Would be fascinated to see a broader survey on this, even one sponsored by the national/international organizations. I think this was well-designed but might render some more conclusive results with a larger sample size.
Hi Ian, thanks for doing that research, interesting to read.
I'm one of a few people who train Game Advisors around the world, so have access to a bit of info I thought might add some colour (and also I've spent a little time reflecting on how to deliver better GA performances).
I 100% agree that the hardest part of the job is being sharp after long period without practice. It is tough to deliver the level of performance I expect of myself f I haven't done it for say 4 months, and I'm one of the fortunate ones that gets to GA multiple times a year.
That's a feeling most GAs will be familiar with, but things are changing, so I thought I'd share some news from further afield... Australia and Colombia have large pools, having used GAs for over a decade. Over the past couple of years China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, & Mexico have all added GAs to their Nationals. India & Philippines are figuring out how they want to use them (they're at the Indian College series, and at Manila Spirits). In Europe, GAs have been at French Nationals for the past few years, and in the UK GAs will be coming to College Nationals from 2025.
For the local federation adding GAs helps to deliver player education as well as often being reported by players as giving an event a more professional feel. From my PoV as a Trainer, I'm looking forward to seeing those extra reps between events translate to more consistency in our GAs at Worlds events.
Hope that helps add some colour.
If you (Ian) or readers have got Q's about the GA program, feel free to ask them here and I'll try to respond.
If you (reader) don't like the core concept of GAs as a self-officiating method, that's okay, I'm not here to get into protracted discussions about that; I'm fine with us having different perspectives.
If you (reader) want to know how to have GAs trained in your local community, feel free to DM me.
“Different <officiating> systems result in different types of player behaviour over the long term.”
Not saying I disagree but I am not sure there is any evidence supporting this statement you treat as a given.
“there comes… …a tipping point where mutual trust between players erodes to the point where you need 3rd parties.”
3rd parties do WAY more than handle behavior/trust issues but sticking to this point: some believe the tipping point passed many years ago when competition became serious, driving the most aggressive play. Prime example, the spitting in face, etc., as detailed in the Ultimate history documentary, “Flatball”. Supplies further evidence that there is nothing inherent in Ultimate play, itself, that makes it any less prone to things like aggression-driven bad calls than any other sport. “Spirit”, community, and peer pressure are the special key but aren't always enough in some key moments. Then what? That's why ALL leagues recognize that some form of 3rd party help is necessary.
I think your last statement is a great summary and one that only a small minority of event organizers and Ultimate participants appreciate. Building and maintaining any well-practiced form of game oversight (GA's, referees, Observers, etc.) requires, like you mentioned, consistent and frequent practice opportunities! But for financial and logistical reasons, organizers often bring in GA's (and other forms of game oversight) only for say the most important rounds or only for the most prestigious tournaments. I agree, that is not enough “reps” to ensure highest quality help. In addition, it does nothing to help and provide mentorship to teams at lower skill levels.
Some Regional Coordinators (ROC's) in the Observer programme work hard to consistently get Observers into more “regular season” tournaments, year after year. And, at the national level, that programme does have better roots of a certification/tracking system. That said, I do not agree that the Observer programme is “well-funded”. It may or may not be better funded than the GA programme, but the vast majority of Observers still receive no pay for the tournaments that they work. So that's not “well-funded” in my books. And that creates a constant headwind to maintaining experienced folks.
By contrast, in other sports, even novice/low level officials receive at least some amount of pay which increases with experience. This is the main dilemma I see. High level Ultimate players/teams want events that are bigger, badder, better, and more fair but don't want to pay for the infrastructure to insure that. Many players/teams believe our sport has already become over-priced and “elitist” when, in reality, highest level players in all other sports pay considerably more.
I do think the realization of the value (worth paying for) of 3rd party help in Ultimate is progressing, albeit slowly. The most savvy/generous event hosts are bringing in GA's and have proved that this is the highest returning investment when it comes to game quality, prestige, and player trust (that shows up in surveys like yours). As you noted, GA's will never be perfect but it doesn't take too many major events without GA’s before players (and event hosts) realize how sub-optimal, or even bad, things can get. But unless players, hosts, and league heads take a more wholistic view of the infrastructure (and cost) required to maintain and support GA's, improvement is going to be slow, at best.
Would be fascinated to see a broader survey on this, even one sponsored by the national/international organizations. I think this was well-designed but might render some more conclusive results with a larger sample size.
Hi Ian, thanks for doing that research, interesting to read.
I'm one of a few people who train Game Advisors around the world, so have access to a bit of info I thought might add some colour (and also I've spent a little time reflecting on how to deliver better GA performances).
I 100% agree that the hardest part of the job is being sharp after long period without practice. It is tough to deliver the level of performance I expect of myself f I haven't done it for say 4 months, and I'm one of the fortunate ones that gets to GA multiple times a year.
That's a feeling most GAs will be familiar with, but things are changing, so I thought I'd share some news from further afield... Australia and Colombia have large pools, having used GAs for over a decade. Over the past couple of years China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, & Mexico have all added GAs to their Nationals. India & Philippines are figuring out how they want to use them (they're at the Indian College series, and at Manila Spirits). In Europe, GAs have been at French Nationals for the past few years, and in the UK GAs will be coming to College Nationals from 2025.
For the local federation adding GAs helps to deliver player education as well as often being reported by players as giving an event a more professional feel. From my PoV as a Trainer, I'm looking forward to seeing those extra reps between events translate to more consistency in our GAs at Worlds events.
Hope that helps add some colour.
If you (Ian) or readers have got Q's about the GA program, feel free to ask them here and I'll try to respond.
If you (reader) don't like the core concept of GAs as a self-officiating method, that's okay, I'm not here to get into protracted discussions about that; I'm fine with us having different perspectives.
If you (reader) want to know how to have GAs trained in your local community, feel free to DM me.
Thanks for this! Great to hear how many countries have implemented the programme
Commenting on a couple of your points:
“Different <officiating> systems result in different types of player behaviour over the long term.”
Not saying I disagree but I am not sure there is any evidence supporting this statement you treat as a given.
“there comes… …a tipping point where mutual trust between players erodes to the point where you need 3rd parties.”
3rd parties do WAY more than handle behavior/trust issues but sticking to this point: some believe the tipping point passed many years ago when competition became serious, driving the most aggressive play. Prime example, the spitting in face, etc., as detailed in the Ultimate history documentary, “Flatball”. Supplies further evidence that there is nothing inherent in Ultimate play, itself, that makes it any less prone to things like aggression-driven bad calls than any other sport. “Spirit”, community, and peer pressure are the special key but aren't always enough in some key moments. Then what? That's why ALL leagues recognize that some form of 3rd party help is necessary.
I think your last statement is a great summary and one that only a small minority of event organizers and Ultimate participants appreciate. Building and maintaining any well-practiced form of game oversight (GA's, referees, Observers, etc.) requires, like you mentioned, consistent and frequent practice opportunities! But for financial and logistical reasons, organizers often bring in GA's (and other forms of game oversight) only for say the most important rounds or only for the most prestigious tournaments. I agree, that is not enough “reps” to ensure highest quality help. In addition, it does nothing to help and provide mentorship to teams at lower skill levels.
Some Regional Coordinators (ROC's) in the Observer programme work hard to consistently get Observers into more “regular season” tournaments, year after year. And, at the national level, that programme does have better roots of a certification/tracking system. That said, I do not agree that the Observer programme is “well-funded”. It may or may not be better funded than the GA programme, but the vast majority of Observers still receive no pay for the tournaments that they work. So that's not “well-funded” in my books. And that creates a constant headwind to maintaining experienced folks.
By contrast, in other sports, even novice/low level officials receive at least some amount of pay which increases with experience. This is the main dilemma I see. High level Ultimate players/teams want events that are bigger, badder, better, and more fair but don't want to pay for the infrastructure to insure that. Many players/teams believe our sport has already become over-priced and “elitist” when, in reality, highest level players in all other sports pay considerably more.
I do think the realization of the value (worth paying for) of 3rd party help in Ultimate is progressing, albeit slowly. The most savvy/generous event hosts are bringing in GA's and have proved that this is the highest returning investment when it comes to game quality, prestige, and player trust (that shows up in surveys like yours). As you noted, GA's will never be perfect but it doesn't take too many major events without GA’s before players (and event hosts) realize how sub-optimal, or even bad, things can get. But unless players, hosts, and league heads take a more wholistic view of the infrastructure (and cost) required to maintain and support GA's, improvement is going to be slow, at best.