Nationals Spirit scores & the scoring system
Rachel Grindlay
in the Handbook at Nationals? (see http://beachultimate.org/SOTG_EN.pdf if
you don't know what I'm talking about)
My team (Wildcard) used it for every game. I thought it was good as it meant
the scores being given were far more objective. Rather than "oh, I didn't
enjoy playing against that team (or didn't enjoy the game) therefore they
should get a lower spirit score" we had to actually think of incidents which
were 'unspirited' and found in a couple of games we gave higher scores than
we would have without the system.
The other thing I found was that in general it was hard to give teams a low
score. In general for the games we played our scoring went like this.
We started with 5 (as per the guidelines) and teams would generally get
+1 for turning up on time
+1 for understanding the rules (or being willing to learn them)
+1 for contesting calls properly (with 1 "crap" contest allowed)
+1 for a good spirit circle...
which gets a team up to 9 without really doing anything much
we didn't tend to give the +1 for a "really special game" very often for
obvious reasons!
So then looking at the deductions:
There were none which we deducted consistently (which I guess was a good
thing!). This was partly because of the guideline of requiring "2 or more"
instances of either:
- unsportsmanlike conduct (-1)
- dangerous play (-1)
- unjustified calls (-1)
It really required our team to think about 2 (or more) specific instances in
the game. This was good because it meant everyone on the team was
responsible for contributing to what we gave. Often in the past most of the
team wanders off with no real care about what we gave the other team. Making
players consider incidents means spirit scores are not as biased by the
captain's (or whoever is writing down spirit) perspective. It hopefully also
means that players consider the way their play is perceived by the other
team.
Any deliberate foul is penalised (-1) which is good because of obviously the
rules preamble assumes that no player should ever be intentially fouling.
So as a result of the ease of getting 9 points and the difficulty of
deducting points the scores we assigned ranged between 7-10. I was quite
suprised when the spirit scores came out (see
http://nationals.ultimatefrisbee.org.au/) to find a number of the teams with
averages in the 6-7 range. So my conclusion is that either
- quite a few teams didn't use the scoring system OR
- there was a lot of unspirited games which my team was not part of
(or both of course)
The other thing I have requested from the Tournament Organisers is a
breakdown (randomly of course) of what teams were scored per game. This
gives teams an idea of whether they are getting consistent scores or getting
a huge range. i.e. my team got an average of 8.0 which I was reasonably
happy with, but if I saw a breakdown of scores and for some reason we got a
very low score in a particular game I would be concerned and want to remedy
whatever had caused that.
The main criticism I have heard from some teams is that using the framework
stops you from penalising teams who are consistently breaching the rules.
i.e. if a team is continually hacking on the mark the most you can really
deduct is 2 points (1 for deliberately fouling and 1 for unsporstmanlike
play, and I guess potentially 1 if they consistently contest the fouls). I
think that raises another whole discussion about what to do about teams or
players who do consistently breach the rules. If the same teams get below
average spirit scores each tournament then obviously giving them low scores
in not providing enough incentive for them to review the way they play. So
I'll leave that discussion for another time and get back to my original
point....
How many people actually used the system at Nationals? What is the feedback
on it? Should we adopt it as the standard for future tournaments?
Cheers
Rachel
(Wildcard)
rjhberg
by it.
I think it was too limiting and included things that to me don't count
as Spirit of the Game.
To me judging Spirit is of upmost importance because we don't have
umpires to enforce the rules. Therefore judging spirit should solely
be based on how players followed their duties as set out in the rules
- section 1 "Spirit of the Game".
I think the key is that the scoring system needs to be consistent
between teams and hopefully tournaments
There is a good article about scoring spirit here:
http://zazman.blogspot.com/2006/12/spirit-score-guidelines-proposal.html
Tom Brennan
> I tried using the guidline with Heads of State but was not impressed
> by it.
>
> I think it was too limiting and included things that to me don't count
> as Spirit of the Game.
What things do you not see as Spirit of the Game? From the rules ...
1.5. The following actions are considered good spirit:
1.5.1. Informing a teammate immediately if they have made a wrong or
unnecessary call or caused a foul or violation.
1.5.2. complimenting/congratulating/thanking the opponent for a good
game/play;
1.5.3. introducing yourself to your opponent;
1.5.4. reacting calmly towards disagreement or seeming provocation;
The only issue that I would have with the SOTG Score Sheet is that it is
sometimes overly prescriptive about the things to dock points for, and
as Rachel said, doesn't really deal with serial offenders.
cheers
rjhberg
>
> What things do you not see as Spirit of the Game? From the rules ...
>
> 1.5. The following actions are considered good spirit:
> 1.5.1. Informing a teammate immediately if they have made a wrong or
> unnecessary call or caused a foul or violation.
> 1.5.2. complimenting/congratulating/thanking the opponent for a good
> game/play;
> 1.5.3. introducing yourself to your opponent;
> 1.5.4. reacting calmly towards disagreement or seeming provocation;
I don't think that "a good spirit circle" is the same as
"complimenting/congratulating/thanking the opponent for a good game/
play". You can obviously do that without a spirit circle
I know that Spirit circles are a big part of the game here, but I
don't think not having one should be considered bad spirit.
As zaz says (where he proposed 5 as the top spirit score):
"A score of "5" does not require any cheers, colorful antics,
or "give-back" calls. This measure of SOTG is entirely distinct
from the "spirit" of ultimate: its zany characters, inside jokes, and
cultural touchstones like Rochambeau."
Rueben
Tom Brennan
> On May 14, 8:33 pm, Tom Brennan <webs...@ozultimate.com> wrote:
>
>> What things do you not see as Spirit of the Game? From the rules ...
> I don't think that "a good spirit circle" is the same as
> "complimenting/congratulating/thanking the opponent for a good game/
> play". You can obviously do that without a spirit circle
>
> I know that Spirit circles are a big part of the game here, but I
> don't think not having one should be considered bad spirit.
Fair enough. That's only one point out of 10 however.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be: if you didn't use the
system provided, how did Heads of State do spirit for the teams they
played? And would that system be an improvement on the one provided?
cheers
greenie
and - of course, being subjective there is no 'right' system, but we
should be trying to get the best system we can.
i think its a good step to try to make spirit scoring more objective,
especially since without some standard system, teams tend to find
their own 'baseline' score and work from that.
eg. 'that was an unremarkable game, lets give them 7" followed by
"they were better than the last mob- give em 8"
rueben's concern is a good one though- there's too much weighting in
the current system on peripherals such as turning up on time and
spirit circles- those things should be a given and aren't deserved of
+1 each of a score /10. the real difference between a bad spirit game
and a good one are the amount of cheap or bad calls, the amount of
unnecessary contact, whether calls are handled with respect etc. ie
things associated with the game itself.
i think we could tweak the current system to give more emphasis on the
game itself, and if teams are repeat incidents of any given
infringement this should also be reflected in the score (ie, -1 for
every repeated infringement after the first two)
i must say, the mens games at nationals that i-beam were involved with
were excellent, and deserved the high scores
i would say that spirit has been getting better at the highest levels
over the last 10 years
rjhberg
> system provided, how did Heads of State do spirit for the teams they
> played? And would that system be an improvement on the one provided?
>
Heads of State still used the system provided, but I don't think it
gave an accurate reflection of the variation in the levels of spirit
of each team we played - due to the "2 or more" clause
Also I don't know that "turns up on time" needs to be a seperate part
of the criteria
Maybe there is too much scope in a 10 point system
Maybe 5 or 7 would be better.
I think there could be some work done by AFDA/WFDF to develop a proper
set of Spirit guidelines to be used for all tournaments.