UltiTalk.Com
Welcome to the ULTIMATE Ultimate Frisbee forum. September 18, 2019, 08:26:04 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The ultimate forum for talking about Ultimate Frisbee. Aimed at bringing new life to the world of Ultimate Frisbee discussions, UltiTalk.Com (UT) combines both regional and international topics in one friendly place. So say hello to UT: The International Ultimate Frisbee forum.

Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to reveal the members-only Shout Box, Chatroom, and more!
Tweak it out. Customize the look and feel of UltiTalk by changing your Theme Settings.
 
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Members Links Gallery Login Register  
Visit UltiTalk.Com on TwitterVisit UltiTalk.Com on Facebook

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1  Regional / Australasia / Re: Nationals 2009 in Perth on: April 24, 2009, 07:21:35 PM
And once again....in Womens...nothing except Wildcard Results, who are still undefeated, beating Box 17-12 to take out top of their pool and beating Factory Girls in the first of the power pool games 17-8.

No results, but I believe the rankings at the end of pool play were
Pool A
1. Sugar Mags
2. Kaos
3. Factory Girls
4/5/6 Sultry/Primal/Suffer Jets.

Pool B
1. Wildcard
2. Box
3. Honey?
4/5. Indies
4/5. Honey Gs


2  Regional / Australasia / Re: Second tier nationals on: November 19, 2008, 02:20:42 AM
I have two things to say about Sublime at Nats last yr

1 We were a bit out of control and maybe in hindsight could have toned it down a bit
2. I partly blame the powers at be, because we were clearly all smashed and yet we still managed to win best dressed award=bottle of red wine, which lasted 5 minutes between 4 of us.

Make that three things:
3. We Won best dressed.

Err, so did Sublime actually play ultimate?

Every time I read about Sublime and the Nationals Party it just reminds me of an earlier thread ...
Sublime owned that party...
You might call it owned. I'd call it [them] obnoxious and anti-social.
and Dan's follow up (that was your best post, Dan)
Youch.

Rachel: 1
Ash and his Sublime Hussys: 0.

Sums it all up really Smiley
3  Regional / Australasia / Re: Rules questions on: November 09, 2008, 02:51:02 AM
Quote
1.3. Players should be mindful of the fact that they are acting as referees in any arbitration between teams. In such situations, players must:
1.3.1. know the rules;
1.3.2. be fair-minded and objective;
1.3.3. be truthful;
1.3.4. explain their viewpoint clearly and briefly;
1.3.5. allow opponents a reasonable chance to speak;
1.3.6. resolve disputes as quickly as possible; and
1.3.7. use respectful language.


Knowing the rules isn't going to help you if you are subjective, lie, argue, don't let the other person speak and swear.

And not knowing the rules is going to make you incapable of half of the remaining obligations. How can you be truthful if you don't even know what the truth is? How can you resolve a dispute quickly when you yourself don't know the rule?

Seriously, go and read the rules once. It won't kill you. You're not allergic to them. They don't bite. You may even learn something.

Then, when you have a rules question, first go to the rules and try and find the answer yourself. When you post the question to Ultitalk, post the section of the rules that you think applies and ask if your interpretation is correct. You will still learn something, and those of us who are rule nazis will feel like we are helping someone who has put the effort in in the first place, and is not simply using this thread out of laziness.
4  Regional / Australasia / Re: MVP Awards on: November 05, 2008, 03:59:11 AM
So voting over an entire season (mixed or open/women) in official tournies (regionals, nationals, lead-ups?)

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Simply that points are not awarded to each team. In the Dally M and Brownlow, points are awarded to the best players, regardless of which team they are on. So if a team plays hopelessly, then probably none of their players will get any points. At the moment, we could beat a team 15-0 and still have to give out 6 points.

Ridiculous.
5  Regional / Australasia / Re: MVP Awards on: November 04, 2008, 09:02:35 PM
I'm struggling to see the problem with the current system. Each game, the opposition votes on the most valuable player from the other team. At the end of the tournament, the person with the most votes is the MVP. It rewards the person who was most often the most valuable player on the team.

At the moment we have something called an MVP Award. The name of the award is clearly causing confusion, so how about I distinguish the options as follows:

1) PotT (Player of the Tournament) - who played the best at the tournament
2) BPRttT (Best Player Relative to their Team) - this is what we currently give

My point is that (2) is not really an award worthy of a tournament. Any team can have one of these if it wants.

Surely we want something more akin to the Brownlow Medal or the Dally M ie (1).
6  Regional / Australasia / Re: MVP Awards on: November 04, 2008, 03:04:47 AM
So if (pulling names out of hats here) adding/cutting Matt Dowle to your team changes the result you get from say 3rd to 2nd but adding say Calan takes you from 20th to 15th wouldn't that indicate Calan was more VALUABLE to his team than Matt was to his?

But if by adding Matt your team goes from 20th to 13th, and by adding Calan your 3rd place team stays in 3rd ... now who's more valuable?
7  Regional / Australasia / Re: Spirit at AMUC08 on: November 02, 2008, 04:01:09 PM
Second table is somewhat deceptive (a bit misleadin') inasmuch as each team has a restricted range where they could finish... for example, it's actually impossible for Kaboom3 to have a negative difference, or Vintage to have a positive difference... but I understand what it's trying to illustrate

Yes, I agree that the numbers are deceptive, and need to be read carefully. For example, Smurf and Spider Pig finished in the top half of the spirit scores, but still near the bottom of the table.

Here's the same table sorted differently. Reading down the Diff column, the positives amongst the negatives (Great! Sugoi! and Pie Wagon) and the negatives amongst the positives (D Rex, Rubi and Mind the Gap) stand out. Not sure if it's more or less useful.



I would be interested in seeing all of the teams' individual game spirit scores (without any indication of who gave them) so that you can see for a low placed team whether there was one really bad game or systemic below-average spirit. They did this for Worlds last time around and it was quite informative.
8  Regional / Australasia / Spirit at AMUC08 on: November 02, 2008, 06:21:22 AM
To follow on from the previous post, a couple more tables for your edification and amusement. These two tables are spirit scores and final placings combined. The first is the sum of the two. This highlights the teams that did well in both (or badly in both) - Great! Sugoi!, Black Sheep and Smurf at the top of the table, D Rex, Rubi and Mind the Gap at the bottom.


The second is the difference between the two. At the top are teams who did badly in the tournament, but well in spirit. These are the teams that you hate, Tiger. At the bottom are teams that did well in the tournament but (relatively) badly in spirit eg Vintage, FAF


Rueben has some comments on spirit and MVPs that are probably worth a read at the moment.
http://rjhberg-disc.blogspot.com/2008/10/mixed-nats-review-part-1.html
http://rjhberg-disc.blogspot.com/2008/09/spirit-captain.html
9  Regional / Australasia / Re: MVP Awards on: November 02, 2008, 06:01:05 AM
I hate it when teams who don't perform well at tournaments get to feel validated because they won spirit or had someone get MVP. Why do we even let these teams play Nationals or Mixed Nats?

Yeah, me too. And I hate it when teams that place highly finish at the bottom of the spirit rankings. We shouldn't let them play either.
10  Regional / Australasia / MVP Awards on: November 02, 2008, 02:43:45 AM
One of the things that regularly bugs me is the MVP Award. Rarely (apologies to all those MVP awardees out there) does it go to the Most Valuable Player (tm). Under the scoring system most commonly used in Oz (3-2-1 points to the best players on the other team) it inevitably ends up going to a good player on a weak team. Now, that player is probably the Most Valuable Player to their team, but is that really what we are trying to award?

I wasn't at this year's Mixed Nats, so don't know what system they used. However, they were kind enough to post the top 10 MVPs for women and men. In nerdery possibly worthy of Simmo, I've put them into a table (image - Seppo, why can't you use tables in Ultitalk?) which shows that there is a definite bias towards the bottom of the draw:


So how do we correct this? One of my personal favourites got used for Nationals this year. From this year's Nationals website:
"1) MVP awards. We have had a request about modifying how this award is nominated and awarded. So I thought the best way would be to ask the Captains/Admin people. Traditionally, each Captain would nominate up to 3 players from the opposition at the end of each game. This would be a points system (3 points to the best, 2 to the next and 1 to the next). This means that even lop-sided games would still give the losing team the MVP points.

It has been proposed that this be modified to:
- A captain will nominate up to 3 players from either team (3 points to the best player, 2 to the next and 1 to the 3rd). This means that a Captain/team can nominate their own players for the MVP points."

The vote was 12 for, 2 against, 1 did not care, the rest no response, so there was a fair amount of support for a better system.

Unfortunately the eventual winners came from the teams placing 13th of 16 and 13th of 14 in the men's and women's divisions respectively, so it didn't help matters much. It would be interesting to see say the top 10 data, as for Mixed Nats. One reason why this system is only a minor improvement is that at Nats and Mixed Nats, the top teams play most of their games against other top teams (after day 1) and so the points again get evenly spread. It also still suffers a bit from the best player/worst team problem, though not as much.

So, a few questions
- what do you think the MVP award should be about?
- what do you think of the current popular system (all votes going to the opposition)?
- what do you think of the system used at Nationals this year?
- how would you make an improved system that actually gives the award to the Most Valuable Player (tm)?
11  Regional / Australasia / Re: Rules questions on: October 14, 2008, 08:01:15 AM
Thanks for the comments Tom, sorry for the opinion-based post.

Sorry if I was being rather blunt. I was a little frustrated that the discussion up to that point hadn't referenced the rules at all, and yours was the lucky post that caught my ire!

Just in case anyone needs to know where to find the rules, see
http://wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/index.htm
The latest version is 2008. With Mixed Nats around the corner, now's as good a time as any to get familiar...
12  Regional / Australasia / Re: Rules questions on: October 14, 2008, 02:32:08 AM
I can see both people's positions here.  The run, leap and grab by Ash was spectacular.  Absolutely amazing.  And it seems unfortunate that the fact she committed a foul AFTER that grab (by colliding with huddy) would cause a turnover and give huddy the disc.  She also claims it was dangerous play by Huddy in that he saw her coming but didn't get out of the way.    What do you think should have been the end result of this?

Foul. Obviously I'm just going on your narrative. But if you can't get the disc without causing (significant) contact, then that's your bad luck. The way you reported it, Huddy was in a legal position and did his best to get out of the way of contact, to the point of giving up an opportunity to contest the disc. Just because he saw Ash, and she didn't see him doesn't make her position any stronger.

I'm surprised no-one has quoted the rules yet, since they're pretty important in working out what's right ...
12.6. A player in an established position, who has not moved to that position to intentionally
block another player while not making a play on the disc, is entitled to remain in that
position and should not be contacted by an opposing player.
12.7. Every player is entitled to occupy any position on the field not occupied by any opposing
player, provided that they do not cause contact in taking such a position.
12.8. When the disc is in the air, all players must attempt to avoid contact with other players,
and there is no situation where a player may justify initiating contact. “Making a play for
the disc” is not a valid excuse for initiating contact with other players.
12.9. Some incidental contact, not affecting the outcome of the play or safety of players, may
occur as two or more players move towards a single point simultaneously. Incidental
contact should be minimized but is not considered a foul.
12.10. The Principle of Verticality:
12.10.1. All players have the right to the space immediately above them. An opponent
may not obstruct a player from occupying this space.
12.10.2. A player who jumped is entitled to land without hindrance by opponents,
assuming that no opposing player occupied any space between and including the
point of take off and the receiver's eventual landing spot at the initiation of the
jump.

A few comments
By the rules, the offensive players generally have more right to not be interfered with when contesting a disc and attempting a catch.
Really?? Which rules are you reading? The only difference between O and D players when the disc is in the air is for a simultaneous catch.
But I also think there was not much particularly wrong with Ash’s actions, as an offensive player it’s very hard to not focus 100% on catching the disc.
Well, if it's that hard, then it's something that people need to practise. Just because it's hard doesn't make it right not to do it. The rules are pretty clear that it's a no-no.
It’s also a little off-putting being accused of displaying “reckless disregard” when you are blind-sided or otherwise not aware of surroundings.
If others are aware of their surroundings and you aren't, then it should be to your disadvantage, not theirs. Part of good offensive positioning is avoiding having to move into your blind spot. If you need to do so, then you should look first. If you don't, and you collide with someone, then is it "reckless disregard"? Yes.

Read rule 12.8. It's pretty clear in this instance
13  Regional / Australasia / Re: Pick ups for Mixed Nationals '08 on: October 12, 2008, 05:50:43 AM
Er, aren't there eligibility rules for Mixed Nats? I don't think you can take more than 2 USyd players even if you wanted to

Edit: or did you mean 2 guys and 2 girls (1 guy and 1 girl for each team)?
14  Regional / Australasia / Re: The Road To Melbourne - 2008 university ultimate on: September 09, 2008, 05:31:32 PM
Couple of official-y things...
Hey Simmo - you should announce official-y things on one of the official-y lists ie ultimate-unis. I know Ultitalk has enough trash talk to sound like it's official, but ...
cheers
15  Regional / Australasia / Re: 2008 WFDF Rules Changes on: June 23, 2008, 07:38:58 PM
For me the big change for Worlds is:

7.4. After signalling their readiness, and until the pull is released, all offensive players must
stand with one foot on their defending goal line without changing position relative to
one another.

A4.4.1.1. The offensive team has sixty (60) seconds from the start of a point to signal
readiness to receive the pull.

A4.4.2.1. The defensive team has seventy-five (75) seconds from the start of a point
to pull the disc.

This means that the defence may have as little as 15 seconds from when the offence signals readiness to match up man-on-man and pull the disc. Prior to that the offence is within their rights to huddle, sub players or do anything else with their 60 seconds. Not such a big issue for non-timed games
Pages: [1] 2





Advertise on UT!



Register your FREE UltiTalk.Com account to remove these ads!
Change language to English Change language to Brazilian Change language to Chinese-Simplified Change language to Danish Change language to Dutch Change language to English Change language to Finnish Change language to French Change language to German Change language to Greek Change language to Hebrew Change language to Hungarian Change language to Indonesian Change language to Italian Change language to Japanese Change language to Norwegian Change language to Polish Change language to Portuguese Change language to Romanian Change language to Russian Change language to Spanish Change language to Swedish Change language to Thai Change language to Turkish Change language to Ukranian Change language to Vietnamese

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
UltiTalk.Com is the #1 forum and bulletin board for talking about, chatting about and discussing Ultimate Frisbee.
Please help spread the word to promote an international community of Ultimate Frisbee players, coaches and teachers.


Site Design By MWM Consulting, Inc. MWM Consulting, Inc.



Google last visited this page September 11, 2019, 07:40:28 AM
SimplePortal 2.1.1