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


Home » RSD » RSD Posts » RULES GURU'S GAMBLER?????
RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #225] Tue, 23 September 2008 08:02 Go to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
In most sports such people are called refs. Is this the facilitation
you were refering to in your audio interview? Do you, as well, have a
problem with the R-word or were you illuding to some other kind of
creative process of fairly and impartially enforcing the rules?
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #249 is a reply to message #225] Tue, 23 September 2008 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gambler
Messages: 60
Registered: September 2008
Member
Hi Todd,

To answer your question, I don't have a problem with the "R-word," per
se. I support the UPA experimenting with different types of
officiating, including expanded roles for observers (what you have
called "refzervers") and referees. I think it is in the sport's best
interest to have the UPA involved with experimentation of this kind
because the UPA is in the best position to widely implement any
changes that work and have generated player support. The UPA took the
lead on adding observers to the game at the competitive level and the
UPA (and its volunteers) continue to recruit and train observers. I
think it makes sense for the UPA to continue to experiment with
changes in third-party officiating. Already the UPA is getting
involved with tournament-specific experiments (like with expanded
roles for observers and different time limits at this year's Solstice
in Eugene, OR) and I think that the UPA can continue to communicate
about the success and failures of these types of experiments.

I'm not convinced that referees are necessarily the right change for
ultimate, but I do think that it would be worth while for the UPA to
explore the issue more deeply than it has thus far. Through that
experimentation, the UPA might discover that referees are unable to
call games in a way that satisfies players better than the combination
of self-officiating and observers making more active calls. But maybe
not. I personally believe that self-officiating with more active
observers is a hybrid option that I would feel very confident in and
comfortable with at the highest levels of competition.

In reference to the "rules gurus" I mentioned in my audio interview, I
think it is very important to acknowledge that the UPA can do more to
facilitate more players comprehensively learning the rules. The onus
for knowing the rules lies with players, regardless of what type of
officiating system is in place. I believe that the UPA can develop
resources to help players better understand subtleties in the rules
and to help standardize the way people interpret the rules and call
games. In addition to videos or narratives explaining the correct
outcomes in different situations, I think that rules quizzes could
also be an effective way for people to test their knowledge.
Moreover, if one person on every team took it upon themselves to know
the rules inside and out (with online training and certification from
the UPA even), those players would be able to help standardize the way
games were called by spreading rules knowledge to their teammates and
helping resolve rules disputes during games in more of an official
capacity than the way veteran players and captains currently
disseminate rules knowledge.

Observers and referees are one way of standardizing the way games are
called, but I imagine the majority of ultimate games will continue to
rely fully on self-officiating far into the future. Working towards
standardizing players' understanding of the rules thus has an
important role and a large potential impact on the game.

Please feel free to contact me directly with any further questions.

Gwen Ambler
ambler @ gmail.com



On Sep 23, 8:02 am, joadnt...@ec.rr.com wrote:
> In most sports such people are called refs.  Is this the facilitation
> you were refering to in your audio interview?  Do you, as well, have a
> problem with the R-word or were you illuding to some other kind of
> creative process of fairly and impartially enforcing the rules?
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #256 is a reply to message #249] Tue, 23 September 2008 10:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Baer
Messages: 387
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 23, 12:25 pm, Gambler <amb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please feel free to contact me directly with any further questions.
>

I would like to see more public comments from candidates on their
positions as the election process continues!
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #259 is a reply to message #249] Tue, 23 September 2008 10:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ultimatephotography
Messages: 422
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
instead of the one rules guru per team thing,
is it just too difficult to require, say, 50% of each
team to pass an online rules quiz? (one that hands
the answers to you, basically, by explaining things
right before the question, so it isn't about being
good at tests, but rather is about ensuring that
people have at least one pass at reading
particularly important or uncertain rules and
at applying them in a hypo).

i know - i know - this would make rostering
MORE difficult, and not less. and would probably
be frustrating to those who, for example, play
sectionals only.
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #260 is a reply to message #256] Tue, 23 September 2008 10:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Frankie
Messages: 93
Registered: September 2008
Member
How many people read the rules for basketball before watching an NBA game?

Stated further, I'd be willing to bet that more NBA fans (percentagewise)
know basketball rules better than UPA members know the 11th edition rules.
Any takers?

Gwen is stating ideas that I've been posting on RSD for many years. Sure,
they've got some merit but take a step back and ask yourself the question,
why don't people know the rules, not what kind of ideas can we come up with
to put a band aid on the situation.

With the NBA, people know the rules because they watch the game and learn
the rules that way.

In Ultimate, the game is unwatchable. There are no fans because the product
sucks. Referees, refzervers, observers are not going to change that. All
the band-aids the UPA has applied over the past quarter of a century have
failed to fix anything and have only made the rules more confusing. Gwen's
response is 'we need video to explain what is' instead of let's simplify the
rules so that they're not so confusing.

In order to fix the problem, the UPA has to come to term with it's own roots
(New Games) and uproot them and put in place a rationale set of rules that
are easy to understand, have teeth and are not easily mis-interpreted to a
players advantage.

What problem are you trying to solve here?

"Baer" <collin.baer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e307d116-8754-4ed2-b44d-400aad57c7db@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 12:25 pm, Gambler <amb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please feel free to contact me directly with any further questions.
>

I would like to see more public comments from candidates on their
positions as the election process continues!
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #261 is a reply to message #259] Tue, 23 September 2008 10:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Frankie
Messages: 93
Registered: September 2008
Member
Gee Bill, isn't this what I posted on RSD in 2003?

Glad to see that you are finally coming around.


<ultimatephotography@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7501598d-30ce-4779-86b7-88b3250e1455@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> instead of the one rules guru per team thing,
> is it just too difficult to require, say, 50% of each
> team to pass an online rules quiz? (one that hands
> the answers to you, basically, by explaining things
> right before the question, so it isn't about being
> good at tests, but rather is about ensuring that
> people have at least one pass at reading
> particularly important or uncertain rules and
> at applying them in a hypo).
>
> i know - i know - this would make rostering
> MORE difficult, and not less. and would probably
> be frustrating to those who, for example, play
> sectionals only.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #266 is a reply to message #249] Tue, 23 September 2008 11:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joadntoad
Messages: 1411
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, Gambler <amb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> To answer your question, I don't have a problem with the "R-word," per
> se.

great. it just seemed like you were tip toeing around the ever
popular and controversial ref issue in an attept to not take a stand
as to how you felt about it personally.
----------------------------------------------------------



 I support the UPA experimenting with different types of
> officiating, including expanded roles for observers (what you have
> called "refzervers") and referees.

and from the data that was revealed by the ult rev concerning this
referee issue exacty how did YOU interpret the findings?

also, in lieu of this information, i take it you dont agree with the
stance the upa administration took years back when they redefined
ultimate in which the consensus was "if there are refs involved, it
just aint ultimate". so would you be a proponent of having that
definiton changed?
------------------------------------------------------------ --



 I think it is in the sport's best
> interest to have the UPA involved with experimentation of this kind
> because the UPA is in the best position to widely implement any
> changes that work and have generated player support.  The UPA took the
> lead on adding observers to the game at the competitive level and the
> UPA (and its volunteers) continue to recruit and train observers.  I
> think it makes sense for the UPA to continue to experiment with
> changes in third-party officiating.

no argument there......hence my running for board.
----------------------------------------------------------



 Already the UPA is getting
> involved with tournament-specific experiments (like with expanded
> roles for observers and different time limits at this year's Solstice
> in Eugene, OR) and I think that the UPA can continue to communicate
> about the success and failures of these types of experiments.


dont ya mean "start" to communicate??? that event was over 3 month
ago and i havent herd one thing about it (officially or unofficially
via the upa admin).
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> I'm not convinced that referees are necessarily the right change for
> ultimate

why? they sure seem to be the right game management and rule
enforcement process facilitation for every other sport on gods green
earth. whats so special about ultimate that it cant equally benefit
from it as well. besides all the spirit zealots that want to shut it
down anyways?
------------------------------------------------------------



, but I do think that it would be worth while for the UPA to
> explore the issue more deeply than it has thus far.  Through that
> experimentation, the UPA might discover that referees are unable to
> call games in a way that satisfies players better than the combination
> of self-officiating and observers making more active calls.

through my own personal experimentation i found that players were not
only satisfied but also appreciative of such a facilitation. And, as
for the fans, its an open and shut case. Just wondering, did you get
to see any of the mlu comp (not that that was a very good example of
quality refed ulti)?
-----------------------------------------------------


 But maybe
> not.  I personally believe that self-officiating with more active
> observers is a hybrid option that I would feel very confident in and
> comfortable with at the highest levels of competition.


do you think that type of process would fly in other entertainment
oriented professional sports......which i'm sure you must be a fan of
some (unlike our opponent henry seems to be).
--------------------------------------------------
>
> In reference to the "rules gurus" I mentioned in my audio interview, I
> think it is very important to acknowledge that the UPA can do more to
> facilitate more players comprehensively learning the rules.  The onus
> for knowing the rules lies with players, regardless of what type of
> officiating system is in place.

but with the presence of observers and or refs, such indepth and
consistant knowledge(and interpretation) is far less of a necessisity,
no? i mean, to anyone other than ones own self and ones own team.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------



 I believe that the UPA can develop
> resources to help players better understand subtleties in the rules
> and to help standardize the way people interpret the rules and call
> games.

see now this is where the ice gets thin. Many calls in ultimate, like
in all other sports, are simply judgement calls. And actions and
violations presently can be too easily interpreted to favor ones own
partial motivations. This is the basic flaw in allowing partial
opponents to be involved in what should be an impartial process in the
first place.
-------------------------------------------------------




 In addition to videos or narratives explaining the correct
> outcomes in different situations


i would be more interested in the production of narratives on how to
be a good observer and how to judge calls, use proper field mechanics
and control basic game management.
--------------------------------------------------------



, I think that rules quizzes could
> also be an effective way for people to test their knowledge.
> Moreover, if one person on every team took it upon themselves to know
> the rules inside and out (with online training and certification from
> the UPA even), those players would be able to help standardize the way
> games were called by spreading rules knowledge to their teammates and
> helping resolve rules disputes during games in more of an official
> capacity than the way veteran players and captains currently
> disseminate rules knowledge.

but the partial motivations cant still cause competing team captian
"rules gurus" from comming to terms, yet if the focus was on the
provision of 3rd party "rules gurus" then you would have the same
benefit of knowledgeable overseeers AND the added inherant dynamics of
consistancy and impartiality. .......and an even more official and
leget feel to the sport to boot.
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> Observers and referees are one way of standardizing the way games are
> called, but I imagine the majority of ultimate games will continue to
> rely fully on self-officiating far into the future.

i dont. once 3rd pary arb get steam i see it snowballing and becoming
as much a part of ultimate as it is in every other sport. just seems
like the natural progression to me.
-----------------------------------------


 >
> Please feel free to contact me directly with any further questions.


i really prefer making this dialouge public as it is that much more
informative to the membership as we are both striving to get their
votes. They should be made aware of where exactly we stand on these
issues. Not trying to get into a debate (ok maybe i am), and i think
we are in alignment on a lot of stuff anyways, but it cant do anything
but help us both to be more transparent and informative.
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #268 is a reply to message #261] Tue, 23 September 2008 11:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ultimatephotography
Messages: 422
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
franky spanky, crying in his hanky,

requiring an online rules test
for participation in the series
is something that would best
have been included in your
"platform." whether the rest
of the voters would have liked
it or not. no need to be vest-
ed entirely in the way things
are, but make yourself less
a pest, and you might might
peak the voter's interest.

but no, you repeatedly molest
those whose very behest
you most seek to crest.

-swilly billy, never been to philly

p.s. my apologies to everyone.
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #282 is a reply to message #249] Tue, 23 September 2008 12:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
swillaholic
Messages: 78
Registered: September 2008
Member
Firstly, thanks for providing follow-up comments and I look forward to
any future responses.

You mentioned support for experimentation. You've also mentioned that
in your opinion, "the majority of ultimate games will continue to
rely fully on self-officiating far into the future." I am in
agreement with this viewpoint.

However, you also mentioned that you are "not convinced that referees
are necessarily the right change for ultimate."

Can you explain your viewpoint and opinions on 'how referees will
change ultimate', when you've also mentioned a majority of players
will continue to rely on self officiation?

******************

I am also in support of educating the players. Similar to any
official, a level of certification/understanding is necessary towards
creating a uniform standard that will benefit competition.

Regarding an effort to educate players on the rules, and providing
various resouces to meet this goal, do you believe there is a
'standardized interpretation' of the existing rules?

Currently, the UPA is interested in considering an incentive system
regarding rules education. I question this direction, moreso as I am
unaware of what 'incentives' are suitable. Do you have any thoughts
on this?

Conversely, do you support a penalty system for players that either
misinterpret a rule, or simply are unaware of a rule?
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #283 is a reply to message #282] Thu, 08 October 2009 16:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dave
Messages: 43
Registered: October 2009
Member
Administrator
testing 123
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #365 is a reply to message #282] Wed, 24 September 2008 09:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
swillaholic
Messages: 78
Registered: September 2008
Member
> Firstly, thanks for providing follow-up comments and I look forward to
> any future responses.
>
> You mentioned support for experimentation.  You've also mentioned that
> in your opinion, "the majority of ultimate games will continue to
> rely fully on self-officiating far into the future."  I am in
> agreement with this viewpoint.
>
> However, you also mentioned that you are "not convinced that referees
> are necessarily the right change for ultimate."
>
> Can you explain your viewpoint and opinions on 'how referees will
> change ultimate', when you've also mentioned a majority of players
> will continue to rely on self officiation?
>
> ******************
>
> I am also in support of educating the players.  Similar to any
> official, a level of certification/understanding is necessary towards
> creating a uniform standard that will benefit competition.
>
> Regarding an effort to educate players on the rules, and providing
> various resouces to meet this goal, do you believe there is a
> 'standardized interpretation' of the existing rules?
>
> Currently, the UPA is interested in considering an incentive system
> regarding rules education.  I question this direction, moreso as I am
> unaware of what 'incentives' are suitable.  Do you have any thoughts
> on this?
>
> Conversely, do you support a penalty system for players that either
> misinterpret a rule, or simply are unaware of a rule?

bumpity bump.
Re: RULES GURU'S GAMBLER????? [message #40221 is a reply to message #282] Thu, 08 October 2009 16:09 Go to previous message
Dave
Messages: 43
Registered: October 2009
Member
Administrator
testing 123
--
Sent from http://rsdnospam.com
Previous Topic:MA Regionals Pics
Next Topic:NE Open Regionals
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jun 24 08:43:18 PDT 2019
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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