Travel Calls

Note that this issue will be included on the experimental changes ballot for potential implementation at the 2009 College Championships. Teams in each division will vote whether to implement the one or the other of the experimental changes, or to play under the current system at the tournament.

The UPA has experimented with two distinct systems that would allow Observers to take a more active role in making or ruling on travel calls. At Solstice in 2008 and Stanford Invite 2009, games were played with Observers making active travel calls (i.e. players could not make travel calls, and Observer travel calls were final). At Open Centex 2009 and Women's Centex 2009, games were played with Observers making an immediate ruling on travel calls made by players (i.e. calls were made by players, but if a call was contested, the Observer stepped in and immediately made a ruling without any time provided for discussion/resolution by the players).

Feedback was collected from players after all of these events and can be viewed here. Feedback was also collected from Observers who worked the Spring 2009 events, including specific comments about the pros and cons of each system (click here to view). The Observer's list of pros and cons generally captured individual comments submitted by the players, while also adding some perspective regarding implementation.

Take a look at the feedback, including the general support, or lack thereof, for how travel calls were handled at these events. Take a look at the pros and cons listed in the Observer feedback section.

Observer Comments (active calls):
Pros

• Consistent calls within an individual game
• Reduces burden on players
• Reduces uncertainty about specific travel calls (e.g. hucks/scores)
• Prevents individual/team from repeatedly/frivolously stopping play
• Reduces potential for arguments/negative interactions between players
• Reduces potential for cheating
• Reduces traveling
• Observers have better perspective than players
• Fewer stoppages(?)*

Cons

• Limits the number of eyes watching for travels (from 7 players to 1 Observer)
• Allows 3rd party to stop the game (unprecedented)
• Adds burden on Observers, whose other responsibilities might suffer as a result
• Takes away player responsibility
• More stoppages(?)*
• Inconsistent enforcement from Observer to Observer
• Inconsequential calls that players wouldn’t make more likely to get called (slows down game)
• Will take getting used to for Observers and players

Observer Comments (immediate referral):
Pros

• Reduces discussion time; keeps game moving
• Players’ opinions still count in outcome
• Keeps game in players’ hands
• Observers can deal with abusive calls with conduct system (TMF)
• Reduces negative interactions between players
• Reduces cheating

Cons

• Continues to allow players to make bad calls (cheating, slowing game down)
• Unnecessarily ads Observer involvement when not always needed
• Better than current system, but not as good as active calls
• Players’ opinions count less than in current system (where discussion can happen)
• Observer may not always have perspective

Discuss the tradeoffs of one system over another (current system, immediate referral, active calls). Do the pros of both experimental systems outweigh the cons of removing or reducing player responsibility and control? If so, which experimental system better addresses the known problems in the current system in a way that makes the game better to play? To watch? Are there alternative ways to address those same problems, either within the current system (e.g. TMF's for bad calls) or with some other solution?

Up/Down Calls

Note that this issue will be included on the experimental changes ballot for potential implementation at the 2009 College Championships. Teams in each division will vote whether to implement the one or the other of the experimental changes, or to play under the current system at the tournament.

The UPA has experimented with two distinct systems that would allow Observers to take a more active role in making or ruling on up/down calls. At Solstice in 2008 and Stanford Invite 2009, games were played with Observers making active up/down calls (i.e. players could not make up/down calls, and Observer up/down calls were final). At Open Centex 2009 and Women's Centex 2009, games were played with Observers making an immediate ruling on up/down calls made by players (i.e. calls were made by players, but if a call was contested, the Observer stepped in and immediately made a ruling without any time provided for discussion/resolution by the players).

Feedback was collected from players after all of these events and can be viewed here. Feedback was also collected from Observers who worked the Spring 2009 events, including specific comments about the pros and cons of each system (click here to view). The Observer's list of pros and cons generally captured individual comments submitted by the players, while also adding some perspective regarding implementation.

Take a look at the feedback, including the general support, or lack thereof, for how up/down calls were handled at these events. Take a look at the pros and cons listed in the Observer feedback section (and copied below).

Observer Comments (active calls):
Pros

• Speeds up play
• Reduces arguments
• Call is objective, like lines, and is better made by a 3rd party official

Cons

• Observers often do not have best perspective for this call (screened, far away)
• Can be confusing if players are waiting on a call from Observer

Observer Comments (immediate referral):
Pros

• Speeds up play
• Reduces arguments
• Animosity towards Observer, not other team
• Objective call is quickly referred to objective 3rd party
• Allows players first shot at call (reduces confusion, players have good perspective, keeps player control)

Cons

• Not as effective as active calls at reducing stoppages
• Doesn’t allow players to work things out; discuss perspectives
• Observer doesn’t always have best perspective

Discuss the tradeoffs of one system over another (current system, immediate referral, active calls). Do the pros of both experimental systems outweigh the cons of removing or reducing player responsibility and control? If so, which experimental system addresses the known problems in the current system in a way that makes the game better to play? To watch? Are there alternative ways to address those same problems, either within the current system (e.g. TMF's for bad calls) or with some other solution?

Required Active Check by Observers

Note that this change is not on the ballot for potential implementation at the 2009 College Championships, but is still important to evaluate and discuss for the future.

At the three 2009 Spring Experimental Events, the UPA tested a system where Observers were required to check the disc back into play. On any stoppage of play, regardless of whether there was a call or whether a call was ruled on by an Observer, the Observer actively checked with both teams, clarified the stall count, and checked the disc back into play. Players could not check the disc in to restart play.

Feedback was collected from players after all of these events and can be viewed here. Feedback was also collected from Observers who worked the Spring 2009 events, including specific comments about the pros and cons of this change (click here to view). The Observer's list of pros and cons generally captured individual comments submitted by the players, while also adding some perspective regarding implementation.

Take a look at the feedback, including the general support, or lack thereof, for how up/down calls were handled at these events. Take a look at the pros and cons listed in the Observer feedback section (and copied below).

Observer Comments:
Pros

• Reduces confusion, provides consistency
• Can speed up play in cases where pre-check violations might occur
• Prevents abuse of rules by marker or thrower (trying to check/not check disc in)
• Prevents abuse of rules by cutters or defenders (moving before check)
• Clear communication of stall count
• Clearer to players/fans when play restarts
• Keeps Observers involved in game

Cons

• Can slow game down, waiting for Observers on every stoppage
• Involves Observers unnecessarily in some/many cases
• Confusing because it is new
• Adds burden to Observers, who must approach and get involved in every call, whether contested or not; can be difficult to implement
• Takes control and flexibility out of players’ hands

It is interesting to note that the support for this change was much greater from the Observers than from the players. Discuss the tradeoffs of this system over the current one where only players can restart play. Do the pros of the experimental system outweigh the cons of removing or reducing player responsibility and control? If so, is it because they make the game better to play, to watch, or both? Are there alternative ways to address those same problems?

Officiating Policy: Where are the lines? Who makes the call?

The idea of experimenting with the rules and with officiating are not new. It is how the game has evolved over time. However, the creation of an official process that the UPA uses to test new ideas and gather feedback is new, as part of the UPA's 5-year strategic plan. Specifically, one of the tactics in the plan called for the following:

Expand and experiment with the Observer’s role in competitive play. Research suggests a need to widen the array of active Observer calls, a need for improvement in the misconduct system, as well as implementation of hand signals for stoppages of play and calls. Experimentation will take place with the dual goals of speeding up the game while keeping control in the hands of the players. (emphasis added)

It is important to think about goals when talking about and making changes to the game. They serve as a guide for smaller, individual actions that may otherwise seem random or unrelated. They give meaning and purpose to such actions, and those small, sometimes small actions end up contributing to creating a shared vision in a much larger context.

However, another purpose that goals serve is to guide decision-making at a micro-level. There are a lot of individual ideas and actions that could be taken at any given time. Many ideas or actions, in isolation, may seem good on their own, or at worst harmless. However, even small actions and ideas can have a large impact down the line, or can set precedent and direction on their own, without a lot of thought given to where that direction might take you in the end. So, it is essential that before ideas get adopted and implemented at random, those ideas should be measured up against larger goals to see if and how they fit into achieving them.

The current UPA Observer Program was formed based on a policy, and philosophy, that has been in place since 2003.

UPA Policy on Observers and Referees
Submitted by the Observers Committee. Adopted 8/28/03 by the Executive Committee.

In line with its previous statements, the UPA endorses the use of Observers in Ultimate but does not endorse the use of Referees.

The primary difference between Observers and Referees is that Observers shall not make active foul and violation calls of a subjective nature, while Referees are empowered to make any call authorized in the rules, bylaws, officiating guide, or any set of tournament ground rules. Observers are allowed to resolve disputes on foul and violation calls if requested to do so by the players or event organizers. It is permissible but not required for Observers to be allowed to make active calls on conduct issues and objective matters in the rules, including but not limited to time violations where the disc is not in play and boundary decisions.

Observers have the responsibility to uphold the Spirit of the Game to the players on the field. While Observers can provide a neutral perspective for dispute resolution or calls of an objective nature, the responsibility for the integrity of Ultimate and the Spirit of the Game remains with the players.

The UPA Board understood that the words "observer", "referee", "official", "umpire", etc., are just words. What is important is what is specifically meant by those words. Note that there are some lines drawn in the policy about what is and isn't appropriate for 3rd-party officials in UPA Ultimate. Specifically the words "subjective" and "objective" were used to differentiate what calls/control must remain in the players' hands and what potentially could be handled by 3rd-party officials. However, even with that definition, there is some debate about what might be considered "subjective" or "objective".

So, in light of that potential debate, the ongoing experimentation with rules and officiating systems, and the upcoming vote to potentially implement changes at the 2009 College Championships, there are a number of questions that are important for the Ultimate community to discuss, including:

1. Does the current UPA policy/philosophy on officials in Ultimate describe what the community feels are the appropriate boundaries for officiating in Ultimate?
2. If so, where do the current experimental changes (travel calls, up/down calls, check) fall in relation to those lines?
3. If not, does that mean the current experimental changes are inappropriate? Or does it mean that the policy/philosophy needs to be changed?
4. If the policy/philosophy should be changed or clarified, what should it be changed to? Where and how should the line be drawn between what should be handled by the players and what should be handled by non-playing officials? (Some ideas that have been thrown out include, but are not limited to defining limits based on: the power to start and stop play, or who has the better perspective.)
   What policy/philosophy on officiating is going to guide future questions and experiments so that they shape the sport into something that you will be excited about for the future.