Coaches or Captians, who should speak to ultimates?

[Flash-Bugout]

Keeping names out of this, I'm not trying to echo any other threads, or comment on any situations, just wanted to see other peoples views on something that just crossed my mind. So please just discuss my ramblings, and nowt else, ta.


Back in days gone by, when paintball was much less sophisticated/organised, there was the team captain. This was generally the person who organised everything, got the team together, entered tourneys, spoke to organisers, signed the score sheets, spoke to ultimates, and hopefully at the end of the day, collected a trophy.

All simple.

Nowadays, we're getting all sophisticated, doing training, and these captains of days gone by are starting to get long in the tooth. We now have the wierd and practically un-defined* role of manager/coach/team owner type figure.

*by undefined I mean that every coach/manager/owner/whatever does different things depending on the team.

Now, as these coaches tend to be more experienced, and in theory have less adrenaline running through their heads at the end of the game, should they be permitted to enter the field at the end of the game, speak to their players, express any concerns/issues to the ultimates, and then sign off the score sheet? Or shoudl this be left to whoever is the on-field captian for that particular game?

Again I say - I don't want any names/teams used as examples in this thread, and I am not reffering to any incident in particular. If anyone goes off on a team naming witch-hunt tangent, I'll be the first one reaching for the report this post to mod button

[edit - for the record, I'm firmly of the opinion that it should be the coach/manager who is responsible for speakin gto his team, raising any issues with the ultimate, then signing off the score sheet - end edit]

 

[Hotpoint]

Intriguing Thread Topic

Personally I don't think it should be set in stone either way but I must say I think that before anyone enters the field (who was not just playing/reffing on it) they should have the permission of the Field Ultimate and both Captains

Since in these circumstances you would require unanimity before anyone new enters the arena this should help prevent any arguing as to the validity of their presence

 

[gaff]

nice timing for a thread like this!

i personally think things like this need to be seriously looked into, the sport is changing very quickly and we are now entering true professional realms, coaches, managers, personal trainers, field captains, etc, etc sounds like a professional football team all of a sudden! and the sport needs to address these types of issue before confusion and problems arise.

another spin on this question is 'what do Ultimates actually accomplish?'

 

[bluelite]

I think that each team should have a designated person who will function as the team's mouthpiece. You can call them coach, captain, whatever. This person is who is responsible for talking to the ultimate about any issues his team had with the game just played and to sign the score sheet. The ultimate will address the issues raised to the best of his abilities using his judgement, his refs input, and any other available evidence. If he makes a determination that the coach cannot live with and the coach refuses to sign then the ultimate writes "refused to sign" and the score stands as he called it. I believe this should take place immediately following the game at the side of the field in a designated spot for just this purpose. I think these discussions should occur independent of the opposing teams captain because two people have discussions, whereas three have disputes. The captain should not have to ask permission to attend but should be required to. Loser goes first, of course, due to the fact they are usually the ones with an issue they want addressed. Failure to report for the signing will forfeit the points you earned, but not failure to sign. I definitely feel that we need something to allow teams to address rules violations as fast as the sport seems to be moving towards mainstream media and widespread public acceptance.

 

[Steve Hancock]

This and a thousand other issues need to be set in stone, by which i don't neccesarily mean limiting it to only coaches or to only captains, but clearly laying down the alowed options.

I would be really pleased to see a national standard set of rules and regulations, incorporating every aspect of the game from transfers to field sizes etc, a national marshalling standard and training, and if possible a national rules committee to oversee it all.

However all that would be difficult to agree on, cost money and take a lot of work. Plus you would have find people who would be prepared to play less in order to be part of the support side of the sport.

 

[camsmith]

Still thinking about the implications of the above, so will reserve comment for the moment...

Mind you, if the captain is not on the field of play when the match starts and they are allowed to discuss events with the Ultimate, I reckon they should be allowed on the field as soon as players are released from the "dead zone" after a game.

This would require identification of the Captains of each team by the Ultimate before the commencement of each game.

 

[Gyroscope]

Ideally, the person speaking on behalf of the team should not be a player who was on the field, but some who was able to watch the entire match. Not every team has this luxury, unfortunately.

Also, not refering to any specific incidents, players should never leave the dead box without the permission of the field judges. I have not seen anything good come of that. There should be severe penalties for any player leaving the deadbox without permission from refs, losing the points from the match at hand is too good for 'em.

I liked the way Marcus asked the spectators for their reaction to controversial reffing calls, by acclaimation, but then again, the spectators are often very biased, and will lynch any ref who decides against their chosen team. I got called clean a few times, to the displeasure of the crowd. It made me wonder whether they were disputing the accuracy of the call from an objective standpoint, or if they were just fans who want their team to get all the breaks.

 

[Jasper]

I believe it is unfair to have anyone off field talking to the ultimate about something that has gone on in the game as yes they do have a better view point but usually that can be biased towards there team and if only one team has someone off field watching then that team is at an advantage.

The decisions on the field are made by marshalls on the field and the issues brought up at the end of the game are made by the players in the game reported to their on field captian who takes it up with the field ultimate. If no player on the field has spotted something wrong and no marshall has then there is nothing to twine about.

If someone has wiped in a game for instance and it has not been seen by a marshall or by any of the opposing team then they have got away with it, it is wrong but they have all the same. If someone off field has seen it, it shouldn't matter. They have nothing to do with the game on the field.

In football things go on that get missed by the referees and by players who just get on with the job, and these people are proffesionals the players and refs, and things still get missed. They only catch them now through trial by tv. Paintball is nowhere near that stage yet.

So anyway there should be no off field interference after games and we should just trust the marshalls calls and air our views at the end of the game through an on field captain to an ultimate and accept the ultimates decision at the end of it all.