Cheating...
Kyle Weisbrod
SOTG, Refs, observers, and how to minimize cheating in
Ultimate. It's Science!
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Mark -Mortakai- Moran
> This video should be required watching prior to
> discussing SOTG, Refs, observers, and how to minimize
> cheating in Ultimate. It's Science!
>
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.
> html
Very interesting and informative... thank you for sharing
that.
Reggie Fanelli
> This video should be required watching prior to discussing
> SOTG, Refs, observers, and how to minimize cheating in
> Ultimate. It's Science!
---come on...give us a 2 sentence summary!!!
thefan
the guy talks about his experiments on cheating and how it
varies given adjustments in incentive, social environment,
risk and so forth.
the video brings up some interesting points, some of which
are difficult to relate to ultimate objectively. for
instance, he says that in nearly all experiments cheating
was not limited to one or two egregious cheaters, but
instead to a large group of sort of just fudging cheaters.
he says, "a lot of people cheat just a little bit" and
attributes it to peoples desire to "be able to look at
themselves in the mirror," coupled with the incentive to
cheat for gain. (in his experiments he used money as a
prize so cheating had some reward)
you could argue that in two ways for ultimate in the
ref/observer/SO debate. for instance, player on D guarding
a reciever on a deep huck or whatever. he can cheat by
fouling, the incentive is not being scored on. one person
might argue that with Self Officiation only (no observer or
ref) that he could foul (cheat) and contest the call (if
it's made) and only be cheating a little bit. after all,
the disc will go back to the reciever and the O gets another
chance. thus the defender gets to not feel so bad. Or you
might argue that the defender in a reffed game could foul
(cheat) and if he gets away with it, then it's not on him,
but instead the ref. if he is caught, then nothing lost
nothing gained. in that instance the defender put the
responsibility of fairness on the ref and his conscience is
clean.
any two people on separate sides of the ref/SO debate could
banter back and forth for days without getting anywhere.
HOWEVER, the most important part of the video is hit upon
early:
We have a method to test these therories.
I think it's pretty clear that you can't watch the video and
not take that away from it. there can be no conclusion
without experimentation. this is going on right now with
the UOA. NexGen did some experimentation with some more
active calls.
two sentence summary fail.
new summary:
in order to draw conclusions about any idea or theory, you
must devise some way to test it.
Kyle, by the way i've not forgotten your post on the Seattle
Middle School deal. I will reply in time. But do you, or
the USAU have any plans to test these ideas of ref/active
observer/observer as it/ pure SO? or are you stuck on that
thing he said about the 10 commandments leading to a
reduction in cheating?
stephenghubbard
about any of those things. I feel that a lot of disagreement
could be settled easily if a much higher percentage of
players actually knew what was written in the rules of our
sport.
ulticritic
jimmy nails it again
the first thing i got out of it was the notion of testing various ways
of preventing cheating in ultimate, as did jimmy......but the pro sotg/
player controled meathod wants NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPERIMENTING.
ive suggested many a time that usau/the upa shoud hold events in which
a virety of arbitration meathods were used and have both players and
spectators comment on the comparisons and contrasts of ALL meathods.
one meathod would includ a full on ref system in which players could
over rule refs but only when the refs call favors that players team.
i mean, wouldnt this creat the same result as a player intitiated
calling system......only be MUCH more efficient.......AND bring an
even highr level of honor and piety than the present observer system.
i do wonde how many people would over rule calls that favor their
team.......probably the same amount that EVER call traveling on their
own teammate. which could be thought of as an experiment in itself.
i mean, players ARE allowed to call travel on their own team mates,
right? so why dont ya ever see that? its like players are either
totally oblivious to there own teammates violating that rule or this
is proof that even ultimate players are completely partial, bias and
have no right being envolved in the process.
but i think jimmy was right in that what kyle got out of this was that
when people were told to use an honor system they were more honest.
thing is, is that ultimates honor system has been tainted to the point
in which, as the narrator states, alot of people still cheat a
little. people cout too fast on the mark (but not fast enough to get
"fast cout" called on them), they bump on the mark regularly
too......yet that call goes uncalled most of the time. they double
team on zone d. and dont even get me started on offsides. so while
in the narrators experiment he found that peole cheated less with an
honor system ultimates sotg experiment has been going on so long that
people are taught, thru the culture, how to manipulate sotg rules in
the same way people cheated in said "question experiments".
i would also add that this guy could and should run some similar
experiments with sports/competitive settings as it is my feeling that
that envoronment will bring in many other elements than his money
insentivized experiments dont include.......as there is no direct
competition amopungst those participants.
thefan
ultimate related things but people still don't do it.
Kyle's video is more specifically what sort of factors
affect peoples tendencies to cheat. it does nothing to
"answer" any questions about how his experiments translate
to ultimate and probably raises more questions than have
previously been posed. But the key is that the fellow
tested people. he didn't just hypothesize that this that or
the other will cause people to cheat (such as referees).
there is only one place this testing is being coducted, UOA
events.
does USAU have any plans to conduct any testing of their
own?
Kyle Weisbrod
> Kyle, by the way i've not forgotten your post on the
> Seattle Middle School deal. I will reply in time. But do
> you, or the USAU have any plans to test these ideas of
> ref/active observer/observer as it/ pure SO? or are you
> stuck on that thing he said about the 10 commandments
> leading to a reduction in cheating?
I don't have any plans personally. My free Ultimate time is
focused on coaching and writing about Ultimate. I don't
know about USAU (I'm only currently affiliated with the org
in writing articles about coaching and coaching the US U-20
team).
If there were experiments locally, I'd be more than happy to
ref/observe or just watch and assess.
On the talk itself:
There is a lot of interesting stuff in that video but the
three things that I thought were most interesting and
applicable to the discussion about SOTG/refs/etc:
- When participants were reminded about morality (10
commandments, honor code) they were less likely to cheat
- When participants saw people in their "in-group" cheating
they were more likely to cheat.
- That participants didn't exhibit pure economic rationality
in cheating (i.e. participants didn't cheat more when
rewards went up, punishment for being caught went up, or
chance of being caught went down)
I'm going to try and find it, but I recall there have also
been experiments done where participants are actually
competing against each other and that as trust increases
between competitors, cheating declines (and vice versa).
This seems intuitive, but I think this is also applicable to
the discussion as well.
Obviously, it is harder to replicate these very controlled
experiments on a playing field where there are a lot of
variables at play, but if you were going to, how would you
do it? What would your thesis be? How would you set up
your experiment? How would you control the variables? What
would you expect to see if your thesis were true?
My current thesis is that a system that:
1. Catches the most infractions and eliminates benefits to
the party committing the infractions (this could include
giving them a punishment or a disadvantage)
2. Has a frequently acknowledged "moral code"
3. Has participants that know the rules
4. Has an "in group" culture (i.e. participants consider
themselves part of a larger, inter-team culture)
Will have the least amount of cheating.
In the almost 2 decades that I've been playing the sport, my
view of SOTG/Self-officiating has changed gradually. At one
point (prior to college and working for the UPA) I was a
believer in self-officiation. I've been a fan of observers
for 13 years since I first played with them in 1998, but
over time I've advocated for more and more active observers.
I know that Ulticritic will take that as a sign that he is
correct because my opinion has changed and his has not. In
a preemptive response to his predictable criticism I'll
finish with a John Maynard Keynes quote:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do,
sir?"
Kyle
ulticritic
>
> does USAU have any plans to conduct any testing of their
> own?
well, they did ask the membership about "experimenting with refs" in a
questionare about 5 years ago in which just under 50% of respondants
(of which the lot of them HAD to be some kind of sz's) said they would
be alright with some experimentation.......yet i haven seen or herd of
them conducting experiment 1........and ya GOTTA figure that number
would be MUCH higher currently.
i think they thru us (progressionists) a bone by asking that question
not thinking there would be so many advocates, kinda like when they
asked the college kids if they wanted active travels at nationals a
few years back, and since then they havent broached the
subject........maybe because they were/are affraid there would be even
more advocates which would require that they actually RESPOND to that
want/need.
sure would be nice to get someone from usau to chim in on this
issue.......but they dont even respond to such inquires on their own
web page so it isnt likely they would confront this issue here on rsd
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
thefan
you're right in that it is a lot harder to set up similar
tests for an ultimate game. for starters collecting the
number of cheating actions is difficult and subjective.
however, the first thing i think i would do is try to get a
sample of players who had played under the traditional rules
and under "refs". ideally they would play under the same
conditions and most importantly against the same teams. but
a simple polling of that sample would be the first step.
to improve on that, in an ultimate setting, you would almost
need ESPN style camera coverage whether self officiated or
reffed to catch instances of "cheating". in sports there is
also the question of "intent". the subjects the video spoke
of where cheating on math questions. math is black and
white, right or wrong, cut and dry. in sports it's a bit
more fuzzy. with self officiation in particualar you have
no way of knowing if the bad call was made in an effort to
cheat or out of honest misperception of contact, timing,
whatever.
as far as your thesis, in ultimate, i'll give you that we
have points 2 and 4 covered. we are our own group and we do
have an acknowledged "moral code". of course 3 is a crap
shoot depending on the partied involved, but 1 is the
kicker. of course we want to catch as many infractions as
possible but currently the USAU has no real penalties for
"cheating." TMF/PMF yourself if you think those count. the
TMF/PMF system makes no distinction between "cheating" and
"bad spirit." meaning spiking the disc after a score can
get you the same penalty as aggressive fouling or excessive
travel calling. one is an abuse of the rules affecting the
game, the other may be a show of poor sportsmanship but
could hardly be considered cheating.
i applaud and encourage the growth of the UOA for the simple
reason that it creates a larger pool of players who have
played "reffed" ultimate, creating a larger group from which
to draw opinions about the merits of each system. opinions
don't count for results in science, but since this is more
or less a social experiment, and there is little else to
serve as any sort of testing ground on the horizon, it's
probably the best we're going to get for a while.
pizzapinochle
the context of ultimate, partially because there is no
possible 'control' group at this time.
To explain:
Everyone who plays ultimate is accustom to playing under a
self-officiated system. So, anyone that you tried to run the
experiment with is either already playing in a self-refereed
style or would be trying to artificially fight their
self-refereed tendancies for the sake of the experiment.
Either way, the result is fairly skewed.
This even applies to the UOA.
Mike G has stated before that UOA event don't feature
rampant attempts to cheat and claims this as evidence that
refs/active obesrvers don't lead to cheating.
But, who are the pariticpants at these events? They are all
Ultimate players whose style of play is already tuned to
self-refereed, USAU style ultimate and who, after the UOA
event, will go back to SOTG and self-officiation. Those
habits are already ingrained, an occasional event with third
party officials won't change that.
To really test it, you would have to start with two groups
of people who have never played ultimate before. Teach one
to play under referees, the other to play under
self-officiation. Then you would get legitimate results.
To do this in ultimate is impractical and nothing that the
USAU is going to spend resources doing. But, the theory, the
same game, one self-officiated, one refereed, would not be
hard to create in a more clinical/research environment.
Someone should contact these people:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/articles/shieldssport.html
And suggest it.
pizzapinochle
"A second point has to do with the role of sport in the
moral and social development of kids. At the University of
Notre Dame we have started a new center, called the "Center
for Sport, Character and Culture." One of our primary goals
is to design sport programs that foster positive character
development. In this task, we share a goal for sport
involvement with millions of parents who believe, perhaps
naively, that their children's participation in sport
programs is a good thing. "Sport builds character," is the
cultural adage. As researchers, we believe that sport does
no such thing. At least not automatically. If sport is to be
of any positive benefit, from a moral standpoint, then
deliberate effort and planning need to occur. And that
effort and planning needs to be informed by an understanding
of the real moral dynamics that characterize sport
experience. We hope that the theory of game reasoning can
help in this regard. "
Sounds like SOTG/USAU to me...
ulticritic
> thefan wrote on Tue, 06 September 2011 10:20
>
> > Kyle, by the way i've not forgotten your post on the
> > Seattle Middle School deal. I will reply in time. But do
> > you, or the USAU have any plans to test these ideas of
> > ref/active observer/observer as it/ pure SO? or are you
> > stuck on that thing he said about the 10 commandments
> > leading to a reduction in cheating?
>
> I don't have any plans personally.
so how will you ever KNOW which system works better?????
-------------------------------------------------
My free Ultimate time is
> focused on coaching and writing about Ultimate.
writing????? like you are doing here? writing about your
speculations and how some lecture on the human nature of cheating (in
general) applies to a sport? and what are you trying to conclude by
urging all people that play ultimate watch this?
you sure act like some kind of resident expert when it comes to rule
enforcement in ultimate so why wouldnt you comprehend the importance/
significance of EXPERIMENTATION like the narrator of this piece you
want everyone to watch.
and what specifically is it that you think people should/would/could
gain from watching it. for me it reenforced the need to experiment,
compare and contrast.......which the sport of ultimate dosent do.
then i got that, in general, if givin the opportunity MOST people will
cheat a little........which is equally prevelant in the sport of
ultimate. and while this dudes "experiment" showed that, if on ones
honor, there is a huge drop in cheating, this theory dosent really
apply to ultimate because its obvious, via my earlier examples, that a
lot of people cheating a little is also prevelant in ultimate.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I don't
> know about USAU (I'm only currently affiliated with the org
> in writing articles about coaching and coaching the US U-20
> team).
ahhh but you are one of their flunkie company boys arent you........so
whats the skinny on their thoughts on this issue?
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> If there were experiments locally, I'd be more than happy to
> ref/observe or just watch and assess.
and dont you think it would be prudent to conduct such experiments
PRIOR TO proclaiming which system works best?
-------------------------------------------------
>
> On the talk itself:
>
> There is a lot of interesting stuff in that video but the
> three things that I thought were most interesting and
> applicable to the discussion about SOTG/refs/etc:
> - When participants were reminded about morality (10
> commandments, honor code) they were less likely to cheat
and you dont hink the presence of men in stripes is a CONSTANT
reminder of the "commandments" in the particular sport they might be
playing........kinda like the idea of having a cop on the beat to
reduce crime?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - When participants saw people in their "in-group" cheating
> they were more likely to cheat.
and thus explains why so many people in ultimate, count fast, double
team, bump the mark,go offsides, etc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - That participants didn't exhibit pure economic rationality
> in cheating (i.e. participants didn't cheat more when
> rewards went up, punishment for being caught went up, or
> chance of being caught went down)
no shit......they probably cheated less.
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm going to try and find it, but I recall there have also
> been experiments done where participants are actually
> competing against each other and that as trust increases
> between competitors, cheating declines (and vice versa).
was this with or without refs?
---------------------------------------------------
> This seems intuitive, but I think this is also applicable to
> the discussion as well.
only if they had experiment with competition in which there were no
refs (honor system) and compared it to ones in which there were refs,
right? otherwise this isnt applicable in the least to ultimate refs
vs sotg discussion
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Obviously, it is harder to replicate these very controlled
> experiments on a playing field where there are a lot of
> variables at play,
whats so hard about it? just have a tourny and use a different
arbitration system each round
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
but if you were going to, how would you
> do it?
just like i just said
-------------------------------
What would your thesis be?
comparing how people follow the rules with different enforcement
proceedures, duh
-----------------------------------------------------------------
How would you set up
> your experiment?
isnt this the same as asking "how would you do it"?
-------------------------------------------
How would you control the variables?
how would you not control them?
--------------------------------------------
What
> would you expect to see if your thesis were true?
people following the rules better and more when there were tangible
consequenses HANDED OUT BY IMPARTIAL ARBITRATORS when and if they
didnt have such a facilitation and were require to self manage the
comp. i mean, there is a certian amount of comparison and contrast
that can be examined WHITHOUT holding such an experiment. JUST GO TO
VIDEO tapes of ultimate being played with and without observers and
see how well the players in the comp WITHOUT observers can follow the
simplist most black and white rule in the sport in comparison to how
well those that know they are being watched, judged and penalized
follow it. and just in case you are too stupid to know what rule i
speak of its the OFFSIDES RULE.
KYLE, why do you play so dumb when it comes to what the point is in
running such experiments?
are you afriad they would reaveal somthing that you dont want to
believe?
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My current thesis is that a system that:
>
> 1. Catches the most infractions and eliminates benefits to
> the party committing the infractions (this could include
> giving them a punishment or a disadvantage)
which sotg BZZZZZZT dosent do
--------------------------------------------------
> 2. Has a frequently acknowledged "moral code"
but what good is that acknoledgement if it dosent enforce said
morals.......but rather ENABLES imorality?
----------------------------------------
> 3. Has participants that know the rules
ultimate......BZZZZZZT. yet another short coming for ulti
-----------------------------------
> 4. Has an "in group" culture (i.e. participants consider
> themselves part of a larger, inter-team culture)
what sport DOSENT have an "in group" culture?
--------------------------------------------------
>
> Will have the least amount of cheating.
great, so can you name any sports that have these things professor
kyle?
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the almost 2 decades that I've been playing the sport,
a whole 2 decades????? your a child
---------------------------------------------
my
> view of SOTG/Self-officiating has changed gradually.
well in my 3.5 decades of playing i havent waivered AT ALL. I knew
sotg was a crock of shit from the get go and the sport HAS ALWAYS BEEN
in need of refs......just like they are in every other sport.
so why should we buy into any of your caprecious propaganda now when
it is highly likely that you own views will continue to change?
--------------------------------------------------------------
At one
> point (prior to college and working for the UPA) I was a
> believer in self-officiation.
figures......you seem like the naive gullable type
---------------------------------------------------
I've been a fan of observers
> for 13 years since I first played with them in 1998, but
> over time I've advocated for more and more active observers.
isnt an active observer just another way of saying "ref". i mean, if
you have your observers making calls activly arent they really refs
(when making those particular calls)?
-------------------------------------------
> I know that Ulticritic will take that as a sign that he is
> correct because my opinion has changed and his has not.
damn straight skippy
------------------------------------------------
In
> a preemptive response to his predictable criticism I'll
> finish with a John Maynard Keynes quote:
eh, i dont know that dude from adam so i doubt i'll give a shit about
what he or you say
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do,
> sir?"
what facts have changed though? to me, the sport needing refs is A
FACT. IT ALWAYS HAS AND IT ALWAYS WILL.......another fact. i think
you just want to spin it like there is somthing that has changed about
sotg or even human nature when, in reality, those things are a
constant and its only you that has changed
ulticritic
>
> But, who are the pariticpants at these events? They are all
> Ultimate players whose style of play is already tuned to
> self-refereed, USAU style ultimate and who, after the UOA
> event, will go back to SOTG and self-officiation. Those
> habits are already ingrained, an occasional event with third
> party officials won't change that.
do you mean habbits like going offsides, fast counting (eh, cant count
that one as players arent afforded the allowance to fast count), bump
on the mark, double team, make bogus calls or contests????
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To really test it, you would have to start with two groups
> of people who have never played ultimate before. Teach one
> to play under referees, the other to play under
> self-officiation. Then you would get legitimate results.
bullshit......thats just horse sz horse shit so that people think
undertaking the experiment in the first place would be too
overwhelming and not reveal anything.
AND AGAIN......just go to the video for evidence. i remember watching
a worlds finals a few years back and WHOLE TEAMS wen offsides on just
about every pull. now compare that with a video of a recent observed
usau natioals finals.
THERES YOUR LITMUS TEST
------------------------------------------------
>
> To do this in ultimate is impractical and nothing that the
> USAU is going to spend resources doing.
which means nothing is likely to change????? how convient this is for
you usau sz's
---------------------------------------------------
But, the theory, the
> same game, one self-officiated, one refereed, would not be
> hard to create in a more clinical/research environment.
then LETS START THE MADNESS........and getting a control group to
spectate and to give feedback on which system is more entertaining
would be prudent too......dont ya think?
-----------------------------------
>
> Someone should contact these people:
>
> http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/articles/shieldssport.html
>
> And suggest it.
someone shouldnt HAVE TO contact usau, THE FUCKING GOVERNING BODY OF
THE SPORT, and suggest it.
ulticritic
do you say that because sotg/usau is void of refs? i mean, dont you
understand that EVERY SPORT IN THE WORLD is played at an imformal,
pickup, self officiated meathod just as much, if not more, than
ultimate.
this is where i dont get how you ultimate spirit people get the egos
you do. there is nothing special or unique about ultimate in that
regard. all sports are played in a self officiated pickup fashion
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
thefan
you are a moron. a moron who will come up with a myriad of
superfluous reasons why refs are bad and shouldn't be
experimented with on any level.
by your reasoning a company wanting to test their
diet/exercise plan would have to find a whole bunch of
people who had never dieted or exercised before because they
would come to the study with predetermined ideas about diet
and exercise.
the UOA gives us the only sample we have of ultimate players
who have played ultimate with "refs". those players are
able to give feedback on the amount of cheating that they
percieve to have happened. they are also able to tell us
their opinions about game speed and any other factors that
might change because of the main variable, the presence or
lack of refs.
those players have direct experience with the sport being
played under two different systems the main difference being
the third party rule enforcer. i know it scares the shit
out of you that some people who have actually experienced
two different sides of the same issue might have some
valuable insight on the benefits and drawbacks of each
system so why don't you get to finding those ultimate
players who have never played ultimate before and run your
experiment. tell us how it goes when you're done.
but thank you for helping to dispell the myth that the
presence of refs will encourage cheating. after all, we're
all coming from a background of self officiated ultimate and
Quote:
> Those habits are already ingrained
just out of curiosity, since you demand a "control" from
your scientific experiments, what is you view on the global
climate change debate?
pizzapinochle
> do you say that because sotg/usau is void of refs?
No.
Wow you read into things way too much and chase your own
rabbits. Maybe I should have made the quote shorter.
"If sport is to be of any positive benefit, from a moral
standpoint, then deliberate effort and planning need to
occur."
USAU fits this. They do think that there can be moral
benefit from sports and they are undertaking deliberate
effort and planning to see it take place.
That is it.
And, to pre-empt your repition of the fact that other sports
play pick-up:
There is no deliberate effort or planning toward moral
improvement in pick-up basketball.
Note: I have not stated that any of this is
good/bad/indifferent. Just stating that those researchers
identified something that sounds a bit like the USAU's
efforts.
Anything else you read into it is all in your head.
Bulb
> Mike G has stated before that UOA event don't feature
> rampant attempts to cheat and claims this as evidence that
> refs/active obesrvers don't lead to cheating.
Out of curiosity, what would have to happen for a team to be
accused of cheating at a UOA event? With the presence of
pseudo-refs, overly physical play shouldn't be considered
cheating, right? And with IRS, players can't just
call/argue their way to winning, right?
pizzapinochle
> by your reasoning a company wanting to test their
> diet/exercise plan would have to find a whole bunch of
> people who had never dieted or exercised before because
> they would come to the study with predetermined ideas
> about diet and exercise.
Actually, what you would do is find three or more groups of
people all of very SIMILAR experience with dieting/exercise
that do not pre-dispose them toward a particular
regime/product. Ideally, you want a "blank" template to
impress an regime/product onto. So, you don't go to the gym
and grab a bunch of bodybuilders to test a new exercise
regime, you won't get useful information, because there
bodies are already tuned toward a particular outcome.
A good set: all people ages 28-35 who currently exercise
once a week at a low intensity. You would specify this:
Maybe light jogging, bike riding, or swimming, but no high
intensity or anarobic workouts. Collect 100 of these people
who are all very similar, 50 males and 50 females, split
them into 5 groups of twenty
Group 1 would use no product or exercise plan
Group 2-5 would follow separate exercise plans or take
different diet products
At the end of 6 months following the regimes, you compare
the results to determine which of products 2-5 works best.
These results would then be compared to group 1, who did no
exercise or diet, to determine how effective the
products/plans are.
Not surprisingly, this is precisely what EVERY INDUSTRY (and
scientest, and social scientest, and Gallup poll, and TV
rating agency, and market surveys, and political polling,
and pretty much everyone else who want legitimate research
results) does to test their products.
To put it in terms of ultimate:
To determine a clear difference between the playing
styles/cheating habits that will develop under 3rd party vs.
self-officiated models, you must start with people with very
similar experience playing ultimate without a strong
pre-disposition toward one model or the other. So, anyone
who has been playing 5 years of self-officiated ultimate has
a strong pre-disposition toward that model. To really
understand how they would play under 3rd party officials,
you have to BREAK the habits they have under
self-officiation before meaningful habits begin to develop
under 3rd party.
I guess you COULD take a group of current ultimate players
who are all heavily ingrained into a self officiated model
and have them play ONLY 3rd party officiated for a year and
see if their habits change. I suspect they would. But, one
tournament of self-officiated players suddenly playing with
3rd party officials would not tell us what the LONG TERM
trends of 3rd party officiation would yield.
I'm not saying that the UOA experiments aren't meaningful,
they are. But those are self-officiated players playing with
officials. It is useful, I am glad it is happening, is worth
considering, and more power to them.
But, from a research standpoint, which is where the TED talk
and the article I cite come from...and, btw, what MY
background is in, it is not a meaningful data set. I don't
disagree that there are things to be learned from UOA
experiments, but there is a limit to what it can predict for
the future of 3rd party officiation when all the players are
still predominantly self-officiated.
I would love to see the experiment done of starting two sets
of brand new ultimate players on two different courses, one
with 3rd party one without. I don't think it will happen
anytime soon, but the results would be fascinating.
Quote:
> who will come up with a myriad of superfluous reasons
> why refs are bad and shouldn't be experimented with on any
> level.
I would love for you to find a quote where I state that refs
are bad and shouldn't be experimented with. Be my guest.
Have fun searching.
Just because I routinely disagree with Ulticritic, Gerics,
and you doesn't mean I think refs are bad. I just dislike
terrible reasoning.
Example of terrible reasoning: We need refs because that
will keep 8th graders from running over 6th graders when
they are on the field together.
Uh....NO. We need to not play 8th graders and 6th graders on
the same field. Refs/Self officiation have little to nothing
to do with it.
thefan
subject with this drivel:
Quote:
> Example of terrible reasoning: We need refs because that
> will keep 8th graders from running over 6th graders when
> they are on the field together.
having refs on the field won't keep 8th graders from running
over 6th graders, or other smaller 8th graders, any more
than it keeps 8th graders from tackling 6th graders on a
football field. what it does do however is gives an
administrative level of comfort to the higher up types in
the same way that pads and helmets give comfort.
your idea that size mismatched athletes shouldn't be on the
field together is one of the most assinine things i've seen
seriously suggested on here. it would have kept my mostly
white, upper middle class high school football team from
getting decimated by the much larger inner city and country
schools that surrounded us. and it would have kept us from
beating them in soccer. size mismatching isn't unfair, it
just opens up the possibility of dangerous collisions.
having 14 hormonally charged teenagers of varying sizes
running full speed on a field doesn't mean there will be
injuries and putting a ref out there doesn't stop the injury
from occuring. it does however protect the sanctioning body
from a law suit happy generation of parents.
administrators like stuff like that.
thefan
Quote:
> But, from a research standpoint, which is where the TED
> talk and the article I cite come from...and, btw, what MY
> background is in, it is not a meaningful data set. I don't
> disagree that there are things to be learned from UOA
> experiments, but there is a limit to what it can predict
> for the future of 3rd party officiation when all the
> players are still predominantly self-officiated
i guess you could restrict yourself to these limitations,
but since neither you, nor I, nor the USAU is going to
create the situation where we can use those high scientific
standards
Quote:
pizzapinochle
Do schools get sued b/c students get injured in practice?
No, because there is a responsble adult in place monitoring
the safety.
Your statement included, and I quote:
Quote:
> "no supervisor on the field"
>
> "no adult person out there?"
In those cases, yes, the school would get sued if there was
NO adult presence, as you stated in your case.
But, a coach at the field monitoring player safety woudl be
sufficient supervision to satisfy legal requirements, so
long as teh coach was not negligent.
You said:
Quote:
> your idea that size mismatched athletes shouldn't be on
> the field together is one of the most assinine things i've
> seen seriously suggested on here.
Sports associations say:
Quote:
> Weight limits 5th & 6th grade players over 95 lbs will
> be in the unlimited weight league.
Seems that they don't think weight matching is assinine.
Do I think we need that level of strictness for ultimate
that they use in football? No, probably not. And I don't
think in HIGH SCHOOL you should restrict based on weight,
once all the kids are 15-18 yoa, just like they don't
restrict football by weight once the kids are in HS.
BUT, in 6th grade, the scenario you presented, yes, I
absolutely think that playing an 11 year old against a 14
year old in a competitive environment is a terrible idea
regardless the sport (exceptions for tennis/100% non-contact
sports), unless the 11 year old is extremely advanced in
his/her physical development and choooses (with parental
consent) to "play up."
thefan
seattle MS league (mom told me not to use "never" but i
never listened.) there are lots of different sanctioning
bodies for interscholastic sports. the quote you give from
the sports association is an example of one assoc. that uses
weight limits, but there will be some that don't use the
same guidelines. just as the Seattle example shows that some
of these bodies will support self officiated ultimate.
again, "never" and "ever" were probably not smart choices on
my part.
Kyle was somewhat correct that not all states have statewide
body governing MS athletics. example: Penn. uses a state
body for hs and ms sports, the PIAA. Indiana has two
bodies, the north and south. some do it by district or
county for middle school while statewide for high school.
there are probably near as many ways to split the
sanctioning as there are states. so, for good measure, i am
in the process of contacting the state hs. athletic
association here in NC to see what their take would be on it
from a legal standpoint, as well as the athletic association
that sanctions MS sports here in my district. we'll see if
i can get anything out of them.
and i encourage you to try to contact whatever sanctioning
body operates in your neck of the woods and let us know what
they say.
it would also be interesting to see what the take on the
issue is for the NCAA as well as the IOC, though contacting
those groups may be just a bit harder.
for the record, i concede that i was wrong with the use of
the words "never" and "ever" and kyle set me straight.
however, i would also contend that the ultimate playing
population is much higher in the Seattle area and that makes
it somewhat of an anomaly, not the norm.
Reggie Fanelli
> > do you say that because sotg/usau is void of refs?
---hold on.
is that little "/" in there.....because now the sotg and the upsa are
synonymous/mean the same thing???
is that what it's come to?......the sotg and upsa simply being one in
the same...the same entity?
Reggie Fanelli
> Out of curiosity, what would have to happen for a team to be
> accused of cheating at a UOA event?
---i'm not sure.....but we would LOVE to have the BEST teams in the
country....the most BAD ASSED teams in the nation....the roughest,
toughest, most ornery, uptight, upset teams attend our events.
we'd love to find out how we handle it.
~~~~~~~~~~~
With the presence of
> pseudo-refs, overly physical play shouldn't be considered
> cheating, right?
---unless the physical play is 'attempted' sneak-ish-ly, out of view
of one of the officials.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
And with IRS, players can't just
> call/argue their way to winning, right?
---that's the idea.
paul
Everyone who plays ultimate is accustom to playing under a
self-officiated system. So, anyone that you tried to run the
experiment with is either already playing in a self-refereed
style or would be trying to artificially fight their
self-refereed tendancies for the sake of the experiment.
Either way, the result is fairly skewed.
To really test it, you would have to start with two groups
of people who have never played ultimate before. Teach one
to play under referees, the other to play under
self-officiation. Then you would get legitimate results.
To do this in ultimate is impractical and nothing that the
USAU is going to spend resources doing. But, the theory, the
same game, one self-officiated, one refereed, would not be
hard to create in a more clinical/research environment.
</i>
I think you are framing the question so that it can't be
tested, which is lame. The question is not, if I raised a
kid from birth on refs or SO, would the reffed kids be
cheaters or not. The question is, would the people playing
raised under SO (us):
1) Cheat more or less with refs
2) Enjoy more accurate calls and game outcomes with refs
That's pretty much it. The parameters of the test/control
groups and testing could get complex, but it is doable.
Besides, anyone proposing refs is really looking at the
highest levels only, this is not going to pollute the
didactic nature of SOTG for the little ones.
So how about it? anyone daring enough to run a competitive
league half-and-half?
Reggie Fanelli
> I'm not saying that the UOA experiments aren't meaningful,
> they are.
---to be clear.
we're not experimenting...we're doing.
Reggie Fanelli
> Just because I routinely disagree with Ulticritic, Gerics,
> and you doesn't mean I think refs are bad. I just dislike
> terrible reasoning.
---then you're dumb.
Chad
> I think you are framing the question so that it can't be
> tested, which is lame. The question is not, if I raised a
> kid from birth on refs or SO, would the reffed kids be
> cheaters or not. The question is, would the people
> playing raised under SO (us):
>
> 1) Cheat more or less with refs
> 2) Enjoy more accurate calls and game outcomes with
> refs
>
> That's pretty much it. The parameters of the
> test/control groups and testing could get complex, but it
> is doable. Besides, anyone proposing refs is really
> looking at the highest levels only, this is not going to
> pollute the didactic nature of SOTG for the little ones.
>
> So how about it? anyone daring enough to run a
> competitive league half-and-half?
You probably can't answer question 1 with a realistic
budget. 2 is much easier, though you'd need to take some
time to form the questions properly and to be sure to ask
them of both groups. Questions like, "Is this better?" or
"Is this more accurate?", wouldn't be valid.
Also, I recently learned that my loose definition of
cheating isn't appreciated by all. Is cheating still
cheating if you truly believe in your incorrect call? Is it
still cheating if you don't know you're violating the rules?
Is it still cheating if your opponent also cheats to negate
your cheating (e.g. in positioning after a violation)?
Different people have different connotations, so you'd have
be super specific in your questions.
ulticritic
> "If sport is to be of any positive benefit, from a moral
> standpoint, then deliberate effort and planning need to
> occur."
but wasnt that the crux of the "new game movement".......that sports
should be without deliberate effort and planning.......and wasnt the
concept of sotg born out of the newgames movement????
aside from that, who the fuck participates in a sport for ANY moral
reasons
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> USAU fits this. They do think that there can be moral
> benefit from sports and they are undertaking deliberate
> effort and planning to see it take place.
if they wer THAT moral they wouldnt bother keeping score......or
rewarding just the winners with programed events
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> That is it.
>
> And, to pre-empt your repition of the fact that other sports
> play pick-up:
>
> There is no deliberate effort or planning toward moral
> improvement in pick-up basketball.
that dosent mean they cant experience a moral result......and do so
WITHOUT effort or planning..........see how much more zen it is when
you DONT persue or flourish the moral aspect of the experience?
---------------------------------------------
>
> Note: I have not stated that any of this is
> good/bad/indifferent. Just stating that those researchers
> identified something that sounds a bit like the USAU's
> efforts.
yea, they DO kid themselves into thinking they are more moral than
other sports.......they got that jesus complex thing going on too.
they are the flanderses of ultimate.
ulticritic
>
> Just because I routinely disagree with Ulticritic, Gerics,
> and you doesn't mean I think refs are bad. I just dislike
> terrible reasoning.
so give us some good reasoning of why you dont think refs are bad?
ulticritic
>
> Out of curiosity, what would have to happen for a team to be
> accused of cheating at a UOA event? With the presence of
> pseudo-refs, overly physical play shouldn't be considered
> cheating, right? And with IRS, players can't just
> call/argue their way to winning, right?
well, no one has wrote anything about players trying to "game" the
observers like you sz's claim is rampent in other reffed sports
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
paul
Yeah. I am not talking about asking people "does this FEEL
more accurate, I'm talking about IS this more accurate -
does our SO reflect reality, or not? After all, we are
interested in most accurate, not what FEELS better, right?
I also agree 100% with your cheating definition questions.
The way the rules are written, NONE of those things are
cheating - that Georgia catch is not cheating, for instance,
if he really thought it was up. But, if we continue to
define the game this way, no one is ever cheating unless you
can prove intent to cheat - which we can't. This lack of
objectivity is what makes calls moral tests in my mind,
rather than the factual assessments they could be with a
referee.
I know cost is an issue, but the bottom line is, if this is
an issue worth investigating, USAU should find a reasonable
way to assess it the best we can. Does anyone in the
pro-Spirit crowd feel that this is not even worth looking
at, if the money were there?
Mike Tamada
> These experiments would be incredibly difficult to run
> in the context of ultimate, partially because there is no
> possible 'control' group at this time.
Correct, except it's even worse than that. Even with a
control group, short run experiments of the sorts that
people are talking about are meaningless. Google "Hawthorne
effect". Here's the first line from the wikipedia entry:
"The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby
subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being
experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that
they are being studied,[1][2] not in response to any
particular experimental manipulation."
Quote:
> To really test it, you would have to start with two
> groups of people who have never played ultimate before.
> Teach one to play under referees, the other to play under
> self-officiation. Then you would get legitimate results.
Yup. Although it'll take years to get truly see how the
sports' cultures develop, e.g. the women's soccer World Cup
has been around for 20 years but only now are we seeing the
fake injuries and ref-baiting start to really rise towards
the men's levels.
ulticritic
>
> "The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby
> subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being
> experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that
> they are being studied,[1][2] not in response to any
> particular experimental manipulation."
what about the idea of studying footage of games in which no observers
were used and ones in which observers were used in which the players
knew they WERENT being studied. then we take a simple rule like
offsides and see how many people complied with that rule in both
instances. and sice that one particular call HAS ALWAYS BEEN an
active "ref like" call we can, for the sake of argument, set it up as
a "refs vs sotg" study. then lets assume, for the sake of argument,
that with observers there was a 99.9% compliance rating whereas
without them there was a 25% compliance rating (which is probably
pretty accurate). what could we conclude from this data as to how
much your average ultimate player complies to the rules in both
instances. then lets assume, again for the sake of argument, that
this is a microcosm of how ultimate players comply to all the other
rules of the sport when playing with and without observers.
i'd aslo like to bring in the 11 to 9 vote FOR active travels prior to
the 2009 college national championships. WHY would these teams decide
to vote FOR this facilitation when the observers had no previous
experience with that active "ref like call". maybe THIS is what
should really be studied. i mean, there is a trust issue at hand and,
for me, it seems quite evident that the players in this particular
"vote" decided that they were more concerned about the lack of trust
in their opponents NOT CHEATING by being allowed to call bogus/bailout
travels than having observers that had ANY prior practice in making
that call. and im' pretty sure that is one of the main reasons usau
squashed that pre tourny questionare process.......because it revealed
the lack of trust ultimate players have towards one another. because
i think we would all HAVE TO agree that in order for sotg to "work"
there must be trust amoungst opponents that they wont manipulate the
rule enforcement process in order to benefit their own team.
ulticritic
> This video should be required watching prior to discussing
> SOTG, Refs, observers, and how to minimize cheating in
> Ultimate. It's Science!
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
kyle, the theme of this guys theory was that 1) in life, a lot of
people will cheat a little......and 2) if people know they are on an
honor system cheating drops signifigantly.
so how does this apply to ultimate? i mean, we all know that ultimate
is played on an honor system but are you REALLY try to propose that a
lot of the people that play ultimate dont cheat a little a good amount
of the time? be it, going offsides, counting fast, using illegal
marks, double teaming and even making poor calls and contests. and
dont ya think that, like thefan explained, people will commit these
acts of cheating because they know that the result of said cheating
isnt all that detrimental to those they cheat on.......AND that, like
you (or rather this narrator) implied, the more others participate in
this subtle cheating the more evident it is amoungst the group as a
whole.
think about it, how do the displays of cheating really effect those
cheated upon? not much right (most of the time anyways)?
unfortuately for you and the sz crowd there is a bigger picture at
hand.......and thats the sotg clause.......which, IDEALLY, insures
that THERE WILL BE NO CHEATING WHATSOEVER......even of a subtle
nature. so, ya see, that unless you can get everyone that plays
ultimate to abide by the rules 100% of the time sotg is dead. and once
people start to rationalize their cheating ways and nothing is done to
stop it your system, as a whole, is broken.
Bulb
> The question is, would the people playing raised under
> SO (us):
>
> 1) Cheat more or less with refs
> 2) Enjoy more accurate calls and game outcomes with refs
Why can't it be the opposite? Would people raised playing
sports with refs (most Ultimate players):
1) Cheat more or less in self-officiated sports
2) Enjoy more accurate calls and game outcomes under
self-officiation
Seems odd that you consider most Ultimate players as being
"raised" under self-officiation.
Bulb
> With the presence of
> > pseudo-refs, overly physical play shouldn't be
> > considered
> > cheating, right?
>
> ---unless the physical play is 'attempted' sneak-ish-ly,
> out of view of one of the officials.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> And with IRS, players can't just
> > call/argue their way to winning, right?
>
> ---that's the idea.
of view of one of the officials? In other words, without
getting caught?
"Cheating seems to be a relevant term only when one is
caught in the act. Otherwise it is viewed as intelligence,
no?"
pizzapinochle
08:27]
what about the idea of studying footage of games in which no
observers were used and ones in which observers were used in
which the players knew they WERENT being studied. then we
take a simple rule like offsides and see how many people
complied with that rule in both instances. and sice that
one particular call HAS ALWAYS BEEN an active "ref like"
call we can, for the sake of argument, set it up as a "refs
vs sotg" study. then lets assume, for the sake of argument,
that with observers there was a 99.9% compliance rating
whereas without them there was a 25% compliance rating
(which is probably pretty accurate). what could we conclude
from this data as to how much your average ultimate player
complies to the rules in both instances. then lets assume,
again for the sake of argument, that this is a microcosm of
how ultimate players comply to all the other rules of the
sport when playing with and without observers.
This would tell us one thing and one thing only:
"When there are no observers calling offsides,
self-officiated players tend to not follow the offsides rule
as strictly as they do when there are observers calling
offsides."
We already know this. No need to do a video analysis to
confirm it. But, knowing that one fact tells us basically
nothing about anything else.
ulticritic
>
> "When there are no observers calling offsides,
> self-officiated players tend to not follow the offsides rule
> as strictly as they do when there are observers calling
> offsides."
>
> We already know this. No need to do a video analysis to
> confirm it. But, knowing that one fact tells us basically
> nothing about anything else.
why would you say that? isnt this just like one of the experiments
kyles boy ran.......like with the coke in the fridge......or the money
taped to the fridge? its a classic case of people cheating when they
know nobodies watching.......but NOT cheating when there is some kind
of supervision. and forget about his "honor system" theory because
ALL ultimate players know they are on the honor system everytime they
step on the field, yet they still go offsides. but surely SOMTHING
could be concluded from thie whole "disrepect for offsides and sotg",
right? i mean, at the very least there is a major contrdiction in how
sotg is invisioned and how it pans out in real life. then of course
you got other "fudge factors", like the bump on the mark, double
teaming, fast counting, etc.
but just so we are clear, once kyles narrator KNEW how his test group
reacted to his various tests, are you saying that this data would NOT
reveal to him anythig else about human nature in general? i would
think this "offsides phenomena" is the EXACT same kind of test that
this guy would look to use in his data collecting process.
>
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
thefan
>
> self-officiated players tend to not follow the offsides
> rule as strictly as they do when there are observers
> calling offsides."
>
> We already know this. No need to do a video analysis to
> confirm it. But, knowing that one fact tells us basically
> nothing about anything else.
used math tests and coke and $1 bills to make broader
conclusions about how human beings cheat in general, right?
so maybe if we take your statement: (with my added
emphasis)
Quote:
> "When there are no observers calling OFFSIDES,
> self-officiated players tend to not follow the OFFSIDES
i wonder how many other rule infractions you could put in
there?
travels? double team? fouls? in/out of bounds? fast count?
time limits? marking violations? up/down?
i mean, if an experiment using math questions can give us a
picture of how humans might cheat in the stock market,
couldn't experiments using ultimate give us a picture of how
humans might cheat at ultimate?
3Jane.
> what facts have changed though? to me, the sport needing refs is A
> FACT. IT ALWAYS HAS AND IT ALWAYS WILL.......another fact. i think
> you just want to spin it like there is somthing that has changed about
> sotg or even human nature when, in reality, those things are a
> constant and its only you that has changed
Man, you sure know how to suck all of the air out of the room, don't
you?
paul
play the same way as ulty in those sports. I don't think
ultimate is a magical experience, where if you were to only
play ultimate/SO at birth that you would have some great new
perspective on ALL sports and become a magical sportsmanlike
being that the reffed world has never seen. You feel like
ultimate could make an indoctrinated child a more
sportsmanlike magic the gathering player or world of
warcraft player too?
Instead, I think your rule-breaking nature isn't some
morality taught by frisbee. Rather, your rule-breaking
morality is relative and changes based on what sport you are
playing and what INCENTIVES and ACCEPTABILITY the sport
gives are to break rules. Since ulty generally provides
little incentive OR acceptability to cheat/cheating, we
don't, except for some high level play where there's more
investment in victory.
I don't think people would cheat more at low levels - we'd
be guessing anyway, since cheating is purely intent in
ultimate. You are only cheating if you don't believe your
calls. At high levels, where it seems cheating is more
common, some of the BS could go away, and maybe someone who
knew the damn rules could make accurate calls for once.
That's all I'm saying.