One of the most common messages I get is from people who want to start refereeing, but don't really know how to get into it. It certainly isn't as easy as when I started - where certification was basically non-existent and standards were somewhat sub-par. But I still believe that it is doable, and below is what I deem to be a sensible order of trying things to work your way up to being a fully fledged referee. Even the greats like Dave and Jesus had to start somewhere (though Jesus started refereeing somewhen way back in the past, their origin story has probably been lost to the mists of time), and the resources and knowledge available now is far higher, so you can reach the top a lot faster if that is what you want to do.
Onwards.
1. If your team has practices with scrimmages, referee those. Okay, so no-one likes to be the person giving cards out in practice, but your team needs to learn the rules and so do you. Get used to how loud you have to be for people to hear you, and practice focussing on one aspect of the game - either quaffle, or bludger. Run a lot, and experiment with where you need to place yourself to get the best view of everything going on; not everyone will find that the general advice is helpful to them. Also, if you have other referees on your team (even ones who aren't certified in the current season), ask them for feedback. General demeanor and attitude towards refereeing doesn't change across rulebooks, even if the specifics of the rules do!
2. Find a fun way to revise the rulebook. As I am a nerd, I try to own a physical copy of each rulebook (get on it, USQ! RB10 needs to be in my house!) and last season I colour-coded each of the fouls and put markers in the sections which I knew I'd need to reference more often, such as the new reset rules and contact fouls. This meant I could flip straight to the sections I knew I needed to go over before a tournament, and it made it easier to look things up mid-tournament as well if I wasn't sure I'd made the correct call. I know lots of people like Kym Couch's flash cards (RB10 ones can be found here) when revising for tests, or maybe you'd rather make your own. You could also organise a study session within your club, or over skype with friends from other clubs. Learning the rulebook shouldn't have to be a chore!
3. Referee scrimmages some more. Referees need to practice just as much as players - you can never have too much experience, and it will benefit your club too if they are used to abiding by the rules on more than just an honesty basis. If they don't let you, point out the fact that you know the rules every time someone gets a card in a tournament until they figure it out. Everyone knows that six players on a pitch is far better than three (which yes, is the lowest number I've seen a team go down to due to fouls and cards).
4. Volunteer to referee at a small tournament with less pressure. This could be a small merc tournament, a small team tournament, or maybe even just a friendly set of matches between two clubs. Mostly people will just be grateful for the volunteers, and as it isn't a regional competition with a lot of outside scrutiny, it doesn't matter so much if you make a couple of mistakes. This way you can get used to the pressure of a real game, without feeling like it matters for a team's national ranking (a surprisingly large pressure, even when the teams are only looking at the low teens or twenties). Most tournaments have one or two highly experienced referees - I went as far as Highlander last year in my bid to get lots of experience - who will be able to give you advice on how you did, and where to improve.
5. Volunteer to referee at more tournaments. More. Even more than that. Everything you can sensibly, feasibly get to. Referee until you are confident, or can at least pretend to be - and if your goal is regionals and BQC, sign up for those in plenty of time!
At some point, yes, you need to do the written exams and the field tests. You can do this before number one, before number four, or maybe just in time for regionals if you've been refereeing at tournaments with no test requirements. But having experience and having confidence are often more important than a great test result, as rules can be learnt much easier from a book than other refereeing skills.
But my most important advice can be found here.
If you have any questions or worries about refereeing, you can always get in contact with me - either on the page or on my actual facebook if I have you as a friend. I'm sure there are many other referees who are also willing to help you, including the referee development teams of your NGB. Best of luck!
Thursday, 25 August 2016
Thursday, 18 August 2016
Referee Scheduling
As anyone who has been involved in tournament organising knows, scheduling is the worst part of setting everything up. Even once you've worked out the best ways to get all your teams playing on the number of pitches available, without too many back-to-backs, you have referees to sort. The optimum is a head referee, three assistants, a snitch referee, a snitch, two goal referees, a scorekeeper, and a timekeeper - that's ten individuals! You have to make sure that no-one is scheduled more than once (including as players), and that no-one has a conflict of interest; something which has become more difficult to manage now everyone seems to have played for two or even three teams across the seasons. Throughout the season there have been several approaches, finishing with the best organised event I was a part of, World Cup. Here I will discuss what I feel are the best approaches in an ideal world, and how I currently would deal with the compromises necessary.
Starting with World Cup, this year's event ran incredibly smoothly. Even with 45 minute gameslots, which have sounded death knells for European tournaments recently, games started promptly and with full teams. Part of the reason I feel it was so successful was the introduction of standby referee teams - a full team of qualified referees ready to slot in on any of the four pitches if someone was late. Though they had the advantage of having almost exclusively non-playing referees available, I still didn't expect everything to go as punctually and I was more than pleasantly surprised. If every tournament had a set of referees who knew they should make themselves available to the tournament committee at a specific location before every match slot, finding replacements would go far swifter. For the past two BQCs I did create lists of free referees, but they were scattered across the tournament location and thus it was not as effective as what happened at World Cup. I filled one standby slot at World Cup, on the first day, and after not being needed could get on with spectating for that slot - it was hardly an inconvenience.
Going forward in international country-level competitions, I feel that quidditch could learn from other sports. Often, countries assemble full referee teams which then stay together for an entire tournament, and are then available as a unit for the schedulers. This could work for the next World Cup or even European Games - the UK, for example, should easily be able to provide two full referee teams, perhaps both with two snitches. The best referees are likely to all be head referee qualified, so the team could rotate who filled that role. Smaller, less developed countries could team up to provide a unit. This could be used in conjunction with the previous idea of standby referee teams (though I feel standbys should be used more widely than international competition), by replacing whole teams if a component is missing. Having set teams of referees could also be an advantage to players as well, who are more likely to know what to expect from referee teams later in a competition if they have been under them before, rather than having variables that effect the overall quality of the refereeing.
But back to domestic, club competitions where it isn't practical to require clubs to provide full teams. I have scheduled the referees for the last two BQCs, and I worked on a few parameters. Generally speaking, referees would not be involved in games that were affecting their group (if they were players). In an ideal world, this would extend to clubs - though that becomes a little restrictive and is the first of the rules to waive. Secondly, close games are identified and at least two strong referees are assigned to those. Again ideally all games would be refereed with equal quality, but we do not have enough referees in this country certainly to achieve that parity, so the anticipated 'hardest' matches are given the best referees. Care should be taken, however, to not leave a full team of inexperienced referees without someone more confident to guide them if necessary. The difference between the best and worst referee teams during group stages should be minimal. Finally, referees should have an appropriate number of breaks. Some referees like being on their feet all day - I'm one of them - whereas others, particularly those competing for the top teams, prefer not to run themselves ragged. Obviously this is only possible if you have enough referees!
I have a database set up which I use for my scheduling (nicknamed 'Fordsheed') and has been very helpful in sorting everything out relatively quickly. It works by giving every referee an entry, which then links to their team, and what positions they are willing to fill. The team schedule is then created, which links team availability to their timeslot. Then, for each timeslot, I can search for the available referees of each position and use that to fill up the schedule with confidence that no-one is in two places at once. Just to check, I have an error sheet which shows up anyone who has been assigned twice. The long list of numbers then generates the schedule, and can also be used to create individual schedules and lists of free individuals. Generally I will work methodically by position, starting with head referees and snitches, then matching snitch referees to the snitches, and trying to find complimentary assistant referees to finish the qualified team. I've also used it to assign goal referees, scorekeepers, and timekeepers, as well as other tournament volunteers. Unfortunately it isn't terribly user-friendly as a system, or I would've lent it out to people!
Scheduling for the first day is one thing, scheduling for knockout play is another thing completely. You can't predict it, you don't know which teams and therefore which conflicts of interest are going to be present at each round, and you might even have two brackets to deal with simultaneously. It isn't fun. This is where the referee team system has an advantage, because if Australia are playing Spain at the World Cup then all you need to do is pick a referee team that isn't from Australia or Spain. There's no need to individually pick up to 10 people from a potentially huge list. At this year's World Cup, every round was preceded by a referee meeting where the officials were picked, and this worked well - but mainly, I feel, because referees were not distracted by being with their teams as they might be in a domestic tournament. It could probably be effective in a fantasy tournament though, where there is not so much of a team bond. So generally I'd advise having one or two individuals on the tournament committee who aren't playing, and can be solely dedicated to sorting out referee schedules for each round as they come. This requires a bit more time, and still means the referees need to gather to have this communicated to them, but they don't have to be there for as long. It probably does necessitate a longer gameslot though, to have time to accrue the results and then sort who is refereeing.
Then, of course, there are the finals. Who do you pick? How do you tell them? Generally from the quarter finals onwards, the pool of referees is restricted to the best. This pool should be made of those who have been consistent, both across the season and across the tournament - stand-out new referees should always be considered if they have shone out to other referees and to teams. Checking with captains is a good way to eliminate referees who have disappointed across multiple games, and also checking with the top referees who may have worked with multiple groups across the weekend. But the most important thing to check with, particularly for finals, is the referees themselves. Some may not be comfortable with stepping into the role for a final, or maybe they want to just spectate the match. If you don't give them a chance to reject, and they feel forced into it, it could seriously affect their ability to perform and the likelihood of them refereeing again. Ultimately, they are still volunteers, and should be excited and happy about the prospect of being involved. This means asking them individually, and not shaming them if they say no - and maybe offering them a lower position in the referee team if available. This should go for everyone on pitch, right down to the goal referees (following the tradition now that everyone on the pitch is head referee qualified, some may not be as pleased as I was to stand behind the hoops for a game). Respect is key!
I could go into much more detail on everything here, but to summarise: standby referee teams are a great thing I feel we should try and introduce; country-based referee teams could work wonderfully for European Games and World Cup; referees should be chosen to minimise conflict of interest and maximise parity across all games; technology is good at helping if you check it for 40 hours; assigning referees in bracket play requires dedicated volunteers; referees for finals should be chosen for their performance consistency and requested respectfully. Oh, and we could all do with more non-playing referees, always.
Starting with World Cup, this year's event ran incredibly smoothly. Even with 45 minute gameslots, which have sounded death knells for European tournaments recently, games started promptly and with full teams. Part of the reason I feel it was so successful was the introduction of standby referee teams - a full team of qualified referees ready to slot in on any of the four pitches if someone was late. Though they had the advantage of having almost exclusively non-playing referees available, I still didn't expect everything to go as punctually and I was more than pleasantly surprised. If every tournament had a set of referees who knew they should make themselves available to the tournament committee at a specific location before every match slot, finding replacements would go far swifter. For the past two BQCs I did create lists of free referees, but they were scattered across the tournament location and thus it was not as effective as what happened at World Cup. I filled one standby slot at World Cup, on the first day, and after not being needed could get on with spectating for that slot - it was hardly an inconvenience.
Going forward in international country-level competitions, I feel that quidditch could learn from other sports. Often, countries assemble full referee teams which then stay together for an entire tournament, and are then available as a unit for the schedulers. This could work for the next World Cup or even European Games - the UK, for example, should easily be able to provide two full referee teams, perhaps both with two snitches. The best referees are likely to all be head referee qualified, so the team could rotate who filled that role. Smaller, less developed countries could team up to provide a unit. This could be used in conjunction with the previous idea of standby referee teams (though I feel standbys should be used more widely than international competition), by replacing whole teams if a component is missing. Having set teams of referees could also be an advantage to players as well, who are more likely to know what to expect from referee teams later in a competition if they have been under them before, rather than having variables that effect the overall quality of the refereeing.
But back to domestic, club competitions where it isn't practical to require clubs to provide full teams. I have scheduled the referees for the last two BQCs, and I worked on a few parameters. Generally speaking, referees would not be involved in games that were affecting their group (if they were players). In an ideal world, this would extend to clubs - though that becomes a little restrictive and is the first of the rules to waive. Secondly, close games are identified and at least two strong referees are assigned to those. Again ideally all games would be refereed with equal quality, but we do not have enough referees in this country certainly to achieve that parity, so the anticipated 'hardest' matches are given the best referees. Care should be taken, however, to not leave a full team of inexperienced referees without someone more confident to guide them if necessary. The difference between the best and worst referee teams during group stages should be minimal. Finally, referees should have an appropriate number of breaks. Some referees like being on their feet all day - I'm one of them - whereas others, particularly those competing for the top teams, prefer not to run themselves ragged. Obviously this is only possible if you have enough referees!
I have a database set up which I use for my scheduling (nicknamed 'Fordsheed') and has been very helpful in sorting everything out relatively quickly. It works by giving every referee an entry, which then links to their team, and what positions they are willing to fill. The team schedule is then created, which links team availability to their timeslot. Then, for each timeslot, I can search for the available referees of each position and use that to fill up the schedule with confidence that no-one is in two places at once. Just to check, I have an error sheet which shows up anyone who has been assigned twice. The long list of numbers then generates the schedule, and can also be used to create individual schedules and lists of free individuals. Generally I will work methodically by position, starting with head referees and snitches, then matching snitch referees to the snitches, and trying to find complimentary assistant referees to finish the qualified team. I've also used it to assign goal referees, scorekeepers, and timekeepers, as well as other tournament volunteers. Unfortunately it isn't terribly user-friendly as a system, or I would've lent it out to people!
Scheduling for the first day is one thing, scheduling for knockout play is another thing completely. You can't predict it, you don't know which teams and therefore which conflicts of interest are going to be present at each round, and you might even have two brackets to deal with simultaneously. It isn't fun. This is where the referee team system has an advantage, because if Australia are playing Spain at the World Cup then all you need to do is pick a referee team that isn't from Australia or Spain. There's no need to individually pick up to 10 people from a potentially huge list. At this year's World Cup, every round was preceded by a referee meeting where the officials were picked, and this worked well - but mainly, I feel, because referees were not distracted by being with their teams as they might be in a domestic tournament. It could probably be effective in a fantasy tournament though, where there is not so much of a team bond. So generally I'd advise having one or two individuals on the tournament committee who aren't playing, and can be solely dedicated to sorting out referee schedules for each round as they come. This requires a bit more time, and still means the referees need to gather to have this communicated to them, but they don't have to be there for as long. It probably does necessitate a longer gameslot though, to have time to accrue the results and then sort who is refereeing.
Then, of course, there are the finals. Who do you pick? How do you tell them? Generally from the quarter finals onwards, the pool of referees is restricted to the best. This pool should be made of those who have been consistent, both across the season and across the tournament - stand-out new referees should always be considered if they have shone out to other referees and to teams. Checking with captains is a good way to eliminate referees who have disappointed across multiple games, and also checking with the top referees who may have worked with multiple groups across the weekend. But the most important thing to check with, particularly for finals, is the referees themselves. Some may not be comfortable with stepping into the role for a final, or maybe they want to just spectate the match. If you don't give them a chance to reject, and they feel forced into it, it could seriously affect their ability to perform and the likelihood of them refereeing again. Ultimately, they are still volunteers, and should be excited and happy about the prospect of being involved. This means asking them individually, and not shaming them if they say no - and maybe offering them a lower position in the referee team if available. This should go for everyone on pitch, right down to the goal referees (following the tradition now that everyone on the pitch is head referee qualified, some may not be as pleased as I was to stand behind the hoops for a game). Respect is key!
I could go into much more detail on everything here, but to summarise: standby referee teams are a great thing I feel we should try and introduce; country-based referee teams could work wonderfully for European Games and World Cup; referees should be chosen to minimise conflict of interest and maximise parity across all games; technology is good at helping if you check it for 40 hours; assigning referees in bracket play requires dedicated volunteers; referees for finals should be chosen for their performance consistency and requested respectfully. Oh, and we could all do with more non-playing referees, always.
Thursday, 11 August 2016
Signals
Why are signals important? To many, referees included, they are just a funny appendix at the back of the USQ rulebooks, and for some reason this has made them optional. Really though, they shouldn't be. There's a lot to be gained by knowing the signals, both as a referee and as a player. Everyone knows goal and no goal, sure, but how many of you could demonstrate the signal for illegal procedure? Over the past season I have been trying to increase my use of signals, but that isn't really helpful to anyone if they don't know what I'm saying with my hands. This article has been made with the help of the wonderful referees at World Cup, who posed for me on one of the few breaks we had to get all of these covered in a more colourful way than the rulebook. My thanks also go to Chris LeCompte who demonstrated nearly all of them (plus an invented one) about two feet higher than everyone else during the weekend and showed just how much can be said without using words.
Signals everyone should know:
This signals: Good Goal
Accompanying whistle blast: Single long blast
Why players should know it: Until the whistle blows to signify the goal, along with the arm signal, the quaffle is still live. You may be able to score - or stop - a goal if you continue right until the whistle.
Why volunteers should know it: Obviously referees on the pitch will be using the signal every time a goal is scored. Scorekeepers should know it for confirmation of a good goal, and then they can accurately update the score. Keep an eye out for overrules afterwards, however!
This signals: No Goal/Bad Snitch Catch
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: A no goal signal could give you the chance to continue playing and finish off the offensive or defensive play. It could also make you aware that the goal wasn't good if there is an overruling due to a foul or otherwise, so you can keep track of the score if you need to know for snitch play.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should keep an eye out for this one in particular if it comes after a stoppage of play to then cancel a previously given goal.
This signals: Keeper's ball
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: When the head referee is showing this signal, the keeper holding the ball has immunity from tackles and beats while they are in their defensive keeper zone. It is also illegal to tackle a keeper with this immunity and you could end up with a card! A referee properly utilising this signal will also then show you when the keeper loses the immunity, meaning you can proceed to tackle them if you wish.
Why volunteers should know it: It's one of the easiest signals to get in the habit of using, and when you do it correctly, it can really help when deciding if a keeper has been illegally challenged.
(x3)
This signals: Good snitch catch/End of a period of play
Accompanying whistle blast: Three long blasts
Why players should know it: Obviously it signals when you've won if you were out of SWIM when the snitch was caught, but it also signals the end of five minutes in first overtime if there is no snitch catch, and if the score (catch or goal) was good in second overtime.
Why volunteers should know it: Timekeepers, time to stop the clock and write down the time. Scorekeepers, you need to work out the final score and sort out the scoresheet.
This signals: Knocked out/Dismount/Back to hoops
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the rules, so listen and watch for back to hoop calls and don't argue.
Why volunteers should know it: Pointing to the hoops of the player in question will reduce confusion if someone is also called safe from friendly fire.
This signals: Stop play
Accompanying whistle blast: Pairs of whistle blasts, until everyone stops
Why players should know it: If you hear the double whistle on your pitch, your instinct should be to stop play straight away, and drop your broom where you were when the whistle went. There's no point playing over the whistle - but equally don't stop play unless you hear the double blasts.
Why volunteers should know it: Timekeepers need to remember to pause the timer immediately when the double blasts start.
This signals: Resume play
Accompanying whistle blast: Single short whistle blast
Why players should know it: Even if you might not hear the whistle, you can look for this hand signal to know just when you can start up again.
Why volunteers should know it: Timekeepers will resume the timer when the whistle and signal come.
This signals: Delayed penalty
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: Generally speaking, head referees ask for their assistant referees to point at the bench of the team who fouled, which is also the direction that play should continue in if advantage is then being used. So if you're the team who has been fouled, and you want to know why the referee hasn't called it straight away, this might be why!
Why volunteers should know it: This just really helps head referees keep games flowing smoothly, so if assistant referees get used to it then life will be much easier for everyone.
This signals: Advantage
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: If the head referee is calling advantage, they have seen a foul and are letting play go on. The quaffle player who was fouled will be returned to the point where the foul occurred, but the other players will stay where they were when advantage abated and play was stopped. So if you are fouled and then play continues, this is probably why.
Why volunteers should know it: In overtime, the stopwatch should be paused as soon as the head referee raises their fist to call advantage, so timekeepers should be aware.
This signals: Warning
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: Official warnings will be a lot easier to identify when accompanied by this hand signal, so you know when to tone it down with whatever you were doing.
Why volunteers should know it: Often there is no distinction between an official warning and a friendly reminder/note - this will help that.
This signals: Blue/Yellow/Red Card + Penalty time
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: It's always good to know what penalty you got, and how much time you're spending in the box.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should remind head referees if they are giving a player a second yellow card, which would lead to a red card.
Signals captains, coaches, referees, and volunteers should know:
This signals: General illegal contact
Description: Both hands in fists, crossing above the head repeatedly.
Why coaches/captains should know it: If you haven't approached the referee when the decision was made and called, and you are unable to hear the call, seeing this signal will indicate what type of foul has been committed. Then you can work out if you think it is fair or not rather than making a fuss because you don't know the foul.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
This signals: Illegal procedure
Description: As shown, with the arms rolling.
Why coaches/captains should know it: If you are called for an illegal procedure, it's time to start tightening up on your substitutions and other gameplay elements of the match.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
This signals: Delay of game
Description: Two fingers tapping the wrist, as if there was a watch there.
Why coaches/captains should know it: If this is being called and you see this signal, you can relay to the team that the quaffle needs to be advanced faster - sometimes referees call delay differently, but there aren't any excuses for being penalised twice.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
This signals: Illegal contact to X (neck)
Description: Open hand, chopping motion towards the body part which was contacted on the fouled player.
Why coaches/captains should know it: This will show where the illegal contact was made, though note that if multiple illegal contacts were made in one play then the referee may only show one.
Why volunteers should know it: Specific area where the contact was made can then be written on the scorecard without delaying the game by having to ask the referee.
This signals: Illegal contact with X (leg)
Description: Pointing to the location on the body which the fouling player used to contact the opposing player.
Why coaches/captains should know it: Shows which area of the body was used illegally, which may not be clear from a different angle, to explain why the foul was given.
Why volunteers should know it: Specific area where the contact was made can then be written on the scorecard without delaying the game by having to ask the referee.
This signals: Illegal interaction
Description: Hands in fists, arms making a T.
Why coaches/captains should know it: Shows that an illegal pick, interaction between bludger and quaffle play, or other illegal interaction has happened, which could be something very technical you hadn't seen.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
This signals: Unsportsmanlike conduct
Description: Hands on hips.
Why coaches/captains should know it: If this comes out, someone on your team has messed up and probably needs some serious discipline. Likely causes are foul or disrespectful language towards players, officials, or spectators, and throwing equipment dangerously. Basically, breaking the first rule of quidditch.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
With all of the more specific signals, these can be helpful in showing exactly what foul has been committed, and thus what to look out for and improve on in training.
I hope you have learnt something. At some point in the future I'd like to film and make gifs of some of the more complicated ones, but that requires time, equipment, and skills I don't have access to at the moment! I might do it with my NGB, QuidditchUK, and if it comes out through them I will of course share it here too.
All photos were taken by Nicole Stone, with the exception of the ones of me in my garden, which were taken by my sister.
Signals everyone should know:
This signals: Good Goal
Accompanying whistle blast: Single long blast
Why players should know it: Until the whistle blows to signify the goal, along with the arm signal, the quaffle is still live. You may be able to score - or stop - a goal if you continue right until the whistle.
Why volunteers should know it: Obviously referees on the pitch will be using the signal every time a goal is scored. Scorekeepers should know it for confirmation of a good goal, and then they can accurately update the score. Keep an eye out for overrules afterwards, however!
This signals: No Goal/Bad Snitch Catch
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: A no goal signal could give you the chance to continue playing and finish off the offensive or defensive play. It could also make you aware that the goal wasn't good if there is an overruling due to a foul or otherwise, so you can keep track of the score if you need to know for snitch play.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should keep an eye out for this one in particular if it comes after a stoppage of play to then cancel a previously given goal.
This signals: Keeper's ball
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: When the head referee is showing this signal, the keeper holding the ball has immunity from tackles and beats while they are in their defensive keeper zone. It is also illegal to tackle a keeper with this immunity and you could end up with a card! A referee properly utilising this signal will also then show you when the keeper loses the immunity, meaning you can proceed to tackle them if you wish.
Why volunteers should know it: It's one of the easiest signals to get in the habit of using, and when you do it correctly, it can really help when deciding if a keeper has been illegally challenged.
(x3)This signals: Good snitch catch/End of a period of play
Accompanying whistle blast: Three long blasts
Why players should know it: Obviously it signals when you've won if you were out of SWIM when the snitch was caught, but it also signals the end of five minutes in first overtime if there is no snitch catch, and if the score (catch or goal) was good in second overtime.
Why volunteers should know it: Timekeepers, time to stop the clock and write down the time. Scorekeepers, you need to work out the final score and sort out the scoresheet.
This signals: Knocked out/Dismount/Back to hoops
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the rules, so listen and watch for back to hoop calls and don't argue.
Why volunteers should know it: Pointing to the hoops of the player in question will reduce confusion if someone is also called safe from friendly fire.
This signals: Stop play
Accompanying whistle blast: Pairs of whistle blasts, until everyone stops
Why players should know it: If you hear the double whistle on your pitch, your instinct should be to stop play straight away, and drop your broom where you were when the whistle went. There's no point playing over the whistle - but equally don't stop play unless you hear the double blasts.
Why volunteers should know it: Timekeepers need to remember to pause the timer immediately when the double blasts start.
This signals: Resume play
Accompanying whistle blast: Single short whistle blast
Why players should know it: Even if you might not hear the whistle, you can look for this hand signal to know just when you can start up again.
Why volunteers should know it: Timekeepers will resume the timer when the whistle and signal come.
This signals: Delayed penalty
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: Generally speaking, head referees ask for their assistant referees to point at the bench of the team who fouled, which is also the direction that play should continue in if advantage is then being used. So if you're the team who has been fouled, and you want to know why the referee hasn't called it straight away, this might be why!
Why volunteers should know it: This just really helps head referees keep games flowing smoothly, so if assistant referees get used to it then life will be much easier for everyone.
This signals: Advantage
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: If the head referee is calling advantage, they have seen a foul and are letting play go on. The quaffle player who was fouled will be returned to the point where the foul occurred, but the other players will stay where they were when advantage abated and play was stopped. So if you are fouled and then play continues, this is probably why.
Why volunteers should know it: In overtime, the stopwatch should be paused as soon as the head referee raises their fist to call advantage, so timekeepers should be aware.
This signals: Warning
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: Official warnings will be a lot easier to identify when accompanied by this hand signal, so you know when to tone it down with whatever you were doing.
Why volunteers should know it: Often there is no distinction between an official warning and a friendly reminder/note - this will help that.
This signals: Blue/Yellow/Red Card + Penalty time
Accompanying whistle blast: none
Why players should know it: It's always good to know what penalty you got, and how much time you're spending in the box.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should remind head referees if they are giving a player a second yellow card, which would lead to a red card.
Signals captains, coaches, referees, and volunteers should know:
This signals: General illegal contact
Description: Both hands in fists, crossing above the head repeatedly.
Why coaches/captains should know it: If you haven't approached the referee when the decision was made and called, and you are unable to hear the call, seeing this signal will indicate what type of foul has been committed. Then you can work out if you think it is fair or not rather than making a fuss because you don't know the foul.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
This signals: Illegal procedure
Description: As shown, with the arms rolling.
Why coaches/captains should know it: If you are called for an illegal procedure, it's time to start tightening up on your substitutions and other gameplay elements of the match.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
This signals: Delay of game
Description: Two fingers tapping the wrist, as if there was a watch there.
Why coaches/captains should know it: If this is being called and you see this signal, you can relay to the team that the quaffle needs to be advanced faster - sometimes referees call delay differently, but there aren't any excuses for being penalised twice.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
This signals: Illegal contact to X (neck)
Description: Open hand, chopping motion towards the body part which was contacted on the fouled player.
Why coaches/captains should know it: This will show where the illegal contact was made, though note that if multiple illegal contacts were made in one play then the referee may only show one.
Why volunteers should know it: Specific area where the contact was made can then be written on the scorecard without delaying the game by having to ask the referee.
This signals: Illegal contact with X (leg)
Description: Pointing to the location on the body which the fouling player used to contact the opposing player.
Why coaches/captains should know it: Shows which area of the body was used illegally, which may not be clear from a different angle, to explain why the foul was given.
Why volunteers should know it: Specific area where the contact was made can then be written on the scorecard without delaying the game by having to ask the referee.
This signals: Illegal interaction
Description: Hands in fists, arms making a T.
Why coaches/captains should know it: Shows that an illegal pick, interaction between bludger and quaffle play, or other illegal interaction has happened, which could be something very technical you hadn't seen.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
This signals: Unsportsmanlike conduct
Description: Hands on hips.
Why coaches/captains should know it: If this comes out, someone on your team has messed up and probably needs some serious discipline. Likely causes are foul or disrespectful language towards players, officials, or spectators, and throwing equipment dangerously. Basically, breaking the first rule of quidditch.
Why volunteers should know it: Scorekeepers should write down what foul has been committed, and sometimes players are less than helpful in passing on what exactly they did.
With all of the more specific signals, these can be helpful in showing exactly what foul has been committed, and thus what to look out for and improve on in training.
I hope you have learnt something. At some point in the future I'd like to film and make gifs of some of the more complicated ones, but that requires time, equipment, and skills I don't have access to at the moment! I might do it with my NGB, QuidditchUK, and if it comes out through them I will of course share it here too.
All photos were taken by Nicole Stone, with the exception of the ones of me in my garden, which were taken by my sister.
Thursday, 4 August 2016
The referee/friend dynamic
Everyone in the quidditch community knows everyone else.
This may not be as true now as it was two years ago, but broadly speaking we know most people in the UK scene, and I'm going to argue that in some ways, it is harming our referees' ability to grow and improve, and also to do their jobs. Going to World Cup only made the issues clearer to me, going from refereeing teams I know well to refereeing teams and players I've barely heard of, if at all.
As a head referee, I am one of a small percentage of the UK quidditch community who is paid to be on the pitch. It is a job, and even when I am assistant refereeing or otherwise I consider it so. This is different to most teams (with a probable exception of Team UK), where they want to do well, but there is no external expectation on them to perform at their highest level and the one thing pushing them on is internal pride, not a sense of owing the community anything. But whilst Team UK are boosted by the words of the community, which are >99% positive as far as I have seen, the referees do not get that luxury.
Like a lot of people, I have friends on many different quidditch teams. I've drunk absinthe with Keele, I've been to many pubs with Loughborough, I've learnt about the secret Falmouth scout hut rituals. But on the pitch, I'm not supposed to be your friend. I'm an official, I'm impartial, I am there to make sure a good game of quidditch happens for all parties. However, this is hard when automatically, your brain wants to chat away to your friends and maybe only give them a slap on the wrist when they should be sent to the naughty step. Fixing this attitude will take work from both players and referees. This is one of the minor issues caused by the closeness of the community, but a far bigger problem is when this turns into bias, even unconscious, for or against the teams and players on pitch.
As a referee, you are supposed to go into every game with no preconceptions about the players or teams you are about to officiate. This is to make sure you don't base calls on assumptions, such as being more harsh on a player from a team known for playing dirty, or let someone off lightly because 'well usually they're okay'. However, this is impossible in quidditch in the UK right now. Even if you haven't met a team or seen a player, word can travel quickly - usually through facebook. Most people could name at least five players they would instinctively watch for contact from, and as a referee this is bad. It's unfair on the players in question - everyone on pitch should be treated equally and no assumptions should be made about who might be making illegal plays. There's also another effect: some referees may overcompensate for the fact that they are friends with certain people, and thus treat them more harshly because they don't want to look like they are playing favourites. This also isn't fair on those players, who wouldn't receive such a harsh penalty from a different referee who wasn't trying to prove a point.
If I'm going to referee say, Liverpuddly Cannons vs Manchester Manticores, it might be easier because I don't know much about either team. I can go in with no idea who's going to win, who's going to score the hoops, and who is going to make me get my cards out. But as soon as I'm refereeing well-established teams it's an entirely different matter. And it's not only the fact that I know who they are - they also know me. I should clarify here that by well-established I'm assuming that I know a core of the team pretty well; Team USA is better established than the majority of UK teams but I certainly don't know any of them well enough to consider myself at risk of being biased due to knowing them socially. But in the UK, if you've been around a season, I probably know who you are and what you're going to be like on pitch. To answer the question I posed at the beginning of the paragraph, I'm not sure. I have a few ideas that I'll pitch later, but there isn't a good solid answer.
When I referee, I know I try to remain personable. Part of this is a defense against being seen as overly bossy or angry - see my article on sexism in refereeing for more details on that. However, I have to make sure that even when I'm doing this, I do not change the call I make for a foul based on who committed it. I have given cards to friends before, mostly without worrying about any potential repercussions. The issues come when I am carding acquaintances, and I'm sure many referees will feel the same way - there is a worrying voice in the back of my head that this person will carry this call off the pitch and let that affect how they see me as a person. Many people you see at tournaments you later end up seeing at the social, and at the next tournament, and whilst the vast majority will never judge you as a person for what you call them for as a referee, the concern is always there (for me at least). It's one of the reasons I feel red cards aren't given enough - a referee might be lenient on a call which would otherwise be a yellow card, because a second for that player would have them sent off and they don't want to do that. Fouls should be judged independently to what has occurred earlier, just as the punishments shouldn't be influenced by who is involved.
This may not be as true now as it was two years ago, but broadly speaking we know most people in the UK scene, and I'm going to argue that in some ways, it is harming our referees' ability to grow and improve, and also to do their jobs. Going to World Cup only made the issues clearer to me, going from refereeing teams I know well to refereeing teams and players I've barely heard of, if at all.
There have (rightly) been many comments floating around that a lot of referees in quidditch do not accept criticism, even constructive. This is a big topic and one for continuing another week, but I think the dissonance with how referees are perceived and how they feel they are perceived is important and I will discuss that part here. In general, accepting criticism can be hard - it is certainly something I have struggled with personally in the past, aside from on the quidditch pitch. From my experience of confronting this issue, I think that the main reason the refereeing community ignores criticism is to protect themselves. It can be a defense mechanism, in situations where differentiating between destructive and constructive criticism can be stressful. For referees, this could translate to finding it easier to just ignore everything coming from your peers rather than dealing with reading and overcoming destructive criticism whilst trying to identify what you can actually use and learn from. I do not think this is the most helpful path, however I can understand why many do it.
Kevin Oelze accurately describes an aspect of this in his Eighth Man article - 'if you referee them, you get the amazing side benefit of publicly watching your friends and anyone with an opinion absolutely ripping into your refereeing for which you got paid (maybe) minimum wage'. I definitely agree with Oelze's quote. It's very hard as a person to see my peers slam my performance in black and white in a way they'd rarely do when I'm playing for my team. Sure, you might tell someone they were off their game, but that's nowhere near the complete trashing some referees are given - directly, anonymously, or otherwise - after some games. The ratio of constructive to destructive criticism given to referees can often feel heavily skewed towards destructive, especially on social media and when referees are discussed as a whole. The negative attitude is discouraging in itself, but this is exacerbated when it is coming from people you consider to be friends. As someone with an anxiety disorder, I may be more prone to assuming the worst and assuming that everyone thinks I'm terrible, but I can't imagine that it's easy for anyone to ignore that niggling voice in your head which tells you to just give up on this thing you are clearly bad at. (For clarification, I don't actually think I'm a bad referee. I have a pretty decent sized refereeing ego. But still a person worries from time to time.) Referees have a far lower return rate from season to season compared to players, and whilst I'm sure it just really isn't for some people, I'd be willing to bet that decent referees have been 'forced' out of that aspect of quidditch due to the general attitude of players towards them. New referees especially feel they should quit rather than work to improve.
All of this leads to the first point I made at the beginning - hindering the ability of referees to improve. Everyone starts of as an unspectacular referee, with many flaws and areas in need of (sometimes vast) improvement. The top referees in the country still have work to do, as the rulebook changes and as teams evolve the way the game is played. Improvement comes from feedback, with honest and respectful criticisms, so you can analyse the weak points and pay attention to them in later games. But if most of what you hear about refereeing is negative and destructive, it can be wearying to find the small amounts of helpful information, and you may not even bother trying after a while. The refereeing community as a whole has taken this attitude, and although there are individuals who work hard and take feedback well, the culture is not of improvement as a response to criticism. I feel that this is because there is a loud player-base that feels very strongly about how games should be refereed (usually more or less like a mainstream sport of their choice), who usually speak with no experience of refereeing quidditch. A lot of the time their defense is that fans of said other sport speak similarly about referees there - but how many Premier League referees read the Facebook discussions of fans, or even hear the locker room discussions of players? This is the key difference: referees are almost always players, almost always your direct peers, and will therefore have a different reaction to your words.
As a head referee, I am one of a small percentage of the UK quidditch community who is paid to be on the pitch. It is a job, and even when I am assistant refereeing or otherwise I consider it so. This is different to most teams (with a probable exception of Team UK), where they want to do well, but there is no external expectation on them to perform at their highest level and the one thing pushing them on is internal pride, not a sense of owing the community anything. But whilst Team UK are boosted by the words of the community, which are >99% positive as far as I have seen, the referees do not get that luxury.
Like a lot of people, I have friends on many different quidditch teams. I've drunk absinthe with Keele, I've been to many pubs with Loughborough, I've learnt about the secret Falmouth scout hut rituals. But on the pitch, I'm not supposed to be your friend. I'm an official, I'm impartial, I am there to make sure a good game of quidditch happens for all parties. However, this is hard when automatically, your brain wants to chat away to your friends and maybe only give them a slap on the wrist when they should be sent to the naughty step. Fixing this attitude will take work from both players and referees. This is one of the minor issues caused by the closeness of the community, but a far bigger problem is when this turns into bias, even unconscious, for or against the teams and players on pitch.
As a referee, you are supposed to go into every game with no preconceptions about the players or teams you are about to officiate. This is to make sure you don't base calls on assumptions, such as being more harsh on a player from a team known for playing dirty, or let someone off lightly because 'well usually they're okay'. However, this is impossible in quidditch in the UK right now. Even if you haven't met a team or seen a player, word can travel quickly - usually through facebook. Most people could name at least five players they would instinctively watch for contact from, and as a referee this is bad. It's unfair on the players in question - everyone on pitch should be treated equally and no assumptions should be made about who might be making illegal plays. There's also another effect: some referees may overcompensate for the fact that they are friends with certain people, and thus treat them more harshly because they don't want to look like they are playing favourites. This also isn't fair on those players, who wouldn't receive such a harsh penalty from a different referee who wasn't trying to prove a point.
If I'm going to referee say, Liverpuddly Cannons vs Manchester Manticores, it might be easier because I don't know much about either team. I can go in with no idea who's going to win, who's going to score the hoops, and who is going to make me get my cards out. But as soon as I'm refereeing well-established teams it's an entirely different matter. And it's not only the fact that I know who they are - they also know me. I should clarify here that by well-established I'm assuming that I know a core of the team pretty well; Team USA is better established than the majority of UK teams but I certainly don't know any of them well enough to consider myself at risk of being biased due to knowing them socially. But in the UK, if you've been around a season, I probably know who you are and what you're going to be like on pitch. To answer the question I posed at the beginning of the paragraph, I'm not sure. I have a few ideas that I'll pitch later, but there isn't a good solid answer.
When I referee, I know I try to remain personable. Part of this is a defense against being seen as overly bossy or angry - see my article on sexism in refereeing for more details on that. However, I have to make sure that even when I'm doing this, I do not change the call I make for a foul based on who committed it. I have given cards to friends before, mostly without worrying about any potential repercussions. The issues come when I am carding acquaintances, and I'm sure many referees will feel the same way - there is a worrying voice in the back of my head that this person will carry this call off the pitch and let that affect how they see me as a person. Many people you see at tournaments you later end up seeing at the social, and at the next tournament, and whilst the vast majority will never judge you as a person for what you call them for as a referee, the concern is always there (for me at least). It's one of the reasons I feel red cards aren't given enough - a referee might be lenient on a call which would otherwise be a yellow card, because a second for that player would have them sent off and they don't want to do that. Fouls should be judged independently to what has occurred earlier, just as the punishments shouldn't be influenced by who is involved.
Good friends are like donuts - sweet! Ajantha Abey
So what can we do about all this?
At World Cup, I found it a lot easier to brush off destructive comments from players than I would have done at BQC, and it wasn't just because I've improved in the past few months. This was most likely because I didn't know the players, and even the European players I'd met a few times were easier to deal with mentally than any UK players. So this suggests to me that being removed socially from the players you are refereeing makes it easier, because the nasty comments can be brushed away as they aren't tied to a social opinion of the person, and constructive advice (often delivered more positively) is a lot easier to identify and take on board. The UK community is growing at an incredible rate, and it's highly likely that if I go to Northern Cup next season there will be a good percentage of teams and players I've never met before. So maybe the problem will resolve itself to some extent as we move away from a community where you can put a name and a play style to every face you see.
As for changing the way referees respond to criticism, that is far less up to the general community. I have definitely been guilty of telling referees to ignore what has been said and give bland compliments in the past, but this season I have been working on instead giving the feedback I would like to hear as a referee. It's very rare still for a friend to comment on your refereeing if they just watched the game of quidditch, but especially at World Cup I tried to pay a lot of attention to the referees so I could work out where either they or I could improve in the future. I also asked for feedback from the head referees I was under, and I think this is maybe the easiest thing to introduce across the board to get referees used to hearing criticism and also knowing it is coming from an experienced and fair source. No two referees are the same, and all of us can learn from the others - next season I will try my hardest to both ask and give constructive points to my referee teams, and if you are on pitch with me please try and hold me to that!
Finally, I'd like to see more respect for referees on the pitch, off the pitch, and online. The community would do well to remember that what they post has direct repercussions, because what they say not only can be read, but is likely to be read by referees. Our refereeing community is not well-established or large enough to take losses due to the negativity of everyone else, and I do not believe quidditch can continue to thrive if we have so few referees that they are all incredibly overworked - something which is on the verge of being an issue if the last big inter-club competitions are anything to go by. Also remember that even those of us who are paid are not well paid, and we do it for the love of the game and little more. Don't make us lose our love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)