Refereeing (Was Re: New, almost approved FIE rule changes regarding foil.)

In article <20031117220209.17343.00000274@mb-m19.aol.com>,
remise@aol.com (Remise) wrote:

> I don't disagree with you Holly, but from my perspective, the problem is
> that,
> at present, it is far too easy to become a ref. When you see fencers'
> parents,
> and children, refereeing at a national championship, or people you know from
> your own region who are notoriously bad refs and fencers, it is very
> dismaying.


You still don't see the problem. Why is it too easy to become a referee?
Because there aren't enough people willing to do it. And while I'm sure
it's dismaying to see incompentent people refereeing, making it harder
to become an official isn't going to help things, since then you'll have
fewer officials, and you'll even discourage some of the competent ones.

Most sports have difficulty attracting enough officials. It's a
difficult job, and even when you do a great job at least half the people
thing you're a jackass, sometimes more. You know rules that the
spectators and athletes don't know, you know how they're supposed to be
applied, and you have experience applying them. The people watching and
competing don't. Furthermore, they're always eager for a scapegoat when
they or their favorite team or person loses, and the officials are
convenient targets. There are NFL coaches who routinely blame the
officials for losing games when the coaches' complaints make it clear
that they don't even understand the rules.

The abuse that officials receive for doing the best they can discourages
most people from participating. The low pay is usually not enough to
offset the time costs off officiating (which includes travel, training,
showing up early for contests, etc.) for most people.

That's officiating in general. Fencing has, I think, unique problems in
developing officials, since it is difficult--not impossible--to do a
good job without being a fencer first, and most of the people who are
fencing are doing it because they want to fence, not because they want
to referee.

So what do you do? Well, you need to find ways to encourage people to
officiate. One is to offer a reasonable financial incentive. This might
raise entry fees to tournaments, but I think most would agree that it
would be worth it to have competent officials. Some ideas:

1) Offer refereeing training classes regularly. Charge a small fee for
these classes, but refund the fee after the person officiates at a
certain number of tournaments.

2) Offer free or reduced entry fees for people who referee a different
event than the one they are registered for at a tournament (e.g., if you
fence men's saber but referee women's saber, you get a discount).

3) This one has been suggested before, but require each club to produce
a certain number of officials. Maybe charge a steeper entry fee to
fencers from clubs that fail to produce the required number.

4) Fencing clubs could give a discount to members who referee a certain
number of tournaments (or whose parents referee a certain number).

5) The USFA could give a membership discount to people who referee a
certain number of tournaments in a year.

6) If a fencer complains about the refereeing, they are kidnapped and
forced to undergo intensive referee training. Okay, that's just wishful
thinking.

7) Produce some videos on officiating that show common situations fenced
at full speed and slow motion, explaining what the calls should be. This
sort of thing would be EXTREMELY helpful if done right. However, my
experience is that the powers that be are reluctant to produce such
videos since they don't want to publicly commit to certain rule
interpretations (not in fencing, but in sports in general). This is too
bad, because it's exactly what we need to standardize officiating.

I think people should still have to pass a written test. I think they
should have to pass a practical test, too, but I'd be strongly in favor
of doing it in bouts that are not part of a tournament. It just doesn't
make sense to let someone who might be completely incompetent screw
someone over while taking an exam. I guess I'd be in favor of having
people volunteer to fence so someone could take an exam, either before
or after a tournament or, perhaps even better, away from a tournament
setting altogether.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold,

You have some good suggestions, but raising entrance fees, as you said your
self would be difficult to do.

Something that has been implemented by my division that I think will cause
fewer people to go to tournaments is mandatory preregistration for all
events through the internet, even thou a large number of the older fencers
in our division do not have or have access to the internet. The average fee
for an event is $30.00. If you do not pre-register and just show up at the
door to fence, depending on if it is just a local, circuit or qualifier
event it will cost you double (X2) or triple (X3) to enter the tournament.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like getting information
about a tournament in the mail 2 or 3 days before the event (after the
preregistration has closed) driving for a couple of hours and because I
could not pre-register, it is now going to cost me $60 to $90 to fence in
this event. That's just wrong.

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-ABD1F0.20401619112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <20031117220209.17343.00000274@mb-m19.aol.com>,
> remise@aol.com (Remise) wrote:
>
> > I don't disagree with you Holly, but from my perspective, the problem is
> > that,
> > at present, it is far too easy to become a ref. When you see fencers'
> > parents,
> > and children, refereeing at a national championship, or people you know
from
> > your own region who are notoriously bad refs and fencers, it is very
> > dismaying.
>
>
> You still don't see the problem. Why is it too easy to become a referee?
> Because there aren't enough people willing to do it. And while I'm sure
> it's dismaying to see incompentent people refereeing, making it harder
> to become an official isn't going to help things, since then you'll have
> fewer officials, and you'll even discourage some of the competent ones.
>
> Most sports have difficulty attracting enough officials. It's a
> difficult job, and even when you do a great job at least half the people
> thing you're a jackass, sometimes more. You know rules that the
> spectators and athletes don't know, you know how they're supposed to be
> applied, and you have experience applying them. The people watching and
> competing don't. Furthermore, they're always eager for a scapegoat when
> they or their favorite team or person loses, and the officials are
> convenient targets. There are NFL coaches who routinely blame the
> officials for losing games when the coaches' complaints make it clear
> that they don't even understand the rules.
>
> The abuse that officials receive for doing the best they can discourages
> most people from participating. The low pay is usually not enough to
> offset the time costs off officiating (which includes travel, training,
> showing up early for contests, etc.) for most people.
>
> That's officiating in general. Fencing has, I think, unique problems in
> developing officials, since it is difficult--not impossible--to do a
> good job without being a fencer first, and most of the people who are
> fencing are doing it because they want to fence, not because they want
> to referee.
>
> So what do you do? Well, you need to find ways to encourage people to
> officiate. One is to offer a reasonable financial incentive. This might
> raise entry fees to tournaments, but I think most would agree that it
> would be worth it to have competent officials. Some ideas:
>
> 1) Offer refereeing training classes regularly. Charge a small fee for
> these classes, but refund the fee after the person officiates at a
> certain number of tournaments.
>
> 2) Offer free or reduced entry fees for people who referee a different
> event than the one they are registered for at a tournament (e.g., if you
> fence men's saber but referee women's saber, you get a discount).
>
> 3) This one has been suggested before, but require each club to produce
> a certain number of officials. Maybe charge a steeper entry fee to
> fencers from clubs that fail to produce the required number.
>
> 4) Fencing clubs could give a discount to members who referee a certain
> number of tournaments (or whose parents referee a certain number).
>
> 5) The USFA could give a membership discount to people who referee a
> certain number of tournaments in a year.
>
> 6) If a fencer complains about the refereeing, they are kidnapped and
> forced to undergo intensive referee training. Okay, that's just wishful
> thinking.
>
> 7) Produce some videos on officiating that show common situations fenced
> at full speed and slow motion, explaining what the calls should be. This
> sort of thing would be EXTREMELY helpful if done right. However, my
> experience is that the powers that be are reluctant to produce such
> videos since they don't want to publicly commit to certain rule
> interpretations (not in fencing, but in sports in general). This is too
> bad, because it's exactly what we need to standardize officiating.
>
> I think people should still have to pass a written test. I think they
> should have to pass a practical test, too, but I'd be strongly in favor
> of doing it in bouts that are not part of a tournament. It just doesn't
> make sense to let someone who might be completely incompetent screw
> someone over while taking an exam. I guess I'd be in favor of having
> people volunteer to fence so someone could take an exam, either before
> or after a tournament or, perhaps even better, away from a tournament
> setting altogether.
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

This is definitely one of the best most wise and reasonable posts on
this or any subject.

I completely agree with it!!! Someone should send this to USFA!!

El Magno!





Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<no_one_knows-ABD1F0.20401619112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> In article <20031117220209.17343.00000274@mb-m19.aol.com>,
> remise@aol.com (Remise) wrote:
>
> > I don't disagree with you Holly, but from my perspective, the problem is
> > that,
> > at present, it is far too easy to become a ref. When you see fencers'
> > parents,
> > and children, refereeing at a national championship, or people you know from
> > your own region who are notoriously bad refs and fencers, it is very
> > dismaying.
>
>
> You still don't see the problem. Why is it too easy to become a referee?
> Because there aren't enough people willing to do it. And while I'm sure
> it's dismaying to see incompentent people refereeing, making it harder
> to become an official isn't going to help things, since then you'll have
> fewer officials, and you'll even discourage some of the competent ones.
>
> Most sports have difficulty attracting enough officials. It's a
> difficult job, and even when you do a great job at least half the people
> thing you're a jackass, sometimes more. You know rules that the
> spectators and athletes don't know, you know how they're supposed to be
> applied, and you have experience applying them. The people watching and
> competing don't. Furthermore, they're always eager for a scapegoat when
> they or their favorite team or person loses, and the officials are
> convenient targets. There are NFL coaches who routinely blame the
> officials for losing games when the coaches' complaints make it clear
> that they don't even understand the rules.
>
> The abuse that officials receive for doing the best they can discourages
> most people from participating. The low pay is usually not enough to
> offset the time costs off officiating (which includes travel, training,
> showing up early for contests, etc.) for most people.
>
> That's officiating in general. Fencing has, I think, unique problems in
> developing officials, since it is difficult--not impossible--to do a
> good job without being a fencer first, and most of the people who are
> fencing are doing it because they want to fence, not because they want
> to referee.
>
> So what do you do? Well, you need to find ways to encourage people to
> officiate. One is to offer a reasonable financial incentive. This might
> raise entry fees to tournaments, but I think most would agree that it
> would be worth it to have competent officials. Some ideas:
>
> 1) Offer refereeing training classes regularly. Charge a small fee for
> these classes, but refund the fee after the person officiates at a
> certain number of tournaments.
>
> 2) Offer free or reduced entry fees for people who referee a different
> event than the one they are registered for at a tournament (e.g., if you
> fence men's saber but referee women's saber, you get a discount).
>
> 3) This one has been suggested before, but require each club to produce
> a certain number of officials. Maybe charge a steeper entry fee to
> fencers from clubs that fail to produce the required number.
>
> 4) Fencing clubs could give a discount to members who referee a certain
> number of tournaments (or whose parents referee a certain number).
>
> 5) The USFA could give a membership discount to people who referee a
> certain number of tournaments in a year.
>
> 6) If a fencer complains about the refereeing, they are kidnapped and
> forced to undergo intensive referee training. Okay, that's just wishful
> thinking.
>
> 7) Produce some videos on officiating that show common situations fenced
> at full speed and slow motion, explaining what the calls should be. This
> sort of thing would be EXTREMELY helpful if done right. However, my
> experience is that the powers that be are reluctant to produce such
> videos since they don't want to publicly commit to certain rule
> interpretations (not in fencing, but in sports in general). This is too
> bad, because it's exactly what we need to standardize officiating.
>
> I think people should still have to pass a written test. I think they
> should have to pass a practical test, too, but I'd be strongly in favor
> of doing it in bouts that are not part of a tournament. It just doesn't
> make sense to let someone who might be completely incompetent screw
> someone over while taking an exam. I guess I'd be in favor of having
> people volunteer to fence so someone could take an exam, either before
> or after a tournament or, perhaps even better, away from a tournament
> setting altogether.
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

Harold, what a well-argued post! I think you've really articulated
both the problem and a lot of possible solutions.

Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in
news:no_one_knows-ABD1F0.20401619112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com:

> 1) Offer refereeing training classes regularly. Charge a small fee
> for these classes, but refund the fee after the person officiates
> at a certain number of tournaments.
>
> 2) Offer free or reduced entry fees for people who referee a
> different event than the one they are registered for at a
> tournament
>
> 4) Fencing clubs could give a discount to members who referee a
> certain number of tournaments (or whose parents referee a certain
> number).
>
> 5) The USFA could give a membership discount to people who referee
> a certain number of tournaments in a year.

All of these have one key thing in common: they provide a financial
incentive for trained referees to *get back in the system*. Having
referee courses is a great idea, but it doesn't guarantee that the
people who take the course will then go out and referee. These ideas
would give a motivation to do that.

>
> 7) Produce some videos on officiating that show common situations
> fenced at full speed and slow motion, explaining what the calls
> should be. This sort of thing would be EXTREMELY helpful if done
> right.

Absolutely. It would be helpful even for fencers, to show how actions
will be called. This would be particularly useful for smaller clubs or
divisions with fewer experienced people.

> I think people should still have to pass a written test. I think
> they should have to pass a practical test, too, but I'd be strongly
> in favor of doing it in bouts that are not part of a tournament. It
> just doesn't make sense to let someone who might be completely
> incompetent screw someone over while taking an exam.

That would also be nice... especially since the only times I've seen
people taking the practical exam, it's been in *important* tournaments
like Sectionals, NACs, or Nationals. I don't really care if a
"practice" local tournament has some refs-in-training (actually, it
would be great - it'd be a step up from self-directing!) but it does
suck to get someone in over his head refereeing half the bouts in a
pool where I really care about the results.

If practical exams were given outside of major competitions, it might
also make it easier to get tested. As it is, I've found it well-nigh
impossible to arrange!

Seriously, you should forward these thoughts to the USFA. Or write an
article for American Fencing. They're good, practical, *positive* ways
that we could encourage refereeing.

--Holly

In article <23e9ba68.0311192213.54e6abba@posting.google.com >,
michael_lichtstrom@yahoo.com (magni) wrote:

> This is definitely one of the best most wise and reasonable posts on
> this or any subject.
>

Wow. Usually when I post things everyone tells me what an idiot I am :-)

> I completely agree with it!!! Someone should send this to USFA!!
>

Since you and Holly both suggested this, I sent it on to the USFA.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In article <bphjsv02t1i@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Richard Garner" <rgarner@vidnet.net> wrote:

> You have some good suggestions, but raising entrance fees, as you said your
> self would be difficult to do.

I think people most people would be willing to pay an extra $5 to get
better officiating. That's how supply and demand work. I refereed
lacrosse in Minnesota, where there were few qualified officials, and our
officials fees have increased significantly since I started because they
just weren't getting enough officials. We get paid more than officials
in most local sports now because of that. I don't see why fencing should
be any different.

> Something that has been implemented by my division that I think will cause
> fewer people to go to tournaments is mandatory preregistration for all
> events through the internet, even thou a large number of the older fencers
> in our division do not have or have access to the internet. The average fee
> for an event is $30.00. If you do not pre-register and just show up at the
> door to fence, depending on if it is just a local, circuit or qualifier
> event it will cost you double (X2) or triple (X3) to enter the tournament.
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like getting information
> about a tournament in the mail 2 or 3 days before the event (after the
> preregistration has closed) driving for a couple of hours and because I
> could not pre-register, it is now going to cost me $60 to $90 to fence in
> this event. That's just wrong.

I am STRONGLY in favor of requiring pre-registration, not just for
fencing but for any sport, where possible. This makes things run SO much
more smoothly on the day of the event, since you can plan out pools and
schedules in advance and set up a reasonable schedule.

However, the idea of forcing people to do it via the internet is not a
good one. Allow paper entry, but maybe charge an extra $2 for inputting
the data from a paper entry if that's what you're worried about.

And if you run a tournament and require pre-registration--which makes it
easier for YOU to run your tournament--then you have an obligation to
have entry info out WELL ahead of the entry deadline.


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Harold Buck" <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-E6BF24.08373320112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <bphjsv02t1i@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> "Richard Garner" <rgarner@vidnet.net> wrote:
>
> > You have some good suggestions, but raising entrance fees, as you said
your
> > self would be difficult to do.
>
> I think people most people would be willing to pay an extra $5 to get
> better officiating. That's how supply and demand work. I refereed
> lacrosse in Minnesota, where there were few qualified officials, and our
> officials fees have increased significantly since I started because they
> just weren't getting enough officials. We get paid more than officials
> in most local sports now because of that. I don't see why fencing should
> be any different.
>
> > Something that has been implemented by my division that I think will
cause
> > fewer people to go to tournaments is mandatory preregistration for all
> > events through the internet, even thou a large number of the older
fencers
> > in our division do not have or have access to the internet. The average
fee
> > for an event is $30.00. If you do not pre-register and just show up at
the
> > door to fence, depending on if it is just a local, circuit or qualifier
> > event it will cost you double (X2) or triple (X3) to enter the
tournament.
> > I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like getting information
> > about a tournament in the mail 2 or 3 days before the event (after the
> > preregistration has closed) driving for a couple of hours and because I
> > could not pre-register, it is now going to cost me $60 to $90 to fence
in
> > this event. That's just wrong.
>
> I am STRONGLY in favor of requiring pre-registration, not just for
> fencing but for any sport, where possible. This makes things run SO much
> more smoothly on the day of the event, since you can plan out pools and
> schedules in advance and set up a reasonable schedule.
>
> However, the idea of forcing people to do it via the internet is not a
> good one. Allow paper entry, but maybe charge an extra $2 for inputting
> the data from a paper entry if that's what you're worried about.

The extra $2 - $3 I don't mind if I have to send in a paper entry form or an
extra $5 - $10 to fence if I show up at the door. What I do mind is being
told that sence I did not or could not pre-register, it will cost me $90 to
fence in a tournament that I decided to go to the day before it starts.

> And if you run a tournament and require pre-registration--which makes it
> easier for YOU to run your tournament--then you have an obligation to
> have entry info out WELL ahead of the entry deadline.
>
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson

Gee if only there was a way to make them comply!!! I should send my
mother with her wooden spoon. If i gave her my foil it would hurt too
much!! lol

Seriously, there should be a video put out in conjunction with FIE
about actions and how they should(not) be performed and what calls
they'd receive out on the strip. This would DEFINITELY take much of
the idiot factor out of referee-ing and also alot of uncertainty in
training out of the lives of foilists and sabreurs.

And the financial incentives are a must. Refs should be better
compensated if we are going to ask them to do a better job; asking
them to care more and to give back to the sport with less than daily
migrant labor compensation is both cruel yet all too usual.

I dont know if you mentioned this but some week during the year there
should be an intensive ref camp where people can go and get all the
testing they need done. i suspect they need fencers to fence so that
they can test ref. what about this: a tournament that people fence at
and receive some cash prize. but whatever happens it shouldnt be a
tournament that people care about ratings wise like a nac or summer
nationals.

O Magnum Mysterium,

Magni



Harold Buck <no_one_knows@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<no_one_knows-09B307.08305320112003@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> In article <23e9ba68.0311192213.54e6abba@posting.google.com >,
> michael_lichtstrom@yahoo.com (magni) wrote:
>
> > This is definitely one of the best most wise and reasonable posts on
> > this or any subject.
> >
>
> Wow. Usually when I post things everyone tells me what an idiot I am :-)
>
> > I completely agree with it!!! Someone should send this to USFA!!
> >
>
> Since you and Holly both suggested this, I sent it on to the USFA.
>
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
> "I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson