Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe)
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51965 is a reply to message #51963] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 16:34   |
jacob
Messages: 540
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Alex Korb:
"if the disc was out of bounds, which it looks like it was, then he
was supposed to ground check it."
I thought you only had to ground check after a stoppage of play. What
a bad rule. If your opponent throws it OB, they should not get the
benefit of a ground check, as you should not have to waste any time on
a ground check running your fast break in the other direction.
Besides this, the marker and other defenders were set up and active
immediately, so there was no harm done or surprise caused by the lack
of ground check here.
"And whether the disc was out of bounds or on the line the thrower is
supposed to establish his pivot foot on the line. When Joaq says the
thrower pivots a second or 2 before the throw, it's really only a tiny
step. His big pivot is pretty much as he throws. A defender likely
wouldn't notice this small pivot. The defense can't call travel until
the thrower pivots, and the thrower didn't pivot clearly until just as
he was throwing. If he had chosen to use his right foot as his pivot,
then this wouldn't have been a travel, but as soon as he decided to
make his left foot the pivot, and his left foot was not on the line,
then it's a travel."
Yeah, but
1) The thrower is actually worse off by setting up his pivot foot off
the sideline rather than on the sideline (it's easier to huck the
closer you are to the sideline), so Janin had no advantage here and
CUT was better off for this oversight; and
2) Janin is a well-known player- I'm pretty sure the CUT guys know he
is not a left and that his right foot is not his pivot foot.
"I change my viewing of this from 'bogus call' to 'exactly the kind of
call one should expect on a huck, and definitely at double-game
point.'"
Are you saying that it's more acceptable to make borderline calls on
hucks than on other throws? On game-point plays than on plays made
earlier in games? I realize that there is a difference between "You
should expect ___" and "____ is acceptable", but it sounds like you
are muddling the two. Can't we expect such calls and at the same time
think they are weak?
"If the thrower wants to avoid such foul calls then make sure to place
his pivot foot on the line."
Alex, you are assuming that this was the basis for the call, when it
is just as likely or even more likely that this call was made in
response to the marker's belief that Janin moved his left foot prior
to or during the throw. If a player makes a call for a specific
incorrect reason, that call is not made legitimate simply by there
being a separate basis for the call made known to that player only in
hindsight.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51967 is a reply to message #51963] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 16:55 |
AndrewZill
Messages: 163
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 8, 6:00 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:49 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 3:54 pm, Peri Kurshan <pkurs...@gmail.com> wrote:.
>
> > > I agree- I think if your goal is to reduce the number of travel calls,
> > > then more heavy-handed TMF use is a much better way to achieve that
> > > goal than active travel calls, which while they might reduce some
> > > bogus calls, will also introduce a whole lot of other non-bogus (but
> > > unimportant) calls that players wouldn't call themselves.
>
> > Maybe instead of hypothesizing how active travel calls would affect
> > the number of travel calls in a game maybe you should ask someone like
> > Mike G who has run a tournament with active travel calls and find out
> > how it affects the number of travels called.
>
> the obvious eludes her. maybe she didnt notice this past weekends
> football superbowl game featured FULLY ACTIVE REFS either.
And there were fewer calls made the entire game than some ultimate
points. Amazingly clean play by both teams.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51969 is a reply to message #51961] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 17:05 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 925
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 8, 6:49 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 3:54 pm, Peri Kurshan <pkurs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree- I think if your goal is to reduce the number of travel calls,
> > then more heavy-handed TMF use is a much better way to achieve that
> > goal than active travel calls, which while they might reduce some
> > bogus calls, will also introduce a whole lot of other non-bogus (but
> > unimportant) calls that players wouldn't call themselves.
>
> Maybe instead of hypothesizing how active travel calls would affect
> the number of travel calls in a game maybe you should ask someone like
> Mike G who has run a tournament with active travel calls and find out
> how it affects the number of travels called.
Heinousboy, maybe instead of hypothesizing about people's knowledge,
you should brush up your own. Your persistent failure to reason is
kind of unbelievable. The 2009 Stanford Invite had active travel
calls. Centex had active referral. Nationals had active referral for
men (was it just standard for women?). UPA Observers. Feedback
collected. Some data on numbers of calls. Made available to UPA
officials. It seems like you are the one in the dark here,
Heinousboy, as usual. While on the topic of your ignorance, are you
familiar with possible variations in how the UOA treats Rule XVI.J(1)
(d) ("The thrower fails to touch the disc to the ground when
required") in calling travels?
Again, the important thing here is that players get to vote
intelligently knowing what they're going to get at Nationals. If what
they're going to get is observers with no formal training in calling
active travels, then they should know that. If what they're getting
is rules weenies in orange calling every single tiny technical travel
that occurs, then they should know that.
Hopefully, if any new experiments are going to be put to a vote for
the 2010 College Series, the UPA will give some indication of how this
would work and what training the observers would receive. I'm excited
for experimentation by the UPA, but again hoping that enough time is
allowed for players and observers to understand and adjust to any
changes that might be made for Nationals.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51970 is a reply to message #51963] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 17:09 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 925
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 8, 7:00 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:49 pm, Heinousboy <andrewz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 3:54 pm, Peri Kurshan <pkurs...@gmail.com> wrote:.
>
> > > I agree- I think if your goal is to reduce the number of travel calls,
> > > then more heavy-handed TMF use is a much better way to achieve that
> > > goal than active travel calls, which while they might reduce some
> > > bogus calls, will also introduce a whole lot of other non-bogus (but
> > > unimportant) calls that players wouldn't call themselves.
>
> > Maybe instead of hypothesizing how active travel calls would affect
> > the number of travel calls in a game maybe you should ask someone like
> > Mike G who has run a tournament with active travel calls and find out
> > how it affects the number of travels called.
>
> the obvious eludes her. maybe she didnt notice this past weekends
> football superbowl game featured FULLY ACTIVE REFS either.
The Puppy Bowl game featured fully active refs also.
But Toby was just beating on Yums for an extended period of time
without any intervention. After ten minutes or so, the ref finally
stepped in and ejected Toby. As an observer, I'd have booted him way
earlier. You can't bite opponents. Period.
If this is what it means to have refs, then I sure don't want Ultimate
to be any part of it.
|
|
| | |
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51973 is a reply to message #51963] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 17:15 |
stephenghubbard
Messages: 118
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm no "Spirit Zealot", but I think I have some understanding of where some of them might be coming from.
Imagine if one of the marker's teammates came up to him amidst the crowd's yelling , pulled him aside and quietly explained to him exactly why that was NOT a travel. Imagine if that marker goes back to the thrower and says "Im sorry, I realize not that you didn't travel. I take back the call, you guys win."
That possibility, that awesome possibility which is missing from other sports, holds great sway in some peoples' minds. It is a beautiful and complex and abstract idea. Maybe you don't feel this way, but I think this potential is what sustains people's desire to keep the game "in the hands of the players".
I acknowledge that the aforementioned turn of events seems unlikely, especially on DGP, but it DOES happen. More than big calls, self-regulation happens through the whole game. There is something gained when a game is played hard but under player control. Yes, that something is hard to describe and not necessarily television friendly, but it exists, at least in some subset of the Ultimate community.
Disagree, but at least try to understand.
-Pumba
USA Ultimate Board of Directors Candidate
Vote October 1st!
|
|
| | |
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51992 is a reply to message #51965] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 21:30 |
bslade86
Messages: 155
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
"Yeah, but
1) The thrower is actually worse off by setting up his pivot foot off
the sideline rather than on the sideline (it's easier to huck the
closer you are to the sideline), so Janin had no advantage here and
CUT was better off for this oversight;"
The closer you are to the sideline the more challenging the huck... I would happily walk every OB disc to the middle of the field if I could. And that doesn't effect the legality of the throw.
2) Janin is a well-known player- I'm pretty sure the CUT guys know he
is not a left and that his right foot is not his pivot foot.
...and yet he hasn't traveled until he moves his right foot off the line. His right foot COULD be his pivot foot if it keeps him from violating the rules.
But someone elsewhere said that the disc was not OB, so it's irrelevant.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51993 is a reply to message #51959] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 21:51 |
donovd
Messages: 89
Registered: April 2009 |
Member |
|
|
On Feb 8, 6:07 pm, Alex Korb <korbosph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I first saw this video I thought it was a totally bogus travel
> call. I watched the throwers pivot foot very closely and it did not
> move. However, if the disc was out of bounds, which it looks like it
> was, then he was supposed to ground check it. And whether the disc
> was out of bounds or on the line the thrower is supposed to establish
> his pivot foot on the line. When Joaq says the thrower pivots a
> second or 2 before the throw, it's really only a tiny step. His big
> pivot is pretty much as he throws. A defender likely wouldn't notice
> this small pivot. The defense can't call travel until the thrower
> pivots, and the thrower didn't pivot clearly until just as he was
> throwing. If he had chosen to use his right foot as his pivot, then
> this wouldn't have been a travel, but as soon as he decided to make
> his left foot the pivot, and his left foot was not on the line, then
> it's a travel. I change my viewing of this from "bogus call" to
> "exactly the kind of call one should expect on a huck, and definitely
> at double-game point." If the thrower wants to avoid such foul calls
> then make sure to place his pivot foot on the line. -Alex
>
> As an aside: I think clearly lined fields are more important than
> observers for reducing arguments.
>
> On Feb 8, 2:42 pm, Joaq <joaq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 2:21 pm, Andrew Olson <rebelnug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, by the rules, that actually was a travel, right? Because
> > > the disc was out of bounds and he either didn't check it in
> > > or he didn't establish his pivot foot on the sideline or
> > > both.
>
> > > --
> > > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
>
> > That sort of travel has to be called when the infraction occurs, not
> > after the winning goal is caught. Eli pivots on his left foot a
> > second or two before he throws, they'd have to call it then. What's
> > to stop Cultimate from changing the result of the game if they chose
> > to?
Well if the disc was out of bounds, then his left foot must be his
pivot (he doesn't walk it back in so if the disc is out of bounds then
his right foot has to be set out of bounds as wll be since its further
right then the disc).
So I see three possibilities, one being:
the disc was out of bounds, he places his left foot on the sideline,
picks up and plays without a ground check: travel.
But the problem with this is that you would expect this to be called
as soon as the throwing motion started (all the rules say is that you
have to check before you throw so the call should wait for the
throw). Instead the call came very late, also the call came from a
player with no perspective on whether the disc was picked up in or
out. unless you were standing on the cone, I feel like making that
call is pretty impossible without a lined field.
Second situation is that it rolled out and then rolled back in: in
that case he should have walked it to where it rolled out so again a
travel, but also you expect that call at the latest when the pivot was
set, not when the disc was being caught, and the perspective is tough
from the center of the field...
The last possibility is that the disc landed in and I think everyone
agrees that there was no visible travel in that case, but again the
camera does have a poor angle on whether the foot moves forward.
I think if you wanted to be technical and if you had the right
perspective, in the first two cases a travel call is justified, but
according to another poster it seems as though the Carleton kid was
calling the third case, which, from the video is a BS call but then
again he has a completely different perspective from us, and if the
foot moved 2 inches directly away from the camera it would be a hard
to see that on film. Still I think the call comes very late and from
a pretty obstructed view point...
DanD
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51995 is a reply to message #51993] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 22:13 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 925
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 12:51 am, DanD <don...@rpi.edu> wrote:
> So I see three possibilities, one being:
> the disc was out of bounds, he places his left foot on the sideline,
> picks up and plays without a ground check: travel.
> But the problem with this is that you would expect this to be called
> as soon as the throwing motion started (all the rules say is that you
> have to check before you throw so the call should wait for the
> throw).
Wait, I don't understand. Why should the travel call wait until the
throw? I don't think the rules say "check (or ground touch) before
you throw." XIII.B, XVI.J(1)(d), II.R(1) & (2).
I'm with you on the idea of the call having to be prompt, though I
can't hear the call on the video, so I didn't really focus on that
issue. If the call doesn't happen until the defender points in the
video, then it does seem really late.
Second, it's more accurate and less confusing if you do not use the
word "check" in this situation. There is no stoppage of play here and
no check is required. "Touch the disc to the ground" is what happens
here, but everyone is free to run around during this whole process.
If there is not a stoppage, there is not a "check" (VIII.D).
The only thing "ground check" can describe is an offensive self-check
(VIII.D.4) where no defender is close enough to touch the disc on a
check, so the offense touches the disc to the ground and announces "in
play" after the D acknowledges readiness.
I say this not to be persnickety, but because a lot of people do get
confused over this, so it's good to try to clarify potential sources
of confusion.
-Colin
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51997 is a reply to message #51995] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 22:47 |
donovd
Messages: 89
Registered: April 2009 |
Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 1:13 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 12:51 am, DanD <don...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> > So I see three possibilities, one being:
> > the disc was out of bounds, he places his left foot on the sideline,
> > picks up and plays without a ground check: travel.
> > But the problem with this is that you would expect this to be called
> > as soon as the throwing motion started (all the rules say is that you
> > have to check before you throw so the call should wait for the
> > throw).
>
> Wait, I don't understand. Why should the travel call wait until the
> throw? I don't think the rules say "check (or ground touch) before
> you throw." XIII.B, XVI.J(1)(d), II.R(1) & (2).
>
> I'm with you on the idea of the call having to be prompt, though I
> can't hear the call on the video, so I didn't really focus on that
> issue. If the call doesn't happen until the defender points in the
> video, then it does seem really late.
>
> Second, it's more accurate and less confusing if you do not use the
> word "check" in this situation. There is no stoppage of play here and
> no check is required. "Touch the disc to the ground" is what happens
> here, but everyone is free to run around during this whole process.
> If there is not a stoppage, there is not a "check" (VIII.D).
>
> The only thing "ground check" can describe is an offensive self-check
> (VIII.D.4) where no defender is close enough to touch the disc on a
> check, so the offense touches the disc to the ground and announces "in
> play" after the D acknowledges readiness.
>
> I say this not to be persnickety, but because a lot of people do get
> confused over this, so it's good to try to clarify potential sources
> of confusion.
>
> -Colin
sorry- by check I was referring to a ground tap, and the reason I said
the call doesn't need to come till the throw is that in a situation
where I'm the marker and the offense is walking it in, as soon as the
pivot is set in bounds I start stalling, and its their responsibility
to ground tap it, they can't throw till they tap it in so if they just
assume they're good and throw it I can call it back. That's pretty
dick though, normally I'll let it go or remind them to tap it mid
stall.
DanD
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #51998 is a reply to message #51997] |
Mon, 08 February 2010 23:29 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 925
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 1:47 am, DanD <don...@rpi.edu> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:13 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 12:51 am, DanD <don...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> > > So I see three possibilities, one being:
> > > the disc was out of bounds, he places his left foot on the sideline,
> > > picks up and plays without a ground check: travel.
> > > But the problem with this is that you would expect this to be called
> > > as soon as the throwing motion started (all the rules say is that you
> > > have to check before you throw so the call should wait for the
> > > throw).
>
> > Wait, I don't understand. Why should the travel call wait until the
> > throw? I don't think the rules say "check (or ground touch) before
> > you throw." XIII.B, XVI.J(1)(d), II.R(1) & (2).
>
> > I'm with you on the idea of the call having to be prompt, though I
> > can't hear the call on the video, so I didn't really focus on that
> > issue. If the call doesn't happen until the defender points in the
> > video, then it does seem really late.
>
> > Second, it's more accurate and less confusing if you do not use the
> > word "check" in this situation. There is no stoppage of play here and
> > no check is required. "Touch the disc to the ground" is what happens
> > here, but everyone is free to run around during this whole process.
> > If there is not a stoppage, there is not a "check" (VIII.D).
>
> > The only thing "ground check" can describe is an offensive self-check
> > (VIII.D.4) where no defender is close enough to touch the disc on a
> > check, so the offense touches the disc to the ground and announces "in
> > play" after the D acknowledges readiness.
>
> > I say this not to be persnickety, but because a lot of people do get
> > confused over this, so it's good to try to clarify potential sources
> > of confusion.
>
> > -Colin
>
> sorry- by check I was referring to a ground tap, and the reason I said
> the call doesn't need to come till the throw is that in a situation
> where I'm the marker and the offense is walking it in, as soon as the
> pivot is set in bounds I start stalling, and its their responsibility
> to ground tap it, they can't throw till they tap it in so if they just
> assume they're good and throw it I can call it back. That's pretty
> dick though, normally I'll let it go or remind them to tap it mid
> stall.
>
> DanD
Gotcha. Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page. "ground tap"
is definitely better.
As for the timing of the call, it is true that it is a travel if the
thrower throws before touching the disc to the ground. The thrower
has to establish a pivot at the right spot and touch the disc to the
ground before "putting it into play" (II.R, XIII.B). But "to put the
disc into play at a particular spot" is redundantly defined as "to
establish a pivot at that spot."
In any case, what it comes down to is that it's not just the throw
that triggers the travel. Any other kind of play, like pivoting/
faking, surveying the field for open cutters, etc. also triggers the
travel. So basically if the thrower establishes a pivot at the spot
and does anything other than touch the disc to ground, that is your
opportunity to call a travel. Otherwise, you've missed your window to
call it "immediately" (XVI.A) and cannot call it. But if a player has
caught the disc and run out of bounds, you may easily have started to
stall and reached stall 2 or 3 before he returns and commits the
travel.
From a reasonableness standard, that makes sense. The point of the
ground touch is to let the marker (and other players) know the disc is
in play. So if the thrower surprises somebody by playing before the
ground touch, they can call a travel. But once the thrower is playing
and people know the thrower is playing, they can't later claim to be
surprised by the failure to touch the ground.
Sounds like we play a pretty similar style. I'll often remind the
thrower to touch the disc to the ground, too, as he's approaching the
spot. Then I'll generally only call the travel if I was somehow
surprised by the thrower playing before I was ready. So long as we
both know what's going on, I'm happy to just play, ground touch or
not.
-Colin
(personal opinions and interpretations)
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52000 is a reply to message #51992] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 01:47 |
Felix
Messages: 19
Registered: November 2008 |
Junior Member |
|
|
> 2) Janin is a well-known player- I'm pretty sure the CUT
> guys know he
> is not a left and that his right foot is not his pivot
> foot.
It could be irrelevent... but if I know the pivot should be on the
sideline, and the thrower sets themselves up with right foot on the
line, left foot 1m inside the field, and holds the disc in their right
hand, I want to be thinking about pressuring the switch-of-hands-lefty
backhand huck up the line whilst watching out for the quick righty no-
pivot throw or even the lefty sidearm, and avoiding the instinct to
treat their left foot as their pivot just because they have the disc
in their right hand. I'd also be quietly admiring/cursing how much
harder he's made my job of marking by setting up as he has. If he
moves his right foot then that changes the whole situation and I call
travel.
I DON'T want to be thinking about whether he's made a mistake with
where he's put his foot, and having to factor the "possible mistake"
into my plan for where to add the pressure and what to look for (a
change of hands for example) to react to, etc. If I assume he's made
a mistake and then he pulls out his lefty backhand huck completely
unpressured, I'm the chump.
It's not very hard to simply put your pivot foot on the line, I'd
rather play a clinical game than a sloppy one.
This is irrelevent to the clip really.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52001 is a reply to message #51959] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 01:52 |
Flerzo
Messages: 9
Registered: January 2010 |
Junior Member |
|
|
The way I see it, there are four possible scenarios here:
1. The caller imagined some travel that never happened => Colin's statement about bogus/borderline calls.
2. The disc was OB and the caller called the missing ground touch => bogus call, as the thrower first set the pivot and then touched the disc to the ground as he was picking it up (it was still touching the ground when he picked it up, nowhere does it say you have to pick it up and then touch it to the ground after the disc lost ground contact... the carrying to the field part is not necessary when the disc is so close to the field).
And: if at all, this call needs to be made immediately when it is clear that the thrower missed the ground touch (as in, starts pivoting and looking for a receiver).
And: It's a weenie call.
3. The disc was OB and the caller called the foot not being on the line. That call would be legit but
a) should have been made right away (and if he didn't see it right away, how did he see it later while knowing at the same time that the thrower did not move his foot?)
b) complete rules weenie
4. The disc was IB, and the caller called the wrong pivot spot (he set his foot not exactly at the place of the disc as he first set his foot and then picked up the disc). Then
a) the call must be made immediately,
b) it's a weenie call.
-Flo.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52002 is a reply to message #51919] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 03:48 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> > If the disc was out of bounds when the thrower picked it up, a ground
> > check is required. That's the only way that's a violation. I
> > definitely saw no foot movement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---did someone already say.......
abolish the ground tap.
worst rule in.......heck......any sport.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52003 is a reply to message #51932] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 03:51 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> I actually do think the Observer TMF system has the
> potential to deal with calls like this.
.. But like Colin said, we need more and better
> trained observers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--you can avoid the TMF by simply having the observers rule on the
travel calls.
AND...you don't need more or better or better trained observers....you
only need....observers.
observers who are told...when you see a travel....call it.
when you see a travel that you would call in a game...call it.
and...if you miss a travel...and in your brain think, i think i just
missed a travel call.....LOOK HARDER!
simple as that.
no extra training...no more training.
|
|
| |
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52005 is a reply to message #52004] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 04:28 |
Felix
Messages: 19
Registered: November 2008 |
Junior Member |
|
|
You can't always immediately call a travel on an incorrect pivot
point, because if they haven't moved either foot yet (and one foot is
on the correct point), then you don't know which might be used at the
pivot - even if they're holding the disc in their right hand or
whatever. There's a lefty Irish player currently playing for Clapham
who was a big player at Europeans in September, and he'd always hold
the disc in his right hand before pivoting for the lefty huck - makes
a huge difference.
Ground tap doesn't exist in WFDF rules by the way, it does seem a bit
strange to see it happen in UPA games.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52007 is a reply to message #51965] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 04:43 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> "if the disc was out of bounds, which it looks like it was, then he
> was supposed to ground check it."
>
> I thought you only had to ground check after a stoppage of play. What
> a bad rule. If your opponent throws it OB, they should not get the
> benefit of a ground check, as you should not have to waste any time on
> a ground check running your fast break in the other direction.
> Besides this, the marker and other defenders were set up and active
> immediately, so there was no harm done or surprise caused by the lack
> of ground check here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--THANK YOU!
abolish the ground check...............as i've been saying for as long
as it's been a rule.
abolish the ground check!
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52008 is a reply to message #51969] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 04:47 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> Heinousboy, maybe instead of hypothesizing about people's knowledge,
> you should brush up your own. Your persistent failure to reason is
> kind of unbelievable. The 2009 Stanford Invite had active travel
> calls. Centex had active referral. Nationals had active referral for
> men (was it just standard for women?). UPA Observers. Feedback
> collected. Some data on numbers of calls. Made available to UPA
> officials.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--how can heinousboy brush up on his knowledge, if, as you say, the
data was made available "to upa officials"
the UOA made our survey data available to everyone in the world.
the feedback was super positive about active travel calls.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52009 is a reply to message #51969] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 04:49 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
While on the topic of your ignorance, are you
> familiar with possible variations in how the UOA treats Rule XVI.J(1)
> (d) ("The thrower fails to touch the disc to the ground when
> required") in calling travels?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---the UOA doesn't even know what rule xvi.j(1) is!!!!!
but....if it's about the ground tap..............we're in the future
with that one too!
we do not recognize the need to ground tap....
come on everyone else.....come to the future with us on this one too!
abolish the ground tap.
call the travel IF and ONLY IF the thrower is in the throwing motion
prior to establishing a pivot foot at the proper spot on the field.
|
|
| | |
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52018 is a reply to message #52004] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 05:12 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 925
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 6:52 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Frankly, I'm unsure that> observers can reliably call travels and marking fouls at the same
> > time. The ideal positioning is different for each.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---UOA observers don't have this problem.
UOA observers may be just as wrong as every player and observer out
there who has never objectively determined what is and is not a travel
(with video confirmation). The fact that he's calling what he'd call
in a game and what he thinks is a travel does NOT mean that he's
right. The fact that he's been calling it the same way for 20 years
does not make him right.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52021 is a reply to message #51969] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 05:38 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4282
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 8, 8:05 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again, the important thing here is that players get to vote
> intelligently knowing what they're going to get at Nationals.
well 11 of em voted "intellegently" last year........so hopefully more
will follow suit and vot that way this year
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
If what
> they're going to get is observers with no formal training in calling
> active travels, then they should know that.
wouldnt it just be easier to get em all up to speed and working with
the active tracel as much as possible........and ONLY THE UPA CAN
CONTROL WHAT KIND OF TRAINING THEIR OBSERVERS GET. they should rely
on outside orgs to train their observers for them. SO YA SEE.....this
is a clear case of them not leeping up with the trends......kinda like
with the whole risk management thing
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
If what they're getting
> is rules weenies in orange calling every single tiny technical travel
> that occurs, then they should know that.
well thats easily accomplished.......JUST TELL THE PLAYERS HOW YOUR
GONNA CALL THINGS AT THE PRE GAME CAPTIANS MEETING
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
>
> Hopefully, if any new experiments are going to be put to a vote for
> the 2010 College Series, the UPA will give some indication of how this
> would work and what training the observers would receive.
HA......relying on the upa to have their shit together is a pipe
dream.......so like i said.......JUST BE GLAD THAT THE UOA BOYS WILL
BE THERE TO "PICK UP THE PEICES".
I mean come on colin.......if the upa isnt going to fully prepare
itself for an ACTIVE TRAVEL VOTE THIS YEAR based on last years vote,
THAT WAS ONLY ONE VOTE SHORT, then they have noone to blame but
themselves for not having their shit together AND THEY ARE COMPLETE
IDIOTS FOR NO BEING PROPERLY PREPARED. this is whats known as
"keeping up with the trends".
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
I'm excited
> for experimentation by the UPA,
colin.......the upa HAS left the upa in the dust......so maybe you
should shirt that excitement to the progress THEY are makin........as
THEY will likely be the ones "carrying the load" when it comes right
down to it.
I cant believe you dont see this issue as somewhat of a mirror image
of the feasco they are making with SIDELINE SAFTEY.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
but again hoping that enough time is
> allowed for players and observers to understand and adjust to any
> changes that might be made for Nationals.
well they surley have had plenty of time to prepare since last years
nationals.......the question is, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE WITH THAT TIME.
I sure havent herd of EXPERIMENT ONE with active travels......or any
other innovative stuff........like the uoa is DOING.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52022 is a reply to message #51973] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 05:49 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4282
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 8, 8:16 pm, stephenghubbard <stephenghubb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm no "Spirit Zealot", but I think I have some
> understanding of where some of them might be coming from.
>
> Imagine if one of the marker's teammates came up to him
> amidst the crowd's yelling , pulled him aside and quietly
> explained to him exactly why that was NOT a travel. Imagine
> if that marker goes back to the thrower and says "Im sorry,
> I realize not that you didn't travel. I take back the call,
> you guys win."
>
> That possibility, that awesome possibility which is missing
> from other sports, holds great sway in some peoples' minds.
yes, but this "possibility you speak of cant BE POSSIBLE without the
darker, evil, cheating outcome ALSO BEING A POSSIBILITY. iTS S DOUBLE
EDGE SWORD THAT CAN CUT BOTH WAYS.. this is why other sports ar glad
to shelf this "POSSIBILITY" YOU SPEAK OF with the simple ref
facilitation
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
> It is a beautiful and complex and abstract idea.
dont forget "stupid" too
------------------------------------------------
Maybe you
> don't feel this way, but I think this potential is what
> sustains people's desire to keep the game "in the hands of
> the players".
eh, i see it more of just being too lazy to facilitate it and too
cheap to pay for it. I mean, you people sell out in every other
aspect of your lives.....why not just do the same with ultimate. its
just a sport after all
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
>
> I acknowledge that the aforementioned turn of events seems
> unlikely, especially on DGP, but it DOES happen. More than
> big calls, self-regulation happens through the whole game.
> There is something gained when a game is played hard but
> under player control.
not if it turns into a tit for tat call fest.......OR even if it ends
the way this one did with only ONE POTENTIALLY GAME CHANGING SUCK ASS
BAILOUT CALL. SO YA SEE, it dont take much "human nature" to
COMPLETELY RUIN the thing youve gained.
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that something is hard to
> describe and not necessarily television friendly, but it
> exists, at least in some subset of the Ultimate community.
ehhhhh, that shit can be easily found at your local church........SO
JUST LEAVE ANTHING THATS SPORTS RELATED THE FUCK OUT OF SUCH A
DOGMATIC NEED
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52025 is a reply to message #52002] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 06:12 |
donovd
Messages: 89
Registered: April 2009 |
Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 6:48 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If the disc was out of bounds when the thrower picked it up, a ground
> > > check is required. That's the only way that's a violation. I
> > > definitely saw no foot movement.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---did someone already say.......
>
> abolish the ground tap.
>
> worst rule in.......heck......any sport.
I'm fine with getting rid of the rule as long as you have a way of
preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in, up
here we can't play every game with UOA observers so the ground tap is
what forces players to stop their momentum and throw.
DanD
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52028 is a reply to message #52025] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 06:26 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4282
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 9:12 am, DanD <don...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm fine with getting rid of the rule as long as you have a way of
> preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in,
how about letting the observer make that JUDGEMENT.....and call it
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------
up
> here we can't play every game with UOA observers
why.......i'm sure you have dozens of other sports being played in
your area where they seem to be able to provide that facilitation.
are you saying that you , as ultimate players, dont have the where-
with-all to figure out how to accomplish that? c'mon, i thought
ultimate players prided themselves on being bright, intellegent
people??? yet as simple of a concept as sports arbitration eludes
you??? i'm extreemly embarrased for you if this is actually the case.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
so the ground tap is
> what forces players to stop their momentum and throw.
its not so much the ground tap itself as much as its who gets to
monitor and judge wheather the ground tap (or any other act) was, or
wasnt, in violation of the rules. if ya cant facilitate your comp
with qualified and i,mpartial people to do such (and compensate them
for their efforts) then you will be FOREVER STUCK WITH AN ARCHAIC
SYSTEM THAT NOT ONLY ALLOWS BUT ALSO ENABLES PARTIALLY MOTIVATED CALLS
THAT FAVOR ONE OPPONENT OVER THE OTHER.......which will drive you even
further from the sotg gaol you are trying to achieve in the first
place.
i think its just a matter of wakin up and smellin the coffee.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52043 is a reply to message #52028] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 09:58 |
donovd
Messages: 89
Registered: April 2009 |
Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 9:26 am, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:12 am, DanD <don...@rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm fine with getting rid of the rule as long as you have a way of
> > preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in,
>
> how about letting the observer make that JUDGEMENT.....and call it
> accordingly.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> up
>
> > here we can't play every game with UOA observers
>
> why.......i'm sure you have dozens of other sports being played in
> your area where they seem to be able to provide that facilitation.
> are you saying that you , as ultimate players, dont have the where-
> with-all to figure out how to accomplish that? c'mon, i thought
> ultimate players prided themselves on being bright, intellegent
> people??? yet as simple of a concept as sports arbitration eludes
> you??? i'm extreemly embarrased for you if this is actually the case.
> ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- -------------------
>
> so the ground tap is
>
> > what forces players to stop their momentum and throw.
>
> its not so much the ground tap itself as much as its who gets to
> monitor and judge wheather the ground tap (or any other act) was, or
> wasnt, in violation of the rules. if ya cant facilitate your comp
> with qualified and i,mpartial people to do such (and compensate them
> for their efforts) then you will be FOREVER STUCK WITH AN ARCHAIC
> SYSTEM THAT NOT ONLY ALLOWS BUT ALSO ENABLES PARTIALLY MOTIVATED CALLS
> THAT FAVOR ONE OPPONENT OVER THE OTHER.......which will drive you even
> further from the sotg gaol you are trying to achieve in the first
> place.
>
> i think its just a matter of wakin up and smellin the coffee.
well other sports have organizations to train refs locally, Neither
the UPA or UOA provides this service. I don't think high school
basketball refs drive 6 hours to get to their certification
clinics...
I'm not some SoTG nut, and I would love there to be refs at every game
but its just not feasible right now with the current organizations.
The UPA is the only group that has the money to do it on a national
scale and they haven't be exactly pushing refs. If someone was really
motivated then they could do it on a smaller more regional scale like
the UOA has but that person isn't me, I'd rather play than be a ref.
If you look at youth basketball a lot of the refs and coaches are
people that played when they were younger and many of them have kids
that play now, maybe its because I play college but in ultimate I
don't see that generation running the game so much, the current
players are the ones involved so they would rather just play instead
of refing I feel like.
If you had 10 high school basketball players in a gym they wouldn't
play 4 v 4 and have two refs. I would love there to be refs at every
game of ultimate but I don't think this will happen till there is the
money supporting refs, and until there is a large number of retired
players that still want to be involved.
DanD
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52049 is a reply to message #52018] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 11:42 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> UOA observers may be just as wrong as every player and observer out
> there who has never objectively determined what is and is not a travel
> (with video confirmation). The fact that he's calling what he'd call
> in a game and what he thinks is a travel does NOT mean that he's
> right. The fact that he's been calling it the same way for 20 years
> does not make him right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---and you think that hours of video watching will cure the observer
called travel?
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52050 is a reply to message #52025] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 11:55 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> I'm fine with getting rid of the rule as long as you have a way of
> preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in, up
> here we can't play every game with UOA observers so the ground tap is
> what forces players to stop their momentum and throw.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---to begin with....we COULD play every game with UOA Observers....if
more TDs would start inviting us to their events to train their local
observers, and if Leagues started inviting us to demonstrate the LOS,
and if the UPA gave us the green light to start reprogramming their
observers and observer trainers!!!
next......UOA rules that the thrower may not be in throwing motion
when they place their pivot foot at the proper spot.
we define 'throwing motion' as the initial backwards movement of the
disc prior to the forward throwing motion.
so...pretty much, the disc has to be in front of a thrower's belly as
they step on the spot.
much of anything else, we consider running up to the spot to momentum
huck....
the upa should change their rules to reflect our version.
that's a sincere suggestion.
abolish the ground tap.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52051 is a reply to message #52028] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 11:58 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> > I'm fine with getting rid of the rule as long as you have a way of
> > preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in,
>
> how about letting the observer make that JUDGEMENT.....and call it
> accordingly.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---we've tried to make it more CONCRETE even......as you can read in
another post, or 12.
.....the thrower cannot be in the throwing motion until they've
established a pivot foot at the proper location.
throwing motion is the backward motion of the disc prior to the
forward throwing motion.
so...no wind up.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52052 is a reply to message #52043] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 12:04 |
agerics20
Messages: 4485
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> well other sports have organizations to train refs locally, Neither
> the UPA or UOA provides this service. I don't think high school
> basketball refs drive 6 hours to get to their certification
> clinics...
-----we've been trying to set up tournaments...and plan to/want to/
hope to do so in the future.
we're going some places, and were invited to some others....and we
invite folks to travel here to observe, who we hope will go home and
spread the word.
we're pretty low budget, but we're on the move!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If someone was really
> motivated then they could do it on a smaller more regional scale like
> the UOA has but that person isn't me, I'd rather play than be a ref.
---regional scale.
i like that.
you can play and observe, that's what's pretty extra cool about it....
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52058 is a reply to message #52051] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 12:55 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4282
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 2:58 pm, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:.
> > > I'm fine with getting rid of the rule as long as you have a way of
> > > preventing someone from throwing with momentum as they walk in,
>
> > how about letting the observer make that JUDGEMENT.....and call it
> > accordingly.
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---we've tried to make it more CONCRETE even......as you can read in
> another post, or 12.
> ....the thrower cannot be in the throwing motion until they've
> established a pivot foot at the proper location.
> throwing motion is the backward motion of the disc prior to the
> forward throwing motion.
> so...no wind up.
either way, however the rule may be written, as long as you have
players allowed to call it they WILL take advantage of that
opportunity as a TACTIC to either slow down play OR, as we see here,
nulify a completed pass that may or may not have resulted in a goal.
Now if you have an observer there to refer to(a la upa) the players
bogus call then that helps.......but if the observewr has the final
say anyways, ya might as well make it his call. obviously you, mike,
grasp this concept.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52062 is a reply to message #52008] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 13:12 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 925
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 7:47 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Heinousboy, maybe instead of hypothesizing about people's knowledge,
> > you should brush up your own. Your persistent failure to reason is
> > kind of unbelievable. The 2009 Stanford Invite had active travel
> > calls. Centex had active referral. Nationals had active referral for
> > men (was it just standard for women?). UPA Observers. Feedback
> > collected. Some data on numbers of calls. Made available to UPA
> > officials.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --how can heinousboy brush up on his knowledge, if, as you say, the
> data was made available "to upa officials"
>
> the UOA made our survey data available to everyone in the world.
> the feedback was super positive about active travel calls.
Remind me of the data. How many travels were called? Heinousboy can
brush up on his knowledge by getting a clue about what experimental
events were going. That information was readily available.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52063 is a reply to message #52049] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 13:15 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 925
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 2:42 pm, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > UOA observers may be just as wrong as every player and observer out
> > there who has never objectively determined what is and is not a travel
> > (with video confirmation). The fact that he's calling what he'd call
> > in a game and what he thinks is a travel does NOT mean that he's
> > right. The fact that he's been calling it the same way for 20 years
> > does not make him right.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---and you think that hours of video watching will cure the observer
> called travel?
Watching video. Reviewing video. Watching live action. Reviewing
video of that same live action. Lots of possibilities here.
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52065 is a reply to message #52043] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 13:34 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4282
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 12:58 pm, DanD <don...@rpi.edu> wrote:.
>
> well other sports have organizations to train refs locally,
well START ONE......then youll have one. done....and done
------------------------------------------------------------ -
Neither
> the UPA or UOA provides this service.
the upa should......but we all know they suck......so i wouldnt rely
on the for much of anything........besides preserving
sotg.........which might be viewed on as a "conflict of interests"
from developing refs.
i would think the uoa would be glad to help you get a "chapter"
started in your area if you showed interest. OR you could just copy
cat em. it aint rocket science ya know. Just get the players to chip
in and pay your guys a fair wage. and incorporate officials into your
rec leagues (GREAT WAY TO TRAIN AND RECRUIT)
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
I don't think high school
> basketball refs drive 6 hours to get to their certification
> clinics...
thats because they pay hs basketball refs well enough to which there
is plenty of "supply". Just use basic economic principals and the
formula should be quite easy to grasp.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not some SoTG nut, and I would love there to be refs at every game
> but its just not feasible right now with the current organizations.
then propose to adjust the organizations......like the uoa is doing.
They are taking a "quality over quantity" approach to tourny formats
and making them smaller so that all games are able to be appropriately
facilitated. so whats your excuse again?????
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
> The UPA is the only group that has the money to do it on a national
> scale and they haven't be exactly pushing refs.
money isnt the issue here......its administrative effort. the money
that it will take to pay the potential "officials" should just come
out of the players that benefit from its' pockets......in a "pay to
play" scenerio.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
If someone was really
> motivated then they could do it on a smaller more regional scale like
> the UOA has but that person isn't me
then suffer........sucka
-------------------------------------------
>, I'd rather play than be a ref.
the irony there is that you are forced to do both with out
them.......simultainiously at that.......so it seems the jokes on you
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you look at youth basketball a lot of the refs and coaches are
> people that played when they were younger and many of them have kids
> that play now,
plus, basketball in general never spread a bunch of nonsensical anti
ref propaganda or tried to turn their sport into some kind of hybrid
religion. on the contrary, they have embraced the ref facilitation
concept since the beggining of the sport. but i think money is the
simple solution here. its amazing what you can get people to do if ya
pay em......and surly there are some ulti players in your town looking
to make an extra buck here or there.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
maybe its because I play college but in ultimate I
> don't see that generation running the game so much, the current
> players are the ones involved so they would rather just play instead
> of refing I feel like.
wouldnt ya rather know than "feel like". and youll never know til ya
try, ask, experiment
------------------------------------------------------------ -
>
> If you had 10 high school basketball players in a gym they wouldn't
> play 4 v 4 and have two refs.
so your basically saying that ultimate is doomed to be religated to be
a pick-up sport forever? damn good thing people that played all those
other reffed sports werent so lame and chickenshit about establishing
the proper system. Of course i blame it mostly on the original
stewards of the sport that got all caught up in the hippy, anit sport
angle they took on developing the sport from the get go.......and then
of course the current upa admin that propagates that same idiotic
philosophy.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------
I would love there to be refs at every
> game of ultimate but I don't think this will happen till there is the
> money supporting refs,
chicken and the egg my man.......chicken and the egg. so.......take
up a collection and theres your money.......then ya got NO EXCUSE for
it not to "happen", right?
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
and until there is a large number of retired
> players that still want to be involved.
eh, ive herd of 14 year old boys reffing highschool soccer. you
people just got to get creative and think outside the box........and
QUIT COMING UP WITH EVERY FUCKIN EXCUSE UNDER THE SUN NOT TO HELP MAKE
IT HAPPEN. You dont need the upa or uoa to hold your hand through the
process of hosting a tourny.....or running a summer league do
ya?......so why do you insist on coming accrosss a completely inept
and incapable of doing somthing that is really pretty damn elementary?
|
|
|
| Re: Travel? You be the judge... (Oregon vs. Carleton universe) [message #52077 is a reply to message #52062] |
Tue, 09 February 2010 13:47 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4282
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 9, 4:12 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Remind me of the data. How many travels were called? Heinousboy can
> brush up on his knowledge by getting a clue about what experimental
> events were going. That information was readily available.
i dont think he, or anyone else for that matter, dosent consider it to
be basic common knowlege that the upa simply hasent run enough
"experimental events" to have ANY concrete data to support either side
of this issue one way or the other. In fact, i'd say that the upa has
probably run as many events as the upa......but of much vaster depth
and content.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Sep 6 08:02:14 PDT 2010
|
] 
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
