Home » RSD » RSD Posts » Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy
| Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #85986] |
Thu, 13 January 2011 14:53  |
Handy
Messages: 79
Registered: September 2008 |
Member |
|
|
First of all: 34% of all USAU members participated in the series this year. Of that, a percentage (I believe Toad said 11 to 7?) said they would like to experiment with refs. I'm not sure, I haven't seen the survey so feel free to correct that number (but my 34% is accurate).
So.
The people who care about refs are the people who participate in the series. If you're not going to even sectionals and instead you're getting hammered and playing conso games, or getting together to play at Wildwood or playing with mixed combination teams at tournaments like Ow My Knee or whatsoever, chances are the argument of including refs really doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot to you, right? I mean I even participate in the series, but the only time I would even remotely care about this is at the "serious" tournaments. The fun tournaments, which are the great majority still, don't really need refs, because that's not really the point.
If you're not talking about player experience and you're talking about a "marketable product" and everything else, you're talking about the highest level of the sport, and let's be honest, sectionals certainly isn't it either. So realistically you're talking about a handful of regionals level games and nationals. If only 1/3 of the members in the USAU participated in the series, how many do you think made it past regionals? And if only a percentage of the people at nationals want to try refs, how much do you think it really matters to the average player?
We keep hearing up and down about a two party system, or a vocal majority, or spirit zealots, but how about this:
It's not spirit zealots.
Or a group of evil people in Denver protecting what they have.
It's a huge group of people who actually don't care about refs vs. "active observers," who are completely content with getting together with their college alumni teams, who are more concerned about finding ways to have their young children on the sidelines as they play or make time in their schedule to try and play more pickup than they are if a stall count is silent or vocal, because for them it will never matter and never be relevant.
For the few of us for whom it is relevant, maybe the USAU has been doing an okay job, and while I'm not saying it's perfect (I think the USAU would be the absolute first to say it's not, that's why they have these meetings and vote people in and out) and while I have not always been happy with the speed with which change takes effect, to be honest I'm fine with it. Will more calls need to be active? Yes. Will we get there? Yes.
But right now the USAU has to do what's right for their members, not just the 60% of the 34%, but the weekend warriors and the juniors and everyone else.
The UOA doesn't have to be responsible for those people, and that is a great thing. They can take some chances and tell us how they work (or not tell us, depending on how Mike is feeling that given day), and we can formulate conceptions based on that.
But in between now and then, keep pushing the USAU to do more, but do it with the realization that RSD is a tiny, micro, supersmall fraction of players in the US, and polls here or even on the not-so-heavily-used USAU boards are useless, and that our needs are still very important...
but they're not everything
--Handy
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #85987 is a reply to message #85986] |
Thu, 13 January 2011 15:40  |
wuzandfuzz
Messages: 186
Registered: July 2010 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Exactly! That is what I've been saying all along. Refs are for the few, the elite, the amateurs on the cusp of having a pro game. That does not describe most ultimate. In fact, that does not describe most people playing sports past college, period. How many pickup soccer or basketball games have refs?
In the end, most tourneys except for nattys/regionals are just a series of pickup games. When I watch/play, I see a ton of 30-40 year old dudes who are just trying to not be fat. No one is willing to cheat, lie, or kill to win, so they don't need a ref; they will not get much value out of it. Elite players, who are constantly pushing the boundaries of the rules, on the other hand, certainly could.
So what will come first? The first elites who will demonstrate that voluntary rule following is a broken system in a fashion shocking enough for rule change? Or will it be people trying to amend the rules to pave the way for higher levels of competition? I'm very curious about this, and I hope it happens in the next 5-10 years.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #85988 is a reply to message #85987] |
Thu, 13 January 2011 16:07 |
mvuong
Messages: 703
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
That 11 to 7 vote was for college teams at nationals in 2009 I believe. They voted on active travels and some other experimental rules, not for refs per se. Otherwise, agreed on pretty much all points.
Though it does lend credence to the fact that you can't even canvas sectionals events to find out what the USAU membership wants since, as Handy has pointed out, only 1/3 of the membership even play in the series. You can't even get a mandatory vote through signups online, because I'm sure many of these members sign up through a summer league or as a one time fee through a tournament. Going to have to get pretty creative on how to collect information from your whole membership, and I'm sure that USAU leadership is having that very trouble now.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #85991 is a reply to message #85986] |
Thu, 13 January 2011 16:39 |
Alex Howlett
Messages: 10
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 1/13/2011 5:55 PM, Handy wrote:
> First of all: 34% of all USAU members participated in the
> series this year. Of that, a percentage (I believe Toad
> said 11 to 7?) said they would like to experiment with refs.
> I'm not sure, I haven't seen the survey so feel free to
> correct that number (but my 34% is accurate).
>
> So.
>
> The people who care about refs are the people who
> participate in the series. If you're not going to even
> sectionals and instead you're getting hammered and playing
> conso games, or getting together to play at Wildwood or
> playing with mixed combination teams at tournaments like Ow
> My Knee or whatsoever, chances are the argument of including
> refs really doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot to you,
> right? I mean I even participate in the series, but the
> only time I would even remotely care about this is at the
> "serious" tournaments. The fun tournaments, which are the
> great majority still, don't really need refs, because that's
> not really the point.
>
[SNIP]
>
>
> --Handy
No. If you add refs at the elite level, suddenly elite-level players
are going to be even more clueless about the rules than they already
are. Then it will trickle down to the lower-level tournaments because
people tend to be more likely to trust calls made by the best players.
We will have, chaos I say. CHAOS!!!
-Suncho
P.S. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about refs, but your
argument that it won't affect most players is a little short sited.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86013 is a reply to message #85991] |
Thu, 13 January 2011 20:23 |
yallcrazy
Messages: 2
Registered: January 2011 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Alex Howlett wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 16:39On 1/13/2011 5:55 PM, Handy wrote:
> First of all: 34% of all USAU members participated in the
> series this year. Of that, a percentage (I believe Toad
> said 11 to 7?) said they would like to experiment with refs.
> I'm not sure, I haven't seen the survey so feel free to
> correct that number (but my 34% is accurate).
>
> So.
>
> The people who care about refs are the people who
> participate in the series. If you're not going to even
> sectionals and instead you're getting hammered and playing
> conso games, or getting together to play at Wildwood or
> playing with mixed combination teams at tournaments like Ow
> My Knee or whatsoever, chances are the argument of including
> refs really doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot to you,
> right? I mean I even participate in the series, but the
> only time I would even remotely care about this is at the
> "serious" tournaments. The fun tournaments, which are the
> great majority still, don't really need refs, because that's
> not really the point.
>
[SNIP]
>
>
> --Handy
No. If you add refs at the elite level, suddenly elite-level players
are going to be even more clueless about the rules than they already
are. Then it will trickle down to the lower-level tournaments because
people tend to be more likely to trust calls made by the best players.
We will have, chaos I say. CHAOS!!!
-Suncho
P.S. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about refs, but your
argument that it won't affect most players is a little short sited.
I'm curious about this argument. Can you provide some examples of other sports where having referees reduces players knowledge of the rules? In my opinion the lack of knowledge of the rules (especially at the college level) is a great reason to train and include referees at Series events.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86024 is a reply to message #85986] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 05:25 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 13, 5:55 pm, Handy <Xck...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First of all: 34% of all USAU members participated in the
> series this year.
ONLY 34% PARTICIPATED IN SECTIONALS????? that dosent seem right.
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
Of that, a percentage (I believe Toad
> said 11 to 7?)
THAT wa the vote results of the 09' nationals "active travel vote"
----------------------------------------------------
>said they would like to experiment with refs.
i dont know where you are getting this info. what i said was that 48%
of the respondants of the ult rev survey (which totaled 6% of the
membership) voted that they would be, AT THE VERY LEAST, "ok with
referee experimentation"
-------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure, I haven't seen the survey so feel free to
> correct that number (but my 34% is accurate).
where is the info that suports this "contention".........as it seems
to me that as many as 90% of the membersgip would participate in the
"series", no?
----------------------------------------------------
>
> So.
>
> The people who care about refs are the people who
> participate in the series.
not so fast there pal........there was a guy here on rsd that said he
was a proponent of refs yet QUIT playing in the series.
---------------------------------------------------
If you're not going to even
> sectionals and instead you're getting hammered and playing
> conso games, or getting together to play at Wildwood or
> playing with mixed combination teams at tournaments like Ow
> My Knee or whatsoever, chances are the argument of including
> refs really doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot to you,
> right?
wrong.......or, i dont know. lets ask them and find out. i know
there are a ton of sports offered through my local municipalities that
are on an informal (sometimes coed) format yet they still facilitate
those leagues with refs......of which i would assume there is a
certian level of expectation that there WILL BE refs.
you do understand that you are formulating an argument on complete
speculation here????.......and such argumenta are EASILY refutable
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
I mean I even participate in the series, but the
> only time I would even remotely care about this is at the
> "serious" tournaments.
but thats YOU!!!! are you saying everything should be done based on
your preferences?
---------------------------------------------------------
The fun tournaments, which are the
> great majority still, don't really need refs, because that's
> not really the point.
the point???? the point of what? and how IS IT the "point" in other
sports that DO have refs even at the most informal levels. is "the
point" of competing in the sport of ultimate different from "the
point" of competing in any other sport?.
and who made you in charge of determining what "the point" of ultimate
is for the whole?
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
>
> If you're not talking about player experience and you're
> talking about a "marketable product" and everything else,
cant i be talking about both?
-----------------------------------------------------
> you're talking about the highest level of the sport, and
> let's be honest, sectionals certainly isn't it either.
neither is my kids pee wee baseball league..........yet they have
official umps work their games.
-------------------------------------------------------
So
> realistically you're talking about a handful of regionals
> level games and nationals.
no..........YOU ARE. I'M TALKING ABOUT PROVIDING A STANDARD REF
FACILITATION FOR ALL LEVELS OF OFFICIAL PLAY.
-----------------------------------------------------
If only 1/3 of the members in
> the USAU participated in the series, how many do you think
> made it past regionals?
i dunno, 1/3 of those people???? sitll dont know if i trust that 1/3
participation rate though
--------------------------------------------------
And if only a percentage of the
> people at nationals want to try refs,
"a" percentage????? would that be a 95 percentage or more of a 25
percentage?
----------------------------------------------------
how much do you think
> it really matters to the average player?
i dunno, lets ask and find out.
------------------------------------------------
>
> We keep hearing up and down about a two party system, or a
> vocal majority, or spirit zealots, but how about this:
> It's not spirit zealots.
> Or a group of evil people in Denver protecting what they
> have.
sure it is......if it werent then there would undoubtedly be more
people on that board that werent so overly protective of sotg.
---------------------------------------------
>
> It's a huge group of people who actually don't care about
> refs vs. "active observers," who are completely content with
> getting together with their college alumni teams, who are
> more concerned about finding ways to have their young
> children on the sidelines as they play or make time in their
> schedule to try and play more pickup than they are if a
> stall count is silent or vocal, because for them it will
> never matter and never be relevant.
this is pure speculation. show me the data that supports such
nonsense. i mean, had that active travel vote been the opposite (11
against and 7 for) THEN you might have a leg to stand on.......but
when the results are that unrepresented then any idiot can tell there
is somthing amiss. AND THIS VOTE WAS TWO YEARS AGO AND PRIOR TO ANY
SIGNIFICANT EXPERIMENTATION (with active travel calls). in reality i
feel it was more of a referendum on the LACK OF TRUST players have in
their opponents to use that as a bail out call.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
>
> For the few of us for whom it is relevant, maybe the USAU
> has been doing an okay job,
BZZZZT WRONG. its been piss poor
---------------------------------------------------------
and while I'm not saying it's
> perfect (I think the USAU would be the absolute first to say
> it's not, that's why they have these meetings and vote
> people in and out) and while I have not always been happy
> with the speed with which change takes effect, to be honest
> I'm fine with it.
most whamby pamby sz's are
----------------------------------------------
Will more calls need to be active? Yes.
> Will we get there? Yes.
will it take ten times as long? yes
---------------------------------------------------
>
> But right now the USAU has to do what's right for their
> members, not just the 60% of the 34%, but the weekend
> warriors and the juniors and everyone else.
hey, refs benefit EVERYONE that has the privilidge to have them
facilitated. i sure wouldnt be putting my kids into any organized
sports leagues that didnt have them as a "service enhancement".
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
>
> The UOA doesn't have to be responsible for those people, and
> that is a great thing. They can take some chances and tell
> us how they work (or not tell us, depending on how Mike is
> feeling that given day), and we can formulate conceptions
> based on that.
and usau cant take similar chances???? what a weak ass fucking cop
out!!!!!
THEY ARE THE FUCKING GOVERNING BODY OF THIS SPORT!!!!! so they need
to start acting like it.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> But in between now and then, keep pushing the USAU to do
> more,
thanks for the green light there pinhead
-----------------------------------------
but do it with the realization that RSD is a tiny,
> micro, supersmall fraction of players in the US,
eh, its alot bigger than the usau message board
----------------------------------------
and polls
> here or even on the not-so-heavily-used USAU boards are
> useless,
dosent make em meaningless
--------------------------------------------
and that our needs are still very important...
>
> but they're not everything
so whats your fucking point again????
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86025 is a reply to message #85987] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 05:40 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 13, 6:43 pm, paul <elephantvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly! That is what I've been saying all along. Refs are
> for the few, the elite, the amateurs on the cusp of having a
> pro game.
that sure aint the way it works in every other sport........and last i
herd usau was trying to mend the perception of ultimate to the "sports
world"........as per tom crawford anyways. like i said, i wouldnt
sign my kid up for any official rec league sport if there wasnt the
supervision of refs.
-----------------------------------------------------------
That does not describe most ultimate. In fact,
> that does not describe most people playing sports past
> college, period. How many pickup soccer or basketball games
> have refs?
and there ya got it.........sports that dont have refs are classified
as pick up. once they have refs it becomes official comp. so i guess
ultimate has little to no "official comp". its a sport thats
relegated to be an informal sand lot version.
----------------------------------------------
>
> In the end, most tourneys except for nattys/regionals are
> just a series of pickup games.
hey, you aint gettin no argument from me there!
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
When I watch/play, I see a
> ton of 30-40 year old dudes who are just trying to not be
> fat.
hows that different from any other organized sport thats playerd for
exorsize?
--------------------------------------
>No one is willing to cheat, lie, or kill to win,
pffft, who you kiddin......i always read stories of people cheating
and things gettin chippy in rec leagues
in fact, the most agregious act i ever saw in ulti took place in a
summer league game
------------------------------------------------------------
so
> they don't need a ref; they will not get much value out of
> it.
then why do all other sports find value in it? and who are you to say
what "other people" will find value in?
---------------------------------------------------------
Elite players, who are constantly pushing the
> boundaries of the rules, on the other hand, certainly
> could.
i dont know why you guys make these distinction with this sport when
similar distinctions DONT EXIST IN ANY OTHER ORGANIZED SPORTS?????
----------------------------------------------------
>
> So what will come first? The first elites who will
> demonstrate that voluntary rule following is a broken system
> in a fashion shocking enough for rule change?
WELL HASENT THAT ALREADY OCCURED........with the advent of observers
some 20 odd years ago.......and isnt it happening again........with
the advent of the uoa?
--------------------------------------------------
Or will it be
> people trying to amend the rules to pave the way for higher
> levels of competition?
higher as in "spiritually" higher? is this a church or a sport?
-----------------------------------------
I'm very curious about this, and I
> hope it happens in the next 5-10 years.
well, with the emergance of the upa it will definitely happen
quicker........which is what you people arent getting here. things
dont just happen on there own......it takes people IN ACTION to make
them happen......and the actions of the usau admin will undoubtedly
thwart such progression MUCH MPORE than it will enhance it.......trust
that
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86026 is a reply to message #85988] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 05:44 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 13, 7:10 pm, mvuong <marvinvu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That 11 to 7 vote was for college teams at nationals in 2009
> I believe. They voted on active travels and some other
> experimental rules, not for refs per se.
no, not for refs......but rather for active "ref style" calls.......of
which, whats the difference again
------------------------------------------------------
Otherwise, agreed
> on pretty much all points.
>
> Though it does lend credence to the fact that you can't even
> canvas sectionals events to find out what the USAU
> membership wants since, as Handy has pointed out, only 1/3
> of the membership even play in the series.
so mandatory polling it is then!!!!
---------------------------------------------------
You can't even
> get a mandatory vote through signups online, because I'm
> sure many of these members sign up through a summer league
> or as a one time fee through a tournament.
as long as its part of the registration process the datta is
attainable........as much as you sz's seem to be afraid of knowing
waht that data would reveal
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
Going to have to
> get pretty creative on how to collect information from your
> whole membership, and I'm sure that USAU leadership is
> having that very trouble now.
word......as they seem to have trouble doing ANYTHING thats even
remotely creative
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86027 is a reply to message #85991] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 05:52 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 13, 7:39 pm, Suncho <stu...@fake.email> wrote:
>
> No. If you add refs at the elite level, suddenly elite-level players
> are going to be even more clueless about the rules than they already
> are.
bzzzzt, pure speculation. either way, how the rule enforcement is
applied is more important that the players knowledge of the
rules........cause, you know, with refs there to tell em when they
broke the rules, and then apply behavior changing penalties, THEY'LL
LEARN!!!!!
------------------------------------------
Then it will trickle down to the lower-level tournaments because
> people tend to be more likely to trust calls made by the best players.
so lets start reffing at the youth level first?
------------------------
>
> We will have, chaos I say. CHAOS!!!
uhmmmm, do other sports have chaos?
----------------------------------------------
>
> -Suncho
>
> P.S. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about refs, but your
> argument that it won't affect most players is a little short sited.
when did i say it wouldnt effect most players? i think it would, and
SHOULD effect EVERYONE.......only in a very positive way.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86028 is a reply to message #86013] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 05:53 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 14, 4:12 am, Joe <rhy...@kenyon.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm curious about this argument. Can you provide some
> examples of other sports where having referees reduces
> players knowledge of the rules? In my opinion the lack of
> knowledge of the rules (especially at the college level) is
> a great reason to train and include referees at Series
> events.
BINGO!!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86029 is a reply to message #86024] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 05:54 |
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> > First of all: 34% of all USAU members participated in the
> > series this year.
>
> ONLY 34% PARTICIPATED IN SECTIONALS????? that dosent seem right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--i have no idea.....but it IS possible that the upsa includes LEAGUE
players who never compete in the series or even with club teams at
tournaments but are forced to sign waivers or join as 1 time users of
the insurance policy....as part of their membership count.....which
would in turn reduce the percentage of participants in the series....
|
|
| |
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86032 is a reply to message #86029] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 06:50 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 14, 8:54 am, Reggie Fanelli <ageric...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > First of all: 34% of all USAU members participated in the
> > > series this year.
>
> > ONLY 34% PARTICIPATED IN SECTIONALS????? that dosent seem right.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> --i have no idea.....but it IS possible that the upsa includes LEAGUE
> players who never compete in the series or even with club teams at
> tournaments but are forced to sign waivers or join as 1 time users of
> the insurance policy....as part of their membership count.....which
> would in turn reduce the percentage of participants in the series....
so they are padding the membership numbers to make themselves SEEM
bigger, stronger and more vast? how counterproductive.
i wonder where handy got his info from?
he's one of them usau loyalists chumps so i'm sure he's got the inside
dirt.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86033 is a reply to message #86032] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 07:03 |
agerics20
Messages: 8115
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> > --i have no idea.....but it IS possible that the upsa includes LEAGUE
> > players who never compete in the series or even with club teams at
> > tournaments but are forced to sign waivers or join as 1 time users of
> > the insurance policy....as part of their membership count.....which
> > would in turn reduce the percentage of participants in the series....
> -----------------
> so they are padding the membership numbers to make themselves SEEM
> bigger, stronger and more vast? how counterproductive.
>
> i wonder where handy got his info from?
>
> he's one of them usau loyalists chumps so i'm sure he's got the inside
> dirt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--well....i mentioned that i didn't KNOW if that was the case.....
but wouldn't YOU/anyone assume that they are doing that?
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86034 is a reply to message #85988] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 07:05 |
Jed
Messages: 164
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 13, 7:10 pm, mvuong <marvinvu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That 11 to 7 vote was for college teams at nationals in 2009
> I believe. They voted on active travels and some other
> experimental rules, not for refs per se. Otherwise, agreed
> on pretty much all points.
>
> Though it does lend credence to the fact that you can't even
> canvas sectionals events to find out what the USAU
> membership wants since, as Handy has pointed out, only 1/3
> of the membership even play in the series. You can't even
> get a mandatory vote through signups online, because I'm
> sure many of these members sign up through a summer league
> or as a one time fee through a tournament. Going to have to
> get pretty creative on how to collect information from your
> whole membership, and I'm sure that USAU leadership is
> having that very trouble now.
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
Why is the opinion of someone who doesn't play in the series
relevant?
Sure, they're members, so one might argue they deserve input. But do
we really want the development of the highest level of our sport to be
subject the the whims of people who likely for the most part don't
know or care about it beyond their weekly rec game? Maybe a separate
class of membership should be created for those who become members
through league participation.
Or, maybe a separate organization should be formed, with the sole
focus of creating a more professional, watchable, and marketable game
at the competitive levels...
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86036 is a reply to message #86032] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 07:17 |
Slip83
Messages: 60
Registered: December 2010
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY |
Member |
|
|
|
Attempt at a legitimate question: for implementing refs at the youth level, how is there going to be enough money to support refs? While refs at the youth level might be really important, affording them is going to be difficult for organizers at that level. One of the joys of ultimate is that it's a cheap sport to participate in. If you afford the costs of ref by increasing registration fees parents are most likely going to be turned off from having their kid play a sport they most likely no little about when they could be spending that money on sports they know well such as baseball and basketball.
|
|
| |
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86049 is a reply to message #86048] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 08:30 |
mvuong
Messages: 703
Registered: October 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
|
For youth sports refs, you could borrow from how some other sports do it. My brother is really into volleyball, and right now he helps line judge for high school volleyball games even though he still an undergrad in college. $10-$15 an hour for a college kid to show up for a couple hours is great for them. You could also ask for volunteers from local colleges/established leagues.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86050 is a reply to message #85986] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 08:40 |
Baer
Messages: 387
Registered: September 2008 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Handy wrote on Thu, 13 January 2011 16:53The people who care about refs are the people who participate in the series. If you're not going to even sectionals...chances are the argument of including refs really doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot to you, right?
If you're not talking about player experience and you're talking about a "marketable product" and everything else, you're talking about the highest level of the sport... And if only a percentage of the people at nationals want to try refs, how much do you think it really matters to the average player?
It's a huge group of people who actually don't care about refs...because for them it will never matter and never be relevant.
You may be right, unfortunately. But these are very short-sighted views for anyone who really cares about the sport and its future success. If we want Ultimate to become a more recognized and legitimate sport to the general public, you have to think about more than what is tolerated by "the average player."
Setting your priorities and digging your heels in on a topic because "a huge group of people" don't care about it is neither enlightening nor progressive.
Quote:But right now the USAU has to do what's right for their members, not just the 60% of the 34%, but the weekend warriors and the juniors and everyone else.
The UOA doesn't have to be responsible for those people, and that is a great thing.
USAU's Mission is to "Advance the sport of Ultimate" and IMHO they have a responsibility beyond just the membership (which their strategic plan reflects as well, although no one really has any insight on how successful they are in acheiving real progress).
Refs are not the only issue at stake in making Ultimate a more legitimate sport. However, I get the feeling that many (probably most) Ultimate players are happy being a niche activity with no real interest (or no effort) in seeing the sport grow into something that the general public can recognize and embrace.
If most Ultimate players are satisfied "getting hammered and playing conso games" and don't care how the sport thrives outside of their own limited participation, then none of this matters anyway. If most of us would rather see the sport become something better (even if we don't all play at an elite level), you have to have a little more vision.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86051 is a reply to message #85986] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 09:16 |
Doctor
Messages: 247
Registered: April 2010
Location: H-town |
Senior Member |
|
|
Good post Handy. I kinda said the same thing the other day with a thread I started, but I like the time and effort you put into this one.
Toad, you raise good questions, but you're still getting long winded. I'm tryin to help you win some arguments, but take my advice and land the airplane.
Bottom line, even with Refs, at all levels, people will still laugh at us for playing "frisbee". Ref's won't change the stigma we have, only getting more people to play the game will. Let the USUA keep growing the sport, and leave the evolution of it up to us.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86057 is a reply to message #86036] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 09:52 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 14, 10:20 am, Matt W <slip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Attempt at a legitimate question: for implementing refs at
> the youth level, how is there going to be enough money to
> support refs?
how is there in all other youth sports??? either way, THATS how!
-------------------------------------------------
While refs at the youth level might be really
> important, affording them is going to be difficult for
> organizers at that level.
i though the lot of yall were middle class white people........so how
do inner city poor people that play b ball afford them in their youth
leagues?
--------------------------------------------
One of the joys of ultimate is
> that it's a cheap sport to participate in.
i NEVER found ultimate to be a joy because of that.
----------------------------------------------
If you afford
> the costs of ref by increasing registration fees parents are
> most likely going to be turned off from having their kid
> play a sport they most likely no little about when they
> could be spending that money on sports they know well such
> as baseball and basketball.
yea, its the ole chicken and the egg thing. of course theres also the
parents that would prefer their kids leagues have that additional
supervisional "service"
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86058 is a reply to message #86049] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 09:54 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 14, 11:35 am, mvuong <marvinvu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For youth sports refs, you could borrow from how some other
> sports do it.
what a novel idea
-----------------------------
My brother is really into volleyball, and
> right now he helps line judge for high school volleyball
> games even though he still an undergrad in college. $10-$15
> an hour for a college kid to show up for a couple hours is
> great for them.
UREAKA!!!!!
----------------------------------
You could also ask for volunteers from local
> colleges/established leagues.
YES, their are many options when one thinks creatively
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86060 is a reply to message #86051] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 10:03 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 14, 12:20 pm, Doc <daveryan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good post Handy. I kinda said the same thing the other day
> with a thread I started, but I like the time and effort you
> put into this one.
>
> Toad, you raise good questions, but you're still getting
> long winded. I'm tryin to help you win some arguments, but
> take my advice and land the airplane.
what can i say......if the bullshit i was reponding to wasnt so thick
neither would be my replies
-----------------------------------------------
>
> Bottom line, even with Refs, at all levels, people will
> still laugh at us for playing "frisbee".
i disagree. its the non ref thing that perpetuates the laughable
hippy stigma
---------------------------------------------------
Ref's won't change
> the stigma we have, only getting more people to play the
> game will.
refs will change that too. ya see, when they see the sports isnt so
laughable they will be less aprehensive to play. its the reverse of a
vicious cycle
---------------------------------------
Let the USUA keep growing the sport, and leave
> the evolution of it up to us.
more backwards thinking. when does the "governing body" of ANY sport
not get immediatly and directly envolved in the evolution of the
sport? and shit, what can THEY do to grow the sport? real growth
takes place on the local level thru the energies of independent team
captians.
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86076 is a reply to message #86050] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 13:48 |
wuzandfuzz
Messages: 186
Registered: July 2010 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, see, I think this makes a lot of sense too. I'm not hardcore into this subject, but from what I've read from board members, they are not interested in legitimacy, more in growth. These two things do not have to be related; I think most americans don't think skateboarding is worthy of being an olympic sport, but skateboarding experienced some explosive growth a decade back anyway.
I'll believe someone really wants refs and legitimacy once someone says the words "NCAA" or "Professional League". Both NCAA and Pro leagues are looking for one thing: profitability. And profitability does not mean nickel and diming players for refs or tourney fees. It means TV contracts, live tickets, jerseys, all kinds of stuff. It means getting non-players to be rabid about watching the game.
People keep talking about active travels and little stuff, about rules to make players happy. Hell, you might be able to sell it to people with refs, I don't know! It's possible! Thus all the ref stuff is really minor, compared to making the sport saleable, which is what I never hear. Thus makes me think that current ref efforts are just a pie in the USAU's face, or a way to make money on more tournaments, not to achieve legitimacy. Thus, I'm waiting for the next person who claims they are going to change everything...
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86097 is a reply to message #86076] |
Sat, 15 January 2011 07:15 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 14, 4:50 pm, paul <elephantvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, see, I think this makes a lot of sense too. I'm not
> hardcore into this subject, but from what I've read from
> board members, they are not interested in legitimacy, more
> in growth.
and are too stupid to realize that legitamacy will result in growth.
and one must also take into account what it is exactly that they want
to grow.........cause it aint the sport that they want to grow as much
as the sotg concept. they are just using ultimate as a vehicle in
this regard.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
>These two things do not have to be related;
but they are.......so maybe they DO!
-----------------------------------------------------
I
> think most americans don't think skateboarding is worthy of
> being an olympic sport,
WHO EVEN GIVES A FUCK ABOUT OLYMICS ANYMORE???? definitely not the
young make (nfl) demographic. i think herd made a comment about how
the only audience the olympics has is moms
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------
but skateboarding experienced some
> explosive growth a decade back anyway.
shouldnt that ell ya that the olympics is no benchmark when it comes
to sports entertainment any more
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
>
> I'll believe someone really wants refs and legitimacy once
> someone says the words "NCAA" or "Professional League".
which usau says neither.......but thats because they dont want to lose
control (or "govorence") of the sport to ANYBODY
-----------------------------------------------
> Both NCAA and Pro leagues are looking for one thing:
> profitability.
WELL PLEASE EXPLAIN THEN WHY REFS ARE SO INTRAGREL IN ALL NORMAL PEE
WEE LEAGUE SPORTS LEAGUES WHERE PROFITABILITY ISNT EVEN A FACTOR?
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
And profitability does not mean nickel and
> diming players for refs or tourney fees.
so you are saying that any sport that isnt in it to "make a buck"
shouldnt bother themselves with facilitataing their comp with paid
refs??????
----------------------------------------------------
It means TV
> contracts, live tickets, jerseys, all kinds of stuff.
uhmmm, none of that stuff in my kids soccer or baseball
leagues.........yet, MYSTERIOUSLY, they still have refs/umps? please
explint this vast inconsistancy?
--------------------------------------------------
It
> means getting non-players to be rabid about watching the
> game.
but how can they do that when the very thing you ban from ultimate
(refs/proper rule enforcement and game management) is what will allow
it to BE watchable in the first place.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
>
> People keep talking about active travels and little stuff,
> about rules to make players happy.
too bad those "people" arent out usau administrators
---------------------------------------------
Hell, you might be able
> to sell it to people with refs, I don't know!
well then why not try to use a little deductive reasoning here and
take a good hard look at how other sports are managed and rules are
enforced. does this very obvious aspect of sports entertainment elude
you........or are you just a complete dumbfuck.......OR a sz?
------------------------------------------------------------ ---
It's
> possible!
well EINSTIEN......what gives you THAT notion? would EVERY OTHER
SPORT PROVING THAT ITS POSSIBLE be a clue............ya fuckin idiot
----------------------------------------------------
Thus all the ref stuff is really minor, compared
> to making the sport saleable,
not if the refs are whats makin it sellable, right? again, try and
use some deductive reasoning and tell us how "sellable" football or
basketball would be with an idiotic "player controled" pick-up game
rule enforcement system???? note: taking you head outa your ass for
just two seconds to think about this might help
------------------------------------------------------------ -
>which is what I never hear.
what DO you hear???? that the nfl has plans of adopting the ultimate
frisbee sotg meathod of officiating???? or do you just "hear" that
about the lower levels of football that dont concern themselves with
profitability?
-----------------------------------------------------
> Thus makes me think that current ref efforts are just a pie
> in the USAU's face, or a way to make money on more
> tournaments, not to achieve legitimacy.
wouldnt the money be going to the actual refs??? and what sport do
you know that dosent make more efforts towards legitimacy by using a
professional officiation system.
i mean, iyo, what is the REASONING that other sports use to justify
their use, develoment and funding if ref systems in THEIR
sports.......and i'm talkin from the pee wee's to the bigs?????
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
Thus, I'm waiting
> for the next person who claims they are going to change
> everything...
god forbid that we hold OUR GOVERNING BODY accountable to achieving
that end.
> --
> Posted fromhttp://www.rsdnospam.com
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86106 is a reply to message #86013] |
Sat, 15 January 2011 10:50 |
Alex Howlett
Messages: 10
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 1/14/2011 4:12 AM, Joe wrote:
> I'm curious about this argument. Can you provide some
> examples of other sports where having referees reduces
> players knowledge of the rules? In my opinion the lack of
> knowledge of the rules (especially at the college level) is
> a great reason to train and include referees at Series
> events.
Nope. I can't even think of an example of another sport that was
already highly-regulated and self-officiated before switching over to
refs. Can you?
I think everyone agrees that a serious lack of rules knowledge by
players is a real problem in ultimate today. The way I see it, there
are two possible paths to a solution:
1. Bringing in refs, of course, would make it so players in the reffed
games wouldn't have to know the rules in order for those particular
games to be properly regulated. Players still have to know the rules if
they wanted to avoid calls etc. But the game as whole would be sound.
This is assuming, of course, that we live in a perfect world where the
refs actually know the rules and always have best perspective.
2. Simplifying the rules and reducing redundancy would give more players
a fighting chance to actually understand them. Right now, with 11th
edition, there's some bloat in there. Also, there are certain rules
that can only be enforced by "observers" or "event organizers". Why
can't players call time violations? If a player has a stopwatch and he
announces it to the other team, why can't he call a 70-second violation
on a time out?
If players self-officiate, you have more perspectives and therefore
better theoretical officiating coverage on any given play. Everyone's a
ref. It's a fantastic ideal. Maybe it has come time to give up on it.
But maybe not!
There are other ways to motivate players to learn the rules besides
having refs. For example, you could have much harsher penalties for
being wrong about the rules. Perhaps you could institute a rule that
says if there's a disagreement about a rule on the field, the player
who, after looking it up, is wrong, is not eligible to play for the rest
of the game. It doesn't even have to be in the rulebook. It could be
something that only applies to UPA championship series events.
There are currently no explicit penalties for players who are ignorant
of the rules.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86108 is a reply to message #86027] |
Sat, 15 January 2011 11:12 |
Alex Howlett
Messages: 10
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
> bzzzzt, pure speculation. either way, how the rule enforcement is
> applied is more important that the players knowledge of the
> rules........cause, you know, with refs there to tell em when they
> broke the rules, and then apply behavior changing penalties, THEY'LL
> LEARN!!!!!
Of course it's speculation. Did you think I was trying to convince you
that I was some kind of time traveler from the future come back to warn
you about the dangers of refs? Of course I agree with you that in the
context of refs, rule enforcement is more important than player
knowledge. But obviously, if we don't have refs, then the two are
inexorably linked.
You can, of course, have behavior-changing penalties without adding
refs. Just have a rule that says there's a penalty for being wrong
about a rule. Even with a refs a penalty for not knowing the rules
could potentially be more valuable than a penalty for breaking the rules.
> Then it will trickle down to the lower-level tournaments because
>> people tend to be more likely to trust calls made by the best players.
>
> so lets start reffing at the youth level first?
What about at the pickup level?
> uhmmmm, do other sports have chaos?
The universe is chaos. Also, have you seen water polo?
> when did i say it wouldn't effect most players? i think it would, and
> SHOULD effect EVERYONE.......only in a very positive way.
I think it would and should affect everyone too. However, I do seem to
remember you mentioning something about how people who only play Ow My
Knee shouldn't care about the refs debate. If it affects everyone,
everyone has a right to care and nobody's opinion can be discredited
simply because they don't compete in tournaments where refs would
potentially be used.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86109 is a reply to message #86108] |
Sat, 15 January 2011 11:24 |
Alex Howlett
Messages: 10
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 1/15/2011 2:12 PM, Suncho wrote:
[SNIP]
>> when did i say it wouldn't effect most players? i think it would, and
>> SHOULD effect EVERYONE.......only in a very positive way.
>
> I think it would and should affect everyone too. However, I do seem to
> remember you mentioning something about how people who only play Ow My
> Knee shouldn't care about the refs debate. If it affects everyone,
> everyone has a right to care and nobody's opinion can be discredited
> simply because they don't compete in tournaments where refs would
> potentially be used.
Oh umm... my initial post was in response to Handy. He's the one who
was talking about Ow My Knee. I never claimed you said anything, except
in the above paragraph, and that was because you tricked me. ;)
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86110 is a reply to message #86106] |
Sat, 15 January 2011 13:11 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 15, 1:50 pm, Suncho <stu...@fake.email> wrote:
> On 1/14/2011 4:12 AM, Joe wrote:
>
> I think everyone agrees that a serious lack of rules knowledge by
> players is a real problem in ultimate today.
so does NOBODY think allowing them(rules) to be partially applied is
as just as big, IF NOT BIGGER, of a problem as rules knowledge?????
-------------------------------------------------
The way I see it, there
> are two possible paths to a solution:
only two?
---------------------------------
>
> 1. Bringing in refs, of course, would make it so players in the reffed
> games wouldn't have to know the rules in order for those particular
> games to be properly regulated.
your ringt,(sarcasm) people dont need to know the rules to know how to
PLAY a game/sport.......they just need to know them if they are gonna
self regulate a sport......or officiate it
also, its just as much of the game management aspect that players suck
at as the rule enforcement part. think of the officiation process as
a service.
--------------------------------------------------------
Players still have to know the rules if
> they wanted to avoid calls etc. But the game as whole would be sound.
> This is assuming, of course, that we live in a perfect world where the
> refs actually know the rules and always have best perspective.
why does it have to be perfect for us to have refs......it sure aint
the fuck perfect now and people still buy into sotg
------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Simplifying the rules and reducing redundancy would give more players
> a fighting chance to actually understand them.
how ironic is it that THATS EXACTLY WHAT ADDING REFS DOES. this is
one of the aspects one first notices when watching a uoa observers
game.
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Right now, with 11th
> edition, there's some bloat in there. Also, there are certain rules
> that can only be enforced by "observers" or "event organizers". Why
> can't players call time violations?
word
------------------------
If a player has a stopwatch and he
> announces it to the other team, why can't he call a 70-second violation
> on a time out?
and with technology what it is today.......
---------------------------------
>
> If players self-officiate, you have more perspectives and therefore
> better theoretical officiating coverage on any given play. Everyone's a
> ref.
BUT, everyone is also a PLAYER. and i'd venture to say that the vast
majority of PLAYERS have a higher level of loyalty toward their own
team than making all calls as if they were impartial. so theres a
fundamental flaw going in that people dont seem willing to address
---------------------------------------------------
> It's a fantastic ideal.
eh, maybe on a purely participatory level but once ya start getting
into promotion, exposure, marketing, and image its a whole different
ball game. ya cant be basing a sport around some idealistic hippy
mantra (sotg).
---------------------------------------
Maybe it has come time to give up on it.
> But maybe not!
how about lets just give up on being COMPLETELY INTOLERANT of refs in
this sport. at least as far as usau policy is concerned
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are other ways to motivate players to learn the rules besides
> having refs. For example, you could have much harsher penalties for
> being wrong about the rules.
one step forwards, two steps back
------------------------------
Perhaps you could institute a rule that
> says if there's a disagreement about a rule on the field, the player
> who, after looking it up,
HAHAHAHAHAHA.......thats pure gold
----------------------------------
is wrong, is not eligible to play for the rest
> of the game. It doesn't even have to be in the rulebook. It could be
> something that only applies to UPA championship series events.
but now you are just trying to reinvent the wheel. its obvious
observers are the current answer......its all just a matter of
"empowered" you want them to be. "player controled" = player
managed......so, this is what you'll get.
my thinking is......shit, if ya got em out there as observers put em
to work and make em earn their money and make the calls, manage ALL
time constraints, etc. I'd even have them keep the score (flip the
score board) in between each point)........unless you have the
manpower and or are gonna speed shit up and reduce the time between
points to around 45 secs
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
>
> There are currently no explicit penalties for players who are ignorant
> of the rules.
how can there be.......when the people assesing them play for "the
other team". c'mon man.......take a step or two back and take a good
hard look at how stupid the notion of self officiating a competitive
sport really is.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86111 is a reply to message #86108] |
Sat, 15 January 2011 13:24 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 15, 2:12 pm, Suncho <stu...@fake.email> wrote:
>
> Of course it's speculation. Did you think I was trying to convince you
> that I was some kind of time traveler from the future come back to warn
> you about the dangers of refs?
you were tryin to say somthin
-------------------------------------
Of course I agree with you that in the
> context of refs, rule enforcement is more important than player
> knowledge. But obviously, if we don't have refs, then the two are
> inexorably linked.
so all we have to do is get refs then, right? problems solved!
----------------------------------------------
>
> You can, of course, have behavior-changing penalties without adding
> refs. Just have a rule that says there's a penalty for being wrong
> about a rule. Even with a refs a penalty for not knowing the rules
> could potentially be more valuable than a penalty for breaking the rules.
so what if the other teams applies a harsh penalty (what are you
suggestiong? foul limmit? penalty box?) that you and your team
disagree with? what recourse will you have?
-------------------------------------------------
>
> > so lets start reffing at the youth level first?
>
> What about at the pickup level?
thats a good starting point too. ive been urging people for decades
to ref their pick up games.
------------------------------------------------------
>
> > uhmmmm, do other sports have chaos?
>
> The universe is chaos. Also, have you seen water polo?
sorry, but there is nuthing chaotic about nfl officiation and game
management. its like a symphony to me. now watching ultimate played
in a self officiated manner (especially because its so spread
out......unlike b-ball) is chaotic
as for water polo......i dont reqally try to see water polo so i dont
know what you are talking about. ive seen it bet that has little to
do with the concept of refs reffin sports making them have more
continuity.......as i would assume refs are intragrel to water polo
too
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
>
> > when did i say it wouldn't effect most players? i think it would, and
> > SHOULD effect EVERYONE.......only in a very positive way.
>
> I think it would and should affect everyone too. However, I do seem to
> remember you mentioning something about how people who only play Ow My
> Knee shouldn't care about the refs debate.
well, those that refuse to use refs due to deep dogmatic beliefs
probably dont care.
-------------------------------------------------------
If it affects everyone,
> everyone has a right to care and nobody's opinion can be discredited
> simply because they don't compete in tournaments where refs would
> potentially be used.
i dont dispute that
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86123 is a reply to message #86051] |
Sat, 15 January 2011 20:20 |
wuzandfuzz
Messages: 186
Registered: July 2010 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I've been thinking about legitimacy/stigma, and how it applies to officiation. For a second, let's assume people think ultimate is a wimp, hippie sport. When I ask my peers, some think it is, some don't. In any case, why is it a wimp hippie sport? I am not sure that it is officiation. For people who have not seen the game, I think they assume there are no refs, then it's just a friendly game, or they assume I'm a guy playing a gym class game in a league, like the guys that play whiffleball or kickball competitively. So, sure, if you haven't seen a game, that stigma certainly sticks that there are no refs. That's why I almost think referees are a precondition to legitimacy, but I'm not sure.
However, if you've seen it, I'm not convinced that people would ever think differently, even with referees. The game definitely lacks a whole lot of advantage for upper body strength (other than for top speed). I think this is a big part of marketability for Americans. They sign up to see Blake Griffin or Lebron rip a monster dunk, or see Marshawn Lynch blow through 8 guys for a TD. They want to see the fucking thunderdome out there, with supermen doing battle. Why do you think ultimate fighting was so successful?
Sure, other sports sell in different ways. Baseball mostly sells tradition as opposed to physicality, and skateboarding sells a lifestyle more than anything at all, really. However, ultimate cannot rely on either of these for legitimacy. I think that making the game more physical, like allowing more contact, might help more than a ref would. (This change could also necessitate a ref) Maybe this is just coming from a bigger guy who feels like he's walking on friggin eggshells out there with skinnier dudes that seem unafraid of contact, but maybe it's an idea?
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86145 is a reply to message #86123] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 06:36 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 15, 11:25 pm, paul <elephantvor...@gmail.com> wrote:.
> I've been thinking about legitimacy/stigma, and how it
> applies to officiation. For a second, let's assume people
> think ultimate is a wimp, hippie sport.
that wont be hard to do
-----------------------------------------
When I ask my
> peers, some think it is, some don't. In any case, why is it
> a wimp hippie sport?
all the spirity/honor overemphisis. i mean, for a SPORT to be at the
point wher they make it a point NOT to integrate refs????? and do so
because of some kind of goal of that asopect of the sport making the
players more pious????? YOU GUYS MIGHT AS WELL NOT BE KEEPING SCORE
WHILE YOUR AT IT.
--------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure that it is officiation.
> For people who have not seen the game,
WELL LETS WORKSHP IT AND FIND OUT FOR SURE
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think they assume
> there are no refs, then it's just a friendly game,
now why would they assume such a thing???? maybe cause its true? and
if ALL GAMES ARE INTENTIONALLY REFLESS, wouldnt it also be safe to
assume that the whole sport was "friendly", wimpy, hippyish????
ever herd the phrase "perception IS reality"?
------------------------------------------
or they
> assume I'm a guy playing a gym class game in a league, like
> the guys that play whiffleball or kickball competitively.
bingo!!!
----------------------------------------------
> So, sure, if you haven't seen a game, that stigma certainly
> sticks that there are no refs. That's why I almost think
> referees are a precondition to legitimacy, but I'm not
> sure.
they ARE.......AND FOR VERY GOOD REASON. ever herd the phrase "things
work for a reason"? well guess what, "things also DONT work for a
reason".......and sotg seems to have a number of said
reasons........while traditional 3rd party officiation has a number of
reasons why it DOES work. ITS JUST UP TO YOU SPIRIT ZEALOTS TO TAKE
YOUR HEADS OUT YOUR ASSES AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FUCK THOSE THINGS
ARE,
lemme help ya get started........ALLOWING PARTIAL OPPONENTS TO
SIMUTAINIOUSLY ACT AS IMPARTIAL OFFICIALS DOES NOT WORK!!!!
anoter hint.......if ya want to know what DOES work tune into espn any
givin day
---------------------------------------------------
>
> However, if you've seen it, I'm not convinced that people
> would ever think differently, even with referees.
you dont unh? the please explain why EVERY OTHER SPORT HAS REFS. or,
just set up a couple games sise by side.....one thats fully reffed and
the other pick up and get a control group to remark on the two
versions and report and "different thoughts" they might have on the
two presentations?
but, are you saying the same would hold true for b-ball? in that
people dont "think differently" about pick up ball in the park as
opposed to an official refereed game? if not then how do you explain
that refs are presnent in anything thats considered an "OFFICIAL
GAME"........while absent in anything that isnt considered "official
comp"?????
-----------------------------------------------------------
The game
> definitely lacks a whole lot of advantage for upper body
> strength (other than for top speed). I think this is a big
> part of marketability for Americans. They sign up to see
> Blake Griffin or Lebron rip a monster dunk, or see Marshawn
> Lynch blow through 8 guys for a TD. They want to see the
> fucking thunderdome out there, with supermen doing battle.
> Why do you think ultimate fighting was so successful?
do you have a point here?
---------------------------------------------------
>
> Sure, other sports sell in different ways. Baseball mostly
> sells tradition as opposed to physicality, and skateboarding
> sells a lifestyle more than anything at all, really.
still, when it comes down to attracting any kind of fanfare its the
overall presentation that will make or break a sports potential of
"selling". and if it "sells" then its considered legit. most sports
do whatever they can to maximize that "sellability" while some dont
have to because they have a built in tradition that dosnent require
them to make such consessions (like baseball with their refusal to
incorporate IR). ultimate dosent have that luxury so it would behove
the sport to conform to the sports norms (like saoccer and lax have
here in america). WHATS CRAZY TO ME, AND MOST NORMAL FOLK is how the
fuck using refs would be percieved as a "consession".........when its
actually an enhancement. i guess the same things thats going on with
baseballs refusal to use IR is the same kinda stupidity that prevents
ultimates leaders from adopting refs
----------------------------------------------------
> However, ultimate cannot rely on either of these for
> legitimacy. I think that making the game more physical, like
> allowing more contact, might help more than a ref would.
but wouldnt more contact just require refs even more? what you should
do here is "retrace your footsteps" so to speak and see just exactly
where OTHER SPORTS got to the point in which there 3rd party
officiation became intragrel to the presentations of their repective
sports.
------------------------------------------------------------ --
> (This change could also necessitate a ref) Maybe this is
> just coming from a bigger guy who feels like he's walking on
> friggin eggshells out there with skinnier dudes that seem
> unafraid of contact, but maybe it's an idea?
how is this any different from shaq being on the same court as rondo?
either way, even if you are the same size THE CONTACT THATS ALLOWED
HAS TO BE REGULATED BY SOMEONE THAT DOSENT HAVE A DOG IN THE
FIGHT!!!!! how is it that you cant grasp this very simple concept?
and how is it that you cant see that allowing such a conflict of
interests is only gonna result in the kind of down time (from endless
ult-debates) that would make ANY SPORT unwatchable.......and thus
perceived as NOT legit.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86147 is a reply to message #86110] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 07:22 |
Alex Howlett
Messages: 10
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 1/15/2011 4:11 PM, ulticritic wrote:
> so does NOBODY think allowing them(rules) to be partially applied is
> as just as big, IF NOT BIGGER, of a problem as rules knowledge?????
I don't understand the question.
> The way I see it, there
>> are two possible paths to a solution:
>
> only two?
At least two. You're free to suggest more. =)
>>
>> 1. Bringing in refs, of course, would make it so players in the reffed
>> games wouldn't have to know the rules in order for those particular
>> games to be properly regulated.
>
> your ringt,(sarcasm) people dont need to know the rules to know how to
> PLAY a game/sport.......they just need to know them if they are gonna
> self regulate a sport......or officiate it
Players need to know the rules because even if you have refs, not all
games will be reffed.
> also, its just as much of the game management aspect that players suck
> at as the rule enforcement part. think of the officiation process as
> a service.
Okay. I already do think of it as a service. The question is whether
it's a service we need.
> Players still have to know the rules if
>> they wanted to avoid calls etc. But the game as whole would be sound.
>> This is assuming, of course, that we live in a perfect world where the
>> refs actually know the rules and always have best perspective.
>
> why does it have to be perfect for us to have refs......it sure aint
> the fuck perfect now and people still buy into sotg
Huh? I didn't say anything has to be perfect for us to have refs. I
said the game would be perfect only if the refs were perfect.
>>
>> 2. Simplifying the rules and reducing redundancy would give more players
>> a fighting chance to actually understand them.
>
> how ironic is it that THATS EXACTLY WHAT ADDING REFS DOES. this is
> one of the aspects one first notices when watching a uoa observers
> game.
What I want to know is what happens when you take those players who are
used to playing UOA Observers games and put them back into a pickup
environment.
>> If players self-officiate, you have more perspectives and therefore
>> better theoretical officiating coverage on any given play. Everyone's a
>> ref.
>
> BUT, everyone is also a PLAYER. and i'd venture to say that the vast
> majority of PLAYERS have a higher level of loyalty toward their own
> team than making all calls as if they were impartial. so theres a
> fundamental flaw going in that people dont seem willing to address
Yeah. But, I don't think players making biased calls is nearly as big
of a problem as players making the wrong calls based on ignorance of the
rules.
> > It's a fantastic ideal.
>
> eh, maybe on a purely participatory level but once ya start getting
> into promotion, exposure, marketing, and image its a whole different
> ball game. ya cant be basing a sport around some idealistic hippy
> mantra (sotg).
I'm arguing about spirit of the game. I'm arguing that we shouldn't
necessarily dismiss self-officiation as being less efficient or correct
without first exploring the possibility of enhancing that aspect of the
game.
> Maybe it has come time to give up on it.
>> But maybe not!
>
> how about lets just give up on being COMPLETELY INTOLERANT of refs in
> this sport. at least as far as usau policy is concerned
Well, I don't have the power to do that. Personally, I'm not intolerant
of refs. I just think it could be possible to make the game more
intuitive and correct without them.
>> There are other ways to motivate players to learn the rules besides
>> having refs. For example, you could have much harsher penalties for
>> being wrong about the rules.
>
> one step forwards, two steps back
How so?
>> Perhaps you could institute a rule that
>> says if there's a disagreement about a rule on the field, the player
>> who, after looking it up, is wrong, is not eligible to play for the rest
>> of the game. It doesn't even have to be in the rulebook. It could be
>> something that only applies to UPA championship series events.
>
> but now you are just trying to reinvent the wheel. its obvious
> observers are the current answer......its all just a matter of
> "empowered" you want them to be. "player controled" = player
> managed......so, this is what you'll get.
>
> my thinking is......shit, if ya got em out there as observers put em
> to work and make em earn their money and make the calls, manage ALL
> time constraints, etc. I'd even have them keep the score (flip the
> score board) in between each point)........unless you have the
> manpower and or are gonna speed shit up and reduce the time between
> points to around 45 secs
You could use existing observers to implement my idea as well. You
don't have to have them make active calls. When an observer is asked to
resolve a dispute, if the dispute arose because one of the players was
mistaken about the rules, that player gets disqualified for the rest of
the game, tournament, or series (or whatever). Once it happens a few
times, players will start realizing that they have to know the rules.
And it games without observers, the rulebook could be used in place of
the observer.
Also, there would have to be a clause in there about being able to
appeal to the UPA/organizers if you think an observer made a bad rules
call that got you disqualified. If your appeal is upheld, then the
observer gets fired or retrained or whatever. That way, we have
motivation for observers to learn the rules too.
>> There are currently no explicit penalties for players who are ignorant
>> of the rules.
>
> how can there be.......when the people assesing them play for "the
> other team". c'mon man.......take a step or two back and take a good
> hard look at how stupid the notion of self officiating a competitive
> sport really is.
See above. It's sometimes (especially with refs) possible to get away
with saying "he tripped me" when he really didn't. But it's never
possible to get away with saying "the penalty for him tripping me is
that he gives me a million dollars." I take that back. It's possible
if people don't know the rules.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86151 is a reply to message #86111] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 07:34 |
Alex Howlett
Messages: 10
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 1/15/2011 4:24 PM, ulticritic wrote:
>> Of course I agree with you that in the
>> context of refs, rule enforcement is more important than player
>> knowledge. But obviously, if we don't have refs, then the two are
>> inexorably linked.
>
> so all we have to do is get refs then, right? problems solved!
Well we can't have refs in every game. So it doesn't solve the problem
of lack of player knowledge in games without refs.
>> You can, of course, have behavior-changing penalties without adding
>> refs. Just have a rule that says there's a penalty for being wrong
>> about a rule. Even with a refs a penalty for not knowing the rules
>> could potentially be more valuable than a penalty for breaking the rules.
>
> so what if the other teams applies a harsh penalty (what are you
> suggestiong? foul limmit? penalty box?) that you and your team
> disagree with? what recourse will you have?
Well, since the penalty will only be based on knowledge of the rules,
the rulebook will have final say. There's no way my team can possibly
disagree with the rulebook.
>>> so lets start reffing at the youth level first?
>>
>> What about at the pickup level?
>
> thats a good starting point too. ive been urging people for decades
> to ref their pick up games.
Interesting. Who would ref the pickup games?
> sorry, but there is nuthing chaotic about nfl officiation and game
> management. its like a symphony to me. now watching ultimate played
> in a self officiated manner (especially because its so spread
> out......unlike b-ball) is chaotic
But does the problem really lie in self officiation or does it lie in
our implemention of self officiation? Lots of team sports use refs.
Not a lot use self officiation. How do we know we're doing it right?
> well, those that refuse to use refs due to deep dogmatic beliefs
> probably dont care.
Dogmatic beliefs are dangerous. But dogmatic people generally care a
lot about the stuff they're dogmatic about. So I would think someone
who was dogmatic about not adding refs (or adding refs) would care very
deeply about this debate.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86152 is a reply to message #86123] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 10:20 |
mwitmer15
Messages: 112
Registered: May 2010
Location: Lancaster PA |
Senior Member |
|
|
"Sure, other sports sell in different ways. Baseball mostly sells tradition as opposed to physicality, and skateboarding sells a lifestyle more than anything at all, really. However, ultimate cannot rely on either of these for legitimacy. I think that making the game more physical, like allowing more contact, might help more than a ref would. (This change could also necessitate a ref) Maybe this is just coming from a bigger guy who feels like he's walking on friggin eggshells out there with skinnier dudes that seem unafraid of contact, but maybe it's an idea?"
Great ideas above! I agree that we really have to think about what we, as a sport, have to offer. I also agree that refs are probably not the determining factor. I am not going to say whether refs are or are not the right way to go. But I firmly believe that we cannot blindly just try to be more like other sports (because other sports have refs) in the hope that we'll be accepted by the mainstream. Especially in light of the already varied options of sports people can watch and participate in.
Yes people watch football for the athleticism and hard hits. But arena league football (or whatever it was called. That version that was heavily marketed a few years back as being more X-treme, more violent, etc.) was/is not very successful. Likewise, that game with the trampolines and basketball hoops (aired late at night on ESPN 2, I think) was also not successful despite refs, marketing, and airtime on major networks. And it was actually fun to watch! But a sport cannot live if it has no soul. This is why baseball and cricket, and golf, (though ridiculously boring) are still successful as mainstream sports. They have tradition, culture, and they stand for something.
This is why conversations about SOTG, our hippie culture/past etc are so important. I don't think ignoring or "overcoming" the origins of our sport is the way to go. Nor do I think we should remain stuck in the past. But I do think ultimate's history and SOTG are a part of our sports story that can't be ignored if we are to really going to move forward both authentically and legitimately.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86153 is a reply to message #86147] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 10:53 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 16, 10:22 am, Suncho <stu...@fake.email> wrote:
> On 1/15/2011 4:11 PM, ulticritic wrote:
>
> > so does NOBODY think allowing them(rules) to be partially applied is
> > as just as big, IF NOT BIGGER, of a problem as rules knowledge?????
>
> I don't understand the question.
the question is, isnt the fact that partial players are acting as
impartial refs BIGGER problem than rele knowledge?
----------------------------------------------
>
> > your ringt,(sarcasm) people dont need to know the rules to know how to
> > PLAY a game/sport.......they just need to know them if they are gonna
> > self regulate a sport......or officiate it
>
> Players need to know the rules because even if you have refs, not all
> games will be reffed.
and this is your reaoning for focusing on rule knowledge and NOT
incorporsting refs????
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > also, its just as much of the game management aspect that players suck
> > at as the rule enforcement part. think of the officiation process as
> > a service.
>
> Okay. I already do think of it as a service. The question is whether
> it's a service we need.
if you dont want players making partial judgements (which is pretty
much a built in problem) ya sure do!
------------------------------------------------------------ -----
>
> > why does it have to be perfect for us to have refs......it sure aint
> > the fuck perfect now and people still buy into sotg
>
> Huh? I didn't say anything has to be perfect for us to have refs. I
> said the game would be perfect only if the refs were perfect.
why not focus on whats the lesser of the two evils than worry about
perfection?
------------------------------------------------------------ --------
>
>
>
> >> 2. Simplifying the rules and reducing redundancy would give more players
> >> a fighting chance to actually understand them.
>
> > how ironic is it that THATS EXACTLY WHAT ADDING REFS DOES. this is
> > one of the aspects one first notices when watching a uoa observers
> > game.
>
> What I want to know is what happens when you take those players who are
> used to playing UOA Observers games and put them back into a pickup
> environment.
they adjust......duh. what the fuck do you think happens to b-ball
players that play a lot of official comp but then, during the off
season, play street ball? do you think they forget what the rules
are? or forget how to make a call?
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> If players self-officiate, you have more perspectives and therefore
> >> better theoretical officiating coverage on any given play. Everyone's a
> >> ref.
>
> > BUT, everyone is also a PLAYER. and i'd venture to say that the vast
> > majority of PLAYERS have a higher level of loyalty toward their own
> > team than making all calls as if they were impartial. so theres a
> > fundamental flaw going in that people dont seem willing to address
>
> Yeah. But, I don't think players making biased calls is nearly as big
> of a problem as players making the wrong calls based on ignorance of the
> rules.
well then you are a fool. and we can use that cheating play by JOJAH
at nationals as exibit A
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
>
> > > It's a fantastic ideal.
>
> > eh, maybe on a purely participatory level but once ya start getting
> > into promotion, exposure, marketing, and image its a whole different
> > ball game. ya cant be basing a sport around some idealistic hippy
> > mantra (sotg).
>
> I'm arguing about spirit of the game.
which is like arguing the concept of god......as both mean sothing
different to each and every peoson
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'm arguing that we shouldn't
> necessarily dismiss self-officiation as being less efficient or correct
> without first exploring the possibility of enhancing that aspect of the
> game.
isnt that an oxy moron?
----------------------------------------------
>
> > Maybe it has come time to give up on it.
> >> But maybe not!
>
> > how about lets just give up on being COMPLETELY INTOLERANT of refs in
> > this sport. at least as far as usau policy is concerned
>
> Well, I don't have the power to do that. Personally, I'm not intolerant
> of refs.
are you ok with those that represnt you being intolerant of them?
--------------------------------------------------------
I just think it could be possible to make the game more
> intuitive and correct without them.
then why hasent any other sport ben able to OR EVEN TRIED to do that.
MY FAULT.....soccer DID try to do that.......but took their heads outa
their asses after only 30 years of "chasin that dream"
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> There are other ways to motivate players to learn the rules besides
> >> having refs. For example, you could have much harsher penalties for
> >> being wrong about the rules.
>
> > one step forwards, two steps back
>
> How so?
isnt that self evident? ........WITH SELF OFFICIATION YOU ARE
RELEGATED TO THE "DO OVER" EVERY TIME
--------------------------------------------
>
> > my thinking is......shit, if ya got em out there as observers put em
> > to work and make em earn their money and make the calls, manage ALL
> > time constraints, etc. I'd even have them keep the score (flip the
> > score board) in between each point)........unless you have the
> > manpower and or are gonna speed shit up and reduce the time between
> > points to around 45 secs
>
> You could use existing observers to implement my idea as well.
BUT WHY????
---------------------------------------------
You
> don't have to have them make active calls. When an observer is asked to
> resolve a dispute, if the dispute arose because one of the players was
> mistaken about the rules, that player gets disqualified for the rest of
> the game, tournament, or series (or whatever).
AND WHO EXACTLY GET TO INTERPRET THE RULE AND decide how it gets
applied??? and how long are you gonna allow for players to stop play
and go reference, read, interpret and dispute the rule?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Once it happens a few
> times, players will start realizing that they have to know the rules.
how come this dosent work now?
-----------------------------------------------------
> And it games without observers, the rulebook could be used in place of
> the observer.
your dreamin
-------------------------------------
>
> Also, there would have to be a clause in there about being able to
> appeal to the UPA/organizers if you think an observer made a bad rules
> call that got you disqualified.
so rather than just relying on refs to handle everythign effeciently
you want to add another layer of "judging"? are these "organizers"
supposed to sit and watch every game too?
-----------------------------------------------
If your appeal is upheld, then the
> observer gets fired or retrained or whatever.
are you just making this shit up as you write?
----------------------------------------------
That way, we have
> motivation for observers to learn the rules too.
so how is this any different from regular reffing.......other than NOT
allowing the partial players to be part of the process????
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> There are currently no explicit penalties for players who are ignorant
> >> of the rules.
>
> > how can there be.......when the people assesing them play for "the
> > other team". c'mon man.......take a step or two back and take a good
> > hard look at how stupid the notion of self officiating a competitive
> > sport really is.
>
> See above. It's sometimes (especially with refs) possible to get away
> with saying "he tripped me" when he really didn't.
i didnt know that players got to appeal to refs in reffed
sports...........PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY DONT!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
But it's never
> possible to get away with saying "the penalty for him tripping me is
> that he gives me a million dollars." I take that back. It's possible
> if people don't know the rules.
THING IS, its also possibel for people to make fantom calls that NEVER
HAPPENED when ya allow players to make calls.........AND YOURE FUCKING
INSANE IF YOU THINK PEOPLE DONT DO THAT NOW.
exibit A......JOJAHS CHEATING "CATCH"
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86154 is a reply to message #86151] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 11:06 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 16, 10:34 am, Suncho <stu...@fake.email> wrote:
>
> > so all we have to do is get refs then, right? problems solved!
>
> Well we can't have refs in every game.
sais who?
-------------------------------------------
So it doesn't solve the problem
> of lack of player knowledge in games without refs.
maybe playing WITH refs in the games they do will help em know and
apply the rules better in the games they dont???
---------------------------------------------
>
> >> You can, of course, have behavior-changing penalties without adding
> >> refs. Just have a rule that says there's a penalty for being wrong
> >> about a rule. Even with a refs a penalty for not knowing the rules
> >> could potentially be more valuable than a penalty for breaking the rules.
>
> > so what if the other teams applies a harsh penalty (what are you
> > suggestiong? foul limmit? penalty box?) that you and your team
> > disagree with? what recourse will you have?
>
> Well, since the penalty will only be based on knowledge of the rules,
> the rulebook will have final say.
are you sugesting a talking rule book? dont ya have to have a person
their to interpret and apply the rule in an impartial manner? arent
these people commonly refered to as REFS in other sports.
--------------------------------------------------------
There's no way my team can possibly
> disagree with the rulebook.
ever herd of these things called lawyers? so yea, theres a whole
industry based on people disputing over how the "rule book" gets
interpreted.
are you really this fuckin naive?
-----------------------------------------------
>
> >>> so lets start reffing at the youth level first?
>
> >> What about at the pickup level?
>
> > thats a good starting point too. ive been urging people for decades
> > to ref their pick up games.
>
> Interesting. Who would ref the pickup games?
the people that are taking a sub.......duh
------------------------------------------------------------ --
>
> > sorry, but there is nuthing chaotic about nfl officiation and game
> > management. its like a symphony to me. now watching ultimate played
> > in a self officiated manner (especially because its so spread
> > out......unlike b-ball) is chaotic
>
> But does the problem really lie in self officiation or does it lie in
> our implemention of self officiation?
both.....its a basic conflict of interests. lets put it this way, if
you were going to trial for some legal issue you were involved in how
would you feel if the judge was directly related to the person you are
having the dispute with? or if the attorny defending your opponent
also served as the judge?
do you even remotely understand the law industry?
----------------------------------------------------
Lots of team sports use refs.
> Not a lot use self officiation. How do we know we're doing it right?
try comparing what you are doing to how established sports do
it........compare and contrast and even experiment. mainy you USE A
LITTLE FUCKING COMMON SENSE THOUGH.
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > well, those that refuse to use refs due to deep dogmatic beliefs
> > probably dont care.
>
> Dogmatic beliefs are dangerous.
WHAT IN THE FUCK DO YOU THINK SOTG IS????
----------------------------------------------
But dogmatic people generally care a
> lot about the stuff they're dogmatic about. So I would think someone
> who was dogmatic about not adding refs (or adding refs) would care very
> deeply about this debate.
for most there is no need for debate.......but for most, people in
general dont conflate their sports with their spiritual beliefs. its
like seperation of church and state...........in that the same should
(and doers for most people) apply for the seperation of church and
sport
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86155 is a reply to message #86152] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 11:32 |
wuzandfuzz
Messages: 186
Registered: July 2010 |
Senior Member |
|
|
"Yes people watch football for the athleticism and hard hits. But arena league football (or whatever it was called. That version that was heavily marketed a few years back as being more X-treme, more violent, etc.) was/is not very successful. Likewise, that game with the trampolines and basketball hoops (aired late at night on ESPN 2, I think) was also not successful despite refs, marketing, and airtime on major networks."
Ah yes, the XFL. It was marketed as a return to "smashmouth football". It was marketed by the guys behind the WWF, and was not intended to be a sport, more spectacle. I bin it with the LFL, as it's not really competition and more wrestling. I'm not saying we need to punch each other out there, more that some additional contact could potentially help a pro/ncaa product.
I completely agree that a sport requires some type of soul, or "real-ness" that fans can get misty-eyed over to be successful. But to me, many of the SOTG clauses are just sportsmanship, and some happen to be very difficult to reconcile with really wanting to win. (No taunting???? There's an entire network (ESPN) that butters it's bread just by covering guys taunting each other off the field)
However, if SOTG must survive In a refereed/televised era, I think spirit could be reconciled with needing high-quality referees by allowing the players to put down the disc if a ref misses a foul. To me, this demonstration is the pinnacle of spirit here, willing to admit you are wrong when you KNOW you are wrong. You never see basketball or football players give up the ball, this could be a highly symbolic holdover.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86156 is a reply to message #86152] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 11:48 |
ulticritic
Messages: 8204
Registered: April 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jan 16, 1:25 pm, Melissa Witmer <mjwit...@hacc.edu> wrote:
> "Sure, other sports sell in different ways. Baseball mostly
> sells tradition as opposed to physicality,
hasent the recent steroid history shown us that its the home run that
really sells that sport........and how is that not physical. also,
baseballs days of relying on "tradition" are numbered. and they will
sonn be with their old partners boxing and horse racing if they dont
make changes to their format. which includes making adjustments like
IR, fewer night time playoff games, and other stuff the herd talks
about on his radio show
--------------------------------------------------------
and skateboarding
> sells a lifestyle more than anything at all, really.
> However, ultimate cannot rely on either of these for
> legitimacy. I think that making the game more physical, like
> allowing more contact, might help more than a ref would.
pad up then.......full contact ulti........been screamin it for years
-----------------------------------------------
> (This change could also necessitate a ref) Maybe this is
> just coming from a bigger guy who feels like he's walking on
> friggin eggshells out there with skinnier dudes that seem
> unafraid of contact, but maybe it's an idea?"
>
> Great ideas above! I agree that we really have to think
> about what we, as a sport, have to offer.
to who, spectators or players. as for players all you have to offer
is a pick up sport thats a form of "kids play" for adults. for
spectators you OFFER NUTHIN
-----------------------------------------------
I also agree that
> refs are probably not the determining factor.
I'D BET IF YA TOOK EM OUT OF PRO SPORTS THEY WOULD BE THE DETERMINING
FACTOR FOR THOSE SPORTS TANKING
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
I am not going
> to say whether refs are or are not the right way to go.
why? dont want to take a stand? rock the boat? would you say
whether other sports GETTING RID OF REFS is or isnt the "right way to
go"? maybe we should INQUIRE with the GOVERNING BODY of a sport that
does currently use them regularly?
i mean, isnt this like saying "i'm not going to say whether a
municiple police force in my community is or isnt the right way to
go"?
WHAT FUCKING PLANET DI YOU PEOPLE COME FROM.
i will add though, that maybe if you were less IGNORANT of how refs
would work in ultimate (after extensive reaserch) ya might be able to
"say"
------------------------------------------------------------ --------
But
> I firmly believe that we cannot blindly just try to be more
> like other sports (because other sports have refs) in the
> hope that we'll be accepted by the mainstream.
how is it blind if you are using models that have already proven to be
succesful. if anything its the sotg system that is reliant on blind
faith.
AND, if ya want proof of a sport that tried and FAILED with an honor
system integrated into the rules and management process LOOK NO
FURTHER THAN SOCCER.......as it started out as an intentionally
reffless sport.........YET FAILED
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
Especially
> in light of the already varied options of sports people can
> watch and participate in.
so why not allow those same "varied options" with the way ultumate is
played? why hold it hostage in this manner?
------------------------------------
>
> Yes people watch football for the athleticism and hard hits.
> But arena league football (or whatever it was called. That
> version that was heavily marketed a few years back as being
> more X-treme, more violent, etc.) was/is not very
> successful.
so? i'd say thats more because of the fact that nfl and ncaa football
already have the market saturated......AND they put out such a
superior product that people have little intrest in an inferior
version.
---------------------------------------------------
Likewise, that game with the trampolines and
> basketball hoops (aired late at night on ESPN 2, I think)
> was also not successful despite refs, marketing, and airtime
> on major networks.
hey idiot......REFS ARENT A GIMICK.....they ar an intragrel part of
ANY SPORTS COMPETITION/PRESENTATION. so for ultimate they WOULD be a
gimmick just so that ultimate can get out of the hippy reputation
'PIT' that its in.
think of it as the idea of keeping score. lets just say for the sake
of argument that you ultimate kooks were SO SPIRITY that you refused
to keep score (so that there would never be a loser)........and you
felt there was still alot of value in the entertainment aspect of the
game none the less. thing is, people are accustom to knowing the
score and seeing the teams compete to see who scores the most. same
holds true for the rule enforcement and game management aspect. we,
AS SPORTS FANS, have certian EXPECTATIONS when it comes to our sports
entertainment. and asking people to invest (our time) into a sport
that dosent use refs (but rather the partial players) is just as CRAZY
as watching a sport that dosent keep score.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----
And it was actually fun to watch! But a
> sport cannot live if it has no soul.
what the fuck does that even mean?
------------------------------------------
This is why baseball
> and cricket, and golf, (though ridiculously boring) are
> still successful as mainstream sports. They have tradition,
> culture, and they stand for something.
and they will be six feet under like horse racing and boxing if they
dont adjust to the new culture. just in case ya didnt know, back in
the day, the"big three" WERE baseball, boxing and horse racing.
i dont hink you know wha the fuck you are talking about here.
------------------------------------------------------------ -
>
> This is why conversations about SOTG, our hippie
> culture/past etc are so important.
i agree......as long as those conversations lead to sotgs demise
-----------------------------------------
I don't think ignoring
> or "overcoming" the origins of our sport is the way to go.
thats because you are an emotionaly attatched sz with no clue of how
the "big boy" sports world works
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
> Nor do I think we should remain stuck in the past.
well, ya cant have it both ways
-------------------------------------------
But I do
> think ultimate's history and SOTG are a part of our sports
> story that can't be ignored
then neither shoulf the allowances that tolerated the use of refs that
was present in the first SEVEN EDITIONS OF THE RULES. how can you
pick and choose whioch parts of ultimate history to preserve
-------------------------------------------------
if we are to really going to
> move forward both authentically and legitimately.
sorry but you cant simultainiously evolve while also preserving.
what am i even doing arguing sports with a woman........dont you have
a sanwich to go make or somthing.
|
|
|
| Re: Refs. USAU Polls, and "Sport Legitimacy [message #86157 is a reply to message #86153] |
Sun, 16 January 2011 12:02 |
Alex Howlett
Messages: 10
Registered: March 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 1/16/2011 1:53 PM, ulticritic wrote:
> the question is, isnt the fact that partial players are acting as
> impartial refs BIGGER problem than rele knowledge?
No. The rules are impartial and most of the problems I see with calls
in games have to do with misunderstanding the rules. Sure partiality
has an influence, but it's not the big problem.
>>> your ringt,(sarcasm) people dont need to know the rules to know how to
>>> PLAY a game/sport.......they just need to know them if they are gonna
>>> self regulate a sport......or officiate it
>>
>> Players need to know the rules because even if you have refs, not all
>> games will be reffed.
>
> and this is your reaoning for focusing on rule knowledge and NOT
> incorporsting refs????
No. I'm just saying refs don't solve the problem.
>>> also, its just as much of the game management aspect that players suck
>>> at as the rule enforcement part. think of the officiation process as
>>> a service.
>>
>> Okay. I already do think of it as a service. The question is whether
>> it's a service we need.
>
> if you dont want players making partial judgements (which is pretty
> much a built in problem) ya sure do!
I don't think we have much of a problem with players making partial
judgments. We have more of a problem with players making misinformed
judgments because they don't know the rules.
> why not focus on whats the lesser of the two evils than worry about
> perfection?
I'm not focusing on perfection. I was just reminding you that refs
aren't going to make the game perfect, if that's what you were hoping.
What are your two evils? Why do there have to be any evils?
>> What I want to know is what happens when you take those players who are
>> used to playing UOA Observers games and put them back into a pickup
>> environment.
>
> they adjust......duh. what the fuck do you think happens to b-ball
> players that play a lot of official comp but then, during the off
> season, play street ball? do you think they forget what the rules
> are? or forget how to make a call?
In what way do they adjust? If they don't know how to make a call now,
what makes you think they'll know later?
>> Yeah. But, I don't think players making biased calls is nearly as big
>> of a problem as players making the wrong calls based on ignorance of the
>> rules.
>
> well then you are a fool. and we can use that cheating play by JOJAH
> at nationals as exibit A
Well the players I play with don't tend to cheat, so I'm not as
concerned about that.
>>> > It's a fantastic ideal.
>>
>>> eh, maybe on a purely participatory level but once ya start getting
>>> into promotion, exposure, marketing, and image its a whole different
>>> ball game. ya cant be basing a sport around some idealistic hippy
>>> mantra (sotg).
>>
>> I'm arguing about spirit of the game.
>
> which is like arguing the concept of god......as both mean sothing
> different to each and every peoson
Exactly. That was supposed to read, "I'm not arguing about spirit of
the game." It's pretty pointless to do so. I don't know why you
brought up spirit of the game.
> I'm arguing that we shouldn't
>> necessarily dismiss self-officiation as being less efficient or correct
>> without first exploring the possibility of enhancing that aspect of the
>> game.
>
> isnt that an oxy moron?
Is what an oxymoron? Which two terms are contradicting?
>>> how about lets just give up on being COMPLETELY INTOLERANT of refs in
>>> this sport. at least as far as usau policy is concerned
>>
>> Well, I don't have the power to do that. Personally, I'm not intolerant
>> of refs.
>
> are you ok with those that represnt you being intolerant of them?
I'd prefer them to be open-minded and not to be dogmatic.
>> I just think it could be possible to make the game more
>> intuitive and correct without them.
>
> then why hasent any other sport ben able to OR EVEN TRIED to do that.
> MY FAULT.....soccer DID try to do that.......but took their heads outa
> their asses after only 30 years of "chasin that dream"
I don't think the fact that other sports do something a certain way
necessarily means we should. If it did, we would all be playing those
other sports.
>>>> There are other ways to motivate players to learn the rules besides
>>>> having refs. For example, you could have much harsher penalties for
>>>> being wrong about the rules.
>>
>>> one step forwards, two steps back
>>
>> How so?
>
> isnt that self evident? ........WITH SELF OFFICIATION YOU ARE
> RELEGATED TO THE "DO OVER" EVERY TIME
What's the one step forward and what are the two steps back?
>>> my thinking is......shit, if ya got em out there as observers put em
>>> to work and make em earn their money and make the calls, manage ALL
>>> time constraints, etc. I'd even have them keep the score (flip the
>>> score board) in between each point)........unless you have the
>>> manpower and or are gonna speed shit up and reduce the time between
>>> points to around 45 secs
>>
>> You could use existing observers to implement my idea as well.
>
> BUT WHY????
my thinking is......shit, if ya got em out there as observers put em
to work and make em earn their money
>> You
>> don't have to have them make active calls. When an observer is asked to
>> resolve a dispute, if the dispute arose because one of the players was
>> mistaken about the rules, that player gets disqualified for the rest of
>> the game, tournament, or series (or whatever).
>
>
> AND WHO EXACTLY GET TO INTERPRET THE RULE AND decide how it gets
> applied??? and how long are you gonna allow for players to stop play
> and go reference, read, interpret and dispute the rule?
The rules are not open to interpretation. I think if you have harsh
penalties for getting the rules wrong, you're either going to learn them
or shut up and believe what the other players say. Play would not be
held up very often.
>> Once it happens a few
>> times, players will start realizing that they have to know the rules.
>
> how come this dosent work now?
Because there's no penalty for not knowing the rules. I know a lot of
times I don't make certain basic procedural calls because I'm afraid of
being accused of having bad spirit. This Summer, I had a guy refuse to
tap the disc to the ground to put it into play. He just stood there
yelling at me and asking me to tap it in his hand, which of course, is
illegal. If I could have gotten my rulebook, he would have been kicked
out of the game and no more disruptions.
>> And it games without observers, the rulebook could be used in place of
>> the observer.
>
> your dreamin
I have a dream.
>> Also, there would have to be a clause in there about being able to
>> appeal to the UPA/organizers if you think an observer made a bad rules
>> call that got you disqualified.
>
> so rather than just relying on refs to handle everythign effeciently
> you want to add another layer of "judging"? are these "organizers"
> supposed to sit and watch every game too?
>> If your appeal is upheld, then the
>> observer gets fired or retrained or whatever.
>
> are you just making this shit up as you write?
Yes. I'm brainstorming. Is that a problem?
>> That way, we have
>> motivation for observers to learn the rules too.
>
> so how is this any different from regular reffing.......other than NOT
> allowing the partial players to be part of the process????
If the official is not allowed to make any kind of active calls and is
only there to solve rule disputes, then the players still have to work
together to make sure the game is played properly. I can punch a guy in
the nuts and I might get away with it if the ref doesn't see it and I'm
a good enough actor. But if I punch a guy in the nuts and we're self
officiated, he's going to call a foul on me.
>> See above. It's sometimes (especially with refs) possible to get away
>> with saying "he tripped me" when he really didn't.
>
> i didnt know that players got to appeal to refs in reffed
> sports...........PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY DONT!!!!
They can act.
> THING IS, its also possibel for people to make fantom calls that NEVER
> HAPPENED when ya allow players to make calls.........AND YOURE FUCKING
> INSANE IF YOU THINK PEOPLE DONT DO THAT NOW.
>
> exibit A......JOJAHS CHEATING "CATCH"
Well the people I play with generally don't cheat. But I believe that
it happens sometimes. I don't know if having refs would solve the
cheating problem. Instead of making "cheating" calls, it'll be more
about what you can get away with that the refs don't catch. This is how
it is in other sports. Cheating essentially becomes part of the game.
There will be cheating whether we have refs or not, but I think if we
have refs, players will feel less guilty about cheating.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 19 20:52:56 PDT 2013
|
] 
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
