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
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
I participated as an observer in three of the experimental events (Solstice '08, Stanford and Open Centex '09), and I will be observing at Nationals. I'd like to comment on the listed pros and cons of active travel calls and give my perspective:
ReplyDeletePros
* Consistent calls within an individual gameThis is nice, but in my opinion not one of the major issues.
* Reduces burden on playersYes. I think the players love that they don't have to worry about watching feet and can just play. Discussion of this issue could, I think, ultimately lead to the basis for a new distinction on what calls should be left in the hands of the players - after all, other violations (pick, foul, strip, double team) are things that happen to the player making the call. You don't necessarily need to be on the lookout to see it. Travels just happen, and as a player if there is a third party there whose job it is to watch for them, and who probably has better perspective and equal or better rules knowledge, I'd rather not be bothered.
* Reduces uncertainty about specific travel calls (e.g. hucks/scores)I don't really see this as a major issue.
* Prevents individual/team from repeatedly/frivolously stopping playThis one is huge. Defenders frequently use specious travel calls as a weapon, to stop powerful throw-and-go and fast break moves. And it's not really about cheating - I think most of the time, the players making the calls honestly believe, in the split second they have in which to react, that they saw a travel. The point is that the ability to stop the offense in situations like that can be extremely powerful, and the incentives all point toward erring on the side of calling anything that looks close to a travel. And yes, sometimes is is cheating. I believe observers, who are impartial and who know from training and experience how to recognize what is and isn't a travel, are better equipped to make the fair call in this situation.
* Reduces potential for arguments/negative interactions between playersEven more huge, in my opinion. Travel calls from one's opponent almost always raise ire. The game can become permeated with this negativity between the players. When neutral observers are making the calls, this negativity doesn't just get transferred away from the opponent and onto the observers - it dissipates. Sure, there are going to be times when players are upset by observers' calls, but it isn't the same. When your opponent is making the call, it is easy to believe that he's cheating or trying to somehow game the system. When the observer is doing it, it quickly becomes accepted as just part of the conditions under which you and your opponent have to play. Whether or not you adapt, your frustration doesn't turn into hatred (unless you think your team is being treated unfairly.)
* Reduces potential for cheatingSee above re: frivolous travel calls.
* Reduces travelingI think this is probably true, for similar reasons I discussed with regard to the negativity issue. When your opponent makes the call, it is easy to believe that he is the one who is cheating or "trying to win with calls" or whatever - he is biased, and subconsciously you may feel like no matter what you do, he will keep making those calls. When an observer makes a call, he has more credibility and you are likely to try to adapt so that he won't make the call again.
* Observers have better perspective than playersI believe this is true. We position ourselves in the best place to watch, and we know from training and experience how to watch.
* Fewer stoppages(?)*This will depend on a lot of factors, I'd rather see some stats than speculate.
Cons
* Limits the number of eyes watching for travels (from 7 players to 1 Observer)I don't see a problem here. That one observer has as his whole job, while the disc is in a player's possession, to watch for travels and marking fouls. I think he is in the best position to make the call.
* Allows 3rd party to stop the game (unprecedented)While I personally don't have a problem with this, I understand that others do and I respect that. I do think, though, that this issue needs to be considered alongside the flipside issue - that as it stands, the defense has the power to stop the game with a bogus travel call. Also, I think we can again look to the distinction between traveling, a violation that "just happens," and other violations which happen to the opponent. I've discussed those issues plenty so I'll move on.
* Adds burden on Observers, whose other responsibilities might suffer as a resultI think this is largely an illusory problem. Having observed with active calls, I think it sharpens my focus. Whether or not the system is active travel calls, your job as the trailing observer is mainly to watch for travels and thrower/marker fouls. When the players are making the travel calls and they aren't really calling anything, you can get lulled into not being very attentive - and then a big call comes to you. Uncomfortable. If you have to make the call, you are focused and don't miss much. Yes, I think there is some chance that at first, observers will start to become hyperfocused on traveling and lose focus on fouls, but I think we will adjust quickly and well.
* Takes away player responsibilitySee above for why I think this is actually a pro. I guess it is listed here because some feel that having this responsibility engenders good sportsmanship. I think the current state of elite level play suggest that at least under some circumstances, that isn't necessarily the case.
* More stoppages(?)*Again I would rather not speculate.
* Inconsistent enforcement from Observer to ObserverTrue, but as long as the crew working an individual game can get on the same page, the standards should be consistent within one game. And even if the two observers in that game call it slightly differently, each team is going to get roughly equal exposure to both of those observers - it should be fair. With players making the calls, we have inconsistency from team to team to team to team ... and the reaction can be to "sink to" the other team's level or resort to "make-up calls."
* Inconsequential calls that players wouldn’t make more likely to get called (slows down game)
* Will take getting used to for Observers and playersI've lumped these two together because I think they are intertwined. At Stanford, for the first game or two we had complaints that we were calling too much. I think we adjusted. Overall, I think the answer will be that the observers and players will adjust and find the level of enforcement that is right for a given game, tournament, division of play, etc. I think it won't take long, and in the end we will be in a place where enforcement of the traveling rule is more fair, consistent, and accurate.
Sorry for the length of these comments, I wanted to respond to each point and a lot of these issues require a bit of discussion. I hope to see more people chime in with their own perspectives. At the end of the day I am not here trying to convince the teams to vote my way (although it is clear from my comments what my opinion would be) - I just think it is important for all of the forty Nationals teams to cast votes which are well-informed in consideration of all the available perspectives. This is a big decision we're putting in the hands of these teams, and I sincerely hope that when they vote, they have thought about it.
Peter Washington
Weird, my first comment looked great on the preview, but lost a bunch of its line breaks. Sorry it looks so crappy now.
ReplyDeleteI am getting a "not authorized" error when I try to visit the link to specific feedback on upa.org. Anyone else?
ReplyDeleteI am getting a "not authorized" error when I try to visit the link to specific feedback on upa.org. Anyone else?Yeah, me too - emailed the webmaster but no response yet.
ReplyDeleteWord from the UPA:
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately, the Board posted their blogs before the related pages were ready to go live...Please check back later today and the links should all be operational."
Page should be live now.
ReplyDeleteThere are some stats (limited) in there about the number of travel calls under the two systems.
With active travel calls, how are "intentional" travels dealt with? By that I mean, there are some situations where it could be in the offense's advantage to travel while pivoting to get the stall count to stop. On the endzone is a place where having a stoppage of play to evaluate the field would definitely be helpful for a thrower.
ReplyDeleteObviously, throwers can egregiously travel under the current rules to get a new stall count, but the defender has the option not to call it. With observers trying to make active travel calls consistently, the intentional travel could easily be called without it needing to be extreme. Maybe this would not be an issue whatsoever, but I think I remember an observer mentioning on rsd this situation actually happened with active travel calls at Stanford Invite.
If the travel was obviously trying to elicit a call, the observer could issue a TMF, but I don't know if it would be that obvious a tactic.
Just trying to make sure a change doesn't open up a big loophole...
Gwen -
ReplyDeleteI've heard people talk about the intentional travel, but I've never seen it. Having said that I acknowledge it is a possibility - whether or not there are active calls.
I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the opponent would very often decline to call travel if the travel were at all clear enough to be obviously intentional. Also if what you want is the call and your opponent isn't giving it to you, shoot, just start running toward the endzone. I'm pretty sure you'll draw a call. (And a TMF.)
At stall nine I suppose the defense might see the wisdom of not making the call. I think this is where the real danger lies, to the extent this will ever be more than a theoretical issue. We might consider giving the observer the power (in addition to T'ing the cheater up) to delay the travel call until a throw is made when travels happen at high stall counts.
PGW
I guess even if the travel wasn't intentional, it would seem a little weird to stop play if the thrower can't keep his/her pivot foot down but hasn't released the disc yet.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right that intentional traveling would be pretty rare.
I have seen situations where players were very lax with not traveling as a call would have benefitted them as well as a no-call... . Well, that was Goaltimate right in front of the goal. But to a point, this also applies to Ultimate right in front of the end zone: either you get the advantage of the stoppage or the advantage of the travel. But then, active observer calls don't change too much on this.
ReplyDeleteAll that said:
How about active travel calls only on throwing travels (i.e., travels which happen within 1 second of a throw). Other travels are still called (or not) by the players. Not easy, right?
So how about:
Change the travel rule to the new WFDF rule. In short, if a travel is called, play only stops if the travel is not corrected immediately and before the throw (in which case play is stopped with a "violation" call, so "travel" does not stop play anymore). This rule would be much easier to call actively by an observer without negatively affecting the game...
Flo.