Trying to save your inboxes by replying to several posts at once. Jo Thompson Wrote: > To look at other sports is not a bad idea as Jon Palmer claims in this > instance as by and large the referees are professional and even here the > referees do not always make the 'correct' decision. While the nature of > fouls and advantages is different the principal is surely the same?
Tony Hutton wrote: > Without observers the team that have had the shitty call made > against them still have the chance to counteract the shitty call > when the disc is sent back. Observers however would remove that > chance as the decision will be made one way or the other. Tony that just isn't the way that observers have to be used. Just because an observer is called in doesn't mean they have to make a call, if they didn't see the play or can't agree on the play then they simply let the contest stand and the disc goes back. This can never be any worse than playing without observers. One of the features of ultimate is that possession is clearly defined and so at every point it the game it is ALWAYS possible to send the disc back and play it again. The reason that comparisons to other sports are weak is that in most sports possession is not clearly defined and it is hard to redo the play. For example it is not realistic for a football referee to rule: "Sorry Mr. Owen I wasn't able to see the supposed penalty, if you'd all like to setup as you were before hand running at full sprint on the break, play that pinpoint cross, perform the triple step over nutmeg and try to score again, we'll see what happens." However in many sports at various times possession is well defined and it is common to "send it back" and run the play again. In the lower levels of various racket sports it is not unusual for games to be played with no umpires or line judges. Possession (i.e. serve) is well defined. The players are responsible for making their own line calls, in the result of a disagreement the point is played again as a let. In football possession on a free kick is well defined. A free kick that is taken from the wrong place (ultimate equivalent: travel) has to be retaken, if the defending wall encroaches within 10 yards (ultimate equivalent: moving before the disc is in) the kick is retaken. In rugby it is common for a referee to order a scrum (were possession is again well defined) to be retaken when they can not see which side is at fault for collapsing/wheeling the scrum (ultimate equivalent: contested foul/observers didn't see the call - send it back). Good observers will not make calls on plays that they can not see/can not agree upon. Sending the disc back might not be the optimal call but it can never be the 'wrong' call. Ben Mitchell Wrote: > Furthermore, I know highly spirited (and very > competitive) Ultimate players that approach other sports very differently > when there is a referee present. I once had to referee a football match of > Ultimate players - it was ugly! So we agree that it is not that it is not that ultimate players aren't cheaters or that "most numpties give the sport a wide berth" (Benji Heywwood) but more that ultimate players become cheaters/numpties when they play other sports but not when they play ultimate. Why is this? I believe it is because in other sports it is easy to cheat and get away with it and the advantage to be gained by cheating is large. The same can not be said for ultimate. Due to our unique combination that each player on the pitch being able to make a call and the well defined sense of possession we can always send the disc back. Thus it is much harder to cheat in ultimate and the advantage to be gained by doing so is small. Good observers make it even harder to cheat and the advantage even smaller. JP __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
