Observer Experimentation: Active Stall Count
Colin
some hiccups, with some players still counting out of habit and the
observers adjusting. Most of these things can be ironed out.
The Good:
It was great to have legal counts. The rules do not call for a 10-
second (or 9.x-second) stall count. The rules set a minimum length
for the stall. The observers abided by the rules and it was good that
the throwers got a legal stall count. This was a positive change in
that regard.
The Bad:
This was a major strain on the observers' voices. In addition,
players still struggled to hear the stall at times. There was also
some inconsistency between the speed of observers' counting, as you'd
expect, but all the counts were legal. Having to count the stall is
an added distraction and increases the burden on observers -- this is
manageable, but worth noting.
Alternative:
If the problem is that players are consistently counting too fast,
then we should impose a deterrant - TMFs. It is not hard to count to
10 in AT LEAST 9.x seconds. Your legal stall count can run anywhere
from 9.x seconds to 100 seconds (or more!). What good reason do you
have for counting in 8 seconds instead? You are seeking (or at least
getting) a competitive advantage by counting fast. If counting fast
did not provide you with an advantage (or caused a disadvantage), then
you wouldn't do it. If you get excited and tend to count faster in
games, then shoot for an extra-slow count to make up for it, like a 12
second count. It's easy.
Summary:
I do not think I would vote for active stalls at Nationals without
significant adjustments. If there is truly a problem, then it can
easily be handled with TMFs. The authority exists under the Observer
Manual, even if one does not take as aggressive of a reading as I
suggest.
These statements represent only my own personal opinions and
experiences.
Reggie Fanelli
> significant adjustments.
---what was the stall count method in place by the stanford observers?
Reggie Fanelli
> some hiccups,
some players still counting out of habit and the
> observers adjusting.
----what was wrong with some players still counting......and what did
the observers do to adjust?
and...why did the observers adjust?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The rules do not call for a 10-
> second (or 9.x-second) stall count. The rules set a minimum length
> for the stall.
---what?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The Bad:
>
> This was a major strain on the observers' voices.
--did they count every second?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In addition,
> players still struggled to hear the stall at times.
---one day, stall counts will be silent.
arm chop only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was also
> some inconsistency between the speed of observers' counting, as you'd
> expect, but all the counts were legal.
---obviously the counts were 'legal' if the observer was in charge of
the counts......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having to count the stall is
> an added distraction and increases the burden on observers -- this is
> manageable, but worth noting.
--i LOVE counting the stall count.....don't consider it a burden
personally......i consider it part of the job
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Alternative:
>
> If the problem is that players are consistently counting too fast,
> then we should impose a deterrant - TMFs.
---if the observers are counting....no need for TMFs at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is not hard to count to
> 10 in AT LEAST 9.x seconds. Your legal stall count can run anywhere
> from 9.x seconds to 100 seconds (or more!). What good reason do you
> have for counting in 8 seconds instead?
---are you kidding?
or maybe i don't understand......
what good is an 8 sec count?.....as a marker...you'd rather have them
forced to throw in 8 than have 2 more seconds to decide and throw a
good pass...right?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are seeking (or at least
> getting) a competitive advantage by counting fast. If counting fast
> did not provide you with an advantage (or caused a disadvantage), then
> you wouldn't do it. If you get excited and tend to count faster in
> games, then shoot for an extra-slow count to make up for it, like a 12
> second count. It's easy.
---what if you're the marker seeking the advantage?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Summary:
>
> I do not think I would vote for active stalls at Nationals without
> significant adjustments. If there is truly a problem, then it can
> easily be handled with TMFs. The authority exists under the Observer
> Manual, even if one does not take as aggressive of a reading as I
> suggest.
--yeah...what's the problem with the observer stall count?
Peterson
> Alternative:
>
> If the problem is that players are consistently counting too fast,
> then we should impose a deterrant - TMFs. It is not hard to count to
> 10 in AT LEAST 9.x seconds. Your legal stall count can run anywhere
> from 9.x seconds to 100 seconds (or more!). What good reason do you
> have for counting in 8 seconds instead? You are seeking (or at least
> getting) a competitive advantage by counting fast. If counting fast
> did not provide you with an advantage (or caused a disadvantage), then
> you wouldn't do it. If you get excited and tend to count faster in
> games, then shoot for an extra-slow count to make up for it, like a 12
> second count. It's easy.
>
> Summary:
>
> I do not think I would vote for active stalls at Nationals without
> significant adjustments. If there is truly a problem, then it can
> easily be handled with TMFs. The authority exists under the Observer
> Manual, even if one does not take as aggressive of a reading as I
> suggest.
In order to give out TMF's don't you have to count the stall in your
head to know if it is being counted too fast by the player?
So every time someone makes a catch you are counting in your head to
verify the pace of the count to see if they warrant a TMF?
So all you are really talking about here is the ability of the
observer's voice to last through the tournament, right ? Plus you give
the benefit to the players of not having to worry about it at all
while playing. Am I missing something here or are you just trying to
come up with any lame reason to keep the status quo with this active
stall? To me it is the easiest thing to add to the observer's duties
and probably the easiest for the players to give up control.
Peterson
Big D
>
> - Show quoted text -
In basketball, the referees don't give any vocal signal for the 3
second violation (in the lane), 5 second violation (for inbounding) or
10 second violation (to get the ball across the halfway line). The
players don't need a vocal cue to realize when they're getting close
to the 3, 5 or 10 second limit.
Why should ultimate be any different? Having an observer vocalize the
count is a nice luxury, but it is not needed,
Mitch
> In basketball, the referees don't give any vocal signal for the 3
> second violation (in the lane), 5 second violation (for inbounding) or
> 10 second violation (to get the ball across the halfway line). The
> players don't need a vocal cue to realize when they're getting close
> to the 3, 5 or 10 second limit.
>
> Why should ultimate be any different? Having an observer vocalize the
> count is a nice luxury, but it is not needed,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
At the UOA events, we've been using a vocal 1, ....5, ... 7, 8, 9,
10. Personally, I would like to see 7 made silent as well. While
none are absolutely required, I like a few numbers being made vocal so
that the thrower has an idea of where the stall is through any resets
due to the marker leaving the 3m range, double teams, etc. I'm a loud
mouth, so being heard usually isn't too much of a problem.
Mitch
Colin
Because that's not as integral a part of the game.
Colin
Yeah, sounds to me like you're missing something here. Missing the
boat at least, and maybe more.
thefan
now would be a great time to clarify why you think he is "missing the
boat".
you could start with, "well sure, the observer would have to count the
stall anyways to give out the TMFs for fast counts as well as remember
which guys had the fast counts. (ie, blue 5 and 12 have counted fast a
couple times so they're up for a TMF, but 4 and 8 are just fine with
their counts) but the advantage to letting the marker still say the
numbers aloud is . . . "
it's better when people say "this is the reason for my reasoning"
instead of "you just don't seem to understand my reasoning"
the fan
Colin
I'll start with I am not "just trying to come up with any lame reason
to keep the status quo." And that answered his question. As for him
putting words into my mouth that he thinks are easily refutable, well,
he's unlikely to be right on that one either.
The purpose of my post was to provide some feedback and a little bit
of my take on things, based on what I saw. That has happened. If
there were people interested in engaging in meaningful discussion, I
might be up for that, too.
But the guy who thinks I am advocating for the status quo isn't one of
those people. And he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
In response to your comment about tracking which players have the fast
counts, why is that necessary? A TMF is a TEAM misconduct foul, not a
PERSONAL misconduct foul.
thefan
>
okay fine. TMF, TEAM misconduct. great. now, how about explaining
why you think the observer should be standing there counting the stall
to make sure TEAMS don't count fast and not go ahead and shout it to
the heavens. i mean they're there. they're counting and arm
chopping. why not just go ahead and share it by counting outloud?
they're voices might get tired? really?
now under your suggestion, observers would have to have written down
how many fast counts gets a TMF? do you warn them? how fast is too
fast. does a 9 second 10 count and a 7 second 10 count count the
same?
why not just say. "observer, count the stall actively and don't worry
about those TMFs and warnings and stuff. take charge and get everyone
on the same page"?
Peterson
Ok. Please explain why you think it is better for the observer to do
a "secret" stall count and then when you catch someone counting too
fast you TMF them.
If you're doing your secret count and therefore tracking the stall why
not just take it out of the player's hands ? You are already doing to
work.
Jeeze - talk about missing the boat.
Peterson
Colin
It's hard on the observer's voices.
Players have a hard time hearing the observers under a variety of
conditions (wind, loud sidelines, observers standing away to give room
to the dump, etc.).
Observers have a hard time hearing marking violations called (and
therefore reacting).
It brings up issues of how strictly observers should enforce "disc
space" when they hear the call and stop counting until the illegal
position is corrected. There is not a single player in the country
who enforces disc space to the limits of the rule.
The standard for issuing TMFs? I have no problem at all with issuing
a TMF for a single instance of an 8.9 second TMF. A 7 second count
and an 8.9 second count both earn a TMF. If that were our standard, I
guarantee you we would not have any fast counts. Problem solved. If
players want to push the limit on the observers, then they're playing
with fire.
That's not how it's being called now. But just figure a standard and
go with it. I am opposed to giving warnings. That's what the first
two TMFs are for.
Peterson
> to keep the status quo." And that answered his question. As for him
> putting words into my mouth that he thinks are easily refutable, well,
> he's unlikely to be right on that one either.
Not putting words in your mouth. Just inferring from your comments
what seems to be a logical conclusion.
> The purpose of my post was to provide some feedback and a little bit
> of my take on things, based on what I saw. That has happened. If
> there were people interested in engaging in meaningful discussion, I
> might be up for that, too.
> But the guy who thinks I am advocating for the status quo isn't one of
> those people. And he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
Your right, I don't know what I'm talking about. But I do know what
I'm asking about. And my reference to the status quo is only related
to the active stall count. I'm sure you are up for changing other
stuff but the stall issue is the title of this thread. To me, there
are a few very objective items on the ultimate field that could and
should be taken out of the player's hands when there are observers.
In/out of bounds, time keeping between points etc, keeping score,
travelling and stall counts. Foul calls may be more subjective but
those things I mentioned above should be fairly straight forward. And
if you are keeping track of them in your head why not take the burden
away from the players and say it aloud. ?
Peterson
Colin
It's all about effective implementation. There are problems with
active stall count:
- It's hard on the observer's voices.
- Players have a hard time hearing the observers under a variety of
conditions (wind, loud sidelines, observers standing away to give room
to the dump, etc.).
- Observers have a hard time hearing marking violations called (and
therefore reacting).
- It brings up issues of how strictly observers should enforce "disc
space" when they hear the call and stop counting until the illegal
position is corrected. There is not a single player in the country
who enforces disc space to the limits of the rule.
Issuing TMFs for fast counts is an alternative method of achieving the
same goal - fair stall counts for throwers. It's not about sneaking
up on markers and surprising them with TMFs. You tell the players
before the game, "Hey, you need to make sure that you're counting at
least a 9.x second stall count. Count an 11-second count if you need
to, but it is unacceptable to be below 9 seconds and you will get a
TMF for it."
Reggie Fanelli
---no it's not.
it's about saying the word "stalling" and counting to 10.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are problems with
> active stall count:
---yes, they are called excuses.
and....everyone knows....excuses are the nails that build the house of
failure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> - It's hard on the observer's voices.
---not been a problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> - Players have a hard time hearing the observers under a variety of
> conditions (wind, loud sidelines, observers standing away to give room
> to the dump, etc.).
---not been a problem.
i do believe that all the mentioned noise issues can prevent some
stall count hearing....so what...i only know from experience that it
ain't a problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> - Observers have a hard time hearing marking violations called (and
> therefore reacting).
---they do?
i gotta ask my crew about that.
we haven't gotten that response on our surveys....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- It brings up issues of how strictly observers should enforce "disc
> space" when they hear the call and stop counting until the illegal
> position is corrected. There is not a single player in the country
> who enforces disc space to the limits of the rule.
---huh?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Issuing TMFs for fast counts is an alternative method of achieving the
> same goal - fair stall counts for throwers. It's not about sneaking
> up on markers and surprising them with TMFs. You tell the players
> before the game, "Hey, you need to make sure that you're counting at
> least a 9.x second stall count. Count an 11-second count if you need
> to, but it is unacceptable to be below 9 seconds and you will get a
> TMF for it."-
---you're just a big fella who wants to dole out some tmfs.........why
is that??????
ulticritic
> experiences.
who's else would they represent?
ulticritic
>
> ---one day, stall counts will be silent.
> arm chop only.
one day they already were (MLU)......and the stall was 7 secs.
everyone liked it too.
ulticritic
silent stall anyone? problem solved
------------------------------------------------------
>
> Players have a hard time hearing the observers under a variety of
> conditions (wind, loud sidelines, observers standing away to give room
> to the dump, etc.).
silent stall anyone??? problem solved
--------------------------------------------
>
> Observers have a hard time hearing marking violations called (and
> therefore reacting).
silent stall???? problem solved
---------------------------------------------------
>
> It brings up issues of how strictly observers should enforce "disc
> space" when they hear the call and stop counting until the illegal
> position is corrected. There is not a single player in the country
> who enforces disc space to the limits of the rule.
thats probably because there is no real penalty when that call is
made.....in fact, it penalizes the thrower(offense). havent we
discussed this major flaw a gazillion times?
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> The standard for issuing TMFs?
isnt it easer to standard ize stall counts and travel calls than
tmf's? Is the point really for the observers to judge the intent of
the calls so that players are more honest competetors or is it to
simply make the game more fair and efficient? why is there such a big
need to judge a players honor for you spirit zealots?
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem at all with issuing
> a TMF for a single instance of an 8.9 second TMF.
i do, as a fan. i'd rather the observer just count so that "around
the elbow" approach is simply eliminated and dosent even come into
play.
-----------------------------------------------
A 7 second count
> and an 8.9 second count both earn a TMF. If that were our standard, I
> guarantee you we would not have any fast counts.
couldnt ya do the same by letting observers keep track.....and avoid
the whole tmf thing?
-------------------------------------
> Problem solved.
not the problem of that process being completely ineffecient
---------------------------------------------------------------
If
> players want to push the limit on the observers, then they're playing
> with fire.
i actually chuckled at this remark
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> That's not how it's being called now. But just figure a standard and
> go with it. I am opposed to giving warnings.
but isnt a tmf essentially a warning....until the 3rd?
--------------------------------------
That's what the first
> two TMFs are for.
thank you.......so i supposed you ar opposed to the first two tmfs
being warnings. you are a strange bird ther colin.
Colin
> ---you're just a big fella who wants to dole out some tmfs.........why
> is that??????
Because it's a simple solution to every behavioral problem that is
complained about in ultimate. Rather than experimenting with a dozen
different little variations of changes in observer duties, we should
just address the core problem -- that there is no disincentive for
cheating and other bad behavior by players.
TMFs can get issued more aggressively immediately. Nobody argues that
they would be ineffective. And it is clearly the easiest solution
with no downsides or serious implementation issues. The players get a
TMF and they adjust their conduct. It works great. It makes them
play better ultimate.
Reggie Fanelli
> > is that??????
>
> Because it's a simple solution to every behavioral problem that is
> complained about in ultimate.
---TMFs are simple solutions?
i've given 2 in my career and have never experienced the 'behavioral
problem' that you have as an observer.
i've observed tons of games with active travel calls....and i've never
had a travel related TMF.
i've observed tons of games without active travel calls....and i've
never had a travel related TMF.
......and you use them like a "simple solution"??????????
that doesn't make any sense.
it's like a basketball ref giving Technicals for the point guard
traveling.......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rather than experimenting with a dozen
> different little variations of changes in observer duties, we should
> just address the core problem -- that there is no disincentive for
> cheating and other bad behavior by players.
---yeah....don't experiment with observer duties...just give more
TMFs.
are you kidding?
i'd say, shockingly, the exact opposite.
have TWO DOZEN variations...figure out the the way the UOA is doing it
is the best way...and then adopt all our methods.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> TMFs can get issued more aggressively immediately.
---aren't you embarrassed to keep saying that?
control your games better.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nobody argues that
> they would be ineffective.
--ok...i'll argue.
more TMFs would be ineffective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it is clearly the easiest solution
> with no downsides or serious implementation issues.
---what?
i fear that you have some sort of problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The players get a
> TMF and they adjust their conduct. It works great. It makes them
> play better ultimate.
---why?
i know that i'm the best observer in the world.....i know it.
and i feel exactly OPPOSITE of you on nearly every single tiny bit of
observing.
WAKE UP COLIN!!!!
bil
> space" when they hear the call and stop counting until the illegal
> position is corrected. There is not a single player in the country
> who enforces disc space to the limits of the rule.
Why wouldn't observers just STOP counting when there is a disc space
violation going on (i.e. without any action required by the thrower)?
Make disc space no longer a call if the observer is counting, but
penalize the defense for _every_ second of violation.
I mean, other than that would mean there would hardly ever be a stall
count - except, eventually there would be. Just w/ really distant
marks as markers adapted.
Did someone try this somewhere? I don't know.
Practically, maybe it would be like, "stalling one, two, (violation
occurring) two, two, two, three, (violation occurring) four, four,
four, five, six," etc.
Colin
Making disc space an active call would be another step -- a step that
has not been taken yet. That might rub the "player control"
proponents the wrong way. As the thrower, I may want to encourage the
marker to set up illegally so that I can break him and get fouled.
Having an observer encouraging him to back up (by not counting) may
not be what I want. But it makes sense and would be an easy enough
addition.
From a player/voter perspective, I just want to know how disc space is
going to be enforced. Are the observers going to be calling it in a
way that no player ever has under the 11th edition? By voting for
active stall counts, am I voting for markers having to set up twice as
far away as is necessary to have a good, clean mark? These are
questions that the players should be asking and should be demanding
answers to before any voting takes place.
I understand what the rule would require (stop counting, then drop
one). Just wondering how many people understand what it means to
enforce disc space to the letter of the law and how many people are
eager to see that happen. It would dramatically reduce marking
fouls. Not necessarily a bad thing. Just something people should be
aware of and make a decision while understanding the implications of
the decision.
Colin
> i know that i'm the best observer in the world.....i know it.
> and i feel exactly OPPOSITE of you on nearly every single tiny bit of
> observing.
> WAKE UP COLIN!!!!
Your self-proclaimed talent as an observer is unrelated to your talent
as a thinker and ability to consider all sides of an issue to reach a
well-reasoned conclusion.
With you observing, I could dramatically change a game by cheating if
you refused to issue TMFs. Heck, even if you thought you were willing
to issue TMFs, I could still cheat to win.
In conclusion, your analogies are inapt and you're not engaging in
discussion in a way that accomplishes anything. So I'm done for now
on the topic.
Reggie Fanelli
> discussion in a way that accomplishes anything. So I'm done for now
> on the topic.
--good, because you don't seem to have anything to offer...
Reggie Fanelli
> some hiccups, with some players still counting out of habit and the
> observers adjusting.
--was my question about the 'observers adjusting' ever answered?
how did the players counting, lead to observers adjusting?
ulticritic
>
> Your self-proclaimed talent as an observer is unrelated to your talent
> as a thinker and ability to consider all sides of an issue to reach a
> well-reasoned conclusion.
but colin. isnt your "well reasoned conclusion" that passive observers
are a better solution to arbitrating sports than fully active
refs???? and if thats the case then how do you explain all the
sp[orts that use fully active refs???? You dont hink that those other
sports are just oblivious to the whole self officiated "pick up"
meathod of arbitration do you? so how can you explain ALL THESE
PEOPLE in volved in ALL THESE SPORTS using an inferior system to their
sports. I mean, do you consider any of this when you construct your
"well reasoned conclusion". and wouldnt it be rather naive and
irresponsible for you NOT TO take these factor into account durring
that "thinking" process?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> With you observing, I could dramatically change a game by cheating if
> you refused to issue TMFs.
how?
----------------------------------------
Heck, even if you thought you were willing
> to issue TMFs, I could still cheat to win.
but couldnt ya do it more and easier without the observer have more
control?
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In conclusion, your analogies are inapt and you're not engaging in
> discussion in a way that accomplishes anything. So I'm done for now
> on the topic.
i think youre just "done".....as in "ate up" done.
Tim-Haymaker
give TMF's anymore?
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Reggie Fanelli
> give TMF's anymore?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---nope.
however, the UOA issues Team Misconduct Fouls for, obviously, Team
related offenses........
and the UOA issues Technical Fouls for 'personal' type
issues....spiking at/on someone, slamming into the thrower is you're
the marker, taunting, telling someone you're going to punch them,
cursing....
ulticritic
TMF's are the stupidest thing ive ever herd of. had to be some spirit
zealot that though it up. I mean, are there any other instances in
any other sports where the entire "team" is assesed a penalty for the
behavior of "one player".
thefan
> TMF's are the stupidest thing ive ever herd of. had to be some spirit
> zealot that though it up. I mean, are there any other instances in
> any other sports where the entire "team" is assesed a penalty for the
> behavior of "one player".
track is the first that comes to mind along with soccer in a similar
way as ultimate.
in track if a runner from a relay team spikes the baton after or
during a race, say, last leg of a 4 X 400 gets run down and passed, is
upset and spikes the baton on the infield. relay is disqualified.
not exactly the same.
in soccer, a player could get a red card as the result of two yellow
cards for "Ungentlemanly Conduct", which could be for arguing calls
with the ref, or some other non physical offense. also yellow and red
cards for flagrant fouls, handballs, etc. the red carded player of
course has to leave the game, the team plays down a man and is at a
team disadvantage for the remainder of the game.
you could also argue technical fouls in basketball since it could
result in the loss of possession.
it's not TMF's that are stupid, it's using them as a substitute for
just letting the guy with the best perspective, who's also not trying
to win the game make the calls.
ulticritic
> On Mar 10, 8:10 am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > TMF's are the stupidest thing ive ever herd of. had to be some spirit
> > zealot that though it up. I mean, are there any other instances in
> > any other sports where the entire "team" is assesed a penalty for the
> > behavior of "one player".
>
> track is the first that comes to mind along with soccer in a similar
> way as ultimate.
>
> in track if a runner from a relay team spikes the baton after or
> during a race, say, last leg of a 4 X 400 gets run down and passed, is
> upset and spikes the baton on the infield. relay is disqualified.
> not exactly the same.
no, it isnt. a tmf would be more like penalizing the relay team for
somthing the pole vaulter did.
--------------------------------------------------
>
> in soccer, a player could get a red card as the result of two yellow
> cards for "Ungentlemanly Conduct", which could be for arguing calls
> with the ref, or some other non physical offense.
but its still refered to as an "individual" foul, right?
-----------------------------------------------------
also yellow and red
> cards for flagrant fouls, handballs, etc. the red carded player of
> course has to leave the game, the team plays down a man and is at a
> team disadvantage for the remainder of the game.
yea, one of the stupidest rules in all of sports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> you could also argue technical fouls in basketball since it could
> result in the loss of possession.
but so are regular personals so.......no. now if they were just like
t's in b ball in which each player was alowed 2 and each one carried
the same penalty no matter how many had accumulated then it would be
like that. I mean, just the idea of assessing a "team" misconduct
foul for the actions of "one player" is stupid in and of itself.
Thats why they should shelf the tmf with the ground tap (and sotg
while youre at it) and simply call it a pmf......and then just rename
it a Technical foul like in b-ball.
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> it's not TMF's that are stupid, it's using them as a substitute for
> just letting the guy with the best perspective, who's also not trying
> to win the game make the calls.
well obviously that is stupid but why have a foul that is so
undesciptive of what it is........Its almost like the spirit zealots
are trying to subconciously blame an entire team for one of their
players actions. its just a wierd and stupid name/phrase for somthing
that is essentially exactly the same as a tecnical foul in b-ball.
Isnt there probably a good reason that basketball dosent refer to such
misconduct as a "team" foul? probably because its an "individual"
that initiated the "conduct" to warrant it. Now i think b-ball has
bench violations in which more than one NONplaying team members can be
assessed........which could be refered to as a tmf as far as i'm
concerned.