deepdiscthoughts

I hate to sound too moralistic here, but I cannot believe that it's ever a good idea to retaliate with elevated violence and posturing when other players exhibit these behaviors. Yes, it's a natural byproduct of competitive athletics. Yes, it is SUCH an adrenaline rush to house some fool and then stare him down like you just stole his girlfriend. But as in life, so goes ultimate. Hate begets hate, violence begets violence. You don't "win" by being the last to make a witty insult, or by "tweaking him out of his game." This is essentially a selfish way to behave, as it ignores what is best for the team and the game itself. In the end, by engaging in this BS, no one wins because the overall experience of the game, the basic joy of play has been sullied. The only honorable way to win is on the scoreboard (that is, if we had one).

In my opinion, people who gratuitiously get their kicks on this sort of thing, AND those who thoughtlessly respond to it with more juvenility, should take up a less civilized sport. Cockfighting, maybe. Or baby racing.
 

No need to preemptively apologize for your opinion.

I would agree, overall. It is juvenile. It can be selfish.

I would mention, however, that sometimes your opponent's weakness is mental, not physical. Sometimes your team gets fired up when you do something stupid (Pro coaches getting ejected, for example).

I admit that in some way, I enjoy it. Gamesmanship can be fun and challenging. I wish that I didn't. But, I know that I don't go into games planning to play or act that way, because I DO think it is dumb. I'm not perfect though, and I have in my almost 10 years been a part of a couple incidents here and there. On the other hand, I think my team has won each of those games...

Perhaps I obscured my real question a little too much: Do you feel that there should be more explicit rules governing this sort of thing? Should each game, as it currently stands, be able to determine the level of this sort of things? My fear is that this leads to situations of implicit (or even explicit) acceptace for this sort of thing which will inevitably escalate at some point in some game where someone takes it too far.

Just mulling some things over...
 

I have often heard such a systematic response hypothesized, and have generally agreed with the need for such a rule-set to exist--however, quantifying each possible example is impractical (i.e. you may spike the disc, but not within a 5 foot radius of opposing players). In lieu of an empirical definition, we'd be stuck with yet another HUGE gray area in our rules (like marking fouls), into which I can only assume we'd continue to dump our individual interpretations, likely causing only more conflict.

The definition of Spirit is, in my opinion, straightforward and about as universal as it can be.

I am biased, obviously. As someone with a notoriously tenuous mental game, I find attempts to rattle an opponent's composure through any means aside from a superior skill at the game itself to be extraneous, and cheap, really. I'd much rather win because I was simply BETTER at ultimate, better prepared, more practiced, more skilled, even naturally more able, than to win because I was able to psych out my opponent. That would mean that, by doing something that has little to do with playing the sport itself, I prevented my opponent from bringing his A-game. If you think about it like that, it's almost akin to, oh I don't know, putting itch powder in his jock strap or something.

With all the Supreme Court hoopla going on, I find myself behaving like a judge. Perhaps the definition of Spirit should be expanded to refer to gamesmanship, but as it currently stands, I believe it is meant to exclude such behavior.
 

On a side note, I think you've got a good blog here. I don't know why it's so lonely.

The o/d dialogue was friggin hilarious.
 

I think that the question comes down to would you rather win the game by using gray area tactics, or lose the game and play without any?

I would venture that most players who make it to day 2 of regionals or so would go with the win. I'm not as sure about the larger group. As I've mentioned, I've been blessed by playing for good teams.

I definitely do my best to get a mental edge, or at very least not allow my opponent to have the upper hand. I've always felt that this is intrinsic to success in sports. My goal is to win the game while playing by the rules. If the gray areas leave me space to take advantage of my opponent, I will. I won't cheat, and if I feel it is wrong, I won't do it. I have a hard time with intentional fouls in other sports, and I enjoy Ultimate partially because they are verboten. Outside of that? Everything is fair game. Maybe this goes back to playing endless hours of pickup (insert sport here) where talkin' junk was the only way to be. Not really sure.

Thanks for the compliment. The fact that anyone is reading is a bit of a shock to me.
 

I'd pick the win, to a point. If I thought it would make a difference, I'd be fine with my team spiking, rushing the field, chanting loudly, screaming obnoxious things like "that's devastating" or "they can't stop that", giving your opponent a little stare-down after a chippy point, et cetera. My personal specialty is just being really condescending to people who try to argue with me. People rarely argue with me twice in a game.

But in my mind, there's a line between those things, and a whole other set of things, like getting in someone's face and yelling at them, being personally insulting, intentionally fouling/cheating, spiking on someone, or actually starting a physical altercation. Any of those things would leave a bitter taste in my mouth, even after a win.
 

I think I agree with Tarr for the most part here.

Personal specialty? Saying something under my breath on the sideline that seems innocent... a little while later, it comes back up in the player's mind and he thinks, "Wait... that didn't mean what I thought it meant..."
 

many interesting points here.

My first reaction is to the importance put on winning. First, even at its highest levels, ultimate remains a recreational sport. Second, winning and losing are logically equivalent.. the two bi-products of one event. Now sure, emotionally, they are miles apart. But I think playing to your absolute best abilities is much more important than winning. I agree, trying to win is important, but winning itself is not. Playing by the rules set out by the game to achieve the objective set out by the game (ie, to win) is all that matters, philosophically speaking. And beating an opponent performing at their optimum level is much more satisfying than cutting them down in some way to give yourself an advantage.

From the heart, I always hate to see ugly incidents in games... arguments that take place where respect for the opponent and the game is removed or forgotten. They are paramount to SOTG. Remember, without an opponent, there is no game. You are playing with them, not against them.

I don't think any sort of structured rules can really quantify this sort of behavior and seperate it into what is acceptable and what isn't. I think it keeps with the SOTG to trust in the players to keep respect in the game, just like it trusts players to play fair and not rely on an official to make calls. Transferring ownership of that responsibility from one official/set of rules to everyone who plays the game is part of what makes ultimate unique and special.