USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #3: Referee Development

[Mr Epee]

over the course of her term the new president will replace (or simply re-appoint) the entirety of the FOC.

-m

Should the President really be replacing FOC's based on whether or not they are the right people to implement a plan that was drafted by the USFA Nominating Committee Candidates for the Executive Committee - prior to their being elected?

Is the reality that this is the current plan being developed by the FOC?

Won't this plan be moved forward regardless of who is in the big chair?

Greg will still be a member of the FOC.
The current election is for position of Treasurer.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

dude, you're in New England...

you've GOT to be kidding me!

-m

Yeah, this isn't a valid argument---- sure, there was a tournament canceled a little over a month ago, and the official reason was because they couldn't get refs.

Of course, the event was scheduled opposite .... junior sectionals? And beyond that one, the organizers have alienated a number of people who otherwise would have helped ref or run the event.

That's not the issue of competent refs in the area. It's an issue of organization, and based on how I was contacted, it's not the division's problem either.

New England is a scenario where largely we've moved on from ref development to ref treatment. I haven't bothered to care about being a better ref recently because I don't want to deal with the BS involved. If I wanted to get better, I know how to start, and who to ask for help.

I also know when to have other things to do that weekend.

[dekko]

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?

They have enough people doing this right now and they don't feel anyone in the SE can do this job. They also have a requirement of the individual being a 2 or higher rated ref which includes a couple but then the first reason is given again. Yet another example of certain people being rewarded for whatever reason and everyone else can pound sand.

Maybe the new folks will change that, but I am not holding my breath.

[T]

Thanks, Greg. This looks very promising.

T? your plans?

-m

I agree, it looks promising.

This plan certainly has many specifics but the organization of it can be improved so as to utilize existing programs to minimize overhead. In addition, a process can be developed so that parents are encouraged to participate in the programs. The usanominees plan calls for divisions and sections to be involved and unless I missed it, the plan doesn't talk about funding.

Our pipeline plan includes utilizing overhead expenses of developmental camps at the regional level to include regional training of referees, bout commitee officials, and armorers. It also includes an incentive process for the participants to be refunded the training expenses through an internship program at NACs or regional tournaments (such as RYCs or SYCs) or sanctioned divisional or sectional tournaments.

[Greg_D]

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

Well... I suppose that we're taking credit for it since I wrote it.

It was discussed with the entire FOC. The current FOC members support the concept. The trouble is, with current resources, it's hard to implement. The main problems with implementation are the administrative tasks required to make it happen. That's why it's important to have a stronger tie between the volunteers on the FOC and the professional staff in the office. The reorganization of responsibilities in the office (as was posted in another thread) helps to solve that problem.

Greg

[Greg_D]

Is the reality that this is the current plan being developed by the FOC?

Won't this plan be moved forward regardless of who is in the big chair?

Greg will still be a member of the FOC.
The current election is for position of Treasurer.

Actually, I'm up for reappointment to the FOC this next season. Should I be elected treasurer, I will request that the president (who I sincerely hope will be Kalle) not reappoint me to the FOC. (Though I may still head referee a tournament or two each year as I did before I was on the FOC.)

It is unlikely that this plan will move forward unless there is additional help from the staff to oversee the various administrative functions that are required. In addition, new appointments to the FOC will be key. I would suggest that, because of their active participation and broad knowledge of those who volunteer as officials, the entire group of candidates proposed by the Nominating Committee have more and better knowledge of who might be successful in this role.

Greg

[Greg_D]

Sorry to post so many times in a row, but they really did seem like separate issues to me...

They have enough people doing this right now and they don't feel anyone in the SE can do this job. They also have a requirement of the individual being a 2 or higher rated ref which includes a couple but then the first reason is given again. Yet another example of certain people being rewarded for whatever reason and everyone else can pound sand.

Since I'm in the chair of the FOC's referee development committee I have a lot of knowledge about what it takes to become an instructor. We've added additional instructors over the last couple of years (Brad Baker and Justin Meehan to name two). We'd be happy to add others and there is no cap on the number. There are, however, criteria that must be met in order to become an instructor. Those criteria are posted on the FOC website and do not include being a 2.

http://www.fencingofficials.org/CRI/...ry_Jan2006.pdf

There are a number of people in the SE section that are on the verge of being qualified under these criteria. When an inquiry was posed to me about why we didn't have additional people in the SE as instructors I never indicated that there was a cap on the number, but rather pointed to the above criteria.

The criteria were put into place in 2006. This happened because, prior to that, there were complaints to the chair of the Referee Development Committee (who was not me at that time) about the quality of the courses being conducted. After investigating the problem, it was found that there were people teaching the seminar who were not current on the rules or who were giving out bad information about how to interpret actions and the theory of them. It was decided that it would be unfair and unreasonable to choose, on a purely subjective basis, who was doing a good job and who was not. Therefore, the above objective criteria were put into place.

People of good will can disagree about the purpose of the Referee Seminar and about the skills required to teach it. It continues to be the opinion of the members of the Referee Development Committee that they are appropriate. This may certainly change over time. Until then, I'm sure that the Ref Dev committee at the time will work quickly to get people who meet the criteria and express an interest trained and on the list.

Greg

[sabermom]

Those of you in the Mid-Atlantic or Metro NYC areas might be interested in this:

Advanced Topics in Saber Refereeing with Brad Baker and Ivan Lee

Sunday, June 8, noon-2pm at FASJ

http://askfred.net/Clinics/moreInfo.php?clinic_id=6011


Please sign up!

[swordsen]

The plan may be all well and good but until there is an examiner in every division it is hard to appoint him or her to be a contact person.

[oso97]

The plan may be all well and good but until there is an examiner in every division it is hard to appoint him or her to be a contact person.

Which suggests that one of the initial steps is to find people who could serve such a purpose and train them in that capacity, not ***** that it can't be done.

[Jason]

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.

Actually, it's Greg's comment's that I'm using to support my reasoning. The financial plan is looking to address this, but over the course of 3 or 4 years. That may be the best solution, but it does nothing to help improve the development of referees.

You can be sure that if every referee said they would not work without timely payment, the NC's financial plan would change. As it is, other financial concerns are being prioritized. The current referee situation is "good enough" for the NC slate for the time being.

I'll again mention--though perhaps it doesn't matter now, considering how quickly this thread is growing--that I'm not suggesting that referee development ought to be a top priority for either slate. I'm simply pointing out--particularly as this question has come up in this thread--that it isn't. It's important to recognize what each slate is prioritizing. Everyone wants everything to be better. By assessing the priorities, we can more readily recognize what we should expect from the candidates.

[whtouche]

You can be sure that if every referee said they would not work without timely payment, the NC's financial plan would change. As it is, other financial concerns are being prioritized. The current referee situation is "good enough" for the NC slate for the time being.

That is perhaps true, but thankfully no referees, or at least no referee with a reasonable idea of what's going on, is making that demand.

I referee national events as often as I can, and being literally a poor college student I have little by way of personal income (infact during the school year I don't generally have a regular job); that being said, even I don't depend on my checks from refereeing USFA events. Not only would I expect the check to be late even if the USFA weren't experiencing cash flow issues, but the checks are really never large enough for their absence to cause me any real anxiety.

Refereeing is far from volunteer work, but primarily I do it because it pays my way to nationals and NACs and makes competing cheaper, AND now that I am injured and won't be fencing for a while I plan to continue to ref because it's fun, I get to see people and travel to different parts of the country. The fact that I will eventually be paid for it is a bonus. I doubt there is anyone out there for whom money represents the primary motivating factor; there just isn't enough of it.

I also understand and appreciate the need and utility of long term planning. If someone says in three years that referees will be paid on time / almost instantly, I say cool, especially if the utility of this longish term plan is that it will fix the problem with payment without doing anything short sighted that will hurt the USFA in the long run.

[Inquartata]

On my list of pros and cons for the two "slates", one of the remaining cons for the NC one was "long on sweeping statements, short on detailed plans". I am glad to see that this is changing. Good job, Greg.

[HDG]

The plan may be all well and good but until there is an examiner in every division it is hard to appoint him or her to be a contact person.

Which suggests that one of the initial steps is to find people who could serve such a purpose and train them in that capacity, not ***** that it can't be done.

So, besides needing to be "at least a 5 in one weapon" and attending Rules Seminars, what is involved?

Not too hard to proctor the written, but the position also involves proctoring the practical exam, so I'm guessing the 5 requirement is really the tip of the iceberg.

Are potential examiners ID'd by the RDC, or do you apply for consideration? (not something I'd be doing any time soon, but maybe someday)

[noodle]

So, besides needing to be "at least a 5 in one weapon" and attending Rules Seminars, what is involved?

Not too hard to proctor the written, but the position also involves proctoring the practical exam, so I'm guessing the 5 requirement is really the tip of the iceberg.

Are potential examiners ID'd by the RDC, or do you apply for consideration? (not something I'd be doing any time soon, but maybe someday)

how about an online ref test to bump people to 10?

still waiting on those questions, greg

[dekko]

There are currently at least 5 people, and I thought of a 6th later but have not spoken with them directly, who have the ability experience and willingness to teach the course and are spreadout throughout the SE section. After some emails with Bill Oliver they were all denied leaving the SE section with no one and anyone interested will be forced to bring in someone, at much higher expense of course, to give a course then leave and give no continuing/followup training or help at subsequent events. If new officers truely have ref developement as a concern then it would seem logical to include the SE section in their plans. As of right now this does not seem to be the case.

The criteria have recently changed then because when I inquired right after JOs it was a two rating, I am glad to see it was updated and changed.

If either group of officers want to truely develope refs then maybe the whole country should be included not just selected areas. The idea that there is no one in the southeast who has the ability to teach this course and help new refs on the path to becoming good/great refs is silly, to say the least.

The requirements set out for the CRIs are similiar to asking for someone to be the level of Alan Greenspan to teach Eco 101 at a junior college. Now if there is a thought to have more than one course and have refs graduate from level to level as the gain experience and these requirements are for the upper levels of the process then that makes since but we are talking about new refs. The graduates of this class and test do not move straight into international reffing or even go from a 3 to a 2 rating in a given weapon(s). These grads go to D2/D3 circuits and start the process of gaining experience and start the larger process of becoming better refs and gaining higher ratings.

As for the cap, it was suggested by Bill Oliver not any communication from Greg. There seems to be the idea that the CRIs must have international experience, others on the list currently do not they are exceptions and more exceptions would not be allowed, hence the suggestion of a cap. Having a limnited group as CRIs only adds to the burnout situation and doesn't help get new refs.

[seak]

dekko, being relatively new to the SE section I decided to do some research. In looking at the certified ref instructors page it appears Bill Becker is a CRI. Now, I have heard that he's currently spending a lot of time in the SW but I think that's relatively recent?

Also looking at the guidelines (and knowing that for various very good reasons you pretty much have to be rated in all 3 weapons), the only other person how meets the criteria is Mary Mahon, and she's pretty low in her third weapon, saber (7), for an instructor (and given that I've never met her I have no knowledge if she's even interested which is also a prereq). There are two other folks on the list (Vitaly and Russ W.) but I'm pretty sure that neither is interested, and that if they were they would be added (just a guess).

I am curious who else you have in mind?

Also, being a relatively low level ref, who has attended a few ref seminars, I like the fact that it is only a high level ref who is conducting these seminars. Now, there may be a few refs who are at a lower level and could do a good job with the seminar, but it's good to have a top level ref giving current interpretations and answers to questions, and promulgates national knowledge at a lower level.

[HDG]

dekko, being relatively new to the SE section I decided to do some research. In looking at the certified ref instructors page it appears Bill Becker is a CRI. Now, I have heard that he's currently spending a lot of time in the SW but I think that's relatively recent?

Bill has been in Arizona for almost a year now.

[seak]

Yeah that's what I heard, though I think technically he's still SE section, and has fenced in several SE events. I was defining a year as relatively recent.

[dekko]

Bill has moves to AZ and just because the list has not been updated doesn't mean Bill is 'in the SE'.

There are 5 who have the experience(10+ years reffing and/or fencing national and/or international events), the ability(know how to teach as these folks are good coaches) and willingness(I asked them if they were willingness before I submitted their name) and they are Jeff Snider, Bob Cochrane(SP?), Julio Diaz, Matt Cox, David Burns. Mary could be on this list but I did not ask her if she was willing. All of the people on this list have the experience and ability, keep up with the rules as they are active coaches and would be willing to give this class. Also, they are spread out through the section giving it good coverage. Julio's refs rating is a bit low only because he coaches and fences more than he refs but his ability is there. Jeff is in Virginia, Bob is in Florida, Julio is in Georgia, Matt is in North Carolina and David is in South Carolina(just over the border from Charlotte).

Remember, we are talking about teaching basics to refs and giving them info to be ready to start the process not graduate this course and and ref a world cup or D1 final. The graduates of this course go to D2/D3 events and start the process not complete the process.

Quite frankly the requirements for CRIs should be reviewed and reconsidered. I agree quality of info should be considered but if this course is left to only the highest rated refs when there are many more who could give the course that person is closer to the burnout factor, considering national and international events reffed and now giving this course on top of all that travel and schedule, it's just too much for those people and there should be other options.

Let's be clear, I am not suggesting anyone on the list should be removed I am merely suggesting having no one in the SE is giving this course when there are 5-6 quality candidates who could give the course to help develop more refs and help the whole situation for everyone in future events.