I am very interested in continuing the discussion with regards to penalties when incidents on field are escalated both by players on the field and by players off the field. I am very much in agreement with the concept within the game that players make the decisions on rules and their enforcement.

In looking at this incident more closely, there are three main underlying actions.

1. Defensive play. Throughout the course of the point, the defense was played close enough that there was contact initiated either by the defending player or by the offensive player.
2. Escalation #1 – The Offensive player escalated what could be a simple foul call and discussion into the first aggressive action, throwing the defensive player to the ground.
3. Escalation #2 – A player from the Defensive team, standing on the sideline, entered on to the field for the second aggressive action, tackling the offensive player to the ground and putting him in a headlock.

At that point, both teams ensured that there was no further escalation and that all aggressive actions were stopped immediately. The offensive player was released and the defensive player was removed from the altercation.

My intention in this post is not to attempt to defend or redirect responsibility for the action that occurred, the actions were the result of the decision making process of two individuals from opposing teams, each responding in their own way to the previous actions of the opposing team. But as a captain of Invictus, I do have a responsibility to ensure that our team helps and not hinders the development of the sport. While our team plays an aggressive style of play, it is not the team’s mandate to initiate physical contact outside the rules of the UPA nor to cause anyone physical harm.

We are starting to notice that the rules covered in the UPA 11th Edition are not always broad reaching enough to either deal with certain foul situations or to act as a deterrent to certain actions from happening. The reason that Ultimate works as a self officiated sport is that there is a clear set of rules for dealing normal game play activities. There are rules about the process for throwing fouls, and there rules about the process for receiving fouls. However, as the level of play gets more elevated, and at times aggressive, Ultimate has no way of systematically dealing with an escalated situation. There is no understood set consequence. If someone decides to hit someone in the face with the disc, there is no understanding that he will automatically be removed from the game. The same goes when someone is frustrated by a close marking defender, there is no clear line that states that when you throw someone to the ground that you will be ejected. Nor for that matter, if you come off the bench and continue escalating an incident that you will be ejected from a tournament. In other sports, these situations are typically left to the discretion of the referee. Without that person making a discretionary call or a clear set of rules to allow two teams to work through an incident, Ultimate currently finds itself without a clear course of action and it is at this point where self officiating becomes vulnerable. It is at these times of lack of clarity in a self officiated game when personal philosophies enter the situation. I am by no way condoning the action of our team member as an acceptable behavior, but when rules fail to adequately deal with an initial infraction, a grey area is entered. While injury was possible during this scrum at Flowerbowl 2008, the intent of our teammate was not to injure. The intent was to protect our own team both during the incident, and from a similar incident potentially happening again. Our team will above all protect each other. Right now, there is no clear course of action for a self officiated sport to handle a situation like this one, and therefore there are no safeguards built into it.

I do believe that the action of tackling one of Blackfish’s players is not one we want in our game, I agree that it weakens our sport. This incident has already instigated internal dialogue amongst our captains and our teammates, and we will be addressing the incident with our player. I do, however, want to restate that both of the incidents that our team has been involved in, CUC last year and Flowerbowl this year, have been reactionary, not initiated by Invictus. And both the actions leading up to the scrums should be viewed as indicative of the types of incidents that the UPA rules need to better address. The outcomes alone must not be reviewed without reviewing the events leading up to them.

It isn’t until referring to the Observer’s Manual from the UPA, under the Misconduct System that these issues seem to be factor into any rules. These guidelines seem reasonable and can help to inform future rules in the UPA 12th edition. The relevant aspects to the Flowerbowl incident issue include the Personal Misconduct Foul (PMF) and the Ejection, essentially a yellow card and a red card, two PMFs result in ejection. “A player may be ejected from a game for particularly egregious conduct or pattern of such behavior. Any player who intentionally strikes an opposing player, or coach, spectator, observer or linesperson shall be immediately ejected from the game. Any player who strikes in retaliation shall also be ejected.”

Looking to the Section – Behavior Warranting Sanctions, the two incidents relate to the following terms:
Pushing/Shoving – Unwarranted aggressive (e.g. shoving) or dangerous (e.g. tripping) behavior is grounds for a Team Misconduct Foul or a Personal Misconduct Foul, at the discretion of the observer.

Battery – Intentional physical contact, such as striking another player with part of the body, a disc, or anything else or any overt attempt to do so, warrants an ejection. This includes, but is not limited to: punching or kicking, or attempting to punch or kick someone, spiking, or attempting to spike a disc on someone (but not merely spiking the disc); spitting on someone, or spitting at someone but missing.

Reading the observers section, we can start to get to a place where we can discuss how to deal with a situation like the one that happened at Flowerbowl in order to both deal with it better in the future, and to create deterrents to people reacting violently to situations.

Reviewing the incident, the close defensive play can be dealt with through the Foul/Contest situation. The process allows for discussion and clarification. The Escalation #1 is an action that needs to be addressed. Using the observer’s terminology, the incident of throwing someone to the ground falls either into the Battery category, or the Pushing and Shoving category, which at its most strict ruling would result in an immediate ejection, and at its most lenient would result in a Personal Misconduct Foul. The Personal Misconduct Foul essentially is a warning, and would mean that any other incident would result in an ejection. The Escalation #2, the tackling and headlock, falls into the Battery Category and should have resulted in immediate ejection. I don’t think there is much debate that the level of aggression shown does not have a place in any sport, let alone Ultimate.

The question now is how do we move forward from this incident? I think we all recognize that there aren’t going to be observers at every game, nor does every team want observers, but without the third party making the discretionary call, what is the process for self officiating Ultimate when it comes to escalated situations like this one?

Congratulations on your weekend Blackfish, you guys played extremely well. I look forward to talking to you guys again soon.

Peter Atkinson
Captain – Invictus

#4