Voting about reffing in the Millennium Series?!

[crazzzy]

Just wondering what came out of the voting system that was said to be created in the beginning of the season. Each team would vote about the judging at each field. And here´s my question;

From what I understood, if a team was voted to have done their job badly, then they would recieve LESS reffing points. But from looking at the overall rankings ALL teams have recieved maximum (200) points! How is this? Was the system never created?

Maybee it´s due to no teams/fields recieving bad votes, but I find it strange since some fields have sucked big time in reffing this year!

 

[goose]

I cannot, and do not speak for the series...

... but, the series approached the EPA for what we thought about the voting that was done - and my recommendation was "to let it slide" for this year.

I said this for a couple reasons - not becuase I thought the reffing was good but:
1) In the MS rules that started the season (usually when teams decide if they are going to ref) there was no mention of voting on the quality of reffing - and teams losing points. Teams should know this from the start.

2) The number of teams that actually voted where very few - and the number of teams that got "bad votes" where even fewer. An example - "Team A" reffed Toulouse, there where 130 teams present - only 13 teams vote and out of those 13, 4 give them bad marks. In my opinion when only 10% of the teams vote - the result shouldn't be used. There should be at least 50% of the teams heard from - 75% would be better.

Now all of this is for this year - I am pretty sure that we will see changes to this next year - it is one of the things that is in the "top 5" of things to fix.

goose

 

[Wadidiz]

The only "voting" that should be done to rate judging teams and their awarding of points should be done by an independent, professional head field judge. This person would reduce points only after giving warnings about short-comings in performance during the event and giving the team/persons in question an opportunity to improve.

I don't think other players can any more hand out points for reffing than they can for other teams that are competing. That could very easily become a popularity contest.

IMO.

This is just one part of a total new program that I think needs to come.

Steve

 

[crazzzy]

Wadidiz

I´m with you on this one!

Imagine the situation when for instance a team from country A has robbed (by mistake) a team from country B of some important points. Team B gets pissed off and tellas all his countrymen about the situation. All 15 teams from country B then gives bad votes to team A, and voula, team A looses reffing points.

 

[goose]

Steve,

Good idea, definately agree that other teams in th same division shouldn't decide how many points a team actually gets.

But what I do think is needed is a way for the teams to be able to add their own opinions. But this should ONLY be used as a guide as to whether or not teams lose points - not the Gosphel itself.

Take for example - the "High and Mighty Judge Judge" (now reffered to as HaMJJ), goes to watch team 1 ref, he may only see 10% of the games they adjudicate, and this doesn't qualify him to make a decision.

Example 2: the HaMJJ is stationed with the team for the whole tournament - he is now resigned to the position of "watcher" and is just one more body standing around doing nothing x 7 fields.

The reason why I say he is now just a watcher is - if his job is to judge the judges (say that 3 times fast) then he should be placed up a tower or some other place where he can see how they work, if he is in such a place it would be next to imossible to clear up many of the problems that lead to "bad reffing calls" i.e. who shot who first - was it playing on etc.

Now if the whole point of having a "HaMJJ" who is also a Field Ultimate is to just observe and see how the team he is reffing with works, while actively taking part at field level - then his observations should be supplemented by those of teams who actually had the pleasure of their services.

Don't get wrong - I think it's a good idea - especially if the "HaMJJ" is a Field Ultimate, who's job it is to make sure that the other field refs "move their asses" and get in the correct position - along with ensuring that all the directions are the same from field to field.

We just need to find a way to do this

goose

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by goose
Steve,

Good idea, definately agree that other teams in th same division shouldn't decide how many points a team actually gets.

But what I do think is needed is a way for the teams to be able to add their own opinions. But this should ONLY be used as a guide as to whether or not teams lose points - not the Gosphel itself.

Take for example - the "High and Mighty Judge Judge" (now reffered to as HaMJJ), goes to watch team 1 ref, he may only see 10% of the games they adjudicate, and this doesn't qualify him to make a decision.

Example 2: the HaMJJ is stationed with the team for the whole tournament - he is now resigned to the position of "watcher" and is just one more body standing around doing nothing x 7 fields.

The reason why I say he is now just a watcher is - if his job is to judge the judges (say that 3 times fast) then he should be placed up a tower or some other place where he can see how they work, if he is in such a place it would be next to imossible to clear up many of the problems that lead to "bad reffing calls" i.e. who shot who first - was it playing on etc.

Now if the whole point of having a "HaMJJ" who is also a Field Ultimate is to just observe and see how the team he is reffing with works, while actively taking part at field level - then his observations should be supplemented by those of teams who actually had the pleasure of their services.

Don't get wrong - I think it's a good idea - especially if the "HaMJJ" is a Field Ultimate, who's job it is to make sure that the other field refs "move their asses" and get in the correct position - along with ensuring that all the directions are the same from field to field.

We just need to find a way to do this

goose

I'm right with ya Chris,

Definitely what I meant was a field ultimate who not only supervises but leads by example, teaches and encourages good performance. Kind of like a good parent, cop or teacher who has enforcement authority along with kindness and diplomacy.

In addition to this we might have a series ultimate and an assistant or two who judge the judges who judge the judges! And, of course, the entire organization would listen to the players, promoters, media and spectators who would judge the judges who judge the judges who judge the judges. The result would be a MUCH better job of judging, I believe.

With all that judging there better be better judging!

Seriously, this is one important pillar in a total new program I think is needed. I would spell it out here but the risk is no one would read it because this is already getting too long.

Steve

 

[crazzzy]

Spell it out Steve!

.

 

[Wadidiz]

Spell it out Steve!

Ideas for improving the quality of judging in Millennium 7-player tournaments

1. Recruit a competent person to take charge of leadership for the judging program. This person would be in charge of recruiting the other people needed and would develop a curriculum for and arrange for training of the ultimates and the judging corp. This person would also be very active in the development of a reasonable set of rules. He or she would also lead the judges’, captains’ and rules meetings at every event. This person should be paid a competitive yearly salary since this would be a full-time position.

2. Recruit and employ ultimate field judges who would be professional supervisors and instructors on each field for the other judges. Give them the authority to warn and then reduce points or pay of any judge who fails to faithfully perform her/his duties. These persons would encourage active, competent, professional, unbiased and consistent judging by all members of the judging team, in accordance with the rules. The final decisions would be made by the field ultimate except in the absolutely most extreme situations. The ultimates would be required to attend the judges'/rules and captains' meetings. I suggest paying them €125 - €150 per day and cover all expenses.

3. Pay field judges a minimum of €100 per day for their services and provide transportation to the tournament site, food and drink during their working hours and fresh fruit and snacks during working hours.

4. Split teams that are reffing for points into at least two different squads and mix and match them (this works fine for NPPL S7 and PSP). That way there would be less opportunity for ”team favors” and players would get to know other teams better. Better judging teams would also "rub off" on less experienced judges.

5. Set up a serious training program for all judges. Require that all judges participate in any possible distance courses (e.g. on the Internet) and attend a mini-training session at the judges’ meeting on the eve of the tournament at which the judges will be working.

6. Provide a field maintenance crew (with masks) for every field to keep the obstacles and area around them clean and inflate/defate the obstacles as needed, among other things. This is so that the judges can stay focused on officiating.

7. Provide one relief judging squad for every 4 fields so that judges can be given breaks at reasonable intervals.

8. Begin recruiting professional judges who would be phased in totally within a few years and thus replace player-judges.

Just these points properly implemented could make a big contribution to the quality of judging and help Millennium maintain the role as leaders in quality tournaments.

I know it would cost something but teams might be willing to pay more to get a marked improvement in refereeing. The question is: how much would it cost. No question that the need is there.

Perhaps a new thread should be started so we can have some serious discussion about this.

Steve

 

[Wadidiz]

Eehhhh,,, ?

I knew you were just around the corner.

This sound like Raehl's arguments from months ago about the impossiblity of having good venues in America.

To use a film-quote I believe you've used before, "Build it and they will come."

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
The Series is having problems finding ONE person to be Ultimate for next year.

How on earth will you find 6-8 independent, competent people for this ???

The reason why they are having trouble finding ONE person is the unwillingness or inability (at today's entry fee rates) to pay what is reasonable for the job.

I'm not saying this would be easy; just that this is what needs to be done.

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Also, I would like to see the field judge who has the balls to deduct points from a team, after working with them and getting chummy with them for an entire weekend.

If top quality, well-trained pros spend the weekend with them it is much less likely points will need to be deducted. And the result will be a whole lot more players who will have learned to ref properly.

I have certainly known friendly, diplomatic bosses who have made tough decisions to warn, discipline or even fire people. The field ultimates have to be seen as bosses.

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
And, splitting up teams goes against the whole "rate the judges" idea.

You cannot split up judging teams, and then allocate points to a team that has shared the responsibility with another team, and have had the other half of the team on an entirely different team.

Of course you can! You divide the points up into individual ratings and the field ultimates keep track of it. Of course it would mean more administrative work but we have to get more professional!

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
If there is a maintainance crew for every field (that have to be paid for) - you end up with the same economically unviable situation that is described in another thread, where it is just too costly for promoters.

NPPL Super 7 does it. This isn't the most important point but it is part of giving people who do this tough job respect.

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Is Professional judges at all something that can be done ? - do the math Steve - the Campaign Cup, for instance, would need to spend at least € 50,000 for judges.

I agree with the centiment, but think it is out of reach in the present European paintball market.

I don't know why you insist on ruling out pro refs forever. This kind of small thinking is part of the problem over here.

We may not be able to have it immediately but we have to start moving in that direction and laying the foundations.

The recent polls here showed that the large majority of those who answered are willing to pay larger entries for definite, substantial improvements in the quality of reffing.

But I appreciate the tremendous difficulties that nevertheless need to be surmounted.

Steve

 

[Wadidiz]

Nick,

I see that I made a serious mistake in my wording about paying judges expenses. I believe that the promoter should pay €100 per ref per day and provide them with food, drink and snacks while they work. But not provide their air transportation, ground transportation, spending money nor hotel. This is the way the PSP/NPPL has operated for years, and that part of their program has been reasonable.

So, if I backtrack and say I was mistaken then we're down to around €315 per judge for the whole event. At 40 refs that's €12,600, which comes up to under €200 per day for the event you mentioned (which is a very poor example because the turnout was so low). But we could cut some of that cost by letting many teams know in advance they won't be needed on Day 3 for the play-offs.

Still, you're right, it will cost more. More than €100 per team.

It's easy to say that the money should come from sponsors, maybe the field sponsors. Or from outside sponsorships that we have to get out and sell, which will be easier when we get more media exposure.

I know what I'm saying is idealistic, perhaps a little romantic. But I still believe we've got to somehow move with determination in the direction of the program I suggest.