Given that SOTG is so important to players (the data are very compelling), what should the UPA do to preserve and promote it at every level of competition?
Please review the findings for this topic before engaging in discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
First of all, great idea to put up this forum. It will be good to see everyone's comments on a semi-structured format.
As a casual reader of RSD and various blogs, along with the most recent Ultimate News, it seems that one of the greatest disconnects is what SOTG actually means to everyone. Some will say that it doesn't differentiate from regular old sportsmanship and is not especially unique to Ultimate. Some will say SOTG is all about the fact that we self-officiate and resolve all of our disputes like gentlemen (yeah, right).
Some will say that calling fouls of any kind is poor spirit. Some will say that it is poor spirit to wear funny clothes as opposed to uniforms. I've heard some people, everyone in recreational leagues, say that they don't care about spirit and spirit scores are stupid.
My opinion is that SOTG is the most important aspect of Ultimate, but it is difficult for many to get a handle on. Would SOTG cease to exist if we had referees or if Ultimate became more mainstream? IS SOTG really unique to Ultimate, or does it only seem that way now because Ultimate players are not typical million dollar crybabies that you see in other sports (yet)?
I would like to see more quotes comparing those who think SOTG is "thriving" to those who think it is "suffering" or not important, according to the Assessment.
A universal definition of SOTG in the colelctive minds of the Ultimate community may turn out to be quite different than the way the UPA defines it in the rules.
Colin,
Thanks for dropping by (and being the first to post on the forum!). I'm the moderator for this topic.
You have a lot of sentences that start "Some will say...." One of the groundrules is "Speak for yourself only." Let's try to keep to it as I think it will provide a more productive and fact based discussion.
What do you think about those questions you asked in your fourth paragraph? How would you definie SOTG?
-Kyle
I believe I would define SOTG, in a basic way, as behavior demonstrative of respect for teammates, opponents, spectators, and the sport itself. Adherence to the rules is paramount in respect for one's teammates and opponents, I think, and this is one area where most players seem to be poor examples of Spirit.
I like that the UPA is taking steps to reinforce SOTG in little ways--uniform requirements at Nationals, restrictions on team names, and stricter guidelines for registration and tournaments are all part of that respect. I think that the other big part of SOTG, though, is the culture behind the sport, which isn't always in line with regulation and establishmentarianism. It's something we have to think about.
As a current college player, and long time juniors-level player, I've seen a lot of good and bad Spirit. Personally, I'm not sure how SOTG can survive as competition becomes increasingly stiffer, but I do have hope. I know I personally try very hard to play with SOTG. I think that if we spread recognition of the sport in general, and reinforce our values as a community, then SOTG and competitiveness don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I agree with gapoole that SOTG has much to do with the culture of Ultimate, and its history as an alternative "anti-sport". I think respecting that aspect of the game as as important as respecting your opponents, but carrying that attitude with us as Ultimate evolves into a something bigger, with more competition and a new level of seriousness as athletes, is difficult.
In other ways, I don't really see Spirit in Ultimate any different than other sports that are played in lower levels, or in pickup, but we now need to think of how to communicate it at the higher levels. For example, in basketball, the NBA has a reputation for fostering a "thug" culture and being all about individual selfishness, but playing pickup in the gym or on the street, spirit seems to be alive for the most part (self officiated, checking the ball, etc.). Somewhere between the pickup game and the pro game, spirit and sportsmanship changed. We will be (and already are) facing the same thing in Ultimate as it grows.
I think SOTG can and must continue as Ultimate becomes more mainstream, but it may take a different face. As we teach new players how to cut from a stack or throw a flick, we should also teach them the grassroots history of the game. I am all for growth in the sport, and I'm actually very much in favor of professional leagues, NCAA status, Olympics, referees, etc, but I also think if we go that direction, it will be important to honor the sport's history by educating players and the public.
I'd like to pick up on a small part of what gapoole said, specifically, "Adherence to the rules is paramount..."
In my opinion, we need to do a better job tying SOTG and the rules together in players' minds. Too many players, even at the "highest" levels, don't really know the rules. It's not impossible to play with spirit without knowing the rules, but it's much, much harder. There are too many arguments and too much unspirited play that spring from ignorance of the rules.
I believe that fostering an understanding that respect for and adherence to the rules is a key element of SOTG will also help reduce the misconception that SOTG is about goofy hats and costume games.
The future of SOTG is different then what we see it as today, or even what we wish it could still be. I've always viewed Spirit as something that unites all Ultimate players, a common bond. It's something that thrives at the grass roots level, at pick-up games and after parties. I think the best way to "save" SOTG is to hold players responsible for fair and friendly play. The key would be growing the awareness of the rules at all levels and fostering a community mentality across the board. Introducing "observers" or refs needs to happen for the future of the sport, as teams or individuals are often tempted to abuse the rules. On the field, the growth of the sport is being hindered by the lack of consistent and regulated officiating. I would love to say Ultimate could make it work without officials, but it cannot. Higher levels of compitition need more regulation and control. The sooner the UPA gets serious about the observer program the better.
Great comments y'all. I think this topic is tough because there is a lot of overlap in the three questions under it. It seems that in this one question we are discussing two different issues here.
The first seems to be "What is SOTG? How should the UPA define it?" - It seems that we all agree that knowing and following the rules is part of that definition. Right?
Respectful behavior seems to be another part of SOTG - but I think "what is respectful" could have a broad interpretation and include (as gapoole suggested) regulations like uniform requirements.
These regulations often infringe upon what seems to be another aspect of SOTG which is this "grassroots/antiestablishment" culture. So on this topic, I'm curious to know if both of these aspects of SOTG are necessary to keep and for the UPA to maintain.
The other big question here seems to be "Once we've agreed on a universal definition of SOTG how do we teach and promote it?" gapoole likes the UPA regulation, Colin suggested teaching the history of the sport, Julian suggested teaching the rules, and Matthew has suggested the UPA be more serious about observers.
All of these are possibilities and none are in conflict with eachother, but I think more specific suggestions for a couple would be great.
For the rules, how should the UPA be involved in ensuring that the rules are known - more articles about the rules in the magazine? Required rule quizes for players in the series?
Should the UPA put more money into paying for observers at regional and national events? If so, should that money come from tournament fees or from UPA membership fees?
-Kyle
After reading these again, I think all of the comments are valid, but Julian's recommendation of tying SOTG to the rules is most profound. When players are not adept at the rules, arguments arise, and intentional or not, spirit subsequently suffers.
I think the idea of including more discussion of the rules in the magazine, including situational interpretations and quizzes, is a great idea. The "you make the call" page has been one of my favorites, and I think it would serve everyone well to have that expanded.
SOTG will always be intangible, but the rules are black and white. We should all continue to discuss and embrace spirit, however we define it, but promoting the rules will go a long way toward. I think this is especially important at the lower levels (HS, rec leagues) where there is a wide variety (and disconnect) of experience and understanding.
On a side note, I thought I once stumbled upon a discussion board dealing with rules and the 11th Ed. changes, but I didn't save the link. Does anyone know if that board is still up?
Baer: http://groups.google.com/group/UPA_11th_edition_rules/topics
I like the idea of reinforcing rule-knowledge through the magazine, because it might be easier to absorb in that format, especially with some clarification for excessively "wordy" rules.
How would you provide incentive for players to know the rules for a quiz? (Ban a team from participation in the tournament? The series?) Who represents the team for the quiz, and how do you make sure that person isn't the ONE player on the team who knows the rules? What percentage wrong are you willing to accept? Are some rules more important than others?
Questions like these make me think that logistically, a "rules quiz" is unfeasible. I think putting more money toward Observers is a good idea, and the UPA can pay for them with UPA dues because they have promised to uphold SOTG. Alternatively, the UPA could require Observers at all sanctioned events, and have the TD pay for them with tournament fees. This second option might be better, but would take some real enforcement from the UPA. Are Observers required to take training and/or pass a test?
But I think there should be one more requirement for when a game is Observed. Limit player arguments by this formula: A calls foul. B calls either 1) no contest, or 2) contest. If 1, play continues as outlined in the rules. If 2, A has the option to appeal to an Observer or accept the "no contest". If requested, the Observer makes a ruling and play continues without further argument. If the players know the rules, then there should be no need to give them time to argue over a call--either accept the other person's call, or go to the Observer right away.
How would you provide incentive for players to know the rules for a quiz? (Ban a team from participation in the tournament? The series?)
Yes. Require teams to pass the rules quiz in order to receive a bid to the tournament.
Who represents the team for the quiz, and how do you make sure that person isn't the ONE player on the team who knows the rules?
Having one person on each team who knows the correct rules would be a big improvement over the current situation. There are many teams out there whose players all play by incorrect rules because one supposedly knowledgeable player told them something outdated or just plain wrong. Guaranteeing a source of correct interpretations on each team would go a long way toward reducing arguments on the field.
Once we see the effects of having one player per team pass the quiz, we could decide whether to expand it to all players on the roster.
What percentage wrong are you willing to accept?
There are plenty of acceptable answers to this. My inclination would be to have a short quiz and to require 100% correct but to allow the team to retake it as many times as needed. The point is to make sure the team knows the rules when they get on the field not to grade them in some way.
Are some rules more important than others?
Yes. The rules that are commonly misunderstood and those that often lead to on-field discussions are most important to test. Right now the rules that have changed from the 10th to the 11th edition are good candidates for the quiz.
Questions like these make me think that logistically, a "rules quiz" is unfeasible.
I strongly disagree with this. There are plenty of web tools available that would allow this to be easily implemented. Other sports require their officials to know the rules. Our task is larger since every player is an official in ultimate. But it also means the need is greater.
I agree that the need is greater. I suppose it would help to have online quizzes, even if players "cheated" by looking up the answers--at least then they would read the rule and understand it well enough to fill out a quiz. Requiring 100% is good, and allowing them to take it multiple times is also good, but then making it a requirement to receive a bid is kind of silly. What team would simply give up or not take the time to do it?
I still think that the effect on the field would be slight. Probably worth it, though. I think an expanded Observer system is necessary either way, though.
...making it a requirement to receive a bid is kind of silly. What team would simply give up or not take the time to do it?
Hopefully none. We're not trying to exclude people. We're trying to increase rules knowledge. That should lead to fewer misunderstandings on the field, which should make the game more fun to play and watch.
There are 2 parts of SOTG that are important to me: Self officiating and the friendliness between opponents. I'm personally not too attached to the "non-sport" image or the history of crazy hats (they're fun, but not why I play).
I had a lengthy conversation with my non-ultimate playing brother of whether self-officiating could be pulled off at a competitive or professional level. He was skeptical, but I have enough faith in the idea that I think it is possible.
It would require 3 things to be pulled off:
1) A clear knowledge of the rules for all players. I won't discuss this in depth as others have already touched it. I will say, however, that I think this will occur naturally as the sport grows.
2) A clear definition of what is not and is against spirit of the game. I've had situations where I feel it was right and appropriate to explain to someone (briefly) why they shouldn't contest my foul (they tripped me 20 feet behind a floating high disc)... and I've seen others where people argue far too long without a clear idea of what they are allowed or are not allowed to do. When is it OK to contest a call? Do I have to say 'no contest' if I really don't know whether the disc was in the other person's hand when I struck it? I feel a clearer explanation of how to comply with SOTG should go along with what SOTG is.
3) I don't think SOTG can be upheld without a disinsentive for not complying with it. At the current level of play the disinsentive for abusing self-officiating is public opinion. It is often effective. No one wants to build a reputation as someone without spirit, or someone who makes bad calls. I think Observers being able to weigh in on calls will work, for the most part. It provides the in-game incentive to not make bad calls.
Going further, I think that at the hypothetical pro-level, fines are the most effective disincentive. Just as the NBA hands down fines for disrespect directed against the league or officials, the UPA (or someone else) could financialy enforce SOTG. If done properly, this can be much more effective as a preventitive measure than a curbing measure (as used in current professional sports). To be clear, I don't advocate fines at any level other than a future, paid league.
At the college levels, suspensions or other puntitive measures could be used to enforce SOTG. Public opinion, such as assessing otherwise meaningless points for good spirit or against bad spirit, could also prove effective.
Unfortunately, I feel that enforcing SOTG goes against the original idea of SOTG. I think this is unavoidable. Using disincentives at least allows most players to follow SOTG as intended without having to us a full referee system.
1) is obvious. 2) I agree. 3) I'm not sure what the disincentive should be...I think that as we have more filmed and televised games, "bad calls" will get press and denouncement from not only spectators at the field, but viewers at home who can complain about X player on their blog or RSD thread. Public opinion will have more of an impact as more people watch, say, the club or college series.
Over-enforcement, I agree, undermines SOTG itself. I don't like suspending or fining players, but giving an Observer power to eject a player from a game is a good way to prevent unspirited play. I have a lot of faith in the Observer system, with few if any tweaks from how it is now.
This weekend, I had an experience that almost made me want to quit the game of Ultimate.
My team went to High School States this weekend. Throughout the tourney, we played a bunch of good teams, who all had very good spirit. But on the last day we faced a team that undermined everything that Ultimate stands for.
This team consisted of 3 decent handlers, and about 12 brutes who I can only assume were football WR's and basketball centers. Every time that this team got the disc, their best thrower would huck it upfield to the brutes. When the disc was in the air, the other team's players would push us around (literally) and then knock us out of the way and go catch the disc, fouling us about 90% of the time. Any call that our team made was immediately and vehemently contested. They also talked shit to us after every single score. It was apparent that these guys had no concept of the rules, or of SOTG whatsoever.
This team ended up winning the tournament.
Now I can understand a shove here and there, or a spiked disc after an intense point, but this team went way beyond that.
What can we do to stop people like this from taking over and ruining our game?
Ernest, I am sorry that you had this kind of experience at the UPA State Championships. I remember playing a team several years ago like that, with numerous soccer players who were verbally abusive and demonstrated a complete lack of concern for the rules, especially with regard to contact. We were lucky that their captain punched a league coordinator in the face, which got the whole team ejected from the league (after all the other complaints against them). Unfortunately, it sounds like the team you played has not done anything off the field to disrespect the sport, so everything has to be addressed on the field.
Were there Observers present? If not, you can request them for any future games against that team. The State Championships SHOULD have Observers. I think any UPA-sanctioned event should require them, and that will help a lot for poor calls and SOTG. I would have also talked to the TD, and maybe even refuse to play a team that had no regard for the rules or SOTG. It sounds like they were clearly taking advantage of SOTG, which is something that the entire community would protest.
I strongly encourage you to NOT quit Ultimate. By quitting, you would allow players like this to multiply. We need people who understand and respect SOTG to uphold these values. Eventually, even "brutes" who are new to our sport will be converted by the pressure to conform, or else they will find something else to do. I'm cool with the athleticism of Ultimate players to increase, but not at the expense of SOTG--so we need you and others to stand up for it. Good luck in the future, and again I'm sorry that this team was able to win with that kind of disregard for SOTG.
most (if not all) of these comments seem to be centered around the open division, so I thought I'd offer a few of my opinions from the women's side.
from what I've seen, in women's ultimate SOTG is thriving throughout the community. It seems that teams will take pretty much anybody, and at this early stage in the development of programs, they are focused just as much on fun as playing ultimate.
While I don't feel like singing songs or cheers after games or wearing funny outfits promotes SOTG, I don't feel like it detracts from it either.
Like many previous posts, I agree that SOTG is about knowing the rules, making fair calls, and solving disputes calmly. In high stakes games this can be difficult, but I don't think that excuses players from acting like jerks on the field. I feel like sideline catcalling and heckling (especially during disputes) detracts from SOTG.
I also feel like observers at regionals and nationals are a must. I think for these tournaments, the tournament dues should cover paying observers. While it means every team would have to cough up more money, every team would benefit from the objectivity. It seems like observers would be a precautionary step to preserve SOTG... one that might not necessarily be used, but still available.
I do have a few feelings about the quotes from the assessment.
First...
“I’m frustrated with the UPA’s stance on higher level players – club and college – not taking a stand. Make a more concerted effort to not just trust that Spirit of the Game will work. People treat each other without respect.” (Coach)
I’m just curious how this coach proposes the UPA “take a stand” in regards to SOTG in higher level games. I feel like SOTG is out there and is encouraged, but it’s up to each player to know the rules and be respectful. Sure, the UPA can write articles in their magazine and provite observers, but it seems that SOTG is a universal charge to each player to be the fairest player they can. Sure, you can be a jerk or make BS calls, but it really just detracts from your program. As a coach, I hope this commenter teaches his players what he is preaching.
“I feel the UPA is failing at getting Spirit of the Game out there in college. It’s not emphasized or enforced. If people know about it – it’s very vague and not ingrained.” (Youth Member)
When I was first looking into ultimate, I was directed to the UPA website; one of the first things on this website is a summary about SOTG. When I was being taught by my captains and coaches, we were always encouraged to make the fairest calls possible. Our coaches even started giving us rule quizzes to make sure we knew what we were talking about when it came to fouls and contests. Maybe our program is unique in this respect, but I still feel like it’s not just up to the UPA to promote SOTG. If this player feels like it is a problem for their team, maybe they should take the initiative to make it better.
I have a friend who is the captain of another team who is notorious for fouling. The team is often credited for calling “no contest” as they were in the process of hacking a throwers arm. She personally does not support this means for defense (both as a means of respct and for SOTG) and has come a long way in the past two years in reforming the program at her school in regards to defense and fouls. They foul significantly less and make much more fair calls. It is possible to change and it is possible for one person to make the necessary effort.
I am a big fan of SOTG. For someone who is just learning, I think it’s great when another team points out that they’ve fouled or picked you so you can know for in the future, or when a team plays you with 6’s because that’s all you can bring to a tournament. There was even one instance in which the renowned captain of a top team came over after the game to tell us how hard we played and how impressed they were with such a new team, even though they had just dominated us.
I think mutual respect is a charge for everyone and, to reiterate, is strongly felt in the women’s side of ultimate.
Ernest Writes: "What can we do to stop people like this from taking over and ruining our game?"
Steve - Currently players do not have to take any responsibility for the calls they make. It actually benefits a team to make as many calls as possible and contest others calls. This is a major flaw in the system, which is also a threat to SOTG. What our sport needs is a simple disincentive to making bad calls and contests. We need to make all players responsible for the calls they make.
For details of this Disincentive to Making Bad calls, check out the chat "Ultimate w/o Self Officiated Play".
Hm, honestly, I don't have very much to say about how exactly the UPA could help to promote SOTG. I would, however, like to throw in that I believe SOTG is necessary for Ultimate, but at the same time, I feel like putting too many rules and/or restrictions on the game will actually decrease SOTG. I realize there are people and teams out there that aren't exactly benevolent; I know sometimes bad calls are called, and bad SOTG is demostrated.
However, I don't think we want to cage the game of Ultimate into a box of rules.
That's one of the most beautiful things about the sport--it's less hardcore, less "we have to practice for nine hours EVERY DAY," less "my coach will beat me down if I mess up this throw." We play Ultimate for the fun of it. And, hopefully, your team understands if you're still learning, or if you're not the best at running, or whatever. Instead of getting frustrated or upset and yelling at you and blaming you for being bad (which, in my experience, is how some other sports work...), they are more concerned with helping you learn and grow. And the fact that the game isn't clogged with a heap of strict, suffocating rules gives it a sense of freedom that makes the game amazing to play. That feeling, and the sense of TRUST for your own team and other teams to have good SOTG, is a big part of what sets Ultimate apart from other sports, and what makes it the only sport I have ever enjoyed playing.
Long live SOTG. ^_^
I'm very interested in how SOTG works in highly competitive Ultimate. I think that it is still viable in "hardcore" settings. Part of what you're talking about, Lauren, is closely tied to the level of play. Juniors teams, "fun" leagues, etc will be understanding about inexperienced players. Good coaches on competitive teams will be understand for their players. But I see Ultimate coaches now that are hard or verbally abusive to their teams. So I think it is not so much a question of rules and regulation as the way people approach the sport and deal with self-referee-ship.
I do agree that it is better to have fewer complicated rules, and less regulation overall is better, but I think the culture behind Ultimate is what really matters. There needs to be an emphasis on knowing and playing with SOTG. We have a great concept here--we just have to figure out how to nurture it as our sport expands.
gapoole's last post is the first mention of coaches, which I think are one of the keys to preserving and promoting SOTG. The attitude of a team's leaders (best players, captains, and coaches) trickles down to the players, so if the UPA can help and ensure that coaches are teaching/modeling/upholding SOTG, I think that will go a long way toward preserving this most important aspect of Ultimate.
The UPA (thanks, Kyle et al) is doing a great job with the Coaching Clinics. Ideally, every coach would be required to attend a clinic, which would (among other things) go through rules and SOTG thoroughly. Perhaps here, the "rules quiz" idea could work best: every coach has to pass the "rules quiz" to become certified.
Since clinics are currently only offered in certain cities, perhaps it would be useful for the UPA to allocate more money toward this effort. Eventually, every city with a Youth Ultimate league ought to have an annual coaching clinic so that all new coaches can become certified.
However, that alone would not guarantee that coaches embrace SOTG. An analogy to teaching may help: Plenty of teachers are certified but still aren't good teachers. And, most teachers know that no NCLB-esque accountability system can accurately separate the good teachers from the bad. However, most teachers and administrators also know, in a non-quantifiable way, exactly who the bad teachers at a school are.
Likewise, I think other coaches, and perhaps league coordinators, know who the coaches are who don't embrace SOTG. (If they don't know, the players can tell them.)
Perhaps there can be a way to work with, then sanction, then disbar, coaches who do not uphold SOTG.
I know that the UPA is also making efforts to educate P.E. teachers about Ultimate, which I assume includes SOTG. I think this will also help, although it's probably much less important than making sure coaches are on the same page about SOTG.
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.
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.
My opinion is that if it were not for SOTG, every single person reading this would have better disc handling skills than they do now.
According to the rules, SOTG means that the only reason for penalties in sports is to prevent cheating.
This is written in the preface.
This ill-conceived logic has stunted growth and evolution.
According to the rules, SOTG means labeling what is obviously a very physical game, "non-contact".
These means that the rules have no way of rationally dealing with fouls when they do occur.
SOTG means that unintented fouls, no matter how hard they are, are OK ("I was going for the disc").
SOTG means that responsibility for fair play is placed on the player, in spite of the fact that the rules for ultimate are inherently unfair.
The problem with Preserving SOTG is that so many things got pork bellied into the rules under the general guise of SOTG that it is difficult to delineate where SOTG ends and rationality begins.
As many here have pointed out SOTG means something different to each one of us.
I've always thought SOTG meant one thing. That the players would also be referees and do their best to in good conscience uphold the rules. I just assumed that the rules were well thought out. They were not and still have not been.
Having a loose definition for what SOTG is about as shaky of a foundation for a sport as defining traveling to be 'the fewest number of steps reasonable to stop'.
As far as I can tell, there are two kinds of people posting on this forum, those who love Ultimate, and me.
In other words, all of the people who have walked away from the game, never played it or don't care are not going to get on here and suggest that maybe, just maybe SOTG was an honorable idea that has gone horribly awry.
Since this type of self-sorting and filtering of dissenting opinions occurs, you're not going to get a loud opposing opinion and therefore, as Gil Scott-Heron said, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". In other words, how can there be an Ultimate Revolution from within when those on the inside more or less like things the way they are? How is revolution going to occur when the UPA is looking a the middle of a bell curve for guidance?
If you want to promote SOTG, first start from scratch and rewrite the rules *as if* there would be referees and then add on the mechanism to allow self refereeing as opposed to the other way around.
Frank
Dischoops
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
Spirit of the Game is alive and well in Ultimate! Conceptually the way it’s now stated in the 11th edition is right out in front and easy to read and interpret. It’s about “sportsmanship”. I’m sorry Ernest – If those brutes were fouling you guys going for the disc, you “have” to call it. If there are 50 fouls in a row… you have to call them. It’s not against the Spirit of the Game to call a rule infraction. It may be a bummer that the game is stopped because of the calls but it’s your right to protect yourself from un-sportsmanlike conduct. And, how people handle the emotion of negotiating during intense situations is all a part of the scene. Ultimate can be a very physical game and as the stakes increase so does the level of intensity, passion and physicality. The beauty of the game is that there are levels of engagement for everyone (barefoot in the park to WFDF championships)
I find that SOTG is pretty alive and well at mid-level and low-level play, most league play, pick-up, and many tournaments, however, unfortunately in my experience, I find that the better the play gets, into the series the more frequent it is that people forget SOTG - SOTG is still the majority at the high-level, but definitely the higher competition brings out the worst sometimes - which is why its great that there are observers in the series to keep the rules from being abused too much. And the reality is that there are some teams and individual players who are jerks and could care-less about SOTG - I think there are some ways to control that - for instance: I've played in New Year's Fest in Phoenix,AZ for several years and there is a team that comes most years that most everyone would agree is totally antithetical to SOTG - I've personally witnessed them getting into fights with other teams, pushing players, and flat out being verbally and physically violent on the field and off (for multiple years) - after some of those incidents that team should never have been allowed back - whether that happened don't know for sure, but thats one way to enforce SOTG, creating a system for reporting teams or players that display extremely bad spirit and putting them on probation, just like when a college team violates the eligibility rules.
Post a Comment