View topic - I call violation on CUPA

I call violation on CUPA

"Rant on your Soapbox" Revived!

I call violation on CUPA

Postby gregorylang » Mon May 11, 2009 2:20 am

And so ended another ultimate tournament today. T.U.F was replete with meteorological surprises and the to be expected, great ultimate, great people and great fun. I finished the tournament uninjured emotionally or physically...my heart goes out to those who suffered otherwise, especially the latter (the former if it was my fault). After sunshine and ultimate, then dinner and my own quiet evening I fell asleep, but suddenly awoke angry.

The T.U.F tournament featured an exhibition game between the Canadian National Team, selected to represent Canada for the World Games, and some of Toronto's finest ultimate players - not the source of my anger...I awoke suddenly in the middle of the night remembering my outrage in former years and that CUPA has yet again selected non co-ed players to represent Canada in an international co-ed competition.

While representing one's country in sport is something every competitive athlete should aspire to, there should be some semblance of consistency between the division in which one chooses to compete and the capacity in which one is eligible to then represent one's country.

While the co-ed game of ultimate represents the most competitive environment in which any woman can compete and the most strategic environment in which any man can compete, many players choose to compete within gender specific spheres. Those men and women who choose to and dedicate themselves to the co-ed game of ultimate in Canada are the only Canadian players who should be eligible to represent our country in that division internationally.

I do not begrudge any of the players on the current Team Canada, they are a great selection of great Canadian Ultimate Players.

I am angry that CUPA allows them to be eligible and then selects them, these non-coed players, to represent us internationally in a co-ed capacity.

I imagine that tonight as I type this there are many Canadian players who committed themselves to, supported, and competed in the co-ed division in Canada who had applied and were not selected to represent us on the National Team. It is a disgrace that those individuals are not representing us within the division that they have chosen.

I call upon all of you who truly understand Spirit of the Game, principles of fairness, and love of our sport to apply whatever pressure or influence available to you to ensure that this injustice never happen again in future.

The only ultimate players in Canada who should be considered to represent our country at the World Games are those who have recently competed in the co-ed division at Canadian Nationals.

I sincerely wish the best of fortune to our current National Team, and feel them no less Canadian, no less Team Canada; they are indeed a collection of great players and great Canadians, but I hope that CUPA redresses this violation of the Spirit of the Game and in future and allows only true co-ed players to represent us in a co-ed capacity.

Perhaps now, having written this, my mind will find comfort enough to fall asleep again in the thought that soon The Spirit of the Game will guide the Canadian Ultimate Players Association in selecting future National Teams, allowing only real co-ed players to step forward and say "I am on the Canadian National Co-ed team".
gregorylang
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:37 am

Postby discjockey » Mon May 11, 2009 10:57 am

I call a post-cap soft-pre-breakfast violation on you, Greg. Your brain was live when you threw out those comments, even if your manners were not in play yet. So it's a turn.

Other than that, I agree with you.
discjockey
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:38 pm

Postby Peeters » Mon May 11, 2009 11:54 am

While watching the first few points of the Team Canada game, we saw a Team Canada male player overthrow a female teammate on a huck attempt. A comment I heard from somebody on the sideline, "he probably connects on that pass if its an open player." Interesting observation, and kinda goes with Greg's point. Open players (save for perhaps league games if they play), are used to throwing to teammates of very close, if not similar, running speeds. Co-ed players, however, are more accustomed to throwing appropriately to each individual target. The game styles really are different, as well.

What would be really interesting to see, is the current Team Canada play against, say, TFP, who play co-ed, and apparently are pretty good at it.
Peeters
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:45 pm

Postby GregS » Mon May 11, 2009 12:15 pm

Peeters wrote:What would be really interesting to see, is the current Team Canada play against, say, TFP, who play co-ed, and apparently are pretty good at it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the version of TFP that won World Clubs in Perth include a bunch of players from Furious and Traffic?

One would hope (though possibly in vain) that the players chosen for Team Canada are players who can play the co-ed game very well. I'm sure there are people who are fabulous in single-gender but suck at co-ed, but there are also people who participated in open at CUC last year and co-ed the year before (and every other possible combination, I'm sure).

It's a commonly held (and therefore somewhat self-fulfilling) belief that the top players play single-gender, so excluding those players from participating at the World Games just because the organizers of that tournament choose to have only a co-ed division seems (a) to be unfair and (b) likely to hurt Canada's chances of coming home with a medal. Bringing home a medal should generate more media interest, raising the profile of the game in the public awareness, increasing the number of people playing at the grassroots level, and giving Ultimate leagues more clout in securing top-notch fields. Which I think is all to the good.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby Happy Camper » Mon May 11, 2009 1:43 pm

Just win baby - Al Davis

The best team should represent Canada regradless of whether the players be from Open, Women's or CoEd as their usual forum for touring play.

I do not think you should limit the pool from which you can select players because someone does not tour in CoEd. You limit yourself unnecessarily and might not produce the best possible squad.

Look at the recent World Championships for hockey - you put together the best National team regardless if playing in the NHL or in Europe (on little ice surfaces or big ones) and great players will adjust. All that is remembered is not where one "toured" but who won.

I would not say that the best Open or Women's players are the best CoEd team material categorically - they may or may not be. I am sure there are plenty of worthy CoEd touring players that could/should represent Canada and not knowing the roster of players chosen I will not comment further on specifics. It just seems silly to reduce the pool of possible selections based on who a player tours with regularly.

Cheers,
Rob
Winners never quit and quitters never win. Cheaters, however, go on to win home run titles.
User avatar
Happy Camper
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:50 pm

Postby ethan_m » Mon May 11, 2009 9:38 pm

Your sentiment has great validity Greg. I wish you had applied to join the selection committee for this year's team - it would have helped stir this debate at a time when it would have really counted.

I don't think those who selected the team, (Andrew Lugsdin, Jeff Cruickshank, Eva Cham, Sherri Madigan, Lara Mussell) can be considered unspirited in their point of view - and we can best judge their decisions later on this summer.

In the meantime, be sure to give Danny your thoughts on these issues when you're more rested and full of spirt(s). Looking forward to seeing you on the field!

Ethan
on_rep01 at canadianultimate dot com
When a ball sleeps
It dreams it's a frisbee
User avatar
ethan_m
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:28 pm

Some answers, clarifications, and you know...

Postby gregorylang » Tue May 12, 2009 12:50 pm

I have communicated with Danny by email.

Men's Hockey is men's hockey....just like 6's Ultimate is still ultimate, though worthy of adjustment - like ice size.

Coed Ultimate is it's own sport...a different game than men's or women's.

The highest level of competition that a woman can play is currently in Coed ultimate, and over time when more men start to appreciate the deeper strategic value of coed over single gender it may also be the highest level of the game for them too..

I wish I had applied as well, though the rule needs to change before the committe is charged with a task.

A selection committee comprised of generally Non-co-ed players (with the exception of when they allowed themselves to play co-ed to represent Canada like the last time...displacing regular coed players....hmmm.

I do not think any one of them, nor of any individual in CUPA as being non-spirited. The rule, and qualifications to represent our country is lacking the spirit of the game.

Furious and Goat are now opting not to attend Canadian Nationals unless it qualifies them for something. If the CUPA RULE were;

“To qualify to represent Canada at any international competition in any division a player must have competed in that Division in the most recently preceding Nationals before the application / team selection is initiated or completedâ€￾,

How intense do you think the National Co-ed division would be in the qualifying year?

Men and women make choices...to play coed or single gendre.
I am not proposing to remove any choice or opportunity from anyone, just asking them to make a committed choice if they want to represent our country later.

The top Canadian players that competed in co-ed at Nationals last year could do as well as any dream team you might imagine....win or lose.

WFDF and UPA make their own tournament rules, and if we were clever enough to allow the winning Co-ed Team at Canadian Nationals to then represent us at the World Games, then that team should be allowed to recruit anybody they choose and that is still spirited in my book because they earned the right to represent.

Under our current model, I am saying that the measure of earning the right should include supporting the division by competing in the division.
gregorylang
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:37 am

Postby dfassina » Tue May 12, 2009 5:07 pm

Speaking of current models... under the current model, the spot that Canada has been granted at World Games was earned through the combined results of every single team that attended WUGC in Vancouver last summer. If you were truly going for a spirited approach to selecting the World Games team, you would allow each team that attended WUGC to select 2 representatives to the team. So you would have a kind of Noah's Ark or disc players; 2 Men, 2 Women, 2 boys, 2 girls, etc.. You would not in fact pick exclusively from Co-ed players as they did not earn the spot for Canada at World Games on their own.
User avatar
dfassina
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:00 pm

Postby gregorylang » Wed May 13, 2009 12:39 am

The spots are allocated by the tournament or organisation - out of my current sphere of influence while the the right to represent Canada in a specific division - while remaining to be seen if I have any influence there, is the subject of my issue.

Co-ed competes with open and women for players. If the World Games and ultimately the Olympics is the top prize for ultimate players, they have to play the game that will get them there...it remains that simple.
gregorylang
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:37 am

Postby dfassina » Fri May 15, 2009 6:28 am

You make it sound like you think that Co-ed is altogether a different sport than Open and Women's ultimate. It isn't; its the same sport with the same rules played on the same fields. Until the level of Co-ed in Canada rivals the level of the Open and Women's game, I don't see any sporting reason in sending Co-ed players to get beat by American, Australian, British and Japanes Open and Women players.

Any argument about a man not being able to adjust his throws to a "slower" woman is just preposterous. Men can adjust just fine when they throw to slow guys and we all know that there are a lot of guys out there who are slower than the girls on the World Games team. Its a lot easier for an man to adjust his throws when throwing to a "slower" woman than it is for someone to learn to throw a 60 yard hammer up the sideline that will spend 55 of those yards out of bounds yet land softly in the receiver's bread-basket, like Hassell can throw.

Greg, Hypothetically speaking, if you were the selection committee, who would you have picked to represent Canada at World Games?
User avatar
dfassina
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:00 pm

Postby AdrianY » Fri May 15, 2009 1:38 pm

I agree 100 percent with Dan. Strategy can be left aside - anyone can work on strategy. At the end of the day you have 7 players on the field who are playing the same game that we all play regardless of the division. These players are not representing Canada in Co-Ed Ultimate, they are representing us in Ultimate. Dedicating yourself to one division or another doesn't mean you play a different sport, it just means that you might play the same sport a little bit differently.
This reminds me of something I once read arguing against the growth of juniors ultimate. Essentially the reasoning was because it will squeeze out many of the guys from the current top level competition. Traditionally ultimate is a great sport for people to fall into a little late on in life (mid 20s maybe) and still be able to get pretty good at it. This is as opposed to soccer, for example, where only the people who start playing at 5 or 6 years old even have a chance at going anywhere. However, no longer will the guys who started playing ultimate halfway through their undergrad or later be able to compete at the high levels with the influx of kids who started playing when they were 10 years old. It's not too hard to see which side of the issue this guy was coming from.
The comparison that I draw between these two arguments is that not allowing people to play the exact same sport that you do because then you won't make the team anymore is laughable. It is the same sport, and unfortunately for some, others are just simply better at it. That is not to say that all single-gendered players are better than their Co-Ed playing counterparts, because as we all know there are some great players on both ends. However, the bottom line is that the 10-15 most dominant male and female ultimate players are going to get picked for the team, and unfortunately a lot of people who have dedicated their time to Co-Ed ultimate will get squeezed out because of that. Sure it sucks - they'll say that they were there first, they are the ones who have put the time into it, etc. - but honestly, at that point who is really being unspirited?
User avatar
AdrianY
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:33 pm

Postby conjob » Fri May 15, 2009 2:14 pm

AdrianY wrote:That is not to say that all single-gendered players are better than their Co-Ed playing counterparts, because as we all know there are some great players on both ends. However, the bottom line is that the 10-15 most dominant male and female ultimate players are going to get picked for the team, and unfortunately a lot of people who have dedicated their time to Co-Ed ultimate will get squeezed out because of that.


Doesn't that second sentence contradict the statement before it?
User avatar
conjob
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:43 am

Postby tingle » Fri May 15, 2009 2:19 pm

not really... just because all single-gendered players aren't better than their co-ed counterparts doesn't mean a lot of them aren't.
tingle
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:17 pm

Postby conjob » Fri May 15, 2009 2:43 pm

Fair enough.

So using the presented line of reasoning (and assuming both single gender AND co-ed players had applied to be on the team), doesn't that mean no player who has dedicated themselves to co-ed breaks the top 20 Ultimate players in Canada?
User avatar
conjob
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:43 am

Postby taylor.martin » Fri May 15, 2009 3:20 pm

..
Last edited by taylor.martin on Sat May 16, 2009 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
taylor.martin
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:54 pm

Postby AdrianY » Fri May 15, 2009 3:32 pm

You know what, I honestly couldn't say. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Maybe it's an issue of exposure - single-gendered events (and by proxy the players that play in them) generally get more hype and publicity, in my opinion (you can correct me there if I'm wrong). Personally, I would be hard-pressed to name a player who has dedicated themselves to Co-Ed who I thought deserved a spot over anyone on that team. That said I don't pretend to know everyone or everything and that's why it wasn't me picking that team.

However, I would like to think that the people who did pick the team have a greater knowledge of the top ultimate players of Canada than I do, so I would trust that they picked the top however many males and females. If those people happen to be Open and Women's players then that's how it is.
User avatar
AdrianY
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:33 pm

Postby jed » Fri May 15, 2009 4:02 pm

Isn't Kira Frew a co-ed player? (TFP, and Team Canada).
User avatar
jed
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:36 pm

Postby GwaiLo » Fri May 15, 2009 4:11 pm

Jed wrote:Isn't Kira Frew a co-ed player? (TFP, and Team Canada).

Yup...TFP (mixed) as well as Traffic (women's)
User avatar
GwaiLo
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:48 pm

Postby dannysaunders » Fri May 15, 2009 4:24 pm

For everyone who is curious about what the official response from the CUPA was regarding Greg's points, I have copied my reply to his email below.


Danny Saunders
CUPA Executive Director


Greg,

The CUPA welcomes feedback from all of our members. I have tried to address your points below.

1. What is the definition of "dedicated to co-ed"? Would someone like Kira Frew or Morgan Hibbert, who are both on this year's national team, be considered co-ed players? They have both played many seasons with TFP (and won the WUCC while on the team), but in recent years have decided to play on open or women's teams for various tournaments. Would someone have to play solely co-ed and never play on a single-gender team? Should only CUC matter or should people who help develop the game in other ways also be eligible?
2. You can rest easy knowing that no players who solely dedicated themselves to co-ed were overlooked. Based on the applications we received, there were no applicants that only played co-ed. All of the applicants had experience playing on single-gender teams and many had experience playing on high-level co-ed teams as well.
3. The CUPA made national team selections for 2009 based on who we felt will best represent our country, regardless of what division they predominantly play. For the World Games, selections were made with the co-ed game in mind. Many players who are very strong in single-gender play were not chosen, because they were not seen as effective co-ed players.
4. I would respectfully disagree that the selection method goes against the Spirit of the Game. There is only one team representing Canada in World Games years and the CUPA made the selection process and opportunity to play on the team open to all Canadian ultimate players. Since there is only 1 team, I do not believe that it would be fair to only consider co-ed players and that it should be an opportunity open to all players. The application form to join the selection committee was open to all Canadians, thus giving all Canadian ultimate players an opportunity to be involved in the process. The application form to play on the team was also made open to all Canadian ultimate players. The selection committee had many meetings to determine the selection criteria and the final roster. All in all, I believe that a fair process was followed that allowed all concerned Canadian ultimate players an opportunity to apply and be involved in the decision making process. As a result, I believe that the selection process for the World Games was fair, open and spirited.

Respectfully yours,

Danny Saunders
Executive Director
Canadian Ultimate Players Association
Phone/Fax: 1-888-691-1080
Website: www.canadianultimate.com
dannysaunders
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 4:21 pm

Postby GwaiLo » Fri May 15, 2009 4:50 pm

To be honest with you...this thread smells like sour grapes to me.

One could easily argue any side of this with validity. Yeah....some of the single gender players may throw a huck that they would normally connect on in single gender and didn't in a mixed game. Yes, single gender players might have different strategies than mixed players.

But you could easily argue that pulling together the best "mixed" players from Canada and dropping them on a team together is bad too. They won't be used to playing with each other, and might not have the same team-dynamics as you would get by taking the best mixed team from Nats. But in doing so, there's a lot of great players that would get looked off. Just as there would be if you limited the pool to only current "mixed" players.

Nobody will ever agree on one solution.

Personally I think the current approach is right. Let the best players in Canada represent Canada. Who cares if they currently play mixed or single gender? They are the best in Canada for a reason. And it's not like they would have NEVER played mixed in their careers / life. I'm sure all of them have. Yes, there are some differences in mixed and single gender when it comes to strategies etc. But in the end....it's all Ultimate. Let the best players represent us.

Just my 2 cents.
User avatar
GwaiLo
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:48 pm

Postby GregS » Fri May 15, 2009 7:15 pm

dannysaunders wrote:there were no applicants that only played co-ed

I think this is the most important comment in the entire thread.
Did you get that thing I sent you?
User avatar
GregS
TUC Webmaster
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:45 pm

Postby gregorylang » Tue May 19, 2009 3:12 pm

The question is not "ONLY played co-ed", but who applied and was not selected that competed in co-ed at the last Nationals?

If I had been on the selection committee I may have picked the exact same team as was chosen. The committee is given a task with rules to govern that task. I think the committee did exactly as they should have.

My issue is with the rules for the task and therefore our organisation.

I would very simply require that to be eligible to represent Canada in any division that the players had competed in THAT DIVISION at the immediately prior Nationals.

I would prefer to see us give the World Games Spot to the winning co-ed team at nationals, per other divisions and international competition rules for becoming Team Canada. We will do that in future...as will all countries eventually (or at least the ones that matter).In the meantime we should take a step in that direction.

The outcome of my proposal would be that the co-ed division at Nationals would become the most competitive division in the World Games qualifying year.

It is shortsighted to believe that the rules governing each of the divisions will always be appropriate for ALL of the divisions. Women's, co-ed, open, juniors, masters, etc. will eventually adopt their own variations as appropriate to their game.

Perhaps most of you are too young to remember that we used to SELECT our National teams for EVERY division for the World Championships and that changed because we decided that it was fair to allow the winning team in any division to earn the right to represent us. Team over talent was also a critical contributor to the decision..id est, players who play together generally have a certain edge over all-stars who are thrown together.

It is not a great leap of logic to appreciate that players who are used to competing in a co-ed environment are more likely to do so better than those who are not - taking advantage of everything that environment has to offer because they are already aware of all the possibilities available.

I don't even know who did or did not compete in co-ed last year, nor who among them applied for the World Games team. I guarantee that there were a lot of talented players in co-ed nationals, and if even ONE of them was displaced by applicants from other divisions then an injustice has been done.

Of the players who are on the National Team now, I wonder how many of them would have opted to play co-ed at last year's nationals if that was a prerequisite to representing at the World Games.

Anyone who thinks that all of the divisions are the same game does not really understand the depth of the game and all of its possibilities..

"Sour Grapes" ??
I did not apply for the National Team, I do not want to go to the World Games, I did not compete in the Co-ed Division last year, I don't know how any of this can be thought to be sour grapes.

Just like in the game of Ultimate, when you can see the future and act on it before it arrives you will be rewarded with greater success. The future in representing Canada at World's or any international tournament is obvious so let's act now. Even if the first time we do it "right" we get crushed, it raises the bar and Canadian Ultimate Players will meet the challenge.
gregorylang
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:37 am

Postby tubs » Tue May 19, 2009 3:47 pm

i call YOU sour grapes...
you're all for it because you like to see kira frew play ultimate! :P

GwaiLo wrote:To be honest with you...this thread smells like sour grapes to me.

One could easily argue any side of this with validity. Yeah....some of the single gender players may throw a huck that they would normally connect on in single gender and didn't in a mixed game. Yes, single gender players might have different strategies than mixed players.

But you could easily argue that pulling together the best "mixed" players from Canada and dropping them on a team together is bad too. They won't be used to playing with each other, and might not have the same team-dynamics as you would get by taking the best mixed team from Nats. But in doing so, there's a lot of great players that would get looked off. Just as there would be if you limited the pool to only current "mixed" players.

Nobody will ever agree on one solution.

Personally I think the current approach is right. Let the best players in Canada represent Canada. Who cares if they currently play mixed or single gender? They are the best in Canada for a reason. And it's not like they would have NEVER played mixed in their careers / life. I'm sure all of them have. Yes, there are some differences in mixed and single gender when it comes to strategies etc. But in the end....it's all Ultimate. Let the best players represent us.

Just my 2 cents.
tubs
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:29 pm

my 2 cents

Postby JLo » Tue May 19, 2009 3:50 pm

Couple thoughts:

- At the world games there is only a co-ed team in the competition. You could make an argument that it wouldn't be fair not to let open/women's players apply as they don't have a division. As well since there is only one team (in one division) I think it would be almost irresponsible to not choose players that CUPA feels would make the best team no matter what their recent past teams are.

- Recalling the recent worlds final in Vancouver an open player made a pretty big impact in that game for Canada. I think it would be hard to say to the people picking the team not to take an impact player just because they predominantly play in another division. I am not saying all open/womens players are better than mixed, the divisions have their unique aspects to the game, but players can have the right skill set for the other division as well.
Its about picking the players that work within the system on the team.
(Also note that a couple "mixed" players made GOAT this year)
JLo
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:44 pm

Postby GwaiLo » Tue May 19, 2009 3:52 pm

you say that like it's a bad thing :p

tubs wrote:i call YOU sour grapes...
you're all for it because you like to see kira frew play ultimate! :P

GwaiLo wrote:To be honest with you...this thread smells like sour grapes to me.

One could easily argue any side of this with validity. Yeah....some of the single gender players may throw a huck that they would normally connect on in single gender and didn't in a mixed game. Yes, single gender players might have different strategies than mixed players.

But you could easily argue that pulling together the best "mixed" players from Canada and dropping them on a team together is bad too. They won't be used to playing with each other, and might not have the same team-dynamics as you would get by taking the best mixed team from Nats. But in doing so, there's a lot of great players that would get looked off. Just as there would be if you limited the pool to only current "mixed" players.

Nobody will ever agree on one solution.

Personally I think the current approach is right. Let the best players in Canada represent Canada. Who cares if they currently play mixed or single gender? They are the best in Canada for a reason. And it's not like they would have NEVER played mixed in their careers / life. I'm sure all of them have. Yes, there are some differences in mixed and single gender when it comes to strategies etc. But in the end....it's all Ultimate. Let the best players represent us.

Just my 2 cents.
User avatar
GwaiLo
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:48 pm


Return to Rant and Rave!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron