Out calls

179 posts / 0 new
Last post

You're right that "consequentially" was the wrong word.

So what's your defense of my initial example? (Without the penalty) So far as I can tell everyone now agrees that it's a rule. You agree that their team-mates will be embarassed. To me that doesn't seem to follow from a respectful, spirited call.

Hi By Hi

"This is yet another example of an invalid call! You are giving a situation where a player *did not* travel, and then offering that as an example of how a "valid call" can be unspirited! That's not the case!"

Er... How is it not valid? According to you, you HAVE TO ASSUME he saw it.

Though I do agree with some parts that you have all suggested afterwards.

HELLO!: "Er... How is it not valid? According to you, you HAVE TO ASSUME he saw it."

Let's quote the very same post of mine to see my response to this question...

Temple: "it wouldn't necessarily be unspirited by the caller if he didn't know the player was
injured, or otherwise honestly though that the player was taking more steps than necessary
(even though the call would not be correct)."

If you'll note from the "or otherwise honestly thought that the player was taking more steps
than necessary", the scenario I was talking about in the line you quoted of mine was one
where no real travel rule was called. It was not a case where he honestly thought the
conditions of a real rule was violated (that was discussed a couple sentences later). It was a
case where a made-up rule was being called.

Remember that the word "Travel" is not the rule being called, you call "Travel" when there is
a violation of a particular rule in the book. That specific line you quoted was talking about the
case when a non-existant rule was being used as the basis of travel.

To be fair, it was my assumption that by stating that the player was injured, yet still being
called for travel, you painted a scenario where the caller knew this, and thus the travel call
was based on a non-existant rule (although I did speculate on the reverse of my assumption).

It's a small distinction in what I wrote, but it's an important one:

Being unintentionally 'wrong' about a real rule is different from unintentionally calling a fake
rule. The former is a 'valid call', while the later is a Violation.

Whether or not you want to call the latter 'unspirited', it would really depend. Unintentionally
violating the rules isn't in itself unspirited, but SOTG would probably tip it into the negative
side just a hair (with forgiveness to inadequate teachings), because knowing the rules before
calling them is an important part of "fair play" as well as "adherence to the agreed upon rules
of the game".

"I'm not aware of any sport that has dogmatic adherence to the written language of the rules.
Only adherence to the *accepted interpretation* of the rules."

Can you provide an example of a rule in another sport that is interpreted differently from how it is written? This strikes me as a big (and) questionable assumption.

Not that Temple needs or wants me to come to his defence on this, but it is something I agree with. I think it's probably harder to come up with a sport that doesn't have this issue. (I can't think of any offhand)

Hockey:

Cross Checking (watch any player standing in front of an opposing goaltender. There will be a crosscheck per the rule)
Interference (Skating across a players path)
Hooking (If your stick is off the ice and on the other side of the opposing players body. They're getting better about calling this)
Line Changes (You can only have 5 players on the ice at a time)

Basketball:

Travel (Running with the ball)
Charging
Blocking

Football:

Pass interference (Contact with the receiver after 5 yards, before the ball arrives etc.)
Illegal contact (Passer pushing off from their mark)
Face Masking (Any time your finger wraps around opposing team mask, they're getting better about calling this)

Enforcement is different from interpretation. If a hooking call is made in a hockey game, it's always 2 minutes in the penalty box. The ref isn't interpreting the rule, just choosing whether or not to make the call.

"Our rules are not crafted by lawyers, there are innumerable ways to semantically interpret the language of almost every rule."

I would argue that most rule books are quite explicit and only allow one interpretation of the rule. Otherwise it becomes impossible to officiate. To the best of my knowledge, most rule books get reviewed to the nth degree for the express purpose of disallowing more than one interpretation of the wording.

"Hooking (If your stick is off the ice and on the other side of the opposing players body. They're getting better about calling this)"

I don't agree with this (However, I do understand the reasoning behind it)... It seems like too many penalties are being called in a game because of this definition of hooking. It disrupts the slow of the game.

Err... I mean[:]

"I don't agree with this (However, I do understand the reasoning behind it)... It seems like too many penalties are being called in a game because of this definition of hooking. It disrupts the [flow] of the game."

Keam: "I would argue that most rule books are quite explicit and only allow one
interpretation of the rule...."

Why don't you start another thread, and I'll be happy to discuss the statement I made. That
discussion doesn't add anything significant to the core discussion at the heart of this thread.

I said that I didn't know of a different sport. If you know of one, wonderful, let's discuss it in
that other thread.

The point I was making was that there is an 'accepted interpretation' of each rule in ultimate,
and that may be different from the multiple possible semantic interpretations of the written
rule. That was in the context that I felt loopholes weren't actual rules. An opinion which I
don't care to argue, because I think it's fine if you think otherwise.

Could we skip the obligatory tangential rebuttal to this post (where the sole intent was to
return to the topic at hand), or at least move it to that new thread? That way we can return
to the relevant topic at hand.

A rule that is open to semantic interpretation is not a rule, it's a guideline.

Hat league. 10pm. Dark and stormy night...

I am being marked by a friend. I throw a flick. I lift my pivot foot. Friend notices. Friend says, "careful, you are lifting your foot, I could call a travel on your throw". I say (while continuing to play), "so, call it then". Friend says, "ok".

A few seconds later, I have the disc and throw a flick. Friend calls "Travel". I get the disc back and friend taps it in and we play on. This happens at least 5 more times during the rest of the game. I can't believe I travel each time I throw a flick! But I'm glad somebody mentioned it to me so I can work on my throw.

LATER

Friend tells me that they "FELT BAD" about calling travel over and over again. I tell them that there is nothing I hate more than someone saying, "you know I could call you on x, y, z" but doesn't call it. If there is a call to make, it should be called. Period. Friend not only "FELT BAD" for making the calls, but thought that the sideline thought that they were a JERK too!

What has a league come to when its players are made to feel GUILTY for making VALID CALLS? How can a self-refereed sport ever prosper, if this is a common sentiment?

Does anyone else out there find themselves in situations where they feel bad for making calls?

I understand where you are coming from. However, at the same time... I have to admit you do feel like a jerk to a degree sometimes. It all depends on the situation too.

Scire: "I understand where you are coming from. However, at the same time... I have to
admit you do feel like a jerk to a degree sometimes. It all depends on the situation too."

You only feel like a jerk because you're allowing the ignorance of others to win out over fair
play. I'll tell you that you *are* acting like a jerk if you react at all negatively towards
somebody who makes a valid call.

It is that counter-SOTG sentiment, and that sentiment alone, which leads to the ill-will
associated in some minds with making a call. Eliminate that one spot of ignorance, and the
entire issue disappears.

Do you feel like a jerk when you point out the other team has 8 players on the line?

Do you feel like a jerk when you call pick?

Do you feel like a jerk when you call OB because you saw the disc hit a tree at Winona?

If you answered 'yes', I have to ask: Why?

Do you also feel like the hockey linesman is a jerk when he calls a valid offsides? What about
when a basketball referee calls it a 2 pointer instead of a 3 pointer, because the shooter's
foot was over the line? Do you feel like a jerk when you point out that your poker opponent
only put 50 in the pot instead of 100? Do you feel like a jerk when you cross at a cross-walk
and make cars wait for you?

Rules are important. Being nice to everybody at the expense of fairness is not nice for
anybody. If everybody's whims were to be satisfied, nobody would be happy.

You know what's also important? Making your analogies more accurate.

All of those things affect the outcome of the game.

Your buddy slipping his foot a tiny bit on a release without advantage, not so much.

So I completely understand when someone doesn't want to call that. And I completely understand when someone would rather point it out as a friendly reminder (in case the handler is unaware) rather than call travel.

Temple, you've got to understand that your interpretation of SotG isn't the same as everyone else.

Mom, the only people I disagree with are the folks on the sideline who made him feel like a jerk for calling it.

Dugly. Thank you for putting my thoughts in to words (Although, it may not be your intention).

I just couldn't think of the words to phrase the point that you have conveyed.

I think Temple's analogies are accurate, or at least they're not inaccurate. Each example he gave can affect the outcome of the game, and so can moving/lifting your foot as you release. You seem to be assuming that YourMom was moving her foot a mm, while for all you know she was moving it significantly. That movement can have a large impact on the throw, so it can affect the outcome of the game.

If the caller didn't want to call it because s/he didn't think it was worth it, s/he wouldn't have. However, it seems like the issue was more that the caller was concerned that by making a valid call against someone who was breaking the rules, others would think less of him/her.

For the record, the only time I feel bad for making a call is if I expect that it's going to be interpreted as a "you're cheating!" call and start a heated argument or resentment. However, if I'm sure of the call I'll still make it.

"I completely understand when someone would rather point it out as a friendly reminder (in case the handler is unaware) rather than call travel."

A "friendly reminder"?? How should I react to a friendly reminder? I'm inclined to say "thanks for the friendly reminder!" but continue to lift my pivot foot when I throw because:

1) If I keep my pivot down, I'm worried my hucks won't go as far; and
2) My mark is not calling "travel" to force me to throw properly.

Gin-Boh, you're assuming something that seems unlikely from the description.

YourMom, at first you said you didn't realize that you were moving your foot. In fact, here's what you said:

"I can't believe I travel each time I throw a flick! But I'm glad somebody mentioned it to me so I can work on my throw."

So if your friend just wanted to make you aware of it to assist you in identifying a behavior. Personally, I would have reacted to the friendly reminder the same way as I would a travel call. I'd try not to do it next time.

The fact is you're suggesting you'd intentionally cheat, having been made aware of a behavior would just continue to go about doing it. That doesn't seem very spirited to me. Why don't you change what you said to "I'm glad somebody called travel on me, because I wouldn't work on my throw unless they do"

For instance when I teach people the game, I tend to watch a lot of points and then help them between points when there's time to explain. I'll explain things like not moving their pivot foot when they throw. Then when we scrimmage I'll point it out if it happens. They generally figure it out quickly. And yes, I'd feel bad about calling travel each time in that case because I know they're just learning.

>Gin-Boh, you're assuming something that seems unlikely from the description.

Really? I'd say that "you are lifting your foot" is much closer to "moving [your foot] significantly" than it is to "slipping his foot a tiny bit on a release without advantage."

Dugly: "So I completely understand when someone doesn't want to call that. And I
completely understand when someone would rather point it out as a friendly reminder (in case
the handler is unaware) rather than call travel."

I agree 100%. I frequently choose not to call infractions I see, and there's absolutely nothing
wrong with doing that. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I was suggesting
otherwise.

My point is that it's never unspirited to make that valid call. Further it is unspirited to expect
anybody to not make a call when they see a rule violated.

Dugly: "Temple, you've got to understand that your interpretation of SotG isn't the same as
everyone else."

Believe me I understand this. What you don't understand is that Dugly-SOTG is not the
defined SOTG, and trying to impose your own variant of expected behaviour can only add
strife to the game. I have my own Temple-SOTG to be sure, but I don't kid myself, or
others, by thinking that it's in any way 'more correct' than SOTG as it's defined and agreed
upon by everybody in the league. I certainly don't impose my variant on others by expecting
them to play by it, and I always realize that, when different, true SOTG is the correct
standard by which I have agreed to play.

When somebody acts in a way which is not supported by my variant, but is supported by
SOTG, I know that they are playing spirited, *even if they are playing in a way that I don't
like*. I think acting otherwise would be highly arrogant on my part (there's that word again).

What you should try to understand is that true SOTG says that a valid call is never unspirited.
You may not like that, but that's SOTG. Teaching otherwise to new people is doing a
disservice to them and the ultimate community.

Temple, you're plain ol' wrong. And you're version of Dugly-SOTG is clearly not my version of SOTG (at least how you express Dugly-SOTG anyhow).

You've consistently pushed your version of SOTG on everyone, so it's hilarious when you NOW try to say that you don't mind when someone else has a different interpretation. I love the part where you immediately go back to "the definition" of SOTG, as if what I've said so far has violated that, and which you obviously hadn't even read before this discussion and have yet to understand. Your arguments have been shown to be complete bullocks throughout the thread though, so I certainly don't expect any more from you now.

Good luck though! I await being entertained by your ramblings.

Dugly: "You try and propose that if you play within the rules that it's spirited. It's simply not
true."

'nuff said

"The fact is you're suggesting you'd intentionally cheat, having been made aware of a behavior would just continue to go about doing it. That doesn't seem very spirited to me. Why don't you change what you said to "I'm glad somebody called travel on me, because I wouldn't work on my throw unless they do" "

THAT'S THE PROBLEM. You said you're more inclined to offer a "friendly reminder" - that is NOT equivalent to calling a travel.

Dugly: "The fact is you're suggesting you'd intentionally cheat, having been made aware of a
behavior would just continue to go about doing it."

That's also the rub with people who call 'check feet' or 'watch your travel'. Dugly you've let
slip there.

Whether or not they pretend otherwise, deep down inside they usually think that if they yell
'check feet' or 'watch your travel' and it's ignored, then the person is cheating.

That's the only real problem with yelling 'check feet', but it is prevalent among CF yellers. It
is the very definition of passive-aggressive. Why advocate for passive-aggressiveness?

All this talk about making a valid call being unspirited is nonsense, and stems from that same
passive-aggressiveness: "It's optional for you to react to my shout because I say these
certain words ('check feet', 'watch your travel'), though if you ignore it, you're a cheater.
Also if you say different words to me, the ones written down that you should say in that
instance ('OB', 'Travel'), then you're being unspirited."

Give me a break.

Call OB or Travel when you see it. If you don't see it, or choose not to call it, don't expect
me to do anything other than keep playing the game. You keep your rules in your pocket,
hold me to the ones we all share.

Temple,

1) Your last post is so full of fabricated and misleading statements that you're trying to attribute to me that I'm quite offended. Please do not misrepresent what I'm saying. If you honestly believe that what you said is an accurate representation of what I said, then you've got no business calling yourself sentient.

I sincerely hope that nobody reads your statements and believe for a second that that's what I said.

2) I never said you're cheating if you ignore anything other than an official call. Figure it out. It's not that hard. If you know you're cheating and keep doing it, then you're not worth the time of day. If you don't know you're violating a rule and someone CHOOSES to make you aware of that by mentioning the rule or what have you, then why's that cheating on anyone's part? Only in your delusional mind.

3) Give you a break? Why? I can assure you that my personal opinion of you would get removed from here if I posted it. You repeatedly make up complete BS and attempt to put the words you made up into other people's mouths. Why would I sit around while you do that to me and others? You somehow believe you're always right, even when you contradict yourself (which you do frequently).

So give ME a break. You're not even making any points any more. You're just making attacks. While it's absolutely ridiculous it's completely unsurprising, since that's what you do in every single thread you participate in. You accuse me and others of being passive aggressive, go shove it.

Oooohhh... deep down inside they usually THINK something... wow, you're a mind reader as well as the most intelligent person to have walked the planet! Must be great!

In conclusion, although I'm sure you're INCAPABLE of this: Stop making stuff up and saying that's what other people said.

p.s. If you must respond, please do so in the politics forum or something. Maybe a new topic with an actual subject. Clearly this has long since strayed from being a rules discussion.

Dugly: "1) Your last post is so full of fabricated and misleading statements that you're trying
to attribute to me that I'm quite offended."

I see only one statement that I attempted to attribute to you. It was a direct quote.

--

Dugly, I think you've been taking this discussion increasingly personally. I'm guessing that is
the reason you've been degenerating further and further into personal attacks.

I'm more than willing to continue a rational and mature discussion. If I mischaracterize
something you write, please point that out respectfully. If I say something you disagree with
(even vehemently), please rebut that respectfully or ignore it.

This is hilarious.

I know this is pretty much not my place to say anything; however, I want to be a middle man, and point out a few things... Hopefully, for the better.

Dugly. I can understand your point about Temple.

Temple. Dugly is right. You do have that mentality of 'it is my way or the highway'.

However, at the same time. Dugly. Temple is right. He isn't being offensive or taking anything personal. You are (That is your fault). Now, at the same time. I can easily say that I am bad for that too and I can understand how you feel.

At the same time, I do appreciate all your comments. I don't know if I speak for those who read the message boards, it allows many points of view on the same issue.

Pages