for cheating.
Jack
I think a big reason for this is players taking themselves too
seriously. They don't realize that this is just ultimate, and that no
one outside of the small ultimate community cares (or even remembers)
who wins these championships. Let's be honest with ourselves, ultimate
may be a sport, be it's not completely legitimized until really good
athletes become the norm and not the exception, as opposed to the
status quo of all-white former HS soccer players and cross country/
track runners. Any "sport" that only takes one year (maybe two) to
improve to the point of being considered a "good" college player is
lacking athletes. An average D-III or D-II football or basketball
player would completely dominate this game.
Summary: Don't take yourself too seriously, you play ultimate frisbee.
Brian Buck
training seriously, take your practices seriously, take the games very
seriously but being serious has nothing to do with being as a**hole on
the field. This post is all about accountability, when teams play the
wrong way they should be held accountable for it. Right now the only
real way to hold these teams accountable is by public scruitiny. So
post videos like Florida did, if you play a team with particularly bad
spirit talk to them during and after your game, send their captains an
email, talk to other people in the community and see if they feel that
way.
Bottom line is it's gonna take a while with experiments to get the
rules to be better (whether you believe this is necessary or not
please use a different post or look at the 798 already on the
archives), but we don't need different rules now for the game to work,
all we need is people to play with sportsmanship and the game would be
infinitly more fun, and more competative.
As I have personally learned this is a gradual process so nothing
wrong with starting today ;)
Bbuck
Colin
I do not think low spirit scores are necessarily despicable. Spirit
isn't strictly about fair play. http://www.upa.org/spirit/rankingguidelines
. I personally do not mind a team that plays fairly and is not
particularly friendly. It is not despicable to not be friendly.
Conduct is more what I'm concerned about.
I did notice the blatant intentional double-team (and foul?) committed
by Carleton at the very beginning of the College open finals:
http://college2009.upa.org/video/open-finals
Plays like that are despicable. There is no excuse. No potential
mistake. It's just outright cheating and it's shameful. It is pretty
clear on this version of the video (and noted by the commentator), but
it was even clearer in person and from the other camera angle, which
showed the huge distance between the double-teamer and the next-
closest offensive player.
BJones
cheating you aren't trying.
Colin
As a somewhat related counter point, I think it is worth mentioning
what a fair, clean game this year's Mamabird team played. Having seen
them at Centex and Nationals, it was really noticeable that they were
making a concerted effort to play fairly, yet still brought great
intensity, played hard, effective D, etc. I think their average
spirit score of 4 was about right by the guidelines, as the played a
very fair game with a good attitude, but without frills. In my view,
ranked strictly on the "fair play" basis, Colorado was one of the
highest-ranking teams at Nationals and their performance in all
regards was commendable.
On the women's side, I expect there were numerous notable teams, but I
personally saw Dartmouth and USC play an extremely clean, pleasant,
fair game. I also thought Oregon did a good job balancing very high
intensity with good sportsmanship and a fair play. The UCSB - Oregon
game was very clean, by my recollection.
Colin
> I still can't believe that people think intentionally fouling on the
> mark is an acceptable strategy. No matter what you think about SOTG,
> that is just lame. If it's an observed game, the second time someone
> does that should be a misconduct
Why the second time? Why not give a TMF for the first instance of an
intentional foul? Why require a pattern for intentional behavior?
I'm with you on wanting more enforcement against this behavior, but
I'm not sure we need a drastic revision of the system (ejections, man-
down, etc.) to effectively deter the behavior. The current system has
strong penalties, they just aren't enforced often.
The problem is that too much intentional fouling and other misconduct
is allowed to occur before any penalty is imposed. The sooner the
"warning" TMFs are given, the sooner the misconduct will end. There's
a shift towards giving TMFs more freely, but I think there's a bit
further to go yet.
Kyle Weisbrod
Pennsbury's spirit rating is 3.83. They played 6 games. So
theoretically they could have received five 4s and one 3.
Here's how the score of 4 is defined:
4 – Respect shown throughout the game towards opponents, officials,
and spectators. For the level of play, showed above average knowledge
of the rules and abided by them throughout the game. Any conflicts
were resolved favorably and without incident. Opposing team's conduct
did not detract from our enjoyment of the game. The opposing team
played fairly and with a good attitude.
and here's a 3:
3 – Generally exhibited respect towards opponents, officials, and
spectators. For the level of play, showed adequate knowledge of the
rules and abided by them during the game. Any conflicts were resolved
plainly and without incident. Opposing team's conduct generally did
not detract from our enjoyment of the game. The opposing team
generally played fairly and with a decent attitude.
If all that you know is that they had a 3.83, it seems a bit
unreasonable to be calling them out.
-Kyle
jim
Toad must be away from his computer on this one....but I gotta
say....REFS might be a solution to fouling.
Maybe a foul/violation limit per player/team...I'm not sold on this,
but without refs, this could be implemented to control fouling.
If you use rules to your advantage...like all athletes do in any
sport...is it really despicable?..or just using rules to your
advantage?
Some might say it's an honest strategy. Why not double team till
someone calls a foul...it will slow down a teams momentum in a lot of
cases.
Why not intentionally foul if it stops the flow...happens in every
sport.
BJones
intentional fouls or 1 very blatant foul = ejected. I don't want
someone being ejected for their 5th close encounter on a floating
huck.
jim
> I would prefer a soccer type system to a basketball system. 2
> intentional fouls or 1 very blatant foul = ejected. I don't want
> someone being ejected for their 5th close encounter on a floating
> huck.
I agree...do you think the team should play a man down, if they lose a
player to a "red card"...or whatever ultimate would call ejection?
I don't think this would be a good idea in ultimate, cause the team
with 6 would definitely lose the game (with two closely matched teams
playing).
In soccer, playing a man down is not that big of a deal...it hurts,
but teams down a man do win.
BJones
I don't think teams should be required to play a man down. It would be
too lopsided. This could mean that we could be more strict on what
means an ejection. Even that one intentional body foul could mean
you're out of the game. The type of things that can be easily avoided
without compromising tight competitive play.
On Jul 30, 2:45 pm, jim <rover...@yahoo.com> wrote
mark....@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is specifically against the rules to intentionally foul/double team/
etc. 11th edition I.B :
"Such actions as .... intentional infractions, or other win-at-all-
costs behavior are contrary to the spirit of the game and must be
avoided by all players."
doing so amounts to intentionally breaking the rules to try to gain an
advantage, ie cheating.
jim
wrote:
> It is specifically against the rules to intentionally foul/double team/
> etc. 11th edition I.B :
> "Such actions as .... intentional infractions, or other win-at-all-
> costs behavior are contrary to the spirit of the game and must be
> avoided by all players."
> doing so amounts to intentionally breaking the rules to try to gain an
> advantage, ie cheating.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tell that to the College National Champions of last year....and to
NYNY back in the late 80's/90's...and I am sure there are many more
teams that don't really pay a bit of attention to that at the
competitive level.
Thanks for the definition....but it's time to get realistic about that
crap!!!!
Chaco
I agree. There is a big difference between receiving a low ranking due
to being a jerk, and being ranked lower than everyone else because the
other teams are extra nice to their opponents when you simply played
fairly and didn't piss anyone off too badly.
The trend of high finishing teams ranking very low on the spirit
scores is not new. I bet it's at least partly because it's easier to
give someone a high spirit score when you just beat them, and not so
easy when you've just lost, especially when scores are reported
directly after games, when the winners are on a high and the losers
are dejected and possibly angry. I would hope that we are all mature
enough to judge our opponents' "spirit" separate from the final
outcome of the game, but given that intentional fouling and such does
occur at various levels of play, maybe not.
Army
that team should be called out for blatant defensive foul calls.
Unbelievable!!
Sam TH
> The trend of high finishing teams ranking very low on the spirit
> scores is not new. I bet it's at least partly because it's easier to
> give someone a high spirit score when you just beat them, and not so
> easy when you've just lost, especially when scores are reported
> directly after games, when the winners are on a high and the losers
> are dejected and possibly angry. I would hope that we are all mature
> enough to judge our opponents' "spirit" separate from the final
> outcome of the game, but given that intentional fouling and such does
> occur at various levels of play, maybe not.
The last two years at open club national, the team with the best
spirit score finished in the bottom half, the team with the second-
best spirit score finished second, and the team that won the
tournament was bottom 3 in spirit ranking. That doesn't suggest much
correlation to me, especially in view of Colin's comments about the
Colorado team.
sam th
edgar....@gmail.com
in my mind, Beau is the most athletic person on the field and he has
zero interest in following the rules concerning traveling.
It seems as though no one cares he is traveling. The other teams
aren't calling it, but can you really blame them? He is a much larger
threat without the disc in his hands, so might as well let him keep on
traveling until you are late in a tight game and then drop travel
calls on him every time he touches the disc to try to mess with him
and get mistakes.
His teammates aren't coming up to him after points and letting him
know he is breaking the rule, the UPA probably isn't saying anything
to him. The US team was the most visible example of ultimate to the
world. The UPA deserves a ton of credit for that. To have one
player, and probably the best player, so grossly ignore the rules does
a disservice to any message about SOTG the UPA puts out.
Maybe no one cares because the consequences of traveling are zilch in
which case maybe the penalty needs to change.
Maybe no one cares because the rules are not called consistently which
means a third party needs to call the games.
Ultimate always ends up in these situations not knowing what to do
with itself. The people at the most competitive levels of this sport
play the game differently than people that play 10 times in a year.
To acknowledge this would be beneficial for all. To have different
rules for different levels of play would be helpful. This may even
mean referees for certain levels of play. These are things that need
to be figured out, it feels like other sports have no problem with
this, but ultimate thinks it has figured out how to get people to play
fairly and isn't interested in changing.
triac...@gmail.com
I really do think you are correlating spirit rankings far too much
with the actual conduct of teams. it seems like teams that take
winning seriously and are at something like the college championships
to win the title game are probably going to be slightly less friendly
than teams who know they are going to finish towards the bottom. i
personally don't see a problem with that. i think spirit rankings are
always going to be skewed so that the goofier, friendlier, last place
teams will come out on top. is that a problem either? no. or, i guess
it depends how much you care about spirit rankings, and how much you
care about what team's actual conduct on the field is. furthermore, i
know you weren't trying to specifically call anyone out, but having
seen them play several times, and playing them once this year, i think
carleton generally showed good spirit and plays a pretty clean game.
there doesn't appear to be anything despicable going on in the
carelton-mamabird final to me, to say that just seems hyperbolic and
counterproductive. they certainly have better spirit than wisconsin,
and in general seem to be pretty classy guys trying to excel in their
sport. maybe that's just how i see it.
Sam TH
I haven't played against Carleton, or seen them play, nor have I
played college ultimate recently. I wasn't trying to call anyone
out. I think it's probably true that in 2007, the high spirit score
for the Van Buren Boys (#1 in spirit) was earned in a different way
than the high score for Bravo (#2). But I think it's probably also
true that Bravo's high score, and Sockeye's lower score that year, are
probably related to their conduct on the field, rather than to their
winning percentage, since neither one lost before the finals. Again,
I'm not trying to call out Sockeye (a score of 4 is, I assume, quite
good), or anyone else. But I think it's worth noting that some teams
that finish well have high spirit scores, and some that finish in a
similar place have much lower spirit scores.
sam th
Canon
what kind of mutual understanding they have. It seems like in a lot of
cases -- especially at the elite level -- players are willing to allow
physical contact if their opponents will do the same. More crudely
put: "you can foul me if I can foul you." Now, that is not to say that
players are out there hacking the shit out of each other and not
calling it, but I definitely think it has become acceptable to bump
and throw some body-weight. Whether or not this is right, I believe,
is a matter to be settled by the players and not by the UPA.
Personally, I am all for it. Especially at the more competitive scene.
As long as you're not being a dick or playing recklessly, minor
contact shouldn't be a big deal.
jermleeds
officiation reasonably, even if your conclusion is that refs are the
way to address these problems. Toad, a lot of people, including those
who disagree with you, would be much more inclined to engage in a
discussion on the matter if you could approach it with more thought
and restraint.
On Jul 30, 1:32 pm, "edgar.grah...@gmail.com"
MD
score of 4.7 is pretty impressive, given the scores of their games:
15-5, 15-2, 15-3, 15-2, 15-7, 15-9, 15-9, 15-12. That means almost all
of their opponents gave them 5's, in both blowouts and (relatively)
close games.
Ryan Thompson
All of those games were blowouts. The finals were just two separate
halves where different teams did the blowing out. It's easy to be nice
when you're crushing/being crushed.
muffin
the
> mark is an acceptable strategy. No matter what you think about SOTG,
> that is just lame.
Fouls aren't illegal are they?
You can have a "free throw" if you release through the foul and you
get a stall 0.
Sounds fair.
Colin
> You can have a "free throw" if you release through the foul and you
> get a stall 0.
>
> Sounds fair.
Not if the foul is before you can start your throwing motion. Nothing
fair about that. And not a whole lot fair about using your continual
fouling to disrupt downfield flow and let your defenders stop and
reassess their positions.
It might be fair in when every intentional foul carried a very serious
risk of a Misconduct (yardage) Penalty and players received PMFs for
choosing to foul and making a cost-benefit analysis of the benefit of
the foul versus the impact of the penalty.
Colin
<edgar.grah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ultimate always ends up in these situations not knowing what to do
> with itself. The people at the most competitive levels of this sport
> play the game differently than people that play 10 times in a year.
> To acknowledge this would be beneficial for all. To have different
> rules for different levels of play would be helpful. This may even
> mean referees for certain levels of play. These are things that need
> to be figured out, it feels like other sports have no problem with
> this, but ultimate thinks it has figured out how to get people to play
> fairly and isn't interested in changing.
Is this actually a position that anyone really takes? Is there anyone
out there saying that the current system as implemented is perfect and
would not benefit from changes?
I just don't buy this "ultimate and the UPA are totally clueless and
unwilling to make any changes" claim. It's somewhat contrary to the
facts.
My impression was that there was a good deal of awareness about many
of the problems under the current system (intentional infractions,
rules "misknowledge," rules "unknowledge," inconsistent rules
application, etc.). Also a good deal of awareness at how well self-
officiating works in certain settings and how something else (whether
refs/observers/etc) would provide significant benefits. And efforts
being made on various fronts to address the problems.
Whether you agree or disagree on how to solve the problems is another
issue, but I don't think that it's accurate to claim that "ultimate
Corley
1. Florida's videos, while fun, are basically the ultimate equivalent
of the political attack ad or corporate greenwashing. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Florida made those videos
because they (to a greater degree than normal for a college team at
their level) had acquired a reputation as being unspirited and dirty
to play against. While everything in Florida's videos did, in fact,
happen, you'll notice that they don't post many videos of themselves
calling fouls. What's more: most of the videos are made with a
specific team or even individual player as target, be it Georgia or
Sam Kanner.
2. Someone earlier cited the Florida videotapes as something which
could 'help our sport.' Well, from one perspective, yes. The more
players who know about a certain team's or player's frivolous foul
calls, the better it can be dealt with. But from another perspective I
think the UF videos are profoundly damaging to a sport. As I mentioned
before, they're the RSD equivalent of name-calling. While they may
help generate more rules-aligned games against Florida's rivals, I
think they are basically corrosive to the community of the sport and
somewhat immature. (It bears noticing that major sports don't tolerate
overt criticism of their referees or rules system: Didier Drogba was
banned for 3 games and fined >150k for criticizing the referee in ONE
CL match.)
3. This leads to an interesting tension: here is a situation in which
an action which promotes enforcing the rules in a single game can be
(and you may disagree with me about this) detrimental to the spirit of
the game as a whole. In fact, I think the OP's broader point confutes
SOTG within an individual game with SOTG in general--an error I think
we all make. Another case in point: one of the actions for which
Florida was most criticized was their liberal use of travel calls. To
paraphrase one elite college player, Florida ran a very tight rotation
and called travel whenever they got tired. It wasn't important if the
call was overturned--and frequently it wasn't, because it's difficult
not to travel, but it seemed to be poor spirit anyways. It made people
dislike playing frisbee against Florida. As every team's 'rules guy'
proves, the idea that enforcing the rules perfectly correlates
perfectly with good spirit is bull.
4. These are some of the unique issues associated with our sport in
specific and possibly with all self-refereed sports in general. Each
team has an incentive--competitive advantage--to abuse the structure
of the sport to their own advantage. This is one strong argument for
referees, and one which toad has made (or tried to make). But I think
Florida (broad example) and travel calls (specific example) both
indicate that perhaps in addition to looking at the officiation we
should look at the rules themselves.
5. All competitions, from racewalking to the NFL to frisbee, depend to
some greater or lesser degree on the stringency with which the rules
are enforced. Everyone has watched a football or soccer game with a
ref who was 'letting the players play' and one where he was 'keeping
control.' At elite levels of competition, where athletes are pushing
against the boundaries of their bodies and established knowledge of
their sport, it makes perfect sense that a team would look to the
rules of play for the tiny advantage which could mean the difference
between losing in quarters and winning the finals (Carleton/Pitt?).
There is nothing despicable about it. Having played and watched (semi-)
elite ultimate, I can say confidently that the first few points of a
given (unobserved ) game consist of each team trying to establish
their interpretation of the rules--how physical will marks be? How
physical will man d be? How close will the cup be to the thrower? How
fast will the stall be? As Frank has pointed out, these mostly consist
of defenses testing the rules to gain parity in a mostly offensive
sport. The difference between ultimate and other sports is that
there's never really a conclusive way to settle these things except
one team winning and the other team getting pissed. (Observers are
another issue, and possibly another example of tension between rule
enforcement and SOTG).
6. Spirit, as it currently stands, especially with marking and
travels, is a prisoner's dilemma. Many people would like to have a
game without travels and without marking fouls. But if you are a
competitive team, or individually trying out for a competitive team,
choosing to unilaterally 'disarm' in terms of marking and travelling
(ie following the rules as written) would simply be a noncompetitive
strategy. You probably wouldn't make it through sectionals. To me,
that points to badly written rules. If all your elite players are
always breaking some of the fundamental rules of the game (see: Beau),
your rules are badly written.
7. More personally, I want to push back against the idea that Carleton
has poor spirit, especially by the standards of elite American
ultimate. As Kyle pointed out, a 3 indicates generally decent spirit.
And that's just at Nationals. As an alum of Carleton-GoP, I can say
that the Carleton men's team displayed this year and, in my opinion,
always displays an absolutely remarkable level of dedication,
investment, and commitment to the game of ultimate. To me, that's a
kind of spirit which is far more important than the number of fouls
they call or contest in a game. Teh CUT's players--from club and
Junior worlds players to freshmen--are, to me, the future of the
sport. Part of that future is a level of dedication which pushes
players and teams to and beyond the limit of their ability. Currently
there's a good degree of rule-breaking which accompanies being an
elite (or really even a regionals-level) college team. The sport and
the community will need to have a stronger plan than we currently do
for addressing this, either by addressing the rules or the enforcement
of the rules.
Fortunately, threads like this one are a start. The first step towards
addressing things like this constructively is for us to want to, and
it seems like we do.
ryandc
At least in the jr. division case it should be noted that reputations
stick. North Hills and Pennsbury in past years both displayed poor
spirit or so it was reported. As of late (the last year or two) I do
not believe this has been the case but many teams still know of these
reputations and come into the games expecting poor spirit. These two
are both on a high level of play more so than some of the other teams
at Easterns and some teams don't take well to things like charging the
field when teams score (or spiking though I do not believe either team
did). Spirit scores aren't totally a good display of a teams spirit
just because they are based on someones opinion of what it good spirit
and some people are bias too.
Corley
http://forceflick.blogspot.com/2009/07/bad-spirit-and-rsd-with-less-spam.html
Dennis
the NBA- the travel rule in the NBA is so loosely enforced (see
Lebron's "crab dribble") that what's really a travel is allowed...
even with knowledgeable officials on the floor.
Likewise, although the intentional foul is written into the rules, NBA
officials seldom call it. Players intentionally foul all the time,
especially at the end of the game, but nothing is done to really alter
this behavior. Same goes for offensive pass interference in football,
prematurely stepping off the bag on double plays in baseball, the list
could go on.
I think this is no reflection of the rules of these sports and how
they're written; rather, it is a part of the elite level of the game,
a "competitive edge." Instead of trying to eliminate these aspects of
ultimate, attempts at limiting this behavior, in my opinion, would
prove more useful.
Knappy
words here. You put 2 teams in your subject header & called into
question whether or not they should be congratulated on their win.
(congratulations??)
Then you write:
"So this isn't written just to trash on Pennsbury and Carleton it's
written to make a point about what we are teaching is okay in the
sport of ultimate."
I think your point has been lost when you chose to single out 2 teams,
both of whom played at tournaments that---I'm guessing here---you did
not participate in. Did you attend either tournament? Do you know if
teams scored them lower than average due to their calls on the field,
or their sideline antics, or because they didn't let up when they were
blowing out teams? Maybe it was a single team that scored them a 1 &
brought down their SR. Or maybe they really are just a bunch of
cheaters. I don't know. My guess is that neither do you.
"undeniably despicable".
A 3.1 out of 5 is despicable? How about a 3.8? I think some people
would deny that those are despicable scores. A 2.4....now that's
despicable! (just kidding, Ottawa)
This kind of reminds me of a recent broohaha over a cop & a Harvard
professor. Obama comes in with only some of the facts & one side of
the story, then carelessly drops "stupidly". That makes you the
President in this metaphor. Not a bad place to be, I like that Obama
guy. But, anyway, now you have to have Pennsbury & Carelton over for a
beer.
On second thought, maybe a soft drink. You wouldn't want to be ballin'
in jail. That word has a whole nother meaning in those environs.
Colin
> Some numbered points (go TFA!)
I like it. Lots of valid points, well-expressed. My comments are
below, numbered accordingly and a little paraphrased summary of the
points I'm addressing, for context. Paraphrased for brevity, but in a
serious attempt to accurately reflect the original message.
> 1. Florida's were unidirectional and singled out player/teams.
Yes. These videos were primarily of value for Georgia or Sam Kanner
or whoever was targeted. Those targeted should be thankful for the
video footage and take a moment to reflect on how they play. Florida,
on the other hand, is very self-aware with respect to its cheating and
does not need to have its eyes opened. I thought the videos were
intended to send a "hey, these guys cheat and cheat badly also, we're
not the only ones" message, along with the general shaming. That
gives at least some degree of legitimacy. To Florida's credit, at
least it doesn't try to play both sides of the coin.
> 2. Alternative perspective on Florida's videos: name-calling and damaging to the sport; other sports don't allow criticism of the referees.
In Ultimate, part of the enforcement mechanism for fair play is
reputation in the community. Some teams are apparently not concerned
(e.g. Florida) and maybe cannot be reached through such efforts. But
for other teams who try to play both sides (play like an asshole, but
then try to claim not to be an asshole team), it can have a
significant impact. In major sports, referees who do a terrible job
get fired. And if they allow outside influences to bias their calls,
they get in big trouble. Public shaming and/or bad reputation may be
the Ultimate version of "big trouble." I think something similar
happens in tennis, up to very high levels. Players get reputations
for being cheaters. Certain players' opponents will ALWAYS request
line judges. Same for Ultimate (note some teams ALWAYS get observers
requested).
I really think the more video players can see of themselves, the
better. It promotes awareness by players what an objective (visually
accurate) view of their play looks like. I believe that a lot of
cheating players do not believe that they are playing unfairly because
they do not see themselves. If the cost of promoting such awareness
is that some cheating players get some bad press for their cheating, I
think it's worth it.
> 3. . . "As every team's 'rules guy'
> proves, the idea that enforcing the rules perfectly correlates
> perfectly with good spirit is bull."
What do you mean by "enforcing the rules perfectly"? Do you mean
calling every infraction that occurs? Or upholding your obligation to
recognize a violation with reasonable certainty before making a call
and making sure that on every call you choose to make, you are correct
in your application of the rules? Only making calls that have a
significant impact on the play/game? Those are just a few possible
notions of "perfection."
> 5. Pushing the boundaries at the elite level when players are giving their all is to be expected and "there is nothing despicable about it." Every game begins with setting the tone and there's no way to settle it conclusively.
I disagree with that. Maybe it's expected, but it is not inherently
not-despicable, just because there is incentive to do it and because
the players are trying hard in addition to cheating.
I agree, this testing process occurs. This is an opportunity for
opponents to establish an agreeable balance for their game. Each team
figures out what the other team finds acceptable. If both teams want
to allow a lot of physicality without making calls, that's great. The
balance can be established tacitly, but it is also an opportunity for
captains or players to make any objections known and try to agree on a
balance expressly.
Finding the balance is acceptable. Unilaterally deciding to push the
boundaries of the rules, independently of any agreement (tacit or
express) from the opponents is not legitimate.
One good example of finding the balance (admittedly in an observed
game, which was not your initial topic) was the Pitt vs. UCSD game at
Nationals. Pitt came out on D amped up and fouling on the mark.
After a couple calls and a TMF and they quickly adjusted, backed up on
the marks, and played a great, fair game. Three passes into the game
and the balance was established and they proceeded accordingly. This
I think is a credit to Pitt's willingness to play fairly and the
potential helpfulness of TMFs given early in the game.
> 6. On a competitive team, a unilateral decision to follow the rules as written with respect to marking and traveling would be "noncompetitive strategy" (and not feasible?). This means the rules are badly written, especially if "ALL your elite players are ALWAYS breaking some of the fundamental rules" (Beau).
Having played entire competitive tournaments without committing
marking fouls and without being simply noncompetitive/ineffective, I'm
not sure I'd agree with this. I don't think it's because I am
personally especially talented. I'd argue that Colorado also
demonstrated the feasibility of playing fairly while still being
competitive. Stopping short of "cheat to win" behavior does not make
a strategy noncompetitive.
I do not think all the elite players are always or even
consistently breaking the fundamental rules of the sport. Many do
not. In fact, many of the very best of the elite do not. Or do, but
do so within the acceptable zone established by both teams. This is a
strength of the rules, not a weakness. It allows players and teams to
compete in games without interruptions of calls all the time, should
they choose to. This is the "referees" choosing to "let the players
play." It's not as if the rules are that difficult to understand.
Unless by "badly written" you mean that they do not provide sufficient
disincentives to abide by them. But that's a self-officiation
objection, not really a rules-drafting issue.
> 7. Carleton's spirit is not poor on the elite national standard. 3 is pretty decent. CUT shows
> great dedication, investment and commitment to the game. This is "a kind of spirit" more
> important (to Corley) than number of calls/contests. Rule-breaking comes with being an elite
> college team. "The sport and the community will need to have a stronger plan than we
> currently do for addressing this, either by addressing the rules or the enforcement of the rules."
As I said, I'm not sure the scores in themselves are meaningful. I am
not convinced that teams are all aware of, let alone determined to
follow, the guidelines. I also do not think anyone is questioning
CUT's dedication/investment. But that's not an element listed in the
guidelines, nor should it trump respect for one's opponent, fair play
and good attitude, at least in my view. Colorado has shown that a
team can be completely elite while still playing really, really
fairly. I don't think it comes with being an elite team or an elite
player. It is a choice that teams and players can make. There will
be some infractions that are incidental to playing really tough, hard,
defense and will be committed sometimes by any competitive team.
But, again, teams can make a choice as to how far they let this
contact go. Are you willing to sacrifice your mark, running past the
thrower after closing hard on D but not getting it? Or do you choose
to run through the thrower to stop the continuation? When you're
marking hard and you know the thrower just beat you, do you shuffle
over into him and/or move your arm to stop the throw with a foul, or
do you move your arm to avoid the foul?
> Fortunately, threads like this one are a start. The first step towards
> addressing things like this constructively is for us to want to, and
> it seems like we do.
Agreed. I don't think I'd have used the title to the thread used
here, but I think there's good discussion to be had. The more it gets
laid out in the open, the less teams will feel able to use the cop-out
(in my view) that cheating is necessary in order to be competitive and
that all teams are doing it. Again, what a fantastic job Mamabird
under the coaching of Jim Schoettler is doing of representing the
sport as it should be played. From the video I got a chance to watch,
Team USA did a great job of this as well. It can be done.
pizzaslot
Are you putting a team that spiked it's first two goals in the finals,
and also ran into and knocked over an unmarked thrower from behind on
a pedestal as the THE sport's representative?
Fantusta
MANY teams DON'T CARE ABOUT. I've been on/coached a few teams where I
was asked to get a spirit score from a captain, and heard "just give
them a five" with absolutely zero thought put into it. I was
incredulous after some of these, after playing teams that just did not
deserve such scores -- but as in most of these cases we had come out
on top despite their cheating, our captains didn't seem to care
afterward. So before we assign so much value to these decimals, let's
make sure they were given out by parties that gave a damn.
agr...@gmail.com
represented at the 2009 College Nationals. Of all the teams that I
played CUT was unquestionably the best spirited and the most classy.
While I was not entirely proud of my own team's calls that game, CUT
players were invariably polite and calm.
If you'll note, in the first point of the championship game CUT is
playing man defense. The individual involved in the "double team"
appears to be within ten feet of his man. This is not a blatant
violation of the double-team rule. It's smart heads-up defense.
-Abe
ex. GoPper ashamed to be defending CUT on RSD.
Colin
XIV.B.2 Double Team ". . .within three meters of any pivot of the
thrower without also being within three meters of and guarding (II.G)
another offensive player. . ."
II.G Guarding " . . .within three meters of that offensive player and
are reacting to that offensive player."
The CUT player appears to be within 10 feet because of a bad camera
angle. On the original camera angle posted (the angle from the
stands) and seeing the play live, it was totally clear that the
distance was more like 20-25 feet. Not that that's relevant, since
he's reacting exclusively to the thrower and cannot even see his man.
So whether you incorrectly believe that he was within 10' or not, he
was clearly not guarding another offensive player - he was reacting
exclusively to the thrower.
The better view was in the "Open Finals Highlights" video, which is no
longer posted on the UPA page, but was previously available here:
http://college2009.upa.org/video/open-finals-highlights
Colin
> Are you putting a team that spiked it's first two goals in the finals,
> and also ran into and knocked over an unmarked thrower from behind on
> a pedestal as the THE sport's representative?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing. Both of these are examples of
great sportsmanship and good spirit by Colorado. The fact that these
are the only examples you can pull of supposedly bad conduct by
Colorado is just a testament to how well they carry themselves.
First off, they are showing respect to their opponents by playing
their hardest, playing fairly, and not rolling over, even after going
down 0-7. And not intentionally fouling. Next, even when confronted
with an irate opponent seeking to create confrontation, the Colorado
players remain calm and nonconfrontational, avoiding conflict and
making for a more enjoyable game.
1) The spikes. After going down 0 - 7 and going on a 2 point run to
try to get some momentum, Colorado makes two big spikes to try to get
themselves fired up. Neither spike was directed at the opponent.
What's the problem?
2) Marker-thrower collision. I saw the play you're talking about. In
person, on video before, and now again reviewed on video, just to be
sure. It was not dirty. The Colorado player made an honest attempt
to get in position, running well around to the outside. At the very
last second, the Carleton player pivoted quickly into the Colorado
player. As the CUT player falls, the Colorado player immediately
reaches to help him up. I encourage you and others to check the
replay. The score is 12-7 or so, Carleton and the cursor on the video
is lined up just about below "mo" of "Travel & accommodations" on the
menu above. http://college2009.upa.org/video/open-finals
It was not an intentional (or so grossly negligent as to
be deemed intentional) foul by the Colorado player.
The only player who was unsportsmanlike in that encounter was the
Carleton player. It is understandable that the CUT player might be
upset, having not seen what happened, but it's not as if the Colorado
players had given any indication throughout the game that such a foul
might be intentional. The Colorado player did a good job of remaining
calm and non-confrontational in the face of an angry opponent. This
is exactly the kind of behavior that we want to encourage.
Also note the comfortable buffer Colorado generally leaves when coming
around to get back on the mark after over-pursuing on defense. They
are marking effectively, but there is no bumping at all as they come
around, thanks to their active awareness of this issue. Even the play
referenced above was leaving a reasonable buffer, had the thrower not
pivoted back across. Still obviously a foul by Colorado, but not
intentional and not totally unreasonable.
Were the scorekeepers keeping track of calls at Nationals? I'd love
to see the stats on that. I expect number of calls made against
Colorado was very low. I don't mean to dwell too much on this (not
affiliated with CO), but it really is rare for a team to conduct
itself this way and I think it showed a notable shift from some past
Mamabird teams (not intended as a dig on those teams).
-Colin
Chuck Yu
> mark is an acceptable strategy. No matter what you think about SOTG,
> does that should be a misconduct and the third should be an ejection
> and the team should play with 6, you should not get to replace someone
> who was ejected for cheating.
OK, so here's the thing about "intentionally" fouling...
A lot of us learn how to mark that way. That is, whoever taught us to
mark said "Be aggressive, especially early in the stall count, and
don't be afraid to commit a foul." This is not the same as "Feel free
to commit a foul." This style of mark gets a bad rap because a lot of
people interpret it as intentionally fouling. Rather, it's just a more
aggressive mark with an *increased risk* of committing a foul, in the
same way that you'll probably never commit a foul in basketball if you
play 2 feet off your guy while "defending" in the post.
I have been fouled probably thousands of times, but I could probably
count on two hands the number of those that have truly been
intentional. If you're not risking a foul, then you're not marking
hard enough.
3jane.
>
> A lot of us learn how to mark that way. That is, whoever taught us to
> mark said "Be aggressive, especially early in the stall count, and
> don't be afraid to commit a foul." This is not the same as "Feel free
> to commit a foul." This style of mark gets a bad rap because a lot of
> people interpret it as intentionally fouling. Rather, it's just a more
> aggressive mark with an *increased risk* of committing a foul, in the
> same way that you'll probably never commit a foul in basketball if you
> play 2 feet off your guy while "defending" in the post.
I assume we can agree there is a difference between aggressive marking
and making intentionally fouling on the mark part of your defensive
strategy, It's interesting how some people come up with convoluted
reasons why the latter is acceptable because their team is competitive
or elite or there's intentional fouls in basketball or whatever.
Sorry, making excuses for cheating is still lame (IMO).
ulticritic
>
> The basis of this is that Carleton won this years upa college
> championships and finished dead last in spirit rankings
1) spirit rankings are gay
2) when you put most of your efforts towards winning there are
obviously less that can be but towards being spirity
3) maybe they just had their game face on most of the time and they
just "looked" unspirited
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(this was not
> a case where all the other teams scored 4.5 plus and they were a
> victim of that) Carleton finished with a 3.143 about .7 below the next
> closest teams Wisconsin and Kansas. That is unquestionably dispicable,
i think its disicable to ruin a sport by over emphisizing
spirit......especially to the point in which refs are banned
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> in a sport that bases itself on some interpretation of spirit of the
> game.
thats an easy fix.......just dont base it on that. Of which, i guess
some dont. Is there a rule(a written one) that says a player or team
MUST do that?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This leads into players being cocky instead of humble,
again, is there a rule against one being cocky?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
being
> taught how to foul on the mark (or being led to believe it is
> necessary) instead of learining how to vary depth to avoid contact. I
> know these sorts of things cause I played at a college and within a
> region that is not known for its bad spirit (especially in the time I
> was there), and I was taught similar tactics and thought it was part
> of the game too.
well if ya backtrack its easy to see that its the soft, gentlemans
game ruleset that actually 'ENABLE" this sort of behavior. So ya see,
sotg is a double edged sword that will cut ya both ways.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Believe me this is only part of the game because you make it that way
bzzzt wrong, its the teeth-less, ref-less rules that make it that way
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> and because other teams, and people don't publically condemn this
> behavior.
maybe you should take that as a sign that people arent all that keen
on sotg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your not going to acknowledge that spirit of the game or
> I will jsut flat out call it sportsmanship and not cheating because I
> don't mean all the implications that otherr people so by SOTG.
well theres your problem.......you are basing a whole sport on some
overly idealistic and ambiguous term. shelfing sotg is the best thing
that could ever happen to ultimate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The bottom line is that you don't play the game the way it is supposse
> to be played,
supposed to be played???? what does this mean? as long as one playes
within the rules then they are playing how they are supposed to play
right. I mean, i i fould you on the mark there is a rule in place to
deal with that, right? Maybe its just that the current rule set
dosent provide proper incentive for people NOT to put more effort into
breaking them. as they say......dont hate the playa, hate the game
(or, better yet, the rules of the game)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and it is making a negative impact of all levels of the
> game. Look at the high school easterns standings Pennsbury #1 overall
> but 13th in spirit scores,
maybe they were wearing their game faces too
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Hills 3rd overall last in spirit
> scores with a 3.00. This is the fault of schools like Carleton who
> don't see sportsmanship as a big issue... take responsability for the
> sport you love to play, and play it the right way.
as the great herm ecwards said........"YOU PLAY THE GAME TO
WIN!!!!!". so as long as they play that way then i'd say they are
playing it the right way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Observers will help with some questionable calls in big games, but
> they arn't going to fix the problem.
make em refs and they will
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop playing the game like an
> a**hole, play it as a sport you love, and you will not only figure out
> ways to actually stop people/ teams by playign within the rules (which
> is probably just a little more rewarding), but you'll have more fun.
pffft.....i always had more fun by winning. how can one tell who it
is being the a hole, though, when ther isnt one standardized way of
interpreting and enforcing the rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Like I said in the beginning this isn't written just to call out
> Carleton, Pennsbury, North Hills or any other schools I indirectly
> mentioned,
too late
-----------------------------------------------
it is written in an attempt for accountability, and to help
> our sport.
there is no help for it though......as you cant fight(or control)
human nature. your best best is to simply incorporate refs so that
the playing field can be leveled and more agressive player refs, that
lead to inconsistantly called games, are eliminated
-------------------------------------------------------
Cause to be honest videos like this are hopefully what is
> going to help our sport. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6i4wD2-_fw
>
> Its one thing to play the game like a dick, its another thing all
> together to teach other people to play the game that way.
uhmmm, they seem quite similar to me
---------------------------------------------------------------
If youa re
> the coach of any of these high school or college teams or a leader on
> the team please revaluate the way you are teaching the game.
and if you are an administrator (or even a member of the upa) please
revaluate they way that this sport is being arbitrated......wich, as
we can see, the current system only allows to ENABLE what buck seems
to be complaining about here
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's
> never too late to change the way you play, or to alter the environment
> you are put in by working hard and having a good attitude.
EXACTLY.......its never to late to get refs in the game
ulticritic
>
> I still can't believe that people think intentionally fouling on the
> mark is an acceptable strategy.
hows that????.....as it has been a strategy ever since. If so fat
so.....one would think that it IS acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter what you think about SOTG,
> that is just lame.
but wats really lame is that those that find it unacceptable dont find
the rules that enable such behavior as being unacceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's an observed game, the second time someone
> does that should be a misconduct and the third should be an ejection
> and the team should play with 6, you should not get to replace someone
> who was ejected for cheating.
thats the stupidist rule amongst the MANY stupid rules in soccer. but
this does point to the fact that observers should become a standard in
ALL ulti comp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ulticritic
>
> I think a big reason for this is players taking themselves too
> seriously. They don't realize that this is just ultimate, and that no
> one outside of the small ultimate community cares (or even remembers)
> who wins these championships.
how is this different that any opther sport.......that are also played
with childrens toys
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be honest with ourselves, ultimate
> may be a sport, be it's not completely legitimized until really good
> athletes become the norm and not the exception, as opposed to the
> status quo of all-white former HS soccer players and cross country/
> track runners.
hey, competition is competition. anybody is allowed to take any
competition as seriously (or as jokingly) as they so choose. Isnt
that the nature of competition in a nutshell
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any "sport" that only takes one year (maybe two) to
> improve to the point of being considered a "good" college player is
> lacking athletes.
eh, its all relative though.
------------------------------------------------------
An average D-III or D-II football or basketball
> player would completely dominate this game.
does that mean it shoulkdnt be taken seriously?
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Summary: Don't take yourself too seriously, you play ultimate frisbee
spoken by someone who OBVIOUSLY got schooled by someone that DID take
it to seriously.
ulticritic
> I would honestly disagree a bit with this. I would say take your
> training seriously, take your practices seriously, take the games very
> seriously
then why not take rule enforcement seriously? this IS the source of
your frustration, isnt it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but being serious has nothing to do with being as a**hole on
> the field.
to some it does
----------------------------------------
This post is all about accountability, when teams play the
> wrong way they should be held accountable for it.
and when a sport is arbitrated wrongly IT should be held accountable,
right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now the only
> real way to hold these teams accountable is by public scruitiny.
well change that and ya might be onto somthing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So
> post videos like Florida did, if you play a team with particularly bad
> spirit talk to them during and after your game, send their captains an
> email, talk to other people in the community and see if they feel that
> way.
or just get refs and be done with all tha yapin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bottom line is it's gonna take a while with experiments to get the
> rules to be better
thats the big lie right there. al it takes is one simple
act.......GET REFS!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(whether you believe this is necessary or not
> please use a different post or look at the 798 already on the
> archives), but we don't need different rules now for the game to work,
OBVIOUSLY YA DO
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> all we need is people to play with sportsmanship and the game would be
> infinitly more fun, and more competative.
uhmmmm, are you saying thats all ANY sport needs???? and since all of
em use refs to avoid this kind of thing, what does that tell ya?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As I have personally learned this is a gradual process so nothing
> wrong with starting today ;)
giddy up then. REFEREE is as easy as 1, 2, 3.
ulticritic
> It's just outright cheating and it's shameful.
i find it more shameful to allow, propagate and support rules that
ENABLE such behavior. Especially since these types of tactics have
essentially be used since the genesis of the sport. I think its just
more of a case in which you spirit zealots are chasin waterfalls
ulticritic
>
> Why the second time? Why not give a TMF for the first instance of an
> intentional foul?
better yet, wy not simply asses a foul (as fouling and misconducting
are one in the same, right?) and then establish a limit??????
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The problem is that too much intentional fouling and other misconduct
> is allowed to occur before any penalty is imposed.
that because you got the M part of it going on. drop the M and
replace the T with a P. "player fouls".......what a novel thought.
ulticritic
> I would prefer a soccer type system to a basketball system. 2
> intentional fouls or 1 very blatant foul = ejected. I don't want
> someone being ejected for their 5th close encounter on a floating
> huck.
well if ya had rotations similar to basketball it would be appropriate
to have a similar number of allowable fouls. Since ultimate teams are
so HUGE then i'd say a 3 foul per player limit would be adequate.
ulticritic
wrote:
>
> It is specifically against the rules to intentionally foul/double team/
> etc. 11th edition I.B :
> "Such actions as .... intentional infractions, or other win-at-all-
> costs behavior are contrary to the spirit of the game and must be
> avoided by all players."
> doing so amounts to intentionally breaking the rules to try to gain an
> advantage, ie cheating
i dont hink this is as much of a rule as it is a code.
ulticritic
>
> . I would hope that we are all mature
> enough to judge our opponents' "spirit" separate from the final
> outcome of the game,
then shouldnt you be mature enough to just get refs in the game and
trust their judgements. or is it that you people just arent mature
enough to put in the effort required to establish the system? And how
is judging an opponents spirit part of ANY sports comp. That whole
concept seems so needy (and gay) to me. I mean, isnt judging someones
spirit what cheerleaders do?
ulticritic
> On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Chaco <astamba...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> > scores is not new. I bet it's at least partly because it's easier to
> > give someone a high spirit score when you just beat them, and not so
> > easy when you've just lost, especially when scores are reported
> > directly after games, when the winners are on a high and the losers
> > are dejected and possibly angry. I would hope that we are all mature
> > enough to judge our opponents' "spirit" separate from the final
> > occur at various levels of play, maybe not.
>
> The last two years at open club national, the team with the best
> spirit score finished in the bottom half, the team with the second-
> best spirit score finished second, and the team that won the
> tournament was bottom 3 in spirit ranking. That doesn't suggest much
> correlation to me, especially in view of Colin's comments about the
> Colorado team.
>
> sam th
WHY DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN GIVE A FUCK ABOUT QUANIFYING AND COMPETEING FOR
WHOS MOST (OR LEAST) SPIRITED??????????? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE
WITH ALL THIS SPIRIT SHIT?????
ulticritic
> in my mind, Beau is the most athletic person on the field and he has
> zero interest in following the rules concerning traveling.
>
> It seems as though no one cares he is traveling. The other teams
> aren't calling it, but can you really blame them? He is a much larger
> threat without the disc in his hands, so might as well let him keep on
> traveling until you are late in a tight game and then drop travel
> calls on him every time he touches the disc to try to mess with him
> and get mistakes.
>
> His teammates aren't coming up to him after points and letting him
> know he is breaking the rule, the UPA probably isn't saying anything
> to him. The US team was the most visible example of ultimate to the
> world. The UPA deserves a ton of credit for that. To have one
> player, and probably the best player, so grossly ignore the rules does
> a disservice to any message about SOTG the UPA puts out.
>
> Maybe no one cares because the consequences of traveling are zilch in
> which case maybe the penalty needs to change.
> Maybe no one cares because the rules are not called consistently which
> means a third party needs to call the games.
>
> Ultimate always ends up in these situations not knowing what to do
> with itself. The people at the most competitive levels of this sport
> play the game differently than people that play 10 times in a year.
> To acknowledge this would be beneficial for all. To have different
> rules for different levels of play would be helpful. This may even
> mean referees for certain levels of play. These are things that need
> to be figured out, it feels like other sports have no problem with
> this, but ultimate thinks it has figured out how to get people to play
> fairly and isn't interested in changing.
And dont forget about offsides!!!!!! which i saw on those u tube vids
quite often (even if it wasnt as bad as at the last observerless wfdf
event)
ulticritic
wrote:
> On Jul 30, 3:19 pm, Sam TH <sam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Chaco <astamba...@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> > > The trend of high finishing teams ranking very low on the spirit
> > > scores is not new. I bet it's at least partly because it's easier to
> > > give someone a high spirit score when you just beat them, and not so
> > > easy when you've just lost, especially when scores are reported
> > > directly after games, when the winners are on a high and the losers
> > > are dejected and possibly angry. I would hope that we are all mature
> > > enough to judge our opponents' "spirit" separate from the final
> > > outcome of the game, but given that intentional fouling and such does
> > > occur at various levels of play, maybe not.
>
> > The last two years at open club national, the team with the best
> > spirit score finished in the bottom half, the team with the second-
> > best spirit score finished second, and the team that won the
> > tournament was bottom 3 in spirit ranking. That doesn't suggest much
> > correlation to me, especially in view of Colin's comments about the
> > Colorado team.
>
> > sam th
>
> with the actual conduct of teams. it seems like teams that take
> winning seriously and are at something like the college championships
> to win the title game are probably going to be slightly less friendly
> than teams who know they are going to finish towards the bottom. i
> personally don't see a problem with that. i think spirit rankings are
> always going to be skewed so that the goofier, friendlier, last place
> teams will come out on top. is that a problem either? no. or, i guess
> it depends how much you care about spirit rankings, and how much you
> care about what team's actual conduct on the field is. furthermore, i
> know you weren't trying to specifically call anyone out, but having
> seen them play several times, and playing them once this year, i think
> carleton generally showed good spirit and plays a pretty clean game.
> there doesn't appear to be anything despicable going on in the
> carelton-mamabird final to me, to say that just seems hyperbolic and
> counterproductive. they certainly have better spirit than wisconsin,
> and in general seem to be pretty classy guys trying to excel in their
> sport. maybe that's just how i see it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ahhhh, to think back and remember what ultimate was like prior to
spirit ranking and coed comp. still ref-less, but boy, those were the
days!!!!!
ulticritic
> played college ultimate recently. I wasn't trying to call anyone
> out. I think it's probably true that in 2007, the high spirit score
> for the Van Buren Boys (#1 in spirit) was earned in a different way
> than the high score for Bravo (#2). But I think it's probably also
> true that Bravo's high score, and Sockeye's lower score that year, are
> probably related to their conduct on the field, rather than to their
> winning percentage, since neither one lost before the finals. Again,
> I'm not trying to call out Sockeye (a score of 4 is, I assume, quite
> good), or anyone else. But I think it's worth noting that some teams
> that finish well have high spirit scores, and some that finish in a
> similar place have much lower spirit scores.
>
> sam th- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
fyi people, highly spirited (boy scoutish, if you will) sports comp
results in LOUSEY ratings. people like their sports entertainment to
have an edge to it.......just sayin
ulticritic
> Concerning marking fouls, I really think it depends on the players and
> what kind of mutual understanding they have.
well that allows for quite the variable, dosent it? wouldnt it just
make more sence to rely on one unified (and IMPARTIAL) crew of
officials to have that "mutual understanding" rather than two opposing
competetors?????? THERES THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems like in a lot of
> cases -- especially at the elite level -- players are willing to allow
> physical contact if their opponents will do the same.
GUESS WHY
----------------------------------------------------
More crudely
> put: "you can foul me if I can foul you." Now, that is not to say that
> players are out there hacking the shit out of each other and not
> calling it, but I definitely think it has become acceptable to bump
> and throw some body-weight. Whether or not this is right, I believe,
> is a matter to be settled by the players and not by the UPA.
why not just allow refs to settle it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I am all for it. Especially at the more competitive scene.
> As long as you're not being a dick or playing recklessly, minor
> contact shouldn't be a big deal.
but who decides when one is being a dick or playing recklessly? istn
it the opposing players responsibility to do that?
ulticritic
> Edgar's post is proof that you can talk about problems with self-
> officiation reasonably, even if your conclusion is that refs are the
> way to address these problems. Toad, a lot of people, including those
> who disagree with you, would be much more inclined to engage in a
> discussion on the matter if you could approach it with more thought
> and restraint.
>
> On Jul 30, 1:32 pm, "edgar.grah...@gmail.com"
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh well, their loss..........as the merrits of refs is SO FUCKING
OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!
ulticritic
> On Jul 30, 4:47 pm, MD <themongodogw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fury won Nationals and came in first in Spirit Rankings in 2008. Their
> > score of 4.7 is pretty impressive, given the scores of their games:
> > 15-5, 15-2, 15-3, 15-2, 15-7, 15-9, 15-9, 15-12. That means almost all
> > of their opponents gave them 5's, in both blowouts and (relatively)
> > close games.
>
> All of those games were blowouts. The finals were just two separate
> halves where different teams did the blowing out. It's easy to be nice
> when you're crushing/being crushed.
WORD
Fatty
> On Jul 30, 12:03 pm, "3jane." <q3j...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I still can't believe that people think intentionally fouling on the
> > mark is an acceptable strategy.
>
> hows that????.....as it has been a strategy ever since. If so fat
> so.....one would think that it IS acceptable.
>
> No matter what you think about SOTG,
>
> > that is just lame.
>
> but wats really lame is that those that find it unacceptable dont find
> the rules that enable such behavior as being unacceptable.
>
> If it's an observed game, the second time someone
>
> > does that should be a misconduct and the third should be an ejection
> > and the team should play with 6, you should not get to replace someone
> > who was ejected for cheating.
>
> thats the stupidist rule amongst the MANY stupid rules in soccer. but
> this does point to the fact that observers should become a standard in
> ALL ulti comp
I agree that playing the rest of the game 1 man short (a-la soccer)
would be ridiculous; but how about the rest of the point? Not for just
any foul but for repeated and/or flagrant fouls, might be a good
deterent. Another suggestion - thrower advances 10 yards; fouling
marker stays where he is (if too close to the endzone, marker has to
back up 10 yards).
Suggestion - a separate set of rules for competitive ultimate, that
doesn't automatically make every player a cheater. There isn't a
competitive player out there that doesn't break this simple rule:
-Fouls (II.E): It is the responsibility of all players to avoid
contact in every way possible.
No it's not. Observers don't call the game this way. Players don't
play or call the game this way.
Brian Buck
different levels of the game (in pretty much every aspect), and this
is why Pennsbury's name was mentioned. 3.8 or whatever the spirit
score amounted to is a low score for a high school team to be given
(and we should demand better). That being said perhaps I did use the
names a little bit unfairly to start a thread that I think is very
important, and I apologize for that.
I hope the overall point was taken that regardless of what you think
about refs and regardless of how they get worked into the sport (and
even once that happens if it does) it is still incumbant upon every
player to not only play the game the right way, but to make sure that
your teammates do and make sure that every team in your section/region
is playing the right way.
I think I'm just tired of the days when shitty calls can decide games
(maybe its that I play co-ed now, maybe its that we have a great
region), I don't know but I am starting to notice that the majority of
the games I play in are against teams that play very hard (and I'm
sure train the same way), but also are a ton of fun to play. Perhaps
by fun I just mean they play the game in a respectful manor, and play
the game the way it is designed to be played for the rules to work as
best they can.
Even with this as the case we can become better as a community, and it
is about personal and peer accountability.
PS not interested in the type of Ballin' Knappy
mentioned....that..ah......thats something else.
Bbuck
BJones
appropriate
to have a similar number of allowable fouls. Since ultimate teams are
so HUGE then i'd say a 3 foul per player limit would be adequate. "
I'd rather see yardage penalties, I don't want the best players
leaving the game.
huckItorFUckit
I still think its a little pointed to say that this score is too low
for a HS team, and that we should demand better. As Kyle previously
pointed out, we (Pennsbury) could of simply been given five 4's and a
3. Is this really too low? I imagine there are many scores which
become inflated when you are playing 7th-16th place backdoor games,
some that don't even maintain competitiveness. On the other hand,
Amherst did recieve a high score, but they also do have a better
repuatation then us. Personally, I think A LOT more of what people
expected to see, then what they actually saw, went into those spirit
rankings. Traditionally, Pennsbury has been a very rough around the
edges team, but this year we maintained great relationships with out
opponents (with the exception of 1 or 2, as any team has), and played
spirited and FAIR ultimate throughout. To be honest, this post leaves
a pretty shitty taste in my mouth. Here I was expecting to get some
praise outside of the youth world, only to endulge myself in a bunch
of posts from people who weren't there telling the world how my team
carried themselves. So three things for the record:
1) Pennsbury was legit. We didn't cheat. We didn't play dirty. We
weren't unspirited. In fact, we probably cared more about frisbee then
just about any team in the country.
2) I played on the Juniors team that won Gold, AND the Spirit award at
Worlds in '08, and I can say it was not only one of the proudest
moments for me, but it also took some of the most disciplined players
in the world to be accomplished. It will remain rare for as long as
there are spirit scores, because it is simply an art to maintain raw
emotion and competiveness as well accomplishing prime-time spirit.
3) We need refs. Stop denying it, we just need it. Its the solution to
everything.
Isaac Saul #19
Pennsbury Falcons Ultimate '09
Roots of Rhythm
3jane.
> for a HS team, and that we should demand better. As Kyle previously
> pointed out, we (Pennsbury) could of simply been given five 4's and a
> 3. Is this really too low? I imagine there are many scores which
> become inflated when you are playing 7th-16th place backdoor games,
> some that don't even maintain competitiveness.
Ah, the old people don't like us because we're such a great team ploy,
I haven't seen that one in a while.
>On the other hand,
> Amherst did recieve a high score, but they also do have a better
> repuatation then us.
Do tell, why do you think that is?
> Here I was expecting to get some
> praise outside of the youth world, only to endulge myself in a bunch
> of posts from people who weren't there telling the world how my team
> carried themselves.
I don't care much about high school Ultimate and have never heard of
Pennsbury, but I do know that if a lot of people think you're a dick,
there's a decent chance you're a dick.
> 1) Pennsbury was legit. We didn't cheat. We didn't play dirty. We
> weren't unspirited. In fact, we probably cared more about frisbee then
> just about any team in the country.
Man it takes balls to write something like that. You applying to
Florida after you get of high school? I think they'll like your
attitude.
ulticritic
Rob DeVoogd
>
> Man it takes balls to write something like that. You applying to
> Florida after you get of high school? I think they'll like your
> attitude.
Wow, aren't you impressive, 3jane! Takes a big man to talk RSD shit
to a high-schooler who, I thought, stated his case pretty well.
This thread started off badly when Brian apparently pulled the names
of some teams out of his ass sight unseen. His original post read
like a longer version of those people who keep saying 'no offense' or
'with all due respect' even as they're saying offensive and
disrespectful things. I hate that. But he has since apologized. And
you're worse anyway.
I don't know anything about Pennsbury. I don't know Isaac. My only
familiarity with either of them comes from this thread. And you've
already admitted that you know nothing about them either. But I saw
nothing in Isaac's post that would provoke the type of ad hominem you
busted out. His team was singled out unfairly. I think that's
clear. You have no knowledge of the individual spirit scores that led
to the 3.8 aggregate. It could have been all 5's and a 1. But quite
apart from that, I'm sure even a beacon of spiritual hope like you has
played in games that got chippy. Would you bet that those teams would
have given you a '5' anyway? the 1-5 rating system tends to extremes
(especially, I would guess, in high school). And it's ridiculous to
say that a 3.8 is a 'bad' score without knowing what went into it.
Pennsbury played hard, they competed, and they won. If they had
received '1's' across the board, maybe you would have some basis for
complaining. But they didn't. And you don't.
And god, what a pathetically absurd statement... 'if lots of people
think it, it's probably true.' 28% of Republicans think Obama is not
a US Citizen. That's millions of people. A majority of educated
people think jam bands suck. I and my friends think 3jane is an
idiot. Are all of those true?
Who has said Pennsbury is a team of dicks? Do you know anyone who has
said that? You just said you know jack-shit about them.
God, the stupidity. It burns.
Throw
Toad, you ain't no Barry Champlain...i mean eric bergosian....i mean
barry champlain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvC5A3K-0fY
Hank & Co.
www.thisisultimate.com
Reggie Fanelli
just fucking battle!
Reggie Fanelli
> that is just lame. If it's an observed game, the second time someone
> does that should be a misconduct and the third should be an ejection
> and the team should play with 6, you should not get to replace someone
> who was ejected for cheating.
---so....you're saying that the third time that someone grabs
someone's arm while they are trying to huck....grabs the arm and yanks
it and tackles the thrower...that he should be tossed from the game?
sure...maybe.
but a ton of people think that 'intentional fouling' on the mark...is
simply repeated hard, brick wall, unforgiving marks.
THOSE are not "intentional" fouls...those are repeated hard fouls.
ya can't be throwin' folks out of games or even TMFing them for just
having a hard mark.
ya can't.
Reggie Fanelli
> I think a big reason for this is players taking themselves too
> seriously. They don't realize that this is just ultimate, and that no
> one outside of the small ultimate community cares (or even remembers)
> who wins these championships.
---jack...don't be a fucking dork!
you say 'don't take yourself too seriously, you play ultimate'
that is fucking queer.
it's your life......
it's like saying, don't take driving seriously.
or...don't take your job seriously.
or...don't take you family seriously.
whatever it is....if it's in your life....take it seriously.
ulticritic
>
> And god, what a pathetically absurd statement... 'if lots of people
> think it, it's probably true.' 28% of Republicans think Obama is not
> a US Citizen. That's millions of people. A majority of educated
> people think jam bands suck. I and my friends think 3jane is an
> idiot. Are all of those true?
I think only the last one can be proven to be true.
ulticritic
why is it that every time i turn around i'm in your hear peter?
ulticritic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6i4wD2-_fw
all i know is that if someone was handchecking me the way the guy in
the red shirt is handchecking the guy in the back of the stack in this
first segment his arm would be black and blue (if not broken) by games
end.
Now if it were a refereed sport in which this was happening then i
would simply inform to ref to be on the lookout for illegal handchecks
from # whoever. THEN if nothing was done about it i might retaliate
on my own but i would be doing so knowing full well that my
retaliation might be the only act seen and penalized by the ref.
where as in ultimate i can retaliate unfettered.
Of course if there were observers present i'd simply keep calling the
foul until a tmf was assessed or until he stopped handchecking me.
BUT, If i had my choice i'd prefer a ref be present so that he could
detect such illegal play to begin with, make an active call with a
tangible penalty that goes towards an individual foul limit that would
in turn act as a strong deterant to further inequities and nip it in
the bud. which is probably why each and every sport in this great
world of our uses this same active 3rd party system to enforce the
rules.
why ultimate has completely missed the boat on this very elementary
aspect of sports is beyond me. must be that "save the world thru
ultimate" jesus complex them spirit zealots got goin
ulticritic
>
> 3) We need refs. Stop denying it, we just need it. Its the solution to
> everything.
>
> Isaac Saul #19
did you get this guys name and contact jimmy?
huckItorFUckit
Nothing in there about old people, or how good our team was. Simply
reiterating that we could have recieved our spirit score of 3.8 with
good spirit. I thought that was pretty simple?
I don't think its ballsy to say we cared more, we won. We put in the
time and work, and we had a squad of players that was just plain
obsessed with the game.
I think ARHS has a better reputation because their teams of the past
were more well behaved then ours, I think thats also? pretty simple? I
wasn't trying to hide anything there.
I'm willing to bet there are alot more people out there who think you
are a dick, then people who think I'm a dick. But you keep posting
like a douche, I think your fan base is growing.
Isaac
3jane.
> are a dick, then people who think I'm a dick. But you keep posting
> like a douche, I think your fan base is growing.
I don't know pal you sure sound like a self defensive dick to me,
maybe you do have something to be defensive about. Have fun with the
boner check boys.
Knappy
ultimate family. Got to watch him play a bit with Roots recently. Like
his brothers, he's quite good.
Let's all learn this simple lesson about RSD: if you come on here to
call out a team's spirit, and you have never seen that team play or
watched the specific game(s) in question.....you're the asshole, not
them.
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
so its settled........3jane is now the official rsd dick/asshole
ulticritic
hey isaac, what % of high school players and/or "elite" hs players do
you think agree with this contention?
>
> 3) We need refs. Stop denying it, we just need it. Its the solution to
> everything.
>
> Isaac Saul #19
> Pennsbury Falcons Ultimate '09
> Roots of Rhythm- Hide quoted text -
huckItorFUckit
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not really sure, but I'd be willing to bed that more players
coming up from the youth level and going into College etc. view refs
and a must in ultimate. I have also heard a lot of elite level youth
coaches saying that we need refs, probably because the lack of refs
effects the youth game the most. (lack of knowledge of the rules,
cheaters new to the sport, etc)
I
huckItorFUckit
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bet**
ulticritic
> coming up from the youth level and going into College etc. view refs
> and a must in ultimate.
"you cant fool the youth"(peter tosh)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have also heard a lot of elite level youth
> coaches saying that we need refs, probably because the lack of refs
> effects the youth game the most.
then it must be serindipitus that they would also be the easiest
division to accomodate WITH refs!!!
now all these proponents of refs needs is some proper representation
from their upa administrators. Its unfortunate that gettin proper
representation from them would be the BIGGEST hurdle to gettin these
wants and needs met.
3jane.
> Bet**- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
BTW I want to apologize for what I wrote earlier in this thread and
the way it was interpreted. I did not mean to imply that Pennsbury
was intentionally fouling on the mark-how could I know as I wasn't
there-and I certainly did not mean to call out anyone's spirit.
Pennsbury is obviously a great team and I wish them plenty more Ws in
the future.
ulticritic
care for a side dish with that plate of crow, jane?
ulticritic
> coming up from the youth level and going into College etc. view refs
> and a must in ultimate.
theres my source colin
Knappy
"BTW I want to apologize for what I wrote earlier in this thread and
the way it was interpreted. I did not mean to imply that Pennsbury
was intentionally fouling on the mark-how could I know as I wasn't
there-and I certainly did not mean to call out anyone's spirit.
Pennsbury is obviously a great team and I wish them plenty more Ws in
the future."