|
|
|
 |
The 3 Referee System –
an Update
 Graham
Waters
My first report documented the background to, and trial of, the 3
Referee System at the Windy City Open in Chicago in January. Since
that time, the system has been used at several Super Series events,
sometimes with minor variations, but all with the approval of the
promoters and all with generally the same positive results. The
events at which the system has been used since Chicago have been:
• Tournament of Champions, New York
• ISS Canary Wharf Classic, London
• Sheikha Al Saad Kuwait Open, Kuwait City
• Qatar Classic (06), Doha
• Goshen Open (WISPA)
The Kuwait and Qatar events also had WISPA draws, so the top women
players have also had some experience with the system. All but one
of the WSF World Referees have now used the system and several WSF
International Referees have also used it. I have had feedback from
all of the referees, several of the promoters, and some players and
administrators. It is clear to me that the three referee System is
the way forward, but there are several challenges to overcome if it
is.
What needs to happen now is for the three governing bodies of squash
to decide on the future of the three Referee System. Should it be
formally adopted; at what events and in what rounds is it realistic
to use it; who must bear the cost of increasing the number of
referees required to run this system at each event?
The current timing provides us with a small window to reach a
decision on this as there are no major PSA or WISPA events on the
calendar until August. The WSF has the Pan American Games in Rio de
Janeiro and the Junior Women’s World Championships in Hong Kong, but
they will be using the traditional Marker/Referee System.
It should be noted that players were used as one of the Side
Referees in London and for one round only in Kuwait, but players
were not used in New York or Qatar. The following sections describe
the results from each of the four subsequent events and reactions
from participants.
New York
The system was used in an identical manner to the initial trial in
Chicago, with similar results. . Again, there were fewer
confrontations between players and referees, the final decisions
were better accepted, the referees felt less stress, and the
promoter was happier with the overall calibre of refereeing.
Comments received from New York:
• At the TOC we sat in a line on the aisle a fair distance apart.
This made communication awkward
• At TOC we did not use any players –but the use of
lesser-experienced referees did cause a lot of discomfort – and we
just got through
• At both the TOC and Kuwait events we did get decisions wrong –
even with 3 of us –but the percentage wrong I believe was decreased
compared to the 1 official system
• At both events - partly due to the inexperience of some of the
referees involved and partly due to the view of the referees -
blocking went without punishment because 1 or 2 of the officials
fail to see a “block” and thus do not penalise appropriately. This
was putting extra pressure on the central referee who wanted to deal
with the problem – but on occasions the decision making went against
him.
Canary Wharf
The position of the referees was the same as in Chicago, and the
results were the same. Specific comments received:
• We liked the position of our three referees. The central referee
high at the back with his two side referees within his vision and in
front of him (triangular formation). We think that this can only
work on glass courts and it should be noted that the players always
wished to sit in the front row (I guess this is where they normally
watch matches from when coaching etc).
• A few of the player/refs admitted that they did not always know
what decision to give, either because they could not make the
decision or they were unsighted.
• From discussions during and at the end of the event we all agreed
that the new system worked.
Kuwait
Here, the referees sat 15 foot back from the court on a 2 foot high
purpose built “referee area” platform just less than the width of
the court, in front of the high main seating stand. This worked
quite well, but we sat apart with side referees along both walls.
The general public was seated in the main stand above our platform.
They could not see our hand signals. There was not any side seating.
Specific comments received:
• Because of the scheduling we used some players for the second
round. I had a slight problem in recruiting players to referee - but
the “players’ rep” for the event quickly took over and all turned up
on time. For quarter- finals and on we used assigned WSF referees
only.
• Where possible I believe players should not referee – I spoke to
numerous players at the event – all were uncomfortable with getting
involved – and many it seemed were being pushed by the more senior
players (left in the event!!) into helping out
• Alex Gough, who left Kuwait immediately after losing, was
insistent that the players were willing to participate! I beg to
differ and so did Robert Edwards who was TD at the event
Qatar
In Doha, because they were running both a men’s and women’s draw,
the organizers were using 4 courts simultaneously right through the
second round. This made the use of the 3 Referee System impossible
until the quarter finals, when all matches were played on the glass
court.
There were two slight differences this time:
• We employed a marker as well as three Referees, further reducing
the onus on the Central Referee, and also eliminating the need for
the Left Referee to keep score. We were able to do this because we
had three very competent local markers who we could employ in this
role.
• We asked the Side Referees to indicate with a thumbs down signal
any ball they considered to be down, not up, or out during a rally.
In this way, if both Side Referees indicated a ball was not good,
the rally could be stopped and awarded appropriately.
Comments received:
• It happened quite often that the Side Referee on the opposite side
of the court made a different decision from the other two Referees
on crossing the flight situations. This supports the old criticism
from the original three Judge System that the person with the worst
view cast the deciding vote. At least with this system, the
“correct” decision was reached, and nobody knew that it was not
unanimous.
• The very serious issue for both players and referees coming out of
this system is the inability of the central ref to set a standard
line of thinking and stick to it, especially when the players are
not totally playing within the spirit of the game. The system works
quite well when both players are behaving but when we really need it
the most (in blocking, fishing, playing the body situations), it can
break down.
Overall Reaction
• It takes away the real “clanger” or “rogue” decisions that come
out from time to time, and may, in time, lead to more consistent
decision making as referees work closely together.
• The players’ perception that there are three officials making the
decision has improved, in the main, their attitude. This results in
far fewer “confrontations”.
• Considering we are still in the early stages both the players and
the referees are adapting to it well. The players, without
exception, prefer it and after all it is their game.
Director, WSF Rules & Referee Committee
|
#1: Graham Waters:
How it started
#2: Barry Faguy:
3 in Chicago
#3: Jim Wellington:
Player-blind
Before his time?
Jonathon Power Exposed DVD Interview with Jean
De Lierre
DeLierre: If you could implement one change in the current
referee system that would improve it, what would it be?
Power: I would immediately do three players, refereeing two players
on the court…I would get rid of referees that have never played.
Like you mentioned before, refereeing is so subjective, so I would
get rid of all the people who have never played at that level, who
don’t understand squash at that speed, who don’t /just can’t
comprehend what is happening out there on the court…because you
can’t understand just by watching. You have to be able to be in that
situation of desperation and be able to understand the game from
that level.
So I would have three players, because one player would be too
controversial, whether he is biased or not, and all three players
would be giving their decision immediately at the same time. So you
would have one player asking for a let, and you would have all three
players holding up one of three cards…and two against one: majority
rules.
And you are going to get the right call every time. You are not
going to get the call you want every time, but you are not going to
get those outrageous calls that ruin matches…at crucial times…You
can get anybody who watches sports, who enjoys squash, to call the
ball in or out.
You’re getting somebody to predict what’s going to happen in the
future, so if you’ve never been in that situation...I don’t think
you can really do it unless you have players…that’s my feeling.
There are pluses and minuses in both directions, but assuming we
would take your suggestions and go with the players, how would you
deal with the personal conflicts that could eventually arise where a
player is not necessarily fond of you, and may lean one way or the
another?
That is what I am trying to erase with the three players. Say there
is a conflict with one guy, and he keeps making calls against you
throughout the whole match, you still have two other guys to
overrule him. But…with the players refereeing every match, anything
like that comes around full circle…so the next time I’m refereeing
him.
So players are just naturally not going to do that. They understand
what’s at stake…
If you have one referee, then he has more power, it can really
change the outcome of the match; but if you have three guys, I think
a guy like that can be pushed into the background if he’s trying to
hurt you with his calls - very radical. |
 |
How many referees is enough ?
At club level we do it ourselves. In local competitions there's
usually a single referee/marker. At the professional level since
time immemorial there's been a referee and marker combination, but
2007 has been the year of the three referees.
In Chicago in January at the Windy City Open a new PSA Three Referee
system made its debut, and it was continued in Canary Wharf, Kuwait
and Qatar. Now WISPA have joined in too, trialling a 'Player-Blind'
version at the Goshen Open.
There are differences in the systems, and differences of opinion
about how it should work and who should do what, and different
experiences from all of the test tournaments - it's far from
finalised yet.
But, keeping to the theme, we have three articles about the system,
from Graham Waters (World Referee and Director of the WSF's
rules & refereeing committee), Barry Faguy (International
referee and editor of The Squash Official, and Jim Wellington,
Tournament Referee for the Goshen Open.
There's a lot of material, so we'll do it in four instalments -
today's introduction, video, and reprise of the Canary Wharf
experience, then over the next three days Graham, Barry and Jim's
tales ... |
|
CANARY WHARF CLASSIC |
|
 |
Three better than one ?
The Canary Wharf experience
As you probably know the new "three referee" system is in use here,
whereby we have one central and two side refs, each of whom make
their decision on every appeal and make a hand-signal to communicate
it to the others with the majority decision prevailing.
A slight adjustment here is that each match is governed by two
referees and one player - the player is always one of the side refs
- which seems to work well.
The system was given a stern test in the Thierry Lincou v Adrian Grant
match, with 64 decisions required in the 77-minute match. In 59 of
those it was a unanimous decision, which is pretty good going by any
standards.
Everyone seems to be agreed that the system is good and is the way
forward, but, just for the record, we thought we'd get some opinions
from players and referees …
"We talked about using the system here,
and once it was agreed I really wanted to get the players involved,
by using one of them for each match. It's for them after all and
it's good for them to get an insight into refereeing and the players
get confidence from seeing other players giving decisions.
"One of the pleasing aspects is the high percentage of unanimous
decisions, about 90/95%, and very few instances where the central
referee is over-ruled.
"It's certainly cut out all the arguments - and some of the long
explanations too!
Tournament Referee |
 "It's
good, and it's certainly done what it was intended to, cutting out
the arguments and confrontations. There's still a bit of banter,
which you don't want to get rid of, but it's taken the heat out of a
lot of situations."
 "It
works well. The players tend to look to the player/referee for their
decision first, they have more confidence when one of their own is
giving the decision. As long as there's a schedule laid out and
everyone knows what they're doing, I'm sure all the players will be
quite happy to take their turn in refereeing."
 |
|
 "As
a referee you have to get used to the feeling of being over-ruled,
it's awkward the first couple of times but it doesn't happen often
and you quickly get used to being part of a team.
"In a way you feel as if your authority is diminished, it's
difficult if, say, you want to tell a player to make more effort -
you might give a no let next time but if the others don't take the
same line you can be over-ruled and look a little silly."
"It's unusual to get to the later stages of a tournament with hardly
any player reaction over referee's decisions, which proves that the
system is working well.
"One of the reasons squash didn't make the Olympics was that the IOC
members weren't impressed by the backchat to the referee during the
Commonwealth Games in Manchester. The system cuts all of that out,
so it can only be a good thing."
Referee |
 "There's
talk of using technology for 'voting by button', but I think the
current hand signal system works well. You'll get the odd reaction
from a player if you're outvoted, but you don't want to conceal who
made what decision.
"You know why you made your decision, but you don't know why the
others made theirs, so it's sometimes tricky to see what line
they're taking.
"Things to think about include how does it affect the WSF referee
assessment programme (difficult to assess the performance of an
individual), should we have a fourth "not sure" signal for things
like not-ups, outs and downs so that only the referees who have a
clear view make the decision, and how will it work at lower levels
where there are only glassback or balcony-viewing courts.
"Overall it's a good system, it works well and it's the best way
forward."
Referee |
|
 |
|
Is this many enough ??? |
|
