Hi Britdisc, Well, it's been 2 weeks since I requested some official word from the Board about why the Geo rules have been scrapped and so far we've heard nothing official. Why did we hear about schedule changes for Mixed Tour 1 and a big long email about kit requirements, but nothing about a fundamental change to the Tour rules? The most concerning things is that we didn't hear about these changes before many teams picked their squads for the season (some teams picked their squad as early as Feb). The mind boggles.
Anyway, I've been thinking about all of this quite a bit lately and I would like to share my thoughts. I'm not going to reply to Dave (who I think is writing from an individual PoV rather than a 'sport' PoV) nor Brummie (who I think is right in his intentions but hasn't worked out a great solution). Basically, these are the good things about the Geo rules: - it was a written down policy in the UKUA rules that specifically stated that the UKUA wanted to encourage people to play locally to encourage the growth and competitiveness of the sport THAT, BY THE BY, WORKED. - it gave a few good rewards for playing Geo i.e. freedom of movement between A and B teams, tie-breaker wins. - people had a choice of who to play for. And these are the problems with the Geo rules: - they are so loosely worded that they can't be enforced and some teams took advantage. - it is a two-tier system (different rules for Geo and non-Geo teams) and leads to bad feeling from the teams who are working their butts off to put a strong Geo team out (Brummie) and engages automatic defence-mode from players who want to 'play with their [non-Geo] mates' (Dave). - the 75 mile radius is hard for some areas of the country but piss easy for other areas. - often players who wanted to play Geo only had one team to choose from. And these are the things I think have been overlooked: - how the sport is going to be structured in 10 years' time and what we need to do between now and then to make it happen. - what other countries who do better than us internationally, do at the national level - how to specifically encourage development of ultimate now that there is no policy about it. This is my solution. Happy for feedback, but please keep it civil. Ultimate is growing in the UK and the Open Tour is fast becoming bulky and unworkable (and the Mixed division, nearly so). In every country where this has happened before (USA, Canada, Australia) and in every team sport that I can think of, the country gets divided into Regions and Regional qualifications are held for qualification to the National events to make things more manageable. This is surely the way that ultimate will have to go at some point in the UK and it's my opinion that we should start instigating these regional boundaries now so that people get used to them. Under a Regional rostering structure, we would have maybe 5-6 Regions and Tour teams would have a roster consisting of only players from their region (which would obviously be much larger than a 75 mile radius). That way we would eliminate all the problems from the Geo rules (two-tier system, unenforcibility, 75-mile radius). Also, there will quickly be a hierarchy of teams established in a region, which individual players can climb if they want exposure to top competition (Dave's concern). Plus, if a player didn't want to play with the team based in their city, they could play with a team based in another city of their Region and be totally legitimate (Dave's other concern). The only thing that isn't really addressed is people 'who want to play with their mates who live in other regions'. Well, to that I say, if you want to play with mates who live far away, the National Tour maybe isn't for you as it's clearly not club ultimate that you want to play. Go play BritOpen, Copenhagen, Brugges, Copa Cabana, Kaimana, Potlach, etc. Some of the most competitive tournaments in the world don't have rostering rules and will let you play champagne ultimate to your heart's content. And of course, if you want to play ultimate with your mates but be eligible for the Tour that badly, just move to their region. Simple. Aura -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Grayson Sent: 17 April 2006 16:26 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BD] Geo Rules Hello, Brummie, thanks for your long reply. Sorry I didnt receive this email first time round (I guess smart technology keeps improving). Fortunately a weekend with the prospective inlaws when I should be in Rimini provides the necessary impetus to go back through my inbox and do my replying to britdisc. Ok, so here goes, the geo debate... At 09:03 10/04/2006, you wrote: >Dave said: > > Do they stifle the development of Ultimate? No. > >I disagree. Good players not playing with their local teams is >extremely damaging to those local teams. Some might describe them as >"feeder" clubs. Why shouldn't they grow to become a big club in their >own right? Why should they have to put in all the hard work year >after year to see their most promising players snatched away by >non-geo teams? You're wrong. "Good players" as you put it generally help to coach and develop new clubs and new talent. By allowing them to play in high level teams as well we permit them to work on their own game and improve, thus improving the knowledge and expertise they subsequently pass on to the lower level players they help develop. If these players were to play exclusively for their local teams they would stifle their own improvement, be able to pass on less knowledge. Whats more, they may actually may slow talented players from reaching their potential. But thats ridiculous I hear you cry! No it isnt. When a very good player plays for a low level team, they automatically become main handler and main cutter. They take every second pass and they do all they can to help the team win games. When they arent on the field then the more junior players have to step up and take control and consequently get a lot more of the action and then they become better players faster. I bet you most the top players in the country once played in teams at the lowest level in ultimate for a season or 2 before getting to play at the top level. It is part of the necessary learning process. Players get better by getting more responsibility. As for clubs having the right to "grow to be a big club" well that is up to every club. No club in the country stifles the growth of its feeder clubs, it wouldnt make any sense. > > Do they provide a necessary function? Yes. > >What exactly is it? If teams want to play with their mates (see >below) then fine, fair enough, but the UKU shouldn't allow them to get >the benefits that geo clubs should have. The existing benefits are so >small as to provide no incentive for teams to go geo... something I >think should be changed. Why should geo clubs have all these extra benefits you talk about? What is so great about them? Heres my story, and bear in mind I'm really not that special. I used to play for Chevron, they were a geo club but I was not a geo player. I lived in York, and I travelled for about 2 hrs to get to training midweek every week. I dragged myself along the M62 spending time and money that I didnt have in order to play for my club, to play a sport I used to love, and to play with people I loved playing with. I had offers to play for Leeds and York and turned them down because I liked the club that gave me a break into the top 4 of the UK and I had a bit of loyalty to them. They were also my mates and I liked playing with them. So what makes me such a bad person? What gives you the right to take the moral high ground? You think I should have played for York and played at the bottom of the B tour, sacrificing my chances to play for GB, and saddling them with an old grumpy scotsman on the field taking every second pass? Or should I have compromised and gone to Leeds to play with a team for which the only difference is how far I had to drive to practice? What right do you have to tell me how far I should drive to go to practice? Are you the environmental police or just some self appointed moral guardian? Or perhaps you take the tone that indeed its up to me but that Chevron should have been penalised for allowing me to play and not been allowed to qualify for Euros? Again you are appointing yourself as some sort of moral adjudicator who this time is prepared to penalise a whole club of players for showing loyalty to a player who has moved away from them. Non-geo teams provide alternative teams for individual players to play with. Some of the perfectly legitimate reasons that a player may choose to play with a non geo team include:: 1. Live too far away from a local team to train with them regularly (e.g. no teams in Derby) 2. Cant make the commitment to training that their local team would ask of them (e.g.other commitments on training days) 3. Dont reach the standard of their local team (local team wouldnt want them) 4. Dont agree with the ethos or style of play of the local team (e.g. too competitive, too sociable etc) 5. Have different aims to the local club (want to play at a higher or lower level than the club captains are aiming for) 6. Have built strong relationships within a team prior to a change in circumstance (e.g. moved due to work) This is just a very brief selection, there are probably as many reasons as there are non-geo players, and all of them are valid. I know of several players who have stopped playing because they simply no longer felt a good match to their local team. These people have been lost to Ultimate, and it is arguable that were there more non-geo teams that they would still be playing. This is not a criticism of geo teams, it is simply pointing out a side of the story that many people never look at. > > Are they really more likely to win the Tour than a geo team? No. > >I agree with you but my point isn't so much aimed at the winners of >the Tour as the clubs lower down who suffer more from the exploits of >non-geo clubs. So they come 15th rather than 12th, or 6th rather than 5th etc.? Sorry, still cant get worked up about it. Whenever I play I always want to win by being the best, not by other teams being forced to let me win. Kind of the reason I dont like golf much too but thats a different story. >"Or is this really about teams whining that sometimes they >dont manage to persuade people in their catchment area to play for them?" > >The problem being that if there is a more attractive offer, such as >forming a super team with a split populace, then local teams *will* be >stifled. How exactly do you persuade a player to play for you? Often >incentives such as Euro/World clubs are the deciding factor, so >removing those privileges from non-geo teams will force those teams to >rethink their approach. Again you fail to address the point of so what? I dont agree local teams get stifled, I dont agree we should be artificially weakening our representatives at international tournaments and I dont agree that we should be imposing dictatorial rules on amateur players in an amateur sport. One issue I would perhaps agree with is if a new superteam from all over the country formed simply for one tournament e.g. Worlds but realistically this isnt going happen. To qualify for Euros etc you have to finish in the top x of the Tour or win Nationals. New teams forming have to come in at the bottom and work their way up, so this will take them 2 years minimum to get up there. I cant see a GB select type team forming to do that. > >Another 2 arbitrary rulings to replace the arbitrary rulings that are > > already there then? > >I was simply trying to acknowledge that a 40 mile radius might not be >sufficient in the less populated areas. If you want to drop to 0 >players outside that area that's fine by me. The point was trying to >impose tighter restrictions, rather than the existing ones which >basically do nothing. My point is that it is all arbitrary, there is little or no logic to why you created them. And thats the non-cynical view... > >Are there really > > geo teams out there that would like to be handed the Tour because another > > team gets deducted points for having players who like to play > with their mates? > >If people want to play with their mates then that's fine. Of course >they can. But I don't see why they should be allowed to represent the >UK, win National titles or the like. How about because they might be the best, and the best should be National champions? If a team is a UK team, are based in the UK and play primarily in the UK then I think they should be eligible to be UK champions. > There are teams out there that put a lot of time and effort into > player development; it is they who >deserve the rewards, not the super teams. You keep giving the impression that these evil superteams do nothing to develop players and ultimate in general. And you are totally wrong. There are just as many non-geo players who put a lot in to local development and I dont think they get enough credit. Fortunately I know they dont do it for your approval, they do it because they want to. I'm really happy that there are local clubs out there doing a lot of local player development but I dont think it is appropriate to award them National titles just because they do it. Lets give them a pat on the back or hold them up as shining examples but lets not patronise them by changing the rules to make it easier for them to win tournaments. > >A while ago the geo rule was invented for a very specific reason >which no longer applies > >Perhaps you'd like to let us know what that was (I for one have only >been involved in this sport for 4 years so this might have been before >I started), and why is it no longer applicable. It is no longer applicable because Ultimate is no longer dominated by superpowers who are primarily telephone teams. People have seen that living and training together has lots of benefits for teams. Most people dont have to travel far to get to play for a good team which matches their aims and expectations. The move to geo was a conscious decision by certain players when some old teams had reached the end of their natural lives. They have now been replaced by clubs that are vibrant and regenerating. Creating geo rules simply helped to smooth or accelerate the transition and to avoid certain political minefields. I wasnt involved either at the time but the trend will not be reversed. > >I think it is right for the UKUA to encourage the growth of the sport, and > >encouraging geo teams is great but the solution is not to penalise others, > >rather it's to support regional development > >If you have an alternative idea for regional development then I'm all >ears. What is yours? I would like to see the UKUA support teams development. That includes helping them to find coaches, fields, funding, tournaments, mentor clubs etc. I would like to see initiatives that develop regional leagues and perhaps create some inter-regional competition. I think I would support any positive strategy that helped the development of Ultimate in the UK. I would be opposed to any strategy based on penalising players or teams in any way. I believe in positive reinforcement, not punishment. >I think teams need to take a responsibility for the development of >local players. Let's start looking at the big picture, and I mean >5-10 years down the line. Rather than having one teams stacked with >all the best players, that talent will be split amongst several teams. Have you looked at last year? 4 teams were fighting out the Open Tour title on the last Sunday. 2 womens teams were inseperable over the entire season. The mixed Tour was highly competitive. Which is this single superteam you are talking about? I know of 4 other Open and 3 other Womens who will instantly disagree. > If teams are basically forced to take on local players if they want >to win the big silverware and compete abroad, then that means more >youngsters being coached by the best players. They already are coached by the best players. >It also means that >superstars will be able to put something into their local teams; >again, this helps that team out. They already do. They do it without being forced to by their national association and my guess is that most would not take kindly to being forced to do so. > In a few years you'll have a lot of >players who have had access to the quality coaching that most never >get exposure to, the result being *real* competition across the board. Where in the Tour is there not *real* competition? I am just totally lost with your assertions that things are so bad at the moment. The logical derivative of your arguments seems to be that all teams should be made as equal as possible? Maybe then we are all wrong and hat tournaments are the way forward? We could run the Tour as an individual competition with players scoring points for games they play in. Hang on - that has some appeal, lets face it, the reason I never won anything was always because my teammates were chumps, maybe now we could prove it! > The UKU Coaching scheme is a step forward but it's too small, and >giving someone a book and a weekend course doesn't make them a good >coach if they don't have the experience to back it up. Give it a chance! The coaching scheme has a structure that it will grow into a 5 level course but to get as far as we have has taken time. Taking away the opportunity from players to play at the top level is not going to improve the situation. Lets be absolutely clear about one thing. Although your aim I'm sure is top bring less experienced players up by playing with more experienced ones, what you are actually proposing will PREVENT experienced players from getting better, and will actually decrease the quality of our top level play. Thats before we even go into the facts about players who would simply retire because of this. >The junior >scene is becoming bigger and bigger which is fantastic; now we need to >bring those players up through the ranks of their local teams where >they should also have access to good coaching every week. Yep. and they will. I have read the rest of your mail and dont think there is anything new in it so I will close my argument here in as simple terms as I can imagine. Before anyone wants to go about tightening or implementing new geo-rules you have to convince the community of the following things: 1. What is wrong with our system at the moment? 2. What are the specific, measurable, achieveable, realistic goals of any change? Then you have to come up with a solution that meets the following criteria: 3. Will directly lead to the achievement of agreed goals. 4. Will not lead to any decrease in the quality of GB or any other UK representative teams. 5. Does not impose any inappropriate restrictions on individual players. 6. Does not lead to a narrowing of our player base or the accessibility to our sport I dont claim to know everything or that everything is perfect but I do think that our views are a long way apart. Hopefully this has explained my point of view adequately. Thanks for reading this far, Dave. Team Dave #10. >Time and time again, good talented young players are lured to bigger >teams that they live many miles away from because those teams can >offer them big incentives (play at a higher level, go to Euros, Worlds >etc). This approach prevents the local teams they pull their players >from from improving because they are continually removing their best >players, and still get the privilege of representing their nation. Am >I the only person who thinks that approach is a negative one? > >If you take away some of those incentives then it is more likely that >teams will recruit local players (who might not be as good) over >people from a long way away. Those people will stay with their local >team, which evens things up. Then you actually get competition >instead of some bunch of ringers crushing the teams that helped to >form them in the first place. And in the longer term, all clubs will >benefit. > >Of course if they choose to play as non-geo then they can; so anyone >can play for any team you like. But they can't get the benefits that >a geo team can, and the distinction between geo and non-geo needs to >increase dramatically to force the hand of those who only think about >themselves. > >Brummie > >On 4/6/06, David Grayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or an alternative view... > > > > > - you should always be able to play for your nearest Tour team (if > > >you're from the UK or Ireland), regardless of distance (this may > > >already be the case) > > > > What if they dont want you? Are clubs required to rostor all players > > nearest them? Or is this really about teams whining that sometimes they > > dont manage to persuade people in their catchment area to play for them? > > > > > - bigger margins for Scottish/Irish teams (possibly) > > > - max of 1 player from outside this area. (With the ability to have > > >a guest, this makes 2) > > > > Another 2 arbitrary rulings to replace the arbitrary rulings that are > > already there then? > > > > > - students can register from either uni or home address (this may > > >already be the case) > > > > This was always the case. > > > > > - penalties for non-geo clubs by deducting (serious amounts of) > > >points from Tour results. Deductions made at the end of the season so > > >as to not to have an impact on seedings during the course of the Tour, > > >but to prevent non-geo teams from having a realistic shot at winning > > >Tour, lower their seeding for Nationals > > > - non-geo teams should not be able to qualify for international > > >tournaments such as EUCC, EUCS, WUCC > > > > Can I ask a question? What is so awful about non-geo teams? > > > > Do they stifle the development of Ultimate? No. > > Do they provide a necessary function? Yes. > > Are they really more likely to win the Tour than a geo team? No. > > > > So what is this geo crap all about? I just dont get it. Are there really > > geo teams out there that would like to be handed the Tour because another > > team gets deducted points for having players who like to play > with their mates? > > > > A while ago the geo rule was invented for a very specific reason which no > > longer applies. The only purpose it now serves is to demonise certain teams > > for no good reason. Personally I have no problem with them at all. > > > > I think it is right for the UKUA to encourage the growth of the sport, and > > encouraging geo teams is great but the solution is not to penalise others, > > rather it's to support regional development. Lets have an organisation > > that is positive rather than negative. > > > > Rant over. > > > > Dave. > > LLL. Geo. But I wouldnt be if they were all a bunch of > > peckers. Fortunately fewer than 5 of them are more than 75% pecker so its > > officially ok though. > > > > > > > > > > >If the UKU is serious about its claims of promoting geo clubs then > > >some changes should be made, although not necessarily those mentioned > > >above. > > > > > >Comments welcome... > > > > > >Brummie > > > > > >On 4/6/06, Aura Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hmm, just took a look at the Tour rules and noticed some big > differences > > > > between last year's rules and this year's rules. Anyone else > notice the > > > > same? > > > > > > > > I'll give you a clue: there is no mention of Geo teams. > > > > > > > > Could we please get an explanation as to why these rules have > been removed > > > > and how this decision was reached? > > > > > > > > Aura > > > > Iceni/IF > > > > > >__________________________________________________ >BritDisc mailing list >[email protected] >http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc >Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.3/316 - Release Date: 17/04/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/319 - Release Date: 19/04/2006 __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://zion.ranulf.net/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/informed.asp
