The ULTIMATE spirit

Excerpt from the Official rules of Ultimate: 10th Edition

From Section 1. Introduction, item B.

Spirit of the Game

"Ultimate relies upon a spirit of sportsmanship which places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed upon rules of the game, or the basic joy of play. Protection of these vital elements serves to eliminate adverse conduct on the Ultimate field. Such actions as taunting of opposing players, dangerous aggression, belligerent intimidation, intentional fouling, or other 'win at all costs' behavior are contrary to the Spirit of the Game and must be avoided by all players."


What's so amazing about the sport Ultimate is that it's main guiding principle is the so-called "Spirit of the Game" (explained above). For over 30 years, Ultimate has functioned without the use of referees, without penalty systems, in fact, without any punishment of any kind at all. The game is played with the assumption that no player will intentionally violate the rules. It sounds like a ridiculous dream that will never work. But I know from experience that, in Ultimate, it works.

Of course, people still make violations from time to time. In the case that somebody does commit a violation, any player (even the violator him/herself) can inform the other players that a violation has been committed. The players resolve whether or not there really was a violation, and any other disputes that may arise. After the resolution, the game is continued as if nothing happened. No red cards. No foul-outs.

If the Spirit of the Game works for Ultimate, then what logical contradiction is there to keep it from working in society? What the heck, in human nature, is there that keeps us needing such strict rules and regulations - wanting such rules and regulations.

Ultimate functions under the assumption that players follow some sort of moral code or honor system that keeps things reasonable. Seriously, there's no need for an "infallible" referee to dictate that a foul occured when the alleged fouler and the alleged fouled both agree that there was none. Why can't it be the same for society in general?

I've done some reading about Jose Rizal and found that we have significant evidence to show that his vision of the nation was anti-statist, meaning that he believed the people could rule themselves without some so-called "government", that people can live in a society guided only by moral principles and ethics. He didn't even believe in being "Filipino" by blood. He believed that as long as you adhere to the culture, principles, and ethics of the Filipino nation that he envisioned, then you are a Filipino regardless of what blood flows through your veins. To Jose Rizal, his good friend Ferdinand Blumentritt, in whose veins German blood flows, was a Filipino. I wish I could discuss this more extensively, but I have neither the time nor the references to do so at the moment. If you wish to know more about this reading of Rizal, then click this.

Anyway, what I'm saying is...that stand of Rizal's has also been my stand even before I discovered he believed it. I believe that if we can be "moral enough", we can run society the same way we live amongst our families. It's not like we have family constitutions, or president of the family or anything. We just live together, guided by a set of unspoken (yet no less existing) moral principles that get passed down from generation to generation.