USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #3: Referee Development

[keith]

Originally Posted by seak

T
The biggest issue is getting someone from an 8 to a national level ref........

Depends where you sit.

Some of us are in Divisions where events are canceled because insufficient numbers of refs of any sort (included unrated) can be found.

[whtouche]

Originally Posted by peet

In sections that are particularly large (geographically), it might be a good idea to encourage and provide support for the establishment of more than one of these individuals, so that they can have a more continuous, ongoing effect on referee development in their section. In a large section (i.e. Rocky Mountain and Pacific NW), if there is only one such person, the only time 90% of the section's potential referees will see this person is at the sectional championships, which are often sparsely attended. If part of this person's job to run the referee seminar, it would be very good to provide a geographical spread of these people that sectionally based distribution doesn't cover.

That seems to me like a very valid concern. Now the question becomes how to solve it?

At first I was thinking that we should make this position proportionately representative of the population of a section, IE one person in charge of ref development per X number of people, but then I started to consider the way you worded your response, talking about geographically large divisions, and that strikes me as a larger obstacle. For example, while the new england division has quite a few people, it is relatively condensed, geographically. I imagine the opposite is true for some divisions and sections.

What if the sectional chair of ref development has a person working under him for each division?

I admit to not having read the webpage quoted, and maybe that is part of their plan.

[KD5MDK]

It is. Specifically, each Division is encouraged to have an Examiner who can give the written test and observe lower level referees.

[Phrogger]

Originally Posted by dekko

The mention of the ref’s course was made. Right now there are 24-26(?) in the US who can give the ref’s course. You can draw a line from Louisiana to Nebraska to Michigan to Philly and there is no one south or east of that line who is allowed to give this course. I did email Bill Oliver directly and mentioned that there are at least 5 people in the SE who have the experience (fencing and reffing), the ability and the willingness to teach this course but I was told we would not be allowed to and that they would not be adding folks who could do this. That is a huge area of the country that has many who wish to learn to ref and get ratings but are summarily ignored by the FOC.

This is sad. Were you given a reason why no one else will be allowed to give the course? Especially if they are willing and qualified?

[peet]

Originally Posted by whtouche

That seems to me like a very valid concern. Now the question becomes how to solve it?

At first I was thinking that we should make this position proportionately representative of the population of a section, IE one person in charge of ref development per X number of people, but then I started to consider the way you worded your response, talking about geographically large divisions, and that strikes me as a larger obstacle. For example, while the new england division has quite a few people, it is relatively condensed, geographically. I imagine the opposite is true for some divisions and sections.

What if the sectional chair of ref development has a person working under him for each division?

I admit to not having read the webpage quoted, and maybe that is part of their plan.

Maybe it doesn't need to be as systematic as all that; it would probably be enough to say "hey, that PNW section is pretty huge. How about we have one of these folks in Utah, another one in Seattle, and one in Portland?" Or in the case of Rocky Mountain: "how about we try to have someone in Phoenix, Kansas city, and one in Colorado?" (ok, they probably already have Colorado covered! ).

You have to balance the distance people travel with the number of fencers and refs in the areas, so having one such person per X fencers, or one in each division, or any other written guideline would probably not be as good as just taking some time to look at the country and figure out a good distribution.

-p

[peet]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

It is. Specifically, each Division is encouraged to have an Examiner who can give the written test and observe lower level referees.

The difference (as proposed) being that the section person would be able to give the seminar, which is important. For example, we haven't had an official seminar in my division in many years. (we're fixing that this year, thanks Dan!)

-p

[dekko]

Originally Posted by seak

There is someone in Baltimore.

As for the geography, there are lots of cities not mentioned in that line that is not exactly straight to begin with.

The Ref Instructor is exactly what I referred to and let’s remember something, my opinion here, this course is not designed to take a new ref wannabe from 10 to 1 at the end of the course, it seems more that it is meant to give new refs the basic information to start them on the path to becoming good refs and someone that potentially a 1 or 2 FOC type to take and make a better 1 or 2 level ref. The idea that this course should be only done by very high level refs should be modified and there should not be a cap on how many can give this course. If ref development is a priority/ concern it should be broadened not limited when it comes to how many can help develop new refs.

If a national committee wants to use the sections to help then it might help to have instructors in each section, or more than one due to burnout.

[dcrocket]

This NC candidates plan is wonderful. I have been encouraging referee development here in the GMD and host an annual seminar but this would take the process to a new level. It is incredibly hard to get referees tested, observed and upgraded. A more formal and local process would greatly improve the level and professionalism of the GMD referee corps. This would in turn provide a better process for the ones with talent to be moved to the national level.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

1. Age limit referees - bring in line with FIE standards.

2. Pay people enough to justify their time and effort.

3. Pay them quickly and when promised.

4. Provide a detailed contract between referees and the organization.

Referee conditions continue to drive quality individuals away.
This forces the organization to dip repeatedly from the bottom of the barrel.

This is correct.
The fact that the NC slate estimates that they will only be able to pay the referees in a timely manner in 3 years suggests that referee development is not a major priority for the slate.

I'm not suggesting it necessarily should be, mind you. But if changing the current referee situation was considered an immediate need, the financial plan would be different. (Redesigning NACs would probably also be a simultaneous priority.)

I would guess that referee development is probably pretty low on the priority list of both slates. As long as the USFA can continue to find people willing to be treated like **** for "the good of the sport", there's little need to prioritize changing the system.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Jason

This is correct.
The fact that the NC slate estimates that they will only be able to pay the referees in a timely manner in 3 years suggests that referee development is not a major priority for the slate.

I'm not suggesting it necessarily should be, mind you. But if changing the current referee situation was considered an immediate need, the financial plan would be different. (Redesigning NACs would probably also be a simultaneous priority.)

I would guess that referee development is probably pretty low on the priority list of both slates. As long as the USFA can continue to find people willing to be treated like **** for "the good of the sport", there's little need to prioritize changing the system.

I think you are comparing apples with oranges. Referee development and referee payment/reimbursement are two entirely separate issues.

Referee development doesn't necessarily have anything to do with national events. The plan to help further develop referees would also improve things at the divisional and sectional level. Sure, some of those referees would migrate to the national level, but any plan to improve things locally is good.

As for referee payments, I would argue that even if the payment issues can't be immediately resolved, the increased transparency and explanation of the situation is a step in the right direction. I think a large number of referees, while not happy with the current situation, appreciate the fact that there is concern and the problem is going to be addressed.

Plus, it's no secret that payments are slow in coming. Yet you do not see a mass defection of referees. They know what the situation is and continue to ref. The referees who are not willing to wait can choose to not ref. It's that simple.

Dan

[Jason]

Originally Posted by dberke

Referee development doesn't necessarily have anything to do with national events. The plan to help further develop referees would also improve things at the divisional and sectional level. Sure, some of those referees would migrate to the national level, but any plan to improve things locally is good.

Agreed. Local development of referees is extremely important and needs to be addressed.

However, the question that started this thread was about isolating and developing talent to higher levels. If this kind of development were a priority, the payment issues would be more immediately handled.

This is not a criticism of the NC slate's plan. It's an observation. If I were in their place, I might also consider that kind of referee development a low priority (of course, I might not).

Originally Posted by Dan

As for referee payments, I would argue that even if the payment issues can't be immediately resolved, the increased transparency and explanation of the situation is a step in the right direction. I think a large number of referees, while not happy with the current situation, appreciate the fact that there is concern and the problem is going to be addressed.

Plus, it's no secret that payments are slow in coming. Yet you do not see a mass defection of referees. They know what the situation is and continue to ref. The referees who are not willing to wait can choose to not ref. It's that simple.

Dan

Again, I agree. However, there are quite a few talented and capable referees who have no interest in going to NACs because, among other things, of the payment situation. The inclusion of these people would increase the level of refereeing significantly.

The fact that the issues of payment/reimbursement/etc. aren't being addressed demonstrates that the NC slate is satisfied with the current situation in regards to referee development to higher levels and the availability of the most talented people. Or, put another way, they'd probably like an improved situation (I can't imagine why they wouldn't), but see other things as being more important.

[dberke]

Originally Posted by Jason

Again, I agree. However, there are quite a few talented and capable referees who have no interest in going to NACs because, among other things, of the payment situation. The inclusion of these people would increase the level of refereeing significantly.

I don't doubt this, and it is indeed unfortunate. Even more reason for the issue to be addressed.

Originally Posted by Jason

The fact that the issues of payment/reimbursement/etc. aren't being addressed demonstrates that the NC slate is satisfied with the current situation in regards to referee development to higher levels and the availability of the most talented people. Or, put another way, they'd probably like an improved situation (I can't imagine why they wouldn't), but see other things as being more important.

I think Greg_D's comments on the situation in other threads directly refute your assertion that the payment issues aren't being addressed. Perhaps they aren't going to be solved as quickly as you would like, but the reasons for that have also been explained.

Dan

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by Jason

The fact that the issues of payment/reimbursement/etc. aren't being addressed demonstrates that the NC slate is satisfied with the current situation in regards to referee development to higher levels and the availability of the most talented people. Or, put another way, they'd probably like an improved situation (I can't imagine why they wouldn't), but see other things as being more important.

I think what I have highlighted at the end is probably more the case than the first part of the quote.

I am sure the NC canidates have refering on their agenda, it is on their website. To say that they are content with the current situation is not true. The problem is they will have to prioitize and IMHO getting the finances in order first is more important than referee development.

J.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by keith

Depends where you sit.

Some of us are in Divisions where events are canceled because insufficient numbers of refs of any sort (included unrated) can be found.

dude, you're in New England...

you've GOT to be kidding me!

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Jason

However, the question that started this thread was about isolating and developing talent to higher levels. If this kind of development were a priority, the payment issues would be more immediately handled.

This is not a criticism of the NC slate's plan. It's an observation. If I were in their place, I might also consider that kind of referee development a low priority (of course, I might not).

I disagree. Speaking as somebody who knows many talented referees who quit too early, money was rarely a factor. The biggest factor was frustration at feeling like their progress as a referee had stagnated. Do I wish that referees were paid more and more timely? absolutely. would that help attract more talent? Possibly. however, that is NOT, imo, at the heart of the issue raised in this thread. The weapon specific video seminars that are suggested by the Nominees is perhaps the single most promising idea I've seen in quite a while.

-m

[Mr Epee]

One question.

Why are the USFA Nominating Committee Candidates taking credit for a detailed plan of referee development?

Referee development is the responsibility of the FOC

The President of the USFA nominates potential members of the FOC, and they are approved/rejected by the BoD. The number of FOC members selected each year is a significant minority of the whole, this prevents the possibility of a wholesale coup.

If this is the direction that the FOC is already heading, then it is hardly seems appropriate to co-opt this plan for the campaign purposes of those individuals who seek election to the Executive Committee.

Good times.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

One question.

Why are the USFA Nominating Committee Candidates taking credit for a detailed plan of referee development?

Referee development is the responsibility of the FOC

The President of the USFA nominates potential members of the FOC, and they are approved/rejected by the BoD. The number of FOC members selected each year is a significant minority of the whole, this prevents the possibility of a wholesale coup.

If this is the direction that the FOC is already heading, then it is hardly seems appropriate to co-opt this plan for the campaign purposes of those individuals who seek election to the Executive Committee.

Good times.

Why are both slates putting forward plans for the WE program? That's the purview of the HPC!

If we follow this logic there is nothing that is directly the responsibility of the President except appointments to the committees that actually have responsibility for the issues.

Since I've already been told it's not proper to ask about specific appointments, this would pretty much eliminate the any debate at all about any issue.

Additionally, presumably the slates goals for referee development would inform their selections to serve on the FOC, as they'd be more likely to appoint people who see eye to eye with them on their plans.

-m

[arc]