grading refs

In the thread about "no wall rules" Lena already mentioned that they want to bring the top 10 refs to the world's (aquachallenge or whatever you want to call it).
I agree that this is a great initiatif and can only contribute to the sport.

It made me think though, what makes a good ref?
In my opinion somebody who at least still plays on a regular bases and know the latest evolution of the sport.
Also someone who is physically fit enough to keep up with the pase of the game, which keeps increasing.

But what objective standards could one use to determine who belongs to the best 10? Of course, no choice is 100% objective, but there should at least be some standards I guess.

What a good reff is?
Somebody that now the rules. And see much thing happening.
And is not afraid to akt iff he/she sees something happen.
Its not nessesairy like many other sports that he/she itself play's anymore.

But what standards? I think its important that a reff that want more (like international toernaments) must have experianse with the top-rank. And reffs at an regular base (the last year before that important toernament)

I think its impossible to say that is the best reffs. But you can say that is an experiansed reff.

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

A consistent, observant and fair ref is worth his/her weight in gold!! :-)

They don't need to be current players, but if they don't currently play, then it's important that they have plenty of regular and recent reffing experience in the relevant division (mens/womens etc) and level.

Fitness is a must. There is a fitness test for referees but I suspect that it is not always enforced when there is a shortage of refs.

I imagine that the top 10 is based on feedback (from players and other refs) from previous worlds.

__________________
Off Half-Backs Rule

Experience doesn't mean diddly when it comes to refs. We (USA) have some very experienced refs that absolutely suck. And I'm biting my tongue with the words I use. Pizazz has a good thing going with the feedback system he used/started at Sheffield. The system may not give us the best 10 but I think it's a good start toward refining the quality of refs and may get us to the point that we could actually rank them fairly accurately. Assuming the feedback comes from teams whether they win or lose.

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

Two questions:

If you are not in the top 10, how do you make into the current top 10 if the "top 10 is based on feedback (from players and other refs) from previous worlds"?

Secondly, what happended to the feedback from the previous worlds? Not everyone who refereed received theirs, or was it just me who missed out?

I never saw/heard about mine either.

__________________
Carol Rose

Dear Southern Puck,

I would just like to state, that the cow on your avatar, is absolutely cool.

Thank you very much.

BFB

__________________
It's not whether you win or lose - but whether I win or lose.

Thank you BentFishBoy,

Some days I play UWH like a dolphin, others a cow.

S.Puck.

One of the concepts that has been discussed is that in addition to the refs that the competition invites to attend to provide the best refs they can, a country will fund and bring other refs to get them exposure to reffing at the top level and this will let teams, and other refs, observe them in action and rate the performance as a Ref.

And if you look at the logisitics 10 refs is not enough to hold a comp. So the way to get into the top 10 is to come to World's and be a good ref.

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