Out calls

179 posts / 0 new
Last post

I agree that it seems people are confusing areas where the rules allow outcomes which may
be considered unsatisfactory as 'unspirited' when it happens.

This isn't the case. Many rules are crafted with a compromise between 'fairness' to objective
reality and creating a self-refereeing sport. The whole idea of BTT is inherently 'unfair' to
objective reality, but it's *essential* to ultimate.

If you want to argue that a particular rule needs to be changed, that is an excellent discussion
to have, but you have to weigh a lot of factors when writing a rule. Ultimately, the rules are
designed to provide the fairest self-refereed experience over the wide breadth of cases where
the rule can apply, not the closest to objective reality. Every rule's intended interpretation can
have an 'unsatisfactory' outcome under a contrived example. That doesn't mean it's unfair to
use the rule.

--

Dugly's example: "violation, you're taking too long"

Dug, as I mentioned above, I can't see how, using the definition of SOTG (which may be
different from what you think SOTG is), can remotely make that unspirited. If, as you
suggest there is no negative tone or presentation, there is nothing illegal about the call, there
have been no 'brief stoppages to explain the game' between points (which would cause the
delay to not be a violation, and thus the call to be illegal), then why is it unspirited to request
that the team pull within a reasonable time?

Let's assume Team A is the caller and Team B is the puller. What if Team B is up a few
points and it's getting close to cap. Team A wants to get as many points in as possible, so
they cite that rule for Team B to please hurry up. Is it still unspirited for Team A to call that?
What if Team B is taking 5 minutes between pulls (I'd call that unspirited in itself), is it still
unspirited of Team A? What about if the score is tied, but Team A just wants to get as many
points in as possible before it gets dark?

I just don't see how Team B could ever think, 'Team A is disrespecting me by asking me to
pull within a reasonable time'. Well, I can see how some may think that, but I don't see how
the definition of SOTG calls that unspirited.

--

antnarjuat's "Travel, because I pushed you"

I don't think that's a legal call. I think that interpreting the travel rules in such a way that the
action can be called a travel is incorrect. I see this as functionally no different from a Thrower
grabbing the Marker's arm, then hitting the disc with the Marker's hand, then calling a Marking
foul (offsetting call's brings the count down). While the former is unintentional and the latter
is intentional the related rules aren't concerned with intent in these cases. In these cases and
almost all others, the rules don't explicitly identify such possibilities. The rules do have a lot
of implicitly implied clauses (for better or worse). I for one wouldn't want the rules to
explicitly state all of the implicitly inherent common sense in the travel rule 'the travel rule
applies to the Thrower's controllable actions'. Each rule would have to triple in length (or
more) to successfully capture all of the implicit clauses. This would not be a good thing.

This is a kind of loophole. I see loopholes as 'supposed rules' that exist only due to the
specific language in the rulebook. Supposed rules that are not in fact actual rules. I see
loopholes as 'bugs' in the rules. While the rules may fail in that the legal interpretation may
not always be clear from reading the rule. If a person didn't understand this, then I'd say
their travel 'call' probably isn't unspirited. If however somebody did understand the legal
interpretation of the travel call, and was intentionally exploiting a loophole, then I would call
that unspirited. However, I wouldn't say the call was legal.

Matt/iamcanucks' Travel on a huck call.

As has been mentioned. This is the nature of the game. There are some cases where the
outcome of the Continuation Rule can seem 'unfair', however, the invocation of the
Continuation Rule can *never* be unspirited. It's the purely objective mechanics of the Call
resolution system of our game.

--

Matt/iamcanucks' Foul on the throw

Remember, for the travel call to be legal, both of the following have to occur:

1. Marker has to violate the rule by hitting the Thrower's arm or the disc before he let's the
disc go.

2. Thrower must realize this and call travel immediately, long before the outcome of his
throw is even close to determined.

Do you see how it's unreasonable to call that Thrower's foul call unspirited. At the time of
the call, they have no idea if their receiver is going to catch it.

As for whether or not this is unfair, I'm not convinced that it's entirely unfair. While the throw
might look like a good one, it might not have been as good as the unaffected one (also true
that it may have even been better than the unaffected throw), the only thing that's certain is
that:

*The exact play would not have happened had the foul not occurred.*

Even if the throw looked good, you can't escape the fact that without the Foul, things *would
certainly* have been somewhat different. What's the best way the rules can handle this?
Well, I'd suggest that the only way to handle it is that if the Marker fouls the thrower and the
pass is incomplete, they get a retry. That to me is the fairest possible rule. I'd be happy to
hear a proposed change though...

Gin-Boh:

You acknowledge that the other team would be embarrassed, but disagree it's dispirited? Why would they be embarrassed then? To me that seems a bit contradictory. If it's perfectly fair and spirited, why wouldn't they be happy for the call?

Temple:

Your latest defense seems to amount to "Well it can't be against SOTG because SOTG says that any rule that's valid is spirited". I'm afraid that's very wrong. Having such a closed mind to spirit of the game is a huge step in the wrong direction for spirit. Key among spirit is having fun and trying to make sure everyone is having fun. If all spirit boiled down to was the idea that nobody cheated thus allowed automatonous application of the rules then you'd be right. I frankly disagree and I'd suggest most people who have been playing for more than a year would agree that spirit is not a simple application of objective criteria.

The part of SOTG that even the "definition" shows is wrong is this: This 'Spirit of the Game' is what Ultimate is all about: having fun, getting exercise, making new friends, and helping other players learn the game.

There is nothing about a time violation call late in the game in a tied game that helps any of this. There's no respect being shown. In this case there's no advantage either. Nobody is arguing anymore that it's an invalid call (despite it being completely contrived).

Spirit has taken a huge blow with ultimate becoming more popular. I know this is just part of a growing sport. It's no longer just played between friends who had a social obligation to each other. The advent of the ever expanding collection of rules is the outcome of this. It used to be that 10 rules was all ultimate needed. Spirit covered the rest! While you could come up with dozens of things that could be valid calls in the 10 rules, you wouldn't do it because it was just stupid (like calling time violation under the conditions I outlined)

As spirit wanes and the sport grows, so must the rules. The outcome of positions like Temples will eventually do away with spirit entirely.

I think the rules committee has done an outstanding job in the face of pressure to clarify intent and close many loopholes. I wish it wasn't necessary, but I see the practicality. I see the need to have something more formal than a social contract that is so objective. While that pains me, what pains me more is the clinical application of the rules and the absence of actual mutual admiration and respect.

While I see and agree with the argument that "Check feet" is unproductive from a strictly rules perspective (I disagree it's counterproductive, but agree it's unproductive), in my opinion it's valuable as a teaching tool of mutual respect and reliance.

The fact that it's held on for so many years and is so universally understood is a testament that many players hold the spirit of the game and understanding mutual respect, in higher regard than merely memorizing the rules.

Despite protestations that it's ambiguous from opponents to "check feet", having played various competitive and recreational 'divisions' in several cities in my experience it is consistently interpreted the same way. I'm frankly surprised and a bit skeptical that your experience are that much different.

Dugly: "Your latest defense seems to amount to "Well it can't be against SOTG because
SOTG says that any rule that's valid is spirited". I'm afraid that's very wrong."

So you're arguing that the definition of SOTG cannot be used to determine what SOTG is?

What your saying is akin to 'despite what the *definition* of SOTG says, the definition of
SOTG that *I* have says different, and my definition of SOTG overrules the accepted
definition of SOTG that has persisted for decades'.

We may have to agree to disagree on that point there.

--

Dugly: "The part of SOTG that even the "definition" shows is wrong is this: This 'Spirit of the
Game' is what Ultimate is all about: having fun, getting exercise, making new friends, and
helping other players learn the game.

There is nothing about a time violation call late in the game in a tied game that helps any of
this. There's no respect being shown. In this case there's no advantage either. Nobody is
arguing anymore that it's an invalid call (despite it being completely contrived)."

Why do you think the rule exists in the first place? Because it was deemed necessary. From
what I've seen of the process, the SRC is loathe to add a rule unless actual play has deemed
it necessary to uphold SOTG.

Is it your position that the rule shouldn't exist? If so, that's a valid opinion. But you shouldn't
assume from your opinion that SOTG demands that it not be called. That's not only logically
tenuous, but isn't it also a little arrogant? By all means lobby to have that rule taken out (or
scaled back in it's applicable context), but believe that it is currently part of the game you
agreed to play, that game that SOTG exists to protect.

--

Dugly: "This 'Spirit of the Game' is what Ultimate is all about: having fun, getting exercise,
making new friends, and helping other players learn the game."

I want to go back to this. I think this is a misconception and this sentiment leads to a lot of
the ill-will in ultimate. SOTG is *not* "all about" 'having fun, getting exercise, making new
friends and helping others learn the game'. All that can and hopefully will come out of a
spirited game of ultimate, but they are not the requisite for a spirited game of ultimate. They
are not what SOTG is "all about".

SOTG is "all about":

"a spirit of sportsmanship that places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly
competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual respect among
competitors, adherence to the agreed upon rules, or the basic joy of play."

Those are named as the "vital elements" of Ultimate. Your definition, let's call it Dugly-SOTG
seems to indicate that "the basic joy of play" is what Ultimate is "all about". That is a narrow
view that the definition of SOTG simply does not uphold.

Competition, playing the game to win legally and respectfully is a "vital element" of Ultimate
and key to SOTG. Why is that lost on so many people?

Second question: why is it that the people who think SOTG means Ultimate is happy-clappy-
fun-time are also the people that seem to be more likely involved in SOTG disputes?

I suppose with a narrower view of SOTG, you're bound to have a more selective standard,
and you'll face spirited teams that they find 'unspirited'.

Dugly,

re: your scenario

You've put words in my mouth. I said that while allowed, it would be somewhat poor
etiquette (which one might take to mean poor sportsmanship) to suddenly expect strict
adherence to time limits in a game that is a learning experience on both sides. I disagreed
that it is _entirely_ unspirited.

As for the rest of your argument (post 103), I think you're wrong on several counts. I'm not
going to continue discussing the time call, because as I've explained I don't think it's a
relevant example. I don't necessarily agree about popularity=more rules=less spirit, but that's
a larger issue that to me is beyond this thread. But back to the initial discussion: CF.

You say that CF is universally understood, and yet in this very thread involving a mere
handful of people there are several interpretations, even among pro-CF types. You go on
about mutual respect, and yet I'd say that your use of CF (which I think is "I think you might
be out, but I'll let you call it and let it slide if you don't") shows a lack of same. If you
aren't sure that they are out, why not respect that they (or someone else in a better position)
is sure and the lack of a call means it's IB? As such, I'd say that encouraging CF is contrary to
fostering respect. If you're going to argue that it's to educate someone that they should pay
attention to field position, why not simply explain that and respect that they understand?

If your take on CF is "I see that you're out, but I'm not going to be "mean" and I'll let you
admit it," then I don't see how that's more respectful than making the correct call and
clarifying the issue.

"You've put words in my mouth. I said that while allowed, it would be somewhat poor
etiquette (which one might take to mean poor sportsmanship) to suddenly expect strict
adherence to time limits in a game that is a learning experience on both sides. I disagreed
that it is _entirely_ unspirited."

As I mentioned, I don't even think it's a valid scenario. In such an agreed 'teaching' game,
extending the time between pulls to teach the game is not a violation. Thus the call would not
be legal, thus... wait why are we talking about this scenario again?

In a game that is not agreed to be a 'teaching' game, aka a 'regular game: Let's say Team A
has one player who has never played zone. You can't spend 5 minutes on the line teaching
him how to play zone. That is poor etiquette and poor spirit. It is unspirited to Team B, who
came there not to teach ultimate, but to play.

Teaching has its time and place. Like on the sideline, or occasionally (more frequently with a
lot of novice players) when both teams agree that they'll use the game as a teaching scenario
and stop play to explain.

Temple, clearly you wouldn't recognize spirit of the game if it swatted you in the head with a happy stick and danced a merry jig while wearing a name-tag and a kilt with nothing under.

I'm not sure if it's the height of arrogance or not, but I can't take credit for those definitions of SOTG. In fact, you'll find those exact statements, cut and paste from the VUL League Regulations. I handily linked it in my post, and here it is again for your reference.

http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/home/league/regs.cfm

Maybe rather than calling it "Dugly-SOTG" you can call it "VUL-SOTG"?

So rather than as you put it (again, this is a direct quote, this time of you) "What your saying is akin to 'despite what the *definition* of SOTG says, the definition of SOTG that *I* have says different, and my definition of SOTG overrules the accepted definition of SOTG that has persisted for decades'."

So by using the THE VUL'S DEFINITION maybe you can retract your statement about this being "a little arrogant", because right now you're coming across as a lot stupid.

Anyhow, unfortunately, with you having absolutely no grasp of what spirit of the game is, I'll have to exit and allow you to stew in your own juices. Unfortunately the name calling started and as we all know, these threads come to a grinding halt.

I'm sorry that you couldn't resist calling me arrogant, and blatantly misrepresenting my position. Fortunately I'm 100% sure I introduce more players / year to the game than you, so I'll wage my war for real spirit in the forum of actually bringing players into the game and teaching them my understanding of spirit rather than this forum.

But, you will tell all those new players that they'd better damn well know the rules, as knowing and following the rules is integral to SOTG....right?

Temple: "Your definition, let's call it Dugly-SOTG seems to indicate that "the basic joy of
play" is what Ultimate is "all about". That is a narrow view that the definition of SOTG simply
does not uphold."

Dugly: "Maybe rather than calling it "Dugly-SOTG" you can call it "VUL-SOTG"?"

I read the page you linked. Do you know what it said spirit was? It said spirit was *both*
what you wrote *and* what I wrote (though what I wrote *included* what you wrote in "basic
joy of play"):

VUL: "a spirit of sportsmanship that places the responsibility for fair play on the player.
Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual respect among
competitors, adherence to the agreed upon rules, or the basic joy of play"

VUL: "having fun, getting exercise, making new friends, and helping other players learn the
game"

Focussing only on the latter, and ignoring the former *is absolutely* taking a too narrow focus
on SOTG. It is *editing* SOTG down to Dugly-SOTG.

When I read that you wrote "ultimate is all about" it sounded to me like you were saying
"ultimate is only about". Certainly in the context of disagreeing that SOTG included adherence
to the rules, when you said "all about" and then neglected major components of spirit, that is
the impression I got. If that's wrong, I apologize.

When the VUL wrote "ultimate is all about" it was in direct addition to the "vital elements" of
SOTG. It was as additional guidance on SOTG, not an edited form of SOTG.

Dugly: "I'll wage my war for real spirit in the forum of actually bringing players into the
game and teaching them my understanding of spirit rather than this forum."

Teaching new players an incomplete view of SOTG, one which omits key components
(specifically the importance of following the rules, fair play, and healthy competition), is only
setting up those new players for failure. When they play a team that's using VUL-SOTG (aka
SOTG), they will find that those players are acting differently than the narrow Dugly-SOTG
suggests they should. They'll be facing teams who they think are unspirited and this will cause
problems.

--

Temple: "Is it your position that the rule shouldn't exist? If so, that's a valid opinion. But you
shouldn't assume from your opinion that SOTG demands that it not be called. That's not only
logically tenuous, but isn't it also a little arrogant? "

I stand by this statement. Though I do apologize if you feel I called you arrogant. That was
not my intention. I was trying to highlight that the line of thinking seemed like you were
projecting your ethos onto the game itself. I asked if that was a little arrogant, but perhaps I
should have used a word that jumped off the page less.

If you think the fact that you don't like that rule makes it unspirited to call it, when there's
*nothing* in any definition of SOTG to back that up, then I have to wonder what is it that
makes you assume you're right and all of the definitions of SOTG are wrong?

Please re-read my posts and see if you can understand them.

NOWHERE did I suggest that the rule shouldn't exist. Try and find one tiny shred of evidence of that. Once again you just make garbage up to try and feel right.

1) You said there's no such thing as a rule that is unspirited to call in any scenario

2) I contrived a scenario in which there's a rule that's unspirited to call. I went to great length to explain this was a contrived scenario.

3) You say "It's spirited because the definition of spirit is that it's in the rules" (which is flat out wrong, but there's absolutely no way to teach you spirit of the game on an internet forum)

4) You suggest that I don't like the rule and call me arrogant (despite the lengths I went out to point out it was a contrived scenario)

This shows a completely lack of understanding and comprehension of the issue. The repeated attempts to divert from the actual points shows that you clearly don't even understand the core part of the argument, let a lone the actual points being made.

Trying to divert from the fact that you're wrong, and have been proven wrong isn't going to win you the argument. Even Gin-Boh agrees that it's poor etiquette (which in my book is just as good as saying it's dispirited, although he/she disagrees) You made a simple statement, I proved it wrong. Done.

Nobody said the rule shouldn't exist except you. You then proceed to start the name calling.

You clearly don't even understand the posts I've made, so there's no point to repeating them. There's no point to trying to correct you as you just follow some other imaginary thread of discussion. You clearly don't understand spirit (I'm not saying you can't repeat a definition posted on the internet. I'm saying you do NOT understand Spirit), and this is absolutely not a place to teach it.

Your-Mom:

I even hand out printed copies of the actual rules to new players and when calls are made I show them the actual rule.

Got timed out on my longer response.

What if mutual respect and competitive play are actually incompatible? You have to put your
needs ahead of others to be competitive. This requires that you have less respect for their needs
than your own. As soon as you categorize someone as an 'Other' and engage in an Us and Them
activity, respect for their desires must be subsumed by your own wants.

"NOWHERE did I suggest that the rule shouldn't exist. Try and find one tiny shred of evidence
of that. Once again you just make garbage up to try and feel right."

While we're noticing what we've written, could you notice that I never suggested you did?
There was nothing made up. I asked if you thought the rule shouldn't exist (twice). The
sentence above was the first answer to that question.

Now I have a follow-ups: Why should the rule exist? Is it ever 'spirtied' under your
understanding of spirit to call that rule? What's the difference between the 'spirited' calls of
that rule and the 'unspirited' calls of that rule? (Remember, we're only talking about times
where the rule is called validly, ie not in a game where it's agreed that breaks will be taken
to teach).

--

Dugly, I think it's obvious that you feel SOTG dictates you not adhere to the rules under
certain occasions. I think that you suggest SOTG means not adhering to the rules if the other
person won't have fun by adhering to the rules. Please correct me if I'm wrong on either of
those.

We'll have to disagree on that. I've had experience where, when two people play with
different ideas of 'how the game should be played' (SOTG), then problems arise. If
everybody shared the exact same SOTG notion as you, it would work great! However, yours
is a 'homegrown' sentiment (which may or may not be better than the official SOTG), as such
not everybody is going to share that ethos of 'how the game should be played'. This will
result in troubles when they play somebody who might be using the official SOTG.

I believe that in a self-refereed sport, it's essential that everybody play fairly. Everybody
playing fair would mean sharing the same rules of the game and guiding principles of
sportsmanship. I believe the long-standing definitions of SOTG agree with both of those
statements.

Keam: "Got timed out on my longer response."

Honestly, I feel for you. The back button works for me lately, but I remember when this was
not the case. Still I try to select all and copy before posting. Ah well.

Keam: "What if mutual respect and competitive play are actually incompatible? You have to
put your needs ahead of others to be competitive. This requires that you have less respect for
their needs than your own. As soon as you categorize someone as an 'Other' and engage in an
Us and Them activity, respect for their desires must be subsumed by your own wants."

I don't think mutual respect and competitive play are incompatible. The founding principle of
our sport, SOTG, also suggests they are compatible, even necessary.

When playing competitively you do not "put your needs ahead of others to be competitive".
That could only be true of the 'needs of others' included winning or a requirement of other
behaviour which is not part of our sport.

If your 'needs' require that the other team act differently than every team agrees to act when
they join (SOTG), then that's an unrealistic expectation. If anything that shows a lack of
respect to the team you're facing.

One team may 'need' that the other never call "OB", because "it's his call". Another team
may not share that 'need', but they may 'need' that you not ask them to pull within a
reasonable time. Another team may 'need' that you play a 'spirit' game after the match.
Another team may 'need' that you allow a certain amount of fouling between the marker and
thrower. Yet another team may 'need' that you allow them to play 5 guys and 2 girls, and
match gender.

Do you see how every team may have different 'needs', and under that thinking, if a team
doesn't satisfy their specific needs, then the other team is seen as 'unspirited'?

Well, it's impossible to satisfy the custom 'needs' of every team. Not only that, but it's
unfair, and disrespectful to impose those 'needs' on another team when you have no right to.

The only 'needs' of an opponent you must respect are the ones we've all agreed upon before
starting the game. That's SOTG as defined by our League. That includes adherence to the
rules, and fair play. Requiring your opponent to act otherwise (without their agreement before
hand) is imposing a unilateral 'captain's clause' and is quite disrespectful.

"What if mutual respect and competitive play are actually incompatible? You have to put your needs ahead of others to be competitive."

And this is why ultimate, as a self-refereed sport, will never be in the olympics or garner more professional status.

Oh yeah. I just went there.

"I don't think mutual respect and competitive play are incompatible. The founding principle of
our sport, SOTG, also suggests they are compatible, even necessary."

Yes. I understand. I'm suggesting this founding principle may have a fundamental error. It
may be better to address the reality that competitive play involves a lessening of respect for
your opponents. It certainly makes the need for observers in high level play more
understandable. Competition requires an 'Other' (in the philosophical sense). "Others' are
never accorded the same respect we have for those within our group, be it a tribe, a team, or
a company. At the most extreme levels of competition (war) we invariably see a near
complete lack of respect for our enemies/opponents. That's how we make it acceptable to
take their lives. It's the same conundrum writ large, but the principle is the same in even the
least important competitions. I think this reality needs to be acknowledged in the debate over
'check feet' to move forward. The idea that all calls are 'equally valid' is a nice sentiment,
but no human can actually manifest this attitude during competition.

CK,

I disagree that mutual respect and competitive play are incompatible. Even if competitiveness requires you to put your needs ahead of others', it does not require you to abandon or ignore others' needs. Just because you have more respect for your own needs than for theirs doesn't mean you have no respect for theirs. Each side can respect the other side even if the balance on each side isn't perfect.

Keam: " "Others' are never accorded the same respect we have for those within our group, be
it a tribe, a team, or a company."

I disagree. I do agree that many feel this way and even that there's been a negative trend
towards this, but I disagree that it "never" happens.

Keam: "The idea that all calls are 'equally valid' is a nice sentiment, but no human can
actually manifest this attitude during competition."

I have played with and against a very great many people that manifest that attitude.

As an example. I may be very competitive when I play chess (I don't actually play). I may
want to win so bad I can taste it. It may be an obsession for me. However, that wouldn't
mean I would want to cheat or that I would want somebody to allow me to retract my move
after I take my hand off it. To me that would not be chess, to me winning a game of chess is
much more valuable than having a win recorded in my game of chess (do you see the
difference?). A great many people would feel the same way. A great many people wouldn't
feel that way, they'd want to 'win' more than they'd want to 'win at chess'.

Really all it takes to manifest that attitude is to believe it. As soon as you can think 'that
looked way wrong to me, but it's a perfectly valid call, the *best* solution is BTT', you'll find
ultimate becomes much more enjoyable. So many of those people that you used to think
were 'unspirited' for making a legal call, no longer seem 'unspirited' to you. That leads to a
noticeable decrease in your perceived 'unspiritedness' of the games you play.

On the contrary, you could keep believing that 'that call was legal but unspirited, that guy is
no fun to play against', but how is that better?

"Each side can respect the other side even if the balance on each side isn't perfect."

Sure they can, but that's not mutual respect.

def: Having the same relationship each to the other

"As soon as you can think 'that looked way wrong to me, but it's a perfectly valid call, the
*best* solution is BTT',"

A workable solution, but not an example of mutual respect. By questioning the call you are
according the 'caller' less respect than the self-respect you are manifesting by expecting your
BTT call to stand. If all calls were equally valid , one could 'contest the contest' ad infinitum.

Ultimate has a built-in bias w/r/t calls and always affords the contester's wishes more respect
than the caller's wishes. Your example illustrates very well what I'm talking about. In any
power relationship an imbalance can be found. Despite the laudable intent of the SOTG
principles, we are forced to confront reality with one of the foundational aspects of the game
(call and contest) and give the benefit of the doubt not to the caller, but to the contester.

With that in mind, I think we can better discuss problems with calls such as check feet (or OB
calls in general)... by not making the false assumption that all calls have equal power on the
field, or that mutual respect and competition are possible.

(I don't think it's a TEOTWAWKI kind of failing or anything like that, but I think it's important
to recognize the very act of keeping score forces compromises with SOTG as we like to
understand it)

Sorry, CK, but I don't see how your definition applies. To my understanding, "mutual" means something like "that is common to all involved parties." I don't take it to mean that everything has to be identical. For example, an arrangement that is mutually beneficial could involve one poor party retain their premises and thus their livelihood while the other wealthy party makes an additional profit. The benefit is not identical to each party, either in its nature or in its scale or importance, but it remains mutually beneficial. The mutuality in opposing ulti players is that they respect one another (among other things.) The level of respect need not be identical, either to one another or to the respect for other things/ideas etc. As a result, respectful competition is possible, and BTT is mutually respectful: A respects that B's perspective and thus the call is valid, and B respects A's right to disagree based on their perspective and request a do-over. When one party claims that the other's call is BS, then you have lost mutual respect.

And what on earth is TEOTWAWKI?

It's not my definition. I used an online dictionary.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutual

The 'usage note' at the bottom addresses your 'common to all parties' p.o.v. and to my mind
reinforces the idea that whatever is 'common' is the same for all. Looking at the old meaning
for commons, we see that all parties had equal rights to use of the land. The 'tragedy of the
commons' points to our tendency to abuse the notion.

When something is of mutual benefit both are benefiting. The issue is one of quality not
quantity. Both sides are satisfied that they got a fair deal. If that's not the case, then it's not
a case of mutual benefit. When the call is BTT the caller doesn't get the benefit of the doubt,
but the contester does. The contester's wishes are given precedence over the caller due to an
innate power imbalance. The caller HAS to respect the contester's p.o.v. It's not necessary for
the contester to have any respect for the caller's p.o.v. If they do so fine, but the respect
requirement isn't mutual. If they respected it (the call) as much as their own (pov) they
wouldn't contest. The respect isn't mutual.

Having looked at your dictionary, I stick by my opinion that mutual doesn't mean "exactly the same." Your definition refers to mutual animosity: does that require that both harbour exactly the same degree of animosity? It also mentions the term "a mutual friend": does that require that the closeness of the friendships be identical? Similarly, competitors can respect each other to a different degree (or respect their opponent to a different degree than they respect something/someone else), yet there still exists mutual respect. I agree that whatever is common is the same for all; what is the same is the presence of respect for the other. Perhaps you'd rather extend the phrase to "mutually present respect?"

I'm getting the impression that you are keeping your blinders on as you look at the specific example of BTT. Yes, it's true that the contester might not respect the call in contesting it and prompting a do-over, but is it not possible that they do respect the call, but have a different interpretation of the event, based on their different sensory input? And even if the contester doesn't respect that one call, does it necessarily mean that they can have no respect for the caller in the larger picture? Is it not possible for someone to think "I think Bob is a great person and a great, upstanding player, but he excercised terrible judgement in making that call"?

I maintain that mutual respect and competition are not, um, mutually exclusive.

"I'm getting the impression that you are keeping your blinders on as you look at the specific
example of BTT."

No, I think we're just getting bogged down in semantics. What I really wanted to do was
explore the idea that maybe the very concept of highly-competitive-mutually-respecting play
is questionable. If as Temple suggests (and I agree) that cheating is a form of disrespect for
your opponent, then it becomes clear that disrespect for your opponent is rampant (in all
sports) from doping athletes to diving soccer players to football lineman holding the jerseys of
their opponents, and so on. Because we assume no one cheats, it's easy to cheat in ultimate.
If the stakes become high enough, I expect we may see it occur.

It seems to me that attempts at cheating/rule-breaking are so common in so many sports
(this is why we have refs/umpires/what-have-you in many sports after all) at so many levels
that to assume we don't have to deal with it in Ultimate because we have rules against it,
might be detrimental to the sport as it grows in popularity. I don't think anyone wants to see
the founding principles take a back seat to competitive behaviour. To deal with that, we need
to acknowledge it could happen and question our own preconceptions.

Keam: "Because we assume no one cheats, it's easy to cheat in ultimate."

No that's not correct. It's easy to cheat in ultimate because it's a self-refereed sport.

Many people assume others are cheating, and it has no effect on their ability to cheat. The
only thing assuming that can do is affect your own enjoyment of the game. You have a
choice, to assume that those are cheating and enjoy ultimate less, or you can assume that
people aren't cheating and enjoy ultimate more. Either way, you're not going to affect the
amount of cheating.

SOTG is the only thing that can prevent cheating. If you think (as I do) that cheating is on
the rise in ultimate (though not exactly rampant), wouldn't that be a great reason to heighten
awareness of SOTG?

It's not going to help things if you create and teach others an edited form of SOTG. That will
only increase the amount of 'perceived' cheating.

Hi By Hi

Wow I missed a lot. I thought it was all done when someone mentioned that this horse was beaten and rotten.

Temple, I think your are very good with the rule book. But I feel that your idea of SOTG is warped. I am not suggesting that SOTG = "happy fun time", but SOTG mentions three things, respect, rules, and joy.

In certain situations, when calls are made, regardless of their validity, the three are certain to be out of balance. This causes poor spirit. It doesn't matter if he or she thinks the call is made with 100% accuracy or 1% accuracy, when one of the three elements takes a sacrifice or precedence at the expense of the others, the spirit of that call is in question.

I don't think cheating is on the rise, but rather people pulling rule books outta their butts and calling calls that are so minor is what makes me itch. Er... That's getting off topic, but simply put... The outcome of what one team thinks of the other team's spirit is not by how well they followed the rules, but how they balanced respect, rules, and joy.

Right Temple. I have no quarrel with your assertions except the one that competition+respect
is a default attitude in sports. What if SOTG has a irreconcilable issue at its core? If cheating
is disrespectful and there's cheating in all sports (I think we've established those as givens)
and further, the higher the level of competition the greater the incentive to cheat, there is
going to be problems when we assume ensuring highly competitive, mutually respectful play
is as simple as just believing it to be possible.

Not trying to win an argument here, just hoping to get people thinking about the issue in
global terms from a new perspective. Maybe the reason SOTG is waning (cheating on the
rise) is systemic rather than a failing of integrity on the part of individuals? Presuming we got
it (defining SOTG) exactly right and that it never needs to be re-evaluated prevents us from
considering the full range of options.

I should point out that in re-reading the VUL page on Spirit, I think I may have actually
written some of the "What is Spirit all about" info at some point way back when, so if that
rings true for you (one and all, not just Temple) then we probably agree on what Spirit sorta-
kinda looks like.

Further, the 'official' definition:

"Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual respect among
competitors, adherence to the agreed upon rules, or the basic joy of play."

is most laudable, but in the real world we see these admirable qualities ignored on the field
often enough that 'what is SOTG' is an ongoing debate, and for good reason. I would suggest
looking at the definition is a healthy and useful exercise in maintaining ulty's core values.

"I don't think cheating is on the rise, but rather people pulling rule books outta their butts and calling calls that are so minor is what makes me itch. Er... That's getting off topic, but simply put... The outcome of what one team thinks of the other team's spirit is not by how well they followed the rules, but how they balanced respect, rules, and joy."

HELLO! I understand where you are coming. I enjoy your last sentence and I believe it is absolute and truthful.

However, I do not agree completely with the first part of this paragraph. Cheating can be seen in two ways.

1. Is making a call and trying to stretch it. (That is, if you call something 'out' when you are not sure)

2. Or, you do not make a call... providing a sense of entitlement to cheating or allowance of the same behaviour (Cheating).

Note: I would agree with not making the call if you know the individual, and it was a honest mistake. Let it slide.

However, I do feel one should make the call to keep the player in check. Ultimate is a game with stingent rules (As in other sports) and there is punishment for cheating (Intentionally and Unintentionally).

The unfortunate fact is that if you are not playing by the rules of Ultimate. You are not playing Ultimate.

__________________________________________________________________

Now. I was following your previous message about the Out Calls. I want to quote exactly what the Spirit of the Game definition is. I feel we all need a refreshment.

"Spirit of the Game. Ultimate relies upon a spirit of sportsmanship that places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual respect among competitors, adherence to the agreed upon rules, or the basic joy of play. Protection of these vital elements serves to eliminate unsportsmanlike conduct from the Ultimate field. Such actions as taunting opposing players, dangerous aggression, belligerent intimidation, intentional infractions, or other 'win-at-all-costs' behavior are contrary to the Spirit of the Game and must be avoided by all players."

I will say one thing. Cheating. I will give the thoughts on the two possible calls: 'Out', 'In'.

1. 'Out'
a. The individual is 100% sure, with a line of site that is absolutely correct. (He makes the right call)
b. The individual is >100% sure. (He makes a probably wrong call).
- I believe reading SOTG (The individual should not make a call at all)

2. 'In'
a. The individual is 100% sure. (Makes the right call)
b. The individual is >100% sure.
- Again, SOTG - Individual should not make a call at all

Now if you throw the 'Check Feet' call. I believe it is absolutely unspirited. These are the reasons why:

1. If the individual hears it and doesn't acknowledge it because he already made his decision if he is in or out. This call is absolutely useless.

2. The individual stops or slows down. How is this 'fair/spirited' at all. You have just disrupted play and wasted time. If everyone followed or see the (Two call option: 'In' or 'Out [Assuming following SOTG (Make the call if you are 100% Sure)]) two outcomes occur:
a. No call is made. Play on. No disruption of play.
b. Call is made. Resolution to the problem. Worst comes to worst, back to thrower. Reset.

If you are sure if he is in or out. Call it. You are giving out your opinion. How the situation is rectified is about: SOTG.

"Note: I would agree with not making the call if you know the individual, and it was a honest mistake. Let it slide."

I will edit this on this reply. I guess. It is not necessarily correct. Make the call if it makes an impact on the game.

However, I do agree, that in some instances making a call doesn't make a difference and should not be called.

Here is a couple of examples:

1. When the individual makes is pivoting and moves his pivot foot by mistake and realizes that he/she did and move back to the spot, and doesn't use it to their advantage. A travel really isn't needed to be called.

2. A foul that has occured before the marker has started counting.

I guess the best way to describe it is that if you make the call, or not, doesn't impact the game by, making a legitment call, doesn't really need to be called. I hope that makes sense.

re: mutual respect =(?)= competitive play

Absolutely they can and DO exist together at the same time!

I spent time at/on the field during ALL of the finals (and 11+other key games) at Nationals in Wpg last month, and except for a very number of players I could count on one hand after a bad band-saw accident, they were both highly competitive and showed many consistent strong signs of mutual respect.

In fact, I saw much more mutual respect at the absolute highest level of Canadian Ultimate than I often see in these so-called "fun-filled" league games.

Hello!,

I think that your view of the respect/rules/joy balance is, well, unbalanced. You suggest that if a call is made that hinders one of the three, then it shouldn't be made. By that reckoning, if during double-game-point I clearly see that my opponent caught the disc OB instead of in the endzone, because he's unlikely to feel joyful that his team lost possession rather than won the game, I shouldn't make the call? Besides, if I did let it slide, I'd be enabling the joy, but ignoring the rules and ostensibly showing a lack of respect for their abilities by suggesting that he can't do better than to almost score. So how does that affect the balance? There are many other situations where a call that negates an apparent achievement will result in a lack of "joy." Does this mean that we should abandon calling travel, ob, pick, down etc? Again, doing that would create imbalance in your trio of "spirit factors" by ignoring the rules.

You seem to have a problem with people calling minor violations, but what is minor? Are you referring to calling someone out because they were only a little out? In that case you're going to have to stop calling OB entirely, because what is "a little" out? Hence the use of a line.

HELLO!: "Temple, I think your are very good with the rule book. But I feel that your idea of
SOTG is warped. I am not suggesting that SOTG = "happy fun time", but SOTG mentions
three things, respect, rules, and joy."

You did miss a lot. First, I was talking to somebody else, who cited a definition of SOTG that
excluded pretty much all of SPIRIT, except the 'happy fun time'. Second. I have *repeatedly*
been saying that SOTG is respect, fair play, adherence to the rules, and joy of play. I'm not
sure so far how our definition of SOTG differs...

I think, as Gin-Boh touched on, it's where that applies that we differ. It seems to me that
you consider 'I didn't like that, therefore it's unspirited' to be a valid component of SOTG.

Somebody else doing something you don't like is not necessarily unspirited!

I don't like when people huck it past me to the person I was fishing off of when I'm playing
deep. Is that unspirited to beat me like that? I think it's unimaginative and I don't like when
somebody does 'three cheers for those guys hip-hip-hooray, hip-hip-hooray, hip-hip-hooray!'
instead of playing a spirit game. Is that unspirited? I don't like when another team has 'lame'
music on their sideline. Is that unspirited?

The answer to each of those is of course no, it's not unspirited, even though my overall joy of
the day may be lessened by some amount. What is not lessened in those cases is my "joy of
the game".

It's literally impossible to only behave in a way that a team 'likes'. Further, each team will
have a slightly different set of conditions that makes them 'like' the game best.

I strongly feel that the "joy of play" outlined in SOTG is not 'making sure you do nothing the
other team doesn't like', it's that you *play the game* with as much integrity and respect for
your opponent as you can. Being sycophantic to your opponent or subservient to their every
desire is not respect, and it's also not part of the game that we all signed up for. It's not part
of SOTG.

"In fact, I saw much more mutual respect at the absolute highest level of Canadian Ultimate than I often see in these so-called "fun-filled" league games."

Glad to hear it. But, as you point out, respect is still an issue in our sport, just at another level.

While it may or may not be defeatist to try to change this, I prefer to try.

Also, I don't think that changing the definition of SOTG would be the way to prevent people from
ignoring SOTG. Not that changing the definition of SOTG would necessarily be a bad thing. But
until that happens, we all have to be on the same page.

Hi By Hi

"You suggest that if a call is made that hinders one of the three, then it shouldn't be made."

Not really. Ultimately, you are going to have to make the judgement on how spirited the other team is.

"By that reckoning, if during double-game-point I clearly see that my opponent caught the disc OB instead of in the endzone, because he's unlikely to feel joyful that his team lost possession rather than won the game, I shouldn't make the call?"

That's not what I meant. If the call is reasonable for the situation, then it would still be joyful and respectful. At that point, I would be sad about the outcome, and not at all the call... if it is reasonable. Again, it's how it is balanced right?

"Second. I have *repeatedly* been saying that SOTG is respect, fair play, adherence to the rules, and joy of play. I'm not sure so far how our definition of SOTG differs..."

Where it differs is you keep saying that all valid calls are spirited according to SOTG.

"I think, as Gin-Boh touched on, it's where that applies that we differ. It seems to me that you consider 'I didn't like that, therefore it's unspirited' to be a valid component of SOTG."

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough if you can define my definition as such. If someone calls a rule on me, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't dislike it either if it is within reason. I get touchy about SOTG. As I quoted from the above response, "all valid calls are spirited" when it isn't true, because valid calls can be disrespectful and un-joyful.

For example, and this is quite common, a guy who takes "additional steps" after catching because he is injured or just recovered from injury. He then gets constantly called travel. Instead of calling travel EVERYTIME, perhaps the mark should suggest that he take a few steps back, instead of calling travel and stopping the game. It is clearly valid, but it is disrespectful, because he can't. The injured would gladly take a few steps back. And I know that there's an "attempt to stop rule" and that too is only fruitful if it is within reason. What's within reason? If you balanced the three that make up SOTG.

HELLO: "For example, and this is quite common, a guy who takes "additional steps" after catching because he is injured or just recovered from injury. He then gets constantly called travel. Instead of calling travel EVERYTIME, perhaps the mark should suggest that he take a few steps back, instead of calling travel and stopping the game. It is clearly valid, but it is disrespectful, because he can't. The injured would gladly take a few steps back."

I'm afraid I disagree.

Whether the poor fellow is legitimately "stopping as soon as possible" in spite of his injury, or egregiously travelling because of it remains a debate in itself, perhaps best resolved on a case-by-case basis. Either way, I would never recommend taking a few steps back whilst the disc is technically in play.

Incidentally, I don't think I've ever encountered this situation. A "few" additional steps seems like a lot. I would think that someone having this much trouble stopping should sit out the game.

--> For example, and this is quite common, a guy who takes "additional steps" after catching because he is injured or just recovered from injury. He then gets constantly called travel. <--

Without trying to actually take away from your example...

The rules require that a receiver stops "as quickly as possible". If, because of an injury, that particular player needs an extra step or two more than someone without such injury, it's still entirely valid and allowable, assuming they're still stopping as quickly as possible.

So, the player shouldn't be calling travel in the first place. Or at least not after the first time and the receiver contests and explains, "but I need those extra few steps because of my injury".

I believe it would be unspirited for the player to call travel (again)... not because it's a place we should 'be nice/spirited and bend the rules for the injured player', but because that call is NOT supported by the rules.

=====================

And btw, it IS a travel for a player to back up a couple of steps because they think they moved too far after a catch. AND unspirited because it's an intentional violation of the rules. I certainly don't support that someone suggests that they DO.

I could imagine in this example, if the injured player was actually convinced that the right thing to do was to stop after the catch and then move back 2 steps, *every* time they caught the disc... perhaps they would get quite used to this action after a few points.

Imagine in their next game, playing another team, when a travel is called on them for moving after they've stopped...

"Travel"
"No, I moved back"
"Yeah, and that's the travel"
"No, that's the right, spirited thing to do"
"Sorry?... intentionally travelling is spirited? ... really?"
"That's not intentionally travelling..."
...

So, I'd put forward that this could be another example, not too unlike "check feet", where people suggest that deviating from the rules, is claimed by some to be the wrong thing to do because it's not supported by the rules and leads to confusing discussions, which others suggest it's the more spirited, nicer thing to do.

Firstly, I second Mortakai's post (137.) All of it.

"That's not what I meant. If the call is reasonable for the situation, then it would still be joyful and respectful. At that point, I would be sad about the outcome, and not at all the call... if it is reasonable. Again, it's how it is balanced right?"

If a call is valid, then it's made because a rule was infringed upon, which means that the call is reasonable for the situation. As such, any valid call is "joyful and respectful," so how could a valid call be bad SOTG?

CK,

I was thinking about the post you made and I think there's definitely truth to the conflict between self refereed based on mutual respect and competition. I know it impacts different leves of play differently and I'm glad to hear Morts report of the Canadian Nationals.

Mortikai, do you feel the same about the level of spirit at the Flowerbowl finals? Maybe rate for the last 3 years? I don't think many of us were at the Nats this year, but I have watched a few of the Flowerbowl finals and I don't expect much disagreement that there's quite a lot of what many would consider cheating at those.

This actually got me thinking about the whole discussion, and how when you proposed the conflict people immediatly just started arguing semantics. This led me to inspect the previous posts as well. It definitely seems that those that are heavily opposed to CF are far more concerned about the semantics of the discussion. Rather than understanding the points being made (for instance given an example of an unspirited play, arguing about the semantics of the delivery rather than understanding the point)

The constant focus on semantics really inhibits intelligent discussion here as there's always some ambiguity built in to the English language (see how convoluted the legal profession is, based on trying to remove this ambiguity)

Also according to the standards laid out by opponents to CF for "OUT vs CF" a travel call based on not coming to a stop quickly enough is impossible short of the person walking the disc around, as nobody but the actual runner will ever be able to understand what factors effect the runner's ability to stop.

Temple, once again you failed to actually realize that the posted excerpts of SOTG. Furthermore, of the 3 or 4 examples of unspirited calls which are valid by rules (a couple of which are much better than mine) you have yet to display understanding the issue, and have consistently poked at which words were chosen for the example. Without understanding there's no purpose to memorization.

For discussion purposes, perhaps the solution to the Check Feet discussion should be actually formulating a "Check Feet" rule. I would propose the following

Rule "Check Feet"

Check Feet is not a violation call and does not require action on the part of any person. There is no stoppage in play for a Check Feet call. Check Feet is a request from a person with quesitonable perspective, to any player with better perspective, to review the positioning of the player with the disc's feet.

PLEASE treat that as a discussion point. I know people will like or dislike the idea based on that person. but PLEASE do NOT reject the idea just based on the semantics of what I flipped out there.

HELLO!: "That's not what I meant. If the call is reasonable for the situation, then it would
still be joyful and respectful."

The definition of "reasonable for the situation" is completely arbitrary, except if you use the
guidance in SOTG, that all valid calls are perfectly spirited and thus perfectly reasonable.

HELLO!: "For example, and this is quite common, a guy who takes "additional steps" after
catching because he is injured or just recovered from injury. He then gets constantly called
travel."

This is yet another example of an invalid call! You are giving a situation where a player *did
not* travel, and then offering that as an example of how a "valid call" can be unspirited!
That's not the case!

Do you see how that case doesn't matter to the discussion? Do you see how nobody will argue
that 'repeated (illegal) calling of Travel' would be unspirited, *because it's not a Travel*!

I do agree with Mort, that it wouldn't necessarily be unspirited by the caller if he didn't know
the player was injured, or otherwise honestly though that the player was taking more steps
than necessary (even though the call would not be correct). I strongly feel that this particular
rule (like a few others), the caller has to give a large benefit of the doubt to the receiver.
Almost always, only the receiver knows if he's taking more steps than necessary (though
certain obvious cases can happen).

--

Dugly: "Rather than understanding the points being made (for instance given an example of
an unspirited play, arguing about the semantics of the delivery rather than understanding the
point)"

Pointing out how an example of 'a valid call being unspirited' is not a valid call is not
semantics. It's pointing out that the foundation of that argument is inapplicable to the
discussion.

I've yet to see one person give an example of a case where:

1) A player breaks a rule.
2) That player gets called on that rule.
3) The call made is considered unspirited by the agreed upon SOTG.

I've seen lots of examples that satisfy one or two of those, but not one example that has all
three.

Dugly,

To me, the semantics can be important in certain discussions in order to understand exactly what the other person is saying. As you point out, English has some ambiguity, and in many cases that ambiguity can lead to signicantly varying interpretations of the same statement. The focus on semantics isn't (usually) for the sake of semantics, but rather to clarify the points being discussed.

As for it being impossible according to the standards laid out to call travel, I fully disagree. Speaking only of slow-down travels (as opposed to moving pivot or turning), it's generally clear, and if there's an exception such as Mortakai suggested the resolution is pretty straightforward. You can bend the interpretation to support your claim, but that would be disingenuous.

"Temple, once again you failed to actually realize that the posted excerpts of SOTG. Furthermore, of the 3 or 4 examples of unspirited calls which are valid by rules (a couple of which are much better than mine) you have yet to display understanding the issue, and have consistently poked at which words were chosen for the example. Without understanding there's no purpose to memorization."

I'm sorry, what are you trying to say? I think you forgot a few important words. (That's not semantics, that's basic English.)

Regarding your proposed "rule," I'm not going to discuss its wording because in my opinion the "rule" is redundant and pointless. If someone is paying attention to the rules, then hopefully they'll be aware of the much more fundamental rule that every player is entitled, indeed obligated, to make a call if they have good perspective. In effect, you're "rule" is a non-binding request made in order to remind players of something that should be ingrained into them. After all, every player is a referee, and thus responsible for the correct application of the rules. It also inherently acknowledges that the caller has no perspective, and apparently doesn't respect the awareness of the other 13 players.

Dugly, regarding your new rule. It's completely unnecessary. There's nothing now that says
yelling 'check feet' is in any way illegal. In practice 'check feet' is far more passive-
aggressive than your 'rule' portrays it. It *is* often a symptom of the fundamental
misunderstanding of SOTG that goes something like 'it's his call' or 'valid and legal calls can
be unspirited'.

My question back to you is, how do you think defining 'check feet' in the rules is going to help
the situation that 'check feet' has so many different home-grown usages, all of which are
completely unnecessary if you actually follow what's written in the rules. If you want to push
a universal notion of what 'check feet' means via the rules, what advantage is gained over
having people actually use the rules to call a proper "OB"?

Finally, as written I think your proposed 'rule' is closer to the unspirited side of the equation
than spirited. That 'rule' would only be invoked when the caller *does not see the person OB*.
Effectively, it's suggesting that Team B can ask Team A to please stop playing Offense and
double-check that they are IB.

That would be unique in our sport. When making any Call, you are putting your referee hat
on. As a referee, your mandate is limited to calling infractions that you see (and choose to
call), not yell out warnings that 'something illegal might be happening'. If you extrapolate
that to the rest of the game it would be... unpleasant.

Imagine if I could yell out to another referee to "check foul!" when I see a handler likely get
fouled on a back-hand. My teammate could then check over the events that occurred and say
'oh yeah, foul!'. Same goes for a catch that involved some contact. Should I yell out "check
foul!" to my teammate to encourage that they see if they were fouled?

Those, like 'check feet' are projecting your 'rules authority' outside the jurisdiction of what
you've actually seen. Imagine if every player shouted out a request to 'double check what just
happened' every time they though a play was close (up/down, in/out, foul, fastcount, etc,
etc).

That doesn't sound like fun to me. The responsibility on making a call is on the person who
sees it. Spreading that responsibility around, or legislating actively called reminders of that
responsibility doesn't seem to make the game more fun.

Among the problems with your version of affairs Temple is this:

1) A player breaks a rule.
2) That player gets called on that rule.
3) The call made is considered unspirited by the agreed upon SOTG.

While 1, 2 and 3 have indeed all been met, you consistently mis-interpret SOTG as "except if you use the guidance in SOTG, that all valid calls are perfectly spirited and thus perfectly reasonable."

So because you are blinded by a misconception about SOTG, you fail to make the leap between 2 and 3. While this is a personal failing you have that I can forgive, you may wish to broaden your horizon.

I suggest you read the VUL's spirit page found here: http://www.vul.bc.ca/v3/home/spirit/

The first thing I want you to note is the first sentence of the Spirit section: "Spirit can mean different things to different players."

You have repeatedly discarded the notion that spirit can mean different things. In your pursuit of semantic perfection I know it's difficult for you overcome your narrow minded objective criterion. Namely that if it's in the rules it's de-facto spirited.

Then I'd like you to focus on the concept of spirit rather than your repeated chestnut about if it's in the rules it's spirited. Frankly you're just flat out wrong. Further proof of this (as if further proof is needed) is

1) You were to call an opponent out on a play
2) He yells back "I'm not you farking jag-off, I contest"
3) That's perfectly within the rules. After all, who are YOU to suggest that he meant offense? YOU have to assume that he's acting spiritedly, and who knows, maybe that's how he communicates with everyone. The RULES state that you assume nobody is breaking the rules. There's no physical play here.

So by YOUR definition this is perfectly spirited.

Yet ANOTHER clear example where any REASONABLE person would believe SOTG is being broken, but by TEMPLE-SOTG is perfectly fine. That's not a kind of Ultimate that I think I'd enjoy, nor would any one I've introduced to the game or ever played with enjoy.

Dugly.

I find it interesting that just after you say that Temple has a misconception about SOTG, you insist that SOTG can mean different things to different people. Weren't you just saying that Temple's idea of SOTG was wrong? I too have yet to see an example of a call that is valid and justified, and yet is somehow "unspirited."

Temple's not saying (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting him) that nothing not explicitly disallowed by the rules is spirited, as the rules don't address every possible on-field action. For example, I don't think there's anything in there that would cover throwing water balloons at your opponents from the sideline.

In fact, your example is specifically disallowed, or at least discouraged by the rules (namely in the SOTG portion of the introduction) in that it's definitely not treating your opponent with respect. At least, I'd have to assume that the tone in which your statement would be spoken would be disrespectful and suggesting offensiveness. However, you are correct that the call itself (contest) is perfectly fine, but the player's behaviour is not, and I doubt you'd find anyone who'd say that it is.

BTW, Temple has not said that the rules are the be-all and end-all of SOTG. Indeed, if you look at the following:

"Teaching new players an incomplete view of SOTG, one which omits key components
(specifically the importance of following the rules, fair play, and healthy competition)..."

You'll see that he lists rules-adherence as one of _at least_ three important components. He has said that a valid call is not unspirited (a subset of all that is good SOTG), not that only actions specifically disallowed are bad SOTG.

I thought Temple agreed in post . . . #95 . . . that the delivery of a call can be unspirited.

Temple is focusing very specifically on the application of the rules: that no instance of choosing to play by the rules or exercising one's rights according to the rules should be construed as unspirited.

I agree 95% with Temple on this specific matter, with a few outlier exceptions -- one being the matter of loopholes.

And Semantics once again rears it's ugly head.

Temple has indeed specifically stated that if the call is valid, that it is spirited. I'm not sure about your convoluted representation about "nothing not explicitly disallowed by the rules is spirited".

Temples interpretation is that there is no room for variance, while different people indeed have different conceptions about SOTG. This creates a contradiction, but really, you're once again just arguing semantics. I frankly don't care what Temple's definition is in the course of an internet forum. It's Temple's behavior in a game that really matter. You're welcome to try and prove that I'm semantically wrong, but that's really just an unproductive diversion from the concepts

My example is not in any way disallowed as you have zero reason to believe that the person is being disrespectful. You have absolutely no right to judge their motivation, and you have an explicit proscription from assuming they're breaking the rules. You have an obligation to assume the best (i.e. you have to assume they're not cheating) therefor given the ambiguity their actions are not unspirited using the narrow minded semantic definitions that Temple has put forward.

I would obviously agree that the action is dispirited. I believe we all do (I assume including Temple, but won't speak for him), but it's semantic proof that Temple is 100% wrong in his interpretations. Given his interpretations there is no logical way he can be right, and for that to be dispirited.

While Temple has stated that a call can be made in a dispirited fashion, his rational for other parts of his arguments have dissallowed that. So maybe he can clarify whether a valid call can be dispirited or if if they can't.

Why the problem with semantics? As I said before the focus on the words is for the purpose of being clear about what the points are. Apparently it's not working, as you are consistently reading very selectively and misrepresenting my statements and those of others. It's almost as though you don't like others' arguments so you villify them under the banner of "semantics" and then ignore what you don't like.

I said that I'd have to assume that the phrase you created would be said in an angry/aggressive/insulting tone, in which case it would be disrespectful and bad SOTG. As written it's so close to "f*cking jerk-off" that I can hardly assume it's innocuous, and I have assumed that neither is the manner in which it's spoken. I don't know why you insist I have no right to judge their motivation: if my assumption is wrong and when they speak it comes across as "of course, you're absolutely right to call that," then it wouldn't be disrespectful.

Dugly: "While Temple has stated that a call can be made in a dispirited fashion, his rational
for other parts of his arguments have dissallowed that. So maybe he can clarify whether a
valid call can be dispirited or if if they can't."

I thought we went over this and you agreed it was a separate issue from the one being
discussed (much as Gin-Boh and atanarjuat have just explained).

Temple (Post 95): "As with any call or other interaction, you can certainly
be a jerk about it if you try. The same applies for any rule: "Foul, asshole!" is unspirited,
even if it is a foul. In such cases, it's not the calling of the rule that's unspirited, it's the
overall lack of respect shown through the interaction."

Dugly (Post 96): "I agree that any call put like you suggest (Foul expletive) would be
unspirited, no matter what the foul is. However, that is a separate issue where it is dispirited
not because you are making the call, but because the delivery is disrespectful."

We don't disagree on that at all. I suggested that you can certainly make a valid call in an
unspirited way. You agreed and suggested it was a separate issue (which I also agree with).

Nothing in what I've written suggests that disrespectful behaviour *in addition* to a legal and
valid call is spirited. I've only been focusing on the discussion that a legal and valid call is not
unspirited in and of itself. I find it hard to believe how you can try to characterize my position
otherwise.

Dugly, the 'semantics' you keep referring to are at the heart of the issue. Your edited version
of SOTG, which does not include "adhering to the agreed upon rules of the game" is indeed at
odds with what I consider SOTG to be (which is the very definition of SOTG).

SOTG doesn't include adhering to rules because I say it does, it includes that because SOTG
says it does!

If you choose to interpret 'Spirit can mean many things to many people ... Spirit is the
following' to validate that your edited version of SOTG is okay, well, I don't know if that can
be resolved.

atanarjuat: "I agree 95% with Temple on this specific matter, with a few outlier exceptions --
one being the matter of loopholes."

I feel this way about loopholes: Loopholes are bugs in the written version of the rules. I don't
believe that the written version of the rule wholly encapsulates the rule (SRC intent and nigh-
universally agreed interpretation of the rule are equally important). As such I don't see
loopholes as valid 'rules'.

I'm not aware of any sport that has dogmatic adherence to the written language of the rules.
Only adherence to the *accepted interpretation* of the rules. There's an important difference
there. I would suspect few people would argue that the written language of the rule should or
does override the accepted definition of the rule in ultimate. Our rules are not crafted by
lawyers, there are innumerable ways to semantically interpret the language of almost every
rule.

Example: You and I both go up for the disc, you, having a much better vert, reach over my
head for the disc without making any contact with me, nor preventing me from jumping or
bidding on the disc. You simply are sharing the space above me. I then, hack your wrist
preventing you from bidding for it.

There is a loophole in the written language of the rules that says that is your foul. However I
do not believe that that is the rule. This was a problem that was caught late in the game
during the update to the 11th, and there was no time to change it. Nobody on the SRC
intended this rule to exist in this fashion, and nigh-everybody in the ultimate community
would agree that this is not the proper way to interpret the rule. To me, that means this
loophole is not a rule.

I realize this is grey area, and I realize my position on this can be seen as a self fulfilling
construct, however that's the way I see it. If anybody would like to say that my maxim of
'every valid call is spirited' is invalid only in the context of intentional exploitation of a
loophole, I'm ok with that.

No matter how many times you say that I suggested it, I didn't say that adhering to the rules wasn't a factor in SOTG.

I suppose the short version boils down to I believe that you can violate SOTG while still following the other rules. Consequently you can make valid calls that violate SOTG.

Your key counterpoint to all of the examples has boiled down to 'They're following the rules and following the rules is part of SOTG, therefore they are being spirited'

This contradicts the fact that spirit includes more than just following the rules.

Yes, you can violate SOTG while following all of the other rules. I don't think anyone has said
otherwise. That does not in any way suggest that a valid call can violate any aspect of SOTG.
That simply isn't a sound logical progression. It is actions made that are not addressed by the
rules that can lead to poor SOTG while adhering to the rules.

Also, nobody has said that because they were following the rules (presumably with the
exception of the aforementionned "you will play with respect etc." rule) they were playing
with spirit; it has been acknowledged that you can follow every rule to the letter and still be a
jerk. The statement was rather that playing by the rules was in no way against SOTG, as
SOTG is in part defined by adhering to the rules. That may be a fine distinction, but it is an
important one. Nobody has said anything that disagrees with the fact that spirit is more than
merely adhering to the rules.

Pages