grading refs

I have to agree with the Duck on this one. Considering there are three water referees per game, using one pool, the refs would have to do 1 game in, 2 games out all day. If there were two pools (5 refs each), then it would be three games in, one chief ref and one rest. Players who have trained hard and long to represent their country deserve better than to have an exausted referee floating on the surface 10 metres behind play.

Cheers,

The ten refs funded/supported was/is just a practical number. I beleive we figured even 10 mite be a high number to support $$$ wise. In actuality, 30 refs is a good number for a WC with long days and 2 or more playing areas. 5 refs/game is best number, in MY opinion, and I've decked 1996 thru 2006. That's 3 in water and 2 on deck - 1 primary/chief deck and assistant level 3 to help watch subbing, penalty release, etc. But we couldn''t figure how to get enough $ for even 15 let alone 30. And it does depend on number of teams and number of divisions and length of days and number of games/day and number of playing areas.

In case you all wonder, I am a firm believer in all divisions in one event - for several reasons. It is expensive to put on a WC, one big one is less expensive for host than 2 or 3 smaller ones. I believe it is less expensive for federations - one instead of 2 or 3. I think it is a good experience for Juniors particularly to see other teams play at the various levels. And I like seeing masters play.

We have been the one sport in the international arena that makes it possible for all levels to play at world level - we are in inclusive sport - others are exclusive, limiting. That's fine when you're soccer - played by the thousands in hundreds of countries. I beleive our inclusive stance is what has greatly helped our sport grow and expand.

__________________
Carol Rose

Surely this is a good argument for not going ahead with 3 water refs?

This was an experiment I believed trialled first in 2005 and is relatively new in the sport. I have reffed games in a 3 water ref team, and found it to be useful, especially in free puck situations, but surely we need to consider whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, namely:
- that it means more refs required at the tournament where we already have trouble getting enough good refs
- It means extra costs to support them if we start funding refs

__________________
Faster than a speeding puck...

The value of the third water ref is great. Think about how much money is spent in training alone for a World's. Then add that to the cost of the tournament (flights, housing, food, transportation, etc.). For another $50-100 per player if you could get the best refs to come so that some longtime, lame, out of shape, self-promoting-agenda, referee makes bad or misses many calls which decides the result. That's a no-brainer. It's not fair to the players to not have 3 refs.

I know I would spend $8,150 (or whatever the total is) to go and have three water refs rather than just $8,050 and get screwed out of a win or know that we won because someone else got screwed since the refs were out of position. We go to compete and want to win, or get beat, fair and square. Not have an inadequate system that may keep the fittest ref from being able to be in good position.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

HI Duck,

This is my personal point of view.....

I have provided a cost breakdown to Piazzaz for funding 16 refs. Breakdown was based on 5 NZ Refs ( to use highest flight cost), 2 Aus, 3 Netherlands, 3 France, 1 GB, 1 US, 1 Can. Based on quick internet search of flight costs the cost of funding 16 water refs is worked out less than NZD$100 or US$80 per player based on 35 teams attending.

The rules stated that all countries must supply one referee per team up to maximum of three per country or pay the USD$500. UWHNZ will only fund water referees to attend as water referees can easily undertake Deck duties. If they just added the USD$500 into the entry fee then we would have enough budget to cover 16 refs.

For the NZ Schools Championships I funded 10 referees to attend. We also covered food accommodation, official T-shirt and a thank you. With the support of the local club we had a pool of 12 referees. On review we needed to have 16 referees to cover the 153 games over the 2 and half days but we managed. All games were refereed 3 the three way system. Note that the size of the tournament is the same as worlds except that worlds lasts 7-9 days longer.

When I breakdown the costs of a New Zealand player attending then funding referees is less than 2% of the players cost (Using NZ Team 2005 Accounts for SHC 2005 Durban.

At Sheffield is was agreed that referees would be fully funded (Number to be agreed but 12-16 discuss) however statements from some quarters are back tracking on this agreement. The sport needs to progress. It should be easily funded now that the tournament doesn't have the Fatcats bills for CMAS representatives to attend.

Be aware..... The WAA version changed many rules such as U19 as at 1st Jan etc without discussion. Via discussion with the commission an agreement that the U19 as at 1st Jan for Junior will remain for Durban but it shows the same operating procedure as CMAS in my view.

Refereeing is critical to performing at the highest levels. You need to have as many games as possible refereed to the highest level possible for players to develop. I always find it interesting the amount of sinbin time South Africa, France, USA spend compared to NZ, AUS.

As players advise your national organsation that you want the top referees funded.

Tristan

CAROL (WHO DECK REFS ABOUT 100 GAMES A YEAR)

__________________
Carol Rose

Carol,

1. I do not want to discourage newer countries from attending but when you look at the overall cost and placing an extra $500 into the entry fee to cover a few referees would not discourage them from attending. I would think this would actually benefit newer countries as they would not need to bring a ref to the tournament.
2. If New Zealand used the rules we would just pay the US$500 levy every time. This doesn’t help New Zealand’s development so we do not.
3. If a rule was OK with federations then there would be no submission to change.
4. If a federation is unhappy or has an improvement then the process would to provide the information to others via the process written in the rules manual and reach agreement at Worlds. In the case of the U19 rule, NZ was happy with the rule as it stood.
5. The problem I have is the version 9.2 has different rules from WAA version 1 that wasn't agreed at the meeting. These changes were made saying CMAS’s rules, not the Commission. The CMAS/ Commission stance is irrelevant.
6. I am not critiquing referees abilities (or flaming them) so funny stories can be left out of the discussion as we all have them.
7. NZ has provided examples of referees critique forms for grading Referees at a world level in 2004 and 2006. My understanding is that these were used to Grade referees for 2008.
8. This critique system in under development and hasn’t been applied in NZ to a point were its transparent and fair process. We have similar requests for feedback that Edwin and your good self have raised at a World level.
9. Rule Changes- The issue is that the changes occurred using similar tactics to CMAS. The rule changes from Version 9.2 and WAA Version 1 have occurred without agreement at the meeting held in Sheffield.
10. Your request for me to provide the changes is a rhetorical question to ask. As secretary of the commission can you please provide a list of the rule changes that Woody made due to the agreements reached in Sheffield and the changes due to compliance with CMAS statues? Normally, alterations to sporting rules are issued with a document detailing the rule changes as a quick reference to the changes. This would save me from having to read both documents.
I have used points so that you do not have to shout.

Regards

Tristan

Quote Duck: "The value of the third water ref is great. Think about how much money is spent in training alone for a World's."

I agree that the value is there, as I said I have reffed in the 3 ref team and found it better. As player, especially around the goal and at freepucks, I think that the third pair of eyes is a benefit.
That said, I see an issue in getting enough good refs for a Worlds for a 2 water ref system since the pool of refs who are qualified and capable of reffing at high level is small.
Funding refs to come is a good way to increase this pool of refs, and I would also be happy to contribute as a player. (I would then, as a funder of the ref, expect the ref to do what I say in the water).

__________________
Faster than a speeding puck...

I agree compleet. not only by big toernaments. but even in the lower regions in the competition. Were in the mean class last year its was done automatic.(by dutch rule)
We did it in the sub-top (almost as only reff team) and not only the thirt pair eyes were easy. also the teams played more fair and skillfull. There was a big mental advantage for the reffs at those times..

But there will be always teams that already with 2 reffs in the water have a problem to do there reffing when its there toernament to reff.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

I did no research, just used judgement. Either that or I have a really incredible brain that knows things so deep down that I don't even know I know them. Either way, next time you can come to me and I'll make up a number that's close enough and save you some time.

Calculating Duck

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.