Would it still be Ultimate without self-officiated play?
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!
88 comments:
No.
In my mind, Self-Officiation (along with SOTG) is the most important aspect of ultimate. It is what compels players to be honest and to place the value of sportsmanship above that of winning. One thing that I have noticed is that at the end of most officiated games (basketball, baseball, etc.), players and spectators tend whine about the officials, and how the the game would have ended differently if they had made better calls. Rarely have I seen anything like this in ultimate. I think that officiation would undermine the values that keep our sport going strong today.
Well, I'm sure that many of you will rip into me for this, but I mostly disagree with Ernest and think that something will need to be done about officiation at some point (not necessarily now, however).
Ernest said: "It is what compels players to be honest and to place the value of sportsmanship above that of winning." Ideally yes, but I have also seen teams call what are apparently bogus fouls or violations to get the disc back or to reset or delay play. This is counter to spirit. The rules say that SOTG assumes that your opponents will not intentionally violate the rules, but it happens sometimes. I have seen several games deteriorate at the end because of the calls that players are making. Maybe this could be averted by observers moderating decisions, or maybe refs could have made the calls themselves, but in either situation, the players wouldn't need ot blame each other.
Additionally, the pace of the game, and the watchability, is often effected by arguments arising from self-officiation. I have seen arguments go on longer than they should, and to spectators, it is very frustrating and confusing. Again, observers or refs could moderate this quicker, and even give signals to indicate to other players and spectators what the foul/violation is. I understand that it is not necessarily the UPA's gola right now to increase the number of spectators, but we will have to think about that in the future, IMO.
I like the observer system, and maybe that would be good enough to answer my concerns. I also like the responsibility of self-officiation, but I'm not sure if that will be adequate to take Ultimate to the next level of legitimacy. This will clearly take some more thought...
Self officiation absolutely has its merits, and I think that is part of what draws many people to the sport. With continued growth and legitimacy, I believe that it will eventually be necessary to take officiaiton up a notch if Ultimate is to flourish.
Would someone be able to better explain this quote from the poll results: “Refs will ruin the game and make it like every other game that has gone down the tubes. Why can’t we stay different?” Should we stay different just for the sake of being different? What examples are there of every other game that has gone down the tubes?
Okay, let me have it.
I like your idea of observers moderating calls that players make. That way, we maintain the aspect of self officiation, without letting things get out of control.
My biggest concern with lack of officiating is the tendency for disputed calls and arguments to drag on way too long, which is a turn off for everyone. That can also effect the mood for the rest of the game. If observers can facilitate quick resolutions to these situations, that's all I'm looking for.
What we really need in order to reduce the number of "bogus" foul calls and stoppages of play is to introduce a disincentive for making bad calls.
In the BIG GAMES, let's keep self-refereeing and observers. Currently when a call is made, either player involved in the foul call can go to the observer. IN essence, the observer either agrees with one of the players or calls for the paly to be redone. The new disincentive will be that when a call goes to the observer, the person who the observer states makes the bad call will get 1 strike (or call it something else). If a player gets 2 strikes in one game, they are kicked out of the remainder of that game.
The object of this disincentive is not to kick players out of games, but to make players responsible for their calls. The outcome will be to continue self-refereeing, keep the observer as observer and not referees, and to greatly reduce the number of "bogus" calls and stoppages of play.
That's a good idea, Steve! The Etiquette section at the end of the rules state that we assume that no one will intentionally violate the rules, but then there are no consequences for people that do. Handing a "technical foul" of sorts or some other penalty for bogus calls may address those concerns.
I think a 2-"bad call" limit is too restrictive. First, if the Observer rules that the play should be redone, then nobody should be penalized for making a bad call (if the Observer didn't see it and can't fairly arbitrate, nobody should be at fault). But sometimes it's hard to tell whether contact was intentional, incidental, affected the play, etc. Three bad calls makes more sense to me, though the Observer could also make use of a card system (egregiously bad calls or dangerous play could count for two bad calls, or something like that).
How much time should the players be given to work out a disagreement before the Observer steps in? I think any time to argue over a call is unnecessary, since both players should know the rules. Also, how much time is each player given to explain his or her position to the Observer? I should think none, because the Observer should have seen what happened and players might interrupt or disagree with the other person's interpretation of what happened.
Gapoole,
Good points. Hoepfully this will clarify. When the Observer cannot make a definitive call, (just like they currently do it) the play is redone. No player gets a strike. Only when the Observer is asked to make a call by either player and the Observer makes a call (which in essence is agreeing with one player and disagreeing with another), then a "strike" occurs. (Observers are doing the same things as before. The only difference is they that everytime they now make a call, they keep a tally of the players who made the wrong call. They are still brought into action the same way. The current time frame of how long a player can wait until going to an Observer can stay the same or be changed .. that would be a refinement)
In my opinion, 2 strikes are plenty. I have played in Six Nationals and five National Finals and have not been over-ruled twice by an Observer twice during that entire time. If one player gets overruled by an Observer twice in one game, that is excessive.
Please note that most likely 20% of the players are making 80% of the calls. All players need to be responsible for their calls, especially these players. Currently there is nothing is the rules to make players responsible for their calls. In fact, under the current system, a team has a clear advantage if they make "bogus" calls. A change is clearly needed. This simple disincentive will make players responsible for their calls, while keeping the game self-refereeing, and without changing the role of the Observer. The true outcome of this disincentive will not be kicking players out of games, but create a way to greatly reduce the number of "bogus" calls during a big game
I agree with the two strike system that Steve proposed. I also like the flagrant foul counting as two strikes idea that gapoole talked about.
FYI, I first proposed this 2 strike system after the Foul Plagued 1989 Nationals Finals between NY and Tsunami.
Last year, seeing that the number of poor calls has not increased, this system was endorsed by Hall of Famers TK, Irv Kalb, and Suzanna Fields in the UPA Newsletter.
Myself and many others would like the UPA to at least try this disincentive system to see if it will work. (I have read and discussed many other ideas over the years, but none are so simple, make virtual no changes to the game, and appear to be as effective.)
At the elite-level, I like the idea of the observer being more active. After a few seconds of dispute the observer should decide the call, and then restarting the game immediately. I realize this in a way counteracts SOTG, but if you want to keep the game moving after a contested foul, stop the discussion and let the observer decide.
I agree, bluffton. I think that both players should know the rules well enough that no argument is necessary, and so there should be no place for it on the field--go to the Observer if you aren't sure about a call.
I see your point, Steve. I agree that there needs to be a disincentive. But here's a scenario for you: last spring, I was playing in the semifinals of a UPA state championships. I hucked backhand and, after the release, my arm hit my marker in the face. He called foul, because, well, I hit him in the face. I contested, because I thought he was too close and it was either his fault or incidental. He asked the Observer to step in, who upheld "no foul".
Now, this guy was a spirited player, and I don't grudge him the foul call--I might have made the same call, had I got hit in the face. For the rest of the game, though, he would have to worry about making any calls, lest they be rejected by the Observer and he miss out of the rest of the game. How do we prevent this, because clearly this is not what we want.
I doubt he would've gotten a strike, seeing that that was a totally understandable call to make. I doubt that he made the call on-purpose just to get a reset.
But if one were to get a strike from a call like that, I see your point.
We need to elaborate on this system more.
Steve,
I recall your proposal following the violation filled 2005 college finals between Brown and CU. A couple of points:
1. Not many games have that many calls. While we need to do something to speed up that sort of game, my concern would be how it would change the majority of games that have many fewer calls. Would teams use this new system to "game" the observers, like creating situations where players that already have one strike against them are likely to make questionable fouls?
2. That Brown/CU game did not have that many calls that went to the observer. Most calls were uncontested. Your system does nothing to address the problem of games that are slowed because of uncontested violations. For the most part I think players are being honest when the make and contest a call - both players in a contested call situation believe that they are correct. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the player that consistently violates the rules and doesn't contest?
3. The current observer system already has a process in place for dealing with both of these situations. Observers can call misconduct fouls for players/teams that intentionally, repeatedly, or dangerously violate the rules. What I think we need to do is train observers to use those provisions in the cases where games are potentially unwatchable becuase of stoppages (which are very few games in my experience).
I think anything that we do with respect to giving more power to third party officials should also be bolstered by educating players themselves that they are ultimately responsible for how "watchable" and "spectator friendly" their games are. I think, if these players really want to make the sport more legitimate in the eyes of spectators, they should take responsibility on the field to behave in way that deserves that legitimacy. They certainly have the most to gain and the most to lose by playing by the rules.
So many questions. Here come some answers.
1. (Gapoole's Question)The unfortunate foul of the follow through to the face ..."For the rest of the game, though, he would have to worry about making any calls."
A: All Players should ALWAYS be responsible for their foul callss. Under the current system, which does not have a disincentive to making bad calls players, players in essence have no responsibility when making a foul call or to contest a foul call. Adding a disincentive will create a tangible reason for players to make responsible calls at all times. The reason I chose 2 strikes before kicking a player out of a game is that occssionally a play is very close and it is not so clear a player is abusing the rules by making or contesting a call.
(BTW Gapool, how many other close fouls and contests can you remember? Probably not that many. The vast majority of the time one player receiveds two strikes in one game that player is abuses the self-refereeing nature of our sport.
2. How quickly should an Observer get involved?
A: I agree that there should be a limit to how long players can argue/discuss a call before an Observer gets involved. My initial recommendation was to allow 1 minute. If the players do not resolve it by then, the nearest Observer (or Observer with the best view) steps in and makes a call as if the Observer was asked for help. Observers have three choices: either say to take the play over OR agrees with the offensive player (givng the defensive player a strike) or defensive player (giving the offensive player a strike).
3. (Kyle) Giving the Observer more power.
A: A major point of this disincentive system is that it does not change the role (or give added power) to the Observer. The Observer simple continues to make a call when asked. The only difference is that the Observer now keeps track of strikes (if there are even any duiring a game).
4. (Kyle) Most games do not have that many calls that go to Observers.
A: Great. That is how it should be. With the disincentive, there will be even less calls made because players will finally have a reason to think about potential consequences before making a foul call.
5. (Kyle) Would teams use this new system to "game" the observers, like creating situations where players that already have one strike against them are likely to make questionable fouls?
A: Perhaps, but I doubt it. Only by trying it out will we ever know. But what we do know with certainty now is that players can make calls whenever they want without consequences. That is the problem that needs to be corrected.
Steve, I am not sure how you can say that your proposal doesn't give more power to the observers. Yes, the observers won't change the way that they rule, but their rulings have a much bigger impact on the players involved. But I'm not arguing against more power to observers, I think observers just need to use the power that is given to them currently.
My biggest concern with your proposal (and what you didn't address) is that it does not address the more widespread issue of uncontested calls slowing play. I think both problems can be solved by having more and better trained observers that use the powers that they are already given (http://www.upa.org/observers/manual#consystems).
What about non-foul violation calls? Honestly, the biggest problem in games I've played in has been the travel call. We played a particular team twice in Sectionals, and one of their players had an incorrect idea of what constituted a travel. He slowed the game (and our flow) considerably with constant travel calls, and there was no way to stop him. The rules say you can contest any call, but contesting a travel does nothing, because the game and offensive flow both halt.
So say A calls travel on B. B contests. Observer upholds A. B now can't contest any more travel calls, because even if he travelled a little bit he could get ejected, if the Observer upholds A again. But if B doesn't contest, then the Observer never steps in to determine whether A was making a legit call, and A's team can keep slowing the other team's flow.
I think the Observer should have more power, in this case. Plus, I think a whole minute is way too much time to let players discuss a call. You should be able to say "contest" or "no contest". If discussion is needed to figure out what happened, then I think the impartial Observer should be consulted.
Some more answers to your questions:
1. Kyle writes:Steve, I am not sure how you can say that your proposal doesn't give more power to the observers.
A: Perehaps we are talking symmantics. My point is that with my Disincentive System, Observers do not become "Referees". The only thing they do different than before is to keep track of "strikes". (If you and others want them to give time limits to resolve disputes, that is a refinement, which I fully support.
2. Kyle Writes:My biggest concern with your proposal (and what you didn't address) is that it does not address the more widespread issue of uncontested calls slowing play.
A: To my understanding, an "uncontested foul" should have no stoppage of play. A decision is reached (no Oberver is needed) and the disc is checked in. If players take to long to come to a decision or if it takes to long to check the disc in, then put a time limit on it.
3. Gapool Writes: What about non-foul violation calls? Honestly, the biggest problem in games
A: The same discincentive system should work fine. If a player travels and the defender calls it, then it can be contested. Under the current system, there is no reason for a defender to call travelling whenver they want to. With the disincentive they now have a real responsibility only to make calls when they are correct.
Please keep in mind that they object is to cut down the number of bad calls (fouls, travelling, etc.) By making players responsible for their calls, the number of bad calls will greatly diminish. In turn, games will have less stoppages and better spirit. Both of which we are striving for.
THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW IF THIS DISINCENTIVE SYSTEM WILL WORK IS TO TRY IT.
Steve,
My concern with uncontested calls is that, even if the stoppage is not long, they disrupt the "flow" and watchability of a game. These are more frequent than the contested calls. I could handle a game with 5 or 6 contested calls even if it takes 30 seconds to resolve those calls - but a game with 35+ uncontested calls is hard to deal with with.
I agree that the only way to really see is to try it - but there needs to be a venue for experimenting with changes to the sport like this one that is not the UPA series. See my suggestion on the UPA competitive opportunities question.
-Kyle
Steve's disincentive plan needs more work:
A) The system puts honest players at a disadvantage if the observer happens to disagree with one call. Suppose a player named Joe honestly sees a travel and calls it but the observer makes a mistake and overrules it. Now for the rest of the game Joe may hesitate to make any calls fearing that if the observer makes another mistake he will be removed from the game, hurting his team. This gives the opposing team freedom to foul Joe as much as they want, knowing he will hesitate to make the call. Some teams may even try to foul Joe more, hoping to get him to make a call that is overruled so they can eliminate Joe from the game.
B) The system does not adjust to the number of fouls in the game. Two overruled calls seems way more significant in a game with only 10 calls total than in a game with 60 or 70+. The fact that Joe is overruled twice could be an indicator that Joe is making bad calls or it could be an indicator that the opponents are fouling like crazy and for every 20 correct calls Joe gets one wrong. The system needs to take into account the total number of calls made.
THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW IF THIS DISINCENTIVE SYSTEM WILL WORK IS TO TRY IT.
Right. And the only way to find out if summary execution for players who make bad calls would work is to try it. We don't have the time or the resources to try every proposed change to the rules. That's why we discuss them first to make sure we are only testing well thought out revisions. But feel free to set up a game or a tourney using your system and tell us about the results.
Kyle,
Seems we think alike and want similart results to improve the
watchability of our sport (as well as supporting the SOTG). I contacted Dave Barkan and Joe Seidler, and they both spoke highly of you.
Though Blogging has many benefits, it also has limitations. I have a
few questions and thoughts to discuss with you.
Please e-mail me at "stevencourlang@sbcglobal.net" and give my your phone number
and a good time to call you. (Joe gave me your old UPA e-mail address which no longer seems to work.)
Thanks,
Steve Courlang
Guys, please don't take this off-line, I'm fascinated but the conversation. I think both sides are really well thought out and I want to know where it all goes. Please keep talking here in the forum.
Henry
Very good conversation going on here. A new voice might be interesting.
Why does every call overturned by an observer need to be a strike against one player or the other?
What would it look like to give the observers the ability to assess strikes against any player for a number of reasons, including: obviously bad calls against SOTG, repeated bad calls, dangerous play, generally trying to abuse the rules to gain an advantage?
I'm reluctant to give more power to observers until there are more truly qualified observers. In my mind, every observer should have complete knowledge of all of the rules. Not the case in my experience so far. I also think observers should be more reluctant than many are to make calls. My ideal observer very rarely rules and only does so on marking fouls (almost always a foul), travel calls and very clear receiving fouls. That way, the observers ensures that his impact on the game is entirely positive.
Until these highly qualified observers exist in higher numbers, I'm reluctant to give them more penalty power. But I would be happy for them to invoke their card-system more freely.
Obviously, the Observers have to be more than competent and qualified. I don't think they need to be unwilling to step in and make a ruling, however.
I think Todd echoes a lot of my concerns with Steve's system. I agree with both of Todd's criticisms. rocksteadyg makes a good point by suggesting that assessing "strikes" against a player can be up to the Observer's discretion, where if it is not obvious that either player made a bad call (like the situation I mentioned earlier) than neither player need be assigned a strike. I also like the idea that "strikes" could be given to dangerously aggressive or overtly disrespectful players.
Should the Observer be allowed to assign a strike to a player who disrespects him/another Observer, such as a player on the sideline who yells "bad call!" ? This is a lot like the card system in other sports (fencing, soccer, what have you). Just another thing to think about.
Some of you are missing a main point about the Disincentive to Making a Bad Foul Call System.
The object is NOT to give Observers more power. (I am offering a way not to make Observers into Referees.) The object is to keep the game self-refereeing while creating a definitive reason for players to make fewer bad calls.
Steve
I don't suggest giving observers more ability to make calls. They don't have that power. I propose giving them the power to decide whether players are making bad calls.
An observer never gets to make a call. He/She only rules when a player disagrees with a call.
The role of the observer would be to enforce players doing good, honest self officiating by penalizing abuse of the system.
Well this is not responding to the general discussion that has commenced, but I have some pretty strong opinions about self officiated play.
I have been playing ultimate since I was 11. I have refused to play any other sport my entire life, but Ultimate is different because it's not football. Even though I truly sucked back in the day, I felt at home with my team and never felt pressured by coaches screaming at me for my blunders etc... As I've grown up and become the captain/coach of my team I've become a little more lax about my opinions about self officiated play. (It is easier to coach when you actually have some authority, you know? Sometimes I think it might be nice to throw in some refs here and there too). However last weekend I played in a tourny. There were several games where wishy-washy calls were made and EVERY SINGLE TIME the team's coach stepped in and literally QUOTED from 11th edition rules. This happened four or five times, and every time both teams felt completely cheated of the ultimate experience--whether they benefited from the call or not. Ultimate should teach people to respect each other and to confront each other if need be, not to fear the authority figures.
Here are some replies to questions and a question of my own:
1. (To Rocksteady)"An observer never gets to make a call. He/She only rules when a player disagrees with a call."
Steve - I agree. In the Cisincentive plan an OBserver does what they always have done, which is either agree with the offensive player, agree with the defensive player, or say it was too close to call and redo the play. Please read my previous posts.
2. (Maya) "There were several games where wishy-washy calls were made ..."
Steve - There have always been a few players that make the majority of these wishy washy calls. Right now our sport has no consequence for an unspirited player from making random (bogus) calls. That is why we need to add a simple disincentive to the game to make players responsible for their calls. (If you do not know what this means, please read the previous posts.)
My question to everyone (especially an UPA official): If we come up with anything in this chat, will it be implemented? Are we just chatting in cyberspace, or is someone listening that will take suggestions and implement them?
Steve,
Of course we're listening and we pride ourselves on taking action. Through listening to you, our players, and taking action, the UPA has delivered great new program after great new program over the last ten years (Mixed, Youth, Innovation Grants, Coaching Clinics, etc. etc.).
And yes, we took your letter from a couple years back very seriously. It's got a lot of merit and we appreciate you putting out the effort to make the sport even better. Your dis-incentive concept is powerful.
There are three board members who've been commenting to you about it in this thread, myself, Todd, and Kyle. So continuing the discussion will really help flesh out whether this can fly.
Thank you for being willing to press on. Change takes a lot of effort unfortunately, not because we're not active about it but because things are rarely as simple as we'd hope.
Henry Thorne
Henry,
Thanks for the info. I am a bit skeptical that action will be taken. (I have suggested this idea almost 20 years ago and have heard of other less promising ideas tried.)
Also, things get losts over e-mails and chat sessions. If you (or the other UPA officials) ever want to discuss the disincentive idea, please contact me at stevencourlang@sbcglobal.net and leave me your phone number. (It has been vented by some pretty sharp Ultimate minds, including most of the initial HOF class.)
We all want a way to preserve the SOTG, while keeping the game self-refereeing and clean. I haven't heard a better idea in 20 years. If someone has one, please share it on this chat.
Notice that all the most popular sports have referees (soccer, football, basketball)... History has proved that referees are needed. I believe a trained professional will be able to make better calls than an ultimate player. There is still complaining about bad calls now... it is just about the players bad calls rather than the referee's bad calls. I have been in too many circumstances where travel calls have ruined the correct outcome of the game. The players don't know the fine points of fouls, and a lot of the time the players' emotions make the calls instead of their knowledge of the rules. If it becomes a heated, close game, every call becomes important and a players desire to win could cause him to call a foul he normally wouldn't call in another situation. REFEREES ARE BADLY NEEDED IN ULTIMATE. The game will never excell without it.
The "correct outcome" of a game? What exactly is that?
I don't think history has proved anything except that sports with referees have significant problems with their refs. True, Ultimate has issues with self-officiation too. That doesn't mean that we need "professionals" to make calls for us--that would drasitcally change the game, leading to more fouls of certain kinds and more win-at-any-cost attitudes in competitive matches. I know that I can feel contact from a foul better than any referee could see it.
I think the presence of Observers prevents the escalation of anger-based calls, and an Observer can arbitrate on calls that are made purposely to "change" the outcome of the game. With a disincentive system, the Observer will have even more power to prevent players from taking advantage of SOTG. I do NOT believe, however, that SOTG is doomed.
the developement of any sport has a tricky balance to uphold as it evolves. With "Flourishment" comes popularity, comes intensity, comes sacrifices for the initial reason for playing the game. Baseball used to be the game a bunch of kids played in the vacant lot while the younger kids watched until they were old enough. now kids play in uniforms at a set time every day with adults living vicariously through their children. Ultimate is still at the stage where people persue the sport on their own and have reasons for playing it other than fame and fortune somewhere down the road.
There has been a lot of talk for the people who think observers or refs are essential because some people are dishonest. In all walks of life, some people are dishonest, not just on a frisbee feild. Are the rest of the players in the Ultimate world willing to sacrifice the respect and moral framework that is currenlty self-officiating to control those people? There is no black and white answer to any question. Everything is a gray balance. In this case, it's a balance between SOTG vs. refs. Where Ultimate is now vs. flourishment. What kind of popularity does Ultimate want? Surfing popularity or varsity, career, American Football popularity? The decisions made now about such things as SOTG obviously determine the future of Ultimate, but it also determines the kind of people that it attracts to the sport. Ultimate now attracts the chilled out I like a sport where I have the responsibility to make my own calls because it makes me more than just a pawn for coaches and contracts could eventually make me.
Where does Ultimate want to go? What sacrifices would it have to make to achieve those goals? Any decision made now could be a slippery slope. Cards, signals, refs, penalties come hand in hand with the Ultimate Frisbee participant slowly becoming and trained and dictated pawn to people not involved directly with play.
Not an easy thing, I know, but if there is an idea that is attached to the future of Ultimate, then any decision that needs to be made will be easy.
True, you can look at the issue that other sports have refs and Ultimate does not. But if that is all you see then you are missing a main point.
The way I look at it (and you should try to as well) is that all other sports have a disincentive to making a bad call except Ultimate. Only in Ultimate are players NOT responsible for the calls they make. (They do not get penalized if they make a bad call.)
So rather than bringing in Refs (and changing the nature of our sport), let's simply add a disincentive to making bad calls (which I have previously outlined and discussed in this chat). Let's use this system to make players responsible for their calls. In turn, it will greatly reduce the number of foul calls (especially bad calls and bad contests), speed up the game, continue self-refereeing, stay within the current Observer framework, plus support the SOTG.
The disincentive system is a simply solution that should produce the outcomes that the vast majority of the Ultimate world wants for our sport.
It has been well thought out by many elite players (endorsed by many Ultimate Hall of Famers and others.)Only by trying it will we know if it is a good solution.
Steve, you must feel sometimes like you're screaming at the wind. I think you've made it clear that you endorse a disincentive system, and it seems like people think it's a good idea--or, at the very least, are open to trying it out.
Is there a club tournament this season willing to test it out? The plan, as I see it, would go like this:
1. Recruit volunteer Observers: one for each attending team (2 per game for all games on Saturday, maybe 3 each for quarters, semis, and finals?)
2. Train and test the Observers for competence
3. Charge a nominal fee for each attending team to cover the costs of providing rule-books, water, and lunch for each Observer. I estimate $20 per team for a 16-team tourney.
4. Set guidelines for the disincentive system, keep track of "bad calls" by jersey number, and report the results.
Yeah, I feel bad that Steve is carrying the full load of handling all of the issues with this because I think that a majority of us see a fair amount of merit to it. I too would like to see it tested at a tournament so I think Gapoole's recent post trying to move the ball forward on making that happen is really right on. Rules generally get experimented with by individual tourney's and then some catch on and some don't, this one needs to get out there and get tested.
I have issues with the proposal that I need to air. My reaction when I read the letter signed by the Hall of Famers was that they were a little out of touch. Ouch, it hurt to say that, I respect those guys so much. But their opening statement that the 63 calls at College National Finals was a travesty didn't sit well with me. I really dislike it actually.
If we're going to ask players to be refs then we can't trample on them when they do so. Now it may be that many of those calls were bad calls but it may not be and I dislike the assumption that they were. They aren't bad people for making calls. I feel like that is the old moral high ground attitude that created a lot of backlash against SOTG and that the sport has moved past that to where we don't consider it taboo to make a call. We need to allow people to make calls without fear that they will be regarded as immoral for doing so if we want the players to do the refing.
An NBA game can easily have 63 calls and not be a bad game because of the stoppages. Especially if the ball (disc) is put right back in play.
Certainly there is the possibility that the game was awful to watch but perhaps not. You can have a perfectly spirited great game of Ultimate with folks calling things pretty tight and a team knowing they're being on the aggressive side but not intending to be disrespectful in doing so.
What we all don't like is when there are a lot of bad calls. And that's where the disincentive plan can work really well. But from the above I think there are problems with the plan as proposed.
In line with Todd I worry that the game that's being called really tightly but respectfully works against the team making the calls with the disincentive plan. If you get overturned once then you'll sort of have to let the opponent into a slightly more aggressive position because you can't take a chance on another call being overturned.
That in turn encourages being aggressive (say on the mark) because putting the other team in the position of calling a lot of fouls is to your benefit. The more calls they make the more likely there is one to get overturned and put them in the position of getting tossed from the game. So I think you will get this backfiring effect that it will cause teams to be a fair amount more aggressive knowing that it just got riskier for their opponents to call them on it.
Henry
Henry,
There are so may points to go over that e-mail chatting won't do it justice.
Please e-mail me your phone number for a quick call. (stevencourlang@sbcglobal.net) After that, we'll take it right back on-line.
SOTG is obviously something that all players must do their best to preserve. But SOTG is malleable and if it can be defined by one it can be defined by all. I think the majority of discussions place SOTG in one corner and Officiated Play in the other which tends to discredit the possibility of a more competitive atmosphere.
Spirit is not lost when a referee makes a decision or calls a foul. Spirit is lost when the players exploit the rules in place and bend them to avoid the possibility of a referee having sufficient evidence to call the foul in the first place. It isn’t the ref who’s at fault when he\she calls a foul (or does not call one). The bad spirit is from players that indiscreetly try and get away with doing something that they know is on the border of violation. A simple tug on the shirt during a cut or cutting off someone’s line just a little too much (but keeping your eye on the disc of course) while running down a disc; things like this hurt the game. The close calls that both players in question can justify an argument over are what hurt.
Competitive ultimate is a weird concoction of things. Spirit doesn’t drop, but the want for a W climbs the ladder of priority. Mixed with emotion, frustration, and some CYA, players tend to call closer fouls when they feel they need to. It’s because of our human nature that we cannot officiate our own games and drive as hard as we can for a win. We’ve all seen it. Foul calls are increased as the games come to a close ending. 100% of them could be legitimate calls and players would still get ridiculously frustrated because of how “nit-picky” the game becomes towards the end. Fouls that we might overlook in the first half, we call in the second when the game is within points. Because of that, I can’t think of a better reason to have the neutrality of an official calling the fouls instead of someone with such a driven motive.
#24 mentioned that now-a-days, kids are thrown into leagues and they are taught to play games for the interest of the parents instead of the kids. I can’t speak for the kids, but I can tell you that even though things like this go on, games are still played without refs on a recreational level. I can still go to a tennis court and have a friendly game with a buddy of mine, or grab some friends and play a 5 on 5 game of basketball… or even play some pickup at park. Things like this won’t change. There will always be un-officiated ultimate Frisbee available to those that prefer to call their own shots or those that truly believe officiating games wrecks all spirit.
So why not give officiating a try? Why not give Steve’s idea of disincentives a try? It wouldn’t be ridiculously hard to train ref’s and observers for both occasions and run some beta tournaments with the rules applied. I’d be the first to sign up for both! If after a few events they all flop, there isn’t enough interest, or people are tearing each other apart then we’ll actually have stone cold experimentation to prove it wrong. If it’s a go they hey, life is good.
Dan
I'm a fan of the observer system. The burden of responsibility is still on individual players to play fairly and make the right call, yet there is also a safeguard against both intentional cheating and the "in-the-heat-of-the-moment" irrationality that can happen when the stakes are high.
The only compelling argument I've heard for having active-call referees (rather than arbitrating observers) boils down to "legitimacy" and marketability. Ultimate will only be taken seriously as a spectator sport, the argument goes, if there are referees.
I have three questions, then, for anyone who supports referees in ultimate:
1. Is there anything else we gain from having active-call referees (rather than arbitrating observers), other than "legitimacy"/marketability?
2. If the central concern, referee-wise, is a matter of external perception and marketing, then why not just give observers zebra stripes and call them "referees"?
3. If the central concern, referee-wise, is making the game more spectator-friendly, then can that same goal be met by:
(a) expanding the powers of observers (to impose strict time limits, for example); and
(b) training them to use the powers they have (for example, to give yellow- and red-card-type penalties against players who commit flagrant fouls).
I.e., can we achieve the goal of spectator-friendly play without taking the primary responsibility for fair play away from the players?
BVH and Dan make good points, which I agree with and which work nicely with adding a Disincentive to Making Bad Call (or Contest).
As a person who has competed in 5 National Finals (and still plays a bit - I just played on the winning team at April Fools West), I would like to present the need for a disincentive in another way.
When playing against another Elite team, nowadays as well as 15 years ago, besides having a strategy of how to play against the opposing players, many teams discuss what to do if opposing teams make bad calls. Sayings like: "Contest Every Call", "We better make calls because they will", "If we want to win we have to make calls" are not uncommon. Not finding a way to eliminate this mentality is in direct contrast with the SOTG.
There is currently no protection in our game to talk a hot-head out of making bad calls. Let's change that. Let's make players responsible for their calls. Let's simply add a disincentive.
With the disincentive, teams will no longer play tit-for-tat (you make a call, then I'll make a call.) Players mindsets for making bad calls will change. Now there will be a real reason why a player cannot just make any random or bad call (or contest).
If you want to protect the SOTG at the Elite level while keeping the game self-refereeing (which I do), then introduce this way to make players responsible for their calls.
Alot has been said and I think most aspects of the disincentive system have been discussed.
I wanted to reiterate that not every call overturned by an observer, or every call not supported by an observer, needs to be counted as a strike towards disqualification.
If we leave it up to the observer to decide whether a player is acting against SOTG by contesting or making a call, the system won't encourage the type of overaggressive play that Henry raised concerned about. It necessarily be a matter of how many calls are made but how bad those calls are.
Regarding testing this at a tournament: Would you purposefully invite teams with bad spirit so as to be able to test it fully? : )
Rocksteady, I hear what you are saying, udnerstand it, BUT disagree.
To make a system work, you have to take the subjectivity out of it. Making some things bad calls, others very bad calls, and others well-not-so-bad has problems on so many levels.
If a play ever goes to an Observer, no strike is given if the Observer says to take the player over. A "strike" only occurs when the Observer rules that one player should not have either made a call or contested a correct call.
Mistakes will occur by Observers. And some players may get "strikes" incorrectly. No system is perfect (look at any sport.)But the vast majority of the time one player gets two "strikes" in one game (to be over-ruled by an Observer twice in one game)that player is trying to coerse the rules in their favor.
As I have mentioned before, having played in many BIG Tournament Finals, I know that the vast majority of players have not been over-ruled twice by an Observer in an entire year of playing. To be over-ruled twice in a game, that player should be penalized.
Still, keep in mind that the intention is not penalize a player (that is a consequence of their action). The intention is to create a reason for that unspirited player to now not to make those bad calls.
Personally other than playing Ultimate as a kid, not calling anything because we would just play for fun, then coming and playing it in high school was a big change. What brought me into it again was the self officiating of the game. I have played basketball for many years and soccer, more in basketball, I find that refs can often ruin the game and the mood of the game as stated earlier. There are so many bad things that can happen when other people are calling things other than the players. Say you might of jumped for a huck with a person from the defensive team and he accidentally bumps you a little, and you know you would not have gotten the disc that time maybe it being too high, and don't see any reason to call a foul. The ref might call a foul for that thus ruining that for you knowing you wouldn't have gotten the disc and not allowing the game to go on. It is almost like if you put refs in the game it is a damper to the smoothness of play, making it choppy like other sport. Difference can be better than similarity, thats the biggest thing I want to say.
Steve,
I don't think we disagree by that much. You said:
"A "strike" only occurs when the Observer rules that one player should not have either made a call or contested a correct call."
This is what I was trying to make sure was included. Players should only be penalized when they make a call that shouldn't have been made, or contest a call that was correct.
Where we differ is that I believe an observer can have a good enough view to make a ruling not only on a call, but also on the intent of that call.
Consider the following. An offensive player calls "strip."
The defensive player thinks he had the disc cleanly, before it was in possession of the offensive player.
When he contests, the observer overrules him.
Now, he wasn't trying to slow the game down or gain and advantage. He made a close play on the disc and thought he got there first. Why should he be penalized for asserting his right to contest? If the call went the other way, why should the offensive player be penalized?
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between an honest mistake and an abuse of SOTG.
I like what has been said about how Observers can most invisibly be used to maintain game pace and SOTG. I believe Ultimate's lack of refs is one of the things that makes Ultimate more enjoyable, and in fact "more honorable," if you will, than other sports. As the UPA considers these issues, some comparisons to other sports might be useful to keep in mind.
Soccer--In soccer, line calls, fouls, and unsportsmanlike conduct are regulated by refs. While it seems that most people frown on egregious unsportsmanlike conduct in soccer, "minor" fouling is sometimes (often?) considered a "get away with it if you can" sort of thing. Sure, if the ref calls it, there are penalties, but it's not the end of the world. And when it comes to line calls, you play the whistle. It doesn't matter if the ball is out (or even if you had a hand-ball)--if the ref doesn't call it, you continue playing. This is not unsportsmanlike but simply playing the game. I hope that Ultimate would maintain a player-initiated integrity toward line calls and fouls, although certainly Observers are often helpful.
Basketball--Clearly, the rules of basketball not only tolerate but encourage fouling, especially as a late-game strategy.
The fact is, referees change the game. I hope we will not let Ultimate be changed in these ways.
-------------------
And in response to BVH, I am not convinced that refs would add to Ultimate's "legitimacy and marketability." Why can't Ultimate be different, but still legitimate and marketable? PAnd, perhaps adding refs would make Ultimate legitimate and marketable more quickly, but do we need these things to happen quickly, especially with the potentially major costs to the game of Ultimate as we currently know it?
Rocksteady - We agree that "A "strike" only occurs when the Observer rules that one player should not have either made a call or contested a correct call."
You write: ""Where we differ is that I believe an observer can have a good enough view to make a ruling not only on a call, but also on the intent of that call."
Please don't make this more difficult than it should be or needs to be. If the Observer(s) does not have a good enough view or thinks a call is too close to call (just as they curently do), the play is redone. No "strike" will be given.
Leave "intent" for the lawyers. Observers will continue only making calls when it is clear. THE ONLY DIFFERNCE UNDER THE DISINCENTIVE SYSTEM IS THAT OBSERVERS WILL TALLY EVERY TIME AN OBSERVER IS BROUGHT INTO PLAY AND DEEMS A PLAYER IS FOUND TO EITHER MAKE A BAD CALL OR CONTESTING A GOOD CALL. IF ONE PLAYER GETS TWO STRIKES IN ONE GAME, THEN THAT PLAYER CANNOT PLAY THE REMAINDER OF THAT GAME.(It's really quite simple.)
Below is my first draft at a simple presentation to give to the Tournament Director, Team Captains, and Observers before a game in which the Disincentive System is used.
Please look at over, mark it up, post your suggestions.
Disincentive to Making Bad Foul Calls and Contests
The Problem: Ultimate does not have a system to make players responsible for their self-refereeing ability to make the correct Calls (Fouls, Violations, etc.) and Contests. Because of this lack of disincentive, there are too many poor calls and contests.
The Solution: To make players responsible for their Calls and Contests, we are introducing a simple Disincentive into the current system of play. The Disincentive is when an Observer(s) is brought into play to decide the merit of a Call and/or Contest, and the Observer rules either in favor of the Offensive or Defensive player, the player being found to have made the incorrect call or contest will be assessed a “strike”. If a player receives two “strikes” in one game, that player will no longer be allowed to play for the remainder of that game.
Rationale: The goal of this Disincentive system is not to kick players out of a game (that is a consequence of their actions). It is to create a reason to make players responsible for their calls and contests. In turn, this will reduce the number of bad calls and contests, reduce stoppages of play, and support the SOTG.
How does it work: In games that have Observers, players still self-referee. Observers are still Observers; they are not referees. When there is a disputed call on the field, players have a certain time limit to resolve their disagreement (?? What is the time limit)? When players cannot reach an agreement within the time limit or when either player asks the Observer to rule on the disagreement, the Observer with the best view (presumably, but not necessarily the nearest Observer) will either:
1. Rule in favor of the Offensive player. (Giving a “strike” to the Defensive player.)
2. Rule in favor of the Defensive player. (Giving a “strike” to the Offensive player.)
3. State that the play was either too close to call or that the Observer(s) did not have a good enough view to make a call. In both cases, the play will be redone. (No “strike” will be given.)
The Observer(s) have (?? 1 minute??) to make their call.
Keeping Tally of “Strikes”: The Head Observer (as decided before the game) will keep tally of “strikes” during a game. If a player receives 2 “strikes” in one game, the Head Observer will tell both teams Captains that the player with 2 “strikes” may no longer play in that game.
I'd like to move the ball forward on getting the simple disincentive system Steve proposes tested.
The UPA series is not the place to do a test so we'll need to find other tourneys that use observers. Can anyone tell me what tournaments they know of (other than UPA series) that use observers? If you happen to know the TD that'd be sweet but if not I'll track them down.
Henry
Steve, I understand that you don't think things should be complicated and that an Observer shouldn't try to determine whether a call had pure intentions or not. However, I think if a player calls a foul due to contact, and the Observer rules that it was incidental, then the player who called the foul does not deserve a strike--he was essentially asking the Observer whether the contact was incidental or not. Sometimes it is hard to tell, and he shouldn't have to be afraid of calling foul when he was knocked over just because it was simultaneous vying for a previously unoccupied position.
All other violations, though, I can see the justification for giving a strike to the player who makes the "bad" call.
Why not let the league sponsoring the game decide? If a league (say, for example, the NCAA) wanted to have Ultimate games with officials, wouldn't that be better than no Ultimate at all? The rules could provide guidelines for various options, and the league (which is really the players) would decide which model to follow depending upon their preferences.
Gapoole - I agree.
Steve - I really like this disincentive system with the exception you already understand (but disagree with). Thanks for putting so much energy into trying to move it forward.
By all means, we should try this at a tournament. However, if we're experimenting, why not truely experiment and try both methods of enforcement (strict strike system versus intent-based system). Half the pools could be run one way, the other half the other. This would allow us to learn the problems/benefits of both systems.
I agree that the UPA Series isn't the place to experiment... especially if different pools are managed different ways. Perhaps the UPA could offer to provide observers to an tournament free of charge. Better yet, as it would allow the UPA more freedom to experiment, would be to host a new 1 time experimental tournament.
Rocksteady writes, "... if we're experimenting, why not truely experiment and try both methods of enforcement (strict strike system versus intent-based system). Half the pools could be run one way, the other half the other. This would allow us to learn the problems/benefits of both systems."
Steve: I have been an advocate of the disincentive system for almost 20 years and it has yet to be tried. It has been very well thought out by many elite players. I am not going to advocate a tournamnet dirctor to try two different systems, when they have not even tried one.
Rocksteady adds, "I agree that the UPA Series isn't the place to experiment... especially if different pools are managed different ways.
Steve: I don't care which tournament (UPA Sanctioned or Not) it is tried. I played in this year's April Fools West Finals. There were many bad calls in that game (and it is considered a "fun" tournament). I believe it will enhance any tightly contested game.
Steve writes: "I am not going to advocate a tournamnet dirctor to try two different systems, when they have not even tried one."
Rocksteadyg: Great. I am.
I understand the frustration of having a good idea that hasn't been followed up on by others, but that doesn't mean an equally viable solution for enforcing SOTG shouldn't be attempted.
It wouldn't be difficult for a TD to test these very similar suggestions at the same tournament. It would be foolish to not have something to compare one disincentive system to... other than the past 30 years of ultimate.
H Folks,
Coming a bit late here. I think the disincentive plan is interesting. I would like to give some thought to trying it out at some point at a tournament I am involved with.
However, I don't think we have had a good answer to the concern about uncontested fouls/violations and their impact upon the flow of the game.
Steve addressed this once by saying, "To my understanding, an uncontested violation should have no stoppage of play". Well, a call stops play. End of story. I agree with Kyle and gapoole's assertion that uncontested violations, like traveling, are probably more annoying than the "big" foul calls.
This is not to say that the Disincentive plan is not a good idea, but it is not a panacea...no matter how loud Steve yells. Under this plan, teams can still call "cheap" violations, stop play, and then uncontest before it goes to the observer.
-George
GCooke - Sorry if it comes across as yelling, but explaining things to so many over a blog is hard.
To answer your question, Under this plan, teams can still call "cheap" violations, stop play, and then uncontest before it goes to the observer."
The disincentive plan will directly effect this problem. For that player who loves to call travelling, there is nothing now that will stop him form doing so. But with this simple disincentive, this player, who now will have a consequence for making unwarranted travel calls, will either stop making them because he will receive a strike OR he will shortly be out of the game. In either case, with this disincentive, there will be a way to halt the player who causes all these stoppages of play.
One aspect you may have missed is that after a call is made, EITHER player may go directly to the Observer. That way a player can not weasle out of the call they made (and stoppage of play). We want a system in which a player is responsible for their calls and wants to only make correct calls.
FYI, this will also be true for the player who likes to overcall fouls and contests.
Please e-mail me at "stevencourlang@sbcglobal.net" and leave me your phone number. I can expalin the benefit in more detail. Plus, it would be great if you try it at one of your tournamnets. I look forward to hearing from you.
Having read a little of Steve's proposition, I think mine is similar, but operates within the current framework.
The observer manual allows team misconduct fouls to be issued for "unwarranted and unsportsmanlike calls or contests." The first two are warnings and the next two have serious yardage penalties.
The rules assume player rule knowledge and allow calls to be made in specific, identified circumstances. They allow contests when, based on the rules, a player believes the circumstances on which the call was based did not exist. A player who does not know the rules does not have the authority to make or contest any calls. To do so is "unwarranted and unsportsmanlike."
By adjusting the standard practices of observers so they'll issue TMFs freely, we place a responsibility on players to not only know the rules, but to make sure their teammates know the rules. Blatant cheaters can receive TMFs at observer's discretion, but honest, knowledgeable disagreement likely won't get picked up.
This system immediately addresses the biggest problem - players not knowing the rules, but still making calls. It also prevents players from making calls if they aren't actually sure. Overall result is fewer calls, more knowledgable players and a faster-paced game, with no major developments required, except the training of more qualified observers, which is already in the works.
It also avoids any tactical manipulations, like drawing fouls against good players in hopes of a contest and a "strike" and eventually ejection. It also punishes the cheap calls with major yardage penalties. Exercising the authority granted in the card system should alleviate any concerns about lots of cheap calls when the TMF yardage penalties wouldn't be significant and also addresses the teams that foul excessively, but don't contest, though TMFs are also warranted for deliberate fouls or repeated marking fouls.
correction:
"the first two have are warnings and [subsequent TMFs] have serious yardage penalties"
please excuse the typo.
Response to "El Presidente"
He writes: Having read a little of Steve's proposition, I think mine is similar, but operates within the current framework.
Steve: Though I applaud another suggestion to improve our sport, you really should have read my entire proposal (it wasn't very long) before criticizing or comparing it. Yours has a similarity or two, BUT IS NOT SIMILAR. Whereas my proposal's only change from the current framework is having an Observer count the times a player is over-ruled by an Observer, your proprosition actually gives Observers subjective power to differentiate between fouls. That in essence is making them close to a referee. (My proposal will simply work to change a players thought process before making unwarranted calls.)
In your proposal, what is to stop a player from making as many travel calls as the want a game? Or have a thrower call a foul on the marker every time he desires? How does it place responsibity on a player to make only correct calls and/or contests?
El Presidente says: The biggest problem is players not knowing the rules.
Steve: I disagree. The problem is how to contain the few players who abuse their ability to self-referee - the few players that just keep calling fouls or travel to their team's advantage regardless if the call is correct.
El Prez adds: (His system would)avoids any tactical manipulations, like drawing fouls against good players in hopes of a contest and a "strike" and eventually ejection.
Steve: I feel a "conspiracy theory". A player is not going to draw a foul. When there is a Disincentive, fouling a player will only aid the team of the fouled player. A "strike" only occurs when a bad foul call is made (or a good foul call is contested).
A point about posts. I do not know about the rest of you, but it is a bit frustrating when people use psydonyms rather than their real name. I don't know if "El Presidente" is a 19 year old kid who has never even played in a game with Observers or a mulitple National Champ.
My experience includes being a key member of two winning Open National teams, Three time Nationals runner-up, Nationals Master once, Worlds Open and Masters Champ, Numerous major tournament champs and finalist, UPA Board Member, UPA Jrs. Director, co-author of the 10 Simple Rules of Ultimate, UPA Newletter contributor in , HOF committee member, UPA Advisor (my suggestion lead to Observers making active line and goal calls), and involved as a player and contributor to our Sport for over 25 years. My comments and suggestions have been made from my experience. So please, if you have positive suggestions and improvements, please share them. But first take the time to understand how the simple Disincentive plan will work.
Steve Courlang
Steve, our proposals are similar in a number of ways. The horse you're sitting on has got to be 60 hands tall - I can barely see you up there. Call in the Guinness Book folks. I'll introduce myself and then maybe you can come down, reread my proposal and actually give it some consideration. I’ve already waded through the pompousness and read yours.
The battle of credentials. Irrelevant as to the quality of the proposals, but sure… Colin McIntyre. Five years of College and Club experience. All Region in 2006. Two 9th place College National finishes. One trip to Club Nationals. Current SRC Member (my post here is strictly my own opinions and totally unofficial) and former Sectional Coordinator. I've played the game. I've won some tournaments. I’ve played with observers. I've read the observer manual. I know the rules. I just played at Regionals with no marking violations or fouls called against me, no calls contested, no calls sent to observers ruled against me and no fouls called against me except for one questionable blocking foul. You've caught me early in my ultimate career. I'm great. You're great. We should listen to each other.
I understand the simple disincentive plan. I read a little. Overruled calls mean a strike. 1, 2 or 3 or so strikes and you're out of the game. Just a somewhat more extreme version of the current card system laid out in the observer manual, right? Need I read more? Your plan simply proposes issuing a yellow card under the current observer manual card system, every time an observer rules against a player's call, except you give no provisions for kicking players out beyond a game, right? That’s two changes. Now, to address a few of your questions/comments:
your proposition actually gives Observers subjective power to differentiate between fouls. That in essence is making them close to a referee.
My plan does not make any changes to the observer system at all. Under the observer manual Misconduct Foul System, observers have all the power my plan requires, they just need to exercise it. Team Misconduct Fouls issued for unwarranted calls and blatant cheating. See blatant cheating? Issue a TMF. When a call is sent to you and a player backs up his position with some bogus stuff not found in the rulebook, you issue a TMF. Simple formulaic determination of whether what was said/done fits with the rules. It’s not me making Observers close to referees, it’s the UPA. Be careful about how you use the “R-word.”
what is to stop a player from making as many travel calls as the want a game? Or have a thrower call a foul on the marker every time he desires? How does it place responsibility on a player to make only correct calls and/or contests?
The third TMF and beyond results in a Misconduct Penalty. Against the offense, the offense stays where it is or moves to the endzone mark, 15 yards deep into their own endzone, whichever is further back. Against the defense, the offense stays where it is or moves to the brick mark closest to the endzone of attack, whichever is closer. That’s a disincentive. And it’s simple. Don’t make a call unless you know the rule and you’re sure in the given situation, or you’re subject to a significant yardage penalty.
I feel a "conspiracy theory". A player is not going to draw a foul. When there is a Disincentive, fouling a player will only aid the team of the fouled player. A "strike" only occurs when a bad foul call is made (or a good foul call is contested).
It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s just good, cheating tactics to take advantage of an incentive that your proposal creates. Put in your benchwarmers to instigate close calls/contests by key opponents, in hopes they’ll strike out. Carry a big roster and getting a few players kicked out for a game isn’t a disincentive at all.
A point about posts. I do not know about the rest of you, but it is a bit frustrating when people use psydonyms rather than their real name. I don't know if "El Presidente" is a 19 year old kid who has never even played in a game with Observers or a mulitple National Champ.
No, I guess you don’t. Does that affect how long you’re willing to spend looking down your nose at me? Was something unclear about my original post?
Now, another weakness in the Simple Disincentive Plan, as pointed out by others, is that it provides no recourse against players who foul excessively, but don’t contest. There is no disagreement for the Observer to settle in the case of an uncontested call.
Possible weakness in my proposal is that when the TMF causes no change of position, there seems to be a lack of disincentive. First of all, if lack of knowledge of the rules is a major problem, as I propose based on my extensive and recent playing experience in the past five years and taking into consideration the new edition of the rules just released, then this limited lack of disincentive will not create a problem. Game Misconduct Fouls are issued for flagrant and continued fouling and result in the player being ejected from the tournament, so that may alleviate some problems. One could also implement the card system as well as the Misconduct Foul system and issue cards where the MF system lacks disincentive. All established in the observer manual.
Benefits of my plan are the tangible penalty. Unwarranted calls and blatant cheating get punished by yardage penalties, which unquestionably put the TMF recipient at a disadvantage. Everyone still gets to keep playing, but a team cheating a lot will have a really hard time winning. There is never a tactical advantage to cheating and there is no risk of getting unjustly kicked out of a game, based on observer error or underhanded tactics by opponents. As stated before, the direct incentive
Knowing your proposal and having read mine carefully, can you explain further any advantages and disadvantages of each that I missed? I think that many of my concerns are similar to those expressed by Kyle Weisbrod, for which I haven't heard a satisfactory answer. The better our starting point when we do "try it out," the better the results are likely to be.
I want it to be clear to everybody reading this blog that it does not matter your experience or qualifications to submit or critique ideas on this forum.
Steve, for me, I still would like to hear responses on this forum to the two most common and serious critiques of your idea:
1. What's to stop teams from throwing endless amounts of benchwarmers at their opponent's top players in hopes of baiting them into contested calls that go against their opponent or put the opponent in the situation where they don't feel they can make a call or contest because of the slight possibility that they are wrong?
2. How does your plan address the more prevalent game-slowing problem of uncontested violations?
I am all for tournaments trying out new rules and observer roles with UPA support(see my post on the UPA competitive structure thread) but I think it is worthwhile to work through potential problems prior to experimenting so the actual experiment can be as valuable as possible.
Also, for everyone, please don't hesitate to comment on the original question on this thread: "Would it still be Ultimate without self-officiated play?"
My personal answer to this is that I believe Ultimate officiating system (particularly with observers) is better than other sports in that it produces more correct outcomes to plays and games. As important, I believe the self-officiating system reinforces SOTG which allows Ultimate to be such a strong, vibrant, and fast-growing community.
I think Ultimate with full referees would still be "Ultimate" but it would just be a weaker sport with a weaker community.
On this same note, I think it would be worth experimenting with giving observers having an active role on all objective calls (like travels and stall counts) while still giving players the responsibility to call fouls and picks.
Colin, excellent post. Just to be clear, though, your idea is simply that we implement the full Observer system as it has been outlined by the UPA? I know that we haven't seen Observers at many tournaments at all, so I think we need to get more Observers at sanctioned events in order to actually use the TMF and card systems.
I also recognize the resistance that many people will feel toward giving an Observer the power to call TMFs (I can imagine a fine line for "blatant cheating"), but I do think this addresses the concerns of those people who feel that self-officiation does not make for an honest and clean game. Given that elite college and club teams initiate contact frequently (especially on the mark), would Observers be given some leeway with how they can call a game? I personally think that this kind of contact makes for better and more exciting Ultimate, although it does have to be controlled. So how strict do Observers have to be? Are consistent marking violations equivalent to cheating?
Kyle, I agree that Ultimate is a stronger sport due to self-officiation, and I think that a refereed form would be inferior on several levels. Giving more objective power to Observers is an interseting idea, though. Fast stall counting has always been a problem, and I've always taken issue with travelling and travel calls. But I like how the marker calls stalls, so the thrower doesn't have to consciously think about how much time he has left to throw. I think Observer-called stalls would give the thrower more time, but nonetheless make it a more difficult game (some people have a poor grasp of time). I'd love to give the Observer the power to actively call travels, but could players also call them? Sometimes, and Observer might miss it. What other active calls could the Observer be given?
In response to gapoole:
Yes, my hope is simply to use the Misconduct Foul System that is already laid out by the UPA.
It will definitely require an increase in the pool of qualified observers, which the Observer Clinics are hopefully helping with. But even just starting in the College division (with ample notice to teams, please!) and the upper levels of the Club division has the potential to have a significant impact.
I'm actually not as concerned about blatant cheating as I am about players who don't know the rules, yet still make calls. There's no excuse for that and it doesn't require a subjective judgment. I consider it terrible sportsmanship.
I think the "blatant cheating" TMF will have to be issued more rarely and generally as the result of a pattern of abuse. I believe observers always have the authority to issue a warning. So if a defender runs up and bumps the thrower after every catch, it'd be fair to warn him and then give a TMF the next time.
I think very active marks who constantly shift and react to the thrower make for an exciting game. And that means that sometimes there will be contact. But if those markers consistently set up an illegal position, it makes fouls inevitable and slows down the game. So while a TMF almost certainly would not be issued to a legally positioned, but active marker, a warning and then TMF would be warranted for a marker who consistently established an illegal position and fouled.
In summary: Very strict on players making calls that aren't based on the rules. More flexible with an option of a warning for play which an observer considers dishonest.
I'm pleased with self-officiating as it is and would like to just provide incentive for players to do their job and know the rules. I'm reluctant to give observers a more active role until we have more of them, because it would be a more dramatic change to the game. But giving more power in a way that is mostly administrative, for the convenience of players would be alright, where the players retain control over the game. If we were to make such a change, I'd like the following:
Observer counts stalls and calls marking violations (which don't stop play). This could minimize a lot of thrower-marker issues that currently exist. Thrower retains power to also make all the calls and just has to make sure the observer hears them (the observer will be pretty close, since the thrower has to hear him counting). This would be possible under the four-observer system, where one observer is already assigned to thrower-marker stuff. By increasing awareness of what an accurate stall count is, there might be greater player enforcement of it when observers aren't present.
Guess I got a few people's attention. I'd like to make a few points, which in turn should answer most questions.
I read the UPA tallies. Like the vast majority of the UPA membership , I believe Ultimate should remain self-refereeing. (After speaking with Kyle) I believe that in games that have Observers, Observers should make travel and stall calls (taking away that burden from the players). Those are the only on-the-field-calls an Observer should make. Observers should also continue making active line calls and to rule whether a call was correct once approached by player(s) on the field.
Allowing Observers to make the travel and stall counts will greatly reduce the stoppages of play. Adding the Disincentive will greatly reduce the number of bad calls and contests, which will also reduce stoppages of play and reduce this abuse of the SOTG.
Over the years, even with the Changes with to the Observer manual Misconduct Foul System, the same problems (too many bad calls, contests, stoppages of play, etc.)exist. The sytem needs improvement. That is why I believe these changes are needed.
Wow, things got heated.
I understand the frustration of anonymous posts, but I resent the implication that success on the fields gives validity to ideas. Young players can have just as much passion, understanding and love for the game as anyone who's been around for 20+ years.
I like the system described by el prez. If it's already being taught (but not enforced) it is that much easier to implement. (Aside: I think the key to any system working will rest on the quality and training of the observers.)
I'll touch on the hot topic of the Disincentive Plan(s) vs. TMF system now and post on my thoughts regarding the original thread topic at a later time.
I think there are 5 things that observers should be involved in deciding: 1) Pace of the Game 2) Correct Outcome of Calls 3) Ensuring Rules are Known/Used 4) Upholding SOTG 5) Preventing Abuse of the Rules
Pace of the Game and making sure that calls are rules correctly (contests, in/out of bounds, etc.) are already handled well by the observer system. The other 3 are bigger.
3) Ensuring knowledge of the rules. Neither system will address this directly. However, both the Discincentive System and the TMF System provide motivation for teams to know the rules. The DS would do so by penalizing individuals who are overturned for not knowing the rules. TMF would punish teams who play players who make/contest calls without knowledge of the rules. In this case, the team penalty is superior, as it has less potential for abuse and more incentive for teams to teach the rules.
4) Upholding SOTG. Neither the DS or TMF system directly addresses this situations. The DS system does a thorough job of penalizing indivuals who have a call overturned while not upholding SOTG, but no other situation. It also opens up the possibility of teams using new methods to try to gain and advantage against SOTG. Furthermore, I feel that anything that discourages players from making an honest call for fear of being overturned goes against SOTG. The TMF system addresses "blatant cheating" but not some of the subtle cheating that can occur... or repeated, but honest mistakes.
I feel either systems would benefit from requiring observers to issue warnings against individual players (or teams) that are not upholding SOTG. Doing so would not discourage uptempo, aggressive play, as the initial warning wouldn't carry a penalty (giving players the benefit of the doubt regarding their intentions), but would allow observers to ensure the games are not being played contrary to SOTG.
It is also important that ignorning this warning and continuing to play w/o spirit be accompanied by both an individual and a team penalty. While the TMF system does have disqualification from the tournament as a harsh penalty for flagrant and continued fouling, I feel that a single game ejection could be useful for situations that are less serious.
To sum up this section, Observers need to warn/educate when SOTG isn't being upheld and be able to enforce SOTG when it is continually not followed.
5) Preventing Abuse of the Rules. Since abusing the rules to gain an advantage is an obvious abuse of SOTG, the goals for this section are similar: Issue warning against any questionable behavior and penalize repeated or obvious abuse.
When looking at methods to prevent abuse, it is important to remember that the vast majority of players are honest. With this in mind, what has been heralded as the strength of the DS system, its hard and fast ruling for all overturned calls, is actually a drawback. Given the choice, I would rather allow one person to gain an advantage by abusing the rules than penalize one honest player wrongly. I think the DS system, without any subjectivity for handing out strikes, will cause more problems than it solves.
The TMF system, however, allows the observer to judge a call as the call, and make an additional judgement on the intent. While it does enforce a penalty on the team, and in extreme cases on the player, I think it would benefit from a less harsh (and therefore more likely to be used) individual penalty.
I feel that the TMF system is superior due to its flexibility and the lack of potential to abuse the sytem. It would be strengthened by clear guidelines on issuing warnings and by including an individual penalty against players in addition to the team penalty (yardage).
I also want to point out that I don't want to see a lot of calls. I hope and expect that most games will move quickly w/ few calls going to the observer and no warnings or team penalties.
It is my hope that actual yardage penalties are rare (though not so rare as to not be disregardable).
While I'm in favor of observers stepping in to issue warnings regarding abuse of the rules and SOTG, I'm still against observers making most active calls other than in/out of bounds. Taking the stall count out of the players hands (mouth?) and allowing active travel calls would slow the game down.
However, it would be helpful if the observer made the disc space and fast count calls. I've always felt that the time it takes to make these calls was always a distraction to the thrower. Most usually don't bother. The observer, however, is impartial and could make these calls w/o the unintended consequence of affecting the offensive player disadvantage by the violation.
As for whether Ultimate is Ultimate w/o Self-Officiated Play... Of course it is. The game is the activity. The community, however, is not the same w/o self-officiated play.
Now, the community is very important to the activity. We would lose something huge and valuable if we lost self-officiated play. However, I would still chase a plastic disc into the endzone if there were stripes on the field.
Thanks for listening.
(to avoid anonymity)
Rocksteadyg at yahoo dot com
Greg Tripp
Nothing has been done so far in terms of providing any significant disincentive for the issues we're discussing. The conduct systems of the Observer Manual have not been implemented in a way that seeks to accomplish this goal. They've been mostly used to address fighting and other related forms of poor sportsmanship. It has not been established that they are by any means insufficient for our purposes.
The Misconduct Foul System does have procedures for ejection from single games, but they are directed mostly at fighting and therefore, as Rocksteady indicates, may inadequately address. But beyond just unwarranted calls and deliberate fouls, TMFs can be issued for repeated marking fouls, which may address some of the subtle cheating and frequent honest mistakes. Also remember that the first two TMFs are warnings, with no yardage penalties until the third and subsequent TMFs.
But I agree that individual penalties could be valuable. It's just slightly harder to work and not as well established (the Card System is pretty harsh,too, but could potentially fill the cracks).
I also agree that the goal should be (and I believe is) to reduce the number of calls and rarely impose penalties. Having a stiff yardage penalty ensures that teams won't do a cost-benefit analysis as to whether to cheat or not.
Now that "Disc Space" is a marking violation, I don't find all that many remaining areas for subtle cheating. Maybe a little in the area of blocking and receiving fouls.
I presume that observers are free to issue warnings, whenever they deem it appropriate and agree that it makes sense to have them (but not on the issue of not knowing the rules).
Steve,
If your system is so great and you've been advocating it for 25 years, WHY HAVEN'T YOU MADE ANY EFFORT TO TRY IT OUT? You could do it at a tournament, sure, but you could also do it at practice, at a scrimmage, in league play, at Saturday pickup or any other place ultimate is played.
Personally, I think your system is flawed for several reasons already mentioned. Primarily, merely making/contesting a close call should not be cause for a 'strike'. In a game as fast paced as ultimate, players will often truly believe that their perspective was correct on a bang-bang play when they are actually wrong. How would you feel if you were tossed from the finals of nationals for making or contesting two strip calls? If you truly feel that you had caught the disc before your opponent then it is absolutely correct to contest his strip call, even if you are wrong about the timing.
Also, your system will serve as a deterrent for observers actually making a ruling on a play. Currently, if there is a close play and I am asked to make a ruling, the worst that can happen is the wrong team gets the disc. However, under your system if I am asked to make a ruling on a close play, one of the players could potentially be ejected. If the only choice for the outcome of a call was sending the disc back or ejecting a player, I'd start sending a lot of discs back to the thrower. If observers are constantly sending the disc back, why even have them on the field?
Third, what if a close play happens between a player with no strikes and a player with one strike? The player with no strikes is encouraged by your system to make a call. If he gets overturned, it's only one strike against him; however, if the other player contests and is ruled against, he is out of the game. Likewise, if I've got a strike against me, I will be much less likely to make a call because there is the potential to get ejected if the observer rules against me. Do you want to discourage bad calls or discourage all calls?
I just wanted to add some observations from the perspective of an Observer. I've observed at both College and Club nationals, as well as at less significant tournaments.
First, I want to point out that very few calls are brought to the observer. For example, in a game I observed at College Regionals this past weekend, probably about 5 calls were ruled on by the observers. At Nationals, this might double. So any change to what observers rule on would not have a very big impact on games.
Second, I don't think Ultimate has a significant problem with excessive contested calls. The major problems are (1) excessive fouling on the mark, leading to calls and (2) excessive arguing about calls. Hopefully observers can address (2), and the 11th edition is addressing (1).
Third, almost all calls that come to the observer are good-faith disagreements between players. Penalizing people for such calls is just saying that players shouldn't ever make calls on close plays. Maybe that's what some people believe, but it's not in keeping with most people's current idea of the game.
If we wanted to make a change to the observer system to speed up the game, it should be to have observers step in to make ruling much more quickly. This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it would be both simple and effective.
two comments:
1. I think having a UPA venue for experimenting with new rules and new enforcement ideas is a great idea, and hopefully will be something tangible that comes out of this process.
2. Regarding Steve's disincentive proposal, while I agree with the premise that having disincentives for making bad calls is something we should try out, I disagree with the severity of the 2-strikes-ejection penalty, for many of the reasons already discussed (chief among them the idea that this will simply lead to fewer calls going to the observer because the stakes are so high).
Instead, I would propose something along the lines of colin's proposal: after 3 calls go against a particular player (or after 5 calls go against the whole team), the team gets a TMF. Thereafter, every 3rd call against a team or every 2nd call against a player gets another TMF.
(The numbers are just my best guesses at what is fair while effective, and may be too high or too low.)
I have spoken to a few, looked over the comments, re-read the Obersvers manual ... and have updated the Disincentive Plan. (As for Dave's Comments, my days of putting on tournaments were over a long time ago. From my experience and from what I have recently seen and heard, I believe this idea will assist the game at the Elite level.)
The major changes have been to alter the "penalty" (no longer does it eject a player), put in the actually time limits, and spell out ALL the Observers powers. Here it is .. what do you think:
Observer Based Disincentive System to
Reduce the Number of Bad Calls, Contests, and Stoppages of Play
The Problem: Ultimate games are often bogged down with too many stoppages of play and bad calls (fouls and violations). No previous plan has properly correctly this problem. This plan is trying to better answer the question: How can Ultimate maintain its self-refereeing nature while making players responsible for their Calls and Contests?
The Solution: To make players responsible for their Calls and Contests, we are introducing a simple Disincentive into the current system of play. The Disincentive system is used in games with Observers. When an Observer(s) is brought into play to decide the merit of a Call and/or Contest, and the Observer rules either in favor of the Offensive or Defensive player, the Team of the player being found to have made the incorrect call or contest will be assessed a “strike”. When a Team accumulates three “strikes” in a game that Team will be assessed a Misconduct Penalty*. Additional Penalties will be assessed for each additional “strike”. (Strikes do not carry over to future games.)
Rationale: The goal of this Disincentive system is not to issue penalties (that is a consequence of the players’ actions). It is to create a reason to make teams and their players responsible for their calls and contests. This disincentive is expected to reduce the number of bad calls and contests, reduce stoppages of play, and support the SOTG.
How does it work: In games that have Observers, players still self-referee. Observers are still Observers; they are not referees. When there is a disputed call on the field, players have one minute to resolve their disagreement. When players cannot reach an agreement within the time limit OR whenever either player asks the Observer to rule on the disagreement, the Observer with the best view (presumably, but not necessarily the nearest Observer) will get involved and either:
1. Rule in favor of the Offensive player. (Giving a “strike” to the Defensive Team.)
2. Rule in favor of the Defensive player. (Giving a “strike” to the Offensive Team.)
3. State that the play was either too close to call or that the Observer(s) did not have a good enough view to make a call. In these cases, the play will be redone. (No “strike” will be given.)
Once involved, Observer(s) have 15 seconds to make their call. Play will resume based upon the Observers call.
Additional Observer Powers: Observers are also empowered to:
1. To give a Team a “Strike” when two Observers agree that one team’s player either deliberately fouls, engages in dangerous play, or repeatedly fouls when marking.
2. Observers will also have the power to eject** a player from a game whenever two Observers agree that a player has egregiously abused the SOTG (e.g. Fighting, abusive language, excessive taunting, etc.). When the Observers eject a player from a game, that player’s team is also assessed a “strike”.
3. Observers other duties include: making off-sides calls, active line calls, and goal calls.
Keeping Tally of “Strikes”: The Head Observer (as decided before the game) will keep tally of “strikes”. When a Team accumulates 3 “strikes” in one game, the Head Observer will implement a * Misconduct Penalty* on that point.
Evaluation - Keeping Tally of how the Disincentive System has worked: To learn if this system is having a positive impact, the following tallies need to be collected and e-mailed to ( ) :
1. How many calls (Fouls, Violations) were made during a particular game?
2. In that particular game, how many times did an Observer get involved to make a call? (FYI, it does not matter how the Observer ruled.)
3. In that particular game, how many strikes were given per team?
4. Were any players ejected from the game? If so, why?
5. Your thoughts on how well the Disincentive System worked and suggestions for improvements.
We hope the TD will assign someone to keep these tallies and the TD will e-mail the results to Mike.
* Misconduct Penalty:
The first two “strikes” issued to a team are noted on the score sheet, but no Misconduct Penalty ensues. Third (and subsequent) strikes result in a Misconduct Penalty. A Misconduct Penalty is assessed after the Observer decides which team receives possession of the disc.
• Misconduct Penalty assessed on the Defense (Offense retains possession): Offense puts the disc into play on the center line of the Defense’s goal line. Both the Offense and Defense may reset.
• Misconduct Penalty assessed on the Offense (where Offense retains possession): Offense retains possession, the disc is put into play at the endzone mark in the endzone that they are defending or at the point of possession, whichever is deeper. Both the Offense and Defense may reset.
• Misconduct Penalty assessed on the Offense (where Defense obtains possession): the Defense (now the Offense) puts the disc into play on the center line of the Offense’s (now Defense’s) goal line. Both the Offense and Defense may reset.
If both teams simultaneously receive Misconduct Penalties, the fouls offset and play continues after infractions are noted and notifications are made.
Play stops briefly on a Misconduct Penalty while the player and team are notified, and the infraction is noted, and to cool any heated situations. If a Misconduct Penalty is assessed after a score, but before the next pull, the penalty is assessed immediately and there is no pull. However, each team may substitute players and receives the full amount of time to set up. This also applies to Misconduct Penalties assessed during halftime, or before the game. If a Misconduct Penalty is issued to a player for a severe violation, the Head Observer for the game may eject that player for the remainder of the half or the game, regardless of whether the call results in a warning or a Misconduct Penalty.
** Ejection Procedures. Players may be ejected only with the approval of two Observers. Both Observers need not witness the offense, but at least one Observer must witness it. Observers are encouraged, but not required, to issue a warning before ejecting a player from a game.
1. An ejected player is immediately suspended from the game.
2. If this occurs in the second half, then the suspension includes the next half-game that the player's team plays. Additionally, a formal complaint may be filed with the UPA for further sanctions. An ejected player must leave the general tournament site are and failure to do so immediately results in a forfeit for his/her team. If a player plays in a game from which s/he has been suspended, that player is suspended for the remainder of the tournament, and his/her team forfeits that game. Any ejection must be immediately reported to the Head Observer, TD and highest ranking UPA authority. If a GMF has been issued against a player after the game, that player is suspended from the tournament and subject to further sanctions from the TRG and UPA. This is immediate and automatic in the instance of initiating and/or participating in fighting.
3. If a player receives more than one ejection during the tournament; that player is suspended for the duration of that tournament and a formal complaint is filed with the UPA for further sanctions. Thus, it is very important to inform the Head Observer and the National Director of the relevant division (the "ND") of ejections. Generally, only they will be tracking ejections for the tournament.
When a Misconduct Penalty is assessed or a player is ejected, the Head Observer informs the recipient, his/her captain, the opposing captain and the scorekeeper. The Head Observer, at his/her discretion, may stop play to issue a Misconduct Penalty, and must stop play in a timely manner to eject a player. The team whose player is ejected may substitute for the ejected player, and the opposing team also may substitute a player. Play proceeds as if the ejected player were leaving the game for an injury. Be sure that the scorekeeper notes the issuance of Misconduct Penalties, and the player who committed the infraction, on the score sheet. Assessment of a Misconduct Penalty or an ejection is non-reviewable for the duration of the game, but may be appealed to the TRG after the game.
If you have any questions or comments about this system, please contact ...
Attached is an Observer based plan on how to reduce the number of bad calls, contests, and stoppages of play, while maintaining the “Self-Refereeing” nature of Ultimate. The plan was created by Steven Courlang (former UPA Board Member) and refined by a few current Board Members. (Please note: This plan is experimental and does not represent official UPA endorsement.)
Tournament Directors are being asked to try the following Observer-based Disincentive plan and report how well it worked.
I like it much better, now. This new plan does not provide an incentive to draw or initiate fouls, because each team could be assessed the penalty. You wouldn't be able to simply throw benchwarmers at the other team's stars to try to get them ejected.
It still isn't perfect, though. I can imagine situations near the end of a game, perhaps at double-game-point, where one team has one or no strikes, the other team has two, so players might try to create the opportunity for an Observer to rule against the opposing team to gain an advantage. This is similar to the end of some basketball games, where one team fouls the opposing players who are attempting to run out the clock.
Still, very much an improvement and I would be comfortable trying this out in a tournament that I was participating in. Good job addressing some of the concerns over your first plan, Steve. The power of an Observer to deal with excessive uncontested violations is limited, and your plan only expands that power a little, but I think it should be limited anyway.
Much better. I think this system is an excellent starting point and is ready to be tested at a tourney.
Steve, thanks for being willing to reevaluate your system and listen to criticism.
Greg Tripp
This thread has been an outstanding read. I would also like to say that Steve's proposal here would definitely get my vote. It seems to me that this idea can potentially do much to further the objectives that many of us are concerned about: limiting excessive fouls, wasting less time arguing about fouls, and upholding SOTG.
Much like the rules, which have gone through multiple revisions, we may find that this is not the perfect solution to the officiating controversy, but it looks like a great place to start.
How would the UPA and TDs implement this? What would people think about a series of "innovation Tournaments" or "Experimental Tournaments" in which we tinker with new rules and new concepts to let the players try it and then report on it before putting it to a membership vote?
Also, I know some of the topics on this forum are winding down, but the discussions have been great. Can the SPC leave the forum up for longer than May 16 so this can continue?
Looks like we have done some good work. Thanks for helping me to make a better Proposal.
After receiving one more person's review, I am going to follow other's suggestions and e-mail this Disincentive System to Tournament Directors of upcoming tournaments.
If you want a copy of the Proposal, e-mail me at "stevencourlang@sbcglobal.net".
Looks very similar to my original plan. Can't say I have many complaints, except perhaps one of plagiarism, if I am not credited (along with Kyle Weisbrod and others). Other than simple terminology switches, I see one very good change you've made:
1) Move the penalty spot from the brick mark to the goal line to eliminate the disincentive-free zone that would otherwise be created.
I still don't agree with issuing a strike any time a ruling is made by an observer. The penalty is severe enough to be effective already - it need not be automatic. An automatic penalty still creates major tactical incentives, though not as bad as before.
Time limits imposed on observers. They seem pretty arbitrary and perhaps unnecessary, considering the observers' function is already to keep the game moving. I'd be satisfied for them to retain their discretion. I'll leave it for those in charge of the observer system to impose guidelines of this nature.
I think the Plan could use a little extra tweaking before it is implemented. Once that happens, I'd be comfortable to see it used in a major tournament where all of the observers are experienced and UPA certified. This plan cannot coincide with attempts to train observers, without serious potential detriment to the players' experience. Nonetheless, when the conditions are right, I'll look forward to seeing some experimentation here.
El Prez, you are welcome to your comments and opinions. But accusing someone of plagarizing is rude, wrong, pompous, and untrue.
All proposals will have similarities. Yet the essence of mine, which is unique (and I believe necessary) is to add a disincentive to make players repsonsible for their calls.
My changes have been strictly influenced by talks with Peri, Kyle, and Henry. (Which I state as "A Few UPA Board Members" in the Letter to TDs which accompany the proposal.) What I did copy from was the exisiting TMF system. I made changes(which I believe are improvements). I used it as a strating point to base the Misconduct Penalities and roles of the Observers.
Ther are many other differences between proposals, some of which you even mention yourself.
BTW, who even cares. I am not looking for credit. I am simply looking fora way to improve the "playability" and "watchability" of a Tournamnets Final game.
A FLAW IN THE SYSTEM:
What is to stop a team that is in the Penalty Phase (already has 3 strikes) to continue fouling and contesting calls during one particular point?
The situation: After the 3rd strike on the D team, the Offense gets the disc on the D's goal line. What is to stop the D from hacking the thrower, or foul receivers and contest every call. (The penalty is only to restart the paly on the D's goal line, which they are already at.)
Any suggestions? (Let's keep the penalty simple. My first thought is simply to change the penalty into a goal for the Offense. That will eliminate the problem.)
Steve: To solve this dilemma, how about taking players off the field for intentional fouls after the third strike? I know a lot of people are uncomfortable with ejecting players (as previously discussed), but maybe if exceptions were made in this situation after the team fouls had reached their limit. Or you could send someone off for the rest of the point (like a power play in hockey).
These aren't perfect ideas, but I also don't like awarding goals unless a disc has actually been thrown and caught in the endzone.
I think you already stated your answer:
Steve said: "Observers will also have the power to eject** a player from a game whenever two Observers agree that a player has egregiously abused the SOTG (e.g. Fighting, abusive language, excessive taunting, etc.)"
Just add repeated fouling before the etc.
Greg
Baer and Rocksteady - Both very good suggestions. Thanks.
THINKING OUT LOUD: I don't prefer awarding a goal. I am not that greatly opposed to it.
As for ejecting players form games, I see that as difficult to actually implement. (It is currently in the Observers powers, but I have been told very really occurs and is felt as a disincentive.)
Though ejecting a player from the game may be the correct punishment if a player/team continually fouls near the goal line after the team has 3 strikes.
MY PROBLEM is how to actually implement it. Each strike after the team's 2nd strike, should impose a real punishment. But when the O is on the D's goal line, and the D continually fouls and contests, a punishment will only occur when an Observer ejects a player (or a goal is awarded). Will Observers actually eject a player after their next strike on the goal-line? (I doubt it.) If not, then there will not be a punishment (and thus no disincentive.)
Still not convinced either way yet.
Probably since about 1985 I was convinced that self-officiating was THE problem in Ultimate but I no longer believe that is the case.
The problem with Ultimate isn't necessarily the self refereeing but SOTG and how it is manifested into the rules. The rules for Ultimate are simply not very well thought out and that has put generations of players on the hook to be refs when in fact they have an irrational set of rules to attempt to enforce.
Frank
Dischoops
As many of you have already said, this has been one of the most productive forum exchanges I have seen in 15 years. As a very long time spectator (and non-player), I find as the games gets more important (semis and finals), the number of fouls increase and the game gets less fun to watch.
I applaud Steve's goal of reducing the number of foul calls. It is especially intriguing since it does not change how an Observer makes a ruling in any way.
I know Steve went to a great deal of effort to listen and update his proposal. But I really like his original idea. After reading all of the comments, maybe it could be updated to not remove a player until they receive 3 strikes. But removing a player who is ruled against multiple times is delivering the appropriate measure to the appropriate person. It is easy to understand and enforce... and I think it will improve those very important games.
It is time for the UPA to figure out a way to test this for a year... no later than 2008.
Thanks all for your insight.
Here is the Disincentive System and Letter to Tournament Directors I e-mailed recently:
Observer Based Disincentive System to
Reduce the Number of Bad Calls, Contests, and Stoppages of Play
The Problem: Ultimate games are often bogged down with too many stoppages of play and bad calls (fouls and violations). No previous plan has properly corrected this problem. This plan is trying to better answer the question: How can Ultimate maintain its self-refereeing nature while making players responsible for their Calls and Contests?
The Solution: To make players responsible for their Calls and Contests, we are introducing a simple Disincentive into the current system of play. The Disincentive system is used in games with Observers. When an Observer(s) is brought into play to decide the merit of a Call and/or Contest, and the Observer rules either in favor of the Offensive or Defensive player, the Team of the player being found to have made the incorrect call or contest will be assessed a “strike”. When a Team accumulates three “strikes” in a game that Team will be assessed a Misconduct Penalty*. Additional Penalties will be assessed for each additional “strike”. (Strikes do not carry over to future games.)
Rationale: The goal of this Disincentive system is not to issue penalties (that is a consequence of the players’ actions). It is to create a reason to make teams and their players responsible for their calls and contests. This disincentive is expected to reduce the number of bad calls and contests, reduce stoppages of play, and support the SOTG.
How does it work: In games that have Observers*, players still self-referee. Observers are still Observers; they are not referees. When there is a disputed call on the field, players have one minute to resolve their disagreement. When players cannot reach an agreement within the time limit OR whenever either player asks the Observer to rule on the disagreement, the Observer with the best view (presumably, but not necessarily the nearest Observer) will get involved and either:
1. Rule in favor of the Offensive player. (Giving a “strike” to the Defensive Team.)
2. Rule in favor of the Defensive player. (Giving a “strike” to the Offensive Team.)
3. State that the play was either too close to call or that the Observer(s) did not have a good enough view to make a call. In these cases, the play will be redone. (No “strike” will be given.)
Once involved, Observer(s) have 15 seconds to make their call. Play will resume based upon the Observers call.
Additional Observer Powers: Observers are also empowered to:
1. To give a Team a “Strike” when two Observers agree that one team’s player either deliberately fouls, uses excessive force when fouling, or repeatedly fouls when marking.
2. Observers will also have the power to eject** a player from a game whenever two Observers agree that a player has egregiously abused the SOTG (e.g. Fighting, abusive language, excessive taunting, repeated intentional fouling, etc.). When a player is ejected from a game, that player’s team is also assessed a “strike”.
3. Observers other duties include: making off-sides calls, active line calls, and goal calls.
Keeping Tally of “Strikes”: The Head Observer (as decided before the game) will keep tally of “strikes”. When a Team accumulates its third “strike” in one game, the Head Observer will implement a Misconduct Penalty*** on that point.
Evaluation - Keeping Tally of how the Disincentive System has worked: To learn if this system is having a positive impact, the following tallies need to be collected and e-mailed to Mike Payne (UPA Board Director) at Mike_Payne@mckinsey.com:
1. How many calls (Fouls, Violations) were made during a particular game?
2. In that particular game, how many times did an Observer get involved to make a call? (FYI, it does not matter how the Observer ruled.)
3. In that particular game, how many strikes were given per team?
4. Were any players ejected from the game? If so, why?
5. Your thoughts on how well the Disincentive System worked and suggestions for improvements.
We hope the TD will assign someone to keep these tallies and the TD will e-mail the results to Mike.
*** Observers:
1. Number of Observers: Four Observers are recommended to be use in a game.
2. How to choose Observers: When available, “Certified Observers” should be enlisted to Observe. When additional Observers are needed, the Tournament Director and Team Captains choose potential Observers. Both Team Captains must agree on each Observer before they may observe a game.
** Ejection Procedures: Players may be ejected only with the approval of two Observers. Both Observers need not witness the offense, but at least one Observer must witness it. Observers are encouraged, but not required, to issue a warning before ejecting a player from a game.
1. An ejected player is immediately suspended from the game.
2. If this occurs in the second half, then the suspension includes the next half-game that the player's team plays. Additionally, a formal complaint may be filed with the UPA for further sanctions. An ejected player must leave the general tournament site are and failure to do so immediately results in a forfeit for his/her team. If a player plays in a game from which s/he has been suspended, that player is suspended for the remainder of the tournament, and his/her team forfeits that game. Any ejection must be immediately reported to the Head Observer, TD and highest ranking UPA authority. If a GMF has been issued against a player after the game, that player is suspended from the tournament and subject to further sanctions from the TRG and UPA. This is immediate and automatic in the instance of initiating and/or participating in fighting.
3. If a player receives more than one ejection during the tournament; that player is suspended for the duration of that tournament and a formal complaint is filed with the UPA for further sanctions. Thus, it is very important to inform the Head Observer and the National Director of the relevant division (the "ND") of ejections. Generally, only they will be tracking ejections for the tournament.
When a Misconduct Penalty is assessed or a player is ejected, the Head Observer informs the recipient, his/her captain, the opposing captain and the scorekeeper. The Head Observer, at his/her discretion, may stop play to issue a Misconduct Penalty, and must stop play in a timely manner to eject a player. The team whose player is ejected may substitute for the ejected player, and the opposing team also may substitute a player. Play proceeds as if the ejected player were leaving the game for an injury. Be sure that the scorekeeper notes the issuance of Misconduct Penalties, and the player who committed the infraction, on the score sheet. Assessment of a Misconduct Penalty or an ejection is non-reviewable for the duration of the game, but may be appealed to the TRG after the game.
*** Misconduct Penalty:
The first two “strikes” issued to a team are noted on the Head Observer’s score sheet, but no Misconduct Penalty ensues. Third (and subsequent) strikes result in a Misconduct Penalty. A Misconduct Penalty is assessed after the Observer decides which team receives possession of the disc.
• Misconduct Penalty assessed on the Defense (Offense retains possession): The Offense is given a goal. Play resumes as usual after a goal.
• Misconduct Penalty assessed on the Offense (where Offense retains possession): Offense retains possession, the disc is put into play at the endzone mark in the endzone that the Offense is defending or at the point of possession, whichever is deeper. Both the Offense and Defense may reset.
• Misconduct Penalty assessed on the Offense (where Defense obtains possession): the Defense (now the Offense) puts the disc into play on the center line of the Offense’s (now Defense’s) goal line. Both the Offense and Defense may reset.
If both teams simultaneously receive Misconduct Penalties, the fouls offset and play continues after infractions are noted and notifications are made.
Play stops briefly on a Misconduct Penalty while the player and team are notified, and the infraction is noted, and to cool any heated situations. If a Misconduct Penalty is assessed after a score, but before the next pull, the penalty is assessed immediately and there is no pull. However, each team may substitute players and receives the full amount of time to set up. This also applies to Misconduct Penalties assessed during halftime, or before the game. If a Misconduct Penalty is issued to a player for a severe violation, the Head Observer for the game may eject that player for the remainder of the half or the game, regardless of whether the call results in a warning or a Misconduct Penalty.
If you have any questions or comments about this system, please contact Steven Courlang at stevencourlang@sbcglobal.net or call him at (415)513-7160.
Letter to the Tournament Directors
Attached is an Observer-based plan on how to reduce the number of bad calls, contests, and stoppages of play, while maintaining the “Self-Refereeing” nature of Ultimate. The plan was created by Steven Courlang (former UPA Board Member) and refined by a few current UPA Members and Board Members. (Please note: This plan is experimental and does not represent official UPA endorsement.)
Tournament Directors are being asked to try the attached Observer-based Disincentive plan and report how well it worked.
If your tournament plans to use Observers, we would appreciate you trying this system. If your tournament does not plan to use Observers, we would appreciate using them for the final game in order to try this Disincentive system.
If you do plan on trying this system, please:
1. Contact Steve Courlang at stevencourlang@sbcglobal.net or call him at (415)513-7160 to ensure you understand the system.
2. Make copies of the attached plan and give them to the Observers and Team Captains prior to the game. Ask both Team Captains to go over the system with their team members before the game.
Would it still be Ultimate without self-officiated play?
I agree with Kyle's assessment that Ultimate would be a weaker version of the sport if we completely appropriated away self-offication from the sport (please see my recent post under the "Importance of self-officiation" for higher order brain development as proposed by an Ultimate player friend of mine).
In these 84 posts I see a lot of emphasis on LEGAL (i.e. rules) changes to better encourage better spirit and calls (or from another perspective to discourage bogus calls). You all are to be commended for your efforts! Rules are a very powerful way to influence behavior. Some folks have pointed out that regardless of what the rules are, there are always folks that will bend the rules as currently written to benefit themselves and their team. That is true and there will be more online and real life forums and more rule changes to address this issue in the future. It is hard to write the perfect set of rules.
Whereas LEGAL rules are one side of the coin, there is also the other side, or EXTRALEGAL ("outside of the rules") norms that can guide spirited behavior. Like LEGAL rules, it is not a perfect panecea for bad spirit and bad calls but it can be part of the general tool kit (along with LEGAL rules) for encouraging spirited play, less ticky-tack calls that increase stopped play, etc. EXTRALEGAL norms generally promote respect between and appreciation of opponents.
I have played for 19 years at the Youth, College, and Club level in many fishbowls from the competitive National scene to the recreational. I am a fiery, small Asian man who likes to win just like many other people. I have made bad calls. I have exhibited very unspirited behavior. Over the years I have mellowed out a bit like any good Hashman should. I have also been fortunate to have been shown the EXTRALEGAL side of the coin by a great community of Ultimate players in Maritime Canada.
My definition of as close to true "Ultimate" as I have seen being played over this time is Ultimate as it is played in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. If you have not played a tourney in this area, you should go and experience it. This area makes heavy use of EXTRALEGAL norms and ettiquites to encourage good SOTG.
Some Examples:
1) Billeting (much billeting also went on when the planes were grounded in Maritime Canada during 9/11.. billeting is where the home team puts you up in their homes.. no hotels/motels... hard to violate SOTG when a team has just put you up for the night)
2) Return of the Cheer and other after-game games back from the Dead (while many of you may laugh at this one since quite frankly isn't cheering dead on the competitive scene or for that matter most scenes these days, I do remember cheering in both high school and college.. it has a positive impact regarding SOTG)
3) Individual and Team SOTG Balloting (also used by UPA at Nationals starting around same time as Maritime Canada did)
4) Minimum Team SOTG scoring at a tourney else you are not invited back the next year.. This actually was invoked at a Maritime Canadian tourney to encourage a team from the U.S. to successfully improve the behavior of one of its players.. it worked
These norms are not in the written rules but have impacts on field behavior. While billeting may have strong cultural inclinations (when did us Yanks ever billet each other at a tourney, back in high school?), this example list is just scratching the surface of what is possible on the EXTRALEGAL side of the coin. Like the LEGAL rules of Ultimate, ideas and implementations on the EXTRALEGAL side of the coin are about as endless as there are Ultimate players. They are at times subtle. They go beyond the field and into how we socialize and relate with our competition. They can build respect for your opponents.
Some of you may think that the competitiveness of games go down the tubes with all this EXTRALEGAL business. After all don't we have to depersonalize our opponent to stoke up those competitive fires? Games in Martime Canada have been as intense and competitive as I have ever experienced. The difference boiled down to greater understanding and respect under their EXTRALEGAL framework. It was harder to cross the line into bad Spirit and win-at-all-costs behavior.
We have been successful in the Maine Youth Ultimate scene building greater respect between opponents via EXTRALEGAL means ranging from team intros, spirit circles, mixer BBQ lunch, and best of all, heavy use of Facebook for our organization and by Maine Youth teams. While many of these norms may be specific to the Youth scene, they again just scratch the surface. Ultimate players have just started to use the full power of these EXTRALEGAL norms and ettiquites... put on those thinking caps, come up with ideas, and use them in your tourneys and communities.
Hash
For those that do not like aliases..
Aaron Hoshide
Maine State Youth Coordinator
I very much agree with self-officiation, but in higher level tournaments observers should be used and penalties awarded. The strike system is a good idea. but generally its not the bad calls that irk me, its the cheap foul when i come down with a bid in the end zone (or something of that nature) even after i call the foul 90% of the time they'll contest then the disc is sent back and my great play squandered. I think that when a player is fouled in the end zone the man who committed the fould should go to the brick mark or something. This would discourage cheap fouls that occur in the end zone. I know I spent all this time on redifining one rule, but that's because I generally agree with the rest.
Background: been there done that – not to the extent as Steve but…anyways
I’ve been a COP and observed several college and open championship games.
The Observer system works “GREAT!” with simple active sideline calls and settling player disputes after 20 seconds or whatever. I feel the stats from the survey reflect that.
That said… I haven’t seen observers used in over 5+ years (ok, I haven’t traveled to too many nationals lately but I try to hit ~3 majors a year). I believe that the Observer system works and should be used if requested. Wait! I saw an “onfield” observer in Chicago last year – I thought that was a terrible way to use an observer. There’s no need at all to be on the field I can’t even remember them making any calls (of course I was also the only person who seemed to know how to tap the leftover tournament kegs…)
Making calls are a major part of Ultimate. How calls are emotionally handled are all part of the game. The more mature a team is the easier bad calls roll off their backs.
There’s a huge psychological element to Ultimate which is grossly under estimated,
Appreciated, or understood. And a lot of it surrounds inter relating on the field in the hat of passion regarding play.
Steve, I respect you, your play and everything you have done in and for Ultimate. ( I love you man!) But I think you may be a bit over reactive in this situation with bad calls. I think NY used your highly charged emotion in regards to bad calls to get under your skin in that kaboom tsunami final you referenced above somewhere.
I’m guilty! I’m a hack! I’ve been the one bearing down on a thrower to try and intimidate a bad throw. In turn, on Offense, my arms have been chopped into hamburger meat. I’ve had people yelling in my face to drop a pull and charge me while trying to catch a swilly overhead. People call traveling on me, I hate it! But the up side is I get to throw again!
It’s a part of the game and it’s a part of the game because we are an intense lot of individuals who use Ultimate as a vehicle to increase the energy level in our lives to an extreme. But after the dust settles… It’s all good! And it’s good, because we abide by a code of sportsmanship unknown in other recreational sports. Why? Because we have it spelled out in the rules as “Spirit of the Game”. That and because there isn’t any money involved.
Tom “Ironman” Coffin
http://art.net/coffin
coffin@art.net
Ironman - I love you too and have always thought your nickname was one of the best.
I agree with most of what you say, except that Every Player abides by the code of Spirit of the Game. My disincentive is just a slight addition to the rules that will give an additional and tangible reason for players not to abuse the self refereeing nature of our sport
Post a Comment