Summer Board meeting recap

Last weekend the UPA Board of Directors met in Boulder for our annual summer meeting. This meeting is shorter than our winter meeting, and has only recently become a regular event for the Board. The meeting lasted one and a half days, and was a chance for the board to review proposals, get updates from the staff, touch base on committee work and carefully review the financials. In addition, an extra day was used to conduct in-person interviews for the finalist candidates for the UPA Executive Director position that is currently vacant.

The Board discussed and offered input on several areas of ongoing discussion, including eligibility questions (college and youth), sanctioning guidelines for roster violations, the current UPA policy on Observers, and the ongoing college restructuring initiative. These topics were discussed at length, and each one requires a post of its own, so look for more communication about these topics in the near future.

In addition to receiving updates on ongoing initiatives, the Board passed a couple of proposals at this meeting.
• A proposal was passed that covers how the Junior National team is to be selected. This proposal stipulates various priorities that the Junior National team coach should use in selecting the team, but does not make any explicit requirements on the composition of the team, leaving that up to the coach’s discretion.

• A proposal was passed that allows for the appointment of board members in addition to the regular elections. Please see my article in the upcoming magazine for an in depth treatment of this topic.

The Executive Director search is still underway, but is on schedule to be wrapped up by the end of the month. We are hoping that the new ED will begin by the end of July. Stay tuned for more information once the search is concluded.

Complete details regarding the summer Board meeting will be posted in the Board minutes, which will be available as soon as possible, but no later than the end of July.

-Peri

Using "Instructional Observers" During League Play

Right now, the longest active thread on rec.sport.disc is about the use of lined fields and observers in league play. Rather than create the 100th post to that thread, I figured I could add to the conversation by highlighting a proposal the UPA board passed earlier this year.

The proposal was entitled "Develop Instructional Observer Role," and it fits in nicely with the discussion of having observers at ultimate leagues. From the text of the January board meeting's minutes:

PROPOSAL 2009.22 – DEVELOP INSTRUCTIONAL OBSERVER ROLE
Submitted by Will Deaver in cooperation with Youth Advisory Council and Greg Connelly, observer chair.
Proposal wording: In order to realize the benefits of Observers in non-competitive and/or learning environments, the UPA will incorporate “instructional” training into its Observer Program. Instructional Observers will be authorized and encouraged to provide rules clarifications during competition, but will not serve as arbitrators or make active calls. Instructional Observers will be trained to help players continue play on contested calls within the rules of Ultimate and may also serve to announce time limits, keep score, and monitor conduct issues.

In beginner leagues (or at least leagues with many relatively new players), this type of observer would primarily be tasked with helping players learn the rules to the game. Leagues are the venue for many players' first exposure to ultimate, yet adult league teams rarely have coaches and practice time to help pass on rules knowledge to new players. In this setting, having people trained to help disseminate the rules during games makes a lot of sense.

In fact, one of the 11 strategies outlined in the UPA's current strategic plan is to "Improve Player Knowledge of the Rules of Ultimate so that SOTG and Self-officiated Play can Thrive at all Levels," which has a tactic to implement rules knowledge quizzes and certification for teams. I wonder if the two concepts of Instructional Observers and one certified "rules guru" per team could find common ground. So essentially, teams that wanted to participate in the UPA Series could have at least one player pass an Instructional Observing test online. This merger of rules quizzes and Instructional Observing would certainly help augment the numbers of people around the country available to help observe league games and learn the rules correctly. Perhaps, if this role were combined with the role of a linesperson to help settle "in/out" disputes, it could cover the needs of most recreational games.

Another strategic plan priority is to improve the observer system with "well-trained, highly regarded" observers for high-level competition. The role of Instructional Observers could also help provide training ground for observers looking to gain extra practice. Even without having to arbitrate calls, Instructional Observers would have to practice their positioning, get their rules knowledge tested in game situations, and be exposed to a wide range of plays and calls that they could evaluate for themselves--gaining confidence and proficiency at observing.

For the record, I think it makes sense to have different levels and types of observing for different levels and types of play. Players competing at the UPA College Championships voted for an increased role of observers at the recent event. However, it is not apparent that such involved, active observing is necessary or even desired at lower levels of competition.

--Gwen Ambler

----------------------
You can post a message to the entire board by commenting here (comments will not be publicly viewable, but will be read by the board), or feel free to send me an email about this or anything else at gwen.ambler@upa.org.