|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 21, 2006 16:01:41 GMT -6
So, what do you think of referee training, both in the Southwest Section and in general?
First off, we're very fortunate to have in the SWS 3 referee-instructors, and ones who actually use that title. I like that tournaments where ratings increases are not available are probably less common than ones where they are.
The general idea of how one becomes a referee is set by the FOC: After learning fencing and studying the rulebook, you take a Rules Seminar given by an Certified Referee Instructor, which is supposed to last some 8 hours. Then you take a written test in general rules and ones specific to the weapon(s) you wish to be rated in, and a 90% passing rate is required for that. Finally, you take a practical exam which consists of you refereeing actual bouts (or simulated ones, sometimes) and are assigned a rating level between 10 and 6. (I hear occassionally people obtain 5 ratings at their first examination, but I believe they usually had been refereeing unofficially for some time before that.) From then, the requirements are to attend a Rules Seminar every year, and upon observation from an Instructor, rating increases to levels up to 3. I believe 1 and 2 ratings are given by the Fencing Officials Commission as a body.
Anyway, how have you seen the system work in your area and experience, do you think it works well enough, and what would you think might improve it?
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 22, 2006 9:42:26 GMT -6
Ratings can increase to a 4 by observation. 1 2 and 3 have to be voted on by the FOC body. (At least that's how I understand the new rules and protocol.)
Here in RMS, we've got seven people that are a 4 or higher. We have 116 referees listed on the FOC side of AskFRED. Although, about 10% of those are not rated in a weapon (not sure why they're listed on the site, but oh well.) I think that the biggest problem is the written exam. A referee here in Lubbock (who is a 4 in epee) took the exam 3 or 4 times. Each time he would get different feedback on the correct answers. Yes, it was about 5 years ago when he did this, but I wouldn't be suprised if this was still going on.
Has anyone else had this problem with the exam?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 22, 2006 22:22:11 GMT -6
There certainly are a number of badly worded questions on the exam. I took a look at the distribution of ratings as a whole in the country, and discovered as a side effect that approximately 1/3 of the referees in the FOC database did not have a weapon rating listed.
As for getting different answers to questions, that is odd, as the examiner ought to have an answer key. Rather curious. Was this with the same examiner or with a succession of different ones?
Also, when I search the database for RMS referees above 5, I see 13 names, although 7 are in Colorado.
|
|
|
Post by Parry Nine on Apr 23, 2006 0:11:20 GMT -6
I believe it was with different examiners, but if it's the same test, shouldn't it be the same answers?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 23, 2006 0:37:45 GMT -6
One would think so. Then again, given how frequently rules change, it's not impossible the answer did change between sessions. Was it indeed that he was told different answers were correct at different times, or was the reasoning behind the answers different? In any event, we might summarize this as: "Test questions badly phrased, and potential disagreement about correct answers." Any other topics?
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 26, 2006 7:58:55 GMT -6
Right, so I managed to overlook my ideas for improvements. Particularly, I can think of two things that I'd like to see done more: 1) Improve the FOC website as a source for interpretations, referee information, and the like. As it is, there are several sections promoting themselves as answers, including the FAQ and Handbook for Referees, and I think those topics ought to be combined into a single resource (or at least reference each other).
2) Better referee training after the test is passed. In my impression, much of the training after one becomes a referee consists of "practice", and informal corrections and suggestions from someone who happens to be watching your bouts. I would like to see regular seminars (at least once a year) on interpreting Priority in foil and sabre, and generally bringing back the knowledge gained at National tournaments about the latest knowledge and disseminating it as widely as possible. Perhaps some sort of regional newsletter. Also, more attempts, when possible, to assign referees pairs, one experienced and the other developing, and so forth, to increase the level of learning going on at ordinary tournaments. If you're considered competent enough to ref on your own, until you get released from that event it may be impossible to get the time to watch anybody else's refereeing because you're constantly working.
I realize this would raise the cost of tounaments somewhat, and I understand it may not be practical, but I think it would help the development and keep us in the forefront of the nation in referee quality.
|
|
|
Post by schlager7 on Apr 26, 2006 8:08:17 GMT -6
Better referee training after the test is passed. In my impression, much of the training after one becomes a referee consists of "practice", and informal corrections and suggestions from someone who happens to be watching your bouts. Yes, this has been my experience. Although, I have appreciated the fact that, at tournaments that I've worked when Gary van der Wege was present, he would speak to me with insights and observations after watching me. I would be very interested in attending such a seminar. I really enjoyed getting paired a few times this last year. Particularly I enjoyed the foil pool with Oleksii Ivanov who was helpful but left me to my own devices without a feeling of being monitored. I suppose I also have to thank Jerry Dunaway who keeps throwing me in to referee foil at his events, whether I want to or not.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Apr 26, 2006 10:48:41 GMT -6
I can't think of any individual failings here: Gary, Jerry Benson, lots of people have been as helpful as anyone could expect. I'd just like to see a more organized program.
The SSCCs have the right idea in having a head referee who primarily supervises, assigns and observes. I'd like to see that done more elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 1, 2006 23:06:35 GMT -6
... about 10% of those are not rated in a weapon (not sure why they're listed on the site, but oh well.) ... Being listed without a weapon means that the seminar has been taken but tests have not been passed yet. (It might also mean that the general test has been passed but no weapon-specific test, or one or more weapon-specific tests have been passed but not the general test. But, this is not the usual meaning.) It's also premature to discuss the referee development system. The January 2006 FOC Newsletter announced a revised system, described by Derek Cotton. The new system appeared to swap the meanings of "instructor" and "examiner", but more importantly swapped the order of the seminar and the tests. The new system requires tests to be passed before taking the seminar. There was no implementation date given. This has caused knowledgeable people to declare that it is effective immediately (although I have yet to see anything local being done in accord with the new system), and that it is effective at some future date to be named. Indeed, I was told that FOC members were unaware of any such adoption of a new system!
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on May 2, 2006 1:49:48 GMT -6
Or it could mean something else, in regards to ratings. According to foc.askfred.net, Russell Wilson does not hold any USFA ratings, although it credits him with an A in all three weapons for the FIE. I find it hard to believe his USFA rating has been removed at any point. I'm sure other people are lacking data entry as well.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 2, 2006 20:51:30 GMT -6
Or it could mean something else, in regards to ratings. According to foc.askfred.net, Russell Wilson does not hold any USFA ratings, although it credits him with an A in all three weapons for the FIE. I find it hard to believe his USFA rating has been removed at any point. I'm sure other people are lacking data entry as well. I cannot find any evidence that Russell Wilson has any USFA referee rating (in the modern 10 through 1 system). As long ago as December 2003, well before foc.askfred.net, he was already listed as a triple A with no USFA ratings. Anyway, the normal meaning of no ratings is seminar only. Here in the Gulf Coast Texas Division, there are 13 listings of referees with no ratings (although the 13 listings are actually only 12 people), and, judging by who those 12 people are, I'm quite comfortable with the idea that they're all seminar-only. (That doesn't mean they're all not being hired to referee!) I'm still fetching a new listing for the entire Southwest Section, but my November 17th listing has 54 listings with no ratings. 13 of the listings match the already-mentioned current 13 Gulf Coast Texas listings, leaving 41 other listings representing 40 other people in four divisions (only two in your own division, Andrei Samorodov and Jose Sanchez). Although I'm less familiar with these 40 than the Gulf Coast dozen, I'm still comfortable with the idea that they're all seminar-only. Many are very well-known people, but well-known for their fencing, not for their refereeing. I refuse to go through it with a fine-toothed comb, but my October 4 complete list has 1,410 entries, of which 452 have no USFA ratings. Among them are an FIE foil B (Kuznetsov), an FIE triple B (Cantin, who may very well be a CFF referee), and two FIE triple A (Hristov, and the already mentioned Wilson). The remaining 448 -- nothing.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on May 3, 2006 8:59:36 GMT -6
Umm, a couple of notes guys.
Russell Wilson is one of the best referees ever to come out of the USA. He was a triple "A" rated international referee at the age of 18, and is currently a member of the Fencing Officials Commission.
Cantin is indeed a CFF referee, and another top level referee.
Also, the FOC normally awards an equvalency level of "2" to "B" rated international referees, and "1" to "A" rated.
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on May 3, 2006 11:42:40 GMT -6
The point isn't whether he's any good or not. I'm trying to determine what having an entry in FRED without ratings associated means, and apparently it doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't taken a test, thought it does in the majority of cases.
In any event, even if a new system is implemented as the referee newsletter describes, I don't see anything in it that addresses changes in referee training after the initial practical examinations are given. The only difference I see is that Certified Referee Examiners would be able to award rating increases up to 7, and Certified Referee Instructors increases up to 5. (If the latter is a change.) Nothing on actual training itself.
|
|
|
Post by MTD on May 9, 2006 15:08:47 GMT -6
Russell Wilson is one of the best referees ever to come out of the USA. He was a triple "A" rated international referee at the age of 18, and is currently a member of the Fencing Officials Commission. Indeed. he is. That might make him eminently qualified to comment on whether refereee Russell Wilson actually holds any current-style USFA referee rating! It is quite plausible that he does NOT hold a modern USFA referee rating. His bio on the FOC Web site states, That makes it particularly easy to believe that he might be able to referee rings around us, yet not hold a current-style rating.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Wilson on Dec 10, 2010 23:33:57 GMT -6
Although this discussion is several years old, I can answer the question as to why I have no numbers after my name. The "A" rating means one is qualified to referee the finals of the Olympic Games. The FOC ruled years ago that "A" rated referees don't receive numerical grades, as the FIE has already certified the "A" referee. Since I have an "A" in all three weapons, I have not had a numerical rating in over 25 years. I hope this helps. If you have any question about refereeing, please feel free to email me at RussellWilson5@aol.com, Good luck!
Russ Wilson
|
|