USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #3: Referee Development

[seak]

Well you were sort of making it out like no one from SE had been on the list in quite some time, and Bill was in SE....which was sort of my point.

As to your list, none of them meet the current criteria for a CRI, as the criteria are currently defined. Now I know both Jeff and Matt and have tremendous amounts of respect for both of them, but unless they up their ratings, or the FOC changes their criteria they don't qualify, which was my point.

Part of the problem is that if you are a CRI you really need to be very good in all three weapons, and interested in reffing them. The best 3-weapon ref in SE might be Bigdawg, but of course he decided to retire . Both Matt and Jeff are examiners though, and Greg is (or was) relatively to fly in for a seminar .

Honestly, I agree that having a CRI in the SE would be a good thing, but your argument seems to be that there are folks that are qualified and the SE section is being discriminated against. I'm merely pointing out that according to the current rules they're not qualified. Now I understand that you disagree with the rules, which is fine, but it doesn't seem to be the FOC doesn't want to have a CRI in the SE sort of thing.

[eac]

Mildly related question from uninformed participant: I heard one time that to get a certain rating or above (3, I think), you had to get the unanimous vote of the FOC saying that you're a 3, or you never get your 3. Is this true? If so, it seems like you could accidentally piss off a single FOC member, and then be completely permanently screwed as a referee.

I personally have no interest in becoming a referee, but I am someone who tends to piss people off, or sometimes who people just don't like right off the bat, and so I have sympathy for people who get screwed this way.

If it is this way, why?

[Damon Scaggs]

Originally Posted by eac

Mildly related question from uninformed participant: I heard one time that to get a certain rating or above (3, I think), you had to get the unanimous vote of the FOC saying that you're a 3, or you never get your 3. Is this true? If so, it seems like you could accidentally piss off a single FOC member, and then be completely permanently screwed as a referee.

I personally have no interest in becoming a referee, but I am someone who tends to piss people off, or sometimes who people just don't like right off the bat, and so I have sympathy for people who get screwed this way.

If it is this way, why?

This is not true. At least it isn't current practice. Majority vote is the way it works.

[bigdawg2121]

Originally Posted by seak

Well you were sort of making it out like no one from SE had been on the list in quite some time, and Bill was in SE....which was sort of my point.

As to your list, none of them meet the current criteria for a CRI, as the criteria are currently defined. Now I know both Jeff and Matt and have tremendous amounts of respect for both of them, but unless they up their ratings, or the FOC changes their criteria they don't qualify, which was my point.

Part of the problem is that if you are a CRI you really need to be very good in all three weapons, and interested in reffing them. The best 3-weapon ref in SE might be Bigdawg, but of course he decided to retire . Both Matt and Jeff are examiners though, and Greg is (or was) relatively to fly in for a seminar .

Honestly, I agree that having a CRI in the SE would be a good thing, but your argument seems to be that there are folks that are qualified and the SE section is being discriminated against. I'm merely pointing out that according to the current rules they're not qualified. Now I understand that you disagree with the rules, which is fine, but it doesn't seem to be the FOC doesn't want to have a CRI in the SE sort of thing.

Justin is now in Louisiana as well. Not sure that it counts exactly but it's relatively close to the SE. Honestly, I think that the biggest part of the problem is that the FOC wants to ensure that the seminars are being given by people that are definitely current on interpretations and rules as well as active. Bad habits are hard to unteach, and we all know plenty of new refs that go forth into the world and **** **** up spectacularly and with a level of confidence that makes you wonder when they won their last world championship*...no one is suggesting that your (Dekko) candidates would do that but they technically don't meet the minimum requirements set forth to prevent these types of things from happening.

The other problem is that you don't really have a group of people that are active or interested in refereeing multiple weapons for the most part. I know that Matt can ref foil if you make him and aquit himself relatively well. I'm not sure he has the same level of understanding of it that he does for saber. Should that be important enough to stop him from being an instructor? I'd have to think about it a little more but it really might be. Jeff has a 4 in foil. I assume that means he can ref it. It's from 2007, he must have done so recently. I can't ever really recall seeing Jeff do foil...not sure I'm inactive enough for that not to bode poorly for his being an instructor (although I could be). Julio - saber? Epee? Of the group, Burns has the most experience (I think)actively reffing all 3 or at least 2 of 3 and hence might be the best choice if you were going to ask them to relax the ratings requirement but again the question of activity comes up...I know that I'm too inactive right now to even been an examiner and would probably have to ref all of the Div 1 NACs next season to even be kind of close to being considered active again; I haven't seen Dave out there much at the tournaments I was at? Has he been reffing this season?

*There are plenty of other valid reasons why having very good referees with very good and current interpretations of the rules give seminars but hyperbole seemed to fit best here.

[keith]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

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.

Why isn't the observation valid? The official reason is the reason - hell, even I got a request to ref.

Does the division have a large number of qualified refs? Yes
Does the division promptly pay refs? Yes
Does the division have experience refs who support the development of newcomers? Yes

Was an event canceled due to an inability to find refs? Yes

When things hinge on personal interactions and good will policy documents are nice, but largely irrelevant. They need to cover what exactly it is you are going to do if people can't be adult and make nice for the sake of the fencing public.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by keith

Why isn't the observation valid? The official reason is the reason - hell, even I got a request to ref.

Does the division have a large number of qualified refs? Yes
Does the division promptly pay refs? Yes
Does the division have experience refs who support the development of newcomers? Yes

Was an event canceled due to an inability to find refs? Yes

When things hinge on personal interactions and good will policy documents are nice, but largely irrelevant. They need to cover what exactly it is you are going to do if people can't be adult and make nice for the sake of the fencing public.

They scheduled it opposite Senior Sectionals... it was really cancelled due to that. The fact that they showed poor judgment in trying to hold it anyway and then were unable to does NOT indicate that we have an issue with local referee development, and your implication that it does was both wrong and disingenuous. Stop trolling, Keith.

-m

[dekko]

There has been a general tone of lots of issues concerning the way US Fencing does many things as, in general, “This needs to change because it is not working as it is now.” The way refs are developed is certainly under that heading. I am aware of the current qualifications of what is needed to be a CRI and suggest this needs to change. I am by no means the best or most active national ref but every time I go to another event I see fewer new faces and unfortunately fewer old faces. First off, I agree Joe Pipkin would be a could be a good person to give the class but he is a college student and no telling where he will end up after college and second, as you mentioned, he is currently unwilling, evidence by his retirement.

The FOC report mentioned there are fewer 4 and higher refs this year than there were last year, this is a problem. There may be many reasons for this but whatever they are it is a problem and with few new faces at events doesn’t seem to be getting better. There was no mention of how many new refs had passed the test or graduated the course in the FOC report and this was disturbing for the future of refs and reffing. The southeast has many people interested in taking the course but with the expense of trying to bring someone to the southeast to give the class this is not a good option for the groups to make happen. I do agree they should come together but this is prevented by several factors, mostly geography. There is not a good reason why the southeast has been left out of this equation and, no disrespect to Bill, but him being in Miami and this section stretching as far north as Virginia, it is/was very difficult for him to cover the entire southeast. My interest in this has been sparked by him moving out of the section and this section having no one to give the class. I know of three groups interested in taking the class and at least two of the folks on the current list, Meehan and Dilworth, have both said they would make the trip but expense and scheduling seem to have gotten in the way of making this happen. There may have been more off the list interested in making the trip, I know of these two who have said yes but have not yet given the class.

This section needs representation in this area and the reffing situation as a whole needs more candidates in the pipeline not fewer, having people(not person) in this section only helps get more folks in that pipeline. Most of the people on this list do many national and international events and have requests to ref other events in their area and around the country as well as these courses closer to them, their schedule gets full quick. The five people I mentioned are willing to do these classes, have the experience and knowledge to do these classes and should not be shut out due to the subjective rating process and lack of international reffing experience we, collectively, don’t have. I know 4 of the 5 have fenced at international events and at least 1 of the five has reffed at international events recently. Again, we are talking about new refs and giving them the knowledge to begin this process, we are not talking about already experienced refs who need a different level of training and coaching.

The current system needs review and revision and there should be southeast representation in this area. I guess the current candidates have no interest in making this happen and only want to use the rest of the country to make this happen.

[keith]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

They scheduled it opposite Senior Sectionals... it was really cancelled due to that.

Now if I was trolling I would go back and check prior years calenders, but I won't.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

The fact that they showed poor judgment in trying to hold it anyway and then were unable to does NOT indicate that we have an issue with local referee development, and your implication that it does was both wrong and disingenuous.

Exactly where did I say there was a problem with referee development?

My complaint, of both slates, is that there is a proliferating
set of policies. The USFA is not in a situation where it can delegate duties with the threat that if policies are not followed people will be fired and their children starve.

An observation you yourself seem to be willing to make out of only one eye.

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Stop trolling, Keith.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by keith

Now if I was trolling I would go back and check prior years calenders, but I won't.

Go ahead. you will find that over at least the last 8 years (and probably further back as well) the division has not ever scheduled anything opposite sectionals.

-m

[keith]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Go ahead. you will find that over at least the last 8 years (and probably further back as well) the division has not ever scheduled anything opposite sectionals.

-m

... and here was me thinking that event always ran the last weekend in march. But then again it's only an E and under.

[DJ Apostrophe]

It does always occur the last weekend in March.

The problem was that sectionals moved due to date / venue availability issues.

-w

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by keith

... and here was me thinking that event always ran the last weekend in march. But then again it's only an E and under.

If we're really going to have this conversation.....

Western Mass is not equal to the rest of the New England Division. The person in charge of running the event this year is in charge of one club in the NE Div and one in the CT div. They're about 10 minutes away from each other. Much of the fencing scene in Western Mass doesn't play well with the other fencers in Western Mass. Exactly who is in a snit and who doesn't care anymore changes every year, partially depending on which college teams are dating which other college teams, and what the college and high school coaches have time for that particular year.

If you want to get refs for this event, you either have to convince people to play nice for the day or ship people in. It usually takes both. The people who might be convinced to drive from Boston Metro to ref an E and under...... were mostly going to Sectionals. The people in town? UMass was mostly going to Sectionals, Smith was prepping for Nationals (the next weekend) and hosting a Sci-Fi con(that weekend)(I got a really great Firefly based comic from Randall Munroe! (the xkcd guy)).

There are plenty of refs. It's still possible to create a scenario in which you make it very difficult to find them, wait too long, and then can't do it. They also never told people that they were considering canceling--- at least one person I talked to said he would have reconsidered helping to run the damn thing if he had been told it would otherwise be canceled.

...... I didn't really care.

But I'm a bad person.

[fluidfencer]

The Birmingham Fencing Club has brought in Bill Oliver, Jeff Bukantz and Greg Dilworth to conduct referee training clinics. Bill Becker was going to do one but he had a scheduling conflict. Each brought a different perspective and approach to teaching, and all did a terrific job.

We advertised all of them fairly well, with the second one actually done as a partnership with our friends in Chattanooga, where a subsequent tournament was scheduled to provide the practical portion of the referee exam. We had at least 40 people at that one, and it seems like 15-20 in the other two.

The cost to get the instructor here is high, and we need that 15-20 minimum to at least break even. Distance is always going to be a problem in the Southeast, where you can expect to drive 2-3 hours for the closest tournament, and 6-7 hours is not uncommon. Getting people to do that for a referee clinic is very difficult so attendees are generally local fencers.

That's been great for Birmingham, but it doesn't help the greater fencing community nearly as much as we would like. Also, many of the folks attending our clinics are doing so to help their fencing (first priority), support their club by being better referees (second priority) and then to referee at other tournament like a NAC (third priority). Consequently, most are not taking the practical exam, or have any interest in doing more with their FOC 10 rating. I'm not sure how to fix that other to to continue offering clinics with the hope that the referee path will appeal to someone. The fencers that attend the clinics are generally young, smart and becuase of that they are also very busy with life outside of fencing. I just don't see them going somewhere to polish their referee skills. I suppose one benefit is that when our fencers go to a tournament at another club, they make very good volunteer referee / competitors. That certainly benefits the greater fencing community.

I would disagree, but not that strongly, with dekko regarding the experience needed to run a clinic. The experience that the three referees that taught ours played a critical role in answering questions and providing a level of perspective that a good but not-seasoned referee could not. The 5-6 people mentioned are all good referees and we know Julio very well. They could likely do a great job teaching. Is it wrong to hold them to a very high standard in order to assume the responsibility for teaching our fencers the correct way to referee? I don't think so.

dekko, rather than ask them if they would be willing to get more involved in training, why don't we ask if they would be willing to make a commitment to talk the next step so that they could become FOC trainers/examiners? This would be one of those few things that the Section could do to develop fencing. Use part of the funds to support the additional training and experience, like a stipend, as part of a program. I think clubs would even support that plan financially. I know our club would.

I guess I need to educate myself on what proposals are being suggested for referee development. The FOC has been available when we need them and we sincerely appreciate that. But we have had to figure it all out ourself. I would love to see a veru specific coordinated plan for a track people could take toward becoming a referee (meaning a good, FOC trained referee). I don't mean just listing the steps it takes. That's easy. I mean a schedule of dates and locations and people, something like a college, and I guess by Section in order to make it practical. I am not the person to do that because there are people far better qualified, but I would certainly help.

I wonder what supplemental role people like the 5-6 dekko mentioned could have, if they could not do what's necessary to become a trainer/examiner? Both of our coaches are pretty highly rated and well regarded referees in one or more weapons, one with multi-Olympic experience. Is there a more limited way that they could help in this process? That seems like an untapped resource.

What can I do to help? I have low ratings in 2 weapons but that's all I have time for. That let's me guide young fencers to be better referees, but not much more than that.

Originally Posted by 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.

[dekko]

For the record, I never suggested the names on the list could not and would not do a great job with a class, in fact I did suggest that no name on the list should be replaced by any name I gave.

Part of your post hit the biggest reason why there needs to be SE representation, the huge expense of running one of these when bringing in someone from a greta distance. You mentioned that the breakeven point for your course each time was high. You had lots of people attend and that's a good thing but for those groups or events where they can not get 40, they will not be at least breaking even. I will agree the division or section should probably step up and make this a priority and support such a class with funding but this is not part of the direct charter of a division or section.

For Birmingham to pay Julio, for instance, $100 in gas is far cheaper than a plane ticket from the states these three live. This brings the breakeven point for a group way down and makes it more likely they will host one of these classes.

I do agree the experience is important and the names I mentioned have lots of experience and could do a great job as well.

[worldchamp03]

The system that has existed for decades to find and certify new qualified referees is that a certified examiner (we need more of these) teaches then adminsters a written test and practical test. As someone who has organized referee clinics I know that most or all of the examiners are dedicated to creating new referees. The first roadblock to them doing this is the written test with its 90% passing requirement. Most or almost all people flunk the test and are then denied the opportunity to even take the practical (actual refereeing). Thus enthusiastic people are immediately discouraged simply because they haven't memorized enough of the rule book. I think that this is wrong. The 90% requirement to take the practical needs to be reduced so that more people receive the very valuable feedback from examiners on the practical part. I once saw an examiner give the practical to anyone who wanted to take it, but that's the exception. If they can pass the practical then we should give them a year to achieve the 90% on the written (administered on line!) and then give them their entry level rating without requiring them to take a whole new seminar. This would lead to more 6-10 rated (local) officials and to better refereeing at local tournaments.

Its a big leap from there to being NAC qualified, but increasing that pool of interested people is the beginning. Testing more people at Div II/III events is still a fine idea. But, as an aside, please don't test them in pools/bouts where people are trying to make World Teams (Veterans).

A persistent and decades old problem has been the reluctance of top rated fencers to become officials. We know that you don't have to have been a top rated fencer to be a fine official, but if you really know fencing (i.e., what the fencers are really trying to do as well as what it looks like) and have the respect of the fencers you are already ahead as a referee. Unfortunately no strong incentive exists to overcome the perception that it is much more fun to coach or fence than to referee. Referees at NACs or Nationals are criticized, worked to death and then wait forever to be paid. Considering how badly some of them are treated its admirable that many of the best ones keep coming back. If we want to have more and better referees we need to improve their working conditions. Having more and smaller regional events to ease travel costs or smaller National events to reduce refereeing and tournament committee burdens might be a start.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by worldchamp03

The system that has existed for decades to find and certify new qualified referees is that a certified examiner (we need more of these) teaches then adminsters a written test and practical test. As someone who has organized referee clinics I know that most or all of the examiners are dedicated to creating new referees. The first roadblock to them doing this is the written test with its 90% passing requirement. Most or almost all people flunk the test and are then denied the opportunity to even take the practical (actual refereeing). Thus enthusiastic people are immediately discouraged simply because they haven't memorized enough of the rule book. I think that this is wrong. The 90% requirement to take the practical needs to be reduced so that more people receive the very valuable feedback from examiners on the practical part. I once saw an examiner give the practical to anyone who wanted to take it, but that's the exception. If they can pass the practical then we should give them a year to achieve the 90% on the written (administered on line!) and then give them their entry level rating without requiring them to take a whole new seminar. This would lead to more 6-10 rated (local) officials and to better refereeing at local tournaments.

After taking the clinic one already has up to a year to pass the written test. No need to retake the clinic during that time. One may take the written test once every 24 hours (and get feedback on any incorrect answers and/or assumptions each time).

We give the questions out in advance. We allow practically unlimited retakes (365 over the course of a year). The difficulty of the test is NOT the problem.

Increasing the number of examiners and instructors will help. Having easily-accessible (and identifiable!) people to act as resources will help. We should make it easy for everyone to have someone, ideally locally, to whom they can turn when having difficulty preparing for the exams. We should have people with specific responsibility for the various regions of the country to help both get the education down to each division and help support newer referees move up beyond the local level. We certainly need additional training and development beyond the local level and it should be more formalized and systematic than it is currently.

All of this is specifically provided for in the proposal that Greg has written.

-B