HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu (George Ferguson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Re: specific rules input sought
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:10:37 GMT
Reply-To: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu (George Ferguson)
Organization: University of Rochester.


In article <4091@sapwdf.UUCP> Bill Wohler <wohler@sap-ag.de> writes:
>  on a related note, this list concluded that if you dropped a disk
>  while carrying an out-of-bounds pull back to the playing field, it
>  was also a turnover.  personally, i think that's silly, but it just
>  goes to show: never, ever, drop the disk.

I don't recall that discussion. Not to reopen an old can of worms, but
I don't see how you can rule a turnover on a disc that is
out-of-bounds and has not been put back in play. Perhaps the
discussion centered on the issue of dropping the pull, as opposed to
other cases where the disc is brought in-bounds.

I agree that the safe course is to never drop the disc, mind you.

George
-- 
George Ferguson                 ARPA: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu
Dept. of Computer Science       UUCP: rutgers!rochester!ferguson
University of Rochester         VOX:  (716) 275-2527
Rochester  NY  14627-0226       FAX:  (716) 461-2018
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: kschmid@hubcap.clemson.edu (Kenny Schmidt)
Subject: Rules reply
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson SC
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:13:32 GMT

> A player catches the disc while toeing the line, establishing both
> possession and ground contact, then drops the disc as s/he continues to
> fall.  Similar case: player catches the disc on the run, establiching
> both possession and ground contact, then hit the disc with their knee and
> it pops out.   On the playing field, these are turnovers in any case,
> because after the completion, the disc is still in play.  But in the end
> zone, it's either a turn or a goal.

I see the similarity in the two cases, but I don't see why the two
situations should be treated differently.  If it is a turnover on the
playing fieldd, it should be a turnover in the endzone.

I guess the receiver needs to acknoledge the goal (whatever that means -
10th rules writers...).

Kenny
kschmid@hubcap.clemson.edu
From: dks@Apple.COM (dk smith)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Re: Nationals on SportsChannel?
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:09:53 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Nov20.221501.1726@eng.ufl.edu> hr@wasp.eng.ufl.edu (Heyward Robinson) writes:
>What is going to happen to the film of the men's and women's finals
>that was shot at this years Nationals by SportsChannel?  Will it be
>shown anywhere anytime soon?  

I wanna know too!

>It was quite something to see three
>cameras covering an Ultimate game 

I think there were 3 fixed camers and 2 mobile ones on the sidelines.

>I imagine that it will take some editing (to get
>rid of all the "conversations" between Steve Mooney and John Goertz),
>but it could be a pretty hot film. 

They will probably chop the hell out of it. I'd imagine the two final
games were much too long for the Sports Channel to play both of them in their
entirety (sp?). If beer companies were vying for a commercial spot during
the program then it would be viable; but I don't think that is gonna happen.

Also the commentary may seem a bit contrived, too. I remember passing by an
interview where a couple of commentators were discussing the play
during the 1st half of the Men's game. I assume they also had opinions about
what they expected of the mens' teams in the second half. This all occurred
in real-time during the women's game; i.e. after NY had beat the commies!

-dk

--
dks@apple.com | Above opinions are mine and are not endorsed by Apple Computer
AppleLink: ULTIMATE | 408 974-1275 | Ultimate Players Get Horizontal More Often
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: haman@mpr.ca (Anja Haman)
Subject: Women's games to 19
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 21:50:27 GMT

>Article: 3012 of rec.sport.disc

>     The question I have is:  why did the Women only play to 19, while
>the Open/Men played to 21?  If they play with the same 175g disc, play
>on the same field, play with the same number of players, why not let
>them play to the same point score?
>
>--Mike Tamada
>  Occidental College
>  tamada@oxy.edu


   When I first started playing in tournaments I wondered about this myself.
   Fair is fair: if the men have to (get to?) run around until they score
   21 points, so should the women. 

   But, having played on men's and women's teams, it does seem to
   take longer for women to move the disc upfield. We TEND not to
   throw as far, or run as fast. For example, even the faster
   women on our team find it hard to keep up with most men who
   play Ultimate at a more serious level. Since we take longer to
   score a point, our games to 19 likely last the same amount of time as
   men's teams playing to 21. That's coming from the perspective
   of a Canadian woman... we simply do not have the numbers YET to
   attract only top athletes. I realise that the women on the Maine-iacs
   or Godiva, for eg., will have better stats. 

   I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this - esp from some of
   the American women who play on "hot" teams. Are there stats re: women's
   games vs men's games? Do we play the same amount of time? I'd like to 
   think that someday we will play to 21.
 
anja haman
haman@mprgate.mpr.ca

	

   





From: chrisf@jna.com.au (Chris Ford)
Approved: news@is.morgan.com
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:54:17 GMT
Munged: news-gateway (is.morgan.com: $Revision: 1.8 $)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc.
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: specific rules input sought

> A player catches the disc while toeing the line, establishing both
> possession and ground contact, then drops the disc as s/he continues to
> fall.  Similar case: player catches the disc on the run, establiching
> both possession and ground contact, then hit the disc with their knee and
> it pops out.   On the playing field, these are turnovers in any case,
> because after the completion, the disc is still in play.  But in the end
> zone, it's either a turn or a goal.

In the end zone, once a player has demonstrated "sustained contact with a
non-spinning disc" and he/she was in bounds, then it is a goal, unless they
then throw the disc into a turnover 'cos they didn't think they were in.

I agree that "sustained" is a highly subjective word, but there has to be
some point at which a goal is awarded and what happens to the disc no longer
matters. What does the corresponding rule in American Football say? They
have an almost identical situation, except they have 73 officials standing
around waiting to make the call.

--
Regards,

Chris Ford
JNA Telecommunications
voice:  +61 2 417 6177
fax:    +61 2 417 8026
e-mail: chrisf@jna.com.au
post:   16 Smith St, Chatswood, NSW 2067, Australia.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------JNA

Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu (George Ferguson)
Subject: Re: specific rules input sought
Reply-To: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu (George Ferguson)
Organization: University of Rochester.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:50:45 GMT


In article <1PG=!M+@engin.umich.edu> natsch@leghorn.engin.umich.edu (Nathan Schultz) writes:
>I.M.H.O, it should be a turn, in any similar case.  This prevents "possession"
>arguments, and is a fitting punishment for such inexcusable clumsiness.

Right. So you're contending that the person "obviously" didn't have
control of the disc when in-bounds contact occurred. I'm just trying
to keep clear what aspect of the rule is being invoked/interpreted.
Please correct me if I interpreted you incorrectly.

George
-- 
George Ferguson                 ARPA: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu
Dept. of Computer Science       UUCP: rutgers!rochester!ferguson
University of Rochester         VOX:  (716) 275-2527
Rochester  NY  14627-0226       FAX:  (716) 461-2018
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: phoebe+@cs.cmu.edu (Phoebe Sengers)
Subject: Re: Women's games to 19
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
 
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:36:20 GMT

My first reaction is that the fact is that half the time women DO have 
shorter fields, because they end up with the worst fields no one else
wants to play on...

Slightly less cynically: there are a lot of differences between women's
play and men's play.  For one thing, the mental game and strategy seem to
matter more in women's games, while athletic prowess seems to dominate
men's.  The point is, I'm not interested in making artificial changes
to make the women's game seem more like the men's game.  IMHO making
the field shorter to change the character of women's games WILL change
their character (weaken the effect of strategy and lessen the advantage
of a powerful zone), but may not improve them.  Though I would be
perfectly happy to play to 21 (just make my time cap 10% later :-))...

- Phoebe Sengers
 Akbar & Jeff / Pittsburgh Women's Ultimate
From: cbrunson@vermont.East.Sun.COM (Chuck Brunson - Sun BOS Corporate Software Engineering)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Men's masters results
Date: 19 Nov 1992 16:07:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: cbrunson@vermont.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vermont.east.sun.com

This just in from Eric Simon:

Whoops - yeah, left that out.  In pool play, the order was
  1.  Plastic Surgeons (Ariz)
  2.  Club Nimeo (NJ)
  3.  Rude Boys (NE)
  4.  Texas Twisters
   5 & 6 - ??

Top three were a 3-way tie.  Rudies beat Nimeo by 1, Nimeo
beat Surgeons by 1, Surgeons beat Rudies by a couple.

   *BUT*  in semis . . . .
Texas beat Surgeons, 18-16.  Rudies beat Nimeo 17-14.
In the finals, Rudies beat Texas, by around 5?



---
UPA Masters Team: Red Menace		Chuckie B.
BACUL Team: 	  RADial ACTive 	Sun Microsystems/SunSoft Inc. BDS
Boston Area Corporate Ultimate League 	chuck.brunson@East.Sun.COM
 You're NEVER too old to play! 		Work Phn. (508)671-0527

Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: tamada@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael K. Tamada)
Subject: Re: National's Results?
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:04:50 GMT

In article <Bxtryv.86K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> reid@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:

>Howdy!
>	Ok, who has the results from National's this past weekend.  Care
>to share them with the rest of the class?  Inquiring minds want to know!

     Somebody already reported the Open final.  In the Womens final,
the Maineacs beat Lady Godiva 19-15?  19-16?  I forget.  But the game
was not as close as the score would indicate.  Much as in the Open    
final, an initially close game was pretty much taken over by the
winning team.  Godiva scored 2-3 points in a row at the end before
the Maineacs scored the winning goal.
     The question I have is:  why did the Women only play to 19, while
the Open/Men played to 21?  If they play with the same 175g disc, play
on the same field, play with the same number of players, why not let
them play to the same point score?

--Mike Tamada
  Occidental College
  tamada@oxy.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: arentzis@sedona.intel.com (Alex Rentzis)
Subject: Re: Men's masters results
Originator: arentzis@sedona
Reply-To: arentzis@sedona.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:39:10 GMT


It was the Surgeons all the way this year...everyone new it except the
Surgeons.


We will be back!!!!!!


ULTIMATE FOREVER........
-- 

Intel Corp.                         |   "What is the air speed velocity
arentzis@sedona.intel.com           |       of an unladen swallow?"
UNIX TECHNICAL SUPPORT              | 
(602) 554-2244                      |           -Monty Python's Holy Grail
From: ODUFFY@VAX.LSE.AC.UK
Approved: news@is.morgan.com
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 13:34:15 GMT
Munged: news-gateway (is.morgan.com: $Revision: 1.8 $)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc.
Distribution: world
Subject: RE: Forwarded news from rec.sport.disc

Concerning the backhand follow-through debate:  no one seems to acknowledge
the fact that the follow-through is a) necessary for a proper backhand 
throw; b) necessarily a violation of the defender's `space' (I do not
assume that the defender has a right to a plane or chunk of space but
do consider physical contact that is PRIMARILY caused by the thrower's
motion to be an invasion of the defender's space).  If these two conditions
are accepted then their is a technical problem with the game which needs
to adjudicated.  As it is usually interpreted now, the defender usually 
feels justified in calling an offensive foul if the defender feels that
s/he was stationary (or the part of the body ie., the arm, which was 
contacted was stationary).  If this interpretation is acceptable there
should be a specific rule which clarifies the call ie., stating that the
thrower does NOT have the right to throw through a stationary defender.
If this interpretation is not acceptable then a rule should be created
which warns defenders that the thrower has the right to follow through.
The point is that the unique technical problem posed by the backhand
follow through has to be addressed specifically in the rules.  If it has
been specifically addressed than I apologize for wasting space.  From the
debate as read on the net it appears that it hasn't. 

Brendan O'Duffy
Horizontal Hombres (London)
From: dnolan@husc10.harvard.edu (David Nolan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Re: A Rules Question that the UPA has yet to answer
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:34:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov20.163410.17644
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Nov19.204616.12923@news.stolaf.edu> richarje@inga1.acc.stolaf.edu (Joe E Richardson Iii) writes:
>Well, here's my scenario:
>	The score is tied 10 all, with our last point being played due to IM
>time cap restrictions at St. Olaf College.  My team pulls, and the receiving 
>team begins their offense, until they throw a pass which I unintentionally tip
>up and then catch IN the end zone.  Is my catch a score, or must I take the 
>disc out and throw it in?  In the rules it's kind of vague, so help me, please!
>
>Secondly, does anyone know of any winter tourneys in MN?  I'm especially inter-
>ested in playing indoors.  Thanks in advance.
>
>

The rules do answer this.  First, a goal is scored only when a player
receives a pass thrown by someone on his own team.  Second, whenever anyone
establishes possesion in either end zone, they must carry the disk to 
the goal line.

So, if you make a defensive catch in the other team's goal, you have to carry
the disk back to the goal line and start your offense from there.

Dave Nolan
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: mc014b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike "Squirrel" Caro)
Subject: Re: Forwarded news from rec.sport.disc
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 04:49:30 GMT

In <daemon.92Nov21083415@is.morgan.com> ODUFFY@VAX.LSE.AC.UK writes:

>to adjudicated.  As it is usually interpreted now, the defender usually 
>feels justified in calling an offensive foul if the defender feels that
>s/he was stationary (or the part of the body ie., the arm, which was 
>contacted was stationary).  If this interpretation is acceptable there
>should be a specific rule which clarifies the call ie., stating that the
>thrower does NOT have the right to throw through a stationary defender.
>If this interpretation is not acceptable then a rule should be created
>which warns defenders that the thrower has the right to follow through.
>The point is that the unique technical problem posed by the backhand
>follow through has to be addressed specifically in the rules.  If it has
>been specifically addressed than I apologize for wasting space.  From the
>debate as read on the net it appears that it hasn't. 

>Brendan O'Duffy
>Horizontal Hombres (London)

	I definitely agree that this should be more specifically adressed in
the rules.  But, til then it seems to be almost common sense that if you hit
a fellow player be it on a follow through or not, it is a foul.  Doesn't
SOTG infer respecting the other players on the field.  Hitting another
player for any reason seems to me to be blatantly disrespecting the other
players right to play free from bodily harm.
				The SOTG is the Ultimate Spirit,
					Squirrel 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: brehob@plantain.cps.msu.edu (Mark W Brehob)
Subject: Re: Rules Question
Organization: Michigan State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 00:39:07 GMT

George F. writes:

The rules allow you to throw "on the run" after making a catch so long
as it's before your third ground contact (note that that means *two*
steps, not the three that people typically cite). Otherwise you have
to set a pivot foot.

People typically play that in the case where the catcher's momentum
carries him/her past the third ground contact, they reset back where
that contact occurred. I don't believe the rules actually say that
this is required. One might call a travel if the person didn't go
back, but they might argue that they set a pivot foot, albeit beyond
the point of third ground contact. I don't have my rules with me
(gasp!) to look at for this case.

---------
And Mark replies:

experiance has shown that if you do try the 'two-step' and throw, you get  
called for traveling.  It is very dificult to argue, because you don't  
want to go to the sidelines and pull out the rules and argue for a day.   
Even if they agree it was not traveling, they have always (IMOE) called it  
and have the advantage of a foul having been called.  The 'two-step' is  
often done on a fast break, and the foul call even if revoked still hurts  
the O.

ps.  we (MSU) now have Dave Swank from your part of the world.  Are all  
your players like him?  Can we borrow a few?

Mark "The clueless wonder" Brehob
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: hr@wasp.eng.ufl.edu (Heyward Robinson)
Subject: Nationals on SportsChannel?
Reply-To: hr@wasp.eng.ufl.edu (Heyward Robinson)
Organization: U of Florida Engineering Comuputing Services
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:15:01 GMT

What is going to happen to the film of the men's and women's finals
that was shot at this years Nationals by SportsChannel?  Will it be
shown anywhere anytime soon?  It was quite something to see three
cameras covering an Ultimate game and I'd love to see how the final
product turned out.  I imagine that it will take some editing (to get
rid of all the "conversations" between Steve Mooney and John Goertz),
but it could be a pretty hot film.  It also might be a good teaching
tool, since they may have gotten a lot of the action away from the
disk, so that you can see how people are setting up their cuts and
getting open as opposed to just catching the disk, as is usually the
case.

I hope to see it soon.

-Heyward Robinson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: kthompso@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Kevin Thompson)
Subject: Re: National's Results?
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:32:25 GMT

In article <Bxtryv.86K@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> reid@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>Howdy!
>	Ok, who has the results from National's this past weekend.  Care
>to share them with the rest of the class?  Inquiring minds want to know!

As usual, I'm surprised no one has yet.  I left at 1 p.m. Sunday (it's a long
trip from San Diego to the Bay area), so missed women's final.

Women's semis:
   Godiva over Satori, at cap?  19-17 or so.  This was a great game, I was
      really sorry it was at the same time as a great men's semi, it didn't
      get the attendance it deserved.
   Maineiacs over Block Party (SoCal), I get the impression this was less
      close, but couldn't begin to tell you the final.

Men's pool play: I got there late Friday, so missed most of this.  Both #1
   seeds (Boston & NY) went undefeated.  The two upsets were that both #3s
   beat #2s.  Rhino beating Iguana isn't too much of an upset, they beat them
   in Western Regionals.  Windy upset East Bay -- I think at cap, again I
   missed it.  Most people agreed that the depth was better than in some past
   years, the southern teams did pretty well -- Graffiti & Wilmington both
   came close against East Bay, Ring of Fire gave LA a real good game (which
   ended on a to-my-mind dubious foul in the end zone).

Men's semis:
   New York crushed Oregon Rhino, 21-8.  Close for a very few points, then
      NY got an upwind goal on a hot sky catch (can't remember his name, #69),
      and didn't look back.
   Boston edged Windy City, probably 20-18, timecapped.  Great game, Boston
      got a pretty big early lead (6-2?), but Windy made a strong comeback to
      catch up by 9s or so.  I think no one had a bigger lead than 2 or 3
      from there.  The last semi to finish, had a good crowd.

Men's final:
    New York, 21-15, for their 4th straight and 5th out of 6.  Boston was up
      10-8 and I think had the disk to go into halftime up 3, but New York
      scored the last 3 goals of the first half, and eventually 10 out of 11,
      to go up 19-11.  Boston made it a bit more respectable, but that middle
      section was pretty dominating, Boston couldn't get going on O.

I think Rude Boys beat Texas Twister in men's masters.

I'm sure someone will give a more complete report later, I'm not good at
such things, and it was the first nationals I'd attended in about 10 years :).

Cheers -- Kevin Thompson, SpinDoctors.
-- 
kthompso@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov     Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory
(415) 604-4767 (voicemail)        NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
From: dep1700@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Diane Pagel)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
Subject: Nationals Results in the Masters division
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:38:59 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle




Don't forget the Master's Division.

Womens Finals:

"Over the Swill" (South Ca/Az/Bay area) over "Hot Flashes"

Mens Finals:

"Rude Boys" (reunion team- sorta) in a big comeback over "Texas Twisters"

  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.disc
From: 93asw@williams.edu (andrew wright)
Subject: Re: indoor Ultimate?
Followup-To: rec.sport.disc
Organization: Williams College
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:31:50 GMT

In article <MIKE.92Nov24093526@raygun.inform.co.nz>, mike@inform.co.nz
(Mike Williams) wrote:
> >>> In article <By0xHD.Eq3@ccu.umanitoba.ca>,
> >>> "Stuart" == browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown) writes:
> 
> Stuart> We have a fairly active indoor program here in Winnipeg.
> 
>   We play quite a bit of indoor here in NZ as well, particularly thru
>   winter when any disc thrown outside might end up in Australia.  Are there >	>   any other variants out there? 

The Williams Ultimate Frisbee Organization (henceforth WUFO), plays a few
days a week in our fieldhouse.  The flooring is some sort of rubber mat
that serves well as an indoor track because it is fairly springy, but has a
_lot_ of traction.  The friction, in fact, gives me some problems, as my
toes jam hard into the front of my sneakers every time I try to change
direction.  It hasn't bothered my knees yet, but it's probably just a
matter of time).

As for playing styles, we play 5on5 across a couple (4?) indoor tennis
courts with the nets and poles down.  The rules and stall counts are pretty
much the same.  In fact, because of the huge roof, we can even huck (well,
some of us.  My hammer is still nonexistant.)  The only real big difference
is that we _never_ play doob rule.

Andrew