It’s right there.   In plain site for anyone to see.  I don’t know when I had my first glass, but it must have been a long time back as these words have a faint nostalgic tone to them.  This is the dogma that the Ultimate Players Association (UPA) indoctrinates each and every one of it's members with:

 

"The purpose of the rules of Ultimate is to provide a guideline which describes the way the game is played.

 It assumed that no Ultimate player will intentionally violate the rules; thus there are no harsh penalties for inadvertent infractions, but rather a method for resuming play in a manner which simulates what would most likely have occurred had there been no infraction."

When I started playing, I was down with the idea of self officiating.  Sure, what the heck.  It sounded reasonable that players, themselves, could manage the game.  Why not?  Players make calls, the other team can contest, players resolve issues.  It could work, I supposed, and the win at all cost attitude discouraged, great.  I’d played lots of street basketball and self officiating seems to work there.

From Wikipedia on Kool-Aid:

The idiomatic expression drinking the Kool-Aid is a reference to the 1978 cult mass-suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the group, convinced his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he then ordered his flock to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Flavor Aid laced with potassium cyanide. In what is now commonly called "the Jonestown Massacre", 913 of the 1100 Jonestown residents drank the brew and died. (The discrepancy between the idiom and the actual occurrence is likely due to Flavor Aid's relative obscurity versus the easily recognizable Kool-Aid.)

One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side," or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly."

The phrase can also be used in the opposite sense to indicate that one has blindly embraced a particular philosophy or perspective (a "Kool-Aid drinker"). This usage is generally limited to those in or commenting on United States politics, but also appears in discussions on computer technology, where someone who is a staunch advocate for a particular technology is described as having "drunk the Kool-Aid". This is also frequently used in discussions about sports; when a fan makes an overly-optimistic prediction or hopeful statement, usually about a traditionally woeful team or franchise, others may comment that he is "drinking the Kool-Aid"

This is the only usage of "Kool-Aid" that non-American speakers of English are likely to recognize.

But where did this Kool Aid come from?  Who wrote this?  And what does this phrase, embedded into the preface of the rules, have to do with Spirit of the Game?  It is completely separate from SOTG and yet it had been inserted into the rules so long ago and inextricably and cleverly linked to SOTG that no one ever seemed to have stopped and noticed or cared to read it to see if it made any sense.  To attack this phrase was to attack SOTG and risk being labeled a heretic.  We’ve been drinking the Kool Aid so long it just became a part of our system.

I mean, if you look at the definition of SOTG, it reads as follows:

“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 among 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 from 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”

I’d rather not get into a debate about this definition.  Many people, including myself, have issues with it but be that as it may, it’s not an unreasonable basis for a set of rules for a game.  But there’s nothing in the definition of SOTG that prohibits penalties.  That provision, the Kool Aid, is something separate that was laid on us under the guise of SOTG when in all reality, it has nothing to do with it.

There is a sense of nobility when you read the definition of spirit of the game but there’s nothing noble about allowing infractions to go unpunished, whether they were inadvertent or not.

What they seem to be saying in this preface is that the reason there are penalties in sports is to prevent cheating.  Isn’t it?  Read it again.  It says that because of the assumption that no one is going to cheat, there’s really no need for any penalties.  Who came up with this nonsensical rhetoric?  Was it Irv Kalb?  Was it a committee?  Does anybody know?  Does it matter?  This does not belong in the rules for any sport, especially a sport that is looking for respect.  You can't have dogma integrated into the rules.  Have you not heard of separation of church and state?

Penalties’ purpose in sports goes well beyond regulating cheating.  Penalties serve to perform the function of promoting adherence to a set of rules.  Cheating implies intent and so once you’ve decide to forgive all transgressions due to their inadvertency (on the assumption that there is never any malicious intent), you’ve ceased creating a structured and fair environment.  You ironically then put the onus for fair play on the player when at the same time you’ve given him an environment that is inherently unfair.

Where else in the sporting world does intent carry such a major role in the determination of the rules?  I can think, off hand, of an umpire in baseball judging that the pitcher’s beanball was intentional, and of course we have in football the notion of intentional grounding but the entire rules of Ultimate are predicated on intent (or even worse, the lack thereof).

The reason why traveling is not a turnover in Ultimate is because of the Kool Aid.  When I ask if there are any reasons why traveling should not be a turnover, the circular response I typically receive is ‘Kool Aid, drink the Kool Aid’ (i.e. “because the preface says there will be no penalties”).  The Kool Aid is not a valid response to my question.  I asked for a valid reason why traveling shouldn’t be a turnover, not why it isn’t.  To date, I still have heard none.

Lastly, the last phrase in the Kool Aid, the bit about ‘a method for resuming play as if the infraction didn’t take place’ is almost equally as absurd (especially in the context of considering inadvertent illicit calls, such as incorrect traveling calls, as infractions).  It may work, for example, with simple offensive and defensive schemes, but in more sophisticated offenses, there’s simply no possible way to resume anywhere near where things left off as if nothing had ever happened.  With intricate weave patterns, misdirection plays and spacing, momentum & angles of attack all part of an offensive scheme, its impossible to push a reset button that gives you back all of that advantage when the disc gets checked back in.  Not even close.

People have been drinking this Kool Aid so long they are not even aware of it. 

The Ultimate community almost needs a Betty Ford clinic for the safe detoxification of the Kool Aid from their systems.  The cult-ure at large seems to be under its spell.

Stop drinking the Kool Aid and think for yourself.  What does the lack of penalization have to do with Spirit of the Game?   Don't take my word for it, take the DiscHoops Challenge and find out for yourself.

Musical Credits: Lineage of Death: Koolaid song