Hi EuroDisc and BritDisc, I have been following the Spirit of the Game/Observers discussion on Britdisc ( http://www.mail-archive.com/britdisc%40near.me.uk/ ) and have just caught up with the comments on Eurodisc ( http://www.ira.uka.de/~thgries/disc/EuroDisc-Archive/2004/Mar/ ). I want to throw in my two cents... My apologies for it being a long two cents, but a lot of issues have been raised.
As has been suggested, this problem has deep philosophical roots that have been debated for centuries. Does human nature mean that we require outside interference to ensure adherence to societal rules? Most sports say yes, but I have always enjoyed ultimate because it seems to suggest no. I don't see how we in Ultimate can attempt to answer a question that has bedevilled philosophy for centuries. So lets try and be practical. I want to suggest a few steps that, while I realise it won't please everybody, might try to lead to a middle-path option. Firstly, where does the sport of Ultimate see itself in ten, twenty or fifty years' time? 1) Is the goal to remain a haven of alternativism, completely outside of the mainstream sports, 2) To become a highly professionalised money-making entertainment sport utterly beholden to TV, or 3) Something in the broad middle ground of competitive sport played with regard for its roots - as a sport valuing mutual respect between players? I would argue that in many respects it has already moved out of the first category, but that there are few adherents yet for the second category. The third category may well include at some point a desire to move for Olympic recognition. I have no idea about what goes on at the highest echelons, but the decision of the WFDF last year to move towards adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code is consistent with covering the necessary bases for such a move. Similarly, if Olympic recognition were a WFDF aim, or at least something they don't want to rule out, then it would appear that removing the Observer rule is a non-starter. An IOC review of the Olympic Program in 2002 stated, "The judging and adjudicating system of a sport must ensure objectivity, fairness and transparency" (Sub-bullet point within Point 2.2, Review of the Olympic Program... IOC 2002 from http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_527.pdf ). I think it highly doubtful that player self-regulation would count in their eyes as objective. An argument could be made for observers of some degree or another as fulfilling this requirement. Of course the Olympics might not be a goal we wish to pursue, or one that is even open to us given the recent IOC desire to limit the size of the Olympics. However, if it is an option we want to keep open, it needs to be considered. Secondly, observers in passive or active roles? UPA rules allow for active observers (article XVIII, point B, clauses 3b, 4 and 5). WFDF rules state observers must be passive (article 404.15, point B, clause 1.). Generally, American respondents to these discussions on Britdisc and Eurodisc have defended the use of observers and stated that the active participation on line calls has been useful. From the discussions it appears Europeans, and maybe others, would say that if observers have to remain, then the move from passive to active is a line they would not be prepared to consider crossing. As I see it, the passive observer essentially keeps play within the control of the players and the observer is merely there to arbitrate, rather than control. I do not know the politics behind the differences in UPA and WFDF rules, but while they remain separate, is there not the possibility that one code or the other could develop in a manner not deemed acceptable to the other and we could see two different sports emerging? I think I am correct in saying that different rule evolution led to the divergence of American Football and Rugby. Would it be possible to try to bring the two codes together? This may mean Europeans and others having to accept the option remaining for a minimal role for observers in the game, but could limit the chances of the observer role developing further (as it did in soccer) in one of the codes to the point where we are essentially playing two different games. (I'm sure the position of Dan Engstrom on the UPA rules committee and the UPA representative on the WFDF Ultimate committee, is in part an effort to ensure this does not happen, but I feel the point still needs to be made). Thirdly, developing an Ultimate Charter to enshrine the principle of Spirit of the Game and mutual respect between players. Thankfully in the discussions so far, everyone seems wedded to the concept of Spirit of the Game. There also seems to be widespread horror at the prospect of following the soccer route and eventually ending up with referees. An Ultimate Charter need not be a long document and, unlike the rules, which are tinkered with as necessary, this might set out a couple of basic principles that Ultimate should always seek to adhere to. Such a document would be applicable to all Ultimate codes, WFDF, UPA or whatever. It would only be changeable by, for example, a two-thirds majority of WFDF affiliated associations. It could state that Spirit of the Game is the defining characteristic of our sport and that it should remain so, no matter how big/small, rich/poor, alternative/mainstream, the sport becomes. As such responsibility for on-pitch decision-making should essentially always remain with the players and never with a referee. If observers are to remain, then some form of words could be found to accommodate them in their existing form, but the principle would be to act as a break on any further evolution of their role, so we do not wake to find ourselves in a 'soccer situation' 20 years down the line. Finally, Band-Aids v Prevention. It has been argued that observers are a Band-Aid solution and that what is really needed is prevention, through promotion of Spirit of the Game - something that is best enhanced by removing observers, the presence of whom permits a shifting of responsibility. I want to be Utopian, I really do, but I think that even with all the Prevention in the world, there is still going to be the occasional cut that requires a Band-Aid. What we don't need is prevention by bandaging everybody from head to foot, which is what would happen with referees. I have never played with observers, I like playing the game without observers, have never personally felt the need for observers in any game I have played and hope I don't ever feel the need to play with them. Nevertheless, after observing one player, from one competitive team, tell his team mates last year to "always contest" calls, I think the option of having passive observers available at the top level of competition, should Captains wish to request them, should remain. However, I think having a Band-Aid option available should go hand-in-hand with ensuring emphasis remains on Spirit of the Game and preventing this principle from being further eroded. As such, a process for more formal control mechanisms at what has been called the community level might be welcome. On Britdisc, Ben Heywood has pre-empted what I was going to say by suggesting the following: >"Now here's the bit that'll get a few people upset. >The best way I can see of maintaining SOTG is to link >poor spirit to some form of sanction. I've heard the >following idea from a few people, and I wonder what >the wider community thinks... > >"In every game at a tournament, each team receives a >spirit mark out of ten. Not for stupid songs and >being nice guys, but for adherence to (and as [Wayne] >Retter correctly points out, knowledge of) the rules. >Teams who average below three points (or who score >more than 2 'zero's, or indeed any other agreed >arbitrary minimum spirit requirement) are not invited >to the next tournament (or are publicly named and >shamed, or any other fitting punishment). > >"Obviously, we all have games where personalities >clash, or where lots of close calls happen, or >whatever; but across a whole tournament every team >should be able to set a reasonable standard of >behaviour. > >"(Note: I think every team now in Britain would pass >incredibly strict standards for minimum spirit - this >idea is all about the long term protection of the >spirit of the game). If Milky wants a way to >incorporate spirit into the rules, why not something >like this?" I think it is now fairly common at tournaments for teams to give spirit scores to each team they play, often on a 0-5 or 0-10 basis etc, to decide who wins the spirit prize. I don't see why this cannot be formalized in some form and if there is a team that consistently scores very poorly, the relevant body for each level of competition (E.G. World, Continental, National) could have the power to ask that team to explain their poor behaviour and if necessary to suspend that team for one event at that same level. It would not be unfair to a team if they have one poorly spirited player dragging them down, because it should give that team incentive to self-censure that player to prevent them from all getting in trouble. Such a system may well prevent further deterioration of Spirit by competitive pressures because there is a competitive sanction. As a result hopefully most teams should feel confident enough in the system that they need never resort to the band-aid option of observers. In conclusion, where does the game want to go? Is this compatible with having or not having observers? I think there already exists some pressure on Spirit from competition. With the WFDF Ultimate committee stating that their task for 2003-2007 is "to foster the continuing growth worldwide of the sport of ultimate" (WFDF Ultimate Committee Game Plan 2003-2007, page 3, from http://www.wfdf.org/WFDFUltCom.pdf ), the option of burying our heads in the sand and hoping that we can remain 'alternative' is not really one that is open to us. While opinion over observers is divided, everyone seems to value Spirit of the Game and doesn't want to see responsibility completely removed from the individual - so how do we best prevent the latter and preserve the former? I have tried in good faith to offer some practical suggestions towards a middle-path here, but expect others will disagree with it. Let the debate continue... :o) Thanks for reading if you got this far! :oD 'Diva' David Connop Price Blue Arse Flies #8 (The views represented above are my own and not those of my team) ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
