Two observational observations from Tally Classic
CapnGeetch
modifications. Two huge modifications used were active travel calls
and active stall counts, both by the observer.
Regarding the active stall: it was awesome. Other than a slightly sore
right shoulder, as I always managed to count with the same arm, I feel
this moved the game along quite nicely. In the games I observed, not a
single player got stalled out. A good majority of the players still
counted anyway, and the good majority of those counting were
definitely fast. Most were on 7 before I got to five. From a player
perspective, I feel I could mark MUCH MUCH better if I didn't have to
count the stall. It's one less thing to think about that gets in the
way of holding the force and/or shutting down that throw. From an
observer perspective, it was not a difficult adaptation and I would
certainly vote to include active stalls through the series if given
the chance. Plus over time, it would give me quite the muscular
definition in my shoulder and help me win over the ladies in my sexy
spring break tank tops.
Regarding the active travels: the upper open bracket at Tally Classic
seldom travelled, at least in the games I worked. I called 4 all
weekend and two of those were from the player not setting a pivot foot
in bounds after their momentum carried them out on a throw. The other
two were big slides on hucks. I was looking for it and couldn't see
it. Well done players and coaches on these teams for teaching,
practicing, and playinr with proper fundamentals and footwork.
With that said, teams in the womens bracket travelled A LOT. I don't
know what it is with lady ultimate, but I easily see 4-5 times the
number of travels per game. And I'm not talking about the centimeter
travel. I'm talking about the drag the pivot around the mark to gain
an advantage travel. I have spent a lot of time working with the
Seminole Ladies on their pivots and keeping that foot down. As a
player, I firmly believe it is easier to throw a good pass when your
foot is anchored. I coach this way. Of course some of the girls still
travel, but at least they are conscious of it and don't get upset if
it's called. Additionally, I see players on other teams who travel on
many routine short range throws. When forced to hold a pivot due to a
travel call or two, they suddenly can't throw as good of a pass. My
hypothesis: no one in practice ever makes them hold their pivot foot
so they're not used to throwing with one.
I don't mean to single out womens teams on this point. I see plenty of
inexperienced and/or B teams that have a bad case of travelitis. The
difference I see is that as open players mature and start playing in
bigger games, they tend to hold their pivot better. This is due to a
number of factors ranging from better practice habits, playing teams
that are more willing to call violations, etc. Regardless, it seems to
take care of itself to an extent. I haven't really seen the same pivot
maturation from supposedly more experienced lady flatballers in the
last two years, during which I've watched a lot of womens ultimate
while helping out with the FSU ladies.
My solution to the travel conundrum: more observers making active
travel calls. I would even like to see the push toward Frank's desire
for travels to be turnovers, as in basketball. If you up the penalty
for a violation, players will naturally focus more on this fundamental
in an effort to avoid a turnover.
My suggestion to other coaches and captains: it starts with you. Teach
your players better fundamentals and practice habits. Model better
throwing habits! Every time a player throws, s/he should have a pivot
set--with the exception of the third point of ground contact, a
greatest attempt, or probably the pull. When you throw on the pretty
stretch of grass in front of the library, you should have a pivot set.
Tell your throwing partner to call travels on you if you do so that
you're aware of it. I swear that over time, you can throw farther with
a good pivot set because you can push off of that good base of support
and get a lot of torque on that big backhand.
That's all I've got for now. The weather was also wonderful in
Florida's capital for the first full weekend in a while. Enjoy your
respective spring breaks without rules.
Drew out.
Reggie Fanelli
> right shoulder, as I always managed to count with the same arm,
UOA Observers shall alternate arms with each stall count.
CapnGeetch
In subsequent events I will do my darndest to follow protocol
accordingly.
Reggie Fanelli
> > > right shoulder, as I always managed to count with the same arm,
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > UOA Observers shall alternate arms with each stall count.
>
> In subsequent e
vents I will do my darndest to follow protocol
> accordingly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---there are two reasons to count with alternating hands each time you
begin a count...
1-for the reason you stated....one arm hurts like crazy after a day of
chopping.
2-alternating arms shows the sidelines and fans and press box
personnel and coaches that you're doing something out there. if you
opt to NOT watch the action, but instead WATCH the observer
exclusively, you should be able to know exactly what's going on on the
field. that is to say....the observer should be telling the story of
the game with their mechanics. When you see the arm chop switch, you
know just by watching the observer, that a pass has been completed and
there's a new thrower.
if you chop with the same arm constantly......it just looks like
someone out there swinging their arm around.
tell the game's story.
Slade
idea. Observers feel pressured to make an immediate ruling
even if they can't see the play. We had one occasion where
an observer ruled a disc down incorrectly because he didn't
have the best perspective on it, and another occasion where
it looked like the disc touched the ground on a mishandled
pull and the nearby observer did not make a call.
It's easy for one of the observers to be screened from
making a ruling, and ideal positioning is more unpredictable
than in/out calls. It takes an extra 10 seconds for players
to briefly stop play and discuss, while observers can signal
each other to decide who had a better perspective.
Active calls on everything else was awesome, even if some of
the observers were not very experienced yet. I also thought
that the officiating improved steadily throughout the
weekend.
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
thefan
once again. the idea is not to "get every call right". the idea is
to take the calls out of the players hands since they are partial one
way or the other and give the calls to an impartial arbitrator. they
don't call every single call correctly in any other sport either and
you don't see the NFL or NBA lobbying to let the players make the
calls.
stop nit picking every little thing to fight what so many players
think is an improved experience. the game will move faster and in the
end, all of the calls will get ironed out nice and even. look at the
scores from the UOA events. even in a mudfest all the games but one
went to 15, not the cap. the game is moving faster, there is more
playing and less discussing calls.
Tooth
with not counting the stall. Going into the weekend I planned to count
stalls anyways but over the weekend I stopped and it is really nice to
just concentrate on only your mark.
As a thrower I was also surprised to find I liked not hearing the
stall count every second. It let me process more of the game around me
not having it yelled in my face and I think most people have that
internal feeling where they've been holding the disc too long and its
time to dump. My only problem was that for disc space and double team
violations you have to call them loud enough for the stalling observer
to hear, and I'm so used to just saying it loud enough for the mark.
Colin
> Regarding the active travels: the upper open bracket at Tally Classic
> seldom travelled, at least in the games I worked. I called 4 all
> weekend
Yes, this is exactly what I saw at the Stanford Invite. For both
divisions. From a field of teams very likely to be at Nationals. On
Saturday, players called their own travels. There were very few
travels called and very few travels occurred. There was no need for
observers calling travels. No bad travel calls, no overlooked
significant travels.
On Sunday at Stanford, observers called travels. Far more travels
called in the games I saw. More stoppages of play. As a player, this
is not what I would have wanted.
How did the games go at the Tally Classic where the players called
their own travels? Were there any? I'm interested specifically in
what games you are using as your standard for comparison against the
Tally Classic. Were they observed? Were any TMFs issued? What
exactly was the problem in those games?
> From a player perspective, I feel I could mark MUCH MUCH better if I didn't have to
> count the stall. It's one less thing to think about that gets in the
> way of holding the force and/or shutting down that throw.
Weird. I have never felt this way at all. And I have not struggled
to count with a legal count. Maybe I am just a super-player when it
comes to accomplishing simple rules-related tasks. Are you one of
those guys who always has to buy the new golf clubs because that's
what's going to improve your game?
"Man, I keep getting broken. If only I didn't have to count the
stall, all those breaks would have been pointblocks." I understand
that's not exactly what you said, but it's in a similar vein and I
really strongly disagree that having to count the stall has a large
detrimental impact on the quality of marking. There have been decades
of good markers counting the stall count without any trouble.
Sometimes players forget to count. I don't notice those marks being
extra great.
thefan
there were also decades of basketball without a 3 point line or a shot
clock. but then they changed it to make the game better.
show me a player who keeps forgetting to count the stall and i'll bet
that player wouldn't have had an extra great stall count anyways.
those guys are usually called "newcomers".
CapnGeetch
> When I played at the first 8s in Wilmington I quickly fell in love
> with not counting the stall. Going into the weekend I planned to count
> stalls anyways but over the weekend I stopped and it is really nice to
> just concentrate on only your mark.
>
> As a thrower I was also surprised to find I liked not hearing the
> stall count every second. It let me process more of the game around me
> not having it yelled in my face and I think most people have that
> internal feeling where they've been holding the disc too long and its
> time to dump. My only problem was that for disc space and double team
> violations you have to call them loud enough for the stalling observer
> to hear, and I'm so used to just saying it loud enough for the mark.
I was instructed to deal with double teams by signaling with arms
wide, stopping the stall count, and not resuming until the infraction
was corrected. Disc space, on the other hand, did have to be vocalized
as well as the subsequent violation call. I ran my self all over the
backfield trying to stay close enough to the thrower to hear it. I was
more surprised at the LACK of disc space calls by the thrower. I heard
fewer than 5 all weekend and there were definitely some teams that
were all over the thrower. One theory I have is that the throwers
could've been less pressured to adjust the count due to the fact that
they finally had 10 full seconds to throw, as opposed to the typical
7.5 given to them by the marker. Also, under this system, the only
marker warning type violation the thrower has to worry about is disc
space. There's no trying to figure out if it is a fast count, double
team, or disc space, etc. More brain left to think about ultimate
instead of using it up on the marker's actions.
And, as I mentioned on the Stanford thread, getting rid of the ground
tap is a GREAT idea when observers are involved. If the marker is set
and the thrower has a pivot the count should start. It gets the disc
in more quickly which leads to more throws and more ultimate. Plus, no
one leaves with lower back strain or unnecessarily taco'd discs due to
excessive bending over and wacking the disc on the ground.
Drew out.
Colin
> On Mar 8, 1:40 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 8, 8:22 am, CapnGeetch <magic...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> There have been decades
>
> > of good markers counting the stall count without any trouble.
> > Sometimes players forget to count. I don't notice those marks being
> > extra great.
>
> there were also decades of basketball without a 3 point line or a shot
> clock. but then they changed it to make the game better.
What are you talking about and how is that relevant to my point, which
is that there is no evidence to suggest that markers are struggling to
mark effectively because they have to count the stall. Some players
still count the stall under active stalls. Are those players marking
MUCH, MUCH worse than the players not counting?
And who is opposed to changing the game TO MAKE IT BETTER?
Disagreeing with whether a change makes things better does not make me
opposed to making things better. That's just a sort of ad hominem
straw man bit that you guys parade around when you don't want to
engage in meaningful discussion. Garbage.
> show me a player who keeps forgetting to count the stall and i'll bet
> that player wouldn't have had an extra great stall count anyways.
> those guys are usually called "newcomers".
Oh, so this mysterious effect of improved marking when not counting
only applies to veterans? I don't get it. It all sounds like baloney
to me.
alansmith175
only remember 3 specifically, two of which were pivot feet
set incorrectly coming back in bounds. There were more than
that I'm sure, but probably not much more. But I was
watching finals, and began to wonder if we observers were
seeing everything on the field, and resolved to watch the
next point for travels specifically. As soon as I started
watching, I saw travels on consecutive throws, one of which
was a huck that either scored or came close to it.
It's by no means scientific, but it's clear to me that
observers probably miss more calls than we think. In order
to come to a thorough resolution on this question, we'd need
all kinds of crazy study that we don't have the resources
for right now. I like having observers, but I'm not sure
what the boundaries for their responsibilities should be.
thefan
you said:
> > > Sometimes players forget to count. I don't notice those marks being
> > > extra great.
so i said"
> > show me a player who keeps forgetting to count the stall and i'll bet
> > that player wouldn't have had an extra great stall count anyways.
> > those guys are usually called "newcomers".
in direct response.
i even copied you the first time. so i am replying directly to your
questioning that counting the stall distracts the marker. maybe it
does, maybe it doesn't. i don't know. i don't care.
but, in response to your questioning of that other fellows logic by
saying that you don't notice the counts of markers who forget to count
being extra great that perhaps that is because the players that forget
to count are just about always the newer inexperienced players, since
by your own admission, we have been counting the stall ourselves for
decades.
does counting have an effect on the quality of the mark? i would tend
to think no. but that's not the point at all. it's not why the
active stall count exists at these events. it is so that every stall
count is more or less at the same pace. so that throwers don't have
to adjust to that fast count guy and that slow count guy or that
8.9.ten in a second guy but can count on that aspect of the rules
being enforced equally for all players. it's the same argument as the
travel call. take it out of the hands of 35 different individuals who
are playing the game and trying to win and put it in the hands of 2 or
3 impartial observers with no vested interest in the games final
outcome.
so maybe you're right. these particular calls aren't there to "make
the game better" but to make the game FAIRER across the board." which
of course, makes it better.
Tim-Haymaker
Players have repeatedly stated that not having to count the
stall makes it easier to mark. I've never had an observer
count the mark for me, but I suspect I'd agree. It's one
less thing to do. Nobody is arguing that marks are poor b/c
they have to stall.
And you shouldn't denigrate anyone's use of logic while
refusing to acknowledge that the Fan was being reasonible in
pointing out that players who forget to count the stall are
generally new players who aren't going to impress you with
their mark regardless.
You also seem to have intentionally taken offense to the
Fan's statement about the 3 point line and improving the
game. His point seemed to me be that just because people
have successfully marked for decades while stalling doesn't
mean that making a change won't improve the game. A
completely legitamate response to your point. You're coming
across as opposed to change, especially while sticking to
this idea that marking won't be easier if we don't have to
count the stall.
You've accused them of failing to use logic while failing to
use it yourself. You accuse them of intentionally
misunderstanding you, while you seem to intentionally
misunderstand them.
Furthermore, all your points about observers losing their
voice and potentially calling too many travels and that the
TMF system should be able to deal with the cheaters all make
it seem like you simply don't trust observers with the added
duties or you think it's too hard on them. Someone has to
take on the responsiblity of officiation, and I think Mike
et al are doing a decent job of showing that while it's more
work, the quality of the product (the actual game) is higher
when the observers take on more.
Yes, the TMF system is a workable framework, but if more
active observers results in a faster game with athletes more
focused on playing and it's easier to tell as a fan what's
going on, I think the burden is on you, not Mike, at this
point to show it's a bad idea. Your arguements to this
point, haven't succeeded.
I have no horse in this race. None whatsoever.
-Tim
Colin
> so maybe you're right. these particular calls aren't there to "make
> the game better" but to make the game FAIRER across the board." which
> of course, makes it better.
Drew specifically stated "I feel I could mark MUCH MUCH better if I
didn't have to
count the stall." My response is that that's baloney and is not an
argument that should be presented in favor of active stalls. There
are other better arguments. I think you agree.
As I said in the other thread, I like that the active stalls mean
every player gets a legal count. But there are serious issues with
implementation.
And it would be easy to create a strong discincentive for fast-
counting, which could also make the game fairer, giving every player a
legal stall count and punishing players who choose to count too fast.
The side effect of giving TMFs for this stuff is that they would give
more teeth to the TMF implementation, deterring bad behavior in other
areas, too.
Mitch
> does counting have an effect on the quality of the mark? i would tend
> to think no. but that's not the point at all. it's not why the
> active stall count exists at these events. it is so that every stall
> count is more or less at the same pace. so that throwers don't have
> to adjust to that fast count guy and that slow count guy or that
> 8.9.ten in a second guy but can count on that aspect of the rules
> being enforced equally for all players. it's the same argument as the
> travel call. take it out of the hands of 35 different individuals who
> are playing the game and trying to win and put it in the hands of 2 or
> 3 impartial observers with no vested interest in the games final
> outcome.
putting a consistent stall in place (emphasis on consistent 7-10)
basically eliminates stall violations from the game. In ~14 games
with active stall, I've called exactly 1 stall. In ~60 games with
player called stalls, I've been asked for a ruling on probably 30+
stalls. If the argument against active travels is the additional
stoppages, wouldn't active stall be good if it decreases stoppages?
thefan
True. the contested stall is itself a stoppage, and while your sample
size is sure not to pass the muster of anyone who wants to argue it,
it certainly has a ring of common sense to it.
the other advantage of having the observer count the stall as opposed
to the TMF's is that after the 2nd TMF you have another, likely longer
stoppage as the disc is reset to the center of the field and moved
forward or back or what the hell eve, that's more than just a
stoppage. now both teams have to move to wherever, get set, disc in.
certainly one of those is worth a couple of normal everyday
"stoppages"
Peterson
> As I said in the other thread, I like that the active stalls mean
> every player gets a legal count. But there are serious issues with
> implementation.
Just noticing your comment above -- huh?
Serious issues ? Voice damage ?
Are you trying out for American Idol soon ?
What are these "serious issues" you speak of ?
Peterson
Slade
idea is
to take the calls out of the players hands since they are
partial one
way or the other and give the calls to an impartial
arbitrator."
Incorrect. Flipping a coin after every throw to determine
whether each pass is up or down would also take the calls
out of the players hands, and fail to accomplish our goal.
"they
don't call every single call correctly in any other sport
either and
you don't see the NFL or NBA lobbying to let the players
make the
calls."
There are also far more passes in an ultimate game than in a
football game, hence more chances to make mistakes. Also,
there is a stoppage of play when making these up/down
calls.
"stop nit picking every little thing to fight what so many
players
think is an improved experience. the game will move faster
and in the
end, all of the calls will get ironed out nice and even.
look at the
scores from the UOA events. even in a mudfest all the games
but one
went to 15, not the cap. the game is moving faster, there is
more
playing and less discussing calls. "
Nope. even one incorrect call per tournament is not worth
the 45 seconds per game you save. It's all about tradeoffs.
Active stalls, active in/outs, active travels, are all good
because they improve the QUALITY of decision AND speed of
decision. Active up/down is only one out of two. We reach
better decisions with referred up/down calls.
Reggie Fanelli
> idea.
---CONTINUE?
when did it start being a bad idea?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We had one occasion where
> an observer ruled a disc down incorrectly because he didn't
> have the best perspective on it,
---WHOA!!!!
you're saying that the observer ruled the disc down BECAUSE he didn't
have best perspective??????
that's grounds for removal from the event!
did he hate your team?
why?
naw....i'm joking.
what do you mean BECAUSE he didn't have best perspective?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and another occasion where
> it looked like the disc touched the ground on a mishandled
> pull and the nearby observer did not make a call.
---i often wonder, after a game....why was i even out there, what did
i do to help that game....it's like i wasn't even there.......
and then i stop and think.....man....what if i wasn't out
there.....imagine the arguments and debates and philosophizing that
would have been going on.
....it's better to have that observer out there to keep the game
going.
boom...hustle up....disc in.
observers are human....but they are going to do their best to call a
good clean fair game.
Reggie Fanelli
> the observers were not very experienced yet. I also thought
> that the officiating improved steadily throughout the
> weekend.
---AWESOME!
thefan
no. more passes, yes. not more contested up/down calls. think about
how many up/down calls are in a normal game of ultimate. not that
many
and, no one is saying that players still can't play with that beloved
"spirit" if the observer missses a down disc that you caught, put it
down. shit i've done that in games without an observer for miles and
no one on the other team said a word until i put the disc down. the
defender said "Timeout?" "no, down" i said. and i'm an asshole. you
could still do that with an observer out there.
now lets say you don't want to do that. but someone calls "Down".
now we have a discussion and the call goes to the very same observer
that you don't want making the call in the first place. so he still
doesn't get your precious call right. AND, we've wasted 45 fucking
seconds. instead, we could either be playing ultimate on offense or
defense without that wasted time with every athelete on the field just
out there playing and not trying to call calls but respecting that the
observer has got this under control. all i gotta do is cut, or play
D, or what ever. but i don't have to watch every disc into every
receivers hands just in case it touches a blade of grass and the
observer misses it.
any observer has as much chance of missing an up/down call as any
other of those calls that happen in a split second, BUT they don't
have a vested interest in the outcome of the calls. and by giving
them that responsibility, the players can just play and let the
observer worry about that other rules stuff.
thefan
> Nope. even one incorrect call per tournament is not worth
> the 45 seconds per game you save.
man, if there was only one missed call per tournament that would be
the most accurately called tournament in the history of ultimate.
and, i hate to break it to you bud, but even at the very highest level
of ultimate, there just ain't that much riding on it that you want to
set up the rules so that no one gets "even one incorrect call per
tournament"
geez, i bet you use the term univers point too don't you.
not even one incorrect call per tournament is worth . . . are you
serious. you know we're talking about ultimate here right? how much
was the bonus handed out to the players that won Worlds last year? a
cool mil. few hundred grand?
man, i've got to write that down. not even one incorrect call per
tournament. hilarious
Slade
moment and evaluate two things.
1. Do active up/down calls result in more or less accurate
decisions than an observer-mediated decision?
2. How much extra time does this take?
I believe that it is worth spending a few extra moments to
make the right call, and that it becomes more important as
the stakes get higher (e.g. elimination games), and as the
quality of play increases. Fewer turnovers makes each
turnover more important.
Football agrees with me- and uses instant replay to evaluate
close calls. We don't have instant replay, but a slower
decision is generally a better one (in this case).
If (hypothetically) you could reduce error by one turnover
per game, how much time would you be willing to spend doing
it?
I would not be willing to spend an hour to make one more
correct decision in a game, but I would certainly be willing
to spend an extra 45 seconds.
Slade
think about
how many up/down calls are in a normal game of ultimate. not
that
many"
Thefan, you're right about this. My bad. I would say there
are about 2-4 throws per game that are close enough to
elicit discussion. Less often than football.
"now lets say you don't want to do that. but someone calls
"Down".
now we have a discussion and the call goes to the very same
observer
that you don't want making the call in the first place. so
he still
doesn't get your precious call right."
Cool. let's tackle this step by step. For a call to be made
under each system:
Active Up/Down:
1. Observer who is responsible for call has to make an
immediate decision.
Referral System (on close up/down call:
1. No call is made OR at least one defender thinks disc is
down
2. The receiver convinces the defender the disc is up OR
agrees and puts disc down OR defers to observer.
3. Observer 1 has a good view of call and makes a decision
OR defers to other observer.
4. Observer 2 makes a call.
Do any decisions get made at step 1? How about step 2? Would
we agree that (nearly) all decisions at these two steps are
going to be correct? Do I want observers to make a decision
if we get to step 3? Yes! That's what they're there for! At
that point, the observers (as a unit) are the people most
likely to make the right call.
Active up/down gives us no accuracy advantage, and only
minimal time advantage. Like you said yourself, these events
only occur a bare handful of times in a game, and get worked
out in less than a minute.
"and, i hate to break it to you bud, but even at the very
highest level
of ultimate, there just ain't that much riding on it that
you want to
set up the rules so that no one gets "even one incorrect
call per
tournament""
Sorry, I meant reducing error by one call per tournament.
Slade
1. Experimenting with active up/down calls was not a bad
idea. I didn't have an opinion until I tried it. I don't
think keeping it is a good idea. More importantly, I don't
think it has to be a package deal with the rest of the
(good) observer upgrades.
2. He made the wrong call BECAUSE the catch was shielded
from view by the receiver's body.
Reggie Fanelli
> the 45 seconds per game you save. It's all about tradeoffs.
> Active stalls, active in/outs, active travels, are all good
> because they improve the QUALITY of decision AND speed of
> decision. Active up/down is only one out of two. We reach
> better decisions with referred up/down calls.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---slade....come on...don't be silly.
you're an UNrealist
you're missing the "tradeoff" i fear.
Reggie Fanelli
> decisions than an observer-mediated decision?
--have you ever played in a game where someone says the disc is
UP...when it was really and obviously down....and they weren't going
to change their mind?
Kyle Weisbrod
I'm on Ben's page here. I like active travel and stall calls but am
not so much a fan of active up/down because I think players will call
it more accurately. Why not have quick/immediate referral for up/down?
Colin
That's a good argument for doing something to address the stall count
problems. It's a good argument for active stalls. It's also a good
argument for providing a strong deterrent for fast counts. Let's get
past this "let players continue counting exactly as they are now with
no changes" straw man that you guys are implying.
Reggie Fanelli
> from view by the receiver's body.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---huh?
well...this doesn't really say that the disc was down.
was the disc down?
Reggie Fanelli
> not so much a fan of active up/down because I think players will call
> it more accurately. Why not have quick/immediate referral for up/down?
--i'm sure that somewhere someone might use quick rulings on up/down.
the UOA is going to continue with active up/down.
and we're not going to be ashamed to 'send it back' if we can't make a
call.
and we're going to hustle to have best perspective and make do our
best to make the right call.
either way....no debate....call made...resume play.
boom city
you are aware that baseball umpires incorrectly call catch or no catch
occasionally at the Major League level, right? for some reason, no one
is advocating the outfielders and batter get together after close
plays and discuss what the outcome should be. go figure.
Slade
disc is
UP...when it was really and obviously down....and they
weren't going
to change their mind?"
Yes. Are my observers going to be confused by a brief player
discussion? Or will they step in and rule after a few
moments if players can't agree?
Slade
What tradeoff am I missing? I'm talking about a
time/accuracy tradeoff. How much time would you, personally,
be willing to spend to get one extra call right?
Oldandslow
to get in position to see where a foot lands. It's easy to
fix that spot and get to a place where you can sight cones
to see if that spot is in or out. (or, better yet, see
where it is relative to the line if your fields are lined)
I think Active line calls are a benefit to players.
I'm not sure about active Up/Downs. I think that a quick
referral to the observer is a good system as it puts up to
16 player's eyes on the play. What I don't like about
Active Observer rulings on up/down is it's too easy for the
2 observers to be shielded from the catch/attempted catch.
With Active calls you can have 12 players who didn't have a
perspective on the catch, while the catcher and his D saw it
up, and if the Observers didn't have a view then it goes
back. Without Active Ruling this play doesn't stop, much
less become a "Do-Over".
That's one of the nice aspects of ultimate (in my opinion)
-- the players, who with 28 eyes on the field have more
chances for best perspective, get to use that perspective in
order to facilitate the best outcome. (Toad, here's where
you say they all cheat with their calls, I'll save you the
time)
Line calls, sure. Easy to make the right call. Up/down?
Much tougher to make the right call and I think you get
better odds of the right outcome occurring if it's a
referred call. Even if it takes 10-20 seconds of discussion
2-3 times a game. (But more likely once a game or less in
my experience)
Colin
Yep, all those yardage penalties are really going to slow things
down. Because those players are just going to decide to just eat the
yardage penalty and continue on with the behavior that's earning them
TMFs. And when they persist in that behavior, they're going to start
getting PMFs and they're going to keep that up, too, until they get
ejected or their team forfeits the game. Good rebuttal, thefan.
Let's get rid of the off-sides and time penalties, too. Those slow
things down way too much, especially when one team insists on going
off-sides and taking the yardage penalty 20 times per game. Because
that's what they do, right? Just keep on accepting a huge competitive
disadvantage, rather than changing their behavior?
You're living in fantasy land. A fantasy land where the only thing
that can be right is something said by you, Mike G, or one of his
cronies. And in this fantasy reality, you can expect players to
behave however irrationally is necessary to support your position.
But I'll leave you to it. Enjoy.
Reggie Fanelli
> What tradeoff am I missing? I'm talking about a
> time/accuracy tradeoff. How much time would you, personally,
> be willing to spend to get one extra call right?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---quicker than it took to read your note.....but i'm gonna hustle
beforhand and be ready to rule on the up down instantly before some
diving athletes stand up and give me some questioning looks
Reggie Fanelli
> Line calls, sure. Easy to make the right call.
---i sugest we try quick referal on in and out, too,
maybe the observer should wait to hear the thoughts of 14 athletes
prior to makng a tough line call....
psych!
Reggie Fanelli
> You're living in fantasy land. A fantasy land where the only thing
> that can be right is something said by you, Mike G, or one of his
> cronies. And in this fantasy reality, you can expect players to
> behave however irrationally is necessary to support your position.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---ROARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!
MORE TMFS will fix the world!!!!
i can't control my games!!!!!
more tmfs
come on chronies!!!!
more tmfs
Reggie Fanelli
```more tmfs and more offside calls!
that's the answer!!!
Reggie Fanelli
> that can be right is something said by you, Mike G, or one of his
> cronies. And in this fantasy reality, you can expect players to
> behave however irrationally is necessary to support your position.
> But I'll leave you to it.
---in MY PERSONALY Fantasy Land......i'm actually out there hosting
events and observing every single game in the event.
i'm taking surveys and getting player feedback about how we are
calling games.
the games in my fantasy world all seem to be running smoothly with no
problems that you're trying to suggest there should be.
in my games...TMFs are super few and far between....and never
associated with lame cheater calls.
ulticritic
>
> Football agrees with me-
hows that? when football uses fully active refs to activly call
EVERYTHING. I mean, they sure dont agree with you enough to the point
where they are allowing players to be involved in the "call
initiation" process, SO HOW CAN THE AGREE WITH YOU IN THE LEAST?????
----------------------------------------------------------------.
and uses instant replay to evaluate
> close calls.
not on every play though. most of em are just called right then and
there by officials.
-----------------------------------------------
We don't have instant replay, but a slower
> decision is generally a better one (in this case).
then why dont the refs make "slower decisions" of every other call?
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If (hypothetically) you could reduce error by one turnover
> per game, how much time would you be willing to spend doing
> it?
great point....because "time management" is yet another dynamic that
players TOTALY SUCK AT. And not only do you suck at it you also
intentionaly manipulate it by using stalling tactics to drag out games
that are on the verge of gettin capped......which is completely
unspirited. yet another area where officials create a more spirited
(and fair) environment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I would not be willing to spend an hour to make one more
> correct decision in a game, but I would certainly be willing
> to spend an extra 45 seconds.
well, those 45 seconds can easily turn into a 5 minute ult-
debate.....AND turn into a tit for tat call fest.
ulticritic
>
> I'm on Ben's page here. I like active travel and stall calls but am
> not so much a fan of active up/down because I think players will call
> it more accurately. Why not have quick/immediate referral for up/down?
i'm just curious why you upa types dont want an immediate referal on
ALL CALLS? maybe you arent opposed to it but the rest of the upa
admin sure seems to be. why is that? and do you, kyle, have any
inside info on how and/or what the process and "rule options" will be
that will be tabled for this years nationals will be this year?
Slade
like having observers to mediate between teams. I want the
game to keep moving. I think it's worth spending a few extra
seconds to make a better call, but I understand where you're
coming from as well- game speed is important too.
Ulticritic: No.
Tim-Haymaker
Here you are again accusing Mike G. et al of faulty
arguments you yourself employ. Yes TMF's will change
behavior, but so will observers making more active calls.
Players will choose not to act inappropriately to avoid
getting TMF's, but they'll also choose not to travel etc if
the observers are calling them on it. No player if he knows
his throw will count if it's a turn but be brought back if
it's caught will continue to travel.
Observers will do a better job of calling travels
consistently b/c they are impartial. Players will play
better for not having to watch the other team's feet to
prevent them getting away with egregious traveling. How do
TMF's improve game play? How do they make it easier to
perform at a higher level?
More TMF's and more active observers are both a means to the
same end...improve the quality of ultimate by enforcing the
rules. The active observers have the added bonus of taking
non-playing responsibilities away from the players, which
should give them more bandwith to play.
You can make an arguement that TMF's are easier, but you
haven't really. You'd be welcome to try to argue that TMF's
are better for ultimate (not easier but better). You
haven't done so yet.
-Tim
Colin
> Colin,
>
> Here you are again accusing Mike G. et al of faulty
> arguments you yourself employ. Yes TMF's will change
> behavior, but so will observers making more active calls.
Not the same. The behavior changed by TMFs is immediately changeable
by the players. It's not something engrained that they need to
physically untrain or something that happens accidentally because
people are off-balance.
> Players will choose not to act inappropriately to avoid
> getting TMF's, but they'll also choose not to travel etc if
> the observers are calling them on it.
Saying the choice to not call travel and to not travel are identical
or analogous is incorrect. That's somewhat like saying the ability to
not cause picks and the ability to not call picks are the same or
analogous.
> More TMF's and more active observers are both a means to the
> same end...improve the quality of ultimate by enforcing the
> rules.
Yes. Agreed. And it would be worth discussing the merits of each.
> You can make an arguement that TMF's are easier, but you
> haven't really. You'd be welcome to try to argue that TMF's
> are better for ultimate (not easier but better). You
> haven't done so yet.
I have done so. I've done it many times before over the past few
years. It's well-documented. Nobody has ever refuted the ease of
implementation. I've also indicated the many ways that it is better.
Anyone interested can e-mail me directly or search around a little.
There was some stuff on the UPA strategic planning blog on this a
while back..
-Colin
thefan
but you're the one who wants to start handing out all these TMFs. no
one ever suggested, least of all, me that the TMF's wouldn't
eventually convince the players to stop calling bogus travel calls.
likely, just as you suggest, faster than it will result in players
travelling less. but, the first two TMF's are warnings. so there are
two stoppages that include a brief referral period before the observer
makes a ruling. two stoppages that wouldn't happen in the first place
if the observer were making the active travel calls/non call. then on
the third one, we have to get the frisbee from wherever the pass was
completed to and reset everyone on the field after moving the disc to
wherever it went. two stoppages that weren't necessary at all, and
now each time is a yardage penalty. so, the players who like to call
travels quit calling travels, of course they will. but now you've had
at least 3 stoppages that never needed to be there, caused by the
defense calling bad travels and destroying the flow and often
advantage of downfield players.
>
> Let's get rid of the off-sides and time penalties, too. Those slow
> things down way too much,
yep, getting rid of time penalties will dang sure speed things up.
where do you come up with this stuff. i mean, sure offsided penalties
slow things down, but how is taking away a penalty for intentionally
taking too much time going to slow things down? really, answer that.
i have a rule in place that penalizes a team for intentionally
stalling a game. i remove this penalty and the game moves faster
because . . ?
>especially when one team insists on going
> off-sides and taking the yardage penalty 20 times per game. Because
> that's what they do, right? Just keep on accepting a huge competitive
> disadvantage, rather than changing their behavior?
nope, they will change their behavior. and lose the advantage they
had by being offsides.
i'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but yes, you totally
made sense just then by being a sarcastic prick and completely
bastardizing what i said.
>
> You're living in fantasy land. A fantasy land where the only thing
> that can be right is something said by you, Mike G, or one of his
> cronies. And in this fantasy reality, you can expect players to
> behave however irrationally is necessary to support your position.
> But I'll leave you to it. Enjoy
you know what i like about my fantasy land? i like that i don't have
to believe that the people in a game best suited to make rulings are
the very people commiting the offenses and trying to win the game.
Tim-Haymaker
consistently, but learning how is a good thing. For
nationals this summer, if your team qualifies for nationals
but travels so often as to disrupt your offense if it was
called, then you deserve your competitive disadvantage.
Yes, TMF's are easier but not better.
Not calling bogus travels and not traveling are anologous in
that both are human behaviors. You argued that if there is
a punishment (TMF's) for bogus travel calls then players
will not choose the punishment but rather change their
behavior. I'm pointing out that if observers call travels
consistently, then players will also change the behvior with
the added bonus that there will be more uniformity and no
opportunity for cheating bastards to make a horrible call
that changes the outcome of the game at the last second
which TMF's can't prevent.
Arguments made in the last few years are not as irrelevant.
Mike G's work is new and gives us data and experience to
point to. TMF's are a good, well thought out solution.
Some of us think Mike G's solution is better. The merits of
TMFs vis a vis active observers is the question at hand, not
whether TMF's would work if implemented aggressively.
Besides, this is hardly an either or situation. More active
observers would still have the ability to give a TMF when it
was called for. Active observers likely will mean fewer
TMF's will be needed (fewer opportunity for bogus calls,
fast counts, etc).
-Tim
-Tim
boom city
it seems like handing out TMFs will not only eliminate the
illegitimate travel calls, but a fair amount of legit ones as well.
why would a player ever call a travel in your system, colin? you risk
a TMF on the hope that the observer saw the same infraction you saw.
so in your system, to find out what the observer saw, and determine if
it was a travel, you have to risk a TMF. in the active travel system,
there is no risk required by the defense to have ALL travels called.
how is this in any way an issue? on one hand, in the active travel
system, you can have all travels called, and by definition, zero
illegitimate travels called. in the TMF heavy system, you may have
zero illegitimate travels called, but it will most likely be at the
expense of legit travels being overlooked.
Colin
Yes! This is the kind of stuff I like to see. Reasoning! Analysis!
Narrowing the issue to the relevant points.
So you've said that having active travel calls will help players
improve and not travel. That's true. If we had a system-wide
implementation of active travel calls, then the tiny fraction of teams
that play observed games with any regularity would improve from that.
I agree that players would adjust. Over time.
But the situation at hand is teams voting on a system that will only
be implemented at Nationals (if done similar to 2009). There will be
no adjustment period. Teams will find out at Nationals if they have a
player who frequently makes minor travels that his teammates overlook
or do not notice. In that context, as a player, I would not put the
quality of my Nationals experience at risk.
Effectiveness of the TMF system. The more different things you
subject to TMFs, the stronger the system gets -- the more likely teams
get 2 TMFs and really crack down on their own behavior to avoid a
yardage penalty. You correctly point out that it is less effective
against late-game cheating if the game has been totally clean up to
that point. But the observer still overrules the call and still gives
a TMF at that time. If TMFs are being given aggressively and a team
is trying to use late-game cheating as a strategy, the likelihood of
getting 3 TMFs is still fairly high.
I have identified potential problems with active travel calls. Those
problems do not exist with just TMFs. And aggressive use of TMFs
solves the problems cited in support of active travels, while also
strengthening the effectiveness of TMFs in other settings (marking
fouls, sideline issues, fighting/swearing/spiking and other
babysitting stuff, etc.).
Empirical evidence. Mike G does not present himself as an unbiased
distributor of accurate information. Maybe he is. Great that he's
doing experimentation. But I'll take his personal self-praise with a
grain of salt. Hard to get the pros/cons of the issue when all he
ever says is that the UOA is the best and everything is great with no
negative side effects ever. Additional empirical evidence is
available from the various UPA experiments, the Queen City Tune-Up and
some other events.
For me, the question at hand is how teams going to Nationals should
vote on experimental observer duties to be implemented at Nationals.
The travel-related question is whether the benefits of active travels
are outweighed by the downsides and whether those same benefits could
be accomplished through the use of TMFs without the downsides.
TMFs are a good, well-thought out solution that has been gathering
dust on the shelf for the past ten years. Rather than trying to rush
some new experiment into place with all the implementation issues and
accompanying downsides, we ought to just use the TMF system
aggressively to accomplish the purpose that it was designed for -- to
deter bad behavior.
Colin
Why? Just make sure you're sure of your call. That's what you should
already be doing anyway. The observer will have a good view. They'll
see the travel you called. If they didn't see the play, they won't
make a ruling. What's the problem? Also, I'm advocating aggressive
use of TMFs, not automatic TMFs.
> why would a player ever call a travel in your system, colin? you risk
> a TMF on the hope that the observer saw the same infraction you saw.
Yeah. Good. Fewer stoppages of play. You call a travel when you
know there was a travel and you think, for whatever reason, that it is
important to call. If you think it's important to call every travel,
then every time you recognize a travel (and are sure), you call it.
But players will no longer be calling travels when they think that
maybe they recognized what might have been a travel. This is all
positive stuff.
> so in your system, to find out what the observer saw, and determine if
> it was a travel, you have to risk a TMF.
Yes. Making calls is about recognizing infractions, being sure about
it, and making the call. When your opponent disagrees, the observer
is there to back you up. It's not about rolling the dice and hoping
the observer saw what you think might have happened. If you're making
calls that you're unsure of, then you deserve TMFs. By the cartload.
Because you're one of the players who is slowing down the game for
everyone else (not you personally, but some fictional player who is
behaving like that).
> in the active travel system,
> there is no risk required by the defense to have ALL travels called.
Yeah. Great. As a player, I do not want to have ALL travels called.
I thought we've already gone over this. Players who want ALL travels
called should vote for active travel calls. Didn't I already say
that? But before voting, players should think about the consequences
of having all travels called and think about whether that is what they
really want or not. I have my own view of what is best, but I just
want to make sure that the players voting are actually voting in a way
that accomplishes whatever it is that they want.
> how is this in any way an issue? on one hand, in the active travel
> system, you can have all travels called, and by definition, zero
> illegitimate travels called. in the TMF heavy system, you may have
> zero illegitimate travels called, but it will most likely be at the
> expense of legit travels being overlooked.
Yes. That's not a problem for me. Fewer stoppages. A nice,
continuous game where players get to just play. That's not the end of
the world to me. As a player, I do not care if some of my opponent's
travels go uncalled. I already choose not to call many travels
because I simply think it is unimportant and I would rather not stop
play all the time. That's also why I call "disc space" instead of
"foul" sometimes. And why I don't call "disc space" and then
"violation" on every single marker that ever marks me.
The issue here is about how you like to see the game of Ultimate
played. I could legally grind any game of Ultimate to a halt by
making tons of calls. That's not how I like to play, though. And I
certainly would not vote to request that some guy in orange replace my
discretion and make a bunch of calls that I would not have called
myself. I'm ok with missing some significant travels and ignoring or
missing some minor travels. But that's me.
Again, it's a matter of weighing the costs and benefits. How many
extra travels do you think are going to get called? Does it make a
difference if it's the UOA calling it, or if it's those crappy UPA
observers that are going to be the ones actually implementing this
stuff at UPA Nationals? How important is it to you that every single
travel gets called? How important is it to you that you get to play
continuously with minimal stoppages?
I know where I stand. I encourage other people to at least think
critically about this and consider all of the various factors that are
at play while figuring out where they stand.
-Colin
boom city
> Yes. Making calls is about recognizing infractions, being sure about
> it, and making the call. When your opponent disagrees, the observer
> is there to back you up. It's not about rolling the dice and hoping
> the observer saw what you think might have happened. If you're making
> calls that you're unsure of, then you deserve TMFs. By the cartload.
> Because you're one of the players who is slowing down the game for
> everyone else (not you personally, but some fictional player who is
> behaving like that).
in your system, its not about being sure of your own call, its also
being sure that someone else is sure of your call as well. do you see
how that can get complex? and honestly just kind of weird. how many
times on an ultimate field have you seen two people with opposing
views, both sure they are correct? even with something as basic as an
up/down disc, players can be 100% sure and disagree.
>
> The issue here is about how you like to see the game of Ultimate
> played. I could legally grind any game of Ultimate to a halt by
> making tons of calls. That's not how I like to play, though. And I
> certainly would not vote to request that some guy in orange replace my
> discretion and make a bunch of calls that I would not have called
> myself. I'm ok with missing some significant travels and ignoring or
> missing some minor travels. But that's me.
>
your point about grinding the game to a halt is silly. every referee
or umpire in every sport could do the same thing. those sports manage
to produce a product that is not only enjoyable to play and watch, but
actually quite successful on a business level as well.
i think what we are getting at here is the ultimate community in
general is in love with being different than mainstream sports, and to
hold on to that identity, the community is willing to come up with all
sorts of crazy referral systems and side rules to avoid the straight
forward and common sense decision to have observers make the calls.
you are right that there are two ways to solve the travel problem, why
is it that ultimate thinks the best solution is to complicate things
rather than make it simpler?
Mitch
I see merit in both the TMF and active call approach.
TMF advantages:
1) calls still left in players hands, ie, SOTG approach, don't have to
rely on an observer to make a good call (ie, no one to blame but
yourself for a missed call)
2) deters cheating overall (potential penalty for cheating)
disadvantages:
1) players may be timid to call travel since they have to be on the
same page as the obserever for the specific call. No matter how right
you are, if the observer misses the call...TMF.
2) cheaters can cheat if they have warnings to "burn". Bringing back
two huge hucks for scores without penalty can still be pretty
significant.
3) calls left in the hands of those with the single worst vantage
(marker)
-------------------------
Personally, I think #1 disadvantage is problematic. If you believe in
your call, you should be able to make it. Sorting the cheaters from
the incorrect honest call may be difficult. Travel can be considered
a "special" call in that the effect can be large if the call is
wrong. The second is also large...limiting cheaters to two instances
is still two instances of cheating.
To me, 3 is still the key. Markers call the majority of travels.
Markers usually have crappy perspective for your garden variety pivot
foot-drag travels.
-------------------------
Active call advantage:
1) all travels are called by someone with good (or at least better)
vantage
2) no bias/completely bogus travel calls
3) if a travel is missed, it's only missed, no potential additional
TMF
disadvantages:
1) potential for more calls (ticky tack travels)
2) a missed call can influence a game and it would be outside the
players' control
3) establishing consistent standards within the UPA system may be
problematic
-------------------------------
Overall, I think the first disadvantage for active is a non-argument
for nationals. In the many games played under active travel, even for
the non-elite teams, there just aren't that many travels being
called. At least not really anymore than non-active games. Certainly
less than stereotypically "chippy" games. Seems everyone expects more
to be called, but they aren't. 2 is what it is. What's the
difference between a game influenced by a big missed call versus two
big bad calls? Heck, with the TMF approach, you still have the bad
observer call potential if a good travel is called and missed...bad
TMF call results. unlikely, but could be huge. i think you resolve
three by telling observers to call all the travels they see. again,
at nationals, it shouldn't be a significant increase over IRS or
status quo, and could be a decrease.
There is no perfect system. There is only differences in the plusses
and minuses. I personally favor active travel calls over TMFs merely
because markers have a terrible vantage point to call it, so put the
call in the hands of the better perspective. While the whole "bias"
argument has merit, it is dwarfed by the simple fact that markers have
crappy vantage to begin with. Active travel removes bad travel calls
and adds missed good ones while TMF's only remove the bad ones, well
maybe most of them since you get warnings.
I'm happy to use whatever system the teams vote for in Madison.
Interestingly, I'm guessing of the various options on the table, the
one system that hasn't been experimented with will likely be the
automatic TMF setup. While Colin is correct that TMF's in general are
underutilized, I disagree that an automatic TMF for a bad travel call
is merely a system that has been on the shelf. I see that as a
variation of what's been on the shelf. Active's been done, and lots of
survey data exists to gather the players' opinions (via UOA). IRS was
used last year. Whether people like Mike's "my way is the best, i'm
the best in the world, end of story" style of presentation or not, the
UOA has done the right thing in experimenting with the setups,
surveying players, and publishing results. A variety of teams have
played at their tournaments and filled out their surveys, so there is
real information there to evaluate.
Mitch
UPA/UOA observer
thefan
> Empirical evidence. Mike G does not present himself as an unbiased
> distributor of accurate information. Maybe he is. Great that he's
> doing experimentation. But I'll take his personal self-praise with a
> grain of salt. Hard to get the pros/cons of the issue when all he
> ever says is that the UOA is the best and everything is great with no
> negative side effects ever. Additional empirical evidence is
> available from the various UPA experiments, the Queen City Tune-Up and
> some other events.
you know what is emperical evidence? the surveys that Mike and Jason
pass out at each of their UOA events. did you peruse that emperical
evidence? the average response to almost every question was at or
above 3.5, most above 4. each question basically asking "how much do
you like this change on a scale of 1-5?"
that's empircal evidence. or do you suggest that the survey results
have been tampered with?
you know what the drawback to the TMF system is?
1. as you yourself said, there lies the possibility of late game
cheating.
2. and i've been over this, the first two TMFs are free. so as soon
as you start aggressively handing these things out, not automatically
but aggressively, there are two stoppages of play that are completely
unnecessary without penalty. plus, you don't want them handed out
automatically, so maybe the observer says to himself, i'll let the
first one or two slide as honest mistakes. now there are 4
unnecessary play stoppages. all because you don't want the observer
to actually call this violation of the rules. you want him/her to
watch for it and be ready to make a call on it, but you don't want
them to make a ruling on it unless it is called already.
3. what is the penalty to the defense for calling a bogus travel on
the goal line they are defending? i mean, you can't really give up
yards to the offense right? do you wait to see if the offense scores
and then give the offending team the disc deep in their own endzone at
the other end of the field? that sounds exciting. nothing could be
a more exciting way to start a point than to have both teams walk to
the other end of the field and for a static set up.
of course, should the travel calls on the goal line effectively
disrupt the offense that there is a turn. or, hell, there's just a
turn, then we get a static set up at midfield. also exciting. and
completely fair to the offended team. Sorry the other team called
three garbage travel calls on you while you tried to get a dump swing
going across the goal line, stopped your cutters and allowed the
defense time to rest, reposition a bit. here is your consolation
prize, you can have the disc at midfield.
there's tons of drawbacks to this TMF idea of yours that easily
outweigh just letting the observer do their job. you are arguing that
the game flow will suffer from extra travel calls, but you want to
solve this by giving out a couple of static restarts after a couple of
stoppages for travels that are garbage calls
i mean, you have players from UOA events chiming in that there weren't
a lot of extra travel calls. you have the observers from these events
saying the same thing. but your argument is that they are wrong, you
know what will happen, and your idea is better.
you know what the nationals bound teams could do? they could
scrimmage and have some of their players, or better yet, some alumni
or local club players observe. they could run around and call travels
whenever they see them. there's a month between regionals and
nationals. surely enough time for the most elite college teams in the
country to learn how to play ultimate without breaking the rules.
colinmcintyre
I think an automatic TMF setup is stupid. I think it's
stupid in the context of spikes that hit players. I think
it's always stupid. And I have never advocated for
automatic TMFs for anything. I think that was a Steve
Courlang suggestion a few years ago. That's one big
disadvantage that I think you have mistakenly attributed to
the aggressive use of TMFs that I have advocated.
Secondly, you say that the cheating call brings back the
huck under a player-called system. Are you assuming that
the observer, who had a better vantage point than the marker
just missed the call? That's a big assumption. If you're
going to assume that, then you should also assume that the
observer will be missing valid travels on hucks that the
defenders will now be unable to call under an active travel
system. So chalk that up as a disadvantage of the active
travel system.
This "players will become timid about calls" is kind of a
crappy argument from the people saying that players are
making bad calls and we need to make a change to address it.
Fewer calls is a good thing. The people accusing me of
being a status quo guy (note, Mitch has not said this)
should reexamine their protectiveness of players to
/irresponsibly make calls with no risk of a TMF. "But if we
have aggressive use of TMFs, when I think I might have
smelled a travel, I won't be able to call it without risk of
a TMF!"
If you're the marker and you have a crappy vantage point,
then you shouldn't be calling travels. If players are
calling travels irresponsibly, then they should be penalized
and made timid about making calls. What's the problem with
fewer stoppages? If it's such a close call that you can't
be sure of it, then you shouldn't be making it anyway AND
it's not a big deal for it to go uncalled.
"Getting away with" two instances of cheating. Again, you
assume that the observer didn't overrule the bad calls? How
are they getting away with anything? Also, the aggressive
use of TMFs should apply to fouls, sideline issues, travel
calls, stall counts and baby-sitting issues. If we only
have two instances in total of any of these issues, then
we're doing great.
Side note. Without the aggressive use of TMFs, have fun
with all the travels called on throwers who get knocked over
by the marker. Yes, that's a travel. All that active
travels does ensures that that gets called.
I think you have inadvertently fabricated two disadvantages
of the TMF system (bringing back two hucks without penalty
and risk of automatic TMFs) and improperly analyzed the
issue of marker's having a bad view and being left with the
ability to call travels. They are not left with the
unchecked ability to bring back throws. They are left with
the ability to roll the dice against a yardage penalty and
an observer who is dedicated to making them lose that gamble
(if that's what it is).
In my experience observing, there are significantly more
travels occurring than go called as a general rule.
Obviously it varies between games. As a player, I would not
want to roll the dice with my Nationals experience to find
out if I'll be involved in one of the heavy-travel games.
-Colin
colinmcintyre
> call, its
> also being sure that someone else is sure of your call
> as
> well. do you see how that can get complex?
Yeah. Being sure the guy with the better view of it than
you didn't see the opposite of what you thought you saw.
That's no so bad. When I play a game and have my first ever
travel call overruled, I'll report back on how complex it
is. Don't hold your breath.
> how many times on an ultimate field have you seen two
> people
> with opposing views, both sure they are correct? even
> with
> something as basic as an up/down disc, players can be
> 100% sure > and disagree.
Plenty. There are all kinds of players who don't know the
rules, don't know their responsibilities when making calls,
don't really know what the call their making looks like in
action, outright cheat, or improperly claim to be 100%
certain. It happens all the time. And it's unacceptable.
> your point about grinding the game to a halt is silly.
> every
> referee or umpire in every sport could do the same
> thing.
> those sports manage to produce a product that is not
> only
> enjoyable to play and watch, but actually quite
> successful on > a business level as well.
No, it's not silly at all. But your comments here are
totally irrelevant as far as my point, which is that calling
every single little infraction is not the best option. Do
you understand that that is the standard set for UPA active
travel events?
You're running thin on valid points. Not unlike thefan.
boom city
> Yeah. Being sure the guy with the better view of it than
> you didn't see the opposite of what you thought you saw.
> That's no so bad. When I play a game and have my first ever
> travel call overruled, I'll report back on how complex it
> is. Don't hold your breath.
>
so as an observer, how would suggest a player become SURE they are
making calls the observer agrees with? call a travel and hope? and if
a player calls a travel and the observer overrules and hands out a
TMF, how does the player know it is because he made a poor call or if
he saw the play differently than the observer? you seem to think its
as easy as, just be right. the problem with that is, you cant JUST BE
RIGHT, when there is another level of opinion above yours. but you
know who can JUST BE RIGHT? the observer, by definition.
>
> No, it's not silly at all. But your comments here are
> totally irrelevant as far as my point, which is that calling
> every single little infraction is not the best option. Do
> you understand that that is the standard set for UPA active
> travel events?
>
> You're running thin on valid points. Not unlike thefan.
> --
come on. give me some credit. ill try to give you some. im sure you
have watched basketball before right? all referees are trained to call
all fouls. the same fouls. but somehow some refs call differently than
others. do basketball games just grind to a halt when a ref is trigger
happy on the whistle and both teams are over the bonus before ten
minutes has passed in the first half? no, the athletes recognize that
minor contact will result in a foul, and they adjust accordingly. just
like when an observer calls a travel on each of the first five points
of an ultimate game, the throwers will adjust and be more disciplined
with their pivot foot, stop rounding the corner after receiving a
pass, and basically just be more fundamentally sound when the disc is
in their hands. thats the kind of ultimate i would like to watch.
i dont think i ever had an abundance of valid points, just the
experience of playing sports other than ultimate for the first 21
years of my life and what i would like to think is a good dose of
common sense. either way i THINK my point is that choosing to do
anything besides allowing observers to actively call travels is
unnecessarily complicated and a takes the sport backwards instead of
forward. but what do i care really, ill probably golf more than i play
ultimate this summer anyways.
colinmcintyre
> SURE they
> are making calls the observer agrees with? call a travel
> and
> hope? and if a player calls a travel and the observer
> overrules and hands out a TMF, how does the player know
> it is > because he made a poor call or if he saw the play
> differently > than the observer? you seem to think its as
> easy as, just be
> right.
Well, I somehow have managed to just be right in all the
games I've played with observers, which is a substantial
number. I know the rules well. I know what I need to see
in order to call a travel. I need to see the release. And
I need to see the pivot move first. And if I don't know
that I saw both of those things, I don't call a travel. I
honestly do not understand what is complicated about this.
Problems only arise if players want to call travels more
aggressively than they are able to reliably perceive them.
And that behavior, in my view, warrants a TMF.
Now, observers being wrong. That's another issue. If you
think observers are unreliable and cannot be trusted to
implement an enforcement system to deter misconduct, that's
something new. Perhaps a bigger issue. I am a big advocate
of more extensive observer training. Very little is done to
ensure that observers are actually good at making the
correct calls on plays. But if the observers are good
enough to call all the travels, then in my view, they are
definitely good enough to hand out TMFs for bad travel
calls.
> come on. give me some credit. ill try to give you some.
> im
> sure you have watched basketball before right?
I give you some credit for at least trying to engage in
reasonable discussion in this post. I don't like watching
basketball. Too many stoppages. Intentional fouls.
Flopping. Whining. It is not fun to watch. I'd much
rather watch a basketball highlight reel.
That said, look what you're comparing. On the one hand, you
have professional athletes who play all of their games under
referees (and have for most of their lives) adjusting to
variations between games in how the referees call things.
On the other hand, you have college kids playing frisbee,
many of whom have never or rarely played with observers
before and most of whom have almost no experience playing
with active travel calls. And these college kids have to
adjust to observers calling travels over the course of one
tournament. Are you really making this comparison?
The question of whether active travel calls would be a good
thing to have at some point in the future is not the current
discussion.
The question here is whether players should vote this year
to have active travels at the tournament that they have been
gearing up for all year long. I think there are enough
negative side effects of the implementation that I would not
vote for it if I were a college player. As a college
player, I would know that Nationals is going to be awesome
if it's played how it was last year. I am going to have a
terrific time. Or I can vote to introduce the possibility
of an observer-imposed callfest to achieve a result that
could be achieved by other methods with fewer negative side
effects.
At this stage in the game, the easy way to address bad
travel calls is with TMFs. The system is in place. People
understand it. Observers know what a bad travel call is.
Give the word and it's done. The side effect is fewer
stoppages and players being timid/responsible in making
calls. There's nothing complicated about that. And it
would push the sport forward, improving game speed, reducing
stoppages, and addressing all the bad behavior that
currently plagues the game sometimes.
Saying that issuing TMFs more aggressively would push the
game backwards is preposterous. I don't know who you are,
but you truly seem to be completely clueless. If you don't
care, then return to your golf and stop diluting the
discussion with your garbage. Not garbage because you
disagree with me. Garbage because of the quality of your
reasoning and analysis.
Colin
> you know what is emperical evidence? the surveys that Mike and Jason
> pass out at each of their UOA events. did you peruse that emperical
> evidence? the average response to almost every question was at or
> above 3.5, most above 4. each question basically asking "how much do
> you like this change on a scale of 1-5?"
Right. "How much do you like this" Real detailed. Very helpful for
this discussion. I don't care how high the UOA's spirit score is.
PMF/TMF system. All that discussion has been had before. Could it be
very effective as is? Yes. Are there improvements that could be made
to it? Yes. Would those improvements have already been made if it
had been used at all in the past ten years? Yes. Are any of these
reason to continue ignoring it, letting it collect dust? No.
> there's a month between regionals and
> nationals. surely enough time for the most elite college teams in the
> country to learn how to play ultimate without breaking the rules.
Good. Then they won't get any TMFs. Problem solved.
boom city
> Well, I somehow have managed to just be right in all the
> games I've played with observers, which is a substantial
> number. I know the rules well. I know what I need to see
> in order to call a travel. I need to see the release. And
> I need to see the pivot move first. And if I don't know
> that I saw both of those things, I don't call a travel. I
> honestly do not understand what is complicated about this.
> Problems only arise if players want to call travels more
> aggressively than they are able to reliably perceive them.
> And that behavior, in my view, warrants a TMF.
>
but have you ever played in a game where you would probably be given a
TMF if one of your travel calls HAD been overturned? probably not
right, cause we are just starting to talk about it. you dont think its
the slightest bit possible that you might not make some travel calls
(which by your own admission were all legit) if you were worried about
receiving a TMF? thats my only point. to me it just makes more sense
to have the observer call the travels. it removes the issues i am
talking about. your solution to travels actually creates my issue, so
i obviously am not a fan of your solution. why cant you admit that
threatening players with a strict punishment may in fact prevent
players from actually calling legit travels?
>
> That said, look what you're comparing. On the one hand, you
> have professional athletes who play all of their games under
> referees (and have for most of their lives) adjusting to
> variations between games in how the referees call things.
> On the other hand, you have college kids playing frisbee,
> many of whom have never or rarely played with observers
> before and most of whom have almost no experience playing
> with active travel calls. And these college kids have to
> adjust to observers calling travels over the course of one
> tournament. Are you really making this comparison?
>
if you look at what i wrote, i referenced a half, which i suppose is
technically referencing college basketball. but since i never played
college basketball, but did play high school basketball, i would say
the comparison is quite applicable to high school basketball. now if
you are asking me if i think 20 year old men can pick up on how
observers are calling travels, and adjust their game to that standard
as well as 15 year old kids can adjust to basketball refs, then yes, i
completely believe that.
>
> The question here is whether players should vote this year
> to have active travels at the tournament that they have been
> gearing up for all year long. I think there are enough
> negative side effects of the implementation that I would not
> vote for it if I were a college player. As a college
> player, I would know that Nationals is going to be awesome
> if it's played how it was last year. I am going to have a
> terrific time. Or I can vote to introduce the possibility
> of an observer-imposed callfest to achieve a result that
> could be achieved by other methods with fewer negative side
> effects.
>
and here again i differ. if i am a college player, and i have great
fundamentals, then i want active travels because i know observers wont
be calling me for any violations. on the other hand, if i know i slide
my foot around to break the mark or to get a little extra on a huck, i
may not be so in favor of having an observing calling everything they
see.
> calls. There's nothing complicated about that. And it
>
i disagree.
> Saying that issuing TMFs more aggressively would push the
> game backwards is preposterous. I don't know who you are,
> but you truly seem to be completely clueless. If you don't
> care, then return to your golf and stop diluting the
> discussion with your garbage. Not garbage because you
> disagree with me. Garbage because of the quality of your
> reasoning and analysis.
>
the golf comment was a joke, kind of. ha ha. so you dont like my
reasoning? every level of athlete, from middle school to professional,
is able to adjust to calls mid-game, but for some reason ultimate
players cant do it? to me, that seems like garbage.
colinmcintyre
behavior would not change even slightly if there were risk
of a TMF. There is zero possibility of my behavior
changing. I would not be at all worried about receiving a
TMF for the travel calls I make. Because I am 100% sure,
like I said. I make legit travel calls.
A legit call is a call based on you recognizing that an
infraction occurred. That's what the rules require. If you
make a call guessing that an infraction might have occurred
and you happen to be right, you may have made a correct
call, but there's nothing legit about it. Aggressive use of
TMFs would deter some of these correct calls, but would not
deter legit calls. And I'm fine with players being timid
about making borderline calls. Fewer stoppages of play is a
good thing.
Whatever level of basketball you're talking about, your
comparison fails in the same way, just to differing degrees.
Players in a reffed sport adjusting to variations in
reffing. Not the same as College Ultimate players adjusting
to having active travel calls at Nationals. Even if having
active travels makes sense for some time in the future (I
probably agree on this), that does not mean it makes sense
for 2010 College Nationals to be played under a drastically
different system than most of the games the teams have
played all year.
No more time left to waste on this.
Oldandslow
been an observer at a couple UPA college events, non UOA,
and I'm not currently observing. As an observer you're not
looking to prevent a break or get a block on a throw so it's
pretty easy to keep an eye both on thrower/marker contact
issues and travels.
I've watched several players (individuals, not
representative of all players) who routinely slid their foot
3-5 inches on each pivot without throwing or being called
for travels. I've also seen quite a few players slide their
pivot more than 6 inches on throws. All this was without
"travel" being called.
The most telling travels are when the player starts with a
pivot next to the line. By the time they throw they can be
over a foot away from the line due to traveling on pivots.
These obvious travels were never called.
Point being, Observers usually have the best perspective to
call travels. If you as a marker see a travel, the observer
most likely saw it too. The question is, do you want the
observer to actively call all the travels they see (which
are many more than the marker sees and usually don't provide
an advantage to the thrower) or do you want to keep the
decision to stop play in the hands of the players?
Reggie Fanelli
> I know where I stand. I encourage other people to at least think
> critically about this and consider all of the various factors that are
> at play while figuring out where they stand.
--i encourge people to think less about it and just do it.
because what we're doing is working.
or.....don't.
keep thinking....and we'll keep doing it and making to sport and
individual games better for everyone.
ulticritic
> > I know where I stand. I encourage other people to at least think
> > critically about this and consider all of the various factors that are
> > at play while figuring out where they stand.
but if people were really that "critical" wouldnt we have refs in this
sport already? its all this slack thinking that has resulted in the
idiotic "player controled" system that has damned this sport for so
long, isnt it?
Reggie Fanelli
> this discussion.
---yeah...we should start wording our questions more like the upa does
in their surveys......
so that ya can't understand what they're asking...with a ton of
different answer options, that when you read your own reply...you're
not even sure how they are answering the question......and so that
when some upa officials get together, they have to spend the first
hour of a meeting trying to determine if the over all response to a
question was simply positive or negative....
uh huh.....
dumb of us to simply ask if an element of the tournament was favored
by the participants....
Reggie Fanelli
~~~~~~~~~~~~
---basketball refs are going to start Ting everyone up who travels and
doesn't think they did.
ulticritic
i would think they would simply give that call to the players and T
them up when they make ierronious calls.........wouldnt that be the
most effecient and effective way to deal with it?
thefan
>
> Point being, Observers usually have the best perspective to
> call travels. If you as a marker see a travel, the observer
> most likely saw it too. The question is, do you want the
> observer to actively call all the travels they see (which
> are many more than the marker sees and usually don't provide
> an advantage to the thrower) or do you want to keep the
> decision to stop play in the hands of the players?
this is weird. i'm seeing Colin make a pretty similar argument. both
stating that the observer has the best perspective, but that active
travel calls will result in more stoppages because players travel too
much. and they both like to use the word "disadvantage" when talking
about them. you want to TMF people for saying someone broke the rules
when they didn't, but you don't really want people to stop breaking
the rules.
why would your argument on a method for enforcing the rules be based
on the idea that the players are breaking the rules and we don't think
they're going to stop?
wouldn't it be better for players to just play by the rules? problem
solved