Re: [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)

[Olivier Cassart]

Yes, it is important to know the rules well, and that is why there is a
good tool for that after reading the rules..., it is the WFDF rules
accrediation system.

I also find it shocking that some players at the highest level do not know
the rules well enough, but I find it more shocking that some players who
know the rules really well, use and get around those rules in their
advantage.
I rather prefer a player who doesn't know perfectly the rules, but who
respects the physical integrity of his/her opponents, the speed of the
count, the distance between the offensive and the defensive players, the
really simple off-side rule, ... etc, in short, the SOTG !

I realise that the SOTG is often better in a game of 12 years kids who
don't know the rules really well, but who understand what SOTG and
fair-play mean, than in an elite game with experienced adults...

To know the rules is really important, but *to respect the rules and the
spirit of the rules* is, IMO, more important to avoid the "need" of
third-parties.
And that respect is in the hands of all the teams, all the players, all the
captains and SOTG captains, and should never be in the hands of advisors or
other external supervisors.

All the national federations may take some decisions to explain to some
players or clubs, that they have to improve their SOTG, otherwise, some
penalizations could be apply, even if the national federations would prefer
to avoid penalizations.
This can be another good tool to give responsibility to the clubs and
players on their general responsibilities, and so to hope to avoid the use
of advisors or whatever third-parties in the future.

Olivier


2018-02-22 13:30 GMT+01:00 Patrick van der Valk <
patr...@patrickvandervalk.com>:

> All, ​I am also not a fan of GA's but some of the arguments are just not
> correct.
>
>
> > Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother
> stole your candy and asking her to sort it out.
>
>
> No, it is asking your mum what she saw and what the rules of the house
> are. Was your brother allowed to take your candy? Did she see him eat your
> candy? Then you can decide to beat him up if you want to ;-)
>
>
> GA's give you their insight on what they saw, and GA's are there to tell
> you what the rules are. Especially the latter is something that is the
> responsibility of the players! I find it shocking to sometimes see
> that players are playing top level and do not know the rules well enough.
> If you think about Spirit, rules knowledge is one of the key elements. If
> players do not take that seriously and start to call things because they
> *think* they are making the right call, that is when things escalate and
> that is when a GA is a good option.
>
>
> *If you really don't want GA's, make sure players know the rules! *Spirit
> scores over the last 5 years show me that most teams are fair-minded. So IF
> those two are covered we don't really need GA's. Having another person's
> perspective is a good-to-have, but we all have teammates and opponents
> who can also help with perspective.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need GA's but let's be clear, they
> are not Observer-types who give yellow cards and make their call count.
> Players continue to make the decisions.
>
>
> Just my $0.02
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
> --
> *From:* EuroDisc  on behalf of
> Roger van Swaay 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:24 AM
> *To:* eurodisc@ira.uni-karlsruhe.de
> *Subject:* [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)
>
>
> Can you agree, that in a game of Ultimate, MAKING A CALL, and RESOLVING A
> CALL, each have unique meaning and implications?
>
> Try this: Imagine a new type of "Game Police", who's role is to MAKE
> CALLS, but who requires the decision-making (resolving) to be made by the
> players. What would it look like?
>
> Resolving the call with your opponent means you need to have dialogue,
> listen, respect, and trust his/her's decision. If you turn to an advisor,
> you are effectively removing **the need** for the former, and ultimately,
> the trust you originally placed in your opponent. Removing **the need**
> is enough to spoil SOTG, because it is in stressful and pivotal situations
> that the best spirit is shown, and thus appreciated by everyone.
>
> Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother
> stole your candy and asking her to sort it out.
>
> Could it be that players who are lifted the burden of dialogue, are
> encouraged to make more calls, because they don't have to deal with them or
> they get resolved more quickly? "Rebound effect".
>
> I'm glad to see this discussion pop-up every once in a while, that way the
> newer players can get insight.
>
> Thanks for the graffiti space.
>
> Roger
>
> ___
> EuroDisc mailing list
> eurod...@ira.uka.de
> http://lists.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de/mailman/listinfo/eurodisc
>
___
E

Re: [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)

[Florian Spichtig]

Hi All

i was about to refer to the disturbing English wikipedia definition of 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_(sport) 
 on the topic of „Game 
Advisors", but have just discovered that the page has been deleted yesterday 
(Feb. 22):
Sorry, this page was recently deleted (within the last 24 hours). The deletion, 
protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
10:35, 22 February 2018 DerHexer  
(talk  | contribs 
) deleted page 
Ultimate (sport) 

 (big deletion per request)
00:08, 6 June 2016 Dennis Brown 
 (talk 
 | contribs 
) protected 
Ultimate (sport) 

 [Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 00:08, 8 June 2016) [Move=Require 
administrator access] (expires 00:08, 8 June 2016) (Edit warring / content 
dispute ) (hist 
)
01:48, 25 February 2010 Mc.7winkie 
 (talk 
 | contribs 
) moved page 
Ultimate (sport) 

 to Ultimate (game)  over 
redirect
01:48, 25 February 2010 Mc.7winkie 
 (talk 
 | contribs 
) moved page 
Ultimate (sport) 

 to Ultimate (gamet) 

13:22, 10 September 2008 Bearian  
(talk  | contribs 
) protected 
Ultimate (sport) 

 (IP vandalism and revert war: boasting about victory in this sport 
[edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:00, 12 September 2008 
(UTC))) (hist 
)


What i wanted to point out is that in the English wikipedia version of 
«Ultimate (Sport)» it is described as a sport where games „most of the time“ 
are played without referees and „some games at world championships“ have been 
played without referees. It both undermines the general definition of Ultimate, 
eg. in German: "wird in Deutschland und international bei allen Wettbewerben 
immer ohne Schiedsrichter 
 gespielt.“ („played in 
Germany and international on tournaments without referees“).

Well, the link is gone. So here’s another topic to start: Who is responsible 
for the deletion of «Ultimate (Sport)» on Wikipedia? Who is DerHexer? Who can 
solve this? And who can rewrite the definition of «Ultimate (Sport)» on behalf 
of an international definition according to WFDF rules?

Best 
Flo.





Florian Spichtig

florianspichtig.ch 

> Am 22.02.2018 um 11:24 schrieb Roger van Swaay :
> 
> Can you agree, that in a game of Ultimate, MAKING A CALL, and RESOLVING A 
> CALL, each have unique meaning and implications? 
> 
> Try this: Imagine a new type of "Game Police", who's role is to MAKE CALLS, 
> but who requires the decision-making (resolving) to be made by the players. 
> What would it look like? 
> 
> Resolving the call with your opponent means you need to have dialogue, 
> listen, respect, and trust his/her's decision. If you turn to an advisor, you 
> are effectively removing *the need* for the former, and ultimately, the trust 
> you originally placed in your opponent. Removing *the need* is enough to 
> spoil SOTG, because it is in stressful and pivotal situations that the best 
> spirit is shown, and thus appreciated by everyone. 
> 
> Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother stole 
> your candy and asking her to sort it out. 
> 
> Could it be that players who are lifted the burden of dialogue, are 
> encouraged to make more calls, because they don't have to deal with them or 
> they get resolve

Re: [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)

[Patrick van der Valk]

All, ?I am also not a fan of GA's but some of the arguments are just not 
correct.


> Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother stole 
> your candy and asking her to sort it out.


No, it is asking your mum what she saw and what the rules of the house are. Was 
your brother allowed to take your candy? Did she see him eat your candy? Then 
you can decide to beat him up if you want to ;-)


GA's give you their insight on what they saw, and GA's are there to tell you 
what the rules are. Especially the latter is something that is the 
responsibility of the players! I find it shocking to sometimes see that players 
are playing top level and do not know the rules well enough. If you think about 
Spirit, rules knowledge is one of the key elements. If players do not take that 
seriously and start to call things because they think they are making the right 
call, that is when things escalate and that is when a GA is a good option.


If you really don't want GA's, make sure players know the rules! Spirit scores 
over the last 5 years show me that most teams are fair-minded. So IF those two 
are covered we don't really need GA's. Having another person's perspective is a 
good-to-have, but we all have teammates and opponents who can also help with 
perspective.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need GA's but let's be clear, they are not 
Observer-types who give yellow cards and make their call count. Players 
continue to make the decisions.


Just my $0.02


Patrick



From: EuroDisc  on behalf of Roger van 
Swaay 
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:24 AM
To: eurodisc@ira.uni-karlsruhe.de
Subject: [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)


Can you agree, that in a game of Ultimate, MAKING A CALL, and RESOLVING A CALL, 
each have unique meaning and implications?

Try this: Imagine a new type of "Game Police", who's role is to MAKE CALLS, but 
who requires the decision-making (resolving) to be made by the players. What 
would it look like?

Resolving the call with your opponent means you need to have dialogue, listen, 
respect, and trust his/her's decision. If you turn to an advisor, you are 
effectively removing *the need* for the former, and ultimately, the trust you 
originally placed in your opponent. Removing *the need* is enough to spoil 
SOTG, because it is in stressful and pivotal situations that the best spirit is 
shown, and thus appreciated by everyone.

Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother stole 
your candy and asking her to sort it out.

Could it be that players who are lifted the burden of dialogue, are encouraged 
to make more calls, because they don't have to deal with them or they get 
resolved more quickly? "Rebound effect".

I'm glad to see this discussion pop-up every once in a while, that way the 
newer players can get insight.

Thanks for the graffiti space.

Roger
___
EuroDisc mailing list
eurod...@ira.uka.de
http://lists.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de/mailman/listinfo/eurodisc