How Important is the concept of self-officiated play in Ultimate? Why?
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:
Self-officiated play is important to Ultimate Frisbee because it encourages players to have integrity. Players are forced to be honest regarding any foul-ups that they make. This policy challenges players to be honest in gameplay and, if it is not something that the player is used to, it may give them a new outlook on the value of morals in Ultimate as well as in everyday life.
Another reason that I like self-officiated play is because it is one thing that separates Ultimate Frisbee from other popular sports. I love the criticism that this policy recieves from people who have never played Ultimate Frisbee because it gives me the feeling that they may be intrigued to try it out for themselves. It's just good publicity for Ultimate Frisbee to incorporate such an abstract (yet revolutionary) idea into this relatively new sport.
Finally, I've got to say that the system works. Players speak up if they experience misconduct; If other players don't contest, a certain penalty is enacted; If other players do contest, other procedures are enacted. The system will work indefinitely as long as there is a procedure to accompany any combination of misconduct-calls and contest (or no contest) calls. As long as the players stick to the rules of conduct and punishment, the system will remain effective.
If any type of official is every needed, the official would only serve to see to it that the system of self-officiation is maintained. If such an official were used, his/her job should only be to step in when arguments get out of hand and when fights break out (neither of which should ever occur in the first place).
I think that self-officiated play is integral to Ultimate, not only because it is one of the things that sets it apart from other sports, but also because I believe that if officials were used, it would decrease the amount of SOTG. Trusting self-officiation helps create a sense of respect and honor between the teams; relying on an official would, I feel, take away part of that feeling.
I greatly prefer to keep self-officiated play as norm at all levels of play, even the most competetive. However, I don't think the sport of ultimate would be damaged by a move away from self-officiating.
For me, the appeal of ultimate is the pace of the game, the big plays for high discs and the diving catches that happen only once a game in baseball. It's the cross field break mark, the footblock and the comraderie of your teammates and opponents. It's the beer and pizza after a tournament.
The appeal of ultimate is certainly not the four minute wait with my tongue between my teeth as I wait for someone to explain to someone else what constitutes a strip call.
I say we keep self-officiating, but make sure we focus on the reasons most people will want to watch or play.
Most other sports are played countless times on a daily basis by millions of people without officials, yet those same sports also thrive at organized competive levels with officiating. Why is it that so many "purists" apparently believe that the sport of ultimate cannot survive with officiating? If the NCAA suddenly said, "Hey, we'd like ultimate to be an intercollegiate sport, but we are going to use officials," would the UPA turn its back and say, "Sorry - that's ruining the sport - we're not interested"? For the sake of the sport - which no one "owns" by the way - I hope not. If a bunch of people want to play ultimate without officials, that's great. But if the sport can grow by welcoming leagues with officials, wouldn't that be great, too?
Maybe we should focus on expanding the spirit of the game concept to other sports rather than talk about somehow restricting ultimate only to those people who agree self-officiating is an essential element.
Ultimate Dad,
No worries, although Ultimate players are pretty passionate about things, SOTG being one of them, they're also a very experimental inclusive group hence the UPA is about growing the sport and "upholding" the SOTG but not about "restricting" it.
Henry (UPA board member)
I agree with ultimate dad's post here. Officiation, whether weith observers, referees, or whatever we decide (there are good ideas on the other thread), seems like a natural and inevitable progression for the growth of the sport.
To Henry's point, many Ultimate players are willing to be experimental, but there will always be strong resistance to new ideas. Think about any time a new edition of the rules comes out. There was also very strong resistance to the UPA ever forming at all, back in the day...
Ultimate is the sport of the future!
I think we need to think more towards that goal. All other sports are well-established, weighed down beaurocracies (spelling?) bent on getting money. Ultimate is everything that all other sports are not. It takes enthusiasts and makes them good athletes and good people. (Self-officiated play is one of the most important aspects of Ultimate being different.)
And it is the only sport whose rules and future are decided by a network of thousands of PLAYERS and not a small group of board members thinking about money. Think about it: Ultimate is the MySpace of sports and it will explode in the next several years. It will be the most common family sport! And it will be started by a network of college kids who loved a sport and had a dream. And i think nothing else should be our goal.
A friend of mine who has a PhD in a psychology/education related field and who is also an Ultimate player says that self-officiation in Ultimate leads to higher order brain development. When certain aspects of the game are appropriated away to third parties (read here refs), the opportunity for such personal growth does not exist. Regardless of the level of play, Ultimate in its current self-officiated form encourages development of refined conflict resolution skills and ethical behavior on the field in a way that is more direct than just paying lip service to good sportsmanship.
In response to ultimate_dad, there is no reason for the NCAA to require referees. Correct me if I am wrong in that, but I doubt it.
To Baer: it is not a natural or indeed inevitable progression for the growth of the sport. Growth in numbers means grassroots players, where there never should be referees, to allow people to learn the rules. Growth in popularity means television. Perhaps commentators to explain calls, or field-side microphones to hear what people are saying.
Observers for help, sure, but no over-ruling officiation
Post a Comment