Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Two observational observations from Tally Classic
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54116 is a reply to message #54105] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 04:00   |
agerics20
Messages: 4497
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> You're living in fantasy land. A fantasy land where the only thing
> that can be right is something said by you, Mike G, or one of his
> cronies. And in this fantasy reality, you can expect players to
> behave however irrationally is necessary to support your position.
> But I'll leave you to it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---in MY PERSONALY Fantasy Land......i'm actually out there hosting
events and observing every single game in the event.
i'm taking surveys and getting player feedback about how we are
calling games.
the games in my fantasy world all seem to be running smoothly with no
problems that you're trying to suggest there should be.
in my games...TMFs are super few and far between....and never
associated with lame cheater calls.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54134 is a reply to message #54077] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 05:36 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4295
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 8, 5:58 pm, Slade <bslad...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Football agrees with me-
hows that? when football uses fully active refs to activly call
EVERYTHING. I mean, they sure dont agree with you enough to the point
where they are allowing players to be involved in the "call
initiation" process, SO HOW CAN THE AGREE WITH YOU IN THE LEAST?????
------------------------------------------------------------ ----.
and uses instant replay to evaluate
> close calls.
not on every play though. most of em are just called right then and
there by officials.
-----------------------------------------------
We don't have instant replay, but a slower
> decision is generally a better one (in this case).
then why dont the refs make "slower decisions" of every other call?
------------------------------------------------------------ -
>
> If (hypothetically) you could reduce error by one turnover
> per game, how much time would you be willing to spend doing
> it?
great point....because "time management" is yet another dynamic that
players TOTALY SUCK AT. And not only do you suck at it you also
intentionaly manipulate it by using stalling tactics to drag out games
that are on the verge of gettin capped......which is completely
unspirited. yet another area where officials create a more spirited
(and fair) environment.
------------------------------------------------------------ -------
>
> I would not be willing to spend an hour to make one more
> correct decision in a game, but I would certainly be willing
> to spend an extra 45 seconds.
well, those 45 seconds can easily turn into a 5 minute ult-
debate.....AND turn into a tit for tat call fest.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54139 is a reply to message #54088] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 05:41 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4295
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 8, 8:17 pm, Kyle Weisbrod <kyle.weisb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm on Ben's page here. I like active travel and stall calls but am
> not so much a fan of active up/down because I think players will call
> it more accurately. Why not have quick/immediate referral for up/down?
i'm just curious why you upa types dont want an immediate referal on
ALL CALLS? maybe you arent opposed to it but the rest of the upa
admin sure seems to be. why is that? and do you, kyle, have any
inside info on how and/or what the process and "rule options" will be
that will be tabled for this years nationals will be this year?
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54152 is a reply to message #54134] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 07:20 |
bslade86
Messages: 155
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mike: I think we have more in common than you realize. I like having observers to mediate between teams. I want the game to keep moving. I think it's worth spending a few extra seconds to make a better call, but I understand where you're coming from as well- game speed is important too.
Ulticritic: No.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54153 is a reply to message #54105] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 07:40 |
Tim-Haymaker
Messages: 28
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Colin,
Here you are again accusing Mike G. et al of faulty arguments you yourself employ. Yes TMF's will change behavior, but so will observers making more active calls. Players will choose not to act inappropriately to avoid getting TMF's, but they'll also choose not to travel etc if the observers are calling them on it. No player if he knows his throw will count if it's a turn but be brought back if it's caught will continue to travel.
Observers will do a better job of calling travels consistently b/c they are impartial. Players will play better for not having to watch the other team's feet to prevent them getting away with egregious traveling. How do TMF's improve game play? How do they make it easier to perform at a higher level?
More TMF's and more active observers are both a means to the same end...improve the quality of ultimate by enforcing the rules. The active observers have the added bonus of taking non-playing responsibilities away from the players, which should give them more bandwith to play.
You can make an arguement that TMF's are easier, but you haven't really. You'd be welcome to try to argue that TMF's are better for ultimate (not easier but better). You haven't done so yet.
-Tim
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54158 is a reply to message #54153] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 08:52 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 927
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 9, 10:42 am, Tim-Haymaker <timwalla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Colin,
>
> Here you are again accusing Mike G. et al of faulty
> arguments you yourself employ. Yes TMF's will change
> behavior, but so will observers making more active calls.
Not the same. The behavior changed by TMFs is immediately changeable
by the players. It's not something engrained that they need to
physically untrain or something that happens accidentally because
people are off-balance.
> Players will choose not to act inappropriately to avoid
> getting TMF's, but they'll also choose not to travel etc if
> the observers are calling them on it.
Saying the choice to not call travel and to not travel are identical
or analogous is incorrect. That's somewhat like saying the ability to
not cause picks and the ability to not call picks are the same or
analogous.
> More TMF's and more active observers are both a means to the
> same end...improve the quality of ultimate by enforcing the
> rules.
Yes. Agreed. And it would be worth discussing the merits of each.
> You can make an arguement that TMF's are easier, but you
> haven't really. You'd be welcome to try to argue that TMF's
> are better for ultimate (not easier but better). You
> haven't done so yet.
I have done so. I've done it many times before over the past few
years. It's well-documented. Nobody has ever refuted the ease of
implementation. I've also indicated the many ways that it is better.
Anyone interested can e-mail me directly or search around a little.
There was some stuff on the UPA strategic planning blog on this a
while back..
-Colin
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54161 is a reply to message #54105] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 09:34 |
thefan
Messages: 140
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 9, 3:24 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:42 pm, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 3:21 pm, Mitch <mgd.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 2:46 pm, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > does counting have an effect on the quality of the mark? i would tend
> > > > to think no. but that's not the point at all. it's not why the
> > > > active stall count exists at these events. it is so that every stall
> > > > count is more or less at the same pace. so that throwers don't have
> > > > to adjust to that fast count guy and that slow count guy or that
> > > > 8.9.ten in a second guy but can count on that aspect of the rules
> > > > being enforced equally for all players. it's the same argument as the
> > > > travel call. take it out of the hands of 35 different individuals who
> > > > are playing the game and trying to win and put it in the hands of 2 or
> > > > 3 impartial observers with no vested interest in the games final
> > > > outcome.
>
> > > putting a consistent stall in place (emphasis on consistent 7-10)
> > > basically eliminates stall violations from the game. In ~14 games
> > > with active stall, I've called exactly 1 stall. In ~60 games with
> > > player called stalls, I've been asked for a ruling on probably 30+
> > > stalls. If the argument against active travels is the additional
> > > stoppages, wouldn't active stall be good if it decreases stoppages?
>
> > True. the contested stall is itself a stoppage, and while your sample
> > size is sure not to pass the muster of anyone who wants to argue it,
> > it certainly has a ring of common sense to it.
>
> > the other advantage of having the observer count the stall as opposed
> > to the TMF's is that after the 2nd TMF you have another, likely longer
> > stoppage as the disc is reset to the center of the field and moved
> > forward or back or what the hell eve, that's more than just a
> > stoppage. now both teams have to move to wherever, get set, disc in.
> > certainly one of those is worth a couple of normal everyday
> > "stoppages"
>
> Yep, all those yardage penalties are really going to slow things
> down. Because those players are just going to decide to just eat the
> yardage penalty and continue on with the behavior that's earning them
> TMFs. And when they persist in that behavior, they're going to start
> getting PMFs and they're going to keep that up, too, until they get
> ejected or their team forfeits the game. Good rebuttal, thefan.
but you're the one who wants to start handing out all these TMFs. no
one ever suggested, least of all, me that the TMF's wouldn't
eventually convince the players to stop calling bogus travel calls.
likely, just as you suggest, faster than it will result in players
travelling less. but, the first two TMF's are warnings. so there are
two stoppages that include a brief referral period before the observer
makes a ruling. two stoppages that wouldn't happen in the first place
if the observer were making the active travel calls/non call. then on
the third one, we have to get the frisbee from wherever the pass was
completed to and reset everyone on the field after moving the disc to
wherever it went. two stoppages that weren't necessary at all, and
now each time is a yardage penalty. so, the players who like to call
travels quit calling travels, of course they will. but now you've had
at least 3 stoppages that never needed to be there, caused by the
defense calling bad travels and destroying the flow and often
advantage of downfield players.
>
> Let's get rid of the off-sides and time penalties, too. Those slow
> things down way too much,
yep, getting rid of time penalties will dang sure speed things up.
where do you come up with this stuff. i mean, sure offsided penalties
slow things down, but how is taking away a penalty for intentionally
taking too much time going to slow things down? really, answer that.
i have a rule in place that penalizes a team for intentionally
stalling a game. i remove this penalty and the game moves faster
because . . ?
>especially when one team insists on going
> off-sides and taking the yardage penalty 20 times per game. Because
> that's what they do, right? Just keep on accepting a huge competitive
> disadvantage, rather than changing their behavior?
nope, they will change their behavior. and lose the advantage they
had by being offsides.
i'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but yes, you totally
made sense just then by being a sarcastic prick and completely
bastardizing what i said.
>
> You're living in fantasy land. A fantasy land where the only thing
> that can be right is something said by you, Mike G, or one of his
> cronies. And in this fantasy reality, you can expect players to
> behave however irrationally is necessary to support your position.
> But I'll leave you to it. Enjoy
you know what i like about my fantasy land? i like that i don't have
to believe that the people in a game best suited to make rulings are
the very people commiting the offenses and trying to win the game.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54162 is a reply to message #54158] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 09:42 |
Tim-Haymaker
Messages: 28
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
It is harder to learn how not to travel if you travel consistently, but learning how is a good thing. For nationals this summer, if your team qualifies for nationals but travels so often as to disrupt your offense if it was called, then you deserve your competitive disadvantage.
Yes, TMF's are easier but not better.
Not calling bogus travels and not traveling are anologous in that both are human behaviors. You argued that if there is a punishment (TMF's) for bogus travel calls then players will not choose the punishment but rather change their behavior. I'm pointing out that if observers call travels consistently, then players will also change the behvior with the added bonus that there will be more uniformity and no opportunity for cheating bastards to make a horrible call that changes the outcome of the game at the last second which TMF's can't prevent.
Arguments made in the last few years are not as irrelevant. Mike G's work is new and gives us data and experience to point to. TMF's are a good, well thought out solution. Some of us think Mike G's solution is better. The merits of TMFs vis a vis active observers is the question at hand, not whether TMF's would work if implemented aggressively.
Besides, this is hardly an either or situation. More active observers would still have the ability to give a TMF when it was called for. Active observers likely will mean fewer TMF's will be needed (fewer opportunity for bogus calls, fast counts, etc).
-Tim
-Tim
-Tim
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54163 is a reply to message #54158] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 09:59 |
joe.ribaudo
Messages: 149
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 9, 11:52 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:42 am, Tim-Haymaker <timwalla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Colin,
>
> > Here you are again accusing Mike G. et al of faulty
> > arguments you yourself employ. Yes TMF's will change
> > behavior, but so will observers making more active calls.
>
> Not the same. The behavior changed by TMFs is immediately changeable
> by the players. It's not something engrained that they need to
> physically untrain or something that happens accidentally because
> people are off-balance.
>
> > Players will choose not to act inappropriately to avoid
> > getting TMF's, but they'll also choose not to travel etc if
> > the observers are calling them on it.
>
> Saying the choice to not call travel and to not travel are identical
> or analogous is incorrect. That's somewhat like saying the ability to
> not cause picks and the ability to not call picks are the same or
> analogous.
>
> > More TMF's and more active observers are both a means to the
> > same end...improve the quality of ultimate by enforcing the
> > rules.
>
> Yes. Agreed. And it would be worth discussing the merits of each.
>
> > You can make an arguement that TMF's are easier, but you
> > haven't really. You'd be welcome to try to argue that TMF's
> > are better for ultimate (not easier but better). You
> > haven't done so yet.
>
> I have done so. I've done it many times before over the past few
> years. It's well-documented. Nobody has ever refuted the ease of
> implementation. I've also indicated the many ways that it is better.
> Anyone interested can e-mail me directly or search around a little.
> There was some stuff on the UPA strategic planning blog on this a
> while back..
>
> -Colin
it seems like handing out TMFs will not only eliminate the
illegitimate travel calls, but a fair amount of legit ones as well.
why would a player ever call a travel in your system, colin? you risk
a TMF on the hope that the observer saw the same infraction you saw.
so in your system, to find out what the observer saw, and determine if
it was a travel, you have to risk a TMF. in the active travel system,
there is no risk required by the defense to have ALL travels called.
how is this in any way an issue? on one hand, in the active travel
system, you can have all travels called, and by definition, zero
illegitimate travels called. in the TMF heavy system, you may have
zero illegitimate travels called, but it will most likely be at the
expense of legit travels being overlooked.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54174 is a reply to message #54162] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 10:22 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 927
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 9, 12:44 pm, Tim-Haymaker <timwalla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It is harder to learn how not to travel if you travel
> consistently, but learning how is a good thing. For
> nationals this summer, if your team qualifies for nationals
> but travels so often as to disrupt your offense if it was
> called, then you deserve your competitive disadvantage.
>
> Yes, TMF's are easier but not better.
>
> Not calling bogus travels and not traveling are anologous in
> that both are human behaviors. You argued that if there is
> a punishment (TMF's) for bogus travel calls then players
> will not choose the punishment but rather change their
> behavior. I'm pointing out that if observers call travels
> consistently, then players will also change the behvior with
> the added bonus that there will be more uniformity and no
> opportunity for cheating bastards to make a horrible call
> that changes the outcome of the game at the last second
> which TMF's can't prevent.
>
> Arguments made in the last few years are not as irrelevant.
> Mike G's work is new and gives us data and experience to
> point to. TMF's are a good, well thought out solution.
> Some of us think Mike G's solution is better. The merits of
> TMFs vis a vis active observers is the question at hand, not
> whether TMF's would work if implemented aggressively.
>
> Besides, this is hardly an either or situation. More active
> observers would still have the ability to give a TMF when it
> was called for. Active observers likely will mean fewer
> TMF's will be needed (fewer opportunity for bogus calls,
> fast counts, etc).
>
> -Tim
>
> -Tim
>
> -Tim
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Yes! This is the kind of stuff I like to see. Reasoning! Analysis!
Narrowing the issue to the relevant points.
So you've said that having active travel calls will help players
improve and not travel. That's true. If we had a system-wide
implementation of active travel calls, then the tiny fraction of teams
that play observed games with any regularity would improve from that.
I agree that players would adjust. Over time.
But the situation at hand is teams voting on a system that will only
be implemented at Nationals (if done similar to 2009). There will be
no adjustment period. Teams will find out at Nationals if they have a
player who frequently makes minor travels that his teammates overlook
or do not notice. In that context, as a player, I would not put the
quality of my Nationals experience at risk.
Effectiveness of the TMF system. The more different things you
subject to TMFs, the stronger the system gets -- the more likely teams
get 2 TMFs and really crack down on their own behavior to avoid a
yardage penalty. You correctly point out that it is less effective
against late-game cheating if the game has been totally clean up to
that point. But the observer still overrules the call and still gives
a TMF at that time. If TMFs are being given aggressively and a team
is trying to use late-game cheating as a strategy, the likelihood of
getting 3 TMFs is still fairly high.
I have identified potential problems with active travel calls. Those
problems do not exist with just TMFs. And aggressive use of TMFs
solves the problems cited in support of active travels, while also
strengthening the effectiveness of TMFs in other settings (marking
fouls, sideline issues, fighting/swearing/spiking and other
babysitting stuff, etc.).
Empirical evidence. Mike G does not present himself as an unbiased
distributor of accurate information. Maybe he is. Great that he's
doing experimentation. But I'll take his personal self-praise with a
grain of salt. Hard to get the pros/cons of the issue when all he
ever says is that the UOA is the best and everything is great with no
negative side effects ever. Additional empirical evidence is
available from the various UPA experiments, the Queen City Tune-Up and
some other events.
For me, the question at hand is how teams going to Nationals should
vote on experimental observer duties to be implemented at Nationals.
The travel-related question is whether the benefits of active travels
are outweighed by the downsides and whether those same benefits could
be accomplished through the use of TMFs without the downsides.
TMFs are a good, well-thought out solution that has been gathering
dust on the shelf for the past ten years. Rather than trying to rush
some new experiment into place with all the implementation issues and
accompanying downsides, we ought to just use the TMF system
aggressively to accomplish the purpose that it was designed for -- to
deter bad behavior.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54179 is a reply to message #54163] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 10:38 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 927
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 9, 12:59 pm, boom city <joe.riba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 11:52 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 10:42 am, Tim-Haymaker <timwalla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Colin,
>
> > > Here you are again accusing Mike G. et al of faulty
> > > arguments you yourself employ. Yes TMF's will change
> > > behavior, but so will observers making more active calls.
>
> > Not the same. The behavior changed by TMFs is immediately changeable
> > by the players. It's not something engrained that they need to
> > physically untrain or something that happens accidentally because
> > people are off-balance.
>
> > > Players will choose not to act inappropriately to avoid
> > > getting TMF's, but they'll also choose not to travel etc if
> > > the observers are calling them on it.
>
> > Saying the choice to not call travel and to not travel are identical
> > or analogous is incorrect. That's somewhat like saying the ability to
> > not cause picks and the ability to not call picks are the same or
> > analogous.
>
> > > More TMF's and more active observers are both a means to the
> > > same end...improve the quality of ultimate by enforcing the
> > > rules.
>
> > Yes. Agreed. And it would be worth discussing the merits of each.
>
> > > You can make an arguement that TMF's are easier, but you
> > > haven't really. You'd be welcome to try to argue that TMF's
> > > are better for ultimate (not easier but better). You
> > > haven't done so yet.
>
> > I have done so. I've done it many times before over the past few
> > years. It's well-documented. Nobody has ever refuted the ease of
> > implementation. I've also indicated the many ways that it is better.
> > Anyone interested can e-mail me directly or search around a little.
> > There was some stuff on the UPA strategic planning blog on this a
> > while back..
>
> > -Colin
>
> it seems like handing out TMFs will not only eliminate the
> illegitimate travel calls, but a fair amount of legit ones as well.
Why? Just make sure you're sure of your call. That's what you should
already be doing anyway. The observer will have a good view. They'll
see the travel you called. If they didn't see the play, they won't
make a ruling. What's the problem? Also, I'm advocating aggressive
use of TMFs, not automatic TMFs.
> why would a player ever call a travel in your system, colin? you risk
> a TMF on the hope that the observer saw the same infraction you saw.
Yeah. Good. Fewer stoppages of play. You call a travel when you
know there was a travel and you think, for whatever reason, that it is
important to call. If you think it's important to call every travel,
then every time you recognize a travel (and are sure), you call it.
But players will no longer be calling travels when they think that
maybe they recognized what might have been a travel. This is all
positive stuff.
> so in your system, to find out what the observer saw, and determine if
> it was a travel, you have to risk a TMF.
Yes. Making calls is about recognizing infractions, being sure about
it, and making the call. When your opponent disagrees, the observer
is there to back you up. It's not about rolling the dice and hoping
the observer saw what you think might have happened. If you're making
calls that you're unsure of, then you deserve TMFs. By the cartload.
Because you're one of the players who is slowing down the game for
everyone else (not you personally, but some fictional player who is
behaving like that).
> in the active travel system,
> there is no risk required by the defense to have ALL travels called.
Yeah. Great. As a player, I do not want to have ALL travels called.
I thought we've already gone over this. Players who want ALL travels
called should vote for active travel calls. Didn't I already say
that? But before voting, players should think about the consequences
of having all travels called and think about whether that is what they
really want or not. I have my own view of what is best, but I just
want to make sure that the players voting are actually voting in a way
that accomplishes whatever it is that they want.
> how is this in any way an issue? on one hand, in the active travel
> system, you can have all travels called, and by definition, zero
> illegitimate travels called. in the TMF heavy system, you may have
> zero illegitimate travels called, but it will most likely be at the
> expense of legit travels being overlooked.
Yes. That's not a problem for me. Fewer stoppages. A nice,
continuous game where players get to just play. That's not the end of
the world to me. As a player, I do not care if some of my opponent's
travels go uncalled. I already choose not to call many travels
because I simply think it is unimportant and I would rather not stop
play all the time. That's also why I call "disc space" instead of
"foul" sometimes. And why I don't call "disc space" and then
"violation" on every single marker that ever marks me.
The issue here is about how you like to see the game of Ultimate
played. I could legally grind any game of Ultimate to a halt by
making tons of calls. That's not how I like to play, though. And I
certainly would not vote to request that some guy in orange replace my
discretion and make a bunch of calls that I would not have called
myself. I'm ok with missing some significant travels and ignoring or
missing some minor travels. But that's me.
Again, it's a matter of weighing the costs and benefits. How many
extra travels do you think are going to get called? Does it make a
difference if it's the UOA calling it, or if it's those crappy UPA
observers that are going to be the ones actually implementing this
stuff at UPA Nationals? How important is it to you that every single
travel gets called? How important is it to you that you get to play
continuously with minimal stoppages?
I know where I stand. I encourage other people to at least think
critically about this and consider all of the various factors that are
at play while figuring out where they stand.
-Colin
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54187 is a reply to message #54179] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 11:26 |
joe.ribaudo
Messages: 149
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> Yes. Making calls is about recognizing infractions, being sure about
> it, and making the call. When your opponent disagrees, the observer
> is there to back you up. It's not about rolling the dice and hoping
> the observer saw what you think might have happened. If you're making
> calls that you're unsure of, then you deserve TMFs. By the cartload.
> Because you're one of the players who is slowing down the game for
> everyone else (not you personally, but some fictional player who is
> behaving like that).
in your system, its not about being sure of your own call, its also
being sure that someone else is sure of your call as well. do you see
how that can get complex? and honestly just kind of weird. how many
times on an ultimate field have you seen two people with opposing
views, both sure they are correct? even with something as basic as an
up/down disc, players can be 100% sure and disagree.
>
> The issue here is about how you like to see the game of Ultimate
> played. I could legally grind any game of Ultimate to a halt by
> making tons of calls. That's not how I like to play, though. And I
> certainly would not vote to request that some guy in orange replace my
> discretion and make a bunch of calls that I would not have called
> myself. I'm ok with missing some significant travels and ignoring or
> missing some minor travels. But that's me.
>
your point about grinding the game to a halt is silly. every referee
or umpire in every sport could do the same thing. those sports manage
to produce a product that is not only enjoyable to play and watch, but
actually quite successful on a business level as well.
i think what we are getting at here is the ultimate community in
general is in love with being different than mainstream sports, and to
hold on to that identity, the community is willing to come up with all
sorts of crazy referral systems and side rules to avoid the straight
forward and common sense decision to have observers make the calls.
you are right that there are two ways to solve the travel problem, why
is it that ultimate thinks the best solution is to complicate things
rather than make it simpler?
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54189 is a reply to message #54174] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 11:32 |
mgd.mitch
Messages: 306
Registered: January 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 9, 1:22 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 12:44 pm, Tim-Haymaker <timwalla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is harder to learn how not to travel if you travel
> > consistently, but learning how is a good thing. For
> > nationals this summer, if your team qualifies for nationals
> > but travels so often as to disrupt your offense if it was
> > called, then you deserve your competitive disadvantage.
>
> > Yes, TMF's are easier but not better.
>
> > Not calling bogus travels and not traveling are anologous in
> > that both are human behaviors. You argued that if there is
> > a punishment (TMF's) for bogus travel calls then players
> > will not choose the punishment but rather change their
> > behavior. I'm pointing out that if observers call travels
> > consistently, then players will also change the behvior with
> > the added bonus that there will be more uniformity and no
> > opportunity for cheating bastards to make a horrible call
> > that changes the outcome of the game at the last second
> > which TMF's can't prevent.
>
> > Arguments made in the last few years are not as irrelevant.
> > Mike G's work is new and gives us data and experience to
> > point to. TMF's are a good, well thought out solution.
> > Some of us think Mike G's solution is better. The merits of
> > TMFs vis a vis active observers is the question at hand, not
> > whether TMF's would work if implemented aggressively.
>
> > Besides, this is hardly an either or situation. More active
> > observers would still have the ability to give a TMF when it
> > was called for. Active observers likely will mean fewer
> > TMF's will be needed (fewer opportunity for bogus calls,
> > fast counts, etc).
>
> > -Tim
>
> > -Tim
>
> > -Tim
> > --
> > Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
>
> Yes! This is the kind of stuff I like to see. Reasoning! Analysis!
> Narrowing the issue to the relevant points.
>
> So you've said that having active travel calls will help players
> improve and not travel. That's true. If we had a system-wide
> implementation of active travel calls, then the tiny fraction of teams
> that play observed games with any regularity would improve from that.
> I agree that players would adjust. Over time.
>
> But the situation at hand is teams voting on a system that will only
> be implemented at Nationals (if done similar to 2009). There will be
> no adjustment period. Teams will find out at Nationals if they have a
> player who frequently makes minor travels that his teammates overlook
> or do not notice. In that context, as a player, I would not put the
> quality of my Nationals experience at risk.
>
> Effectiveness of the TMF system. The more different things you
> subject to TMFs, the stronger the system gets -- the more likely teams
> get 2 TMFs and really crack down on their own behavior to avoid a
> yardage penalty. You correctly point out that it is less effective
> against late-game cheating if the game has been totally clean up to
> that point. But the observer still overrules the call and still gives
> a TMF at that time. If TMFs are being given aggressively and a team
> is trying to use late-game cheating as a strategy, the likelihood of
> getting 3 TMFs is still fairly high.
>
> I have identified potential problems with active travel calls. Those
> problems do not exist with just TMFs. And aggressive use of TMFs
> solves the problems cited in support of active travels, while also
> strengthening the effectiveness of TMFs in other settings (marking
> fouls, sideline issues, fighting/swearing/spiking and other
> babysitting stuff, etc.).
>
> Empirical evidence. Mike G does not present himself as an unbiased
> distributor of accurate information. Maybe he is. Great that he's
> doing experimentation. But I'll take his personal self-praise with a
> grain of salt. Hard to get the pros/cons of the issue when all he
> ever says is that the UOA is the best and everything is great with no
> negative side effects ever. Additional empirical evidence is
> available from the various UPA experiments, the Queen City Tune-Up and
> some other events.
>
> For me, the question at hand is how teams going to Nationals should
> vote on experimental observer duties to be implemented at Nationals.
> The travel-related question is whether the benefits of active travels
> are outweighed by the downsides and whether those same benefits could
> be accomplished through the use of TMFs without the downsides.
>
> TMFs are a good, well-thought out solution that has been gathering
> dust on the shelf for the past ten years. Rather than trying to rush
> some new experiment into place with all the implementation issues and
> accompanying downsides, we ought to just use the TMF system
> aggressively to accomplish the purpose that it was designed for -- to
> deter bad behavior.
I see merit in both the TMF and active call approach.
TMF advantages:
1) calls still left in players hands, ie, SOTG approach, don't have to
rely on an observer to make a good call (ie, no one to blame but
yourself for a missed call)
2) deters cheating overall (potential penalty for cheating)
disadvantages:
1) players may be timid to call travel since they have to be on the
same page as the obserever for the specific call. No matter how right
you are, if the observer misses the call...TMF.
2) cheaters can cheat if they have warnings to "burn". Bringing back
two huge hucks for scores without penalty can still be pretty
significant.
3) calls left in the hands of those with the single worst vantage
(marker)
-------------------------
Personally, I think #1 disadvantage is problematic. If you believe in
your call, you should be able to make it. Sorting the cheaters from
the incorrect honest call may be difficult. Travel can be considered
a "special" call in that the effect can be large if the call is
wrong. The second is also large...limiting cheaters to two instances
is still two instances of cheating.
To me, 3 is still the key. Markers call the majority of travels.
Markers usually have crappy perspective for your garden variety pivot
foot-drag travels.
-------------------------
Active call advantage:
1) all travels are called by someone with good (or at least better)
vantage
2) no bias/completely bogus travel calls
3) if a travel is missed, it's only missed, no potential additional
TMF
disadvantages:
1) potential for more calls (ticky tack travels)
2) a missed call can influence a game and it would be outside the
players' control
3) establishing consistent standards within the UPA system may be
problematic
-------------------------------
Overall, I think the first disadvantage for active is a non-argument
for nationals. In the many games played under active travel, even for
the non-elite teams, there just aren't that many travels being
called. At least not really anymore than non-active games. Certainly
less than stereotypically "chippy" games. Seems everyone expects more
to be called, but they aren't. 2 is what it is. What's the
difference between a game influenced by a big missed call versus two
big bad calls? Heck, with the TMF approach, you still have the bad
observer call potential if a good travel is called and missed...bad
TMF call results. unlikely, but could be huge. i think you resolve
three by telling observers to call all the travels they see. again,
at nationals, it shouldn't be a significant increase over IRS or
status quo, and could be a decrease.
There is no perfect system. There is only differences in the plusses
and minuses. I personally favor active travel calls over TMFs merely
because markers have a terrible vantage point to call it, so put the
call in the hands of the better perspective. While the whole "bias"
argument has merit, it is dwarfed by the simple fact that markers have
crappy vantage to begin with. Active travel removes bad travel calls
and adds missed good ones while TMF's only remove the bad ones, well
maybe most of them since you get warnings.
I'm happy to use whatever system the teams vote for in Madison.
Interestingly, I'm guessing of the various options on the table, the
one system that hasn't been experimented with will likely be the
automatic TMF setup. While Colin is correct that TMF's in general are
underutilized, I disagree that an automatic TMF for a bad travel call
is merely a system that has been on the shelf. I see that as a
variation of what's been on the shelf. Active's been done, and lots of
survey data exists to gather the players' opinions (via UOA). IRS was
used last year. Whether people like Mike's "my way is the best, i'm
the best in the world, end of story" style of presentation or not, the
UOA has done the right thing in experimenting with the setups,
surveying players, and publishing results. A variety of teams have
played at their tournaments and filled out their surveys, so there is
real information there to evaluate.
Mitch
UPA/UOA observer
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54190 is a reply to message #54174] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 11:40 |
thefan
Messages: 140
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> Empirical evidence. Mike G does not present himself as an unbiased
> distributor of accurate information. Maybe he is. Great that he's
> doing experimentation. But I'll take his personal self-praise with a
> grain of salt. Hard to get the pros/cons of the issue when all he
> ever says is that the UOA is the best and everything is great with no
> negative side effects ever. Additional empirical evidence is
> available from the various UPA experiments, the Queen City Tune-Up and
> some other events.
you know what is emperical evidence? the surveys that Mike and Jason
pass out at each of their UOA events. did you peruse that emperical
evidence? the average response to almost every question was at or
above 3.5, most above 4. each question basically asking "how much do
you like this change on a scale of 1-5?"
that's empircal evidence. or do you suggest that the survey results
have been tampered with?
you know what the drawback to the TMF system is?
1. as you yourself said, there lies the possibility of late game
cheating.
2. and i've been over this, the first two TMFs are free. so as soon
as you start aggressively handing these things out, not automatically
but aggressively, there are two stoppages of play that are completely
unnecessary without penalty. plus, you don't want them handed out
automatically, so maybe the observer says to himself, i'll let the
first one or two slide as honest mistakes. now there are 4
unnecessary play stoppages. all because you don't want the observer
to actually call this violation of the rules. you want him/her to
watch for it and be ready to make a call on it, but you don't want
them to make a ruling on it unless it is called already.
3. what is the penalty to the defense for calling a bogus travel on
the goal line they are defending? i mean, you can't really give up
yards to the offense right? do you wait to see if the offense scores
and then give the offending team the disc deep in their own endzone at
the other end of the field? that sounds exciting. nothing could be
a more exciting way to start a point than to have both teams walk to
the other end of the field and for a static set up.
of course, should the travel calls on the goal line effectively
disrupt the offense that there is a turn. or, hell, there's just a
turn, then we get a static set up at midfield. also exciting. and
completely fair to the offended team. Sorry the other team called
three garbage travel calls on you while you tried to get a dump swing
going across the goal line, stopped your cutters and allowed the
defense time to rest, reposition a bit. here is your consolation
prize, you can have the disc at midfield.
there's tons of drawbacks to this TMF idea of yours that easily
outweigh just letting the observer do their job. you are arguing that
the game flow will suffer from extra travel calls, but you want to
solve this by giving out a couple of static restarts after a couple of
stoppages for travels that are garbage calls
i mean, you have players from UOA events chiming in that there weren't
a lot of extra travel calls. you have the observers from these events
saying the same thing. but your argument is that they are wrong, you
know what will happen, and your idea is better.
you know what the nationals bound teams could do? they could
scrimmage and have some of their players, or better yet, some alumni
or local club players observe. they could run around and call travels
whenever they see them. there's a month between regionals and
nationals. surely enough time for the most elite college teams in the
country to learn how to play ultimate without breaking the rules.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54207 is a reply to message #54189] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 15:46 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 927
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mitch,
I think an automatic TMF setup is stupid. I think it's stupid in the context of spikes that hit players. I think it's always stupid. And I have never advocated for automatic TMFs for anything. I think that was a Steve Courlang suggestion a few years ago. That's one big disadvantage that I think you have mistakenly attributed to the aggressive use of TMFs that I have advocated.
Secondly, you say that the cheating call brings back the huck under a player-called system. Are you assuming that the observer, who had a better vantage point than the marker just missed the call? That's a big assumption. If you're going to assume that, then you should also assume that the observer will be missing valid travels on hucks that the defenders will now be unable to call under an active travel system. So chalk that up as a disadvantage of the active travel system.
This "players will become timid about calls" is kind of a crappy argument from the people saying that players are making bad calls and we need to make a change to address it. Fewer calls is a good thing. The people accusing me of being a status quo guy (note, Mitch has not said this) should reexamine their protectiveness of players to /irresponsibly make calls with no risk of a TMF. "But if we have aggressive use of TMFs, when I think I might have smelled a travel, I won't be able to call it without risk of a TMF!"
If you're the marker and you have a crappy vantage point, then you shouldn't be calling travels. If players are calling travels irresponsibly, then they should be penalized and made timid about making calls. What's the problem with fewer stoppages? If it's such a close call that you can't be sure of it, then you shouldn't be making it anyway AND it's not a big deal for it to go uncalled.
"Getting away with" two instances of cheating. Again, you assume that the observer didn't overrule the bad calls? How are they getting away with anything? Also, the aggressive use of TMFs should apply to fouls, sideline issues, travel calls, stall counts and baby-sitting issues. If we only have two instances in total of any of these issues, then we're doing great.
Side note. Without the aggressive use of TMFs, have fun with all the travels called on throwers who get knocked over by the marker. Yes, that's a travel. All that active travels does ensures that that gets called.
I think you have inadvertently fabricated two disadvantages of the TMF system (bringing back two hucks without penalty and risk of automatic TMFs) and improperly analyzed the issue of marker's having a bad view and being left with the ability to call travels. They are not left with the unchecked ability to bring back throws. They are left with the ability to roll the dice against a yardage penalty and an observer who is dedicated to making them lose that gamble (if that's what it is).
In my experience observing, there are significantly more travels occurring than go called as a general rule. Obviously it varies between games. As a player, I would not want to roll the dice with my Nationals experience to find out if I'll be involved in one of the heavy-travel games.
-Colin
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54208 is a reply to message #54187] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 15:59 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 927
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> in your system, its not about being sure of your own call, its
> also being sure that someone else is sure of your call as
> well. do you see how that can get complex?
Yeah. Being sure the guy with the better view of it than you didn't see the opposite of what you thought you saw. That's no so bad. When I play a game and have my first ever travel call overruled, I'll report back on how complex it is. Don't hold your breath.
> how many times on an ultimate field have you seen two people
> with opposing views, both sure they are correct? even with
> something as basic as an up/down disc, players can be 100% sure > and disagree.
Plenty. There are all kinds of players who don't know the rules, don't know their responsibilities when making calls, don't really know what the call their making looks like in action, outright cheat, or improperly claim to be 100% certain. It happens all the time. And it's unacceptable.
> your point about grinding the game to a halt is silly. every
> referee or umpire in every sport could do the same thing.
> those sports manage to produce a product that is not only
> enjoyable to play and watch, but actually quite successful on > a business level as well.
No, it's not silly at all. But your comments here are totally irrelevant as far as my point, which is that calling every single little infraction is not the best option. Do you understand that that is the standard set for UPA active travel events?
You're running thin on valid points. Not unlike thefan.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54213 is a reply to message #54208] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 17:52 |
joe.ribaudo
Messages: 149
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
>
> Yeah. Being sure the guy with the better view of it than
> you didn't see the opposite of what you thought you saw.
> That's no so bad. When I play a game and have my first ever
> travel call overruled, I'll report back on how complex it
> is. Don't hold your breath.
>
so as an observer, how would suggest a player become SURE they are
making calls the observer agrees with? call a travel and hope? and if
a player calls a travel and the observer overrules and hands out a
TMF, how does the player know it is because he made a poor call or if
he saw the play differently than the observer? you seem to think its
as easy as, just be right. the problem with that is, you cant JUST BE
RIGHT, when there is another level of opinion above yours. but you
know who can JUST BE RIGHT? the observer, by definition.
>
> No, it's not silly at all. But your comments here are
> totally irrelevant as far as my point, which is that calling
> every single little infraction is not the best option. Do
> you understand that that is the standard set for UPA active
> travel events?
>
> You're running thin on valid points. Not unlike thefan.
> --
come on. give me some credit. ill try to give you some. im sure you
have watched basketball before right? all referees are trained to call
all fouls. the same fouls. but somehow some refs call differently than
others. do basketball games just grind to a halt when a ref is trigger
happy on the whistle and both teams are over the bonus before ten
minutes has passed in the first half? no, the athletes recognize that
minor contact will result in a foul, and they adjust accordingly. just
like when an observer calls a travel on each of the first five points
of an ultimate game, the throwers will adjust and be more disciplined
with their pivot foot, stop rounding the corner after receiving a
pass, and basically just be more fundamentally sound when the disc is
in their hands. thats the kind of ultimate i would like to watch.
i dont think i ever had an abundance of valid points, just the
experience of playing sports other than ultimate for the first 21
years of my life and what i would like to think is a good dose of
common sense. either way i THINK my point is that choosing to do
anything besides allowing observers to actively call travels is
unnecessarily complicated and a takes the sport backwards instead of
forward. but what do i care really, ill probably golf more than i play
ultimate this summer anyways.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54217 is a reply to message #54213] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 19:14 |
Oldand slow
Messages: 3
Registered: March 2010 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Joe, let me chime in here with another perspective. I've been an observer at a couple UPA college events, non UOA, and I'm not currently observing. As an observer you're not looking to prevent a break or get a block on a throw so it's pretty easy to keep an eye both on thrower/marker contact issues and travels.
I've watched several players (individuals, not representative of all players) who routinely slid their foot 3-5 inches on each pivot without throwing or being called for travels. I've also seen quite a few players slide their pivot more than 6 inches on throws. All this was without "travel" being called.
The most telling travels are when the player starts with a pivot next to the line. By the time they throw they can be over a foot away from the line due to traveling on pivots. These obvious travels were never called.
Point being, Observers usually have the best perspective to call travels. If you as a marker see a travel, the observer most likely saw it too. The question is, do you want the observer to actively call all the travels they see (which are many more than the marker sees and usually don't provide an advantage to the thrower) or do you want to keep the decision to stop play in the hands of the players?
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54220 is a reply to message #54213] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 20:07 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 927
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> so as an observer, how would suggest a player become SURE they
> are making calls the observer agrees with? call a travel and
> hope? and if a player calls a travel and the observer
> overrules and hands out a TMF, how does the player know it is > because he made a poor call or if he saw the play differently > than the observer? you seem to think its as easy as, just be
> right.
Well, I somehow have managed to just be right in all the games I've played with observers, which is a substantial number. I know the rules well. I know what I need to see in order to call a travel. I need to see the release. And I need to see the pivot move first. And if I don't know that I saw both of those things, I don't call a travel. I honestly do not understand what is complicated about this. Problems only arise if players want to call travels more aggressively than they are able to reliably perceive them. And that behavior, in my view, warrants a TMF.
Now, observers being wrong. That's another issue. If you think observers are unreliable and cannot be trusted to implement an enforcement system to deter misconduct, that's something new. Perhaps a bigger issue. I am a big advocate of more extensive observer training. Very little is done to ensure that observers are actually good at making the correct calls on plays. But if the observers are good enough to call all the travels, then in my view, they are definitely good enough to hand out TMFs for bad travel calls.
> come on. give me some credit. ill try to give you some. im
> sure you have watched basketball before right?
I give you some credit for at least trying to engage in reasonable discussion in this post. I don't like watching basketball. Too many stoppages. Intentional fouls. Flopping. Whining. It is not fun to watch. I'd much rather watch a basketball highlight reel.
That said, look what you're comparing. On the one hand, you have professional athletes who play all of their games under referees (and have for most of their lives) adjusting to variations between games in how the referees call things. On the other hand, you have college kids playing frisbee, many of whom have never or rarely played with observers before and most of whom have almost no experience playing with active travel calls. And these college kids have to adjust to observers calling travels over the course of one tournament. Are you really making this comparison?
The question of whether active travel calls would be a good thing to have at some point in the future is not the current discussion.
The question here is whether players should vote this year to have active travels at the tournament that they have been gearing up for all year long. I think there are enough negative side effects of the implementation that I would not vote for it if I were a college player. As a college player, I would know that Nationals is going to be awesome if it's played how it was last year. I am going to have a terrific time. Or I can vote to introduce the possibility of an observer-imposed callfest to achieve a result that could be achieved by other methods with fewer negative side effects.
At this stage in the game, the easy way to address bad travel calls is with TMFs. The system is in place. People understand it. Observers know what a bad travel call is. Give the word and it's done. The side effect is fewer stoppages and players being timid/responsible in making calls. There's nothing complicated about that. And it would push the sport forward, improving game speed, reducing stoppages, and addressing all the bad behavior that currently plagues the game sometimes.
Saying that issuing TMFs more aggressively would push the game backwards is preposterous. I don't know who you are, but you truly seem to be completely clueless. If you don't care, then return to your golf and stop diluting the discussion with your garbage. Not garbage because you disagree with me. Garbage because of the quality of your reasoning and analysis.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54221 is a reply to message #54190] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 20:27 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 927
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 9, 2:40 pm, thefan <jimmyholtz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> you know what is emperical evidence? the surveys that Mike and Jason
> pass out at each of their UOA events. did you peruse that emperical
> evidence? the average response to almost every question was at or
> above 3.5, most above 4. each question basically asking "how much do
> you like this change on a scale of 1-5?"
Right. "How much do you like this" Real detailed. Very helpful for
this discussion. I don't care how high the UOA's spirit score is.
PMF/TMF system. All that discussion has been had before. Could it be
very effective as is? Yes. Are there improvements that could be made
to it? Yes. Would those improvements have already been made if it
had been used at all in the past ten years? Yes. Are any of these
reason to continue ignoring it, letting it collect dust? No.
> there's a month between regionals and
> nationals. surely enough time for the most elite college teams in the
> country to learn how to play ultimate without breaking the rules.
Good. Then they won't get any TMFs. Problem solved.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54223 is a reply to message #54220] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 21:00 |
joe.ribaudo
Messages: 149
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 9, 11:08 pm, colinmcintyre <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I somehow have managed to just be right in all the
> games I've played with observers, which is a substantial
> number. I know the rules well. I know what I need to see
> in order to call a travel. I need to see the release. And
> I need to see the pivot move first. And if I don't know
> that I saw both of those things, I don't call a travel. I
> honestly do not understand what is complicated about this.
> Problems only arise if players want to call travels more
> aggressively than they are able to reliably perceive them.
> And that behavior, in my view, warrants a TMF.
>
but have you ever played in a game where you would probably be given a
TMF if one of your travel calls HAD been overturned? probably not
right, cause we are just starting to talk about it. you dont think its
the slightest bit possible that you might not make some travel calls
(which by your own admission were all legit) if you were worried about
receiving a TMF? thats my only point. to me it just makes more sense
to have the observer call the travels. it removes the issues i am
talking about. your solution to travels actually creates my issue, so
i obviously am not a fan of your solution. why cant you admit that
threatening players with a strict punishment may in fact prevent
players from actually calling legit travels?
>
> That said, look what you're comparing. On the one hand, you
> have professional athletes who play all of their games under
> referees (and have for most of their lives) adjusting to
> variations between games in how the referees call things.
> On the other hand, you have college kids playing frisbee,
> many of whom have never or rarely played with observers
> before and most of whom have almost no experience playing
> with active travel calls. And these college kids have to
> adjust to observers calling travels over the course of one
> tournament. Are you really making this comparison?
>
if you look at what i wrote, i referenced a half, which i suppose is
technically referencing college basketball. but since i never played
college basketball, but did play high school basketball, i would say
the comparison is quite applicable to high school basketball. now if
you are asking me if i think 20 year old men can pick up on how
observers are calling travels, and adjust their game to that standard
as well as 15 year old kids can adjust to basketball refs, then yes, i
completely believe that.
>
> The question here is whether players should vote this year
> to have active travels at the tournament that they have been
> gearing up for all year long. I think there are enough
> negative side effects of the implementation that I would not
> vote for it if I were a college player. As a college
> player, I would know that Nationals is going to be awesome
> if it's played how it was last year. I am going to have a
> terrific time. Or I can vote to introduce the possibility
> of an observer-imposed callfest to achieve a result that
> could be achieved by other methods with fewer negative side
> effects.
>
and here again i differ. if i am a college player, and i have great
fundamentals, then i want active travels because i know observers wont
be calling me for any violations. on the other hand, if i know i slide
my foot around to break the mark or to get a little extra on a huck, i
may not be so in favor of having an observing calling everything they
see.
> calls. There's nothing complicated about that. And it
>
i disagree.
> Saying that issuing TMFs more aggressively would push the
> game backwards is preposterous. I don't know who you are,
> but you truly seem to be completely clueless. If you don't
> care, then return to your golf and stop diluting the
> discussion with your garbage. Not garbage because you
> disagree with me. Garbage because of the quality of your
> reasoning and analysis.
>
the golf comment was a joke, kind of. ha ha. so you dont like my
reasoning? every level of athlete, from middle school to professional,
is able to adjust to calls mid-game, but for some reason ultimate
players cant do it? to me, that seems like garbage.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54224 is a reply to message #54223] |
Tue, 09 March 2010 21:51 |
colinmcintyre
Messages: 927
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I am 100% sure about every travel call that I make. My behavior would not change even slightly if there were risk of a TMF. There is zero possibility of my behavior changing. I would not be at all worried about receiving a TMF for the travel calls I make. Because I am 100% sure, like I said. I make legit travel calls.
A legit call is a call based on you recognizing that an infraction occurred. That's what the rules require. If you make a call guessing that an infraction might have occurred and you happen to be right, you may have made a correct call, but there's nothing legit about it. Aggressive use of TMFs would deter some of these correct calls, but would not deter legit calls. And I'm fine with players being timid about making borderline calls. Fewer stoppages of play is a good thing.
Whatever level of basketball you're talking about, your comparison fails in the same way, just to differing degrees. Players in a reffed sport adjusting to variations in reffing. Not the same as College Ultimate players adjusting to having active travel calls at Nationals. Even if having active travels makes sense for some time in the future (I probably agree on this), that does not mean it makes sense for 2010 College Nationals to be played under a drastically different system than most of the games the teams have played all year.
No more time left to waste on this.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54227 is a reply to message #54179] |
Wed, 10 March 2010 04:42 |
agerics20
Messages: 4497
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> I know where I stand. I encourage other people to at least think
> critically about this and consider all of the various factors that are
> at play while figuring out where they stand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--i encourge people to think less about it and just do it.
because what we're doing is working.
or.....don't.
keep thinking....and we'll keep doing it and making to sport and
individual games better for everyone.
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54233 is a reply to message #54227] |
Wed, 10 March 2010 05:15 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4295
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 10, 7:42 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I know where I stand. I encourage other people to at least think
> > critically about this and consider all of the various factors that are
> > at play while figuring out where they stand.
but if people were really that "critical" wouldnt we have refs in this
sport already? its all this slack thinking that has resulted in the
idiotic "player controled" system that has damned this sport for so
long, isnt it?
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54240 is a reply to message #54221] |
Wed, 10 March 2010 05:54 |
agerics20
Messages: 4497
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> Right. "How much do you like this" Real detailed. Very helpful for
> this discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---yeah...we should start wording our questions more like the upa does
in their surveys......
so that ya can't understand what they're asking...with a ton of
different answer options, that when you read your own reply...you're
not even sure how they are answering the question......and so that
when some upa officials get together, they have to spend the first
hour of a meeting trying to determine if the over all response to a
question was simply positive or negative....
uh huh.....
dumb of us to simply ask if an element of the tournament was favored
by the participants....
|
|
| |
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54248 is a reply to message #54241] |
Wed, 10 March 2010 06:18 |
ulticritic
Messages: 4295
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 10, 8:55 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:.
> > PMF/TMF system.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ---basketball refs are going to start Ting everyone up who travels and
> doesn't think they did.
i would think they would simply give that call to the players and T
them up when they make ierronious calls.........wouldnt that be the
most effecient and effective way to deal with it?
|
|
|
| Re: Two observational observations from Tally Classic [message #54265 is a reply to message #54217] |
Wed, 10 March 2010 09:23 |
thefan
Messages: 140
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mar 10, 1:25 am, Oldandslow <ebil...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Point being, Observers usually have the best perspective to
> call travels. If you as a marker see a travel, the observer
> most likely saw it too. The question is, do you want the
> observer to actively call all the travels they see (which
> are many more than the marker sees and usually don't provide
> an advantage to the thrower) or do you want to keep the
> decision to stop play in the hands of the players?
this is weird. i'm seeing Colin make a pretty similar argument. both
stating that the observer has the best perspective, but that active
travel calls will result in more stoppages because players travel too
much. and they both like to use the word "disadvantage" when talking
about them. you want to TMF people for saying someone broke the rules
when they didn't, but you don't really want people to stop breaking
the rules.
why would your argument on a method for enforcing the rules be based
on the idea that the players are breaking the rules and we don't think
they're going to stop?
wouldn't it be better for players to just play by the rules? problem
solved
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Sep 9 07:21:02 PDT 2010
|
] 
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
