Reffing in the Millenium series

[ascutt]

Oh my god........

I think the earth has just stopped spinning, hell has frozen over and I have found a pocket full of hens teeth!!!

Nick, I totally agree with everything you have posted here. I cant fault it in any way and will try to exert as much pressure as possible to get this implemented - why has no-one thought of this before?

It pains me to say this but - Nick, top idea.

 

[mortenlj]

OK

I accept your argument on this - only problem left might be the teams marshalling - is it fair to them to require the certification mid season ?

I don't think it would be wise to implement before the next season !

See ya

Morten

 

[Magued]

Nick

Im reading all posts and have to say your idea make sense ( for once ).
I still want to have some sort of achivment/points system and it may be a idea for the ultimate to check the reffs and the players. We have to get ride of thoose lazy asholes that are only there for the points.
And rematches is still a issue. Mortens argument isnt good enought why we shouldnt.
In a situation when the reffs admitt they made a big misstake and the ultimate think that call was crutial for the outcome I cant see why the team cant get a rematch?

Ï want to get ride of the "sorry bad call" mentality that alot of reffs have. Do a misstake when you play and you loose, do a mistake when you reff and you loose. Very simple. I think that would make teams read the rulebook and run that extra 5 meters.

Magued

 

[Beaker]

From what I've read you are coming at things from different angles.

I think that there is currently a need for a rematch rule as some ref's make so many mistakes/bad calls in the worst circumstances.

But if the ref's were a) fully versed in the rules (and not just the rules they "think" they know) and b) all at an appropriate standard (as per Nick's idea) I think that we can credibly say, bad call/timing.

However, I do think that we can overturn calls which aren't at the moment overturned.

Case in point, if there are 4 players left and a marshall calls a 1-4-1 for wiping (a 3-4-1) at the end of the game the other team should rightfully be able to say - look, it should have been 3-4-1 we get automatic max. Now those are also the calls which currently do not seem to get overturned - the 1-4-1 sticks.

I don't think that it is feasible to play rematches - but i also do not think they are necessary if you have good, competant, judges.

 

[egiii]

score sheets

You could put for example a three grade bar on the score sheet so that when the captain signs the scoresheet he/she would mark there if he thinks the marshalling was good/ok/bad.

The scoreboard staff would count these together and this way you could see if some field for example gets a lot worse scores than an other field.

Just a thought.

--EGi / Cyclone

 

[Minnow]

How about a different approach ....

Enlist ultimate field marshalls that are not players. They would report directly to Big John and would be paid by the Millenium (a lot cheaper than paying for all the Marshalls).

Another problem, teams that are lax about Marshalling, could be eased by not allowing them to Marshall as a team. I always noticed that a team marshalling would all have the same attitude ... good or bad ... very rarely have I seen teams of marshalls that didn't seem to share the same attitude individually. Split the teams up and you should get a better consistency accross all the fields at an event.

With the field ultimates not being affiliated to any team, they will be able to push the marshalls to perform and keep an eye on how well they are doing. I must admit I never liked walking on to a field where you get the impression that the marshalls are just there because they have to be for their 300 points or what ever.

Minnow

 

[canpap]

as far as I have read this thread I can say Magued frusturation is %100 right I sometimes have the same feeling.

Also the most sensible solution seems to come from Nick Iuel, it would only take a day (ie. two days before the tourney starts since one day before is the walking the field day) to take a course, and believe me, the guys that are only there for points would be very very upset about standing a full day in sun/rain for some lousy 300 points!!!!

you have zero chance to eliminate bad call problem entirely just as you cannot stop people from cheating %100...

but by this training, you would reach a standard on reffing and some bad manners of the refs can be fixed as well...


magued, re match is sometimes needed I agree but I see a big difficulty in applying this idea. How are you going to screen the necessary requests from the unnecessary ones? who will be in charge to decide it is necessary or not?? that means you have to put one or two junior ultimate judges to every field and report to the ulitmate judge and saying x team needs to have arematch or so... this seems really impossible besides one/two judges cannot control the field eh??

and another idea:

let the judging comitee (the trainers) give a ranking to the ref teams that pass the test...

every team gets to ref during prelims but when the semis come for example only 6 top ref teams get to judge and for the finals the most elite of all, only the top 2!!!

and the #1 judging team gets 600 points instead of 300 and # 550 and so on....

by this, you can motivate the refs to get more points on behalf of their team and gets to be better marshals where the players enjoy their games with a reduced chance to get bad calls...


what do you say??

 

[Buddha 3]

I like Minnow's idea too. Split them up across several fields. That way you also minimise the chance of an entire team of marshall's being biased.

 

[canpap]

nick was the last thread sent for my idea?

if so, you have misunderstood my idea whereas I suggest a upper commitee (no players involved) to check every game for marshalling performance and give points say out of 10 or 100 for one leg of millennium. (say the one in may)

after that, in toulouse 2002 the judjing teams are trained before the tourney starts and given points by the upper judge comitee for their performance during this training and on semis and finals these teams get to judge (being controversial is a good thing think about Pierluigi Collina the greatest soccer ref in the world as he takes as many controversial decisions) and get judging points higher than other teams... and this voting is made by judge comitee but not from players.

that was the idea...

 

[Minnow]

I must agree with Nick I think my idea's were flawed for the reasons he pointed out. Unfortunately I focused on the 'possible'positive side rather than the 'possible'negative side of my ideas.

Still think the idea of having millenium ultimates, one for each field, is do-able. If teams aren't split up, the ultimate can still push them to marshall well. He can also warn them when they are not pulling their weight.

I think having any committe / judging of the judges etc to determine wether or not they have earn't their points would be too much hassle. I do think that the 'possible'group of Ultimates should have the power to refuse a team their points if they have clearly shown a lack of commitment to earn them. This coupled with the Ultimate being on the field with them at all times would surely push these teams to really try hard.

Marshalling school / classes before an event do have their merit however convincing the players of this would be quite hard. An extra nights accomodation etc would have to be layed on by the promoters. Would teams that have already attended one be exempt ?

When we marshalled it was at some expense to ourselves and I can say from a cash point of view I would have much rather played which might become the attitude of some of the potential marshalling teams if the cost to marshall is increased by elongating the personal time that is lost to attending a tournament. I must also point out though that in hindsight it was a great experience (you get a great feeling when you 1 4 1 the like of Chris Lasoya).

Nick, can you send me your email address, I just want to check something with you.


Minnow