The spirit of the game clause and reffed ultimate
Heinousboy
that not only could reffed ultimate provide legitimacy for a sport
that continues to be treated like the red headed step child of the
sporting community it could also be more "spirited". Through the
spirit of the game clause players would be able to overturn calls made
in their favor, giving players the opportunity to demonstrate respect
for their opponent and the game by placing fair play above their own
competitive selfish goals.
"There is a 30-second stop and we clarify the situation," he said.
"I'm sure in the future they will have to do something about it. It
wasn't up to Henry to say I touched it with my hand."
The above quote regarding the controversy from the recent Futbol match
between Irland and France(http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/
internationals/8368100.stm ) would read something like this if it were
an ultimate game
"There is a 30-second stop and we clarify the situation," he said.
"I'm sure in the future they will have to do something about it.
Certainly Henry could have spoken up and invoked the 'Spirit of the
game clause' to resolve the situation on the spot."
SOTGC - think about it
Colin
> For some time now the pro-ref camp here on RSD have been advocating
Do you guys do anything other than whine on RSD? When can we expect
an experimental reffed event? You guys are lagging behind the
observer experimenters (UPA, UOA, and more). Your message has been
heard. Repeatedly. Now will you please host an event so we can
experience how awesome refs are?
Heinousboy
I'm under no illusion that refed ultimate is going to take over any
time soon and I am sure that the majority of players, myself included
are going to be arguing it out (on the field I mean) for probably the
rest of my ultimate career.
It's about the current dogma within the UPA that ultimate is only
ultimate if it's player controlled. Ckerr's post about his dream of
seeing a game of self officiated ultimate played in a huge crowd
filled stadium is what this is all about. That the direction of the
game is dictated by this pipe dream is what I have a problem with.
Define the game by the way it's played not by how it's officiated,
that's all I'm asking for. Yes, I'm being honest, if the UPA dropped
it's adherence to their self officiation montra, all else remaining
the same, I'd never post about refs again.
Colin
Interesting. I haven't encountered much of the dogma. But I don't
read the newsletter or other announcements all that frequently.
Still, the dogma objection seems frivolous. Is the dogma really
having an impact?
I think the first many steps toward improving the observer system or
establishing a referee system are the same - create a larger pool of
talented, qualified officials and increase their power. Isn't that
what the UPA is doing?
Would you be satisfied if instead of saying that self-officiation is
the defining characteristic of the sport (or whatever you think the
dogma is), the UPA said that it prefers self-officiation for a variety
of substantive reasons?
Heinousboy
>
> Would you be satisfied if instead of saying that self-officiation is
> the defining characteristic of the sport (or whatever you think the
> dogma is), the UPA said that it prefers self-officiation for a variety
> of substantive reasons?
Prefers self-officiation but respects and supports any type of
officiation method. Right now Geric's 8s tournaments are UPA
sanctioned. Try running a ref'd tournament and getting UPA
sanctioning. It's not going to happen with the current members of the
UPA board.
Feel free to try and make me eat my words.
Colin
> Try running a ref'd tournament and getting UPA
> sanctioning. It's not going to happen with the current members of the
> UPA board.
The majority of tournaments are not UPA-sanctioned. What's the big
deal? I'd also be surprised if you couldn't get UPA sanctioning. Is
it a board decision? Are you somehow familiar with the current
board? Has anyone tried and failed to get UPA sanctioning for a
reffed tournament in the past decade?
MyCouchPullsOutButIDon't
I don't think it would be that hard to hire UPA certified observers to
come to a tournament, but have them act as referees instead. I would
imagine they would be more than willing to work an event for their
usual fee to try an experimental idea. Obviously the bid fee would be
a little high, but I'm sure some upper echelon teams would love to
participate and provide input on how a referee'd system works. I read
a lot of whining on this forum about how the game needs to be
officiated, but nothing about attempts to test an officiated game. If
you're going to whine about something, contact the UPA or host an
experimental tournament. Anyone can complain, but if you really care
about what you're saying, take action to change the status quo.
Griff #25 JoJ
Heinousboy
From the UPA website. Have things changed in the last 4 years? Not
only will they not sanction the event, you aren't even allowed to put
the tournament on their event postings list which is not the case for
other non-UPA sanctioned events.
http://www.upa.org/upa/about/publicstatements/eventspolicy
UPA Position on Event Postings
Posted 01/22/2005
In September, the National Ultimate Association (NUA) announced that
it would hold a refereed tournament on the weekend of May 28, 2005.
Recently the NUA submitted its event to be posted on the list of
upcoming tournaments on the UPA website. The tournament was posted by
a new UPA staff person who was unaware of UPA precedent not to post
events that were inconsistent with the UPA’s mission. Upon being made
aware of such precedent, UPA staff then removed the tournament from
the website. Subsequently, the Executive Director sought guidance from
the Board of Directors on this situation. After careful consideration,
the UPA Board of Directors decided against posting the tournament on
the website for the following reasons.
Although the NUA has stated that its staff are proponents of Spirit of
the Game, that concept, as defined in the Official Rules of Ultimate,
expressly “places the responsibility for fair play on the player.” The
concept of SOTG is at Ultimate’s core. It makes Ultimate unique in the
universe of athletic endeavors. The NUA rules, while advocating good
sportsmanship, expressly remove the responsibility for fair play from
the players and place it on referees. As such, the NUA’s definition of
Ultimate falls outside of the UPA’s own (see upa.org/upa/mission).
The UPA has continued to explore the use of officials in the sport of
Ultimate. There is, however, a fundamental distinction between the use
of observers, which allows players to control the game, and the use of
referees, which does not. The use of referees, as defined by the NUA,
divests players from some of the most important aspects of the sport
of Ultimate. The UPA has stated very clearly its stance on the use of
officials in Ultimate (see upa.org/observers).
Currently the UPA does not promote or support goaltimate, disc golf,
or other sports that do not fit the organization’s definition of
Ultimate or fall under its mission. However the UPA, especially in
recent years, has been very supportive of rules experimentation and
the evolution of the sport. In 1999, as a result of support from the
players, the UPA incorporated a new set of rules for its College
Division. This rule system incorporates officials and addresses many
of the issues that concern proponents of referees, including game
delays and conduct problems. However, it still allows for players to
control the game itself, which the UPA membership, through its Board,
has determined is a defining element of the sport. The UPA continues
to recognize the diverse needs of its membership and works to support
those needs by investing its resources in a variety of programs
including Outreach, Leagues, Youth, Championships, Rules, and
Observers.
The UPA is a membership organization, governed by a Board of Directors
that is elected by the membership. The Board makes decisions based on
what it believes to be the interests of the membership as a whole.
Given the clear differences between the UPA’s definition of Ultimate
and that of the NUA, the Board of Directors felt that is was not
appropriate to use UPA resources to promote an event that does not
fall under the UPA’s mission or vision for the sport.
The UPA as an organization cannot endorse the NUA event. However, the
issue of the NUA tournament has brought to light the fact that,
despite precedent in which events falling outside of the UPA’s mission
were not posted to the UPA website, the UPA had not adopted an
official policy regarding the posting of tournaments. The Board of
Directors does recognize that UPA members, unaware of precedent in
action and in the absence of any formalized policy, should be afforded
some consideration. Accordingly, the Board of Directors will allow the
NUA tournament to be posted on its website.
However, in releasing this statement, the UPA also announces its
policy regarding the posting of events on its website. “It is the
policy of the UPA to announce UPA-sanctioned tournaments on its
website. Upon request and at its discretion, the UPA will also
announce other Ultimate tournaments which it deems consistent with the
mission of the organization.”
The UPA will continue to support the work of Ultimate organizers and
innovators within the bounds of its mission and relies on the feedback
of its members to determine the organization’s priorities and
direction.
Last updated 07/28/2008 - 15:14
Colin
You didn't answer why it was a big deal not to be sanctioned. That
said, what's to stop a refereed event that really wants to be
sanctioned from organizing and describing itself in a way consistent
with the UPA mission. "Ultimate will be played at our event and the
responsibility for fair play falls on the players. We will have
referees to help [insert observer function description here] by making
calls." Done. Or don't get UPA sanctioned. big deal? no.
ckerr4
> You didn't answer why it was a big deal not to be
> sanctioned.
Liability insurance.
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
Colin
> colinmcintyre wrote on Fri, 20 November 2009 12:54
>
> > You didn't answer why it was a big deal not to be
> > sanctioned.
>
> Liability insurance.
>
Right. But that seems to be a moderately-sized deal, not a big deal.
The majority of tournaments are not UPA sanctioned, so they seem to be
handling that issue somehow, right?
richarda...@gmail.com
For real, right? I've been on and off RSD for years, and it's the
same old song all year long. We need refs, but it's someone else's
fault that we're not doing anything about it. And it's someone else's
fault that the previous experiments didn't catch on.
A treatise on SOTG's faults referring to Henry (which is really an
example of colossal ref failure that good spirit couldn't right) isn't
going to make reffed tournaments materialize out of dust.
ulticritic
> On Nov 19, 12:54 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For some time now the pro-ref camp here on RSD have been advocating
>
> Do you guys do anything other than whine on RSD? When can we expect
> an experimental reffed event? You guys are lagging behind the
> observer experimenters (UPA, UOA, and more).
what are you talking about.......uoa IS reffed......think about it,
they make more active calls than simply "referals".......not that they
need to, by definition anyways. FACE IT! the uoa observers ARE
traditional refs on everything but fouls and picks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Your message has been
> heard. Repeatedly. Now will you please host an event so we can
> experience how awesome refs are?
isnt that the upas' job though???? arent they the so called stewards
of this sport. Isnt it up to them to be incharge of reasearch and
development?
I have to say that i'm somewhat surprised that you are so unreceptive
to theis refs w/ sotgc added. I mean isnt that as much as having your
cake and eating it to as it gets???? I mean, at least humor us with
an argument as to why this is such a bad idea.
ulticritic
>
> I think the first many steps toward improving the observer system or
> establishing a referee system are the same - create a larger pool of
> talented, qualified officials and increase their power. Isn't that
> what the UPA is doing?
not NEARLY as well as the uoa is doing it. which makes me suspecious
right there. i mean, the uoa is just two guys in some hodunk town in
se north carolina. the upa are the ones with all the resources and
suposed know how. So all this tells me is that the upa is either
completely inept or they have an overt agenda to thwart the evolution
of the observer system.......which will UNDOUBTEDLY eventually morph
into a reffed system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Would you be satisfied if instead of saying that self-officiation is
> the defining characteristic of the sport (or whatever you think the
> dogma is), the UPA said that it prefers self-officiation for a variety
> of substantive reasons?
I WOULDNT. its not their place to deem what is prefered by the
membership......its their place to provide said members with all
viable and potential options that people have interest in. and when
their own surveys show that 50% of the respondants favor ref
experimentation the admin should respond back.......by facilitating
said experimentation. Dont try and ignore the fact that there IS, and
always has been, an overt agenda to exclude a "referee" component from
the sport......and dont put it on the membership (uoa included) to do
their job......or at least the research and development aspect of it.
ulticritic
>
> > Try running a ref'd tournament and getting UPA
> > sanctioning. It's not going to happen with the current members of the
> > UPA board.
>
> The majority of tournaments are not UPA-sanctioned. What's the big
> deal? I'd also be surprised if you couldn't get UPA sanctioning.
from all my past dealings with that group, I WOULDNT!!!! they made it
quite clear that they wouldnt even list a reffed NUA event back in 05'
by saying that "if theres refs, it aint ultimate"........They also
said they would deny us the right to use the insurance policy based on
that same fact. which i dont think would have been legal on their
part.
NOW, after realizing the error of their ways the DID put the event
(that never happened by the way) back on the list. But the problems
that me and andrew are talking about is the fact that they took it off
in the first place. It was an overtly exclusive move and an attempt
to twart any possible progression in that area. Wouldnt any other
sport welcome such efforts......and either initiate them......or at
least assist in their execution. I think you are being a little naive
about the "tolerance" level of the administration when it comes to
being inclusive to the wants and needs of the members.
ulticritic
<gh...@jacksonville.edu> wrote:
>
> I don't think it would be that hard to hire UPA certified observers to
> come to a tournament, but have them act as referees instead.
WORD!!!!! the uoa observers are a foul and pick call away from that
right now.........which i'm thinking some(most) upa administrators
ARENT all that fired about in and of itself.
------------------------------------------------------------
I would
> imagine they would be more than willing to work an event for their
> usual fee to try an experimental idea.
some would. jason expressed interest........but mike g still seems
somewhat apprehensive. go figure (hes a b-ball ref by trade)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously the bid fee would be
> a little high, but I'm sure some upper echelon teams would love to
> participate and provide input on how a referee'd system works.
and even with this info the upa STILL dosent respond. to me THAT is
the real sad part of this whole delema.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read
> a lot of whining on this forum about how the game needs to be
> officiated, but nothing about attempts to test an officiated game. If
> you're going to whine about something, contact the UPA or host an
> experimental tournament. Anyone can complain, but if you really care
> about what you're saying, take action to change the status quo.
contacting the upa aint gonna do squat!!!! so, taking matters into
our own hands is our only option?????? even with redident youth
ultimate expert tinna booth saying that refs will help the sport grow
AND STILL NO RESPONSE FROM THE UPA?
To me, the whole issue of the upa not properly or adequately
representing the membership (BUT RATHER SEEKING TO SATISFY THEIR OWN
WANTS AND NEEDS) by overtly making NO EFFORT to satiate this need and
want is JUST AS BIG AS the whole ref issue itself.
ulticritic
<richardaustinw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For real, right? I've been on and off RSD for years, and it's the
> same old song all year long. We need refs, but it's someone else's
> fault that we're not doing anything about it.
its not someone elses fault........ITS THE ADMINISTRATIONS
FAULT!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And it's someone else's
> fault that the previous experiments didn't catch on.
>
> A treatise on SOTG's faults referring to Henry (which is really an
> example of colossal ref failure that good spirit couldn't right)
couldnt have henry cleared the ball after double handing it???? or
better yet not double handed it in the first place. How can you say
this is a colasal ref failure that good spirit couldnt right?
BUT.......if this is REALLY your justification for this act then why
not set up a system that has the best of both worlds of both refs and
sotg????? One in which refs would provide the effeciency and
impartial factors BUT a "narc yourself out" (WHERE PLAYERS ONLY
OVERTURN CALLS ON THEMSELVES) clause could be added to provide more
accuracy AND give you needy spirit weenies your opportunity to see
people "jesus out".
soccer does have some spirit clause whn an opponent gets hurt so that
the other team has no "advantage"........i guess that same spirit just
dosent carry over to getting an "advantage" by handing a
ball........kinda hypocritical imo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
isn't
> going to make reffed tournaments materialize out of dust.
for ultimate????? no
but for soccer......just watch how fast they adopt IR......which is
essentially adding a ref to the mix. Its just knda sad that ultimate
is too stubborn to try and learn from other sports.
ckerr4
> but for soccer......just watch how fast they adopt
> IR......which is
> essentially adding a ref to the mix. Its just knda sad
> that ultimate is too stubborn to try and learn from other
> sports.
If, by this you mean that instant replay is going to be
rapidly introduced to soccer, you know nothing about FIFA
and the sport. I'd say the over/under for video replays
being used by refs in soccer is something like 15 years...
I believe I just read that video replay isn't even slated to
be discussed at FIFA meeting until 2012.
Soccer is the slowest evolving sport on the planet.
Charles
ulticritic
>
> If, by this you mean that instant replay is going to be
> rapidly introduced to soccer, you know nothing about FIFA
> and the sport.
if you say it isnt then that sport is more stupid than i originally
thought.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say the over/under for video replays
> being used by refs in soccer is something like 15 years...
oh well, 15 years of idiocy. its their funeral
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I believe I just read that video replay isn't even slated to
> be discussed at FIFA meeting until 2012.
>
> Soccer is the slowest evolving sport on the planet.
dont ya mean, second slowest
ulticritic
s
fishklan41
planned .....it was no more unspirited than someone calling a bogus
travel call or some lame foul call on game point...over and over
again...which i have witnessed all to many times.......The good thing
about the ref being there is that he made his decision and stuck to it
and the game continued in less than 2 minutes ....if that was Ultimate
that arguement would still be going on
Throw
achieved unfairly or dishonestly," reads the body's Code of Conduct.
"Cheating is easy but brings no pleasure."
more here: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1940588,00.html
He touched the ball twice....and that wasn't all accidental....and the
ref missed the correct call.
I read in other European coverage that technically, according to the
rules, he should have fessed up then and there.
Hank & Co.
www.thisisultimate.com
fishklan41
I'm not saying it was accidental....I'm saying it was a
reaction...just like it is to call foul on incidental contact....or
travel when you get broken on game point
Throw
> I'm not saying it was accidental....I'm saying it was a
> reaction...just like it is to call foul on incidental contact....or
> travel when you get broken on game point
Some folks have control of their reactions of course.....
a. do the right thing.
b. don't do the right thing.
Life is that simple at times.
Throw
so you aren't disputing that Henry broke the FIFA rules of play?
What i read was correct?
Technically, according to the rules, he should have fessed up?
throw & co.
fishklan41
From all reports Henry did fess up on his way back to the kick-off...
Its that simple when you are playing in the park....or some hat
tourney....its not that simple in a final, at nationals or in a WC
qualifier.... If you're saying that it doesn't happen in ultimate
thats just naive...
fishklan41
From reports I've read he did fess up on the way back to his half...
Throw
I'm not sure what contact / interaction he made with the ref following
the hand deflection X 2 in front of the goal. But I don't think he
exclaimed " that was in fact a handball" to the ref.
anyway....all this is old news but :
1. player knowingly breaks the rule(s)
2. ref makes the wrong call
.....is not exactly a beautiful thing.
later
fishklan41
Ultimate:
1. Player knowingly breaks the rules
2. Player stands by his call
3. Argument insues for 5 mins
4. Call remains the same
.....not exactly a beautiful thing
fishklan41
"I'd be more annoyed with my defenders and my goalkeeper than Thierry
Henry. How can you leave a ball to bounce in the six-yard box? How can
you let Thierry Henry get goalside of you?"
"If the ball bounces into the six-yard box, I'd be saying, 'Where the
hell is my goalkeeper?' If that was my team I'd go into the dressing
room and I wouldn't even mention the handball. " - Roy Keane ,
Manager, Ipswich Town
Brummie
> seeing a game of self officiated ultimate played in a huge crowd
> filled stadium is what this is all about
Like this, perhaps? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFYwfvFJ2qM. (The
stadium isn't exactly full, but most of the crowd was behind the
camera)
ulticritic
>
>
> a. do the right thing.
> b. don't do the right thing.
>
> Life is that simple at times.
exactly, and as easy as it is to choose b. IS the reason there is a
need for refs. And the fact that just "some folks have control or
their reations" as opposed to "all folks" is yet another reason. When
ya get to all you can count on that silly sotg system workin, til
then, "do as the romans".
ulticritic
>
and technically, according to the rules of ultimate, AND the sotg
clause that governs them, no one should EVER go offsides in ultimate.
ulticritic
>
> 2. ref makes the wrong call
>
> .....is not exactly a beautiful thing.
not as ugly as...
1. player knowingly making bad call
2. opponent having no recourse on obvious and partially motivated bail
out call.
ckerr4
> > be
> > rapidly introduced to soccer, you know nothing about
> > FIFA
> > and the sport.
> > I'd say the over/under for video replays
> > being used by refs in soccer is something like 15
> > years...
London Times
Fifa Says No To Goalline Technology
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article7053141.ece
ulticritic
>
> London Times
> Fifa Says No To Goalline Technology
then they deserve to have their competition manipulated by savy
players like herny that can so easily change the course of the game
with a subtle little double had ball that leads to a goal. Kinda like
how ultimate deserves for the players to make suck bail out calls just
for providing them with that idiotic allowance.......