There was an intersting study cited in Freakonomics (by Steven J Levitt - a brilliant book) about a nursery which imposed fines on parents arriving late to collect their kids in an attempt to reduce the additional burden on the nursery's staff. What actually happened is that more parents turned up late than ever before, making the burden much worse. When questioned, it was found that by imposing a fine, it effectively legitimised turning up late, provided you were prepared to pay the consequences - in this case monetary. The previous system of "moral obligation" was actually much more effective than imposing a fine. There is a clear application to sport here and ultimate in particular, which relies much more on "moral obligation" (read: spirit of the game) than any other sport. The more rules there are, the more you legitimise cheating (at least in economic incentive terms). Somebody gave a bastketball reference earlier, where you are allowed 5 fouls before being ejected. This effectively legitimises at least the first four fouls, and probably the fifth late in the game. Football is similar - how often will a player accept a yellow card for a professional foul? It's a calculated choice based on risk/reward - moral obligation is irrlevant because somebody has already taken any feeling of guilt out of your hands by offering a defined risk/reward structure. If you want an ultimate related example, look at the Rylands expriement a few years ago - I understand cheating was rife, because there was a chance you could get away with it. If you want ultimate to become a "better" sport, then debates like this are important as they help create the "moral obligation" that cheating will not be tolertated. If everybody refuses to play against (or with) a team/player which bends or breaks the rules, then we can eradicate the worst offenders from our sport. A couple of years ago, my team Fire got pilloried on Eurodisc for supposed bad spirit and physical play at Euros. Irrespective of what actually happened (I wasn't there so wouldn't want to comment) the comments we got were hurtful and upsetting. On the back of being made to feel bad (moral obligation) we've worked hard on our spirit over the last two seasons and recently won spirit at the Hamburg Rumble tournament, which shows two things: 1. In the opinion of mainland europe, Fire have improved their spirit 2. "Moral obligation" works. Woody PS I agree with Jack by the way :)
--- On Thu, 19/5/11, Jack <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jack <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [BD] Physicality in ultimate To: "brit disc" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 19 May, 2011, 14:00 Dave Greyson made a very good point several years ago on this very subject: "In Ultimate the rules are there to make what should happen, happen." (I think that was his point, if not his actual words, and he probably got it from somebody else) You have to use your moral compass, and if you are objective you will know if you have done something wrong (it may be that both parties were to blame). This is what makes Ultimate different. It works - but not all of the time. No matter how detailed the rules, they will never cover every single situation. Sometimes we all push things a bit in the heat of the moment - that's OK as long as you 'fees up if the foul is called. If you are prepared to be honest about it you will be less likely to do it in the first place. Jack __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed __________________________________________________ BritDisc mailing list [email protected] http://www.fysh.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/britdisc Staying informed - http://www.ukultimate.com/staying-informed
