I've been following the discussion on ED and from what I see it is not so much about whether observers are good or bad but more about where they may lead to (see the attached mail if it gets through). It's a tough call. There is little doubt a person on the sideline may have a better perspective than most people on the pitch for calling line fouls and I am sure people have experienced cases where the sideline has been called upon to help make a decision and this is fundamentally the role the observer would have if used, to give a neutral perspective when no one else can agree or doesn't know. No doubt there are cases where observers are required. I personally experienced such a game in Rimini a few years ago where a team persistently made bad calls because they didn't know the rules correctly. They bullied us throughout the game and even resorted to abuse from the sidelines. The captain even had the nerve before the game to suggest we keep it spirited! Obviously we lost in true Superfly fashion but until the game started getting out of hand we were level pegging. Had there been observers the outcome could have been different. After the game we made a complaint to the organisers and I haven't seen that team at the Paganello since, whether it's a coincidence or not I don't know! My concern is that Ultimate may end up going down the same road as football. My worry is that as things evolve over the long term the decision making is going to be placed more on the observers making the players less responsible. Start introducing money into the equation and the whole thing could snowball and before you know spirit is just a consolation prize as the fair play award is in football. Have a read through the following article I found on the UEFA website regarding football and see what you think. OK, maybe times are different but possibly something to keep in mind.
Vito PS. I wouldn't have wanted to be the observer to make the call in the Poughkeepsie game in Rimini! 1891: Referees, penalties and nets There was no such thing as a penalty up until 1891. Born in England's public schools of Victorian England, a gentleman, it was assumed, would never deliberately commit a foul. Although the advent of professionalism in 1885 had served to increase the growing number of working-class men to the sport, the inclusion of the penalty, or as it was originally called "the kick of death", was more likely a consequence of increased competition and a commitment to fairness. It became one of a number of dramatic changes to the Laws of the Game in 1891. Penalties, of course, had to be awarded by someone and following a proposal from the Irish Association, the referee was allowed onto the field of play. True to its gentlemanly beginnings, disputes were originally settled by the two team captains, but, as the stakes grew, so did the number of complaints. By the time the first FA Cup and international fixture took place, two umpires, one per team, were being employed to whom each side could appeal. But it was not the ideal solution as decisions, some more favourable than others, were only arrived at following lengthy delays and several appeals. The referee, at first, stood on the touchline keeping time and was "referred" to if the umpires could not agree but that all changed in 1891. From that date a single person with powers to send players off as well as give penalties and free kicks without listening to appeals became a permanent fixture in the game, while the two umpires were made linesman or "assistant referees" as they are called now.
__________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pootle.near.me.uk/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
