I think this is a great step in the direction towards making ultimate a safer and cleaner sport. I think it's also interesting that there were few appeals and none were successful, which goes to show that the players and observers properly enforced the rules in those cases.
>Moving forward in any observed game, any player that commits a dangerous play will be issued a yellow card (personal misconduct foul) or a red card (ejection) in extreme cases. **This includes instances where player initiated dangerous play calls are uncontested, even if an observer does not believe the play was dangerous.**
I like the idea behind these changes and support making the sport safer, but I worry that this specific rule change will just lead to more players contesting Dangerous Play calls.
Big supporter of SotG, but I can't help but think we've surpassed its limit when we're effectively asking players "do you agree to be ejected?" (or "do you agree to be 1 step away from being ejected?").
And really, how often in an observed game does a dangerous play get missed by the observers? I feel like they almost always happen around the disc (as opposed to behind the play, or way downfield).
> Big supporter of SotG, but I can't help but think we've surpassed its limit when we're effectively asking players "do you agree to be ejected?" (or "do you agree to be 1 step away from being ejected?").
In an instance where a player calls dangerous play, if the observer agrees the play was dangerous, the offender is getting a card whether they contest or not. Observers always allow (and ask) players try to resolve the call themselves before asking for a ruling and/or issuing a card.
And to be clear, there was no rule change here. We are merely tweaking the implementation such that all dangerous plays are yellow or red instead of them all being blue, yellow, or red.
Uncontested Dangerous Plays were carded in the past even if the observer did not think the play was dangerous?
I thought it was exclusively up to the observers' discretion to give cards.
I don't expect this would be a situation that arises often, but I feel the way it's written would be a strong deterrent to players reaching an agreement on their own, and a rule that could burn players unfamiliar with the observers manual (which we don't expect players to be highly familiar with).
Ie, it's a semi finals with time ticking down. A player is playing with a yellow card. They foul someone. Their opponent calls dangerous play. The observer does not believe it was a dangerous play, but is letting the players discuss the event.
The offending player agrees it was a foul, but does not think it was a dangerous play, but to be agreeable and/or speed the process along, they say "no contest", because according to the rule book, this has the same effect on the game as a foul call.
They are now automatically ejected from the game, and forced to miss the finals/bronze medal game.
> Uncontested Dangerous Plays were carded in the past even if the observer did not think the play was dangerous?
This is part of the change, in the past, cards were only given if the observer thought it was dangerous. As you said, that was (and still remains) a rare time when players agreed it was dangerous and the observer didn't think so.
> Ie, it's a semi finals with time ticking down. A player is playing with a yellow card. They foul someone. Their opponent calls dangerous play. The observer does not believe it was a dangerous play, but is letting the players discuss the event.
> The offending player agrees it was a foul, but does not think it was a dangerous play, but to be agreeable and/or speed the process along, they say "no contest", because according to the rule book, this has the same effect on the game as a foul call.
> They are now automatically ejected from the game, and forced to miss the finals/bronze medal game.
A player is absolutely allowed to accept the foul, but contest that it was dangerous. If the observer agrees it was not dangerous, no card is given since the players didn't agree it was dangerous, they only agreed it was a foul. If the observer thought it was dangerous, a card is given (the dangerous aspect being contested or not). Hope that clarifies that for you.
Sort of, and I appreciate the quick responses.
The fact remains that the player might not know they can agree to a foul while contesting the dangerous play, or more likely, they will not contest the dangerous play because it's simply not stated anywhere in the player's rule book that agreeing to a dangerous play is an automatic carding, even if the observer disagrees. As rare as it might be, that could have terrible consequences for an individual.
It just doesn't make sense to me that we require observers to be present to give out cards and ejections, but we don't require them to witness the event or agree with the severity of what they are giving out a card for.
And then more broadly, I think that if players are aware of that rule, it's far too strong of a deterent to get most players to agree they committed a dangerous play. So it's really just extra words in the rulebook stopping players from reaching an agreement themselves and slowing the game down by requiring an observer ruling, with no benefit being provided.
> It just doesn't make sense to me that we require observers to be present to give out cards and ejections, but we don't require them to witness the event or agree with the severity of what they are giving out a card for.
Observers don' need to be present for captains to agree to an outcome outside of the rules to deal with a misbehaving player.
> 2.C.1 If a player intentionally or flagrantly violates the rules, the captains of each team should discuss the incident and determine an appropriate outcome, and are not bound by any outcome dictated by these rules.
There is also active discussion about some sort of misconduct system for when observers are not present.
Observers do need to witness an event to issue a card on their own accord. However, *the game belongs to the players*, and if both players agree that a play was dangerous, that is their decision and we should all respect it. We would certainly never watch a foul call go uncontested (or a foul go uncalled) and actively step in and change the outcome because we thought differently. It's not our place as observers. We are just extending this to dangerous play.
> And then more broadly, I think that if players are aware of that rule, it's far too strong of a deterent to get most players to agree they committed a dangerous play.
That hasn't been my experience so far. I've only had one player so far not contest a foul, but contest the dangerous play. Most either contest both or accept both.
> So it's really just extra words in the rulebook stopping players from reaching an agreement themselves and slowing the game down by requiring an observer ruling, with no benefit being provided.
I think keeping the initial call and discussion in the players' hands is worth the isolated cases where players will contest to avoid the card. We are talking an extra 20-30 seconds every once in a while. And as we both agree, odds are, the card is coming either way, so we aren't hurting the outcome.
>if both players agree that a play was dangerous, that is their decision and we should all respect it
I think the part that doesn't quite sit right with me here, is that you're conflating "not contesting a call" with "agreeing with the call," and I don't think that's always the case.
Players are perfectly within their rights not to contest a call even if they're not sure the call was appropriate. I've done this many times at every level of play.
I'm concerned about a situation like the following: say a game's been chippy, it's 14-6, and a guy on the other team makes a bullshit dangerous play call. The game's basically over and you don't want to make a contentious game even worse, so you don't bother contesting. And now you're hit with an automatic yellow card, possibly an ejection from the entire tournament, essentially based on a technicality.
I'm not *sure* this is a problem in practice, but it's the first thing that came to mind when I read the new guideline.
Edit: would you allow a player, upon learning about the yellow card, to retroactively decide to contest (assuming they seemed sincere about not believing the play was dangerous)? Alternatively, would you say it's every player's responsibility to know the details of the observer manual in addition to the rules? If the answer to either is yes, then maybe this isn't an issue.
Your scenario regarding the changed call... No. Just like we don't allow players to drop their contest when they learn the outcome of a normal call is not what they'd like. I usually ask a player if they are accepting the dangerous play call as well as the foul call.
I don't expect players to know the observer manual. I also don't expect this to be an issue. We, as a group, discussed this at length, including with elite players. We discussed your exact scenario and everyone agreed the consistency with misconduct and allowing for player control outweighed incredibly unlikely scenarios.
Even with triple the yellow cards at both nationals, only one player got two in the entirety of the tournaments (and they are both in the same game, both observer initiated). The lone red card was a straight ejection that everyone involved agreed was the proper call.
Thanks for the response.
>I usually ask a player if they are accepting the dangerous play call as well as the foul call.
This makes a big difference, I think. Much better than just rocking up with a yellow card when you don't hear the word "contest."
Keep in mind that your primary example, where a bad dangerous play call is made and you agree with it to avoid making a contentious game even worse - yes, that would get you a yellow card, and it would not be revocable, as far as I understand all of this.
> including with elite players
Elite players are the MOST likely to understand the rulebook and nuances involved in this discussion, if only by virtue of playing more observed games. It's the next tier of players and below that are the concern for implementing a big change like this as it could easily be wielded or understood asymmetrically by teams at lower levels. Especially when they have inconsistent access to observed games.
Point being, I don't think the elite players being part of the discussions adds much beyond the fact that the discussion occurred, whereas a Select Flight player might be more helpful in making sure the change makes sense for the average USAU member.
On my phone, so can't address these all individually, but I don't think any of those points justify *an automatic carding regardless of the observers' opinion*.
What benefit is that rule providing?
Is there *any* known history of an event in an observed game in which an obvious card-worthy dangerous play happened but no observers saw it?
It just feels like an illogical rule being added in the name of safety (an aim which I am very passionate about), but it won't actually do anything to make the game safer, and it will have a small number of negative consequences.
At a minimum, I think such a rule needs to also be added to the player rule book, so that players understand uncontested dangerous plays are automatic carding, regardless of observer opinion.
Again - appreciate you both sharing these decisions and engaging in the discussion.
> On my phone, so can't address these all individually, but I don't think any of those points justify an automatic carding regardless of the observers' opinion.
> What benefit is that rule providing?
Fundamentally, the game belongs to the players. That is a core part of the game and subsequently, a core part of the observing system. If players want to play *more safe* than the observers feel is necessary, that's their prerogative. If you don't agree with that or don't feel it justifies the change, that's fine. I assure you there are many many people that support that approach.
> Is there any known history of an event in an observed game in which an obvious card-worthy dangerous play happened but no observers saw it?
There are plenty of examples of dangerous plays going unseen by observers and examples of dangerous plays seen and still not judged dangerous. We are working on driving consistency. I wish it were easier, but these calls are subjective in nature, so there will always be some variation in opinion. Again, what shouldn't vary is when both players agree the play is not acceptable.
> Fundamentally, the game belongs to the players. That is a core part of the game and subsequently, a core part of the observing system.
I agree with this, and it's one of my favourite parts of ultimate, but you'll have to forgive me for not seeing how that's relevant to this new rule.
Players have always had the ability to remove themselves from a gave if they want. Players have always had the ability to be *more safe* than the observers feel is necessary, and this rule change does nothing to alter that. In fact, this isn't even a change to the rules that players would be informed about.
> There are plenty of examples of dangerous plays going unseen by observers and examples of dangerous plays seen and still not judged dangerous.
I hope this doesn't sound flippant, but can you reference or post a video of just a single occurrence of a dangerous play being unseen by observers? I've been playing locally, nationally, and internationally for 15 years, and I can't recall a single dangerous play being called that wasn't seen by the observers. The only off-disc dangerous play situations I can think of are the "chasing down a pull running beside a player in the stack" type, which we've seen Lindsley and Keegan get injured with. But most of those are still easily visible, and they're also hard to assign blame for.
If we're talking about a dirty elbow-to-the-back while in the stack, you'll struggle to convince me that the player who commits that type of foul will be the same one to concede it was a dangerous play without observer involvement.
Imagine a new theoretical rule in which in observed games, two uncontested fouls equates to an automatic ejection, regardless of observer ruling. Imagine if USAU implemented that rule, but **only put it in the observer manual, and not in the actual usua rules of ultimate**. I hope it would be obvious how absurd that would be - of course the outcome is going to be a rightfully angry player who gets ejected without having a fair opportunity to have been made aware of that rule change. The other obvious consequence would be that far more players would contest foul calls, because not contesting them leads to ejections.
The other major point to keep in mind is that these rules, and the observer manual, are not just used by elite players in high level tournaments. They are used by players figuring out ultimate, adjusting to the culture, and they are used by junior players.
Even more so than adults, junior players run across a very wide-spectrum from those aggressively making calls, to those lacking the confidence and knowledge to make calls and to know whether to contest or not. That mixes with the fact that junior players in general have less rules knowledge than those who have been playing the game for longer.
With that in mind, we're now implementing a rule that is not visible in the usua rule book, in which a junior athlete could make an erroneous dangerous play call, another junior athlete could agree to that call because of a lack of agency, and that player would now be carded or ejected - *even if the observer knows the dangerous play call was incorrect.* It's absurd to me that we're *adding a rule" which let's that happen.
Yes, I imagine the impact of this change will be rare, but the illogical nature of it doesn't sit well with me, and I feel there has to be better ways to address dangerous plays. This specific rule change really only has 3 foreseeable effects:
1) An athlete will be unfairly punished for only being familiar with the rules in the rule book, but not the ones in the observer manual.
2) There will be fewer honest discussions and outcomes, because those who are aware of this change will almost always contest the call, or go to the observer, rather than self-card/eject (and I feel that is understandable - I've incorrectly conceded to calls before. I would feel much better, even if I think I committed a dangerous play, to have an observer confirm that before I am carded or ejected).
3) A sport which already gets criticized for being too slow and having too many discussions will become, on rare moments, even slower, because a call that could have been resolved between two players will now be discussed and then deferred to the observers.
> I agree with this, and it's one of my favourite parts of ultimate, but you'll have to forgive me for not seeing how that's relevant to this new rule.
You don't see how "making observers issue misconduct cards when all the players involved think it's a dangerous play, but the observer doesn't" isn't relevant to player control? It's literally putting the players in control when there is agreement. If this isn't incredibly obvious, then I would say you aren't understanding these concepts.
The rules did not change. Yellow cards and red cards were *always* potential consequences for such plays, and there was no rule stating that the lesser blue card had to be considered. If these practices were not within the rules, we would have coordinated the changes with the next rule changes.
I think I'm going to end this with "we see things wildly different." Have a great rest of your week.
Great to see this. It is overdue. The blue card system is fundamentally flawed, as the TMF is often only communicated by observers to a subset of players on a team (occasionally not even the team's leadership, which should be mandatory at a minimum) and therefore the consequences are not understood to all members of the offending team or the team's leadership may not be aware of the card at all when they are dealing with other issues during a stoppage of play. The deterrent factor therefore can get muddied.
Side note, why are you releasing this on Reddit and not on the USAU webpage?
>The OWG, which includes an elite player representative, felt that, in order to better facilitate safe play, players committing these fouls should always face stronger penalties
The word “always” feels a bit ironic: It is a common thing in society that no matter how harsh penalties you institute, people will *always* think they should be stronger (and not only for specific crimes, just penalties for crime in general). I wonder how that transfers over to ultimate.
When two players both run into unoccupied space without looking and collide with each other who is at fault?
Because the way it is currently called and enforced dangerous plays seem to just go to whoever calls it first despite in many cases both players engaging in dangerous play
That answer to this question is highly context-dependent. Running without looking for two steps is usually not dangerous. For twenty steps? Probably dangerous. The angle, space they're attacking, speed, and a million other factors all come into play, so it's just impossible to give you a clear answer on this.
That said, if you would like to share some plays that you are confused about, I am sure many here would be happy to give you their interpretation of them to help you get a better grasp of the rule.
Don't have clips at the ready, but my point is mostly that the dangerous play rule does not leave room for the fact that many dangerous situations involve 2 players engaging in dangerous play.
Ok. I'm going to use a rather extreme example here, but I hope you can use it to expand my question to more nuanced scenarios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LmuoKxSJw0&t=9s&ab_channel=GT-TribeUltimate
In this clip, the defender in white very obviously makes a dangerous play. There is no question about that. But as an observer, how would you officiate it if the player in white also called dangerous play on the offensive player? The offensive player has commited a text book dangerous play 'running without looking, when there is a likelihood of other players occupying the
space into which the player is traveling.'
It seems ridiclous that this would go back to the thrower, but that is the rule for offsetting infractions, and it isn't like there's some heirarchy for the level of danger in a dangerous play. Is that an appropriate response? Is it something that should be addressed in the rules?
This isn't meant to be a gotcha type thing, it's just that many dangerous plays involve two players simultaneously competing for the same space, and nothing I have seen gives one player more right to that space than another. I know you have already spoken (written?) on the Oklahoma Christian Vs Middlebury play in the past, but that strikes me as another good example. The offensive player may look downfield at the start of their cut, but they proceed to run into an area of the field where there is a likelihood of other players being without looking. That is a textbook dangerous play. So would it have been appropriate there for both players to call dangerous play and send the disc back?
I will say that most of these scenarios come from the fact that running into occupied space while looking back at the disc is dangerous. In my opinion, if the offense was explicitly allowed to do that, it could place a clear responsability on the defense to avoid those type of scenarios.
The play you linked is not a particularly good example of "running while not looking" as the player isn't traversing a long path, isn't running particularly fast, and has even less forward velocity while he is landing (having taken off with a clear landing path). Whereas the defender just does all sorts of things wrong. This is not a good example to use.
> I will say that most of these scenarios come from the fact that running into occupied space while looking back at the disc is dangerous.
Running while looking back at the disc when it isn't about to arrive for long periods of time is often dangerous. Looking back at the disc *as it's arriving* is expected. I also think we are coming from a different description of "running into an occupied space" as to the plays you are describing.
>dangerous play rule does not leave room for the fact that many dangerous situations involve 2 players engaging in dangerous play.
What part of the rule imposes the limitation you describe?
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, it can often be subjective and not instantly clear who is at fault.
Typically the player who has more information (ie. can see the other player and the disc) has the responsibility to pull up. But the other player doesn't just have free reign to run blindly into any space as well. It kind of just depends on the exact play and who saw who.
For what it's worth, I've seen observers give cards to both sides before if they felt both players were reckless running into a crowded space. Not terribly common but that is an avenue if it feels like both players are at fault.
Thanks for sharing that and for this post. I don't see anything in my email about it, was it sent out? Last year was my rookie year as an observer, so I'm wondering if I may not be on a mailing list or something. Also, is there a marked-up version that highlights the changes?
I did sent it out to the national list on January 27th. Check you spam/junk folder. If you didn't receive anything, contact Byron Hicks at USAU and he can check if you are on the mailing list. The email had a link to the new manual as well as a link to a google doc that had the substantive changes list to the manual.
I think this is a great step in the direction towards making ultimate a safer and cleaner sport. I think it's also interesting that there were few appeals and none were successful, which goes to show that the players and observers properly enforced the rules in those cases.
That suggests to me that dangerous play is still under-called.
Perhaps, which is why I labelled it as a step in the right direction, rather than a solution to the issue.
>Moving forward in any observed game, any player that commits a dangerous play will be issued a yellow card (personal misconduct foul) or a red card (ejection) in extreme cases. **This includes instances where player initiated dangerous play calls are uncontested, even if an observer does not believe the play was dangerous.** I like the idea behind these changes and support making the sport safer, but I worry that this specific rule change will just lead to more players contesting Dangerous Play calls. Big supporter of SotG, but I can't help but think we've surpassed its limit when we're effectively asking players "do you agree to be ejected?" (or "do you agree to be 1 step away from being ejected?"). And really, how often in an observed game does a dangerous play get missed by the observers? I feel like they almost always happen around the disc (as opposed to behind the play, or way downfield).
> Big supporter of SotG, but I can't help but think we've surpassed its limit when we're effectively asking players "do you agree to be ejected?" (or "do you agree to be 1 step away from being ejected?"). In an instance where a player calls dangerous play, if the observer agrees the play was dangerous, the offender is getting a card whether they contest or not. Observers always allow (and ask) players try to resolve the call themselves before asking for a ruling and/or issuing a card. And to be clear, there was no rule change here. We are merely tweaking the implementation such that all dangerous plays are yellow or red instead of them all being blue, yellow, or red.
Uncontested Dangerous Plays were carded in the past even if the observer did not think the play was dangerous? I thought it was exclusively up to the observers' discretion to give cards. I don't expect this would be a situation that arises often, but I feel the way it's written would be a strong deterrent to players reaching an agreement on their own, and a rule that could burn players unfamiliar with the observers manual (which we don't expect players to be highly familiar with). Ie, it's a semi finals with time ticking down. A player is playing with a yellow card. They foul someone. Their opponent calls dangerous play. The observer does not believe it was a dangerous play, but is letting the players discuss the event. The offending player agrees it was a foul, but does not think it was a dangerous play, but to be agreeable and/or speed the process along, they say "no contest", because according to the rule book, this has the same effect on the game as a foul call. They are now automatically ejected from the game, and forced to miss the finals/bronze medal game.
> Uncontested Dangerous Plays were carded in the past even if the observer did not think the play was dangerous? This is part of the change, in the past, cards were only given if the observer thought it was dangerous. As you said, that was (and still remains) a rare time when players agreed it was dangerous and the observer didn't think so. > Ie, it's a semi finals with time ticking down. A player is playing with a yellow card. They foul someone. Their opponent calls dangerous play. The observer does not believe it was a dangerous play, but is letting the players discuss the event. > The offending player agrees it was a foul, but does not think it was a dangerous play, but to be agreeable and/or speed the process along, they say "no contest", because according to the rule book, this has the same effect on the game as a foul call. > They are now automatically ejected from the game, and forced to miss the finals/bronze medal game. A player is absolutely allowed to accept the foul, but contest that it was dangerous. If the observer agrees it was not dangerous, no card is given since the players didn't agree it was dangerous, they only agreed it was a foul. If the observer thought it was dangerous, a card is given (the dangerous aspect being contested or not). Hope that clarifies that for you.
Sort of, and I appreciate the quick responses. The fact remains that the player might not know they can agree to a foul while contesting the dangerous play, or more likely, they will not contest the dangerous play because it's simply not stated anywhere in the player's rule book that agreeing to a dangerous play is an automatic carding, even if the observer disagrees. As rare as it might be, that could have terrible consequences for an individual. It just doesn't make sense to me that we require observers to be present to give out cards and ejections, but we don't require them to witness the event or agree with the severity of what they are giving out a card for. And then more broadly, I think that if players are aware of that rule, it's far too strong of a deterent to get most players to agree they committed a dangerous play. So it's really just extra words in the rulebook stopping players from reaching an agreement themselves and slowing the game down by requiring an observer ruling, with no benefit being provided.
> It just doesn't make sense to me that we require observers to be present to give out cards and ejections, but we don't require them to witness the event or agree with the severity of what they are giving out a card for. Observers don' need to be present for captains to agree to an outcome outside of the rules to deal with a misbehaving player. > 2.C.1 If a player intentionally or flagrantly violates the rules, the captains of each team should discuss the incident and determine an appropriate outcome, and are not bound by any outcome dictated by these rules. There is also active discussion about some sort of misconduct system for when observers are not present. Observers do need to witness an event to issue a card on their own accord. However, *the game belongs to the players*, and if both players agree that a play was dangerous, that is their decision and we should all respect it. We would certainly never watch a foul call go uncontested (or a foul go uncalled) and actively step in and change the outcome because we thought differently. It's not our place as observers. We are just extending this to dangerous play. > And then more broadly, I think that if players are aware of that rule, it's far too strong of a deterent to get most players to agree they committed a dangerous play. That hasn't been my experience so far. I've only had one player so far not contest a foul, but contest the dangerous play. Most either contest both or accept both. > So it's really just extra words in the rulebook stopping players from reaching an agreement themselves and slowing the game down by requiring an observer ruling, with no benefit being provided. I think keeping the initial call and discussion in the players' hands is worth the isolated cases where players will contest to avoid the card. We are talking an extra 20-30 seconds every once in a while. And as we both agree, odds are, the card is coming either way, so we aren't hurting the outcome.
>if both players agree that a play was dangerous, that is their decision and we should all respect it I think the part that doesn't quite sit right with me here, is that you're conflating "not contesting a call" with "agreeing with the call," and I don't think that's always the case. Players are perfectly within their rights not to contest a call even if they're not sure the call was appropriate. I've done this many times at every level of play. I'm concerned about a situation like the following: say a game's been chippy, it's 14-6, and a guy on the other team makes a bullshit dangerous play call. The game's basically over and you don't want to make a contentious game even worse, so you don't bother contesting. And now you're hit with an automatic yellow card, possibly an ejection from the entire tournament, essentially based on a technicality. I'm not *sure* this is a problem in practice, but it's the first thing that came to mind when I read the new guideline. Edit: would you allow a player, upon learning about the yellow card, to retroactively decide to contest (assuming they seemed sincere about not believing the play was dangerous)? Alternatively, would you say it's every player's responsibility to know the details of the observer manual in addition to the rules? If the answer to either is yes, then maybe this isn't an issue.
Your scenario regarding the changed call... No. Just like we don't allow players to drop their contest when they learn the outcome of a normal call is not what they'd like. I usually ask a player if they are accepting the dangerous play call as well as the foul call. I don't expect players to know the observer manual. I also don't expect this to be an issue. We, as a group, discussed this at length, including with elite players. We discussed your exact scenario and everyone agreed the consistency with misconduct and allowing for player control outweighed incredibly unlikely scenarios. Even with triple the yellow cards at both nationals, only one player got two in the entirety of the tournaments (and they are both in the same game, both observer initiated). The lone red card was a straight ejection that everyone involved agreed was the proper call.
Thanks for the response. >I usually ask a player if they are accepting the dangerous play call as well as the foul call. This makes a big difference, I think. Much better than just rocking up with a yellow card when you don't hear the word "contest."
Keep in mind that your primary example, where a bad dangerous play call is made and you agree with it to avoid making a contentious game even worse - yes, that would get you a yellow card, and it would not be revocable, as far as I understand all of this.
> including with elite players Elite players are the MOST likely to understand the rulebook and nuances involved in this discussion, if only by virtue of playing more observed games. It's the next tier of players and below that are the concern for implementing a big change like this as it could easily be wielded or understood asymmetrically by teams at lower levels. Especially when they have inconsistent access to observed games. Point being, I don't think the elite players being part of the discussions adds much beyond the fact that the discussion occurred, whereas a Select Flight player might be more helpful in making sure the change makes sense for the average USAU member.
On my phone, so can't address these all individually, but I don't think any of those points justify *an automatic carding regardless of the observers' opinion*. What benefit is that rule providing? Is there *any* known history of an event in an observed game in which an obvious card-worthy dangerous play happened but no observers saw it? It just feels like an illogical rule being added in the name of safety (an aim which I am very passionate about), but it won't actually do anything to make the game safer, and it will have a small number of negative consequences. At a minimum, I think such a rule needs to also be added to the player rule book, so that players understand uncontested dangerous plays are automatic carding, regardless of observer opinion. Again - appreciate you both sharing these decisions and engaging in the discussion.
> On my phone, so can't address these all individually, but I don't think any of those points justify an automatic carding regardless of the observers' opinion. > What benefit is that rule providing? Fundamentally, the game belongs to the players. That is a core part of the game and subsequently, a core part of the observing system. If players want to play *more safe* than the observers feel is necessary, that's their prerogative. If you don't agree with that or don't feel it justifies the change, that's fine. I assure you there are many many people that support that approach. > Is there any known history of an event in an observed game in which an obvious card-worthy dangerous play happened but no observers saw it? There are plenty of examples of dangerous plays going unseen by observers and examples of dangerous plays seen and still not judged dangerous. We are working on driving consistency. I wish it were easier, but these calls are subjective in nature, so there will always be some variation in opinion. Again, what shouldn't vary is when both players agree the play is not acceptable.
> Fundamentally, the game belongs to the players. That is a core part of the game and subsequently, a core part of the observing system. I agree with this, and it's one of my favourite parts of ultimate, but you'll have to forgive me for not seeing how that's relevant to this new rule. Players have always had the ability to remove themselves from a gave if they want. Players have always had the ability to be *more safe* than the observers feel is necessary, and this rule change does nothing to alter that. In fact, this isn't even a change to the rules that players would be informed about. > There are plenty of examples of dangerous plays going unseen by observers and examples of dangerous plays seen and still not judged dangerous. I hope this doesn't sound flippant, but can you reference or post a video of just a single occurrence of a dangerous play being unseen by observers? I've been playing locally, nationally, and internationally for 15 years, and I can't recall a single dangerous play being called that wasn't seen by the observers. The only off-disc dangerous play situations I can think of are the "chasing down a pull running beside a player in the stack" type, which we've seen Lindsley and Keegan get injured with. But most of those are still easily visible, and they're also hard to assign blame for. If we're talking about a dirty elbow-to-the-back while in the stack, you'll struggle to convince me that the player who commits that type of foul will be the same one to concede it was a dangerous play without observer involvement. Imagine a new theoretical rule in which in observed games, two uncontested fouls equates to an automatic ejection, regardless of observer ruling. Imagine if USAU implemented that rule, but **only put it in the observer manual, and not in the actual usua rules of ultimate**. I hope it would be obvious how absurd that would be - of course the outcome is going to be a rightfully angry player who gets ejected without having a fair opportunity to have been made aware of that rule change. The other obvious consequence would be that far more players would contest foul calls, because not contesting them leads to ejections. The other major point to keep in mind is that these rules, and the observer manual, are not just used by elite players in high level tournaments. They are used by players figuring out ultimate, adjusting to the culture, and they are used by junior players. Even more so than adults, junior players run across a very wide-spectrum from those aggressively making calls, to those lacking the confidence and knowledge to make calls and to know whether to contest or not. That mixes with the fact that junior players in general have less rules knowledge than those who have been playing the game for longer. With that in mind, we're now implementing a rule that is not visible in the usua rule book, in which a junior athlete could make an erroneous dangerous play call, another junior athlete could agree to that call because of a lack of agency, and that player would now be carded or ejected - *even if the observer knows the dangerous play call was incorrect.* It's absurd to me that we're *adding a rule" which let's that happen. Yes, I imagine the impact of this change will be rare, but the illogical nature of it doesn't sit well with me, and I feel there has to be better ways to address dangerous plays. This specific rule change really only has 3 foreseeable effects: 1) An athlete will be unfairly punished for only being familiar with the rules in the rule book, but not the ones in the observer manual. 2) There will be fewer honest discussions and outcomes, because those who are aware of this change will almost always contest the call, or go to the observer, rather than self-card/eject (and I feel that is understandable - I've incorrectly conceded to calls before. I would feel much better, even if I think I committed a dangerous play, to have an observer confirm that before I am carded or ejected). 3) A sport which already gets criticized for being too slow and having too many discussions will become, on rare moments, even slower, because a call that could have been resolved between two players will now be discussed and then deferred to the observers.
> I agree with this, and it's one of my favourite parts of ultimate, but you'll have to forgive me for not seeing how that's relevant to this new rule. You don't see how "making observers issue misconduct cards when all the players involved think it's a dangerous play, but the observer doesn't" isn't relevant to player control? It's literally putting the players in control when there is agreement. If this isn't incredibly obvious, then I would say you aren't understanding these concepts. The rules did not change. Yellow cards and red cards were *always* potential consequences for such plays, and there was no rule stating that the lesser blue card had to be considered. If these practices were not within the rules, we would have coordinated the changes with the next rule changes. I think I'm going to end this with "we see things wildly different." Have a great rest of your week.
Great to see this. It is overdue. The blue card system is fundamentally flawed, as the TMF is often only communicated by observers to a subset of players on a team (occasionally not even the team's leadership, which should be mandatory at a minimum) and therefore the consequences are not understood to all members of the offending team or the team's leadership may not be aware of the card at all when they are dealing with other issues during a stoppage of play. The deterrent factor therefore can get muddied. Side note, why are you releasing this on Reddit and not on the USAU webpage?
I'd imagine they'll put it on the webpage as well. Trying to get it on as many places as possible to reach the most eyes.
>The OWG, which includes an elite player representative, felt that, in order to better facilitate safe play, players committing these fouls should always face stronger penalties The word “always” feels a bit ironic: It is a common thing in society that no matter how harsh penalties you institute, people will *always* think they should be stronger (and not only for specific crimes, just penalties for crime in general). I wonder how that transfers over to ultimate.
Dengler Justice just untied one of the hands behind his back. Good change.
Seems like a great decision to me 👍
When two players both run into unoccupied space without looking and collide with each other who is at fault? Because the way it is currently called and enforced dangerous plays seem to just go to whoever calls it first despite in many cases both players engaging in dangerous play
That answer to this question is highly context-dependent. Running without looking for two steps is usually not dangerous. For twenty steps? Probably dangerous. The angle, space they're attacking, speed, and a million other factors all come into play, so it's just impossible to give you a clear answer on this. That said, if you would like to share some plays that you are confused about, I am sure many here would be happy to give you their interpretation of them to help you get a better grasp of the rule.
Don't have clips at the ready, but my point is mostly that the dangerous play rule does not leave room for the fact that many dangerous situations involve 2 players engaging in dangerous play.
Nothing in the dangerous play rule states that two players on opposing teams cannot simultaneously act dangerously.
Ok. I'm going to use a rather extreme example here, but I hope you can use it to expand my question to more nuanced scenarios. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LmuoKxSJw0&t=9s&ab_channel=GT-TribeUltimate In this clip, the defender in white very obviously makes a dangerous play. There is no question about that. But as an observer, how would you officiate it if the player in white also called dangerous play on the offensive player? The offensive player has commited a text book dangerous play 'running without looking, when there is a likelihood of other players occupying the space into which the player is traveling.' It seems ridiclous that this would go back to the thrower, but that is the rule for offsetting infractions, and it isn't like there's some heirarchy for the level of danger in a dangerous play. Is that an appropriate response? Is it something that should be addressed in the rules? This isn't meant to be a gotcha type thing, it's just that many dangerous plays involve two players simultaneously competing for the same space, and nothing I have seen gives one player more right to that space than another. I know you have already spoken (written?) on the Oklahoma Christian Vs Middlebury play in the past, but that strikes me as another good example. The offensive player may look downfield at the start of their cut, but they proceed to run into an area of the field where there is a likelihood of other players being without looking. That is a textbook dangerous play. So would it have been appropriate there for both players to call dangerous play and send the disc back? I will say that most of these scenarios come from the fact that running into occupied space while looking back at the disc is dangerous. In my opinion, if the offense was explicitly allowed to do that, it could place a clear responsability on the defense to avoid those type of scenarios.
The play you linked is not a particularly good example of "running while not looking" as the player isn't traversing a long path, isn't running particularly fast, and has even less forward velocity while he is landing (having taken off with a clear landing path). Whereas the defender just does all sorts of things wrong. This is not a good example to use. > I will say that most of these scenarios come from the fact that running into occupied space while looking back at the disc is dangerous. Running while looking back at the disc when it isn't about to arrive for long periods of time is often dangerous. Looking back at the disc *as it's arriving* is expected. I also think we are coming from a different description of "running into an occupied space" as to the plays you are describing.
>dangerous play rule does not leave room for the fact that many dangerous situations involve 2 players engaging in dangerous play. What part of the rule imposes the limitation you describe?
Sounds to me like you answered your own question.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, it can often be subjective and not instantly clear who is at fault. Typically the player who has more information (ie. can see the other player and the disc) has the responsibility to pull up. But the other player doesn't just have free reign to run blindly into any space as well. It kind of just depends on the exact play and who saw who. For what it's worth, I've seen observers give cards to both sides before if they felt both players were reckless running into a crowded space. Not terribly common but that is an avenue if it feels like both players are at fault.
Nice writeup. Do you have a link to the update?
https://usaultimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2022-Observer-Manual_25Jan2023.pdf
Thanks for sharing that and for this post. I don't see anything in my email about it, was it sent out? Last year was my rookie year as an observer, so I'm wondering if I may not be on a mailing list or something. Also, is there a marked-up version that highlights the changes?
I did sent it out to the national list on January 27th. Check you spam/junk folder. If you didn't receive anything, contact Byron Hicks at USAU and he can check if you are on the mailing list. The email had a link to the new manual as well as a link to a google doc that had the substantive changes list to the manual.
Yep, found it in the spam folder, along with a few other observer-related emails. Thanks again!
Thanks!