So instead of paying GA, let’s pay people to teach rules properly …


Da: EuroDisc [] Per conto di 
Patrick van der Valk
Inviato: giovedì 22 febbraio 2018 13:30
A: Roger van Swaay <>;
Oggetto: Re: [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)

All, ​I am also not a fan of GA's but some of the arguments are just not 

> Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother stole 
> your candy and asking her to sort it out.

No, it is asking your mum what she saw and what the rules of the house are. Was 
your brother allowed to take your candy? Did she see him eat your candy? Then 
you can decide to beat him up if you want to ;-)

GA's give you their insight on what they saw, and GA's are there to tell you 
what the rules are. Especially the latter is something that is the 
responsibility of the players! I find it shocking to sometimes see that players 
are playing top level and do not know the rules well enough. If you think about 
Spirit, rules knowledge is one of the key elements. If players do not take that 
seriously and start to call things because they think they are making the right 
call, that is when things escalate and that is when a GA is a good option.

If you really don't want GA's, make sure players know the rules! Spirit scores 
over the last 5 years show me that most teams are fair-minded. So IF those two 
are covered we don't really need GA's. Having another person's perspective is a 
good-to-have, but we all have teammates and opponents who can also help with 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we need GA's but let's be clear, they are not 
Observer-types who give yellow cards and make their call count. Players 
continue to make the decisions.

Just my $0.02


From: EuroDisc 
 on behalf of Roger van Swaay 
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:24 AM
Subject: [ED] Game Advisors go home (and other insights)

Can you agree, that in a game of Ultimate, MAKING A CALL, and RESOLVING A CALL, 
each have unique meaning and implications?

Try this: Imagine a new type of "Game Police", who's role is to MAKE CALLS, but 
who requires the decision-making (resolving) to be made by the players. What 
would it look like?

Resolving the call with your opponent means you need to have dialogue, listen, 
respect, and trust his/her's decision. If you turn to an advisor, you are 
effectively removing *the need* for the former, and ultimately, the trust you 
originally placed in your opponent. Removing *the need* is enough to spoil 
SOTG, because it is in stressful and pivotal situations that the best spirit is 
shown, and thus appreciated by everyone.

Having advisors feels like telling your mother that your bigger brother stole 
your candy and asking her to sort it out.

Could it be that players who are lifted the burden of dialogue, are encouraged 
to make more calls, because they don't have to deal with them or they get 
resolved more quickly? "Rebound effect".

I'm glad to see this discussion pop-up every once in a while, that way the 
newer players can get insight.

Thanks for the graffiti space.

EuroDisc mailing list

Reply via email to