Spirit in regards to Divs

73 posts / 0 new
Last post

"If the other team had run up the score on you, and beat your team by a large margin, maybe you could have a point....but a final score of 6-4, and your still complaining? Sound like your just bitter that you lost. "

I don't know what's more upsetting, that you guys all think I'm lying about not caring if we win or not, or that it's apparently inconceivable that one would want to help your fellow player have a good time/learn even if it 'costs' you.

"I have the same sentiment at times, although I'm not sure if it's true or just my perception. I think there was a brief period of time when the league saw a big influx of people who hadn't spent a lot of time in traditional team sports and during that era there was a different atmosphere at work. Whether it was good, bad, spirited or not I'm not sure, but I do feel some of camaraderie has declined as the league grew. I think it was an unavoidable byproduct of the league's growth."

True--but I suppose that's like anything in life, you often remember it more fondly than it might have been. I personally do think it was 'better', but then again I was 15 years younger and in a totally different place/time in my life and the sports evolution.

"You are contradicting yourself. So was she not open because she didn’t know how to get open or was she open?

From my point of view you either told her how to get open and she understood (not that hard to explain or a slow process) or she just just instinctively knew how to get open. But she was open: constantly."

There's a difference between being 'open' and being 'unmarked'. And I know your players are veterans and getting open is not hard to understand or a slow process. But I would ask you and anyone else to harken back to when you first played and how difficult it was to understand this sport, especially if you don't have a team/field sport background.

Anyway, this is blown way out of proportion. What's done is done.

kermit: "I don't know what's more upsetting, that you guys all think I'm lying about not
caring if we win or not, or that it's apparently inconceivable that one would want to help your
fellow player have a good time/learn even if it 'costs' you."

Personally, it's not that I think you're lying, or that you don't care, I think it's that you truly
don't realize that your team really dropped the ball on helping a new player, and you're
looking to blame somebody else.

Why didn't your team help her?

Why do you expect the D to help her, even if it 'costs' them, while your team does not incur
that 'cost'? It seems like you didn't help her because it would have 'cost' your team. It seems
like the chance to win was more important that you helping your new player. Was there
another reason?

Why didn't your team help her?

"Why do you expect the D to help her, even if it 'costs' them, while your team does not incur that 'cost'?

Why didn't your team help her?"

Like I said, we had no subs. During breaks we tried to help her as best we could.

kermit: "Like I said, we had no subs. During breaks we tried to help her as best we could."

BS man. I've been playing with brand new people for 10 years, and my teams have always
done a lot of on-field coaching.

You are expecting the D to do the on-field coaching of that player, but you don't seem to admit
the possibility of your team doing that same on-field coaching?

Why didn't you do any on-field coaching?

Is it because it would have 'cost' your team?

Yes. Damnit! You got me! I thought I could hold out but you asking the same question over and over has finally brought me to my knees.

It was all about winning! That's why I'm in div 4 and not crappy div 5 or 6 or even *gasp* div 8. It's cause I want to WIN--the glory that comes with winning in div 4 is too much to ignore!. I wanted our new players to be marked so we could ignore them and dominate our opponent!

Oooh, it feels good to get that off my chest. Thanks!

You never explained your contradiction. And getting open is not that hard to explain. There was plenty of time for you to explain it to her, if not between points than during the time out you took.

And like I said it didn't seem like she needed much more explanation. I know there is a difference between being open and and unmarked, but she was unmarked and wide open (as in not another player withing 15 feet of her many times).

If all you were looking to do is “having fun, playing with my friends, and playing hard” and making sure this girl comes back I guess my question is why didn’t you throw to her?

lofft, I'm sure you know it's easy to explain getting open, it's a different thing to do it--and to do it effectively. I can be 'open' but if i'm in a position that is virtually impossible to throw to, it's kinda irrelevant.

Could we have thrown to her more? Sure, we probably could have. So, let's just agree to disagree and move on. This is way more than I wanted to get into.

Let's ease off on badgering Kermit over the coaching issue.

I'm sure he and his teammates did what they thought they could to instruct the novice. But generally, defeating a poach takes some savvy and field sense, and it's certainly not as easy as just giving the disc to the unmarked player. I know that I still have trouble with it, and I can respect that it can be a tough concept to explain. Moreover, in a game where the final score was 6-4, we're probably looking at a game that was already plagued with turnovers.

So, in the worst case scenario, Kermit is not a good coach. All right -- it's not a crime.

If this brand-new player was not enjoying herself, and Kermit's team was unable to fix that, then maybe a polite request for help from their opponents was in order. The cause is altruistic enough, and the other team was already willing to "go easy" on the novice. It's just that "going easy" is vague and it means different things to different people.

My point is that I don't think this was a breakdown in spirit nor in coaching -- just a breakdown in communication.

You keep deflecting the question. I think because you don't like the answer.

You admit you didn't throw to her, even though you probably could have. Why didn't you?

Probably for the same reason you didn't do any on-field coaching. Because you were focussed
on driving the disc down the field (we can all be guilty of that).

It sounds like you didn't really notice how much fun she was having until her check started
getting in the way of your other 6 players. That's probably more a function of awareness of
the issue than any malevolent intent on your team's behalf.

--

kermit: "So, let's just agree to disagree and move on. "

Disagree about what? Disagree that you should have helped to coach your new player and
thrown to her when she was open?

If you move on from that disagreement, then your new players are almost certainly
guaranteed to not have a good time.

Why can't we check ego's at the door and have a productive discussion about what might be
the best way to handle a similar situation in the future? Wouldn't that be best for everybody
in the league?

atanarjuat: "Let's ease off on badgering Kermit over the coaching issue."

The problem is that he's set on the idea that the other team was responsible for the coaching.

When kermit want's to agree to disagree that others should have been doing the coaching, it's
worthwhile trying to get a captain to understand that the responsibility for coaching your own
players. It will certainly make his life easier in the future (he'll have a better team, and he'll
keep his female players interested), but it will also help the VUL membership retain new
players.

"You admit you didn't throw to her, even though you probably could have. Why didn't you?

Probably for the same reason you didn't do any on-field coaching."

temple. thanks for letting me know what i want and what I did or did not do on the field, but please. just stop. you weren't there.

it's a difference in philosophy that's getting bogged down in minute details just to prove points.

"The problem is that he's set on the idea that the other team was responsible for the coaching. "

Well, I'm just not convinced that's true.

Oftentimes, Temple, I feel that you pick a single sentence and become fixated on it, and then you attach elaborate theories of morality and psychology to those few words. I feel sorry for Kermit here because you've been almost browbeating him with plurium interrogationum questions (like, "why didn't you coach her?" and "why didn't you throw to her when she was open").

We could have had a productive discussion if we had asked him plain questions instead of loaded ones.

Kermit came on the forum complaining that nobody on the other team coached the new
player on his team and what "shitty spirit" that was. He also said that it was because of the
other team's lack of coaching that the new player on his team had a poor time.

He did this with no small amount of vitriol and aspersions cast on the other team, all the
while consistently defending his actions as being spirited where the other team's was not.

He admits that his team didn't throw to her when she was open, and that they didn't even try
to do what he was expecting the the other team to do (on-field coaching).

I'm trying to get him to realize there are some really easy things he could do to improve this
situation next time.

Refusing to look at the mirror, wanting to "agree to disagree" that he should have spent
any time helping his player as opposed to expecting the other team to help her, isn't going to
do any good for anybody.

I fail to see how I was picking on a single sentence of his, or how I am getting bogged down
in minute details. Kermit, you admitted not throwing to your new girl when you "probably
could have" (your words) and yet you still are suggesting that it is the *other* team that is
unspirited? That is not a minute detail! It seems the bigger picture is something that hasn't
yet been grasped.

Temple. Just stop. You connect phantom dots like no one I've ever seen.

You say I said "you admitted not throwing to your new girl when you "probably could have" (your words)"

What I said was "Could we have thrown to her more? Sure, we probably could have."

I could say that about any of my teammates. Maybe some of the men on our team felt that way too. You certainly have no idea given that you weren't there. But this is what you do. You cherry pick out words completely out of context to prove some mythical point.

So, thanks for your input. Have a nice weekend.

"Kermit came on the forum complaining that nobody on the other team coached the new player on his team and what "shitty spirit" that was"

I don't see it that way. It seems to me (s)he was upset that their team had approached their opponents asking them to cut their rookie sub some slack and was under the impression they had agreed to said concession, which (s)he feels wasn't manifested during the game.

kermit: "You say I said "you admitted not throwing to your new girl when you "probably could
have" (your words)"

What I said was "Could we have thrown to her more? Sure, we probably could have.""

See, to me complaining that the person didn't touch the disc and admitting you could have
thrown to her more is the same thing as admitting you didn't throw to her when you probably
could have. I don't see how I'm making any leaps here that you haven't expressly stated.

Now you've started deleting your posts in this thread.

I suppose you're dead-set on learning exactly nothing from this experience by pretending you
never brought that vitriol to the forum for public airing.

Further conversation may indeed be pointless if you're just going to delete the posts you've
made which reveal what really happened.

--

Keam: "I don't see it that way. It seems to me (s)he was upset that their team had
approached their opponents asking them to cut their rookie sub some slack and was under the
impression they had agreed to said concession, which (s)he feels wasn't manifested during
the game."

You may not have read the whole story. He asked the other team to cut the new player some
slack. The team cut the new player complete slack, they stopped covering her *entirely*.

According to people present, she was open, but just wasn't thrown to, while kermit admits
they probably could have.

Nothing from this thread suggests that the other team had anything to do with the new girl
not getting thrown to.

Could have thrown more does not equal did not throw.

Do I need to use smaller words?

Listen--my intention, whether you believe me or not, was just to lament the 'good old days'. If my posts have come across as whining or blaming, sorry. Clearly it's my issue, I'll deal with it. Winning at all costs was never my philosophy, I remember fondly when that wasn't so uncommon in the vul.

So, let's end this chain of stupidity.

kermit: "Anyway, the point is we specifically told them she was new and to go easy and they did
the complete opposite. Just stinks of shitty spirit."

(It was later revealed, they didn't do the opposite, they went *completely* easy on her)

kermit: "Listen--my intention, whether you believe me or not, was just to lament the 'good old
days'. If my posts have come across as whining or blaming, sorry."

I'm sorry I was confused.

I wouldn't consider poaching to be "taking it easy" on someone at all. At least, not a good a poach. I wasn't there to witness the skill and effectiveness of said poach, of course. By Kermit's testimony, it was quite difficult to get the disc to the novice player, though.

"I'm sorry I was confused."

No worries!

Pages