Keeping Control of Umpiring

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

So when you do your driving test, you don't have to go to an "Official driving instructor". Your parents can help out by taking you out in their car, correct. Why do they do this? becuase is costs a small fortune to learn to drive. You do have to do your theory test but you don't have to do a specific course before you can do the exam. But you eventually fork out the money to do the test becuase you are motivated by the reward of indepedence and mobility. Driving is extremely important, you are in control of a lethal weapon and you do not have attend official courses before you take the driving test and the theory exam.

So why for goodness sake, do you have to do an official umpiring course before you can be tested?

You all know why I am raving about this, becuase it costs £50 per person to do the course. How are we suppose to encourage parent volunteers into umpiring or get ex-players to umpire if we take £50 off them for the priviledge for running the game, which everyone knows is a thankless task. There is little to motivate people to want to do this role, so why it is made even more unpalatable with a £50 charge.

I wonder if leagues can set up their own League Umpiring courses, to allow refs to run games in their leagues only. Leagues are run by Territorial Committees not by ELA or WPC, we set our own rules in the North league for what we play on the field, why can't we do the same for who governs our games.

It is a shame that we have to constantly think of ways around the system. If an appropriate amount was charged for these courses i.e. £25 then we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

I have raised this with the Chair of WPC, Sallie Barker.

I will post when I get a response.

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

I have had a response from the Sallie Barker, Chair of WPC.

In summary:

"By this e-mail I will ask Wendy Reynolds and Paul Coups to respond to your point about ' the necessity of doing an official course...' and also the pricing issue as they are the experts in this area. Once I have heard from them the WPC Officers will decide whether this issue needs to be discussed by WPC at its next meeting.

In the meantime, WPC (in the summer) agreed that £2k of the WPC funds should be allocated to subsidise the costs of training women coaches and umpires. This funding will be available from the beginning of December and an e-mail will go out about this shortly and information will be placed on the web."

I will post when I have heard from Paul Coups (ELA) and Wendy Reynolds (R&U).

What will the response be? Any thoughts?

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

Paul Coups (ELA) has responded to me this morning.

"Please note only official EL courses provide certification. Any other courses will not be covered by EL policy or public liability. "

I am hoping I will get some more information as why this is only route that can be followed, I wonder if the public liability insurance that clubs have will cover an umpire?

I have made the following suggestions. I believe these are reasonable.

Suggestions:
1. Allow people to take the Local Umpiring test without doing the course
2. Reduce the costs of the course, to make them accessible by more volunteers, I have suggested £25 per person and £5 for the test
3. Offer significant discounts for clubs making a commitment to host courses and getting multiple people on it.
4. Offer fixed price courses that are not on a per person basis something in the region of £250 – this is reasonable for a day’s work .
5. Allow the basic principles of supply and demand set the prices for these costs and allow tutors to work on a freelance basis? Maybe we would actually get more official qualified.

[oldman]

Sadly even if you do spend the money and do the course there is no guarantee the ELA won't simply loose your records leaving you in the invidious position of having spent a substantial amount of money but still being unqualified. This is the situation many have found themselves in following the move to centralise all the women's umpires details with the women's umpiring committee. As it stands if no details were passed from the ELA to the committee you are effectively unqualified and if you want to continue umpiring then the system requires that you start again from the beginning, another £50 plus travel. How many are saying stuff that?

I have been in correspondence with the committee and I was promised an answer, as to what it intends to do about the missing umpires, some weeks ago. When I do get a reply I will post here. In the meantime could anyone who believes that they are currently a qualified women's umpire check on "The List" http://www.laxumps.co.uk/web_documents/website_umps_list.doc and if you aren't on the list could you drop me a pm here with your name, where you did the course, who ran the course and the date of the course.

The women's umpiring committee, which has recently taken over responsibility for women umpires, is looking into what they can do, but at the moment the game seems to be haemorrhaging experienced umpires at a time when it is growing. The situation in Kent is particularly bad and for our Invicta 8s league we have asked the team to produce a competent umpire, and left it at that.

[dblacklock]

Experience from the other side of the pond has shown that unqualified referees, umpires etc are not deemed competent in the eyes of the law. Therefore that person, the organizing body, the appointments secretary, the ELA etc would all be exposed. Okay so you say that will never happen. Never say never, and who really wants to test the waters.

Just because you are a seasoned spectator or even player does not mean you know the rules or can be a referee. Not all players make good coaches, so why do people think that officiating is just about blowing the whistle, showing a few cards or throwing a flag. Much more to it then that.

Next as someone who has trained many referees (okay so in the mens game), you need to have an understanding of the rules and mechanics in order to even have a chance of feeling comfortable out there. Being the centre of attention can be uncomfortable at the best of times, but when you have to blow the whistle and stop the play, all eyes are on you. Make a mistake and you hear about it. Just ask any of the home referees in the men's game

Finally, coaches do not know or care even if it is your first game or your thousanth game. They expect that you will know the rules and how to apply them. Not something that can be learned without first going to a course and then it takes many games to even feel like you know what you are doing.

Good luck.

[robbo]

Paul Coups (ELA) has responded to me this morning.
Suggestions:
1. Allow people to take the Local Umpiring test without doing the course
3. Offer significant discounts for clubs making a commitment to host courses and getting multiple people on it.
4. Offer fixed price courses that are not on a per person basis something in the region of £250 – this is reasonable for a day’s work .
5. Allow the basic principles of supply and demand set the prices for these costs and allow tutors to work on a freelance basis? Maybe we would actually get more official qualified.

Kari,

My thoughts on a few of these points...

1. People taking the test without first doing a course would be a waste of time for all involved. As Don has said, many people think they would make a good official, but don't in reality. In order to give them as good a chance as possible, they need to understand the basics before stepping onto the field.

3. As I understand it there is currently some sort of discount scheme in place, although I don't think I'd call it 'significant'!

4. IIRC, the current rate for a tutor is £125 per day, the rest goes to the ELA.

5. With tutors working on a freelance basis you would inevitably end up with competition, which could cause quality to suffer. As I'm sure you'll agree, this isn't an acceptable trade off.

Rob

[robbo]

The women's umpiring committee, which has recently taken over responsibility for women umpires, is looking into what they can do, but at the moment the game seems to be haemorrhaging experienced umpires at a time when it is growing. The situation in Kent is particularly bad and for our Invicta 8s league we have asked the team to produce a competent umpire, and left it at that.

There is a new rating system currently being worked on, which will help to ensure that as many people as possible are getting qualified having attended their courses. There are also plans to issue registration cards to umpires so that they can prove that they are qualified. WHilst we have always had responsibility for umpiring, it is only recently that we have had responsibility for maintaining 'the list'. We are trying to manage this transition as carefully as possible and are encouraging thos who think they should be on the list to come out the woodwork so we can check if they should be on there and amend the list as necessary.

Umpires looking for games can also request games through the website, which should help to promote development. But, as with all new systems, there are bound to be transitional issues.

[dblacklock]

I like the idea of rating cards as it proves that the person has in fact qualified as an umpire/referee.

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

Don you make some excellent points about the skills required to be a umpire or a ref.

These are skills which are hard to come by without game experience and umpiring coaching. A course can help to address and highlight the necessaity of these skills but it cannot give them to you as a gift. I agree that many people would feel more confident doing an official course and it should be the RECOMMENDED mode for qualification but it should not be the only way.

The test is a 40 min assessment of game management, this should demonstrate whether an umpire is up to the task or not. If that person is not up to the task and doesn't pass the test then "education pathways" can be suggested. If they are confident, know the rules, manage players properly then they should be passed regardless if they have done the course.

The TEST determines someone's competency, NOT the course, that is why we have exams in school, in work etc.

We are all agreed so far on the following:

i) We need more officials
ii) They need to be qualified

But there should be more than 1 route to qualification:

i) If you think you can do the test, go do the test, if you don't pass, go do the course
ii) Access to the power point umpiring course should be made available online so that people can study for their test
iii) Freelance Tutors who can charge appropriate sums for courses (you can do this for First Aid Tutors and that really is important).
iv) Reduced cost of offical courses

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

Rob. Thanks very much for posting your thoughts on this.

I thought the comment about the tutor being paid £125 is very interesting and reflects the true cost of the course.

Why is the ELA trying to make money out of this? Isn't 2.2 million enough to keep the organisation going for a couple of years. So why is the cost of the course so high? Venue hire? My club wouldn't charge the ELA venue hire and I am sure other clubs wouldn't either, so Why the high cost?

Anyway that aside......Let's remember we do live in a free market economy and hence I don't agree with freelance tutors driving the quality down in fact, I can see the reverse happening, that in order for tutors to distinguish themselves from other tutors they would in fact add more content to the course, providing better value and higher quality. Repeat business is important and referrals and endorsements are also important.

Let's take this example, if I was willing to pay £150 plus travel expenses for a tutor, why would I get a lower quality course than the one I would pay for via the ELA, which is atleast 4 times more expensive. The tutor is being paid more their service and if I don't get an appropriate service, I would post on laxforums that is was not good value for money.

Most people don't want the cheapest, they want the best value. Word often gets around, especially in the lacrosse community about who is a good tutor and who isn't, the person providing high quality services at a reasonable price, is undoubtably going to be inundated for requests for courses.

I keep coming back to the fact thast, my issue is not with having to do a course (althought, I do think you should be allowed to the do the test regardless), it is the high cost of doing it.

Is a tutor is prepared to run the course for £150 or even £200 plus travel, it is worth thinking about.

[oldman]

There is a new rating system currently being worked on, which will help to ensure that as many people as possible are getting qualified having attended their courses. There are also plans to issue registration cards to umpires so that they can prove that they are qualified. Whilst we have always had responsibility for umpiring, it is only recently that we have had responsibility for maintaining 'the list'. We are trying to manage this transition as carefully as possible and are encouraging thos who think they should be on the list to come out the woodwork so we can check if they should be on there and amend the list as necessary.

Robbo I think the new rating idea is a really good idea, is long overdue, and one that I am more than happy to support and promote in any way I can. The card system is a good initiative too. However, the handling of it's introduction borders on farcical and doesn't address the problem of the loss of experienced referees.

Instead of trying to implement the new, higher standards, from day 1 of the new regime, there should have been a bedding in period. Everyone should have been grandfathered into the new system, and then over the coming 3 years (could be less, could be more) those on the list could be slotted into the new system through training and testing. You loose those who are only marginally interested, you support those that really want to develop as referees, and you don't immediately loose a substantial number of referees.

I'm afraid that in the real world, if you write to the the new list maintainers saying you believe you should be on the list, the initial response is "if your not on the list your not qualified and you need to do the basic course again". I have spent a not inconsiderable time chasing this up over several months (I'm happy to share the email exchanges with you) and still have no resolution.

I have done a very very quick straw poll locally and there are at least 5 people I have spoken too who have completed the course, within the past three years, have been tested and qualified but who do not appear on the list.

Umpires looking for games can also request games through the website, which should help to promote development. But, as with all new systems, there are bound to be transitional issues.

Yep Robbo it's a real problem down here we have referees queueing up for games.

Yes there are bound to be transitional issues but this exercise was poorly thought out and executed and, what's worse is, that the transitional issues are not being addressed.

I take aboard the points raise by dblacklock. There is a very real issue about liability, but quite simply the local women's lacrosse league wouldn't run if we insisted on qualified referees. So the question is do we stop the games and stop all those women playing, or do we proceed with caution. If you look at the lower SEMLA leagues even there, where there is physical contact, most of the games are run by unqualified umpires, with , I believe, the blessing of the ELA.

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

Response from Paul Coups (ELA).........

The response from the ELA cannot be printed. Unfortunately, I have been asked by Paul Coups to remove the content of the email from the Laxforums.

Why?

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

Just want to let you know, that I am not going to let this one lie. (Along with the rest of my list)

This is now being dicussed by Junior and Senior North Committees.

If you club wishes to lend their support to reducing the cost of umpiring courses and testing, then please PM me and I will let you know how you can support this issue.

I will post when I have further news.

[dblacklock]

Don you make some excellent points about the skills required to be a umpire or a ref.

But there should be more than 1 route to qualification:

kari, becoming an accredited official is no different then becoming accredited in any profession - i.e engineering, nursing, project management etc. There is one standard that you have to pass, one administered by that particular association or professional body. In doing it this way, we are guaranteed that the content, delivery and testing are consistent. Something that all the stakeholders in lacrosse want. What we need to supplement the courses are on field evaluations week in and week out. This would benefit the program and officials. We have started this in the Men's game, where Graham Lester, Chris Parker, Rodney Burns, Phil Pearson, John Leach Peter McGinnety and myself give up time to go and watch a referee and provide feedback. This coupled with a properly structured National Officiating Certification Program will benefit the game the most.

In my role as the FIL Chair of Men's Officiating I am now looking to develop standardized training courses, exams, manuals, Course Conductor training etc that are delivered worldwide in hopes that we can gain consistency. England, Canada and Europe now pretty much teach the same referee clinic. We have introduced a pre-season seminar to help look at more advanced topics that we do not have time to deliver in a basic course. This too has helped develop referees to another level.

People only value what they pay for. In many jurisdictions people have to pay much more then we do here for the privilege to referee. In Canada for instance, I had to attend a yearly referee clinic for Field Lacrosse - $50 - Box Lacrosse $120, plus an association fee. If I did not attend the clinics I was not covered by insurance and therefore could not referee. In the US, referees have to pay the assignor to get on the list to referee and get assigned.. So here in England people have it easy.

I am not saying that the fee should be £50. In our case we put through a heck of a lot more referees. I’m going to Canterbury this weekend to teach a clinic. There could be 30 or perhaps 6. Someone has to cover those costs, I can’t (not independently wealthy).

At the end of the day we both want to get more officials. The problem is no one wants to stand out in the rain and cold, get yelled -money aside. There are too many other options for people to spend their time. Officiating is a passion and the £50 fee would not deter someone with that passion. We just need to keep looking for good people, who have the necessary skill set. Some of this can be taught (in a classroom), but most of it must be learned on the job (week in and week out), but only after you have the necessary foundations in place. I do think the ELA is going about this the right way – a structured approach.

Where we definitely do agree is on the surpluses that are created by courses. These should be piled back into the officiating program. Most of the officiating program is managed by volunteers, so there should be little overheads from the ELA perspective.

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

Your comments are all valid and it is true in the USA you do have to pay more for courses and as umpire, I also understand that you charge a much higher sum for reffing games, as well. I don't think that is the route we would want to take in this country.

I think it correct that we have official courses and consistency. I think what you do about giving feedback to refs on the weekend is brilliant and I think it is great that you are going to Canterbury this weekend to tutor a course

I think you should be paid your travel expenses and for you time.
I would have thought that £200 - £250 would cover it, based on robbo's comments that tutors get paid £125 per course.

And now the maths.......Minimum number of people on course is 12 (i have been told) 12 x £50 = £600, based on £250 tutor costs that is £350 profit.

If that is what is costs......
1. Reduce the cost of the course to the real cost £250 approx and provide a fixed price for the course
2. Allow people to fill up the course with as many people as they want

I wish I could find an abundance of people that were passionate about umpiring, let alone ones that want to pay £50 for a course. Unfortunately, I can't. Especially not in the abundance to officate a growing game. That is the actual situation.

Who is going to do anything about it?

[Kari Gosnay-Jones]

Unfortuantely, I am unable to post responses from the Paul Coups or the ELA due to the disclaimer on the email.

I am proceeding by raising these issues with the North Rep, the North Committee and the WPC CLub Rep.

[FrustratedLaxer]

I have heard on the grapevine that there R&U do not set the prices for courses the ELA does.

[davidmcculloch81]

Don,
Appreciate what you're doing to try and bring refs' standards up to scratch but I agree with Kari - let them take the test without having to go through the course first.

For your information, Chartered Mechanical Engineers can become accredited by submitting an experience report at any stage of their career. This must be signed off by two already-Chartered Engineers (as being ready for submission) before a panel (of some other Chartered Engineers) interview the applicant to decide whether they should be 'accredited'. There is no pre-requisite obligation for the applicant to fulfil (bar on-the-job experience that align to certain competences).

Sticking to a similar theme, and probably slightly more relevant, is the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) run by the CITB. All visitors to sites owned and run by the Environment Agency have to be CSCS accredited. I have a CSCS card that certifies me to be aware of the rules of construction site safety. To achieve this I swotted up on some standard construction H&S information and sat a multiple choice exam. I didn't have to attend a course. To get the numbers that we're talking about (all EA site visitors) through a course is unfeasible and a compromise has been made to cater for this. I don't see why we can't adopt this model to get more qualified refs through the system.

Interested in your thoughts.

Dave.

[Sour37]

That may well be true Dave, but the type of accreditation (CEng, IEng, EngTech) is set by the Engineering Council's Joint board of Moderators based on various competencies including an accedemic assessment (Usually an accredited degree course)

experience is of course a substitue for academic acievement, but as you say the experience report for the IMechE needs to be verified by 2 already qualified/chartered members. Would you propose a similar type of peer review for non qualified referees/umpires?