CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

MLU, refs, observers, and SOTG

So after reading a thread on RSD about MLU I thought I would drop my 2 cents of what I think about officiated ultimate.

First off, one of the few things that I really despise about ultimate (and there are really only a few), is that depending on how important the game is, different ways of officiating and making calls occur. I think that this sucks. You have a game at lets say some sectional tournament and you may or may not have obervers. I don't even think we had observers at NE regionals, at least not on saturday. Now some will say, "well those games don't matter as much so we don't want to put resources into them (ie observers) and we'll devote them more to games to go, finals, etc..." Now I understand about allocating resources and money and time but this sucks. it bascially means that unless your team is stellar or you are competing to go to nationals, or at nationals, you are playing in a less important game. I know that there are great programs out there that deserve the scrunity and rigidity of observers and well officiated games, but I think as ultimate players, as long as we all play for established teams at established tournaments, we all deserve observers and what not. Thats what makes ultimate weak. One game is not necessarily equivalent to others. In other main stream sports, it does not matter if its a league game, bracket play, the playoffs or the championships, you have a ref calling fouls, travel, pass interference, etc... Every game is the same, the implications might be different but the observation of the rules is completely the same. I like this about basketball, soccer, football, etc... You have skilled people watching the game and making calls where needed. Ultimate should be no different, I don't care if my consolation game at Southerns doesn't matter, I have a UPA ID and a jersey and I paid my dues just like Dan Heijman or Jacob Goldstein and I deserve the same amount of respect and attention as they do. Having observers at every game is more important than having observers/refs at important games. I think that the difference is pivotal. The finals at nationals should be well observed and watched carefully, but so should every other game, at least in the series, because every player deserves the same amount of devotion from the UPA.

Secondly, I don't like that players have to make their own calls. This sucks because not every game is the same. Depending on how bull headed or cheap or passive or quiet a player is, it implies a lot of things about what sort of calls they will make. You also have players (like myself) that are out there looking for specific calls like travels. maybe they don't matter, but a lot of players don't watch feet as much as others and lord knows they shouldn't have to. However, if you have a guy on your team or better yet the team you are playing against that loves to watch for travels, s/he'll call them all day long and potentially swing the game in his favor, all while completely staying within the confines of the rules. I want to follow this with 2 statements: 1) I do think that travel calls and picks and questionable foul calls should be made (not necessarily by the palyers) becasuse a rule is a rule no matter how minor it maybe and 2) I do think that they can have a profound impact on the game. I remember the 2005 finals between brown and colorado. In that game brown called a lot of legit travel calls and it obviously disrupted the colorado flow. I think beau got 3 called on him on 3 consecutive attempts at throws. However, no one can deny that there are some impure motives at play here. Brown wants to win and they are gonna take very oppurtunity they can get (not to say that they are playing cheap, just very intelligent, very DoG esk). However, perhaps Colorado plays more in your face, I am gonna beat you to the spot and doesn't worry not worry about calls (and I think this is true because if they were worried about calls, their players would not commit so many infractions). This gives the advantage to brown because they can upset the rhythm of the game and potentially swing it in their favor. not to say that this got them the championship, but it helped. So I guess my overall point is that people are different. Some are anal about the rules, some are really intense, some are very vigilent, some don't care about the rules. All these inconsistencies make the game weaker. Players are responsible for making their own calls instead of just playing the game. If they break the rules, blow the whistle, and let an impartial party decide the course of action.

I guess I observers and better yet refs in games because I don't like inconsistency. i am a very black or white person and the human factor in ultimate makes it weaker. This is not an arguement based on fan appeal or increased acceptance in the community at large. I think that refs are good to make ultimate a better sport, and this may or may not increase popular appeal. I mean come on, its not like the world needs electrifying play to get into a sport. i mean take cricket or baseball or even soccer, these sports have no where near the velocity and intensity that ultimate has (at least for a sustained amount of time) and they all trounce ultimate in appeal. They are all, however, extremely well observed and players are respected for their ability to play the game within the confines of the rules. No one knows about rule nazi athletes (except maybe doug flutie and that drop kick FG) and players that break the rules or bend them beyond where they should get kicked out of the sport or punished (Mike Tyson, Vinnie Jones, Mark McGuire, etc...).

I for one do not want to see ultimate hit the big time because then it will be taken away from people like me. I am no Michael Vick but I still get to play the game at a high level. Very few people out there get to play basketball, football, soccer or hockey outside of rec leagues and I don't want ultimate to head that way. i think it is fine where it is. However, I do think that refs would be helpful. Observers are good and I will conceed that but the weakness is that a player has to make a call and if they are too shy to make them or too much of a dick and make too many, observers can be misused (or not at all). I like the idea of an impartial party running things, not only because it will make the game move faster and smoother, but every game will theoretically be the same. From fall tournaments through the club season, every organized ultimate game, not unlike high school football, college lacrosse, pro basektball, or anyother main stream sport, will be judged the same.

I think parts of MLU are good and I appreciate all the work that people like Ian McClellan and Wiggins have put in, but I don't think that making the game look cooler should be the motive, it should be to make the game more pure and distilled. As much as I don't want major athletes to take the game way from me, I do want the game to be pure and unbiased, very clean cut and efficient, very cut and dry. A foul should always be called and their should not be any ambiguity in it. Maybe some refs are better than others (as can be seen with ref criticisms in the NBA, MLB, NFL etc...) but at least the calls are coming from an impartial party. Game importance, human emotion, fear, desire, all those things cloud the game. Every game should be the same and that is what it means to be a professional. A professional does not get rattled at the foul line (not a good one anyway), a professional doesn't let the importance of a game affect how he plays it (at least not negatively) and a professional plays his game (or at least should) the same way whether it is week 1 of the season or the super bowl and that is what ultimate as a sport should strive for.

Now there is a lot of debate with things like money and what not and for all intensive purposes, the UPA is doing a great job, i understand that you can only have so many observers. But people should be focusing on how to make the game played at a crisper level, not a more exciting one. This isn't the XFL. If the outside community likes our sport (which most do after getting into it) things like a 2 point line, a stall count at 7, throwing out a new disc if another one goes out of bounds should not be saving us. It should be the respect of the fans and the knowledge that every player out there is equal in the eyes of the game and the only thing that separates them is their passion and talent. If some one wants it more then fine, they win. But if someone likes to make calls or knows the rules better giving them an adavantage, that just makes our sport look imperfect.

In the future I would like to see observers at evey game, not unlike refs at little kids soccer, baseball, football games etc... This will take time and I think the biggest thing holding us back is that there are just not enough people who care enough about ultimate to watch it as closely to make the necessary impact that an observer can make. This will however change as the sport grows (like it has been the last 30 years) and more and more people get into it. Once observers are skilled in making calls and watching the game and there are enough of them, the reigns should be passed off to them to control the rules so that players can just be concerned with the game, not the way it is played. Basically a referee, not an observer. Its not unlike a captain passing off line calling to a coach. A coach should/is impartial about playing time, he just wants the best for his team and taking that responsibility away from the captain allows the captain to focus on his game and the game of his team mates, not admin stuff like points played and stats.

These are my thoughts. I have a lot of other opinions concerning MLU outside this debate that I think are important but I will get to those in another post.

match diesel

15 comments:

Handy said...

>This will take time and I think the >biggest thing holding us back is that >there are just not enough people who care >enough about ultimate to watch it as >closely to make the necessary impact that >an observer can make

I think part of the problem is that you accept this as true, but at the same time you don't want the game to be taken away from you by better athletes. In order to get enough people to care about the sport, the sport must have the exposure and drawing power as possible (without harming the idea of the game). I think there are a few teams at the very entertaining level, but even the lower teams in open nationals aren't that great to watch. So while I agree with you on the whole about the need for observers and the reason that there is not the proliferation that one might want, it's yours (and my own) desires about the state of the game that in turn are holding it back from reaching that point.

-handy-

p.s. coming to beantown and calling my friend but not me? that's like sexiling a teammate from his own tent. wait a second...

Unknown said...

For the right amount of money, refs(observers/whatever) could be obtained for every game at every tournament. Contact the local soccer league wherever the tournament is being held and give those refs a 2 hour crash course on ultimate. Would those refs suck? You bet. Just like 99% of all refs for recreational sports. Is that really who you want making calls? If not, do you have a better method for having a large number of officials available at every tournament location?

I agree with your logic about covering every game of every tournament with officials if we're going to cover any of them. I'm not, however, sure that its feasible to do so in a manner thats really going to benefit the players.

The optimal place to try something like this is summer league. You're in one place and play on a consistent day/night whatever, most similar to rec leagues that have officials. Theoretically, the officials in your city would improve over the season much like summer leagues do. If every summer league did this, then perhaps there would, in a couple of years, be pools of available and not awful officials in most cities who could be called to action when a tournament takes place.

Would people be willing to pay the $12 per hour per official (2? 3? 5?) needed to make this happen? The money adds up really quickly.

Match said...

So in order for observers/refs to become big in this game it is going to require a lot of different things. First off, by gaining what I called "enough people who care enough about ultimate to watch it closely...." I meant that all the type A rule junkies out there who love the intricacies of the game. My good friend Jay is one of them. The guy has observed for years and has taken it upon himself to not only educate and influence games on his own, but he has also opted to host observer clinics, attend coaching meetings, etc... to develop the intelligence of folks in the ultimate community. I think that more people like Jay who are willing to go all over the country to just observe and teach observing need to come out of the wood work (if they even exist) and develop this aspect of the game. As this happens, more and more people will be competent as far as watching and officiating ultimate and we'll have refs.

I don't anticipate this to be a quick process, I am in no hurry. And I think this can happen without having the game taken away from the non-Div 1 athletes out there. There are a lot of kinds of frisbee players, I am the historical junkie, others are rule nazis, and others just like to play. We need more rule nazis (not gonna be me, fuck that) and their number will increase if people take the helm and volunteer to educate and inspire them(wow, thats an after school special sentence). In any event, more people like Jay would be nice and I know others like him and their presence in ultimate will improve its level of play and hopefully some time while I can still play, I will be able to compete in an officiated game.

match diesel

PS by the way handy, I got your number from Jake. I was planning to hit you up tomorrow. How else am I gonna get to Devens? Just kidding, i'll see you tomorrow.

Nikki said...

I have to say, Handy, I usually get behind you on a lot of topics but, I disagree with one thing you are emphasizing. Regarding the reach of a particular sport in the general population, (ultimate and baseball will be used in this example) exposure and drawing power are so much more a function of the personal connection that players and fans feel to the sport itself, than the objective degree to which that team is "elite" and "good to watch, especially in the early years. The reason that baseball, for example, in my opinion is one of the most popular sports in America is not a function of the fact that the Rockies are more entertaining to watch than JAM, but rather the plain fact that a larger percentage of the population grows up playing and understanding this game. Hence, the game itself is socialized into our day to day. I have to agree with Match on the fact that the more level playing field for ALL teams at ALL levels will create more solidarity, if you will, and MUCH more interest and respect in the sport. A 12 year old boy playing baseball with his rec league in Hingham will have the exact same experience (barring the stadium atmosphere) as any MLB player. Standard rules, standard officiating, standard experience. I think much the contrary to "harming the idea of the game," that this would enhance it.
I think that once the ground for this type of climate in ultimate is laid its possible that the "big league" feel of the whole thing could follow. I also, do not see that as a huge threat to those playing at your level. There are very elite baseball clubs across the country, regardless of the fact that those who are better than them make it up to the MLB. They compete, hard, at their level and get a nearly identical experience to that of the NYY (barring the exposure). I think your experience may even become enhanced through an influx of able-bodied players.

Bottom line for me in any sport: Anything that adds more standards and less pressure on the athletes to worry about anything beyond performing at the peak is a good thing for them and the sport as a whole.
I am very biased though because the lack of officiating is the only thing that I have come to hate in my early career in ultimate.

Take that ridiculously long comment as you will.

Handy said...

Nik,
I feel like you are ignoring the roots of ultimate vis a vis self-officiating as part of the "counter-culture" as well as one of the coolest things about the sport (I am pro observer but not pro ref). In the same way you are suggesting that ultimate could have a similar arc of participation as baseball (not reaching the same level, but being able to be accepted in a similar manner, e.g. 12 year old kids having a similar experience to the pros), which I think ignores the extremely disparate role of each sport in the American culture. Can a kid have that same kind of personaly connection without any constant exposure to the sport? Think about a kid's first glove, their grandfather talking about the games, their dad taking them to their first game, their first little league team, would that same kid want to play shortstop without the presence of Derek Jeter on the TV or at the ballpark or in his dad's conversations? I just don't know about that. The personal connection is definitely a primary issue, I only wonder how it can be appropriately developed unless you're the child of a current player. That's why I think for those connections to be formed early the sport needs more exposure which won't occur until a higher general level of play is achieved such that we can get on Sportscenter and someone can know what the fuck is going on (instead of Beau jumping a dude and Stuart Scott saying "Cool.").

This bears more explaining over beers on Friday.

Match said...

handy you freaking lost me big time, but I love the dialogue.

Nikki said...

Chicken and the egg concept definitely applies to some extent, but let me point a couple things out. True, disc has a "counter-culture" aesthetic that many people like yourself see as one of the defining characteristics and newcomers like me find refreshing. In different ways many sports have this going for them. One great example is soccer, in the US. I feel like soccer in the US could be seen as somewhere in the middle, between where baseball and ultimate reside on the spectrum. The average kid (who NO DOUBT has played soccer) probably knows not ONE name of an elite player in their own sport. I think that in some of your points you are actually ignoring the disparate roles of American sports.
Can a kid have that same kind of personal connection without any constant exposure to the sport (in the professional capacity)? I think they absolutely can, i see it everyday in a good 100,000 of them. They don't know anything about the elite soccer teams in this country or around the world...many of their parents don't care much either.
This same kid may want to become the best goalkeeper without ever hearing Kasey Keller's name or soccer coming up in dad's conversations.
However, i do agree that that level of exposure helps. i just think it can come from either end.

Just some thoughts, will discuss tomorrow.

Kyle Weisbrod said...

Match and Oceans,

Where I disagree with both of you is that "mainstream" sports in the US and particularly youth sports don't work. What leads me to believe that is the 70% of kids that drop out of organized sports by the time they are 14 (National Alliance of Youth Sports), the soaring obesity rate in this country, and the epidemic of player and parent behavior problems in sport.

In our country we do a great job of finding the best atheletes, creating competition, and creating marketable top level sporting events. If this were the sole purpose of sport it would be prudent for us to have referees at every level and focus purely on the competition, finding the top players and pushing them to the next level.

But that isn't the sole role of sports. Sports are also great for socialization, teaching athletes postive values like teamwork, hard work, dedication, communication and respect. Sports are also great for simply for the sake of exercise, ensuring that we have a society that is fit and healthy.

I would argue that these two values are more important than the "pure competition," "finding and showcasing the best athletes," and "creating a spectator friendly sport." And while I don't think these values are necessarily mutually exclusive, I think that the mainstream sports do a lousy job of focusing on the social and participatory aspects of their sports in favor of those other ones.

One reason that Ultimate is a fast growing sport at the youth level (as a first sport) and at the adult level (for people who quit other sports) is the emphasis on the social, participatory nature of the sport that is lost in those other sports. Ultimate has managed to be both a competitive sport while in many ways maintaining the feel of a playground sport that you play with and against your friends.

While I can't be sure, I feel strongly that adding refs will result in significantly less focus on the social aspect of the sport and I think a lot of people agree. I also feel that, while observers are good, adding them at all levels (like youth and leagues) will result in a decline in the social aspect of Ultimate. I think the reasons for this are many - referees will lessen the need for competitors to interact and respect each other, will take the players responsibility to play fairly away, and will make the sport more expensive and exclusive.

I can certainly agree that it would be ideal that if we are using observers at Nationals or Regional finals, they should be used in every series game. If the UPA believes that observers are important in a given division, that whole division and not just the top teams deserves them.

I can also agree that there are some problems with the issues of inconsistency. I think your example of Brown/CU is a great example of two teams that "call" the game very differently. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We've done a great job developing Ultimate so far so that the top level of play is continually improving and the number of players is growing rapidly. In doing so we've emphasized both the competitive and the social aspects of the sport.

In the long run I think some tweaks can be made to help standardize some issues but when it's all said and done I'd like to see Ultimate continue to be a sport where the social and competitive exist to to give us top level competition and huge participation.

Unknown said...

What are fun ways we can drive revenue to pay for and train more observers? I vote for Ultimate Player Trading cards. I'm sure Upper Deck would kill for an additional revenue stream and would be willing to split profits if we could guarantee 20 cards for each player at champys...

Match said...

Its funny that you, kyle, put it that way because the reasons you discuss are about 95% of the reasons I started playing disc. I had never played a team sport, I wanted to meet people and the self-officiating/spirt of the game/friendly competition of the sport appealed to me.

However, I wonder if the implications you are making are sound. I feel like the social dynamic is more between team mates than competitors. I also feel like friendships between opponents steams from the outside (buddy from high school, etc...) or mutual respect for talent. The first isn't gonna change and maybe the second would but I am not positive that it will. Also, I feel like most players don't know their competition that well. they might be able to recognize faces or even know names but thats about it. its not like they are getting beers with them after sectionals. And as it stands now, there are a lot of teams that don't particularly like eachother anyway. There is a good blog entry on the Hodag site that illustrates this. CUT and Wisconsin hate eachother and UCSD and UCSB were always at eachother's throats and I think having an impartial ref could potentially alleviate some of the pressure to make calls and play simultaneously.

Back to team mates, i think that the most social element of ultimate comes from practice and training for the sport with team mates playing and suffering together and I don't think this going to change with refs. I also think that team mates develop bonds that revolve around a mutual respect for the game and the intiricacies it has, not unlike baseball buddies. And I don't see how refs would change this.

Lastly, the whole get kids playing sports, get them out excercising, keep them from quitting is a very good point. However, what makes organized sports difficult and potentially discouraging for kids that perhaps aren't as coordinated or atheletic, I feel, comes mainly from team infrastructure and coaching. I feel like having to make a team or a coach that is a dick are far more discouraging than officiating. I mean I know at least a dozen people that quit whatever sport because they hated their coach and thats on them, not the sport. I also feel like having inclusive teams with B teams and practice squads is great. I played for the B team at UCSD and it was great. We played to win and we actually finished well (71st back in 2004) and I feel like that is where perhaps some of the less fortunate athletes can/will find themselves. As the sport emerges and becomes more competitive, you get people that will be more athletic and dominant, taking spots away from other folks. However, with B teams you can still have a spot for them because as the sport grows programs will as well and you can have people contributing at a variety of levels. And at the very least if people play in high school or learn and love the game their is always pick up and summer league which i don't think need refs because the game played at that venue is still too immature to warrant strict rule following, not unlike little kids soccer.

Lastly, I don't feel like ref'd sports are discoraging to new athletes. I could be wrong, but I do believe that rugby, lacrosse and field hockey all have referees and their pitch to potential players is more or less the same as ultimate. At least thats the way it looked when I recruited for UCSD and Yale. I think that the mentality that will create the result that you are referring to is more about winning at all costs which I don't think referees will change. I think teams are becoming increasingly competitive and that is going to happen with or without refs, but I also think that the no reward aspect of ultimate (we aren't getting paid to play at any level) keeps the competitive nature of the participants at bay, at least sum.

ulticritic said...

test

Will D said...

From my experiences playing many other sports in high school and college, and then playing Ultimate, I would have to say that Kyle is right on about the social aspects of Ultimate that are enhanced by an officiating system that requires player interaction.

In soccer, wrestling, baseball, the opponent is usually the bad guy and almost all efforts at communication are between teammates or between players and the ref. Very little occurs between players on opposing teams, at least very little positive occurs. Tennis was a little different, partly b/c it wasn't a team sport and b/c we didn't have refs there either. We had to trust each other and talk things out sometimes, which led to a different level of interaction even off the court.

In Ultimate you really get to know the person you are matching up against, both b/c of the physical aspects of the competition and b/c of the officiating element that adds another level of interaction.

It isn't a mystery why most of the guys on other teams I've played against that I have become friends with over the years are not the big tall guys on the other teams, but the short handler guys that I am always covering and vice versa. Whether it's Matty Lipscomb from back at Clemson, or Jit from DoG/Jam, Ricky from BAT, Skippy from Texas/Sockeye, JD from the Condors, there's a mutual respect that comes from battling against each other, but also from getting to know the person as someone who plays hard but fair and respects that you do the same.

That's partly how teams like the Flying Dwarves form at Fools Fest, and partly why players move to different cities to play with guys they have gotten to know and respect by competing against them.

Sure this happens in other sports to some extent, but there's an extra level of that in Ultimate b/c the players have to interact at an extra level.

I'm not saying that's the only thing the sport should be focused on, but it's certainly a positive thing, and we shouldn't overlook it or underestimate the positive impact something like player interaction in competition can have on the players, the competition, and the community that forms around it all.

ulticritic said...

Match, big fan. refreshing to get an in your face view point on this median. You are the colin cowheard of welcome to ultimate talk. Youve unveiled alot with this thread so i'll be as brief as possible. Lots of good points (as well as bad) to respond to......so, here goes (by the way, i hate coed ulty too).

MATCH-agree that not having refs is stupid and sucks, and they should be equally available (less pick up and maybe summer league). Disagree with selfish hoarding mentality of ultimate so to limit other (possibly better) athleats because you as an idividual wont then excell and shine. It is the sport itself that must shine. As per MLU....no props for me? Refs will result "making the game more cool (and marketable)"....nothing wrong with capitalizing on an entertaining product which , i think we agree, must have a rules process that is contantly refined, well facilitated, properly presented and professionally delivered. Crispness of the actual game experience and comp and how exciting it is to watch will undoubtedly go hand in hand.

HANDY-great point. How do we get from here to there? Its up to us. It takes more than lip service...it takes action.

RICH-refs/observers could be facilitated thru required cross division pools during team buys at all events so that unknowledable people wouldnt be involved. SL's could be good training grounds for refs but that format is so informal it might be a tough sale (although would love to see it happen), and yes all those benifiting from that facilitation might have to antee up already. good way for a player to make a few bucks on the side. there should be plenty of refs to go around.....HS kids ref the youth, college refs HS, clubbers ref college, masters ref clubbers......that is,if there is an equitable pay wage.

MATCH- there needs to be incentive (i'd say financial) for guys like jay to devote time and effort to this cause. Why rely on people to volunteer as apposed to uping some fundage and working it into the budget.

OCEAN- I dig where you are coming from and yes #'s are the key, more officiality will likley increase the #'s faster, athleats can preform better when they dont have to also facilitate the arbitration process. fellow self officiation hater.

HANDY AND OCEAN-i think you guys are kinda saying the same thing but in a different way. what begets what....or as ocean said....its the chicken and the egg theory (one ive used on several occasions when refering to the stale mate that ultimate seems to be caught in). I dont know if the chicken or the egg came first but even if ultimates #'s do grow, it wont get exposed on a large entertainment or media scale untill it conforms to the norms (this means refs and all the other bells and whistles) of the sports entertainment industry. So the level of exposure and the aspirations of the future michael jordans of ultimate will be a by-product of one another.

KYLE- kyle,kyle,kyle. I'm not gonna be as thourough as match was but i am gonna pick your post apart so this may take a while. Pull up a stool and a tall cold beverage (preferably not koolaid though). You say that youth sports dont work because many stop playing at the age of 14.....which is when kids are no longer really considered youth....sooooo, makes sence to me. But you seem to be directing that failure towards the arbitration process and then note obesity and parent behavior as an indirect by product????? You are a reacher. You imply that the sole purpose of a third party arbitration system is aquiring a market share of the sports entertainment industry....another reach. The role of sports is highly subjective and currently in efforts to emphisisze some of the positive aspects you note, youth leages have emplimented things like not keeping score and equal PT. The rate of ultimates' growth is fractional at best when compared to other sports. I've always thought of ultimate as an extended version of little league for adults and obviously it has a playground/sandlot feel to it (which IS why its not marketable in its present state) but even as a youth when i played sports i was ALWAYS more excited to play in REAL games where i got to uniform up and compete in a game that was facilitated with many of the same bells and whistles that were provided in the big leagues. For someone that is unsure (and rightfully so) you sure are stuborn in your stance. You put too much emphasis on the social aspect that is indirectly provided with the self officiation process especially when that social dynamic will always be available in informal versions of ultimate as well as ALL other sports when played at the sandlot/playground/pickup/selfofficiated level. Dont think for a minute that ultimate has a patent on pickup. The "baby" is the sport, not the process of how the sport is arbitrated. If anything the process is the "bathwater".....which is old, slimey and overdue to be thrown out. Just cause YOU want ultimate to be a certian way does not mean that it should. But since you and your fellow candy ass upa administraitors are at the wheel we will have to put up with your frivolous mandates. Soon, though, the worm will turn. It will probably take people like match or myself to be on the inside for such a change to occur but i am confident that one day the spirit zealots will die off.

MATCH-great rebutal on the reality of the current social dynamic that exists in ultimate. Love to hear and share ideas of the MLU concept. Keep talkin it up. Voice by voice we can wake the sleepin giant and liberate ultimate and give it the "real sport status" that it deserves.

Kyle Weisbrod said...

Toad,

You can not discount the point that 70% of youth drop out of organized sports by the time they are 14 by stating that they are "no longer considered youth."

Also, I didn't "imply that the sole purpose of a third party arbitration system is aquiring a market share of the sports entertainment industry." I said (very clearly) that officiating would make sense if the only goals of sport were the perception of "fair competition", finding the best players/teams, and making an enjoyable product for spectators. But I think most people would agree that sport is also valuable for social reasons. Self-officiation is great to support those social goals (which are most important in summer leagues and youth/high school play). Observers strike a great balance between those social goals and the competitive goals in series play.

As I said, some changes could be made to improve that balance depending on what the UPA membership sees as the most important goals.

Finally, from all the numbers I've seen (UPA membership vs. membership for other sports' national governing bodies, Sporting Good Manufacturers Association (SGMA) participation numbers), Ultimate is growing more rapidly than any other sport right now. I'd love to know where you get the idea that "The rate of ultimates' growth is fractional at best when compared to other sports."

Match,

I can't speak for UCSD/UCSB but I think the CUT/Hodag rivalry is competitive but very respectful. From the guys I know on those teams they like each other - shoot, the top players play together in the club series with Subzero. And while the majority of players may not know or be friendly with their competitors, often the top players from teams have interacted enough that they've developed relationships (mostly positive) that trickle down.

I can't think of any example more obvious than the recent Poultry Days team made up of CU and Wisconsin players two weeks after those teams competed in the finals of the College Championships. Of course that team lost in the finals of Poultry Days to a team full of Metro-East players that had spent years competing against each other at the Regional level. I have never seen anything like this kind of inter-team camraderie in any other sport and I think most people feel this occurs in large part due to the way competitors interact on the field.

Morgan said...

I think that the thread tying together refs, spirited play, spectator appeal and personal relationships among competitors is a valuable one that we’ll be working out for many years to come. I would like to share a couple viewpoints.

Regarding ultimate and life skills –
I find there are 2 aspects to the ‘social dimensions’ of ultimate that are important. The first could be replicated in any sport. This is related to post game rituals, social events, team bonding, blogging and the like. The other aspect lies at the cultural level and is rather unique to ultimate as currently practiced. It is also something I believe would be jeopardized by refs. This is a product of both self officiating and the structural nature of how the game is being developed and learned. The social values from self officiating have been well covered elsewhere, like conflict resolution and respect for differences, so I will not get into them here. (I think in a recent UPA article, Kyle touched on the relationship between conflict resolution skills and a post modern world.) Structurally speaking though, ultimate is different from other sports in that our leadership models are very flat rather than hierarchal, and we develop strategies and tactics in a way that sociologists would likely call socially constructed. I believe both of these structural features are valuable models for ultimate players to bring with them into other areas of life. (Btw, I am convinced that teams with the most nimble and inclusive decision making structures tend to outperform those with traditional structures.) Looking toward higher authorities (ie refs) to make decisions for us, is, I believe, a regressive move that threatens to shift our mindset from one of interdependence and self empowerment to one of subservience and disempowerment. Despite the numerous benefits proponents cite, I think refs would be a devolutionary step in the broader context.

Regarding relationships among competitors –
College players are less likely to experience camaraderie among competitors due to greater roster changes from year to year. Whereas, after competing for 5 or 8 or more seasons, as many at the club level have, opportunities to build relationships accumulate. Also, players tend to mellow with age and seek different reward paths. For example, many find more value in personal relationships as they age. I think it’s also true that the longer we’re embedded in our ultimate community, the more we’ll chose to treat one another with respect. For, as our relationships grow and interweave, the more we have at stake.

-barney