Observers, Video Review, and Nationals
Bad Process, Correct Result. What Next?
Announcements:
The Breakside now offers the option to upgrade your subscription to a paid version if you want to support my work or travel costs financially. Covering nationals is/will be a lot of work! If you want to provide a little extra support, I would be incredibly grateful.
Check out the new Twitter account for updates and live coverage! Graphics courtesy of the amazing Griffin Stotland.
Thank you all, as always, for reading. Please share this with anyone who may enjoy it, and remember to subscribe!
For the very first time, this edition of The Breakside is sponsored! Thank you to Ultiplanet for sponsoring The Breakside! Follow Ultiplanet!
Video Review at Club Nationals
No, this is not a long-winded way of saying (again) that we need more observers. However, that does remain true. My thoughts today center more on the need to empower and clarify the role observers play at the sport's highest level, specifically regarding video/replay reviews.
At nationals, I saw three separate instances of video review. What do I mean by video review? Well, three different times, I saw players request the help of official media on the sidelines to review a call that had been made to try to come to a resolution with our own form of instant replay.
In all three cases, the players (and in one case, just one player) involved in the dispute went to the sideline or end zone to watch the replay of what had just happened. Not the observers, just the players.
My first time seeing a video review in ultimate was this one, from the World Games semifinal in 2022:
In the years since, I’d heard that USAU had worked some element of video review into the rules of ultimate. I had issues with how every review I saw was handled, so I wanted to look into those recently updated video review rules and see what the rules say versus what happened. Let’s use the example from nationals I’d wager most people saw from the Fury vs. Molly Brown women’s semifinal:
It was such a big deal (and a genuinely amazing catch by Manuela Cárdenas) that USAU even tweeted the video above. I mentioned I had some issues with how it was handled, but first, let’s examine what actually happened.
First, Cárdenas catches the disc and is called out of bounds immediately by the observer. While she begins to celebrate, believing she has scored, Carolyn Finney, the defender from Fury, notices the call and echoes it to her. Next, Cárdenas returns to the spot where she made the catch and reenacts it, seemingly pleading her case to the observer and Finney, before seeing the camera in the end zone and going over to review the play, which Finney agrees to but does not follow her over. What you missed if you just saw the broadcast and were not there in person is that Cárdenas reviewes the play and sees something on the camera that vindicates her, and she returns, calling herself in, scoring a goal for Molly Brown to make the score 14-12 Fury. Fury would win the game on the next point.
Given the high stakes of the moment, game point in the national semifinal, I’m beyond impressed with the composure shown by both Cárdenas and Finney. It is a true credit to them both as players and people that they felt comfortable resolving the situation in that manner, that Finney felt comfortable trusting Cárdenas to make the call at that moment on her own, and that Cárdenas has earned that trust through her actions on and off the field. Very few players could have handled this situation with such composure. Not to mention that it appears to my own eyes, based on the replay, that the correct outcome on the field was reached.
However, as a sports fan, journalist, player, and writer of ultimate, I was really unhappy with the process and, honestly, with the result of this situation.
To fully explain why, here’s everything relevant to video reviews I found in the 2024-25 edition of the USA Ultimate Rules of Ultimate:
3.A.2. Players may review officially-designated video footage to assist in resolving a call where such footage is available. However, play may not be delayed to review video footage. [[For example, live instant replay in a stadium setting may be used by players to resolve a contested foul call. Players may not, however, request that a particular play be replayed on the screen. If, after reviewing the video, players still cannot agree, they should not delay the game to rewatch the play multiple times; instead, the play should be treated as a regular contested foul.]]
12.D. … [In an observed game, in/out of the end zone and “goal” are active observer calls, and player calls are ignored. Therefore, in an observed game, a player’s “goal” call does not stop play.]
19.C. By playing under observers, the players agree to abide by the observers’ decisions.
19.D. Players may overrule an observer’s active ruling, provided it is to their team’s detriment. Players may also decline enforcement of a yardage penalty assessed through the misconduct system.
Here are some relevant passages from the 2024 USA Ultimate Observer Manual about active calls and video review:
“Active” calls are those for which you’re empowered to rule immediately, without player request or initiation. Line calls are active and include in/out-of-bounds, force-out fouls, in/out-of-the-endzone, and offsides.
In limited instances, observers may consider video replay evidence when making a ruling. Stoppages may be briefly extended to consider replay evidence, but active play cannot be stopped to do so. For example, referencing a large portable replay monitor or permanent scoreboard screen visible from on-field is appropriate, while leaving the field to view a small monitor would be considered an unacceptable delay.
To summarize, in case that was confusing or you didn’t feel like reading all that, an in/out call (either in/out of bounds or in/out of the end zone) is an “active call,” meaning the observers are “empowered to rule immediately, without player request or initiation.” That happened in the first part of the video involving Cárdenas and Finney.
Here’s where things get murky. The USAU rules state that players can look at official video footage to help make a call, while the observer manual says observers may consider video replay evidence. Additionally, both the rules and the observer manual state that “play may not be delayed” and that “active play cannot be stopped” to review evidence.
From what I can tell, active play being stopped would mean that there was an official observer stoppage called to review footage, which I do not remember seeing happen, and the clip of the broadcast does not show happening either. I believe that would have entailed using the “Play has stopped/Play is being stopped” hand signal from the observer handbook, which is when you wipe your hands above your head, crossing and uncrossing them.
Not to mention that while the rules state players can consult video review, the observer handbook states observers can, too, and that never happens. Cárdenas leaves the field of play to consult a small monitor on what happened, both of which are not supposed to happen based on the rules, handbook, and examples given in each, and makes the call.
I get that Finney was happy to uphold the change in ruling and that Cárdenas was probably in bounds. But based on my reading of the rules and observer handbook, every single thing that happened was wrong. I’m frankly extremely annoyed and disappointed that on the biggest stage of the year, the rules were simply ignored and bypassed.
Because ultimate is largely self-officiated, players making calls can have an outsized impact on the game because, functionally, if someone is enough of a bad actor, they can attempt to cheat to win. And because this sport is unique in that way, it is even more important that there are very clear rules on what is and is not allowed so that it is incredibly obvious if something untoward is happening. Again, to be fully clear, I am not accusing anyone in this situation of being a bad actor, but this example demonstrates so many of the unaddressed flaws in the rules of ultimate. I do not want to have the same feeling watching the club nationals semifinal as I do when I coach my youth rec league, that the rules as written are sort of more like guidelines for the de facto rules that everyone mostly knows but actually change day-to-day based on how we are all feeling. I want the rules to be followed and nearly impossible to misinterpret, especially if we retain the freedom players have now to make their own calls.
Based on my understanding of the rules and observer handbook, what should have happened is that there should have been no stoppage. Possession should have changed as soon as the active out-of-bounds call was made. If, for whatever reason, there was a discussion, given that this was an observed game (and the players have agreed to abide by observer rulings as stated in the rules), an observer should have called a stoppage, seen if there was a screen available to review the play from that was immediately available. Then, they should have reviewed it if the footage met that criteria.
Please let me know if you read what I did differently and arrived at a different conclusion! The rules are not always clear, and there should not be this much grey area.
Part of the problem is that we use one set of rules for basically every level of play, with limited amendments for different ages and competition levels. This was brought up in a Twitter thread about a different incident from nationals1, but I think the point stands here, too. The rules should clarify what happens at the highest level in observed games, what is within a player’s jurisdiction, and what is within the observer’s. We also need to clarify what an observer needs to do when a player is trying to encroach on calls they cannot make and to empower observers to make those calls and not get steamrolled by an unhappy player.
Bad calls will happen if we empower observers more. They already do with the in/out active calls they currently make. This is exactly what happened in this situation. But players make bad calls all the time, too. Sure, Cárdenas was right this time, but not every player in that situation would be fighting for the “right” call or outcome. And because the rules are unclear on what happens, you get this really weird situation where nobody knows what’s going on or why it’s happening. I cannot emphasize enough that the mood in the stands (at least by me) was mostly just confusion—confusion at the entire situation after the out call was made, and Fury did not get a chance on offense that point.
Once again, to be clear, I don’t really fault any one person for how they acted in this situation. I was also unhappy with both of the other reviews I saw. One had players leaving the field for a video review again, and one involved using a phone from the sideline that was possibly not recording at a high enough frame rate to capture the most important moments. Based on my reading of the rules, both were incorrectly handled. In all three reviews, not a single observer watched any replay once. It was only the players.
This whole system is not working, in my opinion. For the next rules rewrite, I’d like to see a lot of clarification in the rules for the use of replay review in games, tackling as many niche cases as possible so that no matter if a game is observed or not, it’s always clear if/when it is possible to use video review. Let me know what you think about video review in ultimate, and see you in the next Breakside!
Coming Soon
One of my highlights from nationals was finally getting my hands on One More Year, the graphic novel by the creators of Contested Strip. I knew a story about someone on the verge of leaving the sport and getting dragged back would hit on some big feelings for me, but I was still absolutely blown away by it. I have not felt the urge to write about something so strongly in a long time. So, I’m hoping to write a spoiler-free review/personal essay about it for you all later this week.
About The Breakside
This newsletter aims to tackle the gap in present coverage of ultimate as a sport. Commentary, analysis, and community are some of the guiding ideals behind the Breakside.
If you enjoyed my writing, please consider leaving a like or comment, subscribing, or sharing it with a friend. There is now a paid subscription option to support the journalism I do. Please consider helping out in that way too if you are willing and able.
About the Author
My name is Noam Gumerman (he/him). I am from Chapel Hill, NC, and studied Journalism and American Studies at Brandeis University. I am a journalist by trade and have been playing ultimate for over half my life. I love nothing more than combining those two interests. Contact me for discussions, feedback, story suggestions, and more on Twitter (@noamgum/@breaksideulti now too!) or email (noamgumerman@gmail.com).
I cannot find it to cite, if someone remembers what I’m talking about let me know and I’ll link it but I just want to be clear I did not have this idea first but I cannot remember/find who did