Forum Search:
RSD No Spam
rec.sport.disc without the spam


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate
Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12768] Tue, 17 February 2009 07:59 Go to next message
Knappy
Messages: 830
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Toad promised to stay off this thread, so discuss away.

Observers

Refservers

Refs

none of the above
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12769 is a reply to message #12768] Tue, 17 February 2009 08:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 17, 10:59 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Toad promised to stay off this thread, so discuss away.
>
> Observers
>
> Refservers
>
> Refs
>
> none of the above

Most of the arguments have been stated many times before, but for the
sake of getting something started:

1. Players are biased (whether knowingly or subconsciously) and
sometimes make bogus calls. Reason for some kind of officiating.

2. Players are busy playing and aren't prioritizing being in position
to make visual calls (travels, in/out, up/down, etc.) Reason for some
active calls made by a third party.

3. Players have a better perspective on contact calls (fouls, strips,
picks, etc.) in a lot of cases. Reason for some kind of player
initiated system of calls.

4. Officials minimize game stoppage during calls. Reason for active
officiating or time limits before official intervention in a player
initiated system.

5. The vast majority of players don't know the rules. Many players
have never even read the rules. Reason for officials.

6. A need for harsher penalties for some violations/fouls
(particularly intentional, flagrant, or repeated violations.) Reason
for officials.

There are plenty more arguments.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12770 is a reply to message #12768] Tue, 17 February 2009 08:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Baer
Messages: 387
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
I'm very busy these days but I'll try to find time to participate in
this discussion (it's been a while since I've posted about the ref
issue). I often agree with most of Toad's ideas about refs, so maybe I
can represent that side of the argument here in his absence (and play
nicely).

I think that overall, we are heading in the right direction in terms
of experimenting with giving observers more powers and duties. I loved
reading about what happened at the ACC Championships, and Gerics and
the Observer Association look like they are on the right track and
leading the way. I also loved hearing about the "ref-server"
experiments at Summer Solstice last year.

While a lot of people talk about the values of self-officiation and
what it lends to the spirit and uniqueness of Ultimate, much of which
I can appreciate, I am fully in the camp that if Ultimate is to become
a legitimate sport and if the highest levels of competition are going
to have something serious at stake, a stronger, unbiased officiation/
arbitration process will be needed. While the sportsmanship angle
should still be celebrated, it's unfathomable to picture athletes in
any major sport being allowed to make all their own calls.

That doesn't mean we have to emulate everything another sport does,
but we can learn a lot from what other sports have done and still
maintain our uniqueness as a sport as we continue to grow.

I also think a related challenge that is often talked about is the
costs associated with refs (or paid observers) if they are to be
standardized, vs. the current size of Ultimate and the frugalness of
players. I think standardizing and paying observers/refs will only be
possible if Ultimate continues to grow larger and more legitimate, and
they are also necessary for Ultimate to become more legitimate, so
it's kind of a circular issue (and an interesting challenge for the
leaders of our sport).
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12772 is a reply to message #12769] Tue, 17 February 2009 08:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Baer
Messages: 387
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
McB seems to sum it up nicely. Hopefully we can continue to have a
good discussion here. I'll post more when I can!
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12773 is a reply to message #12768] Tue, 17 February 2009 08:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Knappy
Messages: 830
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
I'll start:

I think the observer model has a lot of potential. Ideally, it
combines the best of ultimate's rules, culture & code of conduct with
a third party arbitrator to decide disputes.

I understand the pro league necesitating refs argument, but since we
have no pro teams in US, let alone a pro league....that argument is
moot for me & i would argue it's not in the UPA's purview, IMO.

I am all for the UPA & local orgs experimenting with different active
calls. Travel calls seem like a great place to start.

IF there was a pool of quality, trained observers available, all games
@ club/college nationals should be observed. Ideally, most games in
the series, too. I am glad that the UPA & volunteers are working on
training more observers, but more needs to be invested & done in this
dept. Every major city/ultimate org should be enlisted in the effort
to train observers locally...league play would seem an ideal place to
experiment with this. Not saying that I want observers in leagues (no
more than I would want refs in pickup hoops), but that observers could
practice/train at a local level.

In my limited experience w/observers @ club nationals, most observers
we had were not very effective, too hesitant to get involved or in the
right position, & needed significantly more practive/training. A few
were excellent. (playing mixed, I think we had the less experienced
observers, but could be wrong about this.)

When I Td'd regionals a few year ago, I hired observers (local) and
paid them (I think $75/day each) to do the games to go. They were both
excellent, but they were also known quantities to me. Likewise, I
think Troy/Garrett had excellent reviews doing the final last year at
MA regionals. So, there are great observers out there.

If the UPA did an observer clinic in Philly, I would attend.



On Feb 17, 10:59 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Toad promised to stay off this thread, so discuss away.
>
> Observers
>
> Refservers
>
> Refs
>
> none of the above
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12776 is a reply to message #12773] Tue, 17 February 2009 09:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 17, 11:38 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll start:
>
> I think the observer model has a lot of potential. Ideally, it
> combines the best of ultimate's rules, culture & code of conduct with
> a third party arbitrator to decide disputes.
>
> I understand the pro league necesitating refs argument, but since we
> have no pro teams in US, let alone a pro league....that argument is
> moot for me & i would argue it's not in the UPA's purview, IMO.
>
> I am all for the UPA & local orgs experimenting with different active
> calls. Travel calls seem like a great place to start.
>
> IF there was a pool of quality, trained observers available, all games
> @ club/college nationals should be observed. Ideally, most games in
> the series, too.  I am glad that the UPA & volunteers are working on
> training more observers, but more needs to be invested & done in this
> dept. Every major city/ultimate org should be enlisted in the effort
> to train observers locally...league play would seem an ideal place to
> experiment with this. Not saying that I want observers in leagues (no
> more than I would want refs in pickup hoops), but that observers could
> practice/train at a local level.
>
> In my limited experience w/observers @ club nationals, most observers
> we had were not very effective, too hesitant to get involved or in the
> right position, & needed significantly more practive/training. A few
> were excellent. (playing mixed, I think we had the less experienced
> observers, but could be wrong about this.)
>
> When  I Td'd regionals a few year ago, I hired observers (local) and
> paid them (I think $75/day each) to do the games to go. They were both
> excellent, but they were also known quantities to me. Likewise, I
> think Troy/Garrett had excellent reviews doing the final last year at
> MA regionals. So, there are great observers out there.
>
> If the UPA did an observer clinic in Philly, I would attend.
>
> On Feb 17, 10:59 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Toad promised to stay off this thread, so discuss away.
>
> > Observers
>
> > Refservers
>
> > Refs
>
> > none of the above

Alright, I outlined some of the more basic arguments that have been
put out there in the past, so now I'll talk about where I stand on the
issue and why.

I'm pro ref. All the way. Pick up games and relaxed league play can
continue to be self-officiated (practically nothing at stake and
typically played with people who know each other and are fairly
amiable), but legitimate, competitive Ultimate needs active third
party officiation. I think that most people agree that self-
officiation is not cutting it, so the main argument is how much power
to give to the third party and the system under which they operate.

Here's an example of when the observer system fails:

This actually happened to a guy on my team in a game at college
regionals a few years back - that game happened to make a big
difference as far as which team made it to Sunday (my team or the
other team), this play was near the end of the game, and the game
ended 16-14, so this one play made a pretty big difference. Player 1
(A) - plays for team A - goes up for a disc in the endzone (for a
score.) Player 2(B) - plays for team B - jumps into the back of player
1(A), both hindering his upward movement and continuing down on player
1(A) knocking him to the ground. Player 2(B) manages not to fall down.
Player 3(B) - plays for team B - catches the disc. All three of these
players are pretty close together. 1(A) couldn't see either of the B
players when he was fouled. And from his position on the ground
doesn't realize what exactly happened, other than that he was fouled.
He calls foul on player 3(B), thinking the guy pushed him and then
caught the disc. Observer overrules. After the game, we talk to the
observer about the play and he says something like "yeah, you got
fouled, but not by the guy you called it on, and there's nothing I
could do about it."

Solutions to that situation:

1. Player 1(A) calls foul on everyone anywhere near him when he
recovers from the foul (gets off the ground and looks around.)
Probably not a great policy for promoting legit calls and
sportsmanship.
2. Not require player 1(A) to identify who the foul is being called
against, and the observer just rules whether a foul occured. This
sounds pretty stupid as the other team can't really respond without
knowing who is being faulted.
3. Give the official the power to call fouls. Active foul calls mean
refs. Seems like a pretty good solution to me.

Now that's just one example, and stuff like that probably doesn't
happen all that often, but it does happen. A system that allows that
kind of flaw (the fouled player, the fouling player, and the observer
all know that a foul was committed, but the result is no foul) is not
acceptable.

I'll chime in with more later.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12779 is a reply to message #12773] Tue, 17 February 2009 09:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
blw
Messages: 135
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
One argument that should be represented here:

The combination of observers and players has a really nice joint
effect; in essence, it eliminates one form of bad call.

With only one type of official (like a traditional referee, or a
simple player-reffed situation) you have correct calls and incorrect
calls.
With 2 officials, you now have 3 categories of calls (and one of these
is relatively rare):

Correct calls by players
Incorrect calls by players that are fixed by observer overrulings
Incorrect calls by players that are incorrectly upheld by observers
rulings

It seems, both theoretically and from my experience, that the
combination system gives increased accuracy.
Is that worth the necessary extra time? I think it might be...and that
is without factoring in the intrinsic benefits of self-refereeing.

A pro league could go the way of other pro sports....or there could be
a professional aspect to the self-refereeing. Docking 'pay' for
overruled called, for example. Fining the teams with the worst call-
ratings. Or rewarding those with the most accurate calls. What do they
do in cricket or golf is someone makes an incorrect call?

Observers are getting better, each year, by leaps and bounds. Some of
that is due to the Observer certification program, some is due to the
increased desire for good Observers, and some is due to the increasing
number of retiring players that know and respect the Observer role
enough to volunteer their time, I think.

blw

On Feb 17, 8:38 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll start:
>
> I think the observer model has a lot of potential. Ideally, it
> combines the best of ultimate's rules, culture & code of conduct with
> a third party arbitrator to decide disputes.
>
> I understand the pro league necesitating refs argument, but since we
> have no pro teams in US, let alone a pro league....that argument is
> moot for me & i would argue it's not in the UPA's purview, IMO.
>
> I am all for the UPA & local orgs experimenting with different active
> calls. Travel calls seem like a great place to start.
>
> IF there was a pool of quality, trained observers available, all games
> @ club/college nationals should be observed. Ideally, most games in
> the series, too.  I am glad that the UPA & volunteers are working on
> training more observers, but more needs to be invested & done in this
> dept. Every major city/ultimate org should be enlisted in the effort
> to train observers locally...league play would seem an ideal place to
> experiment with this. Not saying that I want observers in leagues (no
> more than I would want refs in pickup hoops), but that observers could
> practice/train at a local level.
>
> In my limited experience w/observers @ club nationals, most observers
> we had were not very effective, too hesitant to get involved or in the
> right position, & needed significantly more practive/training. A few
> were excellent. (playing mixed, I think we had the less experienced
> observers, but could be wrong about this.)
>
> When  I Td'd regionals a few year ago, I hired observers (local) and
> paid them (I think $75/day each) to do the games to go. They were both
> excellent, but they were also known quantities to me. Likewise, I
> think Troy/Garrett had excellent reviews doing the final last year at
> MA regionals. So, there are great observers out there.
>
> If the UPA did an observer clinic in Philly, I would attend.
>
> On Feb 17, 10:59 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Toad promised to stay off this thread, so discuss away.
>
> > Observers
>
> > Refservers
>
> > Refs
>
> > none of the above
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12783 is a reply to message #12779] Tue, 17 February 2009 09:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ad_gaines
Messages: 53
Registered: November 2008
Member
On Feb 17, 12:09 pm, blw <benlwigg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One argument that should be represented here:
>
> The combination of observers and players has a really nice joint
> effect; in essence, it eliminates one form of bad call.
>
> With only one type of official (like a traditional referee, or a
> simple player-reffed situation) you have correct calls and incorrect
> calls.
> With 2 officials, you now have 3 categories of calls (and one of these
> is relatively rare):
>
> Correct calls by players
> Incorrect calls by players that are fixed by observer overrulings
> Incorrect calls by players that are incorrectly upheld by observers
> rulings
>
> It seems, both theoretically and from my experience, that the
> combination system gives increased accuracy.
> Is that worth the necessary extra time? I think it might be...and that
> is without factoring in the intrinsic benefits of self-refereeing.
>
> A pro league could go the way of other pro sports....or there could be
> a professional aspect to the self-refereeing. Docking 'pay' for
> overruled called, for example. Fining the teams with the worst call-
> ratings. Or rewarding those with the most accurate calls. What do they
> do in cricket or golf is someone makes an incorrect call?
>
> Observers are getting better, each year, by leaps and bounds. Some of
> that is due to the Observer certification program, some is due to the
> increased desire for good Observers, and some is due to the increasing
> number of retiring players that know and respect the Observer role
> enough to volunteer their time, I think.
>
> blw
>
> On Feb 17, 8:38 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll start:
>
> > I think the observer model has a lot of potential. Ideally, it
> > combines the best of ultimate's rules, culture & code of conduct with
> > a third party arbitrator to decide disputes.
>
> > I understand the pro league necesitating refs argument, but since we
> > have no pro teams in US, let alone a pro league....that argument is
> > moot for me & i would argue it's not in the UPA's purview, IMO.
>
> > I am all for the UPA & local orgs experimenting with different active
> > calls. Travel calls seem like a great place to start.
>
> > IF there was a pool of quality, trained observers available, all games
> > @ club/college nationals should be observed. Ideally, most games in
> > the series, too.  I am glad that the UPA & volunteers are working on
> > training more observers, but more needs to be invested & done in this
> > dept. Every major city/ultimate org should be enlisted in the effort
> > to train observers locally...league play would seem an ideal place to
> > experiment with this. Not saying that I want observers in leagues (no
> > more than I would want refs in pickup hoops), but that observers could
> > practice/train at a local level.
>
> > In my limited experience w/observers @ club nationals, most observers
> > we had were not very effective, too hesitant to get involved or in the
> > right position, & needed significantly more practive/training. A few
> > were excellent. (playing mixed, I think we had the less experienced
> > observers, but could be wrong about this.)
>
> > When  I Td'd regionals a few year ago, I hired observers (local) and
> > paid them (I think $75/day each) to do the games to go. They were both
> > excellent, but they were also known quantities to me. Likewise, I
> > think Troy/Garrett had excellent reviews doing the final last year at
> > MA regionals. So, there are great observers out there.
>
> > If the UPA did an observer clinic in Philly, I would attend.
>
> > On Feb 17, 10:59 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Toad promised to stay off this thread, so discuss away.
>
> > > Observers
>
> > > Refservers
>
> > > Refs
>
> > > none of the above

you forgot correct calls overturned by observers
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12784 is a reply to message #12783] Tue, 17 February 2009 09:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
blw
Messages: 135
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 17, 9:23 am, ad_gai...@yahoo.com wrote:
> you forgot correct calls overturned by observers

In this framework, I'm treating the player refs (usually one from each
team) as a unit. If they together agree on a call, then it doesn't go
to the Observer. An 'incorrect' call is one where those players don't
agree. Both players could agree on something that is incorrect,
though. I think I worded this badly, I hope my major point still
stands, though.

Thanks for the fix,

> On Feb 17, 12:09 pm, blw <benlwigg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > One argument that should be represented here:
>
> > The combination of observers and players has a really nice joint
> > effect; in essence, it eliminates one form of bad call.
>
> > With only one type of official (like a traditional referee, or a
> > simple player-reffed situation) you have correct calls and incorrect
> > calls.
> > With 2 officials, you now have 3 categories of calls (and one of these
> > is relatively rare):
>
> > Correct calls by players
> > Incorrect calls by players that are fixed by observer overrulings
> > Incorrect calls by players that are incorrectly upheld by observers
> > rulings
>
> > It seems, both theoretically and from my experience, that the
> > combination system gives increased accuracy.
> > Is that worth the necessary extra time? I think it might be...and that
> > is without factoring in the intrinsic benefits of self-refereeing.
>
> > A pro league could go the way of other pro sports....or there could be
> > a professional aspect to the self-refereeing. Docking 'pay' for
> > overruled called, for example. Fining the teams with the worst call-
> > ratings. Or rewarding those with the most accurate calls. What do they
> > do in cricket or golf is someone makes an incorrect call?
>
> > Observers are getting better, each year, by leaps and bounds. Some of
> > that is due to the Observer certification program, some is due to the
> > increased desire for good Observers, and some is due to the increasing
> > number of retiring players that know and respect the Observer role
> > enough to volunteer their time, I think.
>
> > blw
>
> > On Feb 17, 8:38 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'll start:
>
> > > I think the observer model has a lot of potential. Ideally, it
> > > combines the best of ultimate's rules, culture & code of conduct with
> > > a third party arbitrator to decide disputes.
>
> > > I understand the pro league necesitating refs argument, but since we
> > > have no pro teams in US, let alone a pro league....that argument is
> > > moot for me & i would argue it's not in the UPA's purview, IMO.
>
> > > I am all for the UPA & local orgs experimenting with different active
> > > calls. Travel calls seem like a great place to start.
>
> > > IF there was a pool of quality, trained observers available, all games
> > > @ club/college nationals should be observed. Ideally, most games in
> > > the series, too.  I am glad that the UPA & volunteers are working on
> > > training more observers, but more needs to be invested & done in this
> > > dept. Every major city/ultimate org should be enlisted in the effort
> > > to train observers locally...league play would seem an ideal place to
> > > experiment with this. Not saying that I want observers in leagues (no
> > > more than I would want refs in pickup hoops), but that observers could
> > > practice/train at a local level.
>
> > > In my limited experience w/observers @ club nationals, most observers
> > > we had were not very effective, too hesitant to get involved or in the
> > > right position, & needed significantly more practive/training. A few
> > > were excellent. (playing mixed, I think we had the less experienced
> > > observers, but could be wrong about this.)
>
> > > When  I Td'd regionals a few year ago, I hired observers (local) and
> > > paid them (I think $75/day each) to do the games to go. They were both
> > > excellent, but they were also known quantities to me. Likewise, I
> > > think Troy/Garrett had excellent reviews doing the final last year at
> > > MA regionals. So, there are great observers out there.
>
> > > If the UPA did an observer clinic in Philly, I would attend.
>
> > > On Feb 17, 10:59 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Toad promised to stay off this thread, so discuss away.
>
> > > > Observers
>
> > > > Refservers
>
> > > > Refs
>
> > > > none of the above
>
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12785 is a reply to message #12779] Tue, 17 February 2009 09:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
So, the claim has been made that having a dual-offication system
(combination of players and observers) we move from having only two
types of calls (correct/incorrect by either players or refs) to having
three (my clarifications in parentheses):

1. Correct calls by players (call, no contest)
2. Incorrect calls by players that are fixed by observer overrulings
(call, contest, call overruled / contest upheld correctly)
3. Incorrect calls by players that are incorrectly upheld by observers
rulings (call, contest, call upheld / contest overruled correctly)

If that were true, then observers are absolutely an improvement over a
player-only or ref-only system (at least when using only correctness-
of-the-call as the standard - ignoring stoppage of play and other
considerations.)

Unfortunately, these other types of calls that occur were overlooked:

4. Correct calls by players incorrectly overturned by observers (call,
contest, call overruled / contest upheld incorrectly)
5. Correct or incorrect calls by players result in a do-over (call,
contest, observer has no perspective and calls a do-over)

Adding in these types of calls and rulings, I think we find that it is
harder to say that observers win out over the other two systems. It
comes down to preferences.

Given self-officiation, 2, 3, and 4 are traded for either incorrect
calls that stand, incorrect contests that stand or more of 5.

Given Refs, 1 becomes correct calls made by refs (the assumption being
that if it was flagrant enough for a no contest, the ref was going to
see it.) 2 becomes correct calls made by ref (assuming ref had same
perspective as observer.) 3 becomes correct calls made by refs. 4
becomes incorrect calls made by refs. 5 becomes a guessing game, where
sometimes the ref gets is right and sometimes not.

So we've got to think about what we value. Is it certainty in every
call that's made by a third party? Is it an unbiased third party,
whose job it is to see and make calls, making every call? How do we
feel about do-overs?

Refs sacrifice the do-over in favor of a call that won't always be
accurate, but that's the only time when a ref differs from an observer
making the call. So do you want a little uncertainty or do you want to
run that play again?
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12788 is a reply to message #12785] Tue, 17 February 2009 09:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
klhatch
Messages: 6
Registered: February 2009
Junior Member
One situation that occurs with player-initiated calls is the savvy non-
call; shrug off a foul to take advantage.

Regarding your example of a player pointing out the wrong player, it
seems silly to me to have an obvious foul overturned because the guy
didn't know who fouled him. Observers should have the ability to
clarify that one. What if the fouler from behind knocked someone
unconcious? No foul because the player didn't know who did it?
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12792 is a reply to message #12788] Tue, 17 February 2009 10:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 17, 12:55 pm, klha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> One situation that occurs with player-initiated calls is the savvy non-
> call; shrug off a foul to take advantage.
>
> Regarding your example of a player pointing out the wrong player, it
> seems silly to me to have an obvious foul overturned because the guy
> didn't know who fouled him.  Observers should have the ability to
> clarify that one.  What if the fouler from behind knocked someone
> unconcious?  No foul because the player didn't know who did it?

I agree that under the present rules, it's nice to be able to shrug
off a foul that doesn't keep you from continuing play, but I think
that's more a product of the lack of penalties for infractions. When
does a basketball player benefit from a no-call? The rules for that
game punish the fouler and give some kind of advantage to the foulee.
If, for instance, there was a foul limit (after which a player was not
allowed to continue playing that game) it would be pretty beneficial
to call every foul that occurred.

And yeah, it was pretty silly, and really frustrating, that the
observer couldn't uphold that foul call, but this came from a pretty
seasoned observer who said that he couldn't make that call. And you
seem to imply that it would be pretty easy to correct that problem,
and I have to say, I don't think it would. How would you word such a
clause in the observer manual or rules?
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12794 is a reply to message #12792] Tue, 17 February 2009 10:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tim
Messages: 21
Registered: September 2008
Junior Member
Quote, "When does a basketball player benefit from a no-call?"

That's easy, when calling the foul stops play when you'd rather it
continue. The most obvious is when the clock is running out and
they're fouling to give themselves another offensive possession.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12796 is a reply to message #12794] Tue, 17 February 2009 10:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 17, 1:22 pm, Tim <timwalla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Quote, "When does a basketball player benefit from a no-call?"
>
> That's easy, when calling the foul stops play when you'd rather it
> continue.  The most obvious is when the clock is running out and
> they're fouling to give themselves another offensive possession.

Again, that's a product of the rules. Intentional fouls are supposed
to be penalized with foul shots and the offense retaining possession,
but the standard of enforcement is such that that does not happen. Do
you really want to defend your position with the end-of-game
desperation foul, borderline cheating, boring crap that goes on at the
end of close games? If so, then I simply won't agree with you.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12797 is a reply to message #12785] Tue, 17 February 2009 10:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearseth
Messages: 174
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> So we've got to think about what we value.

To me, it has always seemed that the do-over has been an anachronism
to modern competitive Ultimate--modern competition generally.

It seems there is an unfair advantage (usually on offense) inherent in
the do-over. Should Ultimate restructure the call and penalty system
to get rid of such an occurrence? There has to be a solution in self-
officiated/observer system, right? We shouldn't have to throw our
hands into the air and give up by moving to referees.

On a contested call, is there a solution to how play should resume
without the concept of the do-over? I'm thinking about it. I'd like to
hear others' thoughts.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12798 is a reply to message #12792] Tue, 17 February 2009 10:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Knappy
Messages: 830
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Each system (refs, observers, 100% player controlled) has flaws. I
agree that for ultimate to evolve, the 100% player controlled option
is not the way to go.

every sport's rule set has flaws, too. I don't think having a do-over
in ultimate is any less stupid than offsetting penalties in football,
or winning a coin flip means you have a significantly better chance of
winning in overtime, or a shootout determines the outcome of a hockey
game. I'd like to see do-overs in ulty significantly reduced,
though....and having trained (& enough) observers could ameliorate the
issue.

Refs in ultimate....I think you are many, many years away from that
being a feasible option. I understand the desire, and welcome the
experimentation. I would not want someone controlling the outcome of a
game @ club regionals/nationals just because we decided that all other
field sports have refs & we need them, too. You need the
infrastructure to support refs, and takes changing the rules of the
game, training,

I disagree that the ref model would automatically lead to "fairer"
outcomes than the observer/player model. I understand that we are all
just hypothesizing @ this point anyway. I am certain that the ref
model would not lead to "fairer" outcomes in the near term. I don't
want some ref experiment w/untrained, local staff to determine the
outcome of every play in a big game @ college/club regionals/
nationals.

I think there is potential for the observer model to be relatively
effective on a wider basis very soon.




On Feb 17, 1:06 pm, McB <Christopher.M.McBr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:55 pm, klha...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > One situation that occurs with player-initiated calls is the savvy non-
> > call; shrug off a foul to take advantage.
>
> > Regarding your example of a player pointing out the wrong player, it
> > seems silly to me to have an obvious foul overturned because the guy
> > didn't know who fouled him.  Observers should have the ability to
> > clarify that one.  What if the fouler from behind knocked someone
> > unconcious?  No foul because the player didn't know who did it?
>
> I agree that under the present rules, it's nice to be able to shrug
> off a foul that doesn't keep you from continuing play, but I think
> that's more a product of the lack of penalties for infractions. When
> does a basketball player benefit from a no-call? The rules for that
> game punish the fouler and give some kind of advantage to the foulee.
> If, for instance, there was a foul limit (after which a player was not
> allowed to continue playing that game) it would be pretty beneficial
> to call every foul that occurred.
>
> And yeah, it was pretty silly, and really frustrating, that the
> observer couldn't uphold that foul call, but this came from a pretty
> seasoned observer who said that he couldn't make that call. And you
> seem to imply that it would be pretty easy to correct that problem,
> and I have to say, I don't think it would. How would you word such a
> clause in the observer manual or rules?
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12800 is a reply to message #12792] Tue, 17 February 2009 11:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
klhatch
Messages: 6
Registered: February 2009
Junior Member
On Feb 17, 11:06 am, McB <Christopher.M.McBr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:55 pm, klha...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > One situation that occurs with player-initiated calls is the savvy non-
> > call; shrug off a foul to take advantage.
>
> > Regarding your example of a player pointing out the wrong player, it
> > seems silly to me to have an obvious foul overturned because the guy
> > didn't know who fouled him.  Observers should have the ability to
> > clarify that one.  What if the fouler from behind knocked someone
> > unconcious?  No foul because the player didn't know who did it?
>
> I agree that under the present rules, it's nice to be able to shrug
> off a foul that doesn't keep you from continuing play, but I think
> that's more a product of the lack of penalties for infractions. When
> does a basketball player benefit from a no-call? The rules for that
> game punish the fouler and give some kind of advantage to the foulee.
> If, for instance, there was a foul limit (after which a player was not
> allowed to continue playing that game) it would be pretty beneficial
> to call every foul that occurred.
>
> And yeah, it was pretty silly, and really frustrating, that the
> observer couldn't uphold that foul call, but this came from a pretty
> seasoned observer who said that he couldn't make that call. And you
> seem to imply that it would be pretty easy to correct that problem,
> and I have to say, I don't think it would. How would you word such a
> clause in the observer manual or rules?

Getting a foul toward a limit doesn't seem like enough of a penalty
when the savvy foul prevents an easy score and the resulting stop in
play works against the chance.

As for wording the unknown fouler, I wasn't intending to imply that
correcting that would be easy.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12803 is a reply to message #12797] Tue, 17 February 2009 11:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
klhatch
Messages: 6
Registered: February 2009
Junior Member
On Feb 17, 11:46 am, Andy Lovseth <andy.lovs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So we've got to think about what we value.
>
> To me, it has always seemed that the do-over has been an anachronism
> to modern competitive Ultimate--modern competition generally.
>
> It seems there is an unfair advantage (usually on offense) inherent in
> the do-over. Should Ultimate restructure the call and penalty system
> to get rid of such an occurrence? There has to be a solution in self-
> officiated/observer system, right? We shouldn't have to throw our
> hands into the air and give up by moving to referees.
>
> On a contested call, is there a solution to how play should resume
> without the concept of the do-over? I'm thinking about it. I'd like to
> hear others' thoughts.

Seems to me like an article of faith that do-overs are bad. I've seen
plenty of situations where a do-over seemed like a fair way to resolve
a situation. What comes to mind is when two opposing players go for a
disc and they both make some kind of move that looks like it
precipitated contact.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12807 is a reply to message #12803] Tue, 17 February 2009 11:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bearseth
Messages: 174
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> Seems to me like an article of faith that do-overs are bad.  I've seen
> plenty of situations where a do-over seemed like a fair way to resolve
> a situation.  What comes to mind is when two opposing players go for a
> disc and they both make some kind of move that looks like it
> precipitated contact.

Likely more an intellectual perspective or priority. The idea of
"sending it back" is more or less unique to Ultimate and, to me,
betrays certain general competitive constructs, namely that by making
a call (legitimate or not) that you get to try again.

My feeling is that a result of a play (a throw, a catch, a d) should
go one way or the other. I suppose the system I am imagining
essentially ends with either one of two options: the offense retaining
the disc at the spot of the foul, or the play resulting in a turnover.

Now, figuring out a system that is acceptable (rather than fair and
just) is another matter all together. Still thinking.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12808 is a reply to message #12803] Tue, 17 February 2009 12:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
soffer801
Messages: 17
Registered: December 2008
Junior Member
On Feb 17, 2:15 pm, klha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:46 am, Andy Lovseth <andy.lovs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So we've got to think about what we value.
>
> > To me, it has always seemed that the do-over has been an anachronism
> > to modern competitive Ultimate--modern competition generally.
>
> > It seems there is an unfair advantage (usually on offense) inherent in
> > the do-over. Should Ultimate restructure the call and penalty system
> > to get rid of such an occurrence? There has to be a solution in self-
> > officiated/observer system, right? We shouldn't have to throw our
> > hands into the air and give up by moving to referees.
>
> > On a contested call, is there a solution to how play should resume
> > without the concept of the do-over? I'm thinking about it. I'd like to
> > hear others' thoughts.
>
> Seems to me like an article of faith that do-overs are bad.  I've seen
> plenty of situations where a do-over seemed like a fair way to resolve
> a situation.  What comes to mind is when two opposing players go for a
> disc and they both make some kind of move that looks like it
> precipitated contact.

Agreed. The concept of a do-over is that, on contested calls, the play
should go back to the most recent time when everyone agrees what
happened. I'm sure this gives one side an advantage, but I can't think
of anything better in the absence of officials. My suggestion would be
to separate calls into those that observers/refs have the best
perspective on, and those that players do. I would say observers/refs
should actively call in/out, travels, and most violations. Players
should call picks. Maybe officials would be able to overrule a pick
call. As for fouls, i have no idea.

Just some food for thought
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12843 is a reply to message #12768] Tue, 17 February 2009 15:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 17, 10:59 am, Knappy <knappy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Toad promised to stay off this thread, so discuss away.
>
> Observers
>
> Refservers
>
> Refs
>
> none of the above

First off, I'm interested in how you made that arrangement with Toad.
That's great.

Next, I think I'm in agreement with blw on accuracy of calls/outcomes
being better in a observer system (with potentially expanded observer
duties). Given a meaningfully enforced misconduct system (not
necessarily the current one) and more officials, I think that could be
a great way to go for a pro league. The misconduct system would
eliminate/minimize unnecessary delay/stoppage from bogus calls. If
we're in the land of unlimited resources, I think I'd want 6
officials.

I don't think that refs are a reasonable option given the current
state of affairs (money, available officials, etc.) In the land of
unlimited resources and refs, I'd want six refs, but I don't see how
that would make things significantly faster than the improved observer
system above. Once you have minimized stoppages and expanded roles
for observers, you almost have refs and you have all the benefits of
refs, except player calls and observer overrules gives you more
accurate outcomes. You don't have to worry about biased player calls
if the deterrent system is done right. Having enough officials to see
everything and having a strong misconduct system will significantly
reduce the number of calls and infractions.

Getting more certified observers and improving the certification
process is important. Ideally, these reviews/certifications would be
determined based on an overseeing reviewer and review of video footage
of observer performance. If you have a platinum certified observer,
then you know you're in good shape, whether you know the observer or
not. Right now, unless the players know the observer personally, they
have no idea of they're getting the best of the best or just some
schmuck in an orange shirt who's not playing because no team will have
him. Having a tiered certification process might help with this.

I think the current plan of continuing to expand and improve the
observer system is a good one. I don't think that disagreements over
whether we should ultimately have refs or not should affect the
current course of action. We need more certified officials, we need
an improved/expanded certification process and we need a somewhat
expanded/elevated role for officials.

I also agree with the comments about players not knowing the rules.
It's a huge problem and it is outrageous that players refuse to learn
them. I primarily support a ruthless implementation of the Misconduct
System to address this, issuing TMFs for misapplication of the rules.
However, mandatory rules quizzes are alright, too.

Colin
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12978 is a reply to message #12843] Wed, 18 February 2009 11:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
blw
Messages: 135
Registered: October 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 17, 3:32 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also agree with the comments about players not knowing the rules.
> It's a huge problem and it is outrageous that players refuse to learn
> them.  I primarily support a ruthless implementation of the Misconduct
> System to address this, issuing TMFs for misapplication of the rules.
> However, mandatory rules quizzes are alright, too.
>
> Colin

Cherry picking from your longer post...

On the subject of online pre-Series rules quizzes, which of these
choices do you think would be more useful towards the goal of raising
rules awareness and accuracy?

-a voluntary rules quiz, with record of passing players being public
-a rules quiz that everyone has to pass with some low threshold
-a rules quiz that everyone takes, but only a few per team need to
pass (but with a high threshold)
-a rules quiz that everyone takes, no one has to pass, but scores are
publicized (either to the player only, or to their team, or for all to
see?)

It's a little outside the pale of the rest of this discussion, but I
think relevant to the overall goal. A better officiating system can go
a long way, but I think we can get some of the benefits coming from
the other side as well.

(I can foresee a day when we tell stories to incredulous young players
about how there used to be a day when, even though we were all
referees while player, there was no process to determine rules
knowledge. They won't believe us...)

blw
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12983 is a reply to message #12978] Wed, 18 February 2009 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ultimatephotography
Messages: 422
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
> On the subject of online pre-Series rules quizzes, which of these
> choices do you think would be more useful towards the goal of raising
> rules awareness and accuracy?

> -a rules quiz that everyone has to pass with some low threshold

I'd like to see a mandatory rules quiz, online, that walks people
through the rules people most often get wrong, that provides all the
information that should make choosing the right answer obvious, and
that has a "low threshold" in the sense of, it is easy to pass if you
read it. Online, so the multiple choice answers can be randomized
from test to test (sometimes the right answer is a, sometimes c -
sometimes the question about marking is 1st, sometimes 12th, etc. - to
avoid easy cheating - and to ensure that people at least read the
options). You would be able to go back and check the info before
answering, so there's just no way that you'd get things wrong, and
maybe upon completion if you don't pass, you are faced with the same
questions (or similar on the topic that you've gotten wrong) again
until you get it right.

This combines education with an enforcement mechanism. I'd like to
see either a 100% pass rate or something high, like 95%. I don't
really even care that you could walk your team-mates through it to get
to a pass because at least it ensures a reading of the most relevant
rules. I would be fine with a you've passed it once = you've passed
it forever for that edition.

One of these days, maybe I'll make a mock-up.

We're trying to figure out where the pale is, btw. I wouldn't worry
about going beyond.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12992 is a reply to message #12785] Wed, 18 February 2009 12:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Ben's basically made the point that I've made many times before, which
I continue to believe is the key advantage that the observer system
holds over either referees or self-officiation.

On Feb 17, 10:36 am, McB <Christopher.M.McBr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, the claim has been made that having a dual-offication system
> (combination of players and observers) we move from having only
> two types of calls (correct/incorrect by either players or refs) to
> having three (my clarifications in parentheses):
>
> 1. Correct calls by players (call, no contest)
> 2. Incorrect calls by players that are fixed by observer overrulings
> (call, contest, call overruled / contest upheld correctly)
> 3. Incorrect calls by players that are incorrectly upheld by observers
> rulings (call, contest, call upheld / contest overruled correctly)

You seem to have garbled things here. #3 should have the word
"incorrectly" at the end; otherwise it's the same as #2.

> If that were true, then observers are absolutely an improvement over
> a player-only or ref-only system (at least when using only
> correctness-of-the-call as the standard - ignoring stoppage of play
> and other considerations.)

Correct. For the record though, there's no doubt in my mind that
observers make more accurate calls because they have that delay where
they can re-play the situation in their mind and come up with a more
accurate call.

> Unfortunately, these other types of calls that occur were overlooked:
>
> 4. Correct calls by players incorrectly overturned by observers (call,
> contest, call overruled / contest upheld incorrectly)

That's actually what #3 was supposed to be. There's no distinction
here between "upheld" and "overturned" because every time the observer
makes a ruling, it's because the players already disagreed. If we
posit that one is always right and the other is always wrong, then the
observer either sides with the one who was right (case #2) or sides
with the one that was wrong (case #3). There's no version #4.
There's no deed to break it down into whether the call or the contest
was overruled, unless you're concerned with unnecessary delays.

So, with observers, we get correct calls that self-officiation misses
- that's case #2. We get correct calls that referees miss - that's
case #1, in cases where the ref would have made a bogus call. We get
bad outcomes in case #3, but those are bad in all three cases.

> 5. Correct or incorrect calls by players result in a do-over (call,
> contest, observer has no perspective and calls a do-over)

Considering the possibility of do-overs blows us up into a lot more
cases. But you're right that this is worth considering, so here it
is. I'll consider the delay of the unnecessary call, which separates
out calls and contests into different cases.

There are basically six possible scenarios before we consider the
officiation.

1) No-call that players agree on.
2) Call by one player that the other does not disagree with/contest.
3) Do-over that players agree on.
4a) Disagreement/contested call, call is correct.
4b) Disagreement/contested call, contest is correct.
6) Disagreement/contested call, do-over is correct.

If we add an official, the official can think (in the vast majority of
cases) one of three things:

1) No call/play on, and/or agreeing with the contest.
2) Do-over is the best call.
3) The call is correct.

So, cross those two up, and that makes for 18 cases. In ten of those
cases, all three systems perform equally poorly (e.g. no system gets
the bogus call right if the ref has it wrong as well) or equally well
(every system gets the mutually agreed no-call right). That leaves
eight other cases, which I will list:

CASES WHERE OBSERVERS AND SELF OFFICIATION GET IT RIGHT, BUT REFS GET
IT WRONG:

1) No-call that players agree on, official thinks "call" is right
2) No-call that players agree on, official thinks do-over is right
3) Call players agree on, official thinks no-call is right
4) Call players agree on, official thinks do-over is right
5) Do-over players agree on, official thinks call is right.
6) Do-over players agree on, official thinks no-call is right.

Those are all fairly self-explanatory.

CASES WHERE OBSERVERS AND REFEREES GET IT RIGHT, BUT SELF-OFFICIATION
GETS IT WRONG

7) Contested call where the call is right, official thinks the call is
right
8) Contested call where the call is wrong, official thinks the call is
wrong.

#8 is notable, because that's the case where referees avoid an
unnecessary delay in the game that happens under observers.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #12999 is a reply to message #12992] Wed, 18 February 2009 13:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 18, 3:38 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben's basically made the point that I've made many times before, which
> I continue to believe is the key advantage that the observer system
> holds over either referees or self-officiation.
>
> On Feb 17, 10:36 am, McB <Christopher.M.McBr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, the claim has been made that having a dual-offication system
> > (combination of players and observers) we move from having only
> > two types of calls (correct/incorrect by either players or refs) to
> > having three (my clarifications in parentheses):
>
> > 1. Correct calls by players (call, no contest)
> > 2. Incorrect calls by players that are fixed by observer overrulings
> > (call, contest, call overruled / contest upheld correctly)
> > 3. Incorrect calls by players that are incorrectly upheld by observers
> > rulings (call, contest, call upheld / contest overruled correctly)
>
> You seem to have garbled things here.  #3 should have the word
> "incorrectly" at the end; otherwise it's the same as #2.
>
> > If that were true, then observers are absolutely an improvement over
> > a player-only or ref-only system (at least when using only
> > correctness-of-the-call as the standard - ignoring stoppage of play
> > and other considerations.)
>
> Correct.  For the record though, there's no doubt in my mind that
> observers make more accurate calls because they have that delay where
> they can re-play the situation in their mind and come up with a more
> accurate call.
>
> > Unfortunately, these other types of calls that occur were overlooked:
>
> > 4. Correct calls by players incorrectly overturned by observers (call,
> > contest, call overruled / contest upheld incorrectly)
>
> That's actually what #3 was supposed to be.  There's no distinction
> here between "upheld" and "overturned" because every time the observer
> makes a ruling, it's because the players already disagreed.  If we
> posit that one is always right and the other is always wrong, then the
> observer either sides with the one who was right (case #2) or sides
> with the one that was wrong (case #3).  There's no version #4.
> There's no deed to break it down into whether the call or the contest
> was overruled, unless you're concerned with unnecessary delays.
>
> So, with observers, we get correct calls that self-officiation misses
> - that's case #2.  We get correct calls that referees miss - that's
> case #1, in cases where the ref would have made a bogus call.  We get
> bad outcomes in case #3, but those are bad in all three cases.
>
> > 5. Correct or incorrect calls by players result in a do-over (call,
> > contest, observer has no perspective and calls a do-over)
>
> Considering the possibility of do-overs blows us up into a lot more
> cases.  But you're right that this is worth considering, so here it
> is.  I'll consider the delay of the unnecessary call, which separates
> out calls and contests into different cases.
>
> There are basically six possible scenarios before we consider the
> officiation.
>
> 1) No-call that players agree on.
> 2) Call by one player that the other does not disagree with/contest.
> 3) Do-over that players agree on.
> 4a) Disagreement/contested call, call is correct.
> 4b) Disagreement/contested call, contest is correct.
> 6) Disagreement/contested call, do-over is correct.
>
> If we add an official, the official can think (in the vast majority of
> cases) one of three things:
>
> 1) No call/play on, and/or agreeing with the contest.
> 2) Do-over is the best call.
> 3) The call is correct.
>
> So, cross those two up, and that makes for 18 cases.  In ten of those
> cases, all three systems perform equally poorly (e.g. no system gets
> the bogus call right if the ref has it wrong as well) or equally well
> (every system gets the mutually agreed no-call right).  That leaves
> eight other cases, which I will list:
>
> CASES WHERE OBSERVERS AND SELF OFFICIATION GET IT RIGHT, BUT REFS GET
> IT WRONG:
>
> 1) No-call that players agree on, official thinks "call" is right
> 2) No-call that players agree on, official thinks do-over is right
> 3) Call players agree on, official thinks no-call is right
> 4) Call players agree on, official thinks do-over is right
> 5) Do-over players agree on, official thinks call is right.
> 6) Do-over players agree on, official thinks no-call is right.
>
> Those are all fairly self-explanatory.
>
> CASES WHERE OBSERVERS AND REFEREES GET IT RIGHT, BUT SELF-OFFICIATION
> GETS IT WRONG
>
> 7) Contested call where the call is right, official thinks the call is
> right
> 8) Contested call where the call is wrong, official thinks the call is
> wrong.
>
> #8 is notable, because that's the case where referees avoid an
> unnecessary delay in the game that happens under observers.

I really only have two things to say in reply, because I think you got
everything else right.

1. I cannot, at the moment, think of a time when "do-over" is the
right call. Either the infraction happened or it didn't. Given self-
officiation, you can say that the players "agree" on a do-over, but
what that means nearly 100% of the time is that there was a call a
contest and the argument has gone on so long without either side
budging that they're forced to send the disc back.
Assuming we have observers, the do-over happens when the
observer didn't have a good view of the play. If the observer did have
a good view, then he'll make the call one way or the other.
I'm pretty sure that means that 5 and 6 -
"> 5) Do-over players agree on, official thinks call is right.
> 6) Do-over players agree on, official thinks no-call is right."
- don't happen, except in the situation that
neither player is really certain about his call or contest. That says
something pretty terrible about the players right there. There's a
call and a contest and neither player is comfortable sending it the
observer for fear of being ruled against, for lack of confidence in
his own call.

2. Hopefully our officials, whatever kind they may be, will be well
trained. Hopefully they will be in a good position to have a good
perspective on the play. Hopefully if a foul is so obvious (or the
lack of a foul so obvious) that the players involved agree on what
happened, the official will be in a position to accurately observe the
play and make the right (no) call. It won't always happen, and in the
event that it doesn't (offficial out of position) we are left to
consider the trade-off I mentioned in my last post. Would we rather
the rare uncertainty of a well-trained official to result in a
potentially incorrect call (a percentage of the time the call would be
correct) or do we want that uncertainty to result in a do-over?
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13010 is a reply to message #12978] Wed, 18 February 2009 14:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 18, 2:30 pm, blw <benlwigg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:32 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cherry picking from your longer post...
>
> On the subject of online pre-Series rules quizzes, which of these
> choices do you think would be more useful towards the goal of raising
> rules awareness and accuracy?

I think the primary purpose for rules quizzes (which raise rules
awareness and accuracy) is to reduce the frequency of infractions and
minimize on-field disputes caused by players who have not taken it
upon themselves to learn the rules. With that in mind, I have a few
comments on the options you listed.

> -a voluntary rules quiz, with record of passing players being public

I don't think a voluntary rules quiz will address players who already
refuse to learn the rules (and will likely refuse to take the quiz).
These quizzes might help the other (minority?) players brush up on a
few rules things, but I don't think it will address the problem
players. Again, I don't think public approval/disapproval is
effective here.

> -a rules quiz that everyone has to pass with some low threshold

Yes. This is the best option. The threshold can simply be knowing
the marking and foul rules, knowing the continuation rule and knowing
where to set up after a call. And maybe knowing what level of
certainty is required for calls/contests. It's not tough, but it
would make a huge difference. Making it mandatory will address the
problem players. Making the threshold too low would make it
worthless, but it's really not that tough to know the important
stuff. It is collectively just a few pages of the rulebook.

> -a rules quiz that everyone takes, but only a few per team need to
> pass (but with a high threshold)

I think this is worthless. Having a couple players per team does not
prevent the remainder of players from misapplying rules and getting
into on-field disputes. And trickle-down distribution of rules
knowledge is one of the causes of the current misunderstanding of the
rules. It is important that any measure taken directly addresses the
problem (lots of players per team not knowing the rules).

> -a rules quiz that everyone takes, no one has to pass, but scores are
> publicized (either to the player only, or to their team, or for all to
> see?)

I don't like this one either because again, I don't think public
disapproval of lack of rules knowledge is sufficient incentive. Thus,
the results have little impact, so it would not surprise me if players
just answered "C, C, C, C..." the night before the deadline to make
sure they could play.

> It's a little outside the pale of the rest of this discussion, but I
> think relevant to the overall goal. A better officiating system can go
> a long way, but I think we can get some of the benefits coming from
> the other side as well.

I agree on this, though I think procedurally, it might be harder to
get mandatory, effective rules quizzes implemented (and probably with
smaller and less immediate impact than strict misconduct penalties).

Colin
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13011 is a reply to message #12983] Wed, 18 February 2009 14:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
colinmcintyre
Messages: 1256
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 18, 3:00 pm, ultimatephotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On the subject of online pre-Series rules quizzes, which of these
> > choices do you think would be more useful towards the goal of raising
> > rules awareness and accuracy?
> > -a rules quiz that everyone has to pass with some low threshold
>
> I'd like to see a mandatory rules quiz, online, that walks people
> through the rules people most often get wrong, that provides all the
> information that should make choosing the right answer obvious, and
> that has a "low threshold" in the sense of, it is easy to pass if you
> read it.  Online, so the multiple choice answers can be randomized
> from test to test (sometimes the right answer is a, sometimes c -
> sometimes the question about marking is 1st, sometimes 12th, etc. - to
> avoid easy cheating - and to ensure that people at least read the
> options).  You would be able to go back and check the info before
> answering, so there's just no way that you'd get things wrong, and
> maybe upon completion if you don't pass, you are faced with the same
> questions (or similar on the topic that you've gotten wrong) again
> until you get it right.
>
> This combines education with an enforcement mechanism.  I'd like to
> see either a 100% pass rate or something high, like 95%.  I don't
> really even care that you could walk your team-mates through it to get
> to a pass because at least it ensures a reading of the most relevant
> rules.  I would be fine with a you've passed it once = you've passed
> it forever for that edition.
>
> One of these days, maybe I'll make a mock-up.
>
> We're trying to figure out where the pale is, btw. I wouldn't worry
> about going beyond.

Yep, that's all great. I don't want to exclude people from the
Series, so much as get them to learn the rules. What you describe
does exactly that.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13014 is a reply to message #13011] Wed, 18 February 2009 14:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Douglas T Lilley
Messages: 674
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 18, 5:39 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 3:00 pm, ultimatephotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On the subject of online pre-Series rules quizzes, which of these
> > > choices do you think would be more useful towards the goal of raising
> > > rules awareness and accuracy?
> > > -a rules quiz that everyone has to pass with some low threshold
>
> > I'd like to see a mandatory rules quiz, online, that walks people
> > through the rules people most often get wrong, that provides all the
> > information that should make choosing the right answer obvious, and
> > that has a "low threshold" in the sense of, it is easy to pass if you
> > read it.  Online, so the multiple choice answers can be randomized
> > from test to test (sometimes the right answer is a, sometimes c -
> > sometimes the question about marking is 1st, sometimes 12th, etc. - to
> > avoid easy cheating - and to ensure that people at least read the
> > options).  You would be able to go back and check the info before
> > answering, so there's just no way that you'd get things wrong, and
> > maybe upon completion if you don't pass, you are faced with the same
> > questions (or similar on the topic that you've gotten wrong) again
> > until you get it right.
>
> > This combines education with an enforcement mechanism.  I'd like to
> > see either a 100% pass rate or something high, like 95%.  I don't
> > really even care that you could walk your team-mates through it to get
> > to a pass because at least it ensures a reading of the most relevant
> > rules.  I would be fine with a you've passed it once = you've passed
> > it forever for that edition.
>
> > One of these days, maybe I'll make a mock-up.
>
> > We're trying to figure out where the pale is, btw. I wouldn't worry
> > about going beyond.
>
> Yep, that's all great.  I don't want to exclude people from the
> Series, so much as get them to learn the rules.  What you describe
> does exactly that

The best thing about on-line rules quizzes is that cheating is the
goal! We want people to go look it up if they don't know the answer!
It makes so much sense somehow...
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13105 is a reply to message #12999] Thu, 19 February 2009 10:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 18, 2:26 pm, McB wrote:

> 1. I cannot, at the moment, think of a time when "do-over" is the
> right call. Either the infraction happened or it didn't.

The classic example is when a cutter and defender are racing for a
possibly contestable disc, and the cutter gets tripped up by the
defender. It's often impossible for anyone to say who initiated
contact between the cutter and the defender. Neither awarding a catch
that didn't happen, or allowing a turnover to stand, feels right to me
in this case.

> Given self-
> officiation, you can say that the players "agree" on a do-over, but
> what that means nearly 100% of the time is that there was a call a
> contest and the argument has gone on so long without either side
> budging that they're forced to send the disc back.

That's not what I meant in my case-by-case breakdown. In my case-by-
case breakdown, that would be covered under one of:

"4a) Disagreement/contested call, call is correct.
4b) Disagreement/contested call, contest is correct.
6) Disagreement/contested call, do-over is correct."

"3) Do-over that players agree on" referred to a case, like above,
where the players got tripped up and mutually agreed that the fairest
outcome was just to send the disc back. I've seen it happen plenty of
times.

> 2. Hopefully our officials, whatever kind they may be, will be well
> trained. Hopefully they will be in a good position to have a good
> perspective on the play. Hopefully if a foul is so obvious (or the
> lack of a foul so obvious) that the players involved agree on what
> happened, the official will be in a position to accurately observe the
> play and make the right (no) call.

There's a whole lot of hopefullys in that statement. And they won't
all come true. Officials DO see the game differently than either of
the players (I speak from experience here). Active referees will make
calls that the players wouldn't make. Sometimes these calls will be
wrong. This is not an outside possibility; this is a certainty.

> Would we rather
> the rare uncertainty of a well-trained official to result in a
> potentially incorrect call (a percentage of the time the call would be
> correct) or do we want that uncertainty to result in a do-over?

I assume you are making the referee versus self-officiated comparison
here. Because this trade-off does not apply to the observer system.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13116 is a reply to message #13105] Thu, 19 February 2009 11:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 19, 1:19 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:26 pm, McB wrote:
>
> > 1. I cannot, at the moment, think of a time when "do-over" is the
> > right call. Either the infraction happened or it didn't.
>
> The classic example is when a cutter and defender are racing for a
> possibly contestable disc, and the cutter gets tripped up by the
> defender.  It's often impossible for anyone to say who initiated
> contact between the cutter and the defender.  Neither awarding a catch
> that didn't happen, or allowing a turnover to stand, feels right to me
> in this case.
>
> > Given self-
> > officiation, you can say that the players "agree" on a do-over, but
> > what that means nearly 100% of the time is that there was a call a
> > contest and the argument has gone on so long without either side
> > budging that they're forced to send the disc back.
>
> That's not what I meant in my case-by-case breakdown.  In my case-by-
> case breakdown, that would be covered under one of:
>
> "4a) Disagreement/contested call, call is correct.
> 4b) Disagreement/contested call, contest is correct.
> 6) Disagreement/contested call, do-over is correct."
>
> "3) Do-over that players agree on" referred to a case, like above,
> where the players got tripped up and mutually agreed that the fairest
> outcome was just to send the disc back.  I've seen it happen plenty of
> times.
>
> > 2. Hopefully our officials, whatever kind they may be, will be well
> > trained. Hopefully they will be in a good position to have a good
> > perspective on the play. Hopefully if a foul is so obvious (or the
> > lack of a foul so obvious) that the players involved agree on what
> > happened, the official will be in a position to accurately observe the
> > play and make the right (no) call.
>
> There's a whole lot of hopefullys in that statement.  And they won't
> all come true.  Officials DO see the game differently than either of
> the players (I speak from experience here).  Active referees will make
> calls that the players wouldn't make.  Sometimes these calls will be
> wrong.  This is not an outside possibility; this is a certainty.
>
> > Would we rather
> > the rare uncertainty of a well-trained official to result in a
> > potentially incorrect call (a percentage of the time the call would be
> > correct) or do we want that uncertainty to result in a do-over?
>
> I assume you are making the referee versus self-officiated comparison
> here.  Because this trade-off does not apply to the observer system.

It's clear we're not going to agree, but I just can't restrain myself
from replying.

I have never (really, never) seen two players agree that sending it
back is the correct call in a non-observed game. I have seen plenty of
do-overs, and they have never left both parties pleased. In the
specific type of circumstance you describe (which I have both seen and
been involved in several times) the player calling the foul adamantly
claims the other player initiated contact (the "you stepped into my
path, tripped me intentionally, i was running a straight line" kind of
argument) and the contesting player either adamantly claims the
opposite or (wrongly) claims that the contact was incidental (due to
lack of understanding of that term in the rules.)

I recognize that sometimes a ref would get it wrong, but my point is
that a ref would get it wrong less than an observer would be forced to
send the disc back. I'm basing this off the fact that if the ref is
uncertain, he will get a percentage of the calls right and a
percentage wrong, whereas if the observer is uncertain he is obliged
to send it back. I'm not sure how you don't see that as THE issue in
the debate between observers and refs.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13120 is a reply to message #13010] Thu, 19 February 2009 11:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
faddy
Messages: 310
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
I just don't think the spectators should be required to learn which
"refs" are allowed to call which foul/violation. One set of people who
play. One set who make calls.
Black and white.

Of course, I wanna see the game played at a spectator friendly/pro
style level and this seems essential.

Otherwise, backyard style works fine.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13121 is a reply to message #13116] Thu, 19 February 2009 11:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Our disagreement on whether the tripped up receiver is ever a "good do-
over" is not going to get resolved here; however, I think it's a side
issue and not really a "ref versus observer" issue. If you want to
discuss it further then I can but I think it's distracting from the
key points.

On Feb 19, 12:24 pm, McB wrote:

> I recognize that sometimes a ref would get it wrong, but my point is
> that a ref would get it wrong less than an observer would be forced
> to send the disc back. I'm basing this off the fact that if the ref is
> uncertain, he will get a percentage of the calls right and a
> percentage wrong, whereas if the observer is uncertain he is obliged
> to send it back.

This is an important distinction, however, it's not really a function
of the basic concept of a referee system versus an observer system.
To be clear, the key distinction I see is "do the officials initiate
all calls, or do the officials only act as arbiters on disputed
calls?"

Now, you're right that observers are typically instructed to send the
disc back if they are not "at least 90% sure that s/he saw the play
correctly". That's different than the typical referee standard, of
course. But my point is that it's not fundamental to the observer
system. It's just how UPA observers are currently instructed to act.

> I'm not sure how you don't see that as THE issue in
> the debate between observers and refs.

Two reasons:

1) In practice, most good observers call very few do-overs.
2) If it's a problem, we can change the observer manual to require a
lower standard of certainty. This wouldn't change observers into
refs, so it doesn't inform me as to whether observers or refs are
better.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13127 is a reply to message #13121] Thu, 19 February 2009 11:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 19, 2:37 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our disagreement on whether the tripped up receiver is ever a "good do-
> over" is not going to get resolved here; however, I think it's a side
> issue and not really a "ref versus observer" issue.  If you want to
> discuss it further then I can but I think it's distracting from the
> key points.
>
> On Feb 19, 12:24 pm, McB wrote:
>
> > I recognize that sometimes a ref would get it wrong, but my point is
> > that a ref would get it wrong less than an observer would be forced
> > to send the disc back. I'm basing this off the fact that if the ref is
> > uncertain, he will get a percentage of the calls right and a
> > percentage wrong, whereas if the observer is uncertain he is obliged
> > to send it back.
>
> This is an important distinction, however, it's not really a function
> of the basic concept of a referee system versus an observer system.
> To be clear, the key distinction I see is "do the officials initiate
> all calls, or do the officials only act as arbiters on disputed
> calls?"
>

Well, I think this issue is a lot less about which is factually better
than it is about which players, coaches, and spectators prefer. There
are plenty of reasons for both sides (allow players to control how
physical a game they want to play, the advantages of a no-call in a
self-officiated system, decreasing stopped time, letting the players
focus on the game and not the calls, etc.), and they've all been
pretty much talked to death. My preference from a player perspective
is to let some third party initiate all calls so I can just play the
game. It relieves me of the hassle of splitting my focus between
performance and reffing. It also takes away the strife I feel towards
my opponent whom I consider to be a cheater who makes (intentionally)
bad calls. As a spectator I want to watch the game, and I don't want
to watch people argue. At all. I want to hear a whistle, see a signal
indicating the call, and hear another whistle to restart play after
very minimal stoppage. If you can accomplish (or very nearly
approximate) that with an observer system, I'm game.

> Now, you're right that observers are typically instructed to send the
> disc back if they are not "at least 90% sure that s/he saw the play
> correctly".  That's different than the typical referee standard, of
> course.  But my point is that it's not fundamental to the observer
> system.  It's just how UPA observers are currently instructed to act.
>
> > I'm not sure how you don't see that as THE issue in
> > the debate between observers and refs.
>
> Two reasons:
>
> 1) In practice, most good observers call very few do-overs.

Then in practice, most good refs (assuming they equal the quality of
the current good observers) would make very few incorrect calls.

> 2) If it's a problem, we can change the observer manual to require a
> lower standard of certainty.  This wouldn't change observers into
> refs, so it doesn't inform me as to whether observers or refs are
> better.

In my opinion, change away.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13133 is a reply to message #13127] Thu, 19 February 2009 12:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 19, 12:53 pm, McB wrote:

> On Feb 19, 2:37 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > To be clear, the key distinction I see is "do the officials initiate
> > all calls, or do the officials only act as arbiters on disputed
> > calls?"
>
> Well, I think this issue is a lot less about which is factually better
> than it is about which players, coaches, and spectators prefer.

I'm not terribly interested in what they prefer if their preferences
are not based on actual facts or reasons. That said, you go on to
list reasons that are rooted in rational thought, so that's fine.

> My preference from a player perspective
> is to let some third party initiate all calls so I can just play the
> game. It relieves me of the hassle of splitting my focus between
> performance and reffing.

Now you need to split your focus between performance and selling calls
to the refs. Watch much professional basketball/football/soccer/
baseball? There's plenty of "selling the call" and "working the
officials" that goes into being successful.

I acknowledge that there's a tradeoff here, but don't pretend that a
fully refereed system frees you to "just play the game". It doesn't.

> It also takes away the strife I feel towards
> my opponent whom I consider to be a cheater who makes
> (intentionally) bad calls.

.... and transfers those bad feelings to the ref that screwed you out
of the game. Or just leaves those bad feelings on your opponent, who
gives you an evil grin after he sells a foul that didn't happen and
gets the disc on the goal line.

You seem to be comparing the real world to a world with idealized,
perfect refs.

> As a spectator I want to watch the game, and I don't want
> to watch people argue. At all. I want to hear a whistle, see a signal
> indicating the call, and hear another whistle to restart play after
> very minimal stoppage. If you can accomplish (or very nearly
> approximate) that with an observer system, I'm game.

Highly compressed player discussion time, and clear observer hand
signals, are things which absolutely can be accomplished within the
framework of the observer system.

> > 1) In practice, most good observers call very few do-overs.
>
> Then in practice, most good refs (assuming they equal the quality of
> the current good observers) would make very few incorrect calls.

That doesn't follow at all. That good observers call very few do-
overs just means that they are fairly confident in their calls. That
confidence doesn't mean that they are right more than 90% of the time,
it just means they think they are. (Or, alternatively, that they
choose to ignore that 90% directive.)

Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, the seconds an observer gets
to think about a call before being asked to make a ruling are a HUGE
advantage. Referees have to make their calls instantly. Observers
have a few precious seconds to re-play the event in their mind and
form a more solid judgment on what happened.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13139 is a reply to message #13133] Thu, 19 February 2009 12:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 19, 3:28 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:53 pm, McB wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:37 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > > To be clear, the key distinction I see is "do the officials initiate
> > > all calls, or do the officials only act as arbiters on disputed
> > > calls?"
>
> > Well, I think this issue is a lot less about which is factually better
> > than it is about which players, coaches, and spectators prefer.
>
> I'm not terribly interested in what they prefer if their preferences
> are not based on actual facts or reasons.  That said, you go on to
> list reasons that are rooted in rational thought, so that's fine.
>
> > My preference from a player perspective
> > is to let some third party initiate all calls so I can just play the
> > game. It relieves me of the hassle of splitting my focus between
> > performance and reffing.
>
> Now you need to split your focus between performance and selling calls
> to the refs.  Watch much professional basketball/football/soccer/
> baseball?  There's plenty of "selling the call" and "working the
> officials" that goes into being successful.

I certainly don't have to sell anything. I can just play the game. If
my opponents want to try to game the refs, that's their perogative. If
that's the price of success, I'd rather just enjoy playing the game,
and if the difference between winning and losing is a few calls, I may
be pissed that it worked out that way, but I'll also know that I
didn't spend my time gaming the system and that my opponents know they
won, not because of greater skill, but because of some solid acting.
Maybe that applies to self-officiation (I know that my opponents are
cheaters and if they win because of it that's their loss), but it
doesn't seem like we're changing much (if I'm not cheating now, and I
don't game the refs then, then I'm at the same competitive
disadvantage.) Players can sell the foul to an observer just as well.

>
> I acknowledge that there's a tradeoff here, but don't pretend that a
> fully refereed system frees you to "just play the game".  It doesn't.

Like I said above, it allows ME to just play the game. If my opponents
are cheaters or foul-sellers, they will be under any system, so I'm
not any worse off for that, and I'm better off for not having to make
calls.

>
> > It also takes away the strife I feel towards
> > my opponent whom I consider to be a cheater who makes
> > (intentionally) bad calls.
>
> ... and transfers those bad feelings to the ref that screwed you out
> of the game.  Or just leaves those bad feelings on your opponent, who
> gives you an evil grin after he sells a foul that didn't happen and
> gets the disc on the goal line.
>
> You seem to be comparing the real world to a world with idealized,
> perfect refs.
>
> > As a spectator I want to watch the game, and I don't want
> > to watch people argue. At all. I want to hear a whistle, see a signal
> > indicating the call, and hear another whistle to restart play after
> > very minimal stoppage. If you can accomplish (or very nearly
> > approximate) that with an observer system, I'm game.
>
> Highly compressed player discussion time, and clear observer hand
> signals, are things which absolutely can be accomplished within the
> framework of the observer system.
>
> > > 1) In practice, most good observers call very few do-overs.
>
> > Then in practice, most good refs (assuming they equal the quality of
> > the current good observers) would make very few incorrect calls.
>
> That doesn't follow at all.  That good observers call very few do-
> overs just means that they are fairly confident in their calls.  That
> confidence doesn't mean that they are right more than 90% of the time,
> it just means they think they are.  (Or, alternatively, that they
> choose to ignore that 90% directive.)

OK, so if the observers only think they're right, then the combination
of uncertain calls that they make and the do-overs they call will
equal the the number of uncertain calls a ref makes. Therefore a ref
makes more correct calls and more incorrect calls and less (0) do-
overs.

>
> Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, the seconds an observer gets
> to think about a call before being asked to make a ruling are a HUGE
> advantage.  Referees have to make their calls instantly.  Observers
> have a few precious seconds to re-play the event in their mind and
> form a more solid judgment on what happened.

The seconds that an observer gets to think about a call does one of
two things

a) reinforces what they already thought
b) Causes them to second guess what they already thought

Both of these can be good things and both can be bad things. I don't
think that a few seconds reflection is going to clarify the issue.
Show me some studies that suggest that more time post-incident causes
a better recollection/description of that incident, and I'll be more
inclined to give some weight to that argument.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13150 is a reply to message #13139] Thu, 19 February 2009 13:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Feb 19, 1:47 pm, McB wrote:

> On Feb 19, 3:28 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > Watch much professional basketball/football/soccer/
> > baseball?  There's plenty of "selling the call" and "working the
> > officials" that goes into being successful.
>
> I certainly don't have to sell anything. I can just play the game.

The same argument applies to self-officiation. I don't have to make
calls, or contest calls.

> Maybe that applies to self-officiation (I know that my opponents are
> cheaters and if they win because of it that's their loss), but it
> doesn't seem like we're changing much (if I'm not cheating now,
> and I don't game the refs then, then I'm at the same competitive
> disadvantage.)

That's a reasonable view. But you started this out by saying that
referees free you from worrying about calls. You now seem to realize
that referees just change the nature of your concerns.

> Players can sell the foul to an observer just as well.

Sure, you can, but in practice (based on empirical evidence) "selling
calls" is drastically less of an issue with player-initiated calls
than it is in fully refereed games.

> > That good observers call very few do-
> > overs just means that they are fairly confident in their calls.  That
> > confidence doesn't mean that they are right more than 90% of the
> > time, it just means they think they are.  (Or, alternatively, that
> > they choose to ignore that 90% directive.)
>
> OK, so if the observers only think they're right, then the combination
> of uncertain calls that they make and the do-overs they call will
> equal the the number of uncertain calls a ref makes. Therefore a ref
> makes more correct calls and more incorrect calls and less (0) do-
> overs.

Go back to my first post in this thread. You're forgetting about the
mutually agreed no-calls or uncontested fouls that players make in
observed games. Observers get these calls right 100% of the time, and
each one of those calls is a chance for a referee to make a mistake.

And again, if you hate do-overs they can be taken out of observed
ultimate just as easily as they can in refereed ultimate. It's not
fundamental to the player-initiated call versus official-initiated
call question.

> > Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, the seconds an
> > observer gets to think about a call before being asked to make a
> > ruling are a HUGE advantage.  Referees have to make their calls
> > instantly. Observers have a few precious seconds to re-play the
> > event in their mind and form a more solid judgment on what
> > happened.
>
> The seconds that an observer gets to think about a call does one of
> two things
>
> a) reinforces what they already thought
> b) Causes them to second guess what they already thought
>
> Both of these can be good things and both can be bad things. I
> don't think that a few seconds reflection is going to clarify the issue.

Have you ever been an observer? I speak from experience.

> Show me some studies that suggest that more time post-incident
> causes a better recollection/description of that incident, and I'll be
> more inclined to give some weight to that argument.

It's not a question of better recollection or description, it's a
matter of weighing all the things you saw and making a more carefully
considered judgment.

This advantage gained by thinking about what happened for a moment is
why you hear so many delayed whistles in basketball. It's why umpires
sometimes pause before giving their calls in baseball. You would
notice lots of delayed flags in football, too, if calls didn't wait
for the end of the play anyway.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13171 is a reply to message #13150] Thu, 19 February 2009 17:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 19, 4:13 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:47 pm, McB wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 3:28 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > > Watch much professional basketball/football/soccer/
> > > baseball?  There's plenty of "selling the call" and "working the
> > > officials" that goes into being successful.
>
> > I certainly don't have to sell anything. I can just play the game.
>
> The same argument applies to self-officiation.  I don't have to make
> calls, or contest calls.

But you're falsely equating the effects of making/contesting no calls
and not bothering to "flop" for the refs' sake.

>
> > Maybe that applies to self-officiation (I know that my opponents are
> > cheaters and if they win because of it that's their loss), but it
> > doesn't seem like we're changing much (if I'm not cheating now,
> > and I don't game the refs then, then I'm at the same competitive
> > disadvantage.)
>
> That's a reasonable view.  But you started this out by saying that
> referees free you from worrying about calls.  You now seem to realize
> that referees just change the nature of your concerns.
>
> > Players can sell the foul to an observer just as well.
>
> Sure, you can, but in practice (based on empirical evidence) "selling
> calls" is drastically less of an issue with player-initiated calls
> than it is in fully refereed games.

Probably because players find it pretty hard to do three things at
once (play, make calls, and sell calls.) I'm curious to see this
empirical evidence you speak of.

>
> > > That good observers call very few do-
> > > overs just means that they are fairly confident in their calls.  That
> > > confidence doesn't mean that they are right more than 90% of the
> > > time, it just means they think they are.  (Or, alternatively, that
> > > they choose to ignore that 90% directive.)
>
> > OK, so if the observers only think they're right, then the combination
> > of uncertain calls that they make and the do-overs they call will
> > equal the the number of uncertain calls a ref makes. Therefore a ref
> > makes more correct calls and more incorrect calls and less (0) do-
> > overs.
>
> Go back to my first post in this thread.  You're forgetting about the
> mutually agreed no-calls or uncontested fouls that players make in
> observed games.  Observers get these calls right 100% of the time, and
> each one of those calls is a chance for a referee to make a mistake.

And you're forgetting about the point I made. If it's going to be so
clear one way or the other, a well-trained ref crew is going to get
those calls wrong a statistically insignificant percentage of the
time. And you can always allow for the players to overrule the ref
since they're both agreed on the outcome anyway.

>
> And again, if you hate do-overs they can be taken out of observed
> ultimate just as easily as they can in refereed ultimate.  It's not
> fundamental to the player-initiated call versus official-initiated
> call question.

You're right about that, but the system of checks (players call,
observer weighs in) isn't unique to player-initiated systems. As
mentioned above, you can allow the players to overrule a bogus call.

>
> > > Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, the seconds an
> > > observer gets to think about a call before being asked to make a
> > > ruling are a HUGE advantage.  Referees have to make their calls
> > > instantly.  Observers have a few precious seconds to re-play the
> > > event in their mind and form a more solid judgment on what
> > > happened.
>
> > The seconds that an observer gets to think about a call does one of
> > two things
>
> > a) reinforces what they already thought
> > b) Causes them to second guess what they already thought
>
> > Both of these can be good things and both can be bad things. I
> > don't think that a few seconds reflection is going to clarify the issue..
>
> Have you ever been an observer?  I speak from experience.

In my experience, observers get it wrong just as often as refs in
other sports I've played/watched.

>
> > Show me some studies that suggest that more time post-incident
> > causes a better recollection/description of that incident, and I'll be
> > more inclined to give some weight to that argument.
>
> It's not a question of better recollection or description, it's a
> matter of weighing all the things you saw and making a more carefully
> considered judgment.
>
> This advantage gained by thinking about what happened for a moment is
> why you hear so many delayed whistles in basketball.  It's why umpires
> sometimes pause before giving their calls in baseball.  You would
> notice lots of delayed flags in football, too, if calls didn't wait
> for the end of the play anyway.

So if other refs can do it, why couldn't refs in Ultimate?
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13242 is a reply to message #13171] Fri, 20 February 2009 13:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam Tarr
Messages: 214
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
I think we're getting pretty close to the point where there's no sense
in continuing the discussion unless someone else has something to add,
but I'll make at least this one post.

On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, McB wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:13 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 1:47 pm, McB wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 3:28 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > > > Watch much professional basketball/football/soccer/
> > > > baseball?  There's plenty of "selling the call" and "working the
> > > > officials" that goes into being successful.
>
> > > I certainly don't have to sell anything. I can just play the game.
>
> > The same argument applies to self-officiation.  I don't have to make
> > calls, or contest calls.
>
> But you're falsely equating the effects of making/contesting no calls
> and not bothering to "flop" for the refs' sake.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am responding to something you
said. You said that you are only free to "just play", without concern
for calls, when there are referees. This is not true. You can "just
play" in any system. There are (different) consequences of this, but
it's something you can always do. As I said in the next section
(which you didn't respond to):

> > you started this out by saying that
> > referees free you from worrying about calls.  You now seem to realize
> > that referees just change the nature of your concerns.

I'm not saying these concerns are somehow equivalent, but the idea
that you are free to "just play" in one system and not the other
doesn't hold up.

> > > Players can sell the foul to an observer just as well.
>
> > Sure, you can, but in practice (based on empirical evidence) "selling
> > calls" is drastically less of an issue with player-initiated calls
> > than it is in fully refereed games.
>
> Probably because players find it pretty hard to do three things at
> once (play, make calls, and sell calls.) I'm curious to see this
> empirical evidence you speak of.

It's basic human nature, Chris. When the first arbiter of your call
is your fellow player who was involved in the play, the idea of
selling contact that didn't happen is just not natural.

Forget about ultimate for a second. I've played hundreds of games of
pickup basketball. I've never seen anyone in a pickup game sell an
exaggerated foul when they didn't get any contact, as a way of
justifying a call. Put those exact same people in a situation where
they are depending on an official to initiate the call, and they give
you all the exaggerated flailing foul motions you see in televised
games.

I think some people who like self-officiation think that ultimate
players are really better sports(wo)men then other athletes, thanks to
our adherence to SOTG. I don't really see it that way. I think that
our system works well most of the time precisely because it places a
lot of responsibility on the players to act fairly, and people tend to
act in the way you expect them to.

> > > OK, so if the observers only think they're right, then the combination
> > > of uncertain calls that they make and the do-overs they call will
> > > equal the the number of uncertain calls a ref makes. Therefore a ref
> > > makes more correct calls and more incorrect calls and less (0) do-
> > > overs.
>
> > Go back to my first post in this thread.  You're forgetting about the
> > mutually agreed no-calls or uncontested fouls that players make in
> > observed games.  Observers get these calls right 100% of the time, and
> > each one of those calls is a chance for a referee to make a mistake.
>
> And you're forgetting about the point I made. If it's going to be so
> clear one way or the other, a well-trained ref crew is going to get
> those calls wrong a statistically insignificant percentage of the
> time.

Why do you think this? I can tell you, in my experience as an
observer, this is not the case. Plenty of times, I would have upheld
a call that wasn't made, or overruled a call that wasn't contested.
(I'm not even talking about travel calls, which are a whole 'nother
ball of wax.)

Players have a unique and, generally, superior perspective on any play
that involves contact. A third party official who lacks this
perspective will not know the right call as often as the players. Of
course, the third party does have the advantage of being impartial,
which is why we turn things over to the observer when there is
disagreement.

> And you can always allow for the players to overrule the ref
> since they're both agreed on the outcome anyway.

Again, human nature.

If I'm making an argument and I want to create the impression that
people in the room agree with me, I might say, "if you disagree, raise
your hand". I won't say "raise your hand if you agree", because that
won't work as well. Why? Because people don't like raising their
hands.

People are much less prone to take an active role in hurting their
cause (i.e. overruling a favorable call), particularly when this can
be seen as "showing up the ref". Even in tennis and golf this is
pretty exceedingly rare. Conversely, just not making a call (avoiding
conflict) is relatively natural.

> > And again, if you hate do-overs they can be taken out of observed
> > ultimate just as easily as they can in refereed ultimate.  It's not
> > fundamental to the player-initiated call versus official-initiated
> > call question.
>
> You're right about that, but the system of checks (players call,
> observer weighs in) isn't unique to player-initiated systems.

The key difference is whether players initiate the calls or third
party officials do. The former is an observer system, and the latter
is a full referee system.

> As mentioned above, you can allow the players to overrule a bogus call.

Sure, but then it's "official rules, player overrules the call once in
a blue moon". That's not player-initiated calls, so that's a referee
system, not an observer system.

> > > > Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, the seconds an
> > > > observer gets to think about a call before being asked to make a
> > > > ruling are a HUGE advantage.  Referees have to make their calls
> > > > instantly.  Observers have a few precious seconds to re-play the
> > > > event in their mind and form a more solid judgment on what
> > > > happened.
>
> > > The seconds that an observer gets to think about a call does one of
> > > two things
>
> > > a) reinforces what they already thought
> > > b) Causes them to second guess what they already thought
>
> > > Both of these can be good things and both can be bad things. I
> > > don't think that a few seconds reflection is going to clarify the issue.
>
> > Have you ever been an observer?  I speak from experience.
>
> In my experience, observers get it wrong just as often as refs in
> other sports I've played/watched.

For someone who asks for studies to support my points, you're awfully
confident in your own internal tally of how often observers get calls
wrong.

But at any rate, even if you were right, it wouldn't damage my point,
for two reasons:

- Observers don't make the routine calls. Players make those.
Observers only make the tough calls. If observers have as good a
percent correct on those borderline calls as referees have on ALL
calls, then observers are doing MUCH better than referees.

- The point was not how many calls observers get right - the point was
whether observers' calls are improved by having a moment to consider
them. Speaking from personal experience, they are.

> > It's not a question of better recollection or description, it's a
> > matter of weighing all the things you saw and making a more carefully
> > considered judgment.
>
> > This advantage gained by thinking about what happened for a moment is
> > why you hear so many delayed whistles in basketball.  It's why umpires
> > sometimes pause before giving their calls in baseball.  You would
> > notice lots of delayed flags in football, too, if calls didn't wait
> > for the end of the play anyway.
>
> So if other refs can do it, why couldn't refs in Ultimate?

Well, in baseball and football the delays are already built into the
game, so it's not an issue. Basketball refs are routinely skewered
for delayed calls - it's considered very poor form to let a play go
two more seconds and then make a call. If you think such delayed
calls _during continued play_ are not a problem, then you are in a
small minority.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13249 is a reply to message #13242] Fri, 20 February 2009 13:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
McB
Messages: 65
Registered: September 2008
Member
On Feb 20, 4:10 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we're getting pretty close to the point where there's no sense
> in continuing the discussion unless someone else has something to add,
> but I'll make at least this one post.
>

Agreed, but I'm not emotionally mature enough not to at least try to
get the last word. It really would be nice for some other folks to
speak up, but I guess that's not going to happen.

> On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, McB wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 4:13 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 1:47 pm, McB wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 3:28 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > > > > Watch much professional basketball/football/soccer/
> > > > > baseball?  There's plenty of "selling the call" and "working the
> > > > > officials" that goes into being successful.
>
> > > > I certainly don't have to sell anything. I can just play the game.
>
> > > The same argument applies to self-officiation.  I don't have to make
> > > calls, or contest calls.
>
> > But you're falsely equating the effects of making/contesting no calls
> > and not bothering to "flop" for the refs' sake.
>
> I'm doing nothing of the sort.  I am responding to something you
> said.  You said that you are only free to "just play", without concern
> for calls, when there are referees.  This is not true.  You can "just
> play" in any system.  There are (different) consequences of this, but
> it's something you can always do.  As I said in the next section
> (which you didn't respond to):

I didn't respond to it because I agreed (for the most part) with what
you said, so I was letting it go. I think the consequences of "just
playing" are less harmful in a refereed system than in a self-
officiated system.

>
> > > you started this out by saying that
> > > referees free you from worrying about calls.  You now seem to realize
> > > that referees just change the nature of your concerns.
>
> I'm not saying these concerns are somehow equivalent, but the idea
> that you are free to "just play" in one system and not the other
> doesn't hold up.
>
> > > > Players can sell the foul to an observer just as well.
>
> > > Sure, you can, but in practice (based on empirical evidence) "selling
> > > calls" is drastically less of an issue with player-initiated calls
> > > than it is in fully refereed games.
>
> > Probably because players find it pretty hard to do three things at
> > once (play, make calls, and sell calls.) I'm curious to see this
> > empirical evidence you speak of.
>
> It's basic human nature, Chris.  When the first arbiter of your call
> is your fellow player who was involved in the play, the idea of
> selling contact that didn't happen is just not natural.
>
> Forget about ultimate for a second.  I've played hundreds of games of
> pickup basketball.  I've never seen anyone in a pickup game sell an
> exaggerated foul when they didn't get any contact, as a way of
> justifying a call.  Put those exact same people in a situation where
> they are depending on an official to initiate the call, and they give
> you all the exaggerated flailing foul motions you see in televised
> games.
>

These are some great examples of self-officiation vs. refs, but
neither of them address how players approach an observer system. If we
agree (and maybe we don't) that players consciously make these flops
in refereed systems, then I think we have to consider that they might
do the same for an observer. Note I said might, as I certainly can't
say for sure.

> I think some people who like self-officiation think that ultimate
> players are really better sports(wo)men then other athletes, thanks to
> our adherence to SOTG.  I don't really see it that way.  I think that
> our system works well most of the time precisely because it places a
> lot of responsibility on the players to act fairly, and people tend to
> act in the way you expect them to.

Again, we probably don't agree on this, but there are a LOT of
cheaters playing Ultimate. People on my team are cheaters, and people
on most of the teams I play are cheaters.

>
> > > > OK, so if the observers only think they're right, then the combination
> > > > of uncertain calls that they make and the do-overs they call will
> > > > equal the the number of uncertain calls a ref makes. Therefore a ref
> > > > makes more correct calls and more incorrect calls and less (0) do-
> > > > overs.
>
> > > Go back to my first post in this thread.  You're forgetting about the
> > > mutually agreed no-calls or uncontested fouls that players make in
> > > observed games.  Observers get these calls right 100% of the time, and
> > > each one of those calls is a chance for a referee to make a mistake.
>
> > And you're forgetting about the point I made. If it's going to be so
> > clear one way or the other, a well-trained ref crew is going to get
> > those calls wrong a statistically insignificant percentage of the
> > time.
>
> Why do you think this?  I can tell you, in my experience as an
> observer, this is not the case.  Plenty of times, I would have upheld
> a call that wasn't made, or overruled a call that wasn't contested.
> (I'm not even talking about travel calls, which are a whole 'nother
> ball of wax.)
>
> Players have a unique and, generally, superior perspective on any play
> that involves contact.  A third party official who lacks this
> perspective will not know the right call as often as the players.  Of
> course, the third party does have the advantage of being impartial,
> which is why we turn things over to the observer when there is
> disagreement.

Were you out of position to make the call on these plays? Is it simply
impossible for an official to be in the right place at the right time?

>
> > And you can always allow for the players to overrule the ref
> > since they're both agreed on the outcome anyway.
>
> Again, human nature.
>
> If I'm making an argument and I want to create the impression that
> people in the room agree with me, I might say, "if you disagree, raise
> your hand".  I won't say "raise your hand if you agree", because that
> won't work as well.  Why?  Because people don't like raising their
> hands.
>
> People are much less prone to take an active role in hurting their
> cause (i.e. overruling a favorable call), particularly when this can
> be seen as "showing up the ref".  Even in tennis and golf this is
> pretty exceedingly rare.  Conversely, just not making a call (avoiding
> conflict) is relatively natural.
>

Well, it seems that players who won't overrule a ref are cheaters, and
if we're going to be playing with a bunch of cheaters I certainly
don't want them making the calls (especially when an observer is so
unlikely to be able to make the correct call, even in obvious
situations - as you stated above.)

> > > And again, if you hate do-overs they can be taken out of observed
> > > ultimate just as easily as they can in refereed ultimate.  It's not
> > > fundamental to the player-initiated call versus official-initiated
> > > call question.
>
> > You're right about that, but the system of checks (players call,
> > observer weighs in) isn't unique to player-initiated systems.
>
> The key difference is whether players initiate the calls or third
> party officials do.  The former is an observer system, and the latter
> is a full referee system.

Yes, that's the point. You can have a refereed system that allows for
player oversight when the refs get it wrong, rather than observer
oversight when players can't agree. Same outcome.

>
> > As mentioned above, you can allow the players to overrule a bogus call.
>
> Sure, but then it's "official rules, player overrules the call once in
> a blue moon".  That's not player-initiated calls, so that's a referee
> system, not an observer system.
>

I repeat: Yes, that's the point. You can have a refereed system that
allows for player oversight when the refs get it wrong, rather than
observer oversight when players can't agree. Same outcome.

>
>
> > > > > Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, the seconds an
> > > > > observer gets to think about a call before being asked to make a
> > > > > ruling are a HUGE advantage.  Referees have to make their calls
> > > > > instantly.  Observers have a few precious seconds to re-play the
> > > > > event in their mind and form a more solid judgment on what
> > > > > happened.
>
> > > > The seconds that an observer gets to think about a call does one of
> > > > two things
>
> > > > a) reinforces what they already thought
> > > > b) Causes them to second guess what they already thought
>
> > > > Both of these can be good things and both can be bad things. I
> > > > don't think that a few seconds reflection is going to clarify the issue.
>
> > > Have you ever been an observer?  I speak from experience.
>
> > In my experience, observers get it wrong just as often as refs in
> > other sports I've played/watched.
>
> For someone who asks for studies to support my points, you're awfully
> confident in your own internal tally of how often observers get calls
> wrong.

You were speaking from experience (not studies), so I responded from
experience. I figure my experience carries as much weight as yours.

>
> But at any rate, even if you were right, it wouldn't damage my point,
> for two reasons:
>
> - Observers don't make the routine calls.  Players make those.
> Observers only make the tough calls.

Observers only make disputed calls, and they happen a lot.

> If observers have as good a
> percent correct on those borderline calls as referees have on ALL
> calls, then observers are doing MUCH better than referees.

Let the players overrule. Then they're on equal footing (observers and
refs.)

>
> - The point was not how many calls observers get right - the point was
> whether observers' calls are improved by having a moment to consider
> them.  Speaking from personal experience, they are.
>

Are you referring to your experience as an observer here? If so,
that's not exactly a valid observation (you need an outside reference
to accurately measure how accurate your calls were compared to
refereed calls.)

> > > It's not a question of better recollection or description, it's a
> > > matter of weighing all the things you saw and making a more carefully
> > > considered judgment.
>
> > > This advantage gained by thinking about what happened for a moment is
> > > why you hear so many delayed whistles in basketball.  It's why umpires
> > > sometimes pause before giving their calls in baseball.  You would
> > > notice lots of delayed flags in football, too, if calls didn't wait
> > > for the end of the play anyway.
>
> > So if other refs can do it, why couldn't refs in Ultimate?
>
> Well, in baseball and football the delays are already built into the
> game, so it's not an issue.  Basketball refs are routinely skewered
> for delayed calls - it's considered very poor form to let a play go
> two more seconds and then make a call.  If you think such delayed
> calls _during continued play_ are not a problem, then you are in a
> small minority.

My bad, you seemed to be ok with it in your previous post, so I was
merely using it as an acceptable possibility. I'm not really that
enthused about late calls.
Re: Intelligent Discussion of Officiating options in Ultimate [message #13287 is a reply to message #13249] Sat, 21 February 2009 10:01 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Knappy
Messages: 830
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
Good discussion, good points made by both McB & Tarr.

I think there are benefits to both systems, my only point is that
Observers are superior to refs for ultimate in its current state
(amateur sport, player initiated rules set, unique culture of
alternative field sport.)

Here are some points about refs that I don't think hold up:

> And you're forgetting about the point I made. If it's going to be so
> clear one way or the other, a well-trained ref crew is going to get
> those calls wrong a statistically insignificant percentage of the
> time.

Statistically insignificant is way off for an amateur ref crew, well
trained or not. It takes years for most to learn how to officiate a
game properly. Basketball refs @ local Y would probably be about what
we would get ---- I played dozens of games in ref'd b-ball leagues,
the officiating is rarely good: usually inconsistent & sometimes
horrendous.

In fact, for pro ref crews in the NFL, i read somewhere (& cannot
find it on google or I would cite it) that 30% of coaches challenges
are sustained. That's analogous to the role of the observer: coaches
see something on the field or from the booth that makes them think
"that might've been a bad call". They have a few extra seconds to make
a decision, and they send it to the replay officials who take 60
seconds to review. And, the refs are wrong 1 out of 3 times.

And, sometimes, still wrong even after using technology.

So, my point is that absent technology, absent a professional sport
that enables you to pay/train officials.....observed ultimate has
strong potential to be superior to ref'd ultimate.

>Well, it seems that players who won't overrule a ref are cheaters, and
>if we're going to be playing with a bunch of cheaters I certainly
>don't want them making the calls (especially when an observer is so
>unlikely to be able to make the correct call, even in obvious
>situations - as you stated above.)

This is really what it comes down to, IMO. If you think most players
are cheaters, you would want refs. If you think most players don't
cheat, but some do, then you might prefer observers. I have played
against far more honorable players over the past 30 years of playing
ultimate (or hoops, for that matter) then I have played against
cheaters. I do think the culture of ultimate stigmatizes cheating (or
bending the rules, which is arguably different) in ways that other
sports do not. I just haven't seen that much cheating or even bad
calls @ club nationals/regionals over the past 4 years I have played
there.

McB, do you really think "there are a LOT of cheaters in
ultimate.....people on my team are cheaters, and people on most of the
teams I play are cheaters"?

If you point is that most teams has someone who cheats....I agree. If
your point is that teams sometimes enable these people & don't do
enough internally to control it, I agree. But, if you think cheating
is endemic in club or league ultimate, my experience has not reflected
that & I disagree.

I guess it also depends upon your definition of "cheating". anyone
want to tackle that one?






On Feb 20, 4:59 pm, McB <Christopher.M.McBr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:10 pm, Adam Tarr <ahtarrNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we're getting pretty close to the point where there's no sense
> > in continuing the discussion unless someone else has something to add,
> > but I'll make at least this one post.
>
> Agreed, but I'm not emotionally mature enough not to at least try to
> get the last word. It really would be nice for some other folks to
> speak up, but I guess that's not going to happen.
>
> > On Feb 19, 6:08 pm, McB wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 4:13 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 1:47 pm, McB wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 19, 3:28 pm, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> > > > > > Watch much professional basketball/football/soccer/
> > > > > > baseball?  There's plenty of "selling the call" and "working the
> > > > > > officials" that goes into being successful.
>
> > > > > I certainly don't have to sell anything. I can just play the game..
>
> > > > The same argument applies to self-officiation.  I don't have to make
> > > > calls, or contest calls.
>
> > > But you're falsely equating the effects of making/contesting no calls
> > > and not bothering to "flop" for the refs' sake.
>
> > I'm doing nothing of the sort.  I am responding to something you
> > said.  You said that you are only free to "just play", without concern
> > for calls, when there are referees.  This is not true.  You can "just
> > play" in any system.  There are (different) consequences of this, but
> > it's something you can always do.  As I said in the next section
> > (which you didn't respond to):
>
> I didn't respond to it because I agreed (for the most part) with what
> you said, so I was letting it go. I think the consequences of "just
> playing" are less harmful in a refereed system than in a self-
> officiated system.
>
>
>
> > > > you started this out by saying that
> > > > referees free you from worrying about calls.  You now seem to realize
> > > > that referees just change the nature of your concerns.
>
> > I'm not saying these concerns are somehow equivalent, but the idea
> > that you are free to "just play" in one system and not the other
> > doesn't hold up.
>
> > > > > Players can sell the foul to an observer just as well.
>
> > > > Sure, you can, but in practice (based on empirical evidence) "selling
> > > > calls" is drastically less of an issue with player-initiated calls
> > > > than it is in fully refereed games.
>
> > > Probably because players find it pretty hard to do three things at
> > > once (play, make calls, and sell calls.) I'm curious to see this
> > > empirical evidence you speak of.
>
> > It's basic human nature, Chris.  When the first arbiter of your call
> > is your fellow player who was involved in the play, the idea of
> > selling contact that didn't happen is just not natural.
>
> > Forget about ultimate for a second.  I've played hundreds of games of
> > pickup basketball.  I've never seen anyone in a pickup game sell an
> > exaggerated foul when they didn't get any contact, as a way of
> > justifying a call.  Put those exact same people in a situation where
> > they are depending on an official to initiate the call, and they give
> > you all the exaggerated flailing foul motions you see in televised
> > games.
>
> These are some great examples of self-officiation vs. refs, but
> neither of them address how players approach an observer system. If we
> agree (and maybe we don't) that players consciously make these flops
> in refereed systems, then I think we have to consider that they might
> do the same for an observer. Note I said might, as I certainly can't
> say for sure.
>
> > I think some people who like self-officiation think that ultimate
> > players are really better sports(wo)men then other athletes, thanks to
> > our adherence to SOTG.  I don't really see it that way.  I think that
> > our system works well most of the time precisely because it places a
> > lot of responsibility on the players to act fairly, and people tend to
> > act in the way you expect them to.
>
> Again, we probably don't agree on this, but there are a LOT of
> cheaters playing Ultimate. People on my team are cheaters, and people
> on most of the teams I play are cheaters.
>
>
>
> > > > > OK, so if the observers only think they're right, then the combination
> > > > > of uncertain calls that they make and the do-overs they call will
> > > > > equal the the number of uncertain calls a ref makes. Therefore a ref
> > > > > makes more correct calls and more incorrect calls and less (0) do-
> > > > > overs.
>
> > > > Go back to my first post in this thread.  You're forgetting about the
> > > > mutually agreed no-calls or uncontested fouls that players make in
> > > > observed games.  Observers get these calls right 100% of the time, and
> > > > each one of those calls is a chance for a referee to make a mistake..
>
> > > And you're forgetting about the point I made. If it's going to be so
> > > clear one way or the other, a well-trained ref crew is going to get
> > > those calls wrong a statistically insignificant percentage of the
> > > time.
>
> > Why do you think this?  I can tell you, in my experience as an
> > observer, this is not the case.  Plenty of times, I would have upheld
> > a call that wasn't made, or overruled a call that wasn't contested.
> > (I'm not even talking about travel calls, which are a whole 'nother
> > ball of wax.)
>
> > Players have a unique and, generally, superior perspective on any play
> > that involves contact.  A third party official who lacks this
> > perspective will not know the right call as often as the players.  Of
> > course, the third party does have the advantage of being impartial,
> > which is why we turn things over to the observer when there is
> > disagreement.
>
> Were you out of position to make the call on these plays? Is it simply
> impossible for an official to be in the right place at the right time?
>
>
>
> > > And you can always allow for the players to overrule the ref
> > > since they're both agreed on the outcome anyway.
>
> > Again, human nature.
>
> > If I'm making an argument and I want to create the impression that
> > people in the room agree with me, I might say, "if you disagree, raise
> > your hand".  I won't say "raise your hand if you agree", because that
> > won't work as well.  Why?  Because people don't like raising their
> > hands.
>
> > People are much less prone to take an active role in hurting their
> > cause (i.e. overruling a favorable call), particularly when this can
> > be seen as "showing up the ref".  Even in tennis and golf this is
> > pretty exceedingly rare.  Conversely, just not making a call (avoiding
> > conflict) is relatively natural.
>
> Well, it seems that players who won't overrule a ref are cheaters, and
> if we're going to be playing with a bunch of cheaters I certainly
> don't want them making the calls (especially when an observer is so
> unlikely to be able to make the correct call, even in obvious
> situations - as you stated above.)
>
> > > > And again, if you hate do-overs they can be taken out of observed
> > > > ultimate just as easily as they can in refereed ultimate.  It's not
> > > > fundamental to the player-initiated call versus official-initiated
> > > > call question.
>
> > > You're right about that, but the system of checks (players call,
> > > observer weighs in) isn't unique to player-initiated systems.
>
> > The key difference is whether players initiate the calls or third
> > party officials do.  The former is an observer system, and the latter
> > is a full referee system.
>
> Yes, that's the point. You can have a refereed system that allows for
> player oversight when the refs get it wrong, rather than observer
> oversight when players can't agree. Same outcome.
>
>
>
> > > As mentioned above, you can allow the players to overrule a bogus call.
>
> > Sure, but then it's "official rules, player overrules the call once in
> > a blue moon".  That's not player-initiated calls, so that's a referee
> > system, not an observer system.
>
> I repeat: Yes, that's the point. You can have a refereed system that
> allows for player oversight when the refs get it wrong, rather than
> observer oversight when players can't agree. Same outcome.
>
>
>
> > > > > > Moreover, and I can't stress this enough, the seconds an
> > > > > > observer gets to think about a call before being asked to make a
> > > > > > ruling are a HUGE advantage.  Referees have to make their calls
> > > > > > instantly.  Observers have a few precious seconds to re-play the
> > > > > > event in their mind and form a more solid judgment on what
> > > > > > happened.
>
> > > > > The seconds that an observer gets to think about a call does one of
> > > > > two things
>
> > > > > a) reinforces what they already thought
> > > > > b) Causes them to second guess what they already thought
>
> > > > > Both of these can be good things and both can be bad things. I
> > > > > don't think that a few seconds reflection is going to clarify the issue.
>
> > > > Have you ever been an observer?  I speak from experience.
>
> > > In my experience, observers get it wrong just as often as refs in
> > > other sports I've played/watched.
>
> > For someone who asks for studies to support my points, you're awfully
> > confident in your own internal tally of how often observers get calls
> > wrong.
>
> You were speaking from experience (not studies), so I responded from
> experience. I figure my experience carries as much weight as yours.
>
>
>
> > But at any rate, even if you were right, it wouldn't damage my point,
> > for two reasons:
>
> > - Observers don't make the routine calls.  Players make those.
> > Observers only make the tough calls.
>
> Observers only make disputed calls, and they happen a lot.
>
> > If observers have as good a
> > percent correct on those borderline calls as referees have on ALL
> > calls, then observers are doing MUCH better than referees.
>
> Let the players overrule. Then they're on equal footing (observers and
> refs.)
>
>
>
> > - The point was not how many calls observers get right - the point was
> > whether observers' calls are improved by having a moment to consider
> > them.  Speaking from personal experience, they are.
>
> Are you referring to your experience as an observer here? If so,
> that's not exactly a valid observation (you need an outside reference
> to accurately measure how accurate your calls were compared to
> refereed calls.)
>
> > > > It's not a question of better recollection or description, it's a
> > > > matter of weighing all the things you saw and making a more carefully
> > > > considered judgment.
>
> > > > This advantage gained by thinking about what happened for a moment is
> > > > why you hear so many delayed whistles in basketball.  It's why umpires
> > > > sometimes pause before giving their calls in baseball.  You would
> > > > notice lots of delayed flags in football, too, if calls didn't wait
> > > > for the end of the play anyway.
>
> > > So if other refs can do it, why couldn't refs in Ultimate?
>
> > Well, in baseball and football the delays are already built into the
> > game, so it's not an issue.  Basketball refs are routinely skewered
> > for delayed calls - it's considered very poor form to let a play go
> > two more seconds and then make a call.  If you think such delayed
> > calls _during continued play_ are not a problem, then you are in a
> > small minority.
>
> My bad, you seemed to be ok with it in your previous post, so I was
> merely using it as an acceptable possibility. I'm not really that
> enthused about late calls.
Previous Topic:Cal States 2009?
Next Topic:THE BEST THING ABOUT RSD......
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Feb 25 06:14:57 PST 2020
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.0RC2.
Copyright ©2001-2009 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software