From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Wed Jan 12 14:11:20 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA11387
	for britdisc-outgoing; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:08:15 GMT
Received: from snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (snowdrop [137.205.192.31])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA11366
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:08:11 GMT
Received: from dire.bris.ac.uk (dire.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.60])
	by snowdrop.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06094
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:08:11 GMT
Received: from eis.bris.ac.uk by dire.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV with ESMTP;
          Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:07:57 +0000
Received: from lang-ah38.lang.bris.ac.uk (lang-ah38.lang.bris.ac.uk [137.222.156.167])	by eis.bris.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) 
          with SMTP id OAA29709;	Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:07:40 GMT
From: rafael freire <raf.freire@bristol.ac.uk>
Reply-To: raf.freire@bristol.ac.uk
To: jbc102 <jbc102@york.ac.uk>
Cc: BritDisc <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Goaltimate
In-Reply-To: <387C766E.57D5C728@york.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <SIMEON.10001121443.E@lang-ah38.lang.bris.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:08:43 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Delivery-Receipt-To: rafael freire <raf.freire@bristol.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43)
X-Authentication: IMSP
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

Jaime,

I took your point this morning that ultimate may well 
need officiating if it is to attract tv coverage, but you
seemed to have misinterpreted my reply. At the end of my 
e-mail I agreed with you, in that indeed only officiated 
sports (yes, I've heard of football) are currently 
broadcast on tv.

My point was that refereeing is not a passive element of 
sport necessary for correcting accidental shifts in 
advantage, but instead takes an active role in 
establishing fairness. Responsibility for fair play  
therefore moves from the players to the referee. This 
opens up a huge can of worms- such as the referee (who is 
not error proof) now has a strong influence on the outcome
of the game or players may influence the referee directly 
to obtain a favourable outcome. 

Since I've now been drawn (reluctantly) into this debate, 
I don't think officiation of ultimate is the only way it 
can get TV coverage. I agree the lack of officiation 
is a drawback- most ultimate naive people think it 
means the game is uncompetitive. Infact, what I consider 
is absent in ultimate is not the competitive side, but 
rather the need of players to influence the referee's 
opinion. I don't think this is a weakness in our quest 
for tv coverage (the reverse in fact), but rather a 
challenge for the marketing of the sport.

Raf
 

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:41:18 +0000 jbc102 
<jbc102@york.ac.uk> wrote:

> I'm assuming that Raf is talking about football here, if so is he the
> only person in the world who doesn't realise that football is THE
> biggest sport in the world and doesn't have any trouble attracting
> sponsors.
> 
> Jaimie Cross
> Yorkie Bar Kids
> 
> rafael freire wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > What, so that TV viewers can analyse the super slow-mo
> > and realise how crap the officials are and how they make
> > the outcome of the game a complete lottery ? It wouldn't
> > be very original, but I agree there is an apparently
> > big market for this sort of thing.
> > 
> > Raf