Enforcing the rules and unsportsmanlike conduct

[Wadidiz]

Well...

Originally posted by raehl
...I don't know how "big" of an event this was....You should always require all of your refs to be at the captains meeting. If you don't, there WILL be a "bad call" which will result from something being said at the captain's meeting that wasn't said at the ref's one, or vice versa.
- Chris

Just curious, Chris, do you ever even go two posts back to see what the conversation is about? I wrote how big it was.

Then you can see there how I handled the pre-tourney briefing and the captains' meeting.

Maybe you meant something else by "big"? And maybe you meant by "You should always require..." something like: "...just like Steve did you should always require.."

Or maybe you're just trying to chap my ass.

But your input is always welcome.

Point with my update post is that we all can learn and get better from each new experience if we're paying attention.

Steve

 

[raehl]

I meant...

"Big" as in terms of significance, not size, my bad. If you've got 14 am teams playing for a $5000 purse, that's a lot different than, say, 14 rooks playing for trophies.

And yes, you was general 2nd person, not you in particular.

- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Re: Not a criticism and just an observation

Originally posted by Wadidiz
I'm not sure what you mean, my bovine friend. Was what I described a good result in your opinion or not so good?

Those few bad calls might have been the straw that caused the whining team to go home. The overall result was great, however.

In order to create a more perfect reffing environment, what's a body to do? I mean how can I judge competence until it is too late?

Steve

I imagine it was probably a pretty good result overall but my comments were directed exclusively at the quoted section which, as it is phrased, suggested to me you recognized at some point in the proceedings the guy wasn't competent but you didn't pull him because he was trying hard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wadidiz
I still don't know what I should have done about the inexperienced guy, because in retrospect he did cause most of the bad calls (which were four or five). But I couldn't get myself to pull him from the field because he was so eager to learn from his mistakes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point is, once the event is under way, it's not about the refs, their attitudes etc. It's about doing the job and giving the competing teams the best reffing possible. And in this instance that would have meant doing something with the guy.

When I have run into similar situations and the option to dismiss a ref doesn't exist for one reason or another I put them as close to me as possible so I can manage their efforts and minimize the potential harm.

 

[Baca Loco]

I meant...

Originally posted by raehl
"Big" as in terms of significance, not size, my bad. If you've got 14 am teams playing for a $5000 purse, that's a lot different than, say, 14 rooks playing for trophies.

Why is it a lot different?

 

[Wadidiz]

Baca,

Just wanted to be sure what you meant. I agree with you and I learned from my experience. I kept thinking, o.k. this is his last mistake. Next time I will ask more questions (if I don't have references) before I say yes and/or put him with someone I trust as a trainer. I can't afford to let any one ref distract me when I'm running the games.

Steve

 

[raehl]

Re: I meant...

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Why is it a lot different?

Less exeperienced refs have to start somewhere, and that is with lower-level tournaments. 14 teams of new players fighting for trophies is simply a better learning environment for a new referee than 14 teams of am players fighting for cash. Additionally, one would expect the entry fees in the latter category to be much higher, and thus the tolerance of less experienced reffing to be much lower.

Would you want someone who has never reffed before to have their first experience in a Trauma vs. Static game?

- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Re: Re: I meant...

Originally posted by raehl
Less exeperienced refs have to start somewhere, and that is with lower-level tournaments. 14 teams of new players fighting for trophies is simply a better learning environment for a new referee than 14 teams of am players fighting for cash. Additionally, one would expect the entry fees in the latter category to be much higher, and thus the tolerance of less experienced reffing to be much lower.

Would you want someone who has never reffed before to have their first experience in a Trauma vs. Static game?

- Chris

And yet according to you $1,750.00 per team didn't merit anything more than three or four semi-competent refs at WC. Since you've got a handle on all the numbers what does competent reffing cost per player?

And out here in the real world refs don't learn to ref by being tossed into tourney competition at any level. And oddly, even those "Rookie" teams, regardless of what they paid actually expect decent reffing. But then again, being rookies they haven't thought through the economic realities.

Silly fellow that I am, I not only don't want any refs first experience being a top Am match-up nor do I want it to be ANY tournament game regardless of level of the participants.

 

[raehl]

Well, yes and no.

There definitely needs to be more than 4 refs on the field. BTW... were you guys at the event? I think we're starting to get the impression that all the 10-man fields had 3 or 4 refs on them or something. That wasn't the case, except for maybe a couple exceptions. All the fields my team played on had at least 6 refs, and that's been the case for anyone I've talked to directly.

HOWEVER. I don't think you can hire 12 fields of qualified refs when you have 1900 of your best players playing the tournament. That many don't exist. We need to train people so that number of people can even be hired to begin with.


<B>THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM</B> is with no out-side-industry sponsors or paying spectators, the top players have to be supported by in-industry companies, and they will only show up if the other 80% of the players who might actually pay for their gear and paint are at the event, and the presence of those 80% of players severely dilutes the concentration of reffing talent.

Something has to give. You can pay to train more refs, or you can get rid of the teams diluting the available reffing talent and sacrifice the prizes donated by the vendors there to see those players and pay more to make up for the vendor fees you can't charge.


- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Well, yes and no.

Originally posted by raehl
There definitely needs to be more than 4 refs on the field. BTW... were you guys at the event? I think we're starting to get the impression that all the 10-man fields had 3 or 4 refs on them or something. That wasn't the case, except for maybe a couple exceptions. All the fields my team played on had at least 6 refs, and that's been the case for anyone I've talked to directly.

Played 8 of the 12 fields and had no more than 6 refs on half of them. And the point is that a sufficient effort wasn't made to see to it that even the minimum numbers of refs per field agreed to was adherred to.

Btw, nice duck.

 

[Liz]

Well, yes and no.

Originally posted by raehl

<B>THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM</B> is with no out-side-industry sponsors or paying spectators, the top players have to be supported by in-industry companies, and they will only show up if the other 80% of the players who might actually pay for their gear and paint are at the event, and the presence of those 80% of players severely dilutes the concentration of reffing talent.

- Chris

Not quite Chris. Having worked on a trade stand at a number of Millenniums recently I can promise you that the refs spend nearly as much as the players at this type of event. You don't get the guys who have forgotten or broken kit buying goods, but the refs tend to have more money as they are getting paid & don't have typical tourney bills to pay.