What is Player Control?

I've been weighing blog posts about a couple of issues that have come up recently. In response to the article in the UPA's most recent magazine regarding the UPA's policy on observers and the upcoming vote on rule changes for the UPA College Championships I had been mulling over my philosophy for the role of officials in Ultimate. And in response to the Oregon open team's actions at sectionals, their response, and the impact it has had in the press I have considered addressing that as well. Both topics certainly deserve some attention since they affect the way that the sport is perceived both internally and externally.

What I think is at the root of both of these issues is the way that the UPA currently defines the sport: "Player defined and controlled non-contact team sport played with a flying disc on a playing surface with end zones in which all actions are governed by the 'Spirit of the Game™.'" The phrase "Player defined and controlled...sport" seems open to a broad interpretation. Who are the players defining and controlling the sport? Is it the 14 players on the field at any given time? Is it some larger community of players based on the venue; a league of players for a league game, the UPA's full membership for series play, or the whole community of Ultimate players both in and outside of the sport? And how do you deal with situations where player control by the larger group of players comes into conflict with the player control of the 14 people on the field?

The Oregon "incident" brings this conflict into stark relief. The Oregon open A and B team chose to play a point at sectionals without being fully clothed. This resulted in their suspension by their University and the resulting widespread press, which ranged from the Seattle Times to the Yahoo front page, put the sport in what many consider a negative light. For me personally this has been difficult because I have spent so much time and effort over the past 8 years working to grow the sport at the youth level. A huge part of that has been communicating to parents, teachers, school administrators and others whose support is needed that Ultimate is a legitimate sport played by responsible athletes and that the misconceptions about the sport are just that, misconceptions. Don't get me wrong, I know how serious the Oregon Ultimate program is and the type of athletes those guys are, I've interacted with a number of them and have respect for them as players. But their actions have no doubt had a serious effect on many people's perception of Ultimate in a way that most Ultimate players (themselves included) are not happy with. A strict reading of "player control" might be that what the U of Oregon did was not something that the UPA should penalize or legislate against as it would impede player control on the field. A more broad interpretation where the players that have true "control" of the Oregon game at sectionals is the larger competitive Ultimate community represented by the UPA might be that the UPA should take corrective action to deter such incidences from happening again.

This same issue of "player control" is at the heart of the role of officials in Ultimate with one more additional element in play: the question of control over in-game actions. When we makes decisions about officials, what they call actively on the field and the extent of their use, who should be making those decisions? And is there a philosophical limit to those decisions, meaning can players in the broader sense (the larger community) have control over the decision only up to the extent that it does not encroach on the control of players in the narrow sense (the players on the field in a game)? If players want active travel and stall calls or full on referees does that reduce player control on the field too much? And what if the larger Ultimate community wants to see a game at a showcase event with more extensive third party officiating while the players playing in that game or event don't want that? Or what if the players in that game want more extensive third party officiating while the larger community doesn't because of concerns about how it will impact the sport as a whole?

I think these are difficult but central questions for us to answer as the sport moves forward.

Of course, in some cases, the UPA has already made decisions that have reduced on-field player control in some respects in order to meet the goals of the organization's membership. These decisions include:
- Uniform requirements at championship events
- Active line calls and time calls in games with observers
- Access to TV crews that some players feel is invasive

In order to start addressing these issues I suggest that the UPA and its players create a more robust framework for player-controlled decision making in different Ultimate venues. This framework should be in-line with the purpose of each event such that showcase events (like College and Club Nationals) that represent all of us that play to the broader world should be controlled by a larger body of players than just the participants - for example the series participants or the full membership. Here's my initial thoughts on how it should breakdown:

Event/Venue/Program.......Players with Control
Club Championships...................Full UPA Membership
College Championships...............Full UPA Membership
College Series..............................All Series Participants (by division)
Club Series.................................All Series Participants (by division)
UPA Sanctioned Leagues.............League Participants
UPA Sanctioned Tournies............Event Participants
UPA HS State Championships......All state youth Players (by division)
UPA YCC/Easterns/Westerns.......All UPA Youth Members (by division)
Official Rules...............................Full UPA Membership

This is only a partial list and a very rough draft at that but the idea would be that the UPA would help empower the groups responsible for the decision making to make the decisions through direct votes or a system of elected representation. Each group would also have representative conduct committee's (these could be ad hoc or standing) to deal with conduct issues that arise in that group and resolve them. The defined group of players would then be able to make decisions that are binding for the competition venue thereby meeting the broader definition of "player control." This would completely override the narrow definition of "player control" and leave open the option of greater third party arbitration if that's what the larger group of players decided. Of course, this could also potentially mean less third party arbitration at the showcase levels than what the participants at that level want if that is what the larger group of players that have a stake in the event wants. This would be a significant clarification in philosophy for the UPA and one that I think would allow the UPA to more easily make decisions on critical issues.

I will say openly that these solutions are not fleshed out and I would love feedback on both the concepts discussed in this post as well as the suggested solutions to these challenges. Because this would be a significant clarification I want to get more feedback before I would formalize any type of official proposal to the Board. Please comment on this blog for the entire Board to read (even though it won't appear on the blog for the public to see) or e-mail me directly at kyle.weisbrod@upa.org.

Thanks!

Kyle