Referee accountability?

[Nick Brockdorff]

Yeah - I know - I'm bored...... so here goes another write up from my semi-twisted mind

I was thinking about all the complaints that ALWAYS follow every major event - brought on by the reffing.

And it occured to me that, as opposed to any other sport, we have in paintball created a reffing corps that is largely anonymous.

This is ofcourse great for protecting the individual ref from abuse (barring the few high profile ones like Steve Morris )..... but is that really what we want?

I think the reaon we see the same incompetent yahoos turn up event after event (speaking generally here, not with anyone in particular in mind), and make the same mistakes time and time again, is that there is zero accountability to being a ref at major paintball events today.... and that the anonymous status of most refs mean, that they get away with being poor refs and still stay on the cirquit.

Now - as I have said many times before - there ARE good refs at every event.... guys that work hard and do the job really well, and I have great respect for those.

But... it seems that we would be better off creating a system that allowed for a more personal (and constructive) criticism of the individual ref, so that the bad apples got rooted out.

A while back, I suggested to Joern Windler and Ulrich Stähr that the MS introduce a two-step plan to bring about such accountability:

- All refs to wear a numbered jersey (front, back and sleeves)
- Each scoresheet to have room for the captains to make remarks about specific refs

The purpose would obviously be, that the MS would be able to see if specific refs stood out by "always" being the ones to get criticism..... and then consequently fire their asses.

An added purpose would be that refs suddenly faced being accountable for doing a good job, which SHOULD raise the level of dedication to the job across the board.

Often, when a team captain is complaining about a ref, it is not taken seriously... there is a tendency for officials to think "yeah right... sour grapes... same with these ******* captains all the time, they lose and blame the refs"..... and ofcourse there IS a fair amount of that going around.... but we ALL know that is only half the story.

Unfortunately the MS turned down my suggestion, saying that it would remove the "protection" the refs enjoyed today.... and more importantly that they feared refs would then start to do the job in a way to ensure "good grades".

Well... YEAH ! - that was kinda the whole frikkin point!

They seemed to miss the fact, that is refs are biased... they will get no remarks from one team - but most definitely remarks from the other... so there is no way for a ref to get "good grades" - except doing the job well!

I hope the MS reconsiders.... because it's about time this becomes a two way street, where the players can expect the same level of professionalism from the refs, that the refs expect from the players!

Nick

 

[shamu]

Nick -

I give you points for trying to make things better. But, a couple of things to point out...

1. The NPPL has had numbered jerseys for a while. Has it made a difference? Well, it makes it easier for players to pick out who they want to complain about, which does increase accountability.

2. I don't think most players would put comments on the scoresheets. In fact, I wouldn't want them to. I'd rather they take the complaint directly to the Ultimate/head of reffing. Putting comments on the scoresheet at the field will lead to one of two things - teams not giving real feedback for fear of payback from the refs, or accusations of refs "punishing" teams that put negative feedback on the scoresheets. I think it's better that those things are handled off the field. It also avoids warning sub-par refs (yes, they're out there) that their performance is being scrutinized by the Ultimate.

3. You might be surprised to know just how many refs come back time after time to the NPPL events. This is actually one of the biggest issues - getting good people to come back event after event. Who in their right mind wants to spend 3 days in the hot sun, getting shot up, yelled at and verbally abused for 14 hours a day, all for crappy pay and no positive recognition? Not the most inviting job description.

IMO, the biggest obstacle to quality reffing is not accountability, it's repeatability. Look at the NXL - the same crew of refs working together event after event builds teamwork as well as judging skills. That's what builds quality reffing.

4. "it's about time this becomes a two way street, where the players can expect the same level of professionalism from the refs, that the refs expect from the players!" BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That one made me laugh. If players acted half as "professionally" to the refs as you imply, maybe we wouldn't have to work so hard to find refs. Seriously. When was the last time you saw a ref screaming in a players face? telling a player how much they suck, or that they should learn to play the game? even threatening bodily harm? How many times have you seen a team be "professional" enough to admit they got outplayed, instead of blaming the refs?


Granted, some of my points above are more applicable to the US than europe. European players are generally more polite and easier to ref. They actually get out when they get hit (imagine that) The other points still apply - if you want good reffing, you need training, consistency and oversight. The NPPL imported a great deal of this the first year (from Sweden) but it takes time to develop a decent professional reffing corp.

 

[Missy Q]

Shamu, I am very proud of you.
you are 100% right.
I don't need to say any thing else.
You have my respect and the respect of all those who know what they are talking about.
Nick, you have my respect too, for continuing the struggle. I respect your intentions, if not your choice of victim.

world peace

q

 

[Russell Smith]

Nick,

Fully agree with you on that point and in fact the National League in the UK (the PA) went one better in my opinion they issued all there refs with a log book in which the tournament ultimate records their reffing for the Paintball Association and also it can be used for any other event, so they can keep a track on what sort of reffing the guys are doing and also what level.

That in itself does not tell you if the refs are doing a good and fair job when on the field it just lets you check how much they really do ref.
So they also have a check sheet for each ref and that is completed by the field ultimate at the end of the days play. It tells the people in charge of the reffing how individual refs are performing and covers many points that the PA considers to be important to aquire the standards they require for there series.
If a has a bad day that will show up on the check sheets if he has a good day that also will show up.

It will tell the organisers what the refs strenths are also show areas that need development, all the PA refs are graded so when you sit the rules exam you become a level two ref and you can only ref at the PA after you have sat the rules (it is strange to have refs who have read the rules) with onfield checking by the field ultimate's (the refs move round at each event) they can progress to grade one and also recieve a pay increase, on further development they can become trainee field ultimate where they are shadowed for a few events by field ultimates to learn the other skills that we think are required.
This season we have got rid of a number of refs because they could not or would not do the job we need them to do and guess what the feedback from the players about the reffing is getting better all the time, those refs we got rid of would not have shown up as poor refs without the feedback form from the ultimates
We also inforce a no-play policy at all our events and that means if you ref you can not play the same season and if you play you can not ref in the same season, so they do not have any axe to grind with the teams and we try to instill them with some pride for their job.
Seems to be working.

Russ

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
I think the reaon we see the same incompetent yahoos turn up event after event

That's all well and good, were that the problem, but it isn't. The problem is that we're seeing DIFFERENT incompetent yahoos show up event after event. No point in identifying them, as they don't come back anyway.

We don't need a system that allows us find and get rid of bad refs. We need a system to identify and provide incentives to good refs to get them to come back. If you get the good refs to stay, you won't have any room left to hire bad refs.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Shame, Misy and Chicago.

Might be different in the NPPL.... in the MS however, the same refs DO return time and time again.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Shame, Misy and Chicago.

Might be different in the NPPL.... in the MS however, the same refs DO return time and time again.

Well then, the problem is that you're obviously paying them too much.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Well then, the problem is that you're obviously paying them too much.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by shamu
IMO, the biggest obstacle to quality reffing is not accountability, it's repeatability. Look at the NXL - the same crew of refs working together event after event builds teamwork as well as judging skills. That's what builds quality reffing.

Working together will breed familiarity certainly but that's no guarantee of effective teamwork if the underlying structure doesn't exist--and it doesn't, even in the NXL. At least in any meaningful way beyond the norm of assigning zones, blah blah blah. And repetition is also potentially a very good thing but only if what's being repeated is what you want to see happen over and over again.
I would suggest that certain kinds of critical calls are routinely up for grabs not because too many refs are incompetent--at least when we're talking NPPL or NXL--but simply because no effective method has yet been implemented to address those situations. For example run throughs and bunker moves are almost always a crapshoot that favor the aggressor even if two refs are watching because each ref is usually watching the wrong guy and there is no communication between the officials as the action occurs. The simple way to remedy that is for the refs to cross up by looking at the front of the player downfield from them and be in position to call their elimination as it happens--not guess at who, if anyone, got shot first. That way it's possible to consistently identify which player was hit when and remove them and keep the flow of the game only minimally interrupted. But at this time that level of teamwork and communication doesn't exist so all the comradarie and teamwork in the world won't make any difference.
If you really want to improve the quality and consistency of officiating first you need to analyze the issues that are consistent problems and work up some sort of philosophy of officiating. At that point you can develop a training program that truly prepares officials.


Of course it also requires refs be in position in the first place...

 

[shamu]

Baca -

I agree with a lot of what you said. You are right about practice reinforcing the right techniques and positioning. One thing that would help refs do their job - having enough refs on the field. With the speed the game moves at today, 8 refs sometimes isn't enough to cover the entire field properly. Add in the trend towards more bunkers on the field and it becomes difficult for a ref to watch more than one or two players at a time.

This is a trend I see in the Mill events too - more bunkers, more angles.