As many of you will know, this past weekend I had the honour of going to the World Cup in Frankfurt as an assistant referee. Although I was initially disappointed not to be given any games as a head referee, refereeing under a variety of different people has given me new perspectives on refereeing, how I can improve myself, and where the UK refereeing scene is as a whole. Over the weekend I refereed over fifteen games, including the final for which I was a goal referee (or as with most finals, essentially an assistant referee who was just stood behind the hoops). I saw most of the previously established quidditch nations play, and worked with referees of many nationalities. I'd like to give shout-outs to Logan Davies and Jill Staniec, from Australia and Canada respectively, and Erin Mallory, Chris LeCompte, Brian Nakasha, and Toby March from the US. My thoughts below are mainly formed from working with the above people, and I really believe that the UK referees will benefit from having seen them all in action.
1. Not insisting on well-marked pitches has damaged our knowledge and ability to enforce boundary rules. Personally I have always known that I'm not good at boundary rules, in any edition of the rulebook, but that is not an excuse for not sitting down and learning them. Over the course of the weekend there were many cases where a bludger went out of bounds, and the head referee rightly needed me as an assistant to designate the nearest unarmed beater to go and retrieve it. This was a rule I knew, albeit vaguely, though I can't honestly say I'd ever used it in the UK (especially not and been listened to by the players in question). Most people know that a quaffle going off the hard boundary behind the hoops is a turnover, but the American referees were also on point when it came to turnovers at the sides of the pitch. The main thing I noticed was how quickly the call came, where other referees would need a moment to think about it. I don't know if this was experience, the fact that they were some of the top referees in the world, or just brain speed, but it was very impressive and something the UK need to work on. Having marked hard boundaries will help, because otherwise the calls will be made inconsistently and I certainly feel weird making hard boundary calls when there isn't actually one there.
2. The procedure for dealing with fouling players can be improved. Firstly, hand-signals are greatly underused in the UK. They communicate what has been done across the field without the need for shouting, which means the teams' subs benches can see what the player did, and this may go some way to stopping grievances with referees caused by miscommunication. Secondly, some referees took a couple of seconds to walk the fouling player to the penalty box, where they then informed the scorekeeper of the foul they committed, and also giving themselves the time to have a short conversation with the player explaining what they did if necessary. It barely added any time onto the game - play can't be resumed until the player is in the penalty box anyway - and meant everything was a lot clearer for all of those involved.
3. Positioning can be far more exaggerated. Americans go big on a lot of things, and one of the main things I learnt from the weekend was where to position yourself as a referee when it comes to pile-ups. Basically, you can be closer. Be only a couple of steps away from them, make the players know that you are there. Yes, there can be a lot of sprinting to get there in the first place, but what's wrong with that? Referees have to be fit too to keep up with the players, the same with most team sports. And once there, the exaggerated squat over them is actually far more effective than I first gave the idea credit for. There were several instances where I was running after bludger play, and if two beaters were wrestling on the floor for the ball, I would get in close. The players would see me, and suddenly it was very clear that they were hyper-attentive to where their limbs were, making sure whatever they were doing was legal because otherwise I would see it. Head referees did the same thing for quaffle play, wherever the pile-up happened. They were also generally closer to quaffle play, though the best referees in the UK position themselves similarly in that respect.
4. Players calling for brooms-down for minor injuries were ignored a lot more. Often UK referees call for brooms-down because people in the subs box - or indeed in the crowd - continually shout, even if the injury is just a rolled ankle. Most referees know the rule (only stopping if it is in the way of play or a head injury) but don't enforce it that way, because of pressure from players. I've certainly had grief from people who felt they had been ignored, even if they were miles from play and ultimately not further harmed by the additional few seconds. However, the US referees in particular were good at just letting these words roll off them, not allowing a small injury to break up play unnecessarily. This meant games ran a lot quicker - indeed, keeping a tournament to time with 45 minute gameslots is no mean feat.
5. Overall, the top-end of UK refereeing is not too far off the best of the US refereeing. I think it is safe to assume that the best US head referees are the best head referees in the world - they have had far more years of experience and time to improve, and also deal with a higher level game on average. Most UK referees have under 2 years of experience, at maximum around 3 or 4. This shocked the US referees when we told them! This makes them a good comparison point, and I'd say we're only a season of learning behind them, for our referees who regularly have finals. The points we have to improve on are minor, and I certainly felt like I was honestly respected whenever I was on pitch under an American head referee, and like I was certainly good enough to be there with them. The finals referee team was heavily stacked with UK referees and rightly so - all of us had proven ourselves in the preceding matches. I believe that when we reach the next World Cup in 2018, wherever that is held, the only differences between the referees will be style, with each having their own preferences for small things but nothing substantial. Ultimately parity in refereeing is coming much at the same speed as parity of play between countries.
Thursday, 28 July 2016
Wednesday, 20 July 2016
Dealing with backchat
Every referee faces some form of backchat nearly every match. Sometimes it's just a harmless comment or joke, sometimes it's a half-hearted challenge to a call, and occasionally it is a genuine rude or inflammatory remark. Whilst only the latter are potentially harmful, they all negatively impact a game in the long run. What we generally class as 'backchat' can come in many forms and from many places and people, which I will try and cover here. For referees: I will try and include guidance on how to deal with it, and cope with it. For everyone else: please try and understand why the rule restricting talking to referees is in place through this article.
Most of the time it is players who give the bulk of problems to referees. They have direct contact with them, many opportunities, and also care a lot more about individual calls than most others. However, it is a rule that only the designated speaking captain may speak to referees, and it is one that should be followed. Some head referees choose to start a match with a blanket warning to all players, that any backchat will be a cardable offense. This can be done either just before brooms up, or by passing on the message through captains at the captains' meeting. I do this occasionally, but generally speaking I rely on the respect I have from refereeing teams previously. Oh, and when people hear that I have given cards out for backchat it shuts them right up! It is very important that, as a head referee, you are supportive and believing of offenses towards the rest of your referee team too - this includes reminding them to call it as a delayed penalty if it happens. Remember, you are the authority figure in this setting, even if can be hard acting this way towards your peers.
Captains - or the designated speaking authority - may of course speak to referees on behalf of their team. This does not mean that they can be a dick. As a referee, you reserve a right to respect, and can exercise your power on the pitch if this is not given. You are allowed to instruct a captain to not speak to you if they are being rude or restrictively persistent in their questioning. Of course you can also card the captain and ask for another speaking captain to be assigned for the team. If someone has caused you this much grief (not that I have ever heard of this happening) then you might want to consider talking to the club president if they are not one and the same, and the tournament directors so they know what has happened and can deal with it.
Something which I had not really had to deal with until the European Quidditch Cup this year is issues from the crowd - a crowd full of quidditch players from other teams. Generally spectators don't engage with referees in a way which disturbs them; the roar from the crowd can be pretty easy to zone out after a while. However, if they are shouting out calls, or your name, this can be very distracting. The head referee for a pitch has the authority to ask members of the crowd to leave if they are being disruptive - if they are players you can also give them red cards, which will ban them from their next games if they are verbally abusive or become physically abusive. I've never heard of this being the case, but you have that power if necessary. The crowd should give you respect just as the players would, and it is important to remember that if they do start anything, they are at fault not you.
Most quidditch tournaments only have spectators familiar with the sport, but the tournaments on the biggest stages can have a lot of publicity and thus a lot of new people attending. If these people start to cause problems they can be the hardest to deal with. It is unlikely that you will know who they are, and as hard as it can be to discipline peers, disciplining strangers (particularly those older) is something we are unused to as referees. It is probably best to try and ignore them and get on with your job - others around are unlikely to put up with it and will be better placed to deal with it. There will always be those who mock and ridicule our sport, and always people who think they know the rules better than those who have studied and practiced extensively. You don't have to be confident in dealing with these types of people, or have a plan - it is reasonable to expect it will not occur. I believe the quidditch community is good enough to protect itself should these instances occur, and many people would stick up for you and let you get on with your job.
There are a few tips I have. The most important thing to remember is that you don't deserve it. Whether or not you have made every single call correctly, there is no reason for someone to be abusive towards you - you deserve respect and that includes people not talking back to you, whoever they are. It isn't your fault if it happens, either; I have cultivated a terrifying on pitch presence over the past two years which may be difficult to emulate (I'm kidding, I hope). If it does happen, try to stay calm at the time. Often people are trying to get a reaction from you, so not giving it to them can help. When the match is over, you can vent about it - other referees will sympathise and empathise with you, and it certainly isn't a sign of weakness if it upsets you. A lot of what referees have to deal with is unreasonable, and we are still human.
Finally, a note for players. Very soon I'm going to be releasing a piece that elaborates on a few of these points, but for now a quick guide for why I, as a referee, feel backchat is bad. Firstly, it delays the game because you are trying to force the referee to listen and respond to you - at worst they may have to penalise you, which won't make anyone happy. Secondly, it can severely affect the confidence of the referee you are speaking back to, which could discourage them from refereeing again. Then we'd have no referees and no quidditch. Volunteers, giving up their time to run games, should be supported and not have their confidence chipped away. Also remember that these are your peers, your friends; your words could hurt even more coming from a position where they may trust you outside of the game. Small backchat (the odd word here or there) could escalate into something bigger if someone sees that the referee is reacting to you, and things could get out of hand. Plus, doing it is unlikely to gain you anything but a bad reputation amongst the refereeing community, who seldom give in to such challenges. Just because arguing with the referee happens in other sports doesn't mean we should foster that culture here.
Most of the time it is players who give the bulk of problems to referees. They have direct contact with them, many opportunities, and also care a lot more about individual calls than most others. However, it is a rule that only the designated speaking captain may speak to referees, and it is one that should be followed. Some head referees choose to start a match with a blanket warning to all players, that any backchat will be a cardable offense. This can be done either just before brooms up, or by passing on the message through captains at the captains' meeting. I do this occasionally, but generally speaking I rely on the respect I have from refereeing teams previously. Oh, and when people hear that I have given cards out for backchat it shuts them right up! It is very important that, as a head referee, you are supportive and believing of offenses towards the rest of your referee team too - this includes reminding them to call it as a delayed penalty if it happens. Remember, you are the authority figure in this setting, even if can be hard acting this way towards your peers.
Captains - or the designated speaking authority - may of course speak to referees on behalf of their team. This does not mean that they can be a dick. As a referee, you reserve a right to respect, and can exercise your power on the pitch if this is not given. You are allowed to instruct a captain to not speak to you if they are being rude or restrictively persistent in their questioning. Of course you can also card the captain and ask for another speaking captain to be assigned for the team. If someone has caused you this much grief (not that I have ever heard of this happening) then you might want to consider talking to the club president if they are not one and the same, and the tournament directors so they know what has happened and can deal with it.
Something which I had not really had to deal with until the European Quidditch Cup this year is issues from the crowd - a crowd full of quidditch players from other teams. Generally spectators don't engage with referees in a way which disturbs them; the roar from the crowd can be pretty easy to zone out after a while. However, if they are shouting out calls, or your name, this can be very distracting. The head referee for a pitch has the authority to ask members of the crowd to leave if they are being disruptive - if they are players you can also give them red cards, which will ban them from their next games if they are verbally abusive or become physically abusive. I've never heard of this being the case, but you have that power if necessary. The crowd should give you respect just as the players would, and it is important to remember that if they do start anything, they are at fault not you.
Most quidditch tournaments only have spectators familiar with the sport, but the tournaments on the biggest stages can have a lot of publicity and thus a lot of new people attending. If these people start to cause problems they can be the hardest to deal with. It is unlikely that you will know who they are, and as hard as it can be to discipline peers, disciplining strangers (particularly those older) is something we are unused to as referees. It is probably best to try and ignore them and get on with your job - others around are unlikely to put up with it and will be better placed to deal with it. There will always be those who mock and ridicule our sport, and always people who think they know the rules better than those who have studied and practiced extensively. You don't have to be confident in dealing with these types of people, or have a plan - it is reasonable to expect it will not occur. I believe the quidditch community is good enough to protect itself should these instances occur, and many people would stick up for you and let you get on with your job.
There are a few tips I have. The most important thing to remember is that you don't deserve it. Whether or not you have made every single call correctly, there is no reason for someone to be abusive towards you - you deserve respect and that includes people not talking back to you, whoever they are. It isn't your fault if it happens, either; I have cultivated a terrifying on pitch presence over the past two years which may be difficult to emulate (I'm kidding, I hope). If it does happen, try to stay calm at the time. Often people are trying to get a reaction from you, so not giving it to them can help. When the match is over, you can vent about it - other referees will sympathise and empathise with you, and it certainly isn't a sign of weakness if it upsets you. A lot of what referees have to deal with is unreasonable, and we are still human.
Finally, a note for players. Very soon I'm going to be releasing a piece that elaborates on a few of these points, but for now a quick guide for why I, as a referee, feel backchat is bad. Firstly, it delays the game because you are trying to force the referee to listen and respond to you - at worst they may have to penalise you, which won't make anyone happy. Secondly, it can severely affect the confidence of the referee you are speaking back to, which could discourage them from refereeing again. Then we'd have no referees and no quidditch. Volunteers, giving up their time to run games, should be supported and not have their confidence chipped away. Also remember that these are your peers, your friends; your words could hurt even more coming from a position where they may trust you outside of the game. Small backchat (the odd word here or there) could escalate into something bigger if someone sees that the referee is reacting to you, and things could get out of hand. Plus, doing it is unlikely to gain you anything but a bad reputation amongst the refereeing community, who seldom give in to such challenges. Just because arguing with the referee happens in other sports doesn't mean we should foster that culture here.
Monday, 18 July 2016
Referee Meetings
Referee meetings are an important part of the game to get right, and for them to be effective then all participants need to be engaged. But they don't start at the beginning of the game - it starts with the meeting of all referees at the beginning of the tournament, where the ground rules are laid down including specific issues for the pitches. If you don't listen, you might miss the fact that one pitch has a pothole in the hard boundary, and then you can't tell the teams and that could endanger players. Oh, and it's also just rude to ignore someone who is volunteering their time to try and improve everyone's refereeing skills. But enough of that bugbear. This article will be divided by the times of when referee meetings occur; before, during, at the snitch catch, and after a game.
Just as you should have a captain's meeting before a game, you should have a referee meeting. This has a couple of functions, firstly making sure everyone knows their role, who the other referees are, and checking that the snitch referee has an acceptable whistle. It's also a good time to outline your own refereeing style and preferences, such as where you'd prefer your assistants to focus, and whether or not you like them to indicate the fouling team when calling a delayed penalty. Pass on specific things to watch from the tournament (always assume they haven't heard it from someone else, it can never hurt to hear something again), either from the pre-tournament meeting or your own experience of other games. If you're refereeing a team with players who are known for backchat or any other issue, it's good to give a general warning about those things in addition to everything else, but avoid naming names so there aren't any biases from referees going into games. You want them to be looking out for fouls from everyone, not just one specific set of people, and it isn't fair to prejudice them against someone before the game has even started.
The first referee meeting isn't just about the head referee giving a lecture, however. If you aren't the head referee, you can still contribute. You can ask about the things mentioned above if the head referee forgets, and you can also mention any common issues you've seen in other games that you've been involved in; again not naming names if you are refereeing a team for a second time. This is also the time to ask the head referee if you have any concerns about refereeing, the pitch, or anything else to do with the game about to happen. Head referees are encouraged by your responsiveness and your questions - it shows your enthusiasm to do well!
'Conferences' are often met with a groan from players. They have a reputation for being long, indecisive, and full of irrelevant comments from every single referee on pitch. It doesn't have to be this way, though. For a start, not everything needs a meeting. If, as a head referee, you are confident on the foul you saw and the call to make, you can just award the penalty. This will save you a lot of time. As for delayed penalties, if you didn't see anything as an assistant, then you don't need to contribute anything to the meeting - in fact, there's no requirement for you to go to the meeting. Reducing the number of voices will increase the speed that the foul is adjudicated. This means it is easier for the head referee to know who to ask about which player committed the foul, and what foul was committed. If as an assistant you know the penalty for the foul as well as the previously stated information, then don't be afraid to share it - if you are incorrect then the head referee can overrule you, but it does save them thinking time. In the case of a disagreement between two assistant referees on whether or not a foul occurred, the assistant referee who was closest has seniority over calling it. Try to avoid an argument between referees ensuing; the meeting should be a decision not a discussion. If the assistants disagree on what the foul was, this is less important and they can carry on talking about it in their own time.
My general advice to all referees in meetings is to speak only when necessary, and to use as few words as necessary. You want to be direct, to the point, and get across as much information as possible in the shortest time. Obviously you want to give enough information that the head referee can make the correct decision, but a blow-by-blow account is unnecessary. I, for instance, keep my wishy-washy word-vomit to these blogs. Think how you'd feel as a player: if you think it's taking too long, it's taking too long. Be the referee your inner player would want to be refereed by! (On that sort of note, if you are a player watching a long meeting happen on pitch, be mindful of how difficult the job is, and respect the referees who are in charge - more here.)
Referees also need to communicate outside of meetings during the game. The head referee should always be aware of where the assistant (and snitch) referees are, and obviously react to delayed penalties as fast as possible. This also helps them identify if any referees are struggling or could do with a reminder to do something. I have, as an assistant referee, been reminded to keep moving at times when I've become stuck in a small area, and I was very grateful for that. If you have to say something similar to your assistants, remember to be polite, and tell them quietly rather than shaming them in front of all the players which is more likely to embarrass them and permanently dent their confidence. Also, don't stop play to do this - either do it during a lull in play, or during a separate stoppage. It's quite easy to quickly talk to an assistant referee, but less easy to talk to a goal referee: if you have to get a message to them during active play then you can send an assistant. Just remember to always be respectful to all of your referees on pitch, no matter how well or otherwise they're doing their job, as they are all volunteering their time.
The longest referee meeting of a match is almost always the one after a snitch catch. It makes sense - everyone wants to get the call right, and snitch referees tend to be less confident in their calls than the average head referee. All of the assistant referees need to be in the meeting, along with the snitch and the snitch referee, and this can make for a lot of mouths and a lot of opinions. As a head referee, unless an assistant referee has been calling a delayed penalty, the first thing to do is talk to the snitch referee. In the case of a delayed penalty, it only needs to be addressed first if the catching team committed the foul - if not, it can wait until the adjudication of the snitch catch. The snitch referee should then give their verdict on whether or not the catch is good - their word should be the one relied upon most heavily. If there is contention from the assistant referees, this should wait until after the snitch referee has spoken. The snitch should also be asked, however bear in mind that they may not be qualified as a snitch referee. If the snitch referee is confident it is good then there should be very few circumstances this isn't followed.
A few things may then need to be addressed. If a goal was scored around the same time as the snitch catch, the head referee should decide whether it occurred before or after the snitch referee blew their whistle to call brooms down for the indication of a snitch catch. It isn't to do with when the head referee blew their whistle, if they do to help stop play - officially, play is stopped when the first double whistle blast occurred, and the snitch referee can do this when a catch is made. Regardless of whether the snitch catch is good or not, there needs to be a decision on whether the goal stands. Once these are addressed, the head referee should then check with the assistant referees if they saw any fouls to affect the call (though generally this should be a series of 'no's because anything they had seen should have been called as a delayed penalty), and also about any fouls that the team who did not catch the snitch made so those can be penalised if necessary. As with the general in-game meetings, try and keep everything concise!
If the catch is good and the game has ended, it's also best practice to gather the referee team for a post-game meeting. This is a chance to congratulate everyone, and give feedback where appropriate - as ever, stay polite and encouraging. Positive reinforcement for how any tough calls were dealt with is also very helpful in increasing confidence, and helping those referees cope better in those situations in the future. You can also remind them to write their names on the scorecard, before releasing them into the wild again.
A referee team should be just as strong a team as the playing ones, and communication is key to this. If you have a happy referee team who is confident in each other's abilities, you are much more likely to have a successful and excellently refereed match on your hands.
Just as you should have a captain's meeting before a game, you should have a referee meeting. This has a couple of functions, firstly making sure everyone knows their role, who the other referees are, and checking that the snitch referee has an acceptable whistle. It's also a good time to outline your own refereeing style and preferences, such as where you'd prefer your assistants to focus, and whether or not you like them to indicate the fouling team when calling a delayed penalty. Pass on specific things to watch from the tournament (always assume they haven't heard it from someone else, it can never hurt to hear something again), either from the pre-tournament meeting or your own experience of other games. If you're refereeing a team with players who are known for backchat or any other issue, it's good to give a general warning about those things in addition to everything else, but avoid naming names so there aren't any biases from referees going into games. You want them to be looking out for fouls from everyone, not just one specific set of people, and it isn't fair to prejudice them against someone before the game has even started.
The first referee meeting isn't just about the head referee giving a lecture, however. If you aren't the head referee, you can still contribute. You can ask about the things mentioned above if the head referee forgets, and you can also mention any common issues you've seen in other games that you've been involved in; again not naming names if you are refereeing a team for a second time. This is also the time to ask the head referee if you have any concerns about refereeing, the pitch, or anything else to do with the game about to happen. Head referees are encouraged by your responsiveness and your questions - it shows your enthusiasm to do well!
Hopefully I will never have such a cold, grim, muddy referee meeting again. (Samuel Instone)
'Conferences' are often met with a groan from players. They have a reputation for being long, indecisive, and full of irrelevant comments from every single referee on pitch. It doesn't have to be this way, though. For a start, not everything needs a meeting. If, as a head referee, you are confident on the foul you saw and the call to make, you can just award the penalty. This will save you a lot of time. As for delayed penalties, if you didn't see anything as an assistant, then you don't need to contribute anything to the meeting - in fact, there's no requirement for you to go to the meeting. Reducing the number of voices will increase the speed that the foul is adjudicated. This means it is easier for the head referee to know who to ask about which player committed the foul, and what foul was committed. If as an assistant you know the penalty for the foul as well as the previously stated information, then don't be afraid to share it - if you are incorrect then the head referee can overrule you, but it does save them thinking time. In the case of a disagreement between two assistant referees on whether or not a foul occurred, the assistant referee who was closest has seniority over calling it. Try to avoid an argument between referees ensuing; the meeting should be a decision not a discussion. If the assistants disagree on what the foul was, this is less important and they can carry on talking about it in their own time.
My general advice to all referees in meetings is to speak only when necessary, and to use as few words as necessary. You want to be direct, to the point, and get across as much information as possible in the shortest time. Obviously you want to give enough information that the head referee can make the correct decision, but a blow-by-blow account is unnecessary. I, for instance, keep my wishy-washy word-vomit to these blogs. Think how you'd feel as a player: if you think it's taking too long, it's taking too long. Be the referee your inner player would want to be refereed by! (On that sort of note, if you are a player watching a long meeting happen on pitch, be mindful of how difficult the job is, and respect the referees who are in charge - more here.)
Referees also need to communicate outside of meetings during the game. The head referee should always be aware of where the assistant (and snitch) referees are, and obviously react to delayed penalties as fast as possible. This also helps them identify if any referees are struggling or could do with a reminder to do something. I have, as an assistant referee, been reminded to keep moving at times when I've become stuck in a small area, and I was very grateful for that. If you have to say something similar to your assistants, remember to be polite, and tell them quietly rather than shaming them in front of all the players which is more likely to embarrass them and permanently dent their confidence. Also, don't stop play to do this - either do it during a lull in play, or during a separate stoppage. It's quite easy to quickly talk to an assistant referee, but less easy to talk to a goal referee: if you have to get a message to them during active play then you can send an assistant. Just remember to always be respectful to all of your referees on pitch, no matter how well or otherwise they're doing their job, as they are all volunteering their time.
The longest referee meeting of a match is almost always the one after a snitch catch. It makes sense - everyone wants to get the call right, and snitch referees tend to be less confident in their calls than the average head referee. All of the assistant referees need to be in the meeting, along with the snitch and the snitch referee, and this can make for a lot of mouths and a lot of opinions. As a head referee, unless an assistant referee has been calling a delayed penalty, the first thing to do is talk to the snitch referee. In the case of a delayed penalty, it only needs to be addressed first if the catching team committed the foul - if not, it can wait until the adjudication of the snitch catch. The snitch referee should then give their verdict on whether or not the catch is good - their word should be the one relied upon most heavily. If there is contention from the assistant referees, this should wait until after the snitch referee has spoken. The snitch should also be asked, however bear in mind that they may not be qualified as a snitch referee. If the snitch referee is confident it is good then there should be very few circumstances this isn't followed.
A few things may then need to be addressed. If a goal was scored around the same time as the snitch catch, the head referee should decide whether it occurred before or after the snitch referee blew their whistle to call brooms down for the indication of a snitch catch. It isn't to do with when the head referee blew their whistle, if they do to help stop play - officially, play is stopped when the first double whistle blast occurred, and the snitch referee can do this when a catch is made. Regardless of whether the snitch catch is good or not, there needs to be a decision on whether the goal stands. Once these are addressed, the head referee should then check with the assistant referees if they saw any fouls to affect the call (though generally this should be a series of 'no's because anything they had seen should have been called as a delayed penalty), and also about any fouls that the team who did not catch the snitch made so those can be penalised if necessary. As with the general in-game meetings, try and keep everything concise!
If the catch is good and the game has ended, it's also best practice to gather the referee team for a post-game meeting. This is a chance to congratulate everyone, and give feedback where appropriate - as ever, stay polite and encouraging. Positive reinforcement for how any tough calls were dealt with is also very helpful in increasing confidence, and helping those referees cope better in those situations in the future. You can also remind them to write their names on the scorecard, before releasing them into the wild again.
A referee team should be just as strong a team as the playing ones, and communication is key to this. If you have a happy referee team who is confident in each other's abilities, you are much more likely to have a successful and excellently refereed match on your hands.
Thursday, 14 July 2016
When Things Go Wrong
Everyone makes mistakes, and that is okay.
More specifically, every referee will make mistakes every game, and accepting that is a necessary part of the job.
Some mistakes will be small, like announcing the score incorrectly and needing to be corrected. Others will be big, like giving a yellow card for a blue card offense. I have done both - thankfully in the latter instance the player didn't do anything to warrant another card, because then I would've felt really bad. As it stood, it just made me check the rule afterwards and there were no hard feelings. But yes, even the walking rulebook misremembers things! There's no point getting too hung up on these things, because you will never have a perfect game.
But things will go wrong, and I will try and give some advice here along with some more examples of mistakes I've made, because apparently I want to do that to myself this week. Please enjoy over two years of fluffed rules and ridiculous errors, all in the name of referee development.
I've already made a post on positioning (here) which waxes lyrical about the importance of being out of the way of play, but as with life, these things don't always go to plan. There have been a couple of times when I've had to very quickly get out of the way of players, both as a head referee and an assistant referee, however at EQC this year I managed to get myself in a situation which was not rectifiable. Somehow, I was in the middle of two quaffle players about to tackle each other, and two beaters going to do the same. And I was the giant four-player collision point. Thankfully (?) one of the quaffle players had committed a foul, and there was no case for advantage, so just as the mess of European humans hit me I blew my whistle for brooms down and did the safest thing possible - I sat down on the two quaffle players on the floor. This was definitely preferable to having my feet taken out from under me by the next tackler to fly in. Okay, so my friends who were goal refereeing were very concerned by my sudden drop, but I wasn't hurt and neither were any players, and no advantage was gained or lost. I apologised to the players I'd sat on, adjudicated the foul, and got on with things. Obviously this wasn't the ideal situation, but I remained calm, and prioritised my own safety - a squished referee isn't much use to anyone.
Other times you can do everything right, but then someone runs backwards over your leg. I was snitch refereeing at the second British Quidditch Cup in Nottingham, and a sudden charge from both seekers meant the snitch ran backwards and over my shin. The snitch was unhindered, and the seekers followed, also charging over shin (I still have faint stud marks there from the bruises but that's by the by). At this point I was barely standing, and in a quite considerable amount of pain. Play was stopped, but I elected to limp on. I do not advocate this. Referees are allowed to substitute out if they are injured, and I'd highly recommend it! You'd do it if you were playing, even if you came back on later, and fighting on didn't do my ankle any good. There's no shame in swapping out, especially not if it clearly happened too quickly for you to adjust. It's better for you to recover, and players would rather have a referee who can run around than one who can only limp. They will understand.
The world, occasionally, conspires to make life difficult. This can get you thoroughly out of the frame of mind for refereeing, and that in particular is when mistakes can crop in. The first match I head refereed at EQC was terrible - I'd arrived late to the tournament having flown from Rome that morning due to a transport nightmare. I missed a couple of pretty big calls in the first five minutes before realising and kicking my butt into gear. In the end the team which I missed the fouls against won, and they didn't influence the match, but I still apologised to the captains afterwards and acknowledged my errors. You can't do anything after the fact other than apologise and resolve to do better in the next match, which I did. Keep your mind in the present, learn from the mistakes you made, and everything will be okay. The key thing is not focusing on something you can't fix, and for me that was the five minutes of terrible refereeing. I couldn't let that influence the next calls I made.
Sometimes you give the wrong card to a player. Sometimes, however, you give a card to the wrong player. This is extremely awkward. After a language barrier lead to a miscommunication, I had to take back a yellow card which I had given to the player who had been fouled, rather than the player who had committed a foul. Thankfully the former was very gracious about it (though probably would have deservedly been less so if I hadn't fixed the situation) and there are no hard feelings. I was left feeling very embarrassed, apologised, and took full responsibility for the situation. Then the game moved on, I didn't dwell on it, and I made sure to double check I was penalising the correct player from then on. I didn't let it affect my confidence - mistakes happen after all, and in the grand scheme of things this really wasn't an issue or something likely to occur again.
Probably the worst thing to have happen is a pitch disruption, unless that disruption is from a dog, in which case everyone just goes 'aww' and then gets on with their life. A lot of the time you have to just ignore what is going on outside of the boundaries of your pitch - after all, that isn't your responsibility. But there are times when you have to stop play to deal with it. I have had issues with non-players and non-quidditch people being inside the hard boundary, which is both a danger to them and to the players. Mostly they are just curious and don't realise that the hard boundary exists, but won't react well to someone just gesturing at them to move. Ideally someone else who isn't doing another job would come and help you here! But occasionally the disruption comes from the quidditch community watching the game, doing something either intentionally or otherwise which impedes the ability of the referee team to do their job, or the players to perform as well as they'd like. It can be a lot harder in this situation to tell them to stop, or be quiet - they aren't obliged to take your authority, and it can feel a bit odd talking to your peers in that context. However, you still have to do it; I've told crowds a few times to be quiet, stop talking to my assistants, or stop flashing lights and blinding us all. It may not make me popular at the time, but people get over it. I'll be writing more on how to deal with problematic people soon.
Oh, and maybe you started a game without goal referees. Well at least it isn't the Northern Cup final! Stop play, find some; it has happened enough times to enough referees that most players will just be amused with your minor incompetence, rather than disappointed or majorly annoyed.
Finally, on a slightly different note, sometimes the right decision can feel very wrong and this is often the most difficult thing to deal with. Twice I have had to end a game in uncomfortable circumstances, with the latest being extremely well-documented. One of the quarterfinals at EQC this past year was between Warwick QC and Deurne Dodo, and I was the head referee. It had been going extremely well, with very few fouls, and I was feeling very positive about my own performance, to the extent that I would have been happy to take on any of the last games. And then the snitch was caught. I didn't see the catch, as I was following quaffle play, but as soon as I went to meet with my referees a number of Warwick players were very insistent that the Dodo seeker had been beat. A lot of the Warwick team are my friends, and I believed them - however as a referee, I could not take anything any of the players said into account. I gathered my referees, and none of them had seen the beat, so in the eyes of the referee team it had not happened, and the snitch catch had to be called good. So that's what I did, knowing in my heart that I hadn't been lied to by the Warwick players (this was later confirmed by the video the Dodo team released, and for the record they also apologised for the way the game ended). That is probably the hardest thing I've ever had to do as a referee, and I will admit that after the game I went and hid in the toilets for ten minutes. But before that I gathered my referee team, thanked them for their work, and tried to reassure them that I wouldn't allow any of them individually to take the blame for the incident: ultimately the buck stops with me as the head referee. I do not believe that the result is my fault; I also know that what I did was the right thing, even if the video showed that it was 'wrong'. A referee can only go on what they see. It took a lot out of me, though, and I turned down the offer of head refereeing after that, though I felt able to assistant referee in the final, with much less pressure on final decisions.
As you can see, things go wrong even for the best of referees. But what makes them the best is the way they deal with it on pitch - they remain calm and professional, and carry on doing an excellent job even if their brain is screaming at them. That's certainly what I aim to do, and hope I did in the above situations. And if you got nothing else from this post, I hope you were entertained by the myriad of mistakes and calamities I have endured in my first two years as a referee.
More specifically, every referee will make mistakes every game, and accepting that is a necessary part of the job.
Some mistakes will be small, like announcing the score incorrectly and needing to be corrected. Others will be big, like giving a yellow card for a blue card offense. I have done both - thankfully in the latter instance the player didn't do anything to warrant another card, because then I would've felt really bad. As it stood, it just made me check the rule afterwards and there were no hard feelings. But yes, even the walking rulebook misremembers things! There's no point getting too hung up on these things, because you will never have a perfect game.
But things will go wrong, and I will try and give some advice here along with some more examples of mistakes I've made, because apparently I want to do that to myself this week. Please enjoy over two years of fluffed rules and ridiculous errors, all in the name of referee development.
I've already made a post on positioning (here) which waxes lyrical about the importance of being out of the way of play, but as with life, these things don't always go to plan. There have been a couple of times when I've had to very quickly get out of the way of players, both as a head referee and an assistant referee, however at EQC this year I managed to get myself in a situation which was not rectifiable. Somehow, I was in the middle of two quaffle players about to tackle each other, and two beaters going to do the same. And I was the giant four-player collision point. Thankfully (?) one of the quaffle players had committed a foul, and there was no case for advantage, so just as the mess of European humans hit me I blew my whistle for brooms down and did the safest thing possible - I sat down on the two quaffle players on the floor. This was definitely preferable to having my feet taken out from under me by the next tackler to fly in. Okay, so my friends who were goal refereeing were very concerned by my sudden drop, but I wasn't hurt and neither were any players, and no advantage was gained or lost. I apologised to the players I'd sat on, adjudicated the foul, and got on with things. Obviously this wasn't the ideal situation, but I remained calm, and prioritised my own safety - a squished referee isn't much use to anyone.
Other times you can do everything right, but then someone runs backwards over your leg. I was snitch refereeing at the second British Quidditch Cup in Nottingham, and a sudden charge from both seekers meant the snitch ran backwards and over my shin. The snitch was unhindered, and the seekers followed, also charging over shin (I still have faint stud marks there from the bruises but that's by the by). At this point I was barely standing, and in a quite considerable amount of pain. Play was stopped, but I elected to limp on. I do not advocate this. Referees are allowed to substitute out if they are injured, and I'd highly recommend it! You'd do it if you were playing, even if you came back on later, and fighting on didn't do my ankle any good. There's no shame in swapping out, especially not if it clearly happened too quickly for you to adjust. It's better for you to recover, and players would rather have a referee who can run around than one who can only limp. They will understand.
The world, occasionally, conspires to make life difficult. This can get you thoroughly out of the frame of mind for refereeing, and that in particular is when mistakes can crop in. The first match I head refereed at EQC was terrible - I'd arrived late to the tournament having flown from Rome that morning due to a transport nightmare. I missed a couple of pretty big calls in the first five minutes before realising and kicking my butt into gear. In the end the team which I missed the fouls against won, and they didn't influence the match, but I still apologised to the captains afterwards and acknowledged my errors. You can't do anything after the fact other than apologise and resolve to do better in the next match, which I did. Keep your mind in the present, learn from the mistakes you made, and everything will be okay. The key thing is not focusing on something you can't fix, and for me that was the five minutes of terrible refereeing. I couldn't let that influence the next calls I made.
Sometimes you give the wrong card to a player. Sometimes, however, you give a card to the wrong player. This is extremely awkward. After a language barrier lead to a miscommunication, I had to take back a yellow card which I had given to the player who had been fouled, rather than the player who had committed a foul. Thankfully the former was very gracious about it (though probably would have deservedly been less so if I hadn't fixed the situation) and there are no hard feelings. I was left feeling very embarrassed, apologised, and took full responsibility for the situation. Then the game moved on, I didn't dwell on it, and I made sure to double check I was penalising the correct player from then on. I didn't let it affect my confidence - mistakes happen after all, and in the grand scheme of things this really wasn't an issue or something likely to occur again.
Probably the worst thing to have happen is a pitch disruption, unless that disruption is from a dog, in which case everyone just goes 'aww' and then gets on with their life. A lot of the time you have to just ignore what is going on outside of the boundaries of your pitch - after all, that isn't your responsibility. But there are times when you have to stop play to deal with it. I have had issues with non-players and non-quidditch people being inside the hard boundary, which is both a danger to them and to the players. Mostly they are just curious and don't realise that the hard boundary exists, but won't react well to someone just gesturing at them to move. Ideally someone else who isn't doing another job would come and help you here! But occasionally the disruption comes from the quidditch community watching the game, doing something either intentionally or otherwise which impedes the ability of the referee team to do their job, or the players to perform as well as they'd like. It can be a lot harder in this situation to tell them to stop, or be quiet - they aren't obliged to take your authority, and it can feel a bit odd talking to your peers in that context. However, you still have to do it; I've told crowds a few times to be quiet, stop talking to my assistants, or stop flashing lights and blinding us all. It may not make me popular at the time, but people get over it. I'll be writing more on how to deal with problematic people soon.
Oh, and maybe you started a game without goal referees. Well at least it isn't the Northern Cup final! Stop play, find some; it has happened enough times to enough referees that most players will just be amused with your minor incompetence, rather than disappointed or majorly annoyed.
Finally, on a slightly different note, sometimes the right decision can feel very wrong and this is often the most difficult thing to deal with. Twice I have had to end a game in uncomfortable circumstances, with the latest being extremely well-documented. One of the quarterfinals at EQC this past year was between Warwick QC and Deurne Dodo, and I was the head referee. It had been going extremely well, with very few fouls, and I was feeling very positive about my own performance, to the extent that I would have been happy to take on any of the last games. And then the snitch was caught. I didn't see the catch, as I was following quaffle play, but as soon as I went to meet with my referees a number of Warwick players were very insistent that the Dodo seeker had been beat. A lot of the Warwick team are my friends, and I believed them - however as a referee, I could not take anything any of the players said into account. I gathered my referees, and none of them had seen the beat, so in the eyes of the referee team it had not happened, and the snitch catch had to be called good. So that's what I did, knowing in my heart that I hadn't been lied to by the Warwick players (this was later confirmed by the video the Dodo team released, and for the record they also apologised for the way the game ended). That is probably the hardest thing I've ever had to do as a referee, and I will admit that after the game I went and hid in the toilets for ten minutes. But before that I gathered my referee team, thanked them for their work, and tried to reassure them that I wouldn't allow any of them individually to take the blame for the incident: ultimately the buck stops with me as the head referee. I do not believe that the result is my fault; I also know that what I did was the right thing, even if the video showed that it was 'wrong'. A referee can only go on what they see. It took a lot out of me, though, and I turned down the offer of head refereeing after that, though I felt able to assistant referee in the final, with much less pressure on final decisions.
As you can see, things go wrong even for the best of referees. But what makes them the best is the way they deal with it on pitch - they remain calm and professional, and carry on doing an excellent job even if their brain is screaming at them. That's certainly what I aim to do, and hope I did in the above situations. And if you got nothing else from this post, I hope you were entertained by the myriad of mistakes and calamities I have endured in my first two years as a referee.
Monday, 11 July 2016
Fake It 'Til You Make It
Establishing your presence on pitch is probably the most important skill for a referee - and this includes assistant and snitch referees. I like to think that the confidence I project on pitch makes up for my lack of height, though generally speaking I'm not always the world's most confident person; I have had to work on it, and I also have to pretend to be more confident than I am at times. I'm a pretty introverted person, and also pretty shy, though if you've only encountered me as a referee then I hope you wouldn't have noticed!
There is a difference between internal and external confidence for a referee, and both are important. Internal confidence is the confidence you have in yourself to do the job, and to an extent the confidence you show to your referee team when you make a decision on a call, before telling the pitch. Though it is less important if your referee team see your uncertainty, confidence has a knock-on effect - if they see you purposefully make a call, they are more likely to be inspired to show that confidence when calling things themselves. It is also easier to appear confident to the whole pitch if your body language in referee meetings is portraying confidence too - and body language reflects how you are feeling internally.
Projecting your confidence to the rest of the pitch is a skill in and of itself, and a referee's ability to do that determines how confident they appear to teams on the pitch. Controlling a pitch is a lot about how well you can project your confidence - if players can sense that you are sure of yourself, they are much less likely to seriously challenge your authority. Evidently there will always be exceptions that you will have to deal with, but generally being self-assured will help massively with backchat. The most important things, in my mind, for projecting confidence are posture and tone of voice. Standing tall (no short jokes here please, you know what I mean! (and if you don't, then it's back straight, shoulders back, making the most of your height)), speaking calmly but firmly, these are the keys to interacting with players.
Though generally I will stand by the statement that a referee can never be too loud on a quidditch pitch, it is probably best not to shout in someone's ear when you are speaking directly to them. Just talking louder isn't going to portray confidence - as stated before, tone is much more important than volume when dealing with individuals. Often (especially so if you are a woman) volume may show vulnerability over confidence in those situations. Obviously if someone is repeatedly going off at you then it may become appropriate to speak over them and use that to let the whole pitch know you aren't taking it, before sending the perpetrator off of course. But generally people will respond to a firm tone that does not need to be loud.
Equally, harshness on your calls isn't a good way to show confidence and could backfire. All referees have their own style, and some are tougher than others (I certainly sit further from the 'lax' end of the scale than most), however refereeing is about having confidence in making a NHNF call or a back to hoops call just as much as it is about giving a card where necessary. Evidently cards do need to be given when fouls deserve it, but don't feel that you have to give cards to stamp your authority on a pitch - it may be a detriment.
Being overconfident can be as much of a problem to a referee as not being confident enough, albeit a much rarer one. A head referee that is too full of themselves and their abilities will undoubtedly fail to ever improve if they cannot acknowledge their mistakes, flaws, and general areas for improvement. It also can lead to confrontations with other referees on the pitch, and tension here can be picked up by players which makes them less confident in the abilities of the referee team. Overconfidence (and relatedly, taking yourself too seriously) can also decrease how personable you come across as on pitch, and in my opinion it is important that players feel that any time they speak with you it is a dialogue rather than a confrontation, and an overconfident referee may come across as that.
Most of this has been about head referees, however it is equally important for all of the other referees on pitch to be confident. Assistant referees need to be confident in their knowledge of the rules enough to make delayed penalty calls, and also to follow through with those calls in sending players back to hoops - maybe even having to repeat the call a few times when people don't listen! It also really helps in referee meetings if an assistant referee is confident, because that often correlates with an increase in clarity of their description of events which in turn leads to a much faster decision being made. Lack of confidence in assistant referees in their own two eyes is a pet peeve of mine, because in the moment there is nothing I can do and I feel everyone would be happier if confidence was there or faked.
Snitch referees are probably the least confident qualified referee on the pitch, on average, and this can be a real issue. I am definitely not the most qualified person to give advice to snitch referees in general, because it is not my strong suit, but I believe an increase in confidence would really help. I often hear that not enough delayed penalties and back to hoops fouls are given for seeker interactions, which may be because they do not have enough confidence to make those calls, or because players don't listen. Indeed, there is little precedent for giving cards to seekers outside of OUQC. Goal referees, scorekeepers and timekeepers also need to be confident in their jobs, if only to reduce the pressure on the head referee!
I have one final point to make. It is perfectly fine to go on pitch and just pretend to be confident, and actually have a million and one butterflies in your stomach. There is nothing wrong with emulating a referee or person or character who has more confidence than you to get that effect on pitch. I started that way, and to an extent I do still pretend, though I have a lot more internal confidence as a referee than when I started. Nerves will always need to be covered - in finals, for instance - and certainly I think every other referee if not everyone else will understand. But why should they know? You don't even have to admit to lacking confidence if you don't want to. And to those who want to help in the improvement of referees across the country? Encouragement and praise went a long way to helping me gain confidence and thus improve. Share that around, it's something I certainly try to do.
There is a difference between internal and external confidence for a referee, and both are important. Internal confidence is the confidence you have in yourself to do the job, and to an extent the confidence you show to your referee team when you make a decision on a call, before telling the pitch. Though it is less important if your referee team see your uncertainty, confidence has a knock-on effect - if they see you purposefully make a call, they are more likely to be inspired to show that confidence when calling things themselves. It is also easier to appear confident to the whole pitch if your body language in referee meetings is portraying confidence too - and body language reflects how you are feeling internally.
Projecting your confidence to the rest of the pitch is a skill in and of itself, and a referee's ability to do that determines how confident they appear to teams on the pitch. Controlling a pitch is a lot about how well you can project your confidence - if players can sense that you are sure of yourself, they are much less likely to seriously challenge your authority. Evidently there will always be exceptions that you will have to deal with, but generally being self-assured will help massively with backchat. The most important things, in my mind, for projecting confidence are posture and tone of voice. Standing tall (no short jokes here please, you know what I mean! (and if you don't, then it's back straight, shoulders back, making the most of your height)), speaking calmly but firmly, these are the keys to interacting with players.
Though generally I will stand by the statement that a referee can never be too loud on a quidditch pitch, it is probably best not to shout in someone's ear when you are speaking directly to them. Just talking louder isn't going to portray confidence - as stated before, tone is much more important than volume when dealing with individuals. Often (especially so if you are a woman) volume may show vulnerability over confidence in those situations. Obviously if someone is repeatedly going off at you then it may become appropriate to speak over them and use that to let the whole pitch know you aren't taking it, before sending the perpetrator off of course. But generally people will respond to a firm tone that does not need to be loud.
Equally, harshness on your calls isn't a good way to show confidence and could backfire. All referees have their own style, and some are tougher than others (I certainly sit further from the 'lax' end of the scale than most), however refereeing is about having confidence in making a NHNF call or a back to hoops call just as much as it is about giving a card where necessary. Evidently cards do need to be given when fouls deserve it, but don't feel that you have to give cards to stamp your authority on a pitch - it may be a detriment.
Being overconfident can be as much of a problem to a referee as not being confident enough, albeit a much rarer one. A head referee that is too full of themselves and their abilities will undoubtedly fail to ever improve if they cannot acknowledge their mistakes, flaws, and general areas for improvement. It also can lead to confrontations with other referees on the pitch, and tension here can be picked up by players which makes them less confident in the abilities of the referee team. Overconfidence (and relatedly, taking yourself too seriously) can also decrease how personable you come across as on pitch, and in my opinion it is important that players feel that any time they speak with you it is a dialogue rather than a confrontation, and an overconfident referee may come across as that.
Most of this has been about head referees, however it is equally important for all of the other referees on pitch to be confident. Assistant referees need to be confident in their knowledge of the rules enough to make delayed penalty calls, and also to follow through with those calls in sending players back to hoops - maybe even having to repeat the call a few times when people don't listen! It also really helps in referee meetings if an assistant referee is confident, because that often correlates with an increase in clarity of their description of events which in turn leads to a much faster decision being made. Lack of confidence in assistant referees in their own two eyes is a pet peeve of mine, because in the moment there is nothing I can do and I feel everyone would be happier if confidence was there or faked.
Snitch referees are probably the least confident qualified referee on the pitch, on average, and this can be a real issue. I am definitely not the most qualified person to give advice to snitch referees in general, because it is not my strong suit, but I believe an increase in confidence would really help. I often hear that not enough delayed penalties and back to hoops fouls are given for seeker interactions, which may be because they do not have enough confidence to make those calls, or because players don't listen. Indeed, there is little precedent for giving cards to seekers outside of OUQC. Goal referees, scorekeepers and timekeepers also need to be confident in their jobs, if only to reduce the pressure on the head referee!
I have one final point to make. It is perfectly fine to go on pitch and just pretend to be confident, and actually have a million and one butterflies in your stomach. There is nothing wrong with emulating a referee or person or character who has more confidence than you to get that effect on pitch. I started that way, and to an extent I do still pretend, though I have a lot more internal confidence as a referee than when I started. Nerves will always need to be covered - in finals, for instance - and certainly I think every other referee if not everyone else will understand. But why should they know? You don't even have to admit to lacking confidence if you don't want to. And to those who want to help in the improvement of referees across the country? Encouragement and praise went a long way to helping me gain confidence and thus improve. Share that around, it's something I certainly try to do.
Thursday, 7 July 2016
No Harm, No Foul
When I was asking around for suggestions on what to write about in my blog, someone enthusiastically requested that I did an article on No Harm, No Foul (NHNF). I may have then needed a minute or so to giggle, and reflect on how unlikely that response would have been a year ago. In the 2014-2015 season I had a (perhaps well-deserved) reputation for being a stickler for the letter of the rulebook, and being a little over-zealous in my penalties. However I worked very hard in the 2016-2016 season to both throw off the reputation and improve my refereeing - this was very much centred on fully understanding and correctly utilising NHNF when refereeing matches.
6.4.1.10. No harm, no foul—In the case of a minor offense that
has not given either team an advantage, a referee may decide “no
harm, no foul” and may choose to verbally warn players about a
potential infraction rather than calling a foul.
United States Quidditch Rulebook 9
No harm, no foul is there to give referees the discretion to let some fouls go in favour of letting the game flow. Evidently, the foul has to have no impact on the game (that's the no harm part), and the referee should also warn the player committing the foul so they don't do it again. Generally it will be in the quaffle game - as that is what the head referee should be focused on - so the quaffle-carrier should have been unimpeded by the foul: be it a tackle or otherwise. They should be able to continue play as if the foul had never happened and the player was not there; they should not have been disadvantaged by the foul. It is different to playing advantage however, as when you are playing advantage you are judging whether the team as a whole would be disadvantaged rather than the one player being affected - also you penalise the fouling player after advantage has played out.
One of the most common mistakes I see referees make with regards to NHNF is using it as an excuse when they are unsure on the call to make. If you did not see a situation clearly but feel there was a foul committed, it is always best to call for a brooms down and consult with the other referees on pitch - play advantage if you must, but unless there truly was no effect on the quaffle-carrier then there is no place for NHNF. Sometimes it may transpire that there was no foul occurred, but that's okay - it's always best to check. Every referee has stopped play for something which only ended up being a back to hoops offense occasionally. Equally, if you are not sure on the penalty for a foul, the answer is definitely not NHNF - all of them will be at least a back to hoops, and by definition NHNF would mean not calling any penalty and just giving a warning.
There have been many instances in games where my application - or lack of - NHNF has been questioned by players. Sometimes this is just down to players' belligerence, other times it is due to differing opinions on what constitutes a 'minor' foul. I don't believe that what I class as 'minor' should be the standard for all referees, though finding some internal consistency would be helpful. But I shall detail my own guidelines anyway, because this is my blog.
Probably the most frustrating contact rule to referee is contact from behind, or back tackles as they are more commonly known. The tackler is almost always convinced that they were way in front of the navel, whilst the tacklee is rarely not complaining about how obviously the person slammed into them from behind. Turns and spins just add complexity, but this post isn't about that. As a referee, if I see someone go in for a tackle which is technically from behind, but the person runs through barely being touched or slowed down by the contact (so the tackle barely exists), then I'm very much inclined to use NHNF. The only exception to this would be if the player being tackled had no awareness of the person making the tackle, in which case I would probably send them back to hoops because that is more dangerous. When the contact becomes from behind due to the player having an awareness and accelerating or spinning away, there is far likely to be no harm done.
A theme here, perhaps - attempted neck tackles or tackles below the knee will nearly always get at least a back to hoops from me along with the warning. This is because these are both dangerous; I know low tackles are legal in rugby, but they are not in quidditch and they are thus not expected so receivers wouldn't know how to safely fall. They are also both a lot less likely to be completely avoided with no consequence, especially if the player has to jump or duck significantly to avoid it. As per the rulebook, immediately adjusted illegal contact should be a back to hoops call. As I personally judge NHNF calls on how much they endanger the opposition in these cases, it would only be if the contact brushes insignificantly that I may only issue a warning.
Now I will admit that picks and the rules regarding them are not something I totally understand. However, picks between chasers/keepers and beaters won't ever be dismissed as NHNF for me, as for the pick to exist then it must be assumed to be successful. The player being picked may not have been moving at the time, but if the pick is there then their options are limited, thus the foul has been committed. Obviously a beater being picked by a chaser may be spotted by an assistant referee rather than the head referee, and then a delayed penalty will be called - assistants cannot call NHNF.
Later this year I hope to bring out a post on why referee signals are important for everyone to know, not just head referees - how many times have I shown the signal for 'keeper's ball' and then still seen people go in for the tackle? Too many, my friends, too many. If the keeper is unaffected by the tackle (as they are often the tallest person on a team, and the point chaser attempting the tackle much smaller) then I am likely to give a warning of 'keeper's ball' and then if the chaser backs off, use that as NHNF. However if the contact continues, or the keeper has been pushed backwards/had the quaffle obstructed/been taken down then I will be less likely to (read, won't) look kindly upon the tacklee. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse!
Other instances where I might not give cards include going a little outside of the soft boundary when the pitch is only marked out with cones - or when the pitch is marked out in red and the person in question is colourblind - and if as a head referee I see it, two beaters from one team calling for immunity at the same time and one immediately correcting it, with no disadvantage to the other team's beaters. Obviously no red card penalty can ever be 'minor', even if there is no harm seemingly done.
All of the above come with a stipulation - if I've warned you for it once and you do it again, I am going to be much more inclined to penalise you even if no harm was done. A warning should be just that; enough to dissuade you from doing the same thing again.
In the UK, there can be a tendency to overuse NHNF incorrectly. Often referees will use it as an excuse - if they are worried about pissing off a player, or if the player has already been given a yellow card and they don't want to send them off with a red. But there can also be a tendency to not use it enough, something I have certainly been guilty of in the past. Every foul needs a conscious, engaged decision: NHNF can be that decision, but it must be made with full concentration and full understanding of its meaning.
Probably the most frustrating contact rule to referee is contact from behind, or back tackles as they are more commonly known. The tackler is almost always convinced that they were way in front of the navel, whilst the tacklee is rarely not complaining about how obviously the person slammed into them from behind. Turns and spins just add complexity, but this post isn't about that. As a referee, if I see someone go in for a tackle which is technically from behind, but the person runs through barely being touched or slowed down by the contact (so the tackle barely exists), then I'm very much inclined to use NHNF. The only exception to this would be if the player being tackled had no awareness of the person making the tackle, in which case I would probably send them back to hoops because that is more dangerous. When the contact becomes from behind due to the player having an awareness and accelerating or spinning away, there is far likely to be no harm done.
A theme here, perhaps - attempted neck tackles or tackles below the knee will nearly always get at least a back to hoops from me along with the warning. This is because these are both dangerous; I know low tackles are legal in rugby, but they are not in quidditch and they are thus not expected so receivers wouldn't know how to safely fall. They are also both a lot less likely to be completely avoided with no consequence, especially if the player has to jump or duck significantly to avoid it. As per the rulebook, immediately adjusted illegal contact should be a back to hoops call. As I personally judge NHNF calls on how much they endanger the opposition in these cases, it would only be if the contact brushes insignificantly that I may only issue a warning.
Now I will admit that picks and the rules regarding them are not something I totally understand. However, picks between chasers/keepers and beaters won't ever be dismissed as NHNF for me, as for the pick to exist then it must be assumed to be successful. The player being picked may not have been moving at the time, but if the pick is there then their options are limited, thus the foul has been committed. Obviously a beater being picked by a chaser may be spotted by an assistant referee rather than the head referee, and then a delayed penalty will be called - assistants cannot call NHNF.
Later this year I hope to bring out a post on why referee signals are important for everyone to know, not just head referees - how many times have I shown the signal for 'keeper's ball' and then still seen people go in for the tackle? Too many, my friends, too many. If the keeper is unaffected by the tackle (as they are often the tallest person on a team, and the point chaser attempting the tackle much smaller) then I am likely to give a warning of 'keeper's ball' and then if the chaser backs off, use that as NHNF. However if the contact continues, or the keeper has been pushed backwards/had the quaffle obstructed/been taken down then I will be less likely to (read, won't) look kindly upon the tacklee. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse!
Other instances where I might not give cards include going a little outside of the soft boundary when the pitch is only marked out with cones - or when the pitch is marked out in red and the person in question is colourblind - and if as a head referee I see it, two beaters from one team calling for immunity at the same time and one immediately correcting it, with no disadvantage to the other team's beaters. Obviously no red card penalty can ever be 'minor', even if there is no harm seemingly done.
All of the above come with a stipulation - if I've warned you for it once and you do it again, I am going to be much more inclined to penalise you even if no harm was done. A warning should be just that; enough to dissuade you from doing the same thing again.
In the UK, there can be a tendency to overuse NHNF incorrectly. Often referees will use it as an excuse - if they are worried about pissing off a player, or if the player has already been given a yellow card and they don't want to send them off with a red. But there can also be a tendency to not use it enough, something I have certainly been guilty of in the past. Every foul needs a conscious, engaged decision: NHNF can be that decision, but it must be made with full concentration and full understanding of its meaning.
Monday, 4 July 2016
Advantage
'3.3.4. Advantage
If the head referee determines that stopping play due to a foul
would provide an advantage to the fouling team, the referee may
call advantage by raising one hand straight into the air.'
United States Quidditch Rulebook 9
To players of other sports, the advantage rule may have been slightly more familiar than it was to me, someone who only really follows tennis - where 'advantage N' follows 'deuce'. Not exactly helpful for adjudicating a contact sport. However, it was a rule that needed adding, because evidently it should not be the case that a player can foul someone with the knowledge that it would nullify the attack on the fouling player's team.
Note: I prefer to read the above rule as 'stopping play due to a foul would provide a disadvantage to the fouled team' because it makes more sense in my head to consider it this way around.
Note: I prefer to read the above rule as 'stopping play due to a foul would provide a disadvantage to the fouled team' because it makes more sense in my head to consider it this way around.
The rulebook is fairly clear on most things regarding advantage, detailing for example where bludger control should and should not change, whether or not a snitch catch is good, and what to do if a second foul occurs. However it is not exhaustive on how to call the end of play under advantage. I believe that the five points listed are far too often taken as the be all and end all of when to end an advantage call and reset the quaffle play (and whatever else as necessary). This leads to long and pointless periods of advantage play where the fouled team has no distinct advantage for extended periods of time, when it would be better to just adjudicate the foul and try again.
Waiting until the fouled team scores is never going to be a good decider because, with all the good will in the world, some fouled teams just aren't going to be strong enough to get through the opposing team's defenses consistently. They could walk forward slowly, pass from side to side, and never make a good enough angle to take an accurate shot. If the fouled team aren't making good strides towards to score a hoop - fast movement, quaffle-carrier not locked in a wrap or tackle - and are stuck in a stalemate, then it's time to call that advantage has abated. The fouled team is going to have a better shot at this point from the quaffle being reset, which will probably give the quaffle-carrier more space and they will also likely now outnumber the opposition.
Equally, waiting until the fouling team has the quaffle is just as likely to lead to overly lengthy advantage periods. A team could maintain quaffle possession by passing backwards, not advancing towards the hoops, and therefore wouldn't be losing any advantage by blowing the whistle to reset play (though of course, if there's a pass back to keeper, it may be prudent to wait a couple of seconds to see if they will lead a fast break). Possession of a quaffle doesn't really give a team an advantage, so doesn't work as a steadfast rule. Obviously if the quaffle does end up in the possession of the fouling team, that would signal the end of advantage.
Oh, and if the fouling team somehow manages to score during advantage from anything other than a ridiculously ridiculous long-shot, you've gone seriously wrong somewhere.
The other two points should be followed, but again I don't think I've covered everything for when to end advantage play.
If I am calling advantage as a head referee, I'm looking for a few things to be happening to continue play. The quaffle carrier should be active and not restricted in their movement excessively by an opponent - they should be going for hoops or looking for a (viable) pass to a fellow quaffle player. Other quaffle players from the fouled team should be attacking too, and in positions where stopping play would actively disadvantage them. Bludger play is somewhat less relevant, unless another foul in the beater game is committed. It should be clear that the fouled team has a chance at scoring, which is the soul point of advantage as a rule. If there is a lull, if the quaffle gets wrapped up, if all the players are beat out; I will call for a brooms down and I will penalise the fouling player and reset the quaffle.
Like no harm, no foul (more on that soon), advantage is there to make the game flow better by stopping fouls from breaking up attacks by causing brooms down. That is the foremost thing to hold in your mind when using it - if your game isn't flowing, it's time to stop advantage and give the fouled team another shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)