What are the best strategies for ensuring that players at every level understand and adhere to the principles of SOTG?
Please review the findings for this topic before engaging in discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Welcome to the official UPA Strategic Planning Blog Forum. Here you will find data from recent UPA surveys and questions regarding key strategic planning questions identified from those surveys. Please take a second to read the groundrules for contributing on these forums and we look forward to hearing from you!
9 comments:
I think writing the rules in such a way that intentional infractions are not a huge competitive advantage will help. The 11th edition "disc space" call, for example, removes the advantage of forcing a thrower to either stop play with a foul call or accept a marker's cheating.
I think at the competitive level, if spirit of the game gets boiled down to "play hard and play fair," we'll be in pretty good shape. Faced with a smaller competitive advantage "carrot," competitive players may have an easier time upholding SOG.
In my experience, the Juniors players have SOG strongly instilled and hopefully their impact will be felt, as they advance to the higher levels.
At our community forum, we brought up an idea that I loved. Fools fest in DC had an objective system for spirit scores. +1 for on time + 1 for fair calls -1 for poor knowledge of the rules etc. If there was a more objective system for scoring then this could be used in tournaments to potentially resolve ties rather than point differential. Scores would be viewable online so people would be able to tell if teams would routinely rate other teams poorly or not.
Great comments. I think these are two very valid ideas on ensuring adherence to SOTG:
- Write the rules in such a way that a competitive advantage is not gained by violating them.
- Create an objective system for awarding SOTG scores and make them accessible (the UPA is actually working on this currently).
Let's hear some more ideas over here.
-Kyle
The premise right now is that a call should alter events to mimic what would have happened if the violation had not occurred. I think that this is an idealistic premise that is difficult to enforce for practical reasons. Recently, another blog was talking about completion percentages on hucks after defensive fouls: huck, defender fouls receiver, disc still in air, then another defender intercepts the disc. Who is to say what would have happened without the foul? Does it matter who the players are? ("oh, you would not have caught it anyway because that other defender was poaching and he's 6'5".") So actually, as the rules are written now, there is already a disincentive to foul because it kills any chance of getting a clean play in your favor.
Other rules, though, do offer competitive advantage to rule-breakers. Marking violations are the most obvious example: even if more throwers called the violations, a foul still stops offensive flow. Personally, I think that aggressive marking is exciting and a part of competitive play, but if the objective is to ensure adherence to the rules (and thereby SOTG) then perhaps stricter penalties for marking violations are in order (a new stall count, for example). On the "Ultimate without self-officiated play" forum, one poster talked about the TMF/card system as a way of punishing teams that "cheat" in games. Implementation of these policies would probably help adherence to the rules, but it is hard to say whether these things actually contribute to SOTG, since it is so hard to define in the first place.
Let me first say that I don’t have a specific or best solution, but I would like to expand the dialogue on this topic.
1 - SOTG is a socially constructed and living concept defined by the participants.
2 - Simple is beautiful.
3 – Adhering to the rules is a separate though closely related topic to SOTG.
For me, what follows is not only that SOTG varies with time and according to context, but also that SOTG can best develop when participants act in an environment whose structure inherently supports the creation of spirited norms, self sanctioning and rapid learning. By structure, I’m generally not referring to officially defined rules or awards.
SOTG/sportsmanship is best enforced by teammates and those with whom we expect to have future interactions. I think there are two important components. First, educate, encourage and empower teams to regulate themselves. If teams don’t care about the special individuals on their team or their collective behavior, you’re not going to be able to change them. Second, nurture intra team relationships. The more that players from different teams can build strong social bonds the better. These kinds of relationships strengthen accountability, respect and informal sanctioning between teams. Teams that only play each other at nationals are less likely to respect one another on the field, because their sense of future interaction and their shared networks is low.
Spontaneous practical ideas
+ Support team-to-team bonding. Following the 2006 open finals, I saw something I hadn’t seen before. After the Fish and Chimps finished typical post-game formalities of shaking hands, debriefing, decleating and such, several Furious players returned to the field carrying a folding table with about 40 freshly poured beers on it to share. As a recently retired Fish, I enjoyed fully the opportunity to hang out with just Furious and Sockeye players, recent grads and family. I’m certain that the spirit of play between these two teams will be affected for years to come as a result of this unique team-to-team bonding opportunity.
+ Support dialogues among team captains. Captains are the first conduit between teams that may not have much experience with each other.
+ Communicate directly with team captains about the significance of their role in the issue. UPA staff and board could play an important leadership role by approaching captains in person, whether at nationals or locally, and opening conversations about a team’s view on SOTG, how they build respect for their opponents, resolve conflict, etc.
-barney
Adherance to SOTG is like trying to adhere to a cloud.
What is this, a religion?
Frank
Dischoops
Good stuff...If we did not set a goal of adhering to clouds, we may as well just all grovel in the mud...
Please see post related to this issue under "Ultimate without Self-Officiated Play" - Post #85 by Hash
a.k.a. Aaron Hoshide
Maine State Youth Coordinator
I have a question... last night we were playing a game and one of the other players thought he was being covered too close so he intentionally threw the disk in a way to hit the marker. Then he tried to call a foul on the marker because as he said "the marker was too close so he hit me with his body". How should one deal with this situation? thank you.
--tyler
Tyler,
Players have to abide by the rules, even if their opponents are not. Otherwise, you would see a downward spiral of unspirited play. The player should have called a disc-space violation. He has to understand that his intentional attempt to hit his defender with the disc is grossly in violation of not only the rules, but the spirit with which the rules have been written. His act supercedes his defender's violation--you can't try to retaliate and expect the situation to improve. You handle it by making the right call and staying calm.
Post a Comment