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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Self Calls/Observers (Spectator friendly?)
Self Calls/Observers [message #136750] Sun, 20 October 2013 12:28 Go to next message
Binky
Messages: 92
Registered: January 2011
Member
I thought so. I liked hearing the player/observer discussions, too.

As a TV viewer, I thought the self calls/observer system stood out as a distinguishing feature of ultimate that functioned pretty well to keep play moving.

One advantage of the foul/contest method I saw is that it allowed the disc to go back to the thrower in situations where there was a pile-up of receivers/multiple fouls. Whereas a ref would have to make a toss-up call and give the disc to one team or the other at the spot of the foul, the self call/contest allows the do-over, which is probably the most fair outcome when the actual sequence of fouls is too close to call without video replay.

I don't see any evidence from the ESPN streams that self calls or observers are any obstacle for new viewers.

The football lines, on the other hand... weird looking. Is a green field with seats that hard to find?
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136752 is a reply to message #136750] Sun, 20 October 2013 15:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Marput
Messages: 992
Registered: June 2010
Location: Columbia Missouri
Senior Member

american football lines are game footage buzz kill
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136797 is a reply to message #136750] Mon, 21 October 2013 16:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ultimatesamwood
Messages: 68
Registered: December 2008
Member
Binky wrote on Sun, 20 October 2013 15:28
The football lines, on the other hand... weird looking. Is a green field with seats that hard to find?


In Texas, yes.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136811 is a reply to message #136797] Tue, 22 October 2013 05:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
josh[1]
Messages: 71
Registered: October 2009
Member
Does FC Dallas play on a yardage-lined field?
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136813 is a reply to message #136750] Tue, 22 October 2013 07:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Marput
Messages: 992
Registered: June 2010
Location: Columbia Missouri
Senior Member
don't think so....just watched a FC Dallas home game clip.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136822 is a reply to message #136811] Tue, 22 October 2013 12:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ultimatesamwood
Messages: 68
Registered: December 2008
Member
josh[1
wrote on Tue, 22 October 2013 08:36]Does FC Dallas play on a yardage-lined field?


Yes, they do. Granted, the football lines are "greened out" for the soccer games (I took a peek at Toyota Stadium), but they're still quite visible.

We could hear the HS football games Thursday and Friday nights from the surrounding fields.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136826 is a reply to message #136750] Tue, 22 October 2013 14:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dusty
Messages: 159
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:29:03 PM UTC-4, JB wrote:

> One advantage of the foul/contest method I saw is that it
> allowed the disc to go back to the thrower in situations
> where there was a pile-up of receivers/multiple fouls.
> Whereas a ref would have to make a toss-up call and give the
> disc to one team or the other at the spot of the foul, the
> self call/contest allows the do-over, which is probably the
> most fair outcome when the actual sequence of fouls is too
> close to call without video replay.

This is one of the worst things in ultimate.

This is not Schrodinger's Cat. As a spectator I want resolution. I'm not watching a lecture on fairness or quantum uncertainty. I'm watching a sport. The disc was up OR the disc was down. The offense violated the rules more egregiously or the defense did. The fouls occurred in one order or the other. I would rather have the wrong call than watch the disc go back because the right call was undecidable. I'd rather boo the officials and move on than watch the disc go back AND boo the officials.

If we "toss up" a coin on 10000 of these, the coin will (most likely) make the right call about 50% of the time and the wrong call ~50% of the time.
If we send the disc back on 10000 of these, we will make make the right call 0% of the time and the wrong call 100% of the time.

How does that make sense? Either 1 or 0 happened and the answer you're giving is "travel back in time."

music on tap: kurt vile, wakin' on a pretty daze

dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136849 is a reply to message #136826] Wed, 23 October 2013 11:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mtamada
Messages: 32
Registered: August 2011
Member
dusty wrote on Tue, 22 October 2013 14:10
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:29:03 PM UTC-4, JB wrote:

> One advantage of the foul/contest method I saw is that it
> allowed the disc to go back to the thrower in situations [...]


This is one of the worst things in ultimate.

This is not Schrodinger's Cat. As a spectator I want resolution. [...]

How does that make sense? Either 1 or 0 happened and the answer you're giving is "travel back in time."



False certainty is still false. We live in a Bayesian world, not a black and white world. I think the do-over is one of the better things in Ultimate. If there's a preponderance of evidence to make a call one way or the other, by all means make that call. But if it's massively uncertain, then don't pretend that we know the answer.

Even American football has do-overs, when there are off-setting penalties. Jump balls in basketball and face-offs in hockey are other examples of 50-50 situations; not the same as a do-over but similar. So the concept is rare but not unheard of in other sports.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136854 is a reply to message #136849] Wed, 23 October 2013 14:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dusty
Messages: 159
Registered: November 2008
Senior Member
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:43:02 PM UTC-4, Mike Tamada wrote:
> dusty wrote on Tue, 22 October 2013 14:10

> > This is one of the worst things in ultimate.
> >
> > This is not Schrodinger's Cat. As a spectator I want
> > resolution. [...]
> >
> > How does that make sense? Either 1 or 0 happened and
> > the answer you're giving is "travel back in time."
>
> False certainty is still false.

When did I type or imply any level of certainty?
If I grasp your argument, you're more on the side of certainly deciding that there is or is not certainty than I am. I am arguing in favor of accepting that even without certainty, it is preferable to make a decision than to not.
I'd be more likely to argue that all certainty is false than to argue in favor of certain certainty.

> We live in a Bayesian
> world, not a black and white world.

"This is not a black and white world / You can't afford to believe in your side / This is not a black and white world / To be alive I say the colors must swirl / And I believe that maybe today / We will all get appreciate / The beauty of gray"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcJM-mgVUgQ

That is is not a black&white world does not prevent us from making choices. It should be no different for an official.

Not sure what Bayesian means in this context. That it is not black-and-white? That it is one of your preferred methods to make probabilistic predictions about the world? Okay, I'm not a black-n-white kinda guy in the first place. I'm not demanding that we pretend to know the right answer, I'm arguing that AN answer is preferable to NO answer. That we arrive at a destination is more important than taking the correct journey.

> I think the do-over is
> one of the better things in Ultimate.

? Even if you like it... "one of the better things" seems strong to me.

If there's a
> preponderance of evidence to make a call one way or the
> other, by all means make that call. But if it's massively
> uncertain, then don't pretend that we know the answer.

I disagree with your assumption that we are necessarily pretending to know the answer. To choose an answer, it is not necessary to know the answer. To arrive at the right answer, it is not necessary to know that it is the right answer. This is akin to guessing on a standardized test. I expressed *my* preference that we at least attempt to be correct, move on and accept what errors may come.

(Sidenote: I'm the guy who took tests and guessed on every single question I didn't know the answer to regardless of penalty. In this fashion, I still have hope for the perfect score. If I leave them blank, no hope. And yes, I'm a very very successful test taker... but no one cares.)

No matter what method we choose, we will have errors. Even if the official (which in a self-officiated game includes all players) "knows" the answer, they may (un)wittingly have/use incomplete or inaccurate information and subsequently make an incorrect call.

If we accept this level of inaccuracy (which I would argue is wholly unavoidable even *with* full video review...) why can we not accept that making incorrect calls is part of the game? If we accept that in every game incorrect calls will be made, why would we choose to avoid the hope of getting the call correct?

> Even American football has do-overs, when there are
> off-setting penalties. Jump balls in basketball and
> face-offs in hockey are other examples of 50-50 situations;
> not the same as a do-over but similar. So the concept is
> rare but not unheard of in other sports.

Jump balls in basketball (replaced by the possession arrow in college) are most often used when two players legitimately have claim to possession and to avoid a wrestling match or fight breaking out. It is not used when the refs can't tell who the ball hit before it went OB (even with the aid of video review, this can be unknowable-- and yet, they give the ball to one team or the other!)

In football, not all penalties are offsetting (major penalties cannot offset minor penalties, for example). Offsetting penalties are not due to a lack of information, but rather due to the rules specifically choosing to evaluate known quantities as roughly equivalent.

I don't watch hockey much (not possession-oriented enough for my taste), but as far as I can tell, face-offs happen after a penalty or a goal or that thing where the goalie covers the puck with his glove. Basically to restart play rather than as a result of undecideability.

The best example of a non-ultimate "redo" is actually volleyball, in which in if the upref (first official? everyone has different names for the judge up on the high chair with one had on the top of the tape) cannot tell if, say, a blocker actually contacted a struck ball and none of the line judges or the downref could tell. In this case, they signal for a redo w/ two thumbs up (if I recall the hand signal accurately).

I would argue that this play is generally more unknowable than ultimate situations, but that's editorializing in a meaningless direction. It also does not happen at a rate comparable to ultimate. As a volleyball player and spectator, this frustrated me (editorializing in a more meaningful direction) for the same reason as in ultimate. But in volleyball you then *replay the entire point* rather than, say... giving a freeball (soft toss over the net) to the team that was attacking. Once the officiating admits to breaking down, the game (I JUST LOST THE GAME. #DamnitFurf) is no longer valid.*

Now, if in ultimate, we were to replay the entire point, I could get behind that. *that* has perverse spectator appeal and doesn't recreate a condition on the field which never actually existed. Such as if a disc is called neither down nor up, the receiver who did/n't catch the disc now stands in the spot at which the (non-)catch happened. A place that the receiver would be unlikely to occupy if that pass had not been thrown.

If you take a job and "know" it is the right one for you due, only later to learn that the organization is actually an aggressive cult of suicidal antifreeze drinkers, did you make the right choice or not? Did you actually "know"? Going back, would you rather flip a coin or knowingly make the same choice? (Not apples-to-apples, but rather related thought experiments for me)

If, on the other hand, we could actually send all 14 players on the field back in time to before the play happened and erase all memory of the play actually happening & restore all physical&mental energy expenditures... this course of action would be most fair, accurate and fun.

Until then... Make the call and move on.
Sometimes you'll be right, sometimes you'll be wrong.
If you think about it long enough, and zoom out from ultimate far enough, you'll be unable to tell the difference anyway.

music on tap: passion pit, gossamer

dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com

*- For every player who is not dedicated to extensively&repeatedly studying&comprehending the rules in a self-officiated sport... YES THIS MEANS YOU'RE INVALIDATING THE SPORT.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136873 is a reply to message #136750] Thu, 24 October 2013 07:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:29:03 PM UTC-4, JB wrote:
> I thought so. I liked hearing the player/observer
> discussions, too.
~~~~~~~

---there shouldn't be any.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136906 is a reply to message #136873] Fri, 25 October 2013 11:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Binky
Messages: 92
Registered: January 2011
Member
"As a spectator I want resolution."

A do-over is a resolution, no? It is a decision, an answer, and the game IS moving on. And, to me, preferential to guessing or "zooming out."

If I took the wrong job, I would prefer a "do over" to flipping a coin or "knowingly make the same choice." Not possible in life, unfortunately, but possible in ultimate.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136908 is a reply to message #136906] Fri, 25 October 2013 13:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Pete
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
If these games are headed in the direction of third-party anything, I'm on Dusty's side that there should be a call one way or the other. One major point is to improve the watchability of the product and stop silly calls.

I am fine with do-overs as a mechanism in a truly self-officiated game. (A league game in a city league, or a tournament such as Potlatch where observers aren't needed) That said, if we are looking for outcomes, having an observer do what the players could have done anyway is pretty silly.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136910 is a reply to message #136908] Fri, 25 October 2013 14:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
southwestultimate
Messages: 184
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
At Indoor Nationals, I never saw an argument last more than 10 seconds. There were no observers or refs, there was money on the line, but most importantly the clock never stopped. So there was a lot of peer pressure from the players on the field, the players on the sideline, and the fans to get the game started again. And that is the true culprit here, lack of accountability from teammates and captains.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136912 is a reply to message #136910] Fri, 25 October 2013 16:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
alansmith175
Messages: 41
Registered: December 2008
Member
"At Indoor Nationals, I never saw an argument last more than 10 seconds. There were no observers or refs, there was money on the line, but most importantly the clock never stopped. So there was a lot of peer pressure from the players on the field, the players on the sideline, and the fans to get the game started again. And that is the true culprit here, lack of accountability from teammates and captains."

How much money are we talking, and how many players were on the team that won it? Most of the tourney prize funds I've seen don't mean mean more than a couple hundred, at most, to individual players.

Plus, there's no way that anyone is trying harder to win Texas 2finger/Livelogic than club nationals, and there's no way anyone's trying harder to win Vegas or Mardi Gras than college nationals.

If the pro leagues take off, we can revisit the money argument. Right now it's irrelevant.

You go on to say that the unstopped clock is the most important factor in reducing argumentation. How do you feel about an observed system with an unstopped clock?
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136914 is a reply to message #136910] Fri, 25 October 2013 18:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mike gerics[1]
Messages: 174
Registered: June 2013
Senior Member
On Friday, October 25, 2013 5:05:03 PM UTC-4, southwestultimate wrote:
> At Indoor Nationals, I never saw an argument last more than
> 10 seconds. There were no observers or refs, there was
> money on the line, but most importantly the clock never
> stopped.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~


---national indoor spirit championships???????
?????????
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136919 is a reply to message #136906] Sat, 26 October 2013 20:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> A do-over is a resolution, no? It is a decision, an answer,
>
> and the game IS moving on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


---it should be a very rare resolution.....like a drop ball in soccer if the refs can't tell who kicked the ball out.

if there are game officials for ultimate....the do over should, for the most part...be a thing of the past.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136930 is a reply to message #136919] Sun, 27 October 2013 13:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
southwestultimate
Messages: 184
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
There was a total of $2500 in cash prizes, with half for the winning team. 15 players max per team. So the winning team got $85 a person. Its not a lot of money, but its a way bigger prize than most tourneys. And I'm not claiming that teams were more spirited, simply that the tournament wasn't marred by a lot of discussions and arguments. If you get a chance, I welcome you to come watch or even play in an IUC event this winter. Most people are surprised by the pace and intensity of the games.

The clock was more important then the money or the presence or absence of a third party official. The peer pressure was more important than the clock. If everybody was as vocal about keeping the game moving in Outdoor Ultimate as they are in Indoor Ultimate, then I believe the same result would occur. Disclaimer- Indoor is a smaller field and enclosed space, so sideline noise is amplified, but I still believe that if both teams agreed before a game, that no matter what they were going to keep the game moving, the two teams by themselves could accomplish that goal.
Here is a radical notion : If neither player agrees to a simple foul-contest/no contest, then either player may offer to take a sub and continue the discussion off the field. If the second player refuses, then the call automatically goes in favor of the first player.
Or teams could just choose to make one or both players sub if they can't agree
Would this fall within the "captains can play by almost any rules they want" clause?

Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136967 is a reply to message #136930] Tue, 29 October 2013 19:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
alansmith175
Messages: 41
Registered: December 2008
Member
I wouldn't say that's way bigger than most prize funds. I've seen prize funds for 2k before. Again, preexisting prestige of a tournament is a much bigger factor to most people.

I've played indoor ultimate before under more or less the ruleset used for your tournaments. While the "keep the game moving" aspect may be stronger with the clock on, it also may create more pressure to settle for ANY resolution, regardless if it is suboptimal or even illegal. Not saying indoor ultimate is invalid, but I don't think it has any claim to increased spirit.

I also think the take-a-sub-and-argue rule is wholly unworkable. How do we restart play in the interim? And if the players eventually agree on a solution that is different from the game as played, are they supposed to replay the point? Replay only if the infracted team loses the point? What if they can't agree on a solution until several points have passed, a possibility made even more likely by the faster pace of indoor play, and no one remembers how the point ended?

You could probably captains clause it, but I don't think a lot of captains would agree to it.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136969 is a reply to message #136967] Tue, 29 October 2013 21:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
southwestultimate
Messages: 184
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
I said "its a way bigger prize than most tourneys."

I didn't say its a way bigger prize than most prize tournaments. Most (probably 99% of) tourneys don't have any cash prize but players still argue, cheat and bend the rules, and their teammates don't say anything.

I didn't say Indoor Ultimate was more spirited. I specifically said that I wasn't claiming it was more spirited.

And rather than try to twist your words, I will ask you a simple yes or no question and then answer your question.

Are you saying that you would prioritize getting the call right every time rather than keep the game moving?

How do we restart play in the interim? The way the rules say we are supposed to, with whatever the resolution is when there is a foul/contest call. Simple, don't try to make it complicated.

The point of the players taking the sub is not to resolve that call, the point is to get the arguers off the field. If you want to argue, argue, if you want to play Ultimate, don't argue. Just say contest or no contest. And if your opponent says contest, don't waste everyone's time arguing, just send it back. You can always discuss the rules after the game, or if you both think it is so important, you can do it during the game, but off the field.

Nobody ever has perfect perspective, and usually the players involved didn't have best perspective, so just deal with it. We have foul/contest rules for a reason, so lets use them. Enough of this nonsense of thinking that you are going to change someone else's mind, or that being right is more important than everybody else's time.

Imagine if everybody on RSD had to wait until you and I finish this argument to read or talk about anything else Ultimate related. They would already be screaming at us to shut up and move on already.

Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136978 is a reply to message #136969] Wed, 30 October 2013 09:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bulb
Messages: 1093
Registered: September 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Senior Member
southwestultimate wrote on Wed, 30 October 2013 00:43
Enough of this nonsense of thinking that you are going to change someone else's mind, or that being right is more important than everybody else's time.

This sentiment implies no one has ever changed someone else's mind, which I know to be false. I have convinced others to drop their calls, and I have similarly been convinced to drop my own calls. But of course, the possibility of changing someone's mind isn't merit enough to allow discussions to continue indefinitely. How long is an appropriate amount of time? What we need is data!

I'd like to see a histogram binning discussions based on duration and whether the call ended in a "contest," "no contest," dropped call, or observer ruling. (You'd obviously need separate graphs for games with and without observers.) I would be willing to bet that longer discussions are more likely to result in "contest" than shorter ones, and that "no contest" outcomes dominate the shorter discussions though this could be skewed by blatant/intentional (but non-dangerous) fouls: bumps on the mark, accidentally tripping a receiver, etc. I'd be curious to see if/how the presence of observers diminishes the presence of "contest" outcomes.

Gathering this data wouldn't be all that difficult, assuming someone has access to raw game footage. You'd probably need at least 10 full games, 5 observed and 5 without, between Nationals caliber teams. I've got $10 for whoever does it.

This kind of data would be useful to have when coming up with observer protocols. E.g. if 90% of discussions > 15 seconds long end up with a contest, you could design protocol such that observers should step in at 15 seconds and force both players to choose between call/contest, no call/no contest, or going to the observer.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136986 is a reply to message #136978] Wed, 30 October 2013 16:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
EuhNGroups
Messages: 1020
Registered: August 2011
Senior Member
[quote title=Bulb wrote on Wed, 30 October 2013 09:00]southwestultimate wrote on Wed, 30 October 2013 00:43
I've got $10 for whoever does it.


Good offer...that's more than what a player earns in the MLU/AUDL
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136988 is a reply to message #136969] Wed, 30 October 2013 19:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
alansmith175
Messages: 41
Registered: December 2008
Member
"And rather than try to twist your words, I will ask you a simple yes or no question and then answer your question.

Are you saying that you would prioritize getting the call right every time rather than keep the game moving?"

My experience has always been that whenever people say something is a simple question with a yes or no answer, it is almost invariably not. This question continues the trend. My answer would depend on context, and would be significantly different than the one others would give.

As to restarting play, I'm pretty sure that the rules require the players involved in the infraction to resolve the call. One good reason might be that they generally have the best perspectives.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136994 is a reply to message #136969] Wed, 30 October 2013 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
southwestultimate wrote on Wed, 30 October 2013 00:43
Imagine if everybody on RSD had to wait until you and I finish this argument to read or talk about anything else Ultimate related. They would already be screaming at us to shut up and move on already.
Imagine if some players were able to answer simple questions efficiently without dodging their shortcomings or mistakes. Then again, I don't have to imagine that as I have watched players at the highest level make a call and a contest, one party says one sentence, then the other retracts their call/contest.

If the majority of players answered questions with questions like you do (or just outright ignored them), sure, any discussion should be eliminated. I'm happy we don't live in the binary world you keep wanting to describe.

So, should getting the call right be prioritized? Yes. At the expense of an immediate restart every time. Sure. At the expense of a long discussion, of course not. Find a happy middle ground. Works for so much in life.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #136997 is a reply to message #136988] Thu, 31 October 2013 04:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> Are you saying that you would prioritize getting the call
>
> right every time rather than keep the game moving?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


---with UOA officials....we could speed the game up AND get the call right....
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137013 is a reply to message #136997] Thu, 31 October 2013 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
southwestultimate
Messages: 184
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
Alan, it was a simple yes or no question, and your answer was no. No, you wouldn't prioritize getting the call right EVERY TIME, because sometimes it would depend on context. Thank you.
Mitch, I'm sure you said something a handful of people on here would consider witty.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137014 is a reply to message #137013] Thu, 31 October 2013 09:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
josh[1]
Messages: 71
Registered: October 2009
Member
Trent, the points of both aforementioned gentlepersons is that EVERY TIME is the problem. So even if they'd not demand the "right" call result every time, neither would they prefer keeping the game moving EVERY TIME. Inserting the unrealistic phrase of "every time" guarantees the simple "No" answer. The more interesting philosophical & practical question/answer involves a frequency of "generally" or "most of the time."
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137036 is a reply to message #137013] Thu, 31 October 2013 16:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mgd.mitch
Messages: 1207
Registered: January 2009
Senior Member
southwestultimate wrote on Thu, 31 October 2013 11:54
Alan, it was a simple yes or no question, and your answer was no.
No, the answer was apparently you cannot read.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137045 is a reply to message #137036] Fri, 01 November 2013 00:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
southwestultimate
Messages: 184
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
Josh, I agree with you. The sole reason I asked that question was to make the point that sometimes it is better to keep the game moving than it is to get the call right. It really was a simple question that pretty much everybody, as you point out, will answer no to. So I think we are all in agreement with your point.

My next point is that enforcing a quick resolution doesn't necessarily mean you will have a higher percentage of wrong calls. Another factor that kept the game moving was what seemed to be a much higher percentage of no contest calls compared to Ultimate.
And again, I'm not claiming that Indoor Ultimate is superior to Outdoor Ultimate, I have played way more outdoor, and until a couple years ago, I refused to play indoor if outdoor was an option. Now I may prefer indoor in a lot of situations, but they are essentially two different games at this point.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137171 is a reply to message #137045] Tue, 05 November 2013 13:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ilyas
Messages: 113
Registered: January 2012
Senior Member
Quick note on the Indoor nationals / No argument thing.
I was there(captained the winning team)

A few factors were :
Indoor games were higher scoring so one call or even one point had much less overall effect on the game.
Small fields, most people had perspective.
The clock was definitely a factor, though at Frisco semis/finals there was a big clock/scoreboard over the field and stalling was rampant(I-side/Sockeye 2nd half pull came with under 16 minutes on the 85 minute countdown)
Because the purse number changed a few times I didn't even tell my team there was definitely a prize for winning -- money wasn't their motivation
We weren't a super spirited bunch, it just never seemed worth it to argue much(except for one call as a clock expired, the outcome of which no one was happy with)
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137543 is a reply to message #136750] Wed, 13 November 2013 12:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
glimmer
Messages: 22
Registered: June 2013
Location: New York
Junior Member
You can't watch MLS soccer games without seeing football lines - and they're pulling in about $30 million in TV revenue alone and average player salaries about $30,000. If they can't find places without lines, then I can excuse ultimate from playing on football fields.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137573 is a reply to message #136750] Thu, 14 November 2013 12:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Marput
Messages: 992
Registered: June 2010
Location: Columbia Missouri
Senior Member
We aren't major league soccer. we are ultimate.

The playing field for athletes is the equivalent of what the bandstand is for musicians.

As jazz musicians often say "respect the bandstand."

Respect the sport....just say "no" to football lines.

Peter Mc
Columbia, MO





Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137574 is a reply to message #137573] Thu, 14 November 2013 12:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:51:03 PM UTC-5, Lance Marput wrote:
> We aren't major league soccer. we are ultimate.
> The playing field for athletes is the equivalent of what the
> bandstand is for musicians.
> As jazz musicians often say "respect the bandstand."
> Respect the sport....just say "no" to football lines.

~~~~~


---ya just can't post without making yourself more of a dipshit, huh?
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137575 is a reply to message #136750] Thu, 14 November 2013 13:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Marput
Messages: 992
Registered: June 2010
Location: Columbia Missouri
Senior Member
mike g,

Would you rather see ultimate played on an ultimate field or an American football field ?


Peter Mc
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137599 is a reply to message #137575] Fri, 15 November 2013 03:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
> Would you rather see ultimate played on an ultimate field or
>
> an American football field ?
>
>
~~~~~~~~


---well...i could 'rather' in one hand....and shit in the other....
and see which fills up faster.

or.....they could play on the available fields.

.....and when they start building 'ultimate specific' pro stadiums......that'd be cooler.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137605 is a reply to message #137599] Fri, 15 November 2013 06:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Marput
Messages: 992
Registered: June 2010
Location: Columbia Missouri
Senior Member
ultimate played on a football field looks like a half time
demo at a hs football game.

Communities are giving up football fields...go find some.

peter mc
Columbia mo

Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137654 is a reply to message #136750] Sat, 16 November 2013 07:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Marput
Messages: 992
Registered: June 2010
Location: Columbia Missouri
Senior Member
bump

"Costas would nix football for son"
Sam Gardner
(FOX News ?)
Share This Story
Updated Nov 14, 2013 9:45 PM ET



Bob Costas has become the latest person to speak out against the dangers of football, stating publicly that if he had a son, he wouldn't let him on the field. And new youth football enrollment numbers seem to suggest that Costas isn't the only person who shares that opinion.

The NBC broadcaster made the declaration during an appearance on Slate's Hang Up and Listen podcast, telling the hosts that the sport's benefits do not outweigh the risks.

"I'd tell them no," Costas said when asked if he'd let his kid play. "I know that goes viral tomorrow. ... I know many, many thoughtful people in football ... who belie the stereotype that we think we've got coming out of the Dolphins locker room, very thoughtful people where football has shaped their lives in a positive way, so I'm not going to paint everyone with a broad brush.

"Maybe the better answer is: Be advised of the extreme dangers, know what you're getting into. But let me put it this way: If it were my son and he was 13 years old and had reasonable athletic ability, I would encourage him to play baseball, or to play basketball or to play soccer or something other than football."

Costas' statement comes alongside a new report that Pop Warner participation is down 9.5 percent between 2010 and 2012. According to data provided to Outside the Lines, a record 248,899 played Pop Warner football in 2010, but that number fell to 225,287 by the 2012 season. Additionally, participation in USA Football dropped 6.7 percent in that same span.

Dr. Julian Bailes, Pop Warner's chief medical officer, said the decline can be attributed mostly to the increase in awareness about head injuries.

"Unless we deal with these truths, we're not going to get past the dropping popularity of the sport and people dropping out of the sport," Bailes told OTL. "We need to get it right."

Youth football isn't going anywhere just because Costas is taking a stand against it, and I'm not sure that's what Costas and others have in mind when they speak about the dangers of the sport. They're just looking to find a safer way for kids to play, and as long as that remains the goal, it's a crusade that's tough to argue against.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137706 is a reply to message #137654] Mon, 18 November 2013 11:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Marput
Messages: 992
Registered: June 2010
Location: Columbia Missouri
Senior Member
who's afraid of bob costas bump?
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137747 is a reply to message #137706] Tue, 19 November 2013 06:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
On Monday, November 18, 2013 2:26:03 PM UTC-5, Lance Marput wrote:
> who's afraid of bob costas bump?
~~~~~~~~


---who writes about bob costas and football in an observer thread?
only a ding dong.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137772 is a reply to message #137747] Wed, 20 November 2013 05:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Lance Marput
Messages: 992
Registered: June 2010
Location: Columbia Missouri
Senior Member
a visionary michael...a visionary.
Re: Self Calls/Observers [message #137774 is a reply to message #137772] Wed, 20 November 2013 05:22 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
anakin gerics
Messages: 1362
Registered: November 2009
Senior Member
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:02:03 AM UTC-5, Lance Marput wrote:
> a visionary michael...a visionary.
~~~~~~~~~~

---of what? of bob costas not letting his son play football on an ultimate field with lines all over it?
Previous Topic:New England Open 2014
Next Topic:SAVAGE Gobbler Jerseys and Shorts - Thanksgiving SALE
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Sep 15 17:23:17 PDT 2019
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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