USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #3: Referee Development

[oso97]

Originally Posted by keith

well, as usual, the NC proposal is better written. Of course as T discovered in the IT thread the devil is in the detail.

For example what exactly are you going to do if a division fails to hold a referee course for one (or more) seasons? Bombard them with sarcastic emails?

My guess would be find and recruit people in that Division to hold the course. Co-option works so much better than coercion!

[keith]

Originally Posted by oso97

My guess would be find and recruit people in that Division to hold the course. Co-option works so much better than coercion!

Co-option is certainly an option - although it begs the question of why you would structure a system as operating through the divisions/sections.

So, assuming co-option, would those running the course have a means for billing costs back to the division/section or would the USFA be providing the financial support?

[KD5MDK]

Generally you bill the test takers. Many Divisons choose to cover the costs as part of their development efforts, but it isn't required.

[keith]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Generally you bill the test takers. Many Divisons choose to cover the costs as part of their development efforts, but it isn't required.

Which would strike me as an important alteration to be made if you really wanted to push ref development.

Depending on how far you have to bring a qualified body, and for how long, the cost is an issue with the co-option model. Otherwise you are asking people to pay to provide a voluntary service to the USFA - an important service since it even has its own mission statement.

[HDG]

What do people think about requiring seminars to be given at specific classes of events (besides the existing ones): Sectionals? SYCs?

Make it part of the bid package.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by HDG

What do people think about requiring seminars to be given at specific classes of events (besides the existing ones): Sectionals? SYCs?

Make it part of the bid package.

I think that requiring the official "rules interpretation seminar" (as given at NACs in the morning meeting) is very reasonable. Having someone available to administer the written and practical exams is also a reasonable requirement.

I think that requiring the "Referee Seminar" (the clinic required prior to sitting the written exam) might be acceptable but would pose significant difficulties at such events. The Referee Seminar takes 6-8 hours to conduct. Running that concurrent with a fencing tournament doesn't actually add all that much. If someone's doing the tournament then they aren't attending the seminar. If they're attending the seminar then they aren't available for the tournament (as either a participant or official).

It provides some marginal utility for those that are either at the tournament for an extra day or that are at the tournament but not participating in any significant way. Other than that there really isn't much overlap.

-B

[HDG]

Thank you for reminding me of the distinction.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by HDG

Thank you for reminding me of the distinction.

I wasn't so much reminding you as trying to ensure that my point was clear.

I wasn't sure which you meant, and the names are inconsistently applied/misapplied rather frequently by almost everyone involved.

-B

[oso97]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I think that requiring the official "rules interpretation seminar" (as given at NACs in the morning meeting) is very reasonable. Having someone available to administer the written and practical exams is also a reasonable requirement.

We've been making a significant effort to do this at all RYC's and SYC's in our region, plus at Sectionals and at all our Section Circuit events for about 4 years now. Its been well received and has been instrumental in developing our refereeing cadre.

[gorgie101]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Generally you bill the test takers. Many Divisons choose to cover the costs as part of their development efforts, but it isn't required.

We hosted a referee seminar here in Plains TX not that long ago and charged nothing. In the past we have charged as $30. We have not had much trouble at all doing things this way in our division. I think we had around 15-20 people take the course. I don't know how many took the test though.

Just my 2 cents.

[dekko]

Originally Posted by oso97

We've been making a significant effort to do this at all RYC's and SYC's in our region, plus at Sectionals and at all our Section Circuit events for about 4 years now. Its been well received and has been instrumental in developing our refereeing cadre.

This is much easier to do with local people who can give the course AND test. When your area has no such people/person that becomes much more difficult.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

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.


-B

With respect, I cannot agree. The test IS "difficult", in that many of the questions and answers are...poorly written. Or at least oddly written.

Also, in many cases a monetary charge is made for taking the exam. This preculdes people from taking it anything like 365 times, unless they are Warren Buffett...

[keith]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Also, in many cases a monetary charge is made for taking the exam. This preculdes people from taking it anything like 365 times, unless they are Warren Buffett...

Perhaps this represents a new policy initiative to ensure that only the right sort of people become Refs?

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Also, in many cases a monetary charge is made for taking the exam.

Which is typically refunded if you PASS it.

[mgriff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

With respect, I cannot agree. The test IS "difficult", in that many of the questions and answers are...poorly written. Or at least oddly written.

I'm not a fencer, but I'm familiar with the rules and the test questions. The test questions are difficult only if you are not familiar with the rules. The odd wording of the questions is identical to the odd wording of the rules, and if I were a fencer, I'd certainly want a referee familiar enough with the rules to get that 90% on the written test. (I'd want a lot more from a referee, too, but knowing the rules is the minimum.)

Mary

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Generally you bill the test takers. Many Divisons choose to cover the costs as part of their development efforts, but it isn't required.

"Blessed are the test takers, for they will inherit the costs"

vs

"Blessed are the test takers, for they will be called children of the FOC"

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by oso97

Which is typically refunded if you PASS it.

Right. But if you fail it three times then pass on try #4, they do not refund all four fees---only the last. Which is why I said it can be a barrier to taking it multiple times...the more times you fail, or expect to fail, the greater the deterrent.

Originally Posted by mgriff

I'm not a fencer, but I'm familiar with the rules and the test questions. The test questions are difficult only if you are not familiar with the rules.

I cannot agree. They are often just bizarrely phrased, and several of the answers sound correct.

This is aside from questions like my "favorite", the one about the required run-back area for a regulation strip. No rule requires any set run-back...but the diagram of a strip includes one. Is the diagram a rule? The question seems to assume so...or does it only assume there's a written rule setting down the run-back dimensions, when there isn't one?

The odd wording of the questions is identical to the odd wording of the rules, and if I were a fencer, I'd certainly want a referee familiar enough with the rules to get that 90% on the written test.

Why not 100%, then?

But seriously, I have never seen 9 out of 10 of the penalties in the rules committed. In sabre, you see crossovers, bell hits, that sort of thing. And equipment failures. Yet most of the exam is about calculating complex penalty matrices of the form of "A has a card for X, then B does Y, then A does Z, with a twist of lime, what's the card?" When this situation never appears in the real world...

[notalent]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I cannot agree. They are often just bizarrely phrased, and several of the answers sound correct.

This is aside from questions like my "favorite", the one about the required run-back area for a regulation strip. No rule requires any set run-back...but the diagram of a strip includes one. Is the diagram a rule? The question seems to assume so...or does it only assume there's a written rule setting down the run-back dimensions, when there isn't one?





Why not 100%, then?

But seriously, I have never seen 9 out of 10 of the penalties in the rules committed. In sabre, you see crossovers, bell hits, that sort of thing. And equipment failures. Yet most of the exam is about calculating complex penalty matrices of the form of "A has a card for X, then B does Y, then A does Z, with a twist of lime, what's the card?" When this situation never appears in the real world...

You ref long enough, you see a lot of the questions come up ITRW. Most of the wording is for timing sequences. The observation tests your RW ability, the writen test is a logic puzzle of obscure nature because we can't expect to see them in the RW test.

[Inquartata]

Really?

You've had bouts where A had a red card for one infraction, and committed a second infraction just as B, who had a card for a third infraction committed a fourth?

I sabre?!

Do tell. In all of the bouts I've ever watched---over 30 years' worth---it's been either one infraction over and over ( passe avant, for instance )by one fencer or one isolated infraction by one fencer. I cannot ever recall seeing the sort of grab bag o' cards the test assumes are common...