HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnolan@husc10.harvard.edu (David Nolan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Re: sotg and  real loud stall counts
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:23:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr14.112322.11073
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <12536@umd5.umd.edu> tkerner@lab4.smcm.edu (Thomas W. Kerner) writes:
>
>	At a recent tourney a certain player (me) was called into question  
>for employing particularly loud stall counts (loud enough to startle  
>anyone within 50 yds. or so and to be heard several blocks away I am  
>told).  I must admit also that standing as close as legally possible to  
>someone and screaming a stall count in his face works incredibly well, so  
>well, in fact, that my spirit-of-the-game was called into question.  I  
>felt badly about this, as I am someone who endeavors to take the  
>spirit-of-the-game very seriously.
>	After having been questioned, I stopped, and resumed a more normal  
>volume for my stall counts.  I would like to know what others think as to  
>the sotg-ness of the loud count.  Until I hear further, I am suspending  
>the use of it.
>
>Tom Kerner, St. Mary's SMUT

I agree wholeheartedly that screaming stall counts is not in the spirit of the
game.  I think it is acceptable to to yell the last two counts, to let your
teammates know that the count is high, but only if that's really what you 
want to do - that probably benefits the offense more than the defense.  

Just remember that anything that spoils the beauty and friendliness of the 
game is not in the SOTG.  Don't feel bad about it.  A lot of people pick
pick up annoying or obnoxious habits at times (like bumping the thrower 
every time you run up to mark him) and we just need our friends to point
them out to us.

Dave Nolan
Harvard-ODYSCEUS
From: Eric.Simon@f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Simon)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject:  WORLD'S BIGGEST DISC GOLF TOURNAMENT
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 12:56:16 -0500

I'm just wondering (pure naivete here) what makes a bunch of tourneys that are
held on the same day one large tourney.  IF all the UPA Sectionals were held on
the same day, would that be the largest Ultimate tournament, or am I missing
something here.
 
I'm not a golfer - just curious . . .
 
--  Eric
From: dnolan@husc10.harvard.edu (David Nolan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Re: Rules questions
Date: 17 Apr 92 05:29:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Apr17.012951.11204
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr16.095224.18208@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>No play is made - you restart the play "where the disc went out of bounds".
>What does this mean, exactly?  From reading the rules, the disc goes out
>of bounds when it touches the ground.  So, you should bring it back to the
>line by moving perpendicular to the field of play, correct?  Why do so many
>teams bring it back to the line by moving along the flight path of the disc?

Okay - what I meant was, if the defense makes no play on the disc, they can
take it back to where the flight path crossed the out of bounds line - 
usually much farther up the field.  If they do make a play while out of 
bounds, they have to take it up to the closest point on the field - often 
near their own goal line.

Dave Nolan
Harvard - ODYSCEUS 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: pds@cs.columbia.edu (Peter D. Skopp)
Subject: seeding and spirit
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:37:00 GMT


Regarding seeding, and the suggestions to incorporate spirit of the game into
seeding....

Seeding is a tool by which a tournament is organized, so that the best teams
(those most likely to win games and advance out of pool play) are not placed
in the same pool, and so that the 2 best teams in a pool dont play each other
at 9:00 am on a Saturday when neither team is warmed up.

If seedings are going to continue to be used in this manner (can't see any
other use), than the only "fair" way to seed teams is by past performance.
I think that the current system is about as good as can be done, at least at
the college level, where a teams strength may vary greatly from year to year
(due to graduation).

How could you support seeding by spirit, and end up with Wilmington being
seeded last at every tournament they go to, even though they have more or
less the same team that almost won Nationals last year?

Furthermore, if teams would call in (or e-mail in) scores, the current system
would work even better.

-Peter
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: klibaner@burst.Princeton.EDU (Michael J. Klibaner)
Subject: Re: Seedings
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:39:25 GMT


>OK Eric, you asked for it.
>How about seeding teams based on their "Spirit of the Game" performance.

>This rating should be comparable across regions (sections), since the 
>scale of sportsmanship should vary much less between regions than 
>ability.  Soo, you can use a teams "spirit" rating to seed them,
>subject to their finish within their region.
>
>This has the benefit of rewarding teams who have respect for their competition
>as well as providing some incentive for those who "play to win" to at
>least fake a decent attitude.
>Another possibility is that you could arrange it so that all the teams
>with low spirit are in the same pool!

What a great idea!  After reading about the horrid Spirit displayed in the 
Whilmington - Cornell final at Easterns, I think that by making Spirit an
integral part of the standings it will finally give teams an incentive to play
the game the way it was meant to be played.  Particularly in light of the press
guide that was handed out at Easterns where it said, and this is a paraphrase
"Nice guys finish last, so take whatever they give you."

Granted that Princeton was the Spirit of the Game winner at nationals in 1990,
and we have a vested interest in this, but if you continually go to tourneys
and have people tell you that your team had the best spirit of any of their 
opponents, that means that everyone You play has worse spirit than you do?!?
So it would be nice if Spirit of the Game were more than just a good idea,
and this could be the way to do it.

Michael Klibaner         shwing!   pshaw!
Clockwork Orange -Princeton Ultimate
klibaner@phoenix.princeton,edu
From: srb2r@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Scott Richard Brittain)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: More seeding questions
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:58:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Apr6.155832.14115
Reply-To: srb2r@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Scott Richard Brittain)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

To anyone in the world who can answer this:

	All this talk about national seeding has me pondering a related 
question:  What is the official line about regional seedings?

	For example, the Mid-Atlantic.  We have three sections out here and
they are not of equal strength.  The south has the three highest ranked teams
in the entire region according to the UPA (UNCW, UVA and ECU) where as Navy
is the only other team who has played hot this semester.  (Please forgive the
tone of this, I am attempting to ask an objective question!)  

	What happens to the seeding when Regionals roll around.  In the past,
if you won a section that meant you were guaranteed a top three (or four) seed.
Clearly, if regular season play means anything, the third place south team
gets screwed.  Especially this year with no wild card.

	So what's the story?  Is there an official line?  A common sense 
solution?  

	One concluding thought on a personal note:  we don't care what seed
we get, this University doesn't have anything to say regardless of the 
decision made by the Regional Coordinator with respect to seeding.  We would
like to know in advance though (post-sectionals, pre-regionals) who we will
play.  Our interest is merely so we know which color shoe laces to buy.

	Scott Brittain	Virginia Men's CAPT
			and the reason women dream.

			I'm kidding, of course . . .
From: skoehler@loquat.usc.edu (steffen koehler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Tournament info (Mem. Day and 4th July)
Date: 14 Apr 1992 18:35:21 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: loquat.usc.edu


Does anyone have any information about the Santa Barbara Memorial Day
tournament?  i.e. who's taking care of it, and how do I contact him/her
to get a bid?  Or will this be a last minute thing like last year.


Also, does anyone know the latest deal on Boulder, 4th of July?  Last I
heard from the net, there was a problem with field space.  The posting
was pretty vague at the time.  What's the lastest poop?

                          Steffen
                          L.A. Smog
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steffen Koehler           |               University of Southern California
skoehler@usc.edu          |                        Center for Laser Studies
(213) 740-4249     |    National Center for Integrated Photonics Technology
From: medf214@chpc.utexas.edu (Aaron Altman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Southern Regionals Results
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:26:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas System CHPC



The results fo southern regionals this past weekend are as follows.

	POOL A			POOL B
	Georgia Tech		Texas
	Florida State		Georgia
	South Carolina		Alabama
	Southern Miss.		LSU


scores for Pool A round-robin:

Round 1
Ga. tech 13 vs USC 8		Florida State 13 vs USM 7

Round 2
Ga Tech 13 vs Florida State 4	USM 2 vs USC 13

Round 3
Ga. Tech 13 vs USM 3		USC 13 vs Florida State 6

Scores from Pool B round-robin:

Round 1
Texas 13 vs. Alabama 4		Georgia 13 vs LSU 3

Round 2
Texas 13 vs Georgia 5		Alabama 13 vs LSU 5

Round 3
Texas 13 vs LSU 0		Georgia 13 vs Alabama 7

Standings after pool play:

	Pool A			Pool B
	Ga. Tech		Texas
	USC			Georgia
	Florida St.		Alabama
	USM			LSU

The playoff was a double elimination format.  The quarter final results:

Ga. Tech 15 vs LSU 0		Texas 15 vs USM 3
Georgia 15 vs FSU 6		USC 14 vs Alabama 15

The winner's semi's:

Ga. Tech 17 vs Georgia 13	Texas 17 vs Alabama 4

The championship game:

Texas 17 vs. Georgia Tech 11

The first round of the loser's bracket had FSU shutting out LSU 15-0, and 
USC defeating USM 15-2.

In the second round of the loser's bracket:

Florida St. 15 vs Alabama 10	Georgia 15 vs. USC 11

Georgia then played Florida State for the right to play Georgia Tech for the
second spot at nationals. Georgia overran FSU 15-4, but did not have the legs
to keep up with Georgia Tech.  Ga. Tech 17 Georgia 7.

One note of interest, both Alabama and U. South Carolina came to the tourn-
ament with only 7 players.  The quarter-final game that they played was the
last game to finish on Saturday.  Those who stayed to watch this game were
treated to the most exciting game of the tournament.  Not only was it a very
competitive game, but all 14 players involved exemplified what Spirit of the
Game was about.  I did not see a single call argued, and whenever there was
an injury (or cramp), the opposing players were as quick to aid the injured
player as were his teammates.  Alabama was the lucky winner of this game.
After being down 8-4, they rallied against the long game of USC to tie it
at 12.  The captains chose to cap the game at 15.  USC was able to score
two more goals, but once again Alabama was able to roar back with three goals
to win it.

In summary, Texas qualified as the first seed from the South, with Georgia
Tech qualifying as the second seed.  LSU hosted a great tournament, and the
weather was swelteringly perfect.  Good luck to Texas and Georgia Tech at 
nationals.

Luis Montes
Southern Region College Coordinator
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: jaimiep@cortex.physiol.su.oz.au (Jaimie Polson)
Subject: Re: sotg and real loud stall counts
Organization: Department of Physiology, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:50:26 GMT

In <12536@umd5.umd.edu> tkerner@lab4.smcm.edu (Thomas W. Kerner) writes:

>	At a recent tourney a certain player (me) was called into question  
>for employing particularly loud stall counts (loud enough to startle  
>anyone within 50 yds. or so and to be heard several blocks away I am  
>told).  I must admit also that standing as close as legally possible to  
>someone and screaming a stall count in his face works incredibly well, so  
>well, in fact, that my spirit-of-the-game was called into question.  I  
>felt badly about this, as I am someone who endeavors to take the  
>spirit-of-the-game very seriously.
>	After having been questioned, I stopped, and resumed a more normal  
>volume for my stall counts.  I would like to know what others think as to  
>the sotg-ness of the loud count.  Until I hear further, I am suspending  
>the use of it.

>Tom Kerner, St. Mary's SMUT

I agree with the concensus that was arrived at at the tourney. The purpose of
a stall count is to limit the thrower's time to 10s or to count him out (if
your lucky). Standing over your oponent and screaming 1 2 3 - 10 at him is
not necessary to count him out, and certainly might frighten him / put him off.
This is particularly true with beginners or mixed (boys and girls) games.
Sure, call loud enough for your team to hear the count; this may help them,
but it isn't necessary to leave the thrower's ears ringing.

Jaimie (Sydney Ultimate, Australia)
From: bn442@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Marc S. Queen)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: the Flying Aces
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:44:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Apr13.164421.5783
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Has anyone seen the pro frisbee team from Someplace, Michigan called
the Flying Aces?  I was just wondering b/c on Saturday April 25th, they
will be here at Ohio Northern's annual all-day party--Tunes on the Tundra.
I may meet them when they arrive at 1:30.  They will perform from 2 to 4
to the beat of their own drums while the bands are changing.  Later that 
day, they will be in Blufton.  In case you would like to know who the bands
are.....the CRUNCH, B Sharp, the Makha Rhythm Tribe, Earthwood, the Rhythm
Corps, and Finders Keepers.  This isn't a promotion since it's closed to the 
public (yeah right) but if anyone wants to join the fun, I could write you
down as my guest.  It cost the University $400 for this 2 hour frisbee show.
Is this a bargain or a steal?

by the way, my intramural program should get off the ground tomorrow nite
when we hold our inaugural, first-ever ONUlty meeting.  Thanks again for
all the advice on intramural play.

*Elvis has left the building*
-- 
Marc "ELVIS" Queen                             It's better to be a live dog,
*4th yr Pharmacy student at Ohio Northern*     than a dead lion. -- Bonfire
*Founder of ONU Ultimate Frisbee*              of the Vanities
223 1/2 N Main St  Apt 28, Ada, OH 45810
From: tkerner@lab4.smcm.edu (Thomas W. Kerner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: sotg and  real loud stall counts
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:21:56 GMT


	At a recent tourney a certain player (me) was called into question  
for employing particularly loud stall counts (loud enough to startle  
anyone within 50 yds. or so and to be heard several blocks away I am  
told).  I must admit also that standing as close as legally possible to  
someone and screaming a stall count in his face works incredibly well, so  
well, in fact, that my spirit-of-the-game was called into question.  I  
felt badly about this, as I am someone who endeavors to take the  
spirit-of-the-game very seriously.
	After having been questioned, I stopped, and resumed a more normal  
volume for my stall counts.  I would like to know what others think as to  
the sotg-ness of the loud count.  Until I hear further, I am suspending  
the use of it.

Tom Kerner, St. Mary's SMUT
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: potts@elec.uq.oz.au (Jonathan Potts)
Subject: World S-G Champs
Summary: correction
Keywords: beer
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 11:20:05 GMT

Sorry about that.
My name came up as EUS PRESIDENT.
The EUS is the Engineering Undergraduates' Society at the University
of Queensland, which is fundamentally a piss-cutting society.
This of course bears no relation to the Inaugural Stubby-Guts Champs.

any enquiries mail to potts@s1.elec.uq.oz.au

ps: we also play ultimate over here between games of stubby-guts.
From: ST403070@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (Guy Beadie)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Re: Greg's SotG idea
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:27:56 GMT


  Gregg, I think that that is an EXCELLENT idea.  I love it when teams
display spirit of the game, and I am a firm believer in the ability of
a team to display spirit of the game and still be a good, competitive
game.  Such a team will not perform as well as an equally talented team
that doesn't abide by spirit of the game, of course, since teams who
cheat are allowed to get away with it by the rules, but this would be
an excellent way to start evening the score with those teams who display
such disgusting behavior as that reported out of UNCW (with the standard
disclaimer that I did not actually view that game).



                                         - Guy Beadie

                                    Brownian Motion - WUFO
                                    WUFO - Brownian Motion
From: Eric.Simon@f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Simon)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Seedings
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 09:12:52 -0500

The term "subjective", especially in regard to seedings, has an awful lot of
meanings.  For some reason, when captains vote, and the results are used for
seedings, some within the UPA call that "objective" - the reason being, I
suppose, that the UPA, as an organization, is not being subjective, but
objective vis-a-vis the polling results.
 
Basically, those are the two options - neither of which I am satisfied with: (1)
Based on last year's finish; or, (2) captains voting.
 
Some day I would like to see something innovative - i.e., something besides
those two methods.  Anyone have any ideas?
 
--  Eric

Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: mds@henry.ece.cmu.edu (Mark Schultz)
Subject: Re: Seedings
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:06:54 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.023215.2070@crc.ricoh.com> wolff@crc.ricoh.com (Gregory J. Wolff) writes:
>OK Eric, you asked for it.
>How about seeding teams based on their "Spirit of the Game" performance.
>I envision something like this, at Regionals (sectionals) every team captain 
>gets to rate the other teams on some Spirit of the Game measure, which
>is compiled into a spirit rating for each (advancing ) team.  
>This rating should be comparable across regions (sections), since the 
>scale of sportsmanship should vary much less between regions than 
>ability.  Soo, you can use a teams "spirit" rating to seed them,
>subject to their finish within their region.
>This has the benefit of rewarding teams who have respect for their competitio
>as well as providing some incentive for those who "play to win" to at
>least fake a decent attitude.
>Another possibility is that you could arrange it so that all the teams
>with low spirit are in the same pool!
>-Greg
>Gregory J. Wolff
>Ricoh California Research Center
>wolff@crc.ricoh.com

Well said, Greg.  This would at least provide some incentive for those who
suffer a woeful lack of the "spirit of the game" to at least pretend like
they play for the love of the sport and not for the "joy" of rubbing their
opponents noses in it when they win and sniveling loudly to all when they
lose.  I might also suggest an objective measure of spirit level.  Simply
average the number of contested calls per game the advancing team played.
I've seen a pretty significant correlation between this and my subjective
evaluations of overall spirit of the game.

-Mark

Mark Schultz
Carnegie Mellon University
mds@henry.ece.cmu.edu


Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: evh@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Troy Saville)
Subject: type(models) of golf discs
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:54:15 GMT


I created this small database of golf discs types.
A few discs(Kitty Hawk Hooker and a dynamic disc model) are not on the
list. Most of the lightning discs are not on the list.
Models that have been out of production(or modified), but have been
re-introduced under the same name are only mentioned once.
This includes roc,hammer,scorpion, gumbputt.....etc.


If someone knows of some other GOLF DISC models NOT on the list,
send me email:

    evh@genie.slhs.udel.edu






   4/11/92    4:21 pm        Golf Disc Manufacturers By Type         Page   1


  ####     Type                     Manufacturer
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     1     70 mold                  whamo
     2     71 mold                  whamo
     3     77 mold                  whamo
     4     78 mold                  whamo
     5     86 mold                  whamo
     6     86 softie                whamo
     7     91 mold                  whamo
     8     aero                     innova champion
     9     aviar                    innova champion
    10     aviar putter             innova champion
    11     aviar xd                 innova champion
    12     barracuda                innova champion
    13     bearcat                  lightning
    14     birdie                   innova champion
    15     cobra                    innova champion
    16     condor                   innova champion
    17     dimple                   dynamic disc
    18     eagle                    innova champion
    19     eclipse                  discraft
    20     f-15 eagle               lightning
    21     gumbputt                 dga
    22     hammer                   innova champion
    23     jaguar                   innova champion
    24     lynx                     innova champion
    25     mainsqeeze ssd           dynamic disc
    26     marauder                 discraft
    27     midnight flyer           whamo
    28     phantom deuce            dynamic disc
    29     phenix                   innova champion
    30     roc                      innova champion
    31     scorpion                 innova champion
    32     shadow                   discraft
    33     shark                    innova champion
    34     spitfire                 lightning
    35     stingray                 innova champion
    36     super puppy              dynamic discs
    37     tracer                   discraft
    38     viper                    innova champion
    39     vortex                   discraft
    40     whippet                  innova champion
    41     whizbo                   destiny discs

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-- 
- Golf Discs and "MINI'S" bought and traded, DISC GOLF INFO ? - SEND EMAIL
   evh@genie.slhs.udel.edu - T Saville - MENS OPEN PRO - PDGA #5399
From: Eric.Simon@f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Eric Simon)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: top 25
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:35:32 -0500

v111pwgw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (ALEX ZELVIN) writes:

>      The solution to the problem of teams not calling in scores promptly >
seems fairly simple.  Since the date of each game is known, the top-20 > should
be recompiled from start to finish each week.  This would make it > so that a
team calling in scores a month late would eventually end up > with the same
rating as if they had called in the scores on time.  

Very perceptive.  Actually, this is the current system.  But, the
self-correcting aspect presumes that all the scores eventually do get called in.
 This unfortunately is not the case.  Additionally, there is the problem of when
(or, rather, in the rare case that) scores get called in a month late, that the
ratings messed up in the intervening month.

>      The only possible disadvantage to this system is that by the end of > the
season, the list would have to be recompiled over a hundred times per > week
instead of just twenty.

Not a problem with my handy dandy computer.

--  Eric