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.