Yes, it is important to know the rules well, and that is why there is a good tool for that after reading the rules..., it is the WFDF rules accrediation system.
I also find it shocking that some players at the highest level do not know the rules well enough, but I find it more shocking that some players who know the rules really well, use and get around those rules in their advantage. I rather prefer a player who doesn't know perfectly the rules, but who respects the physical integrity of his/her opponents, the speed of the count, the distance between the offensive and the defensive players, the really simple off-side rule, ... etc, in short, the SOTG ! I realise that the SOTG is often better in a game of 12 years kids who don't know the rules really well, but who understand what SOTG and fair-play mean, than in an elite game with experienced adults... To know the rules is really important, but *to respect the rules and the spirit of the rules* is, IMO, more important to avoid the "need" of third-parties. And that respect is in the hands of all the teams, all the players, all the captains and SOTG captains, and should never be in the hands of advisors or other external supervisors. All the national federations may take some decisions to explain to some players or clubs, that they have to improve their SOTG, otherwise, some penalizations could be apply, even if the national federations would prefer to avoid penalizations. This can be another good tool to give responsibility to the clubs and players on their general responsibilities, and so to hope to avoid the use of advisors or whatever third-parties in the future. Olivier 2018-02-22 13:30 GMT+01:00 Patrick van der Valk < patr...@patrickvandervalk.com>: > All, I am also not a fan of GA's but some of the arguments are just not > correct. > > > > 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 perspective. > > > 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 > > > Patrick > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* EuroDisc <eurodisc-boun...@ira.uni-karlsruhe.de> on behalf of > Roger van Swaay <ro...@procyonstudios.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:24 AM > *To:* eurodisc@ira.uni-karlsruhe.de > *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. > > Roger > > _______________________________________________ > EuroDisc mailing list > eurod...@ira.uka.de > http://lists.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de/mailman/listinfo/eurodisc >
_______________________________________________ EuroDisc mailing list eurod...@ira.uka.de http://lists.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de/mailman/listinfo/eurodisc
