One thing for certain, most of the good referees were not at the Olympics. I thought we only sent our best referees to the Olympics. If these referees were our best referees then water polo is in BIG TROUBLE! I truly believe that good referees make good players and good players make good water polo. I would have given many of the referees at the Olympics a grade of D +. Why such a low grade for these referees? Mainly because of the calls at two meters.
Once upon a time a coach could watch a referee make a couple of calls at 2 meters and the coach could call a time out and tell the 2 meter defenders how the referee is calling fouls at 2 meters. Those days are long gone similar to the days of picks and drives. One of the most important skills a coach could use during a game is the ability to adjust and/or adapt. This is the one skill that a coach could use to offset mud wrestling at 2 meters because you knew the referee was going to make the same call almost every time. But this is no longer true. Only the TWPC and the chosen few referees knew what is and is not a foul at 2 meters. “What is and what is not a foul” sounds like a song and a very sad song at that
In real estate the key word is “location, location, location and in refereeing the key word is “consistence, consistence, consistence! If you can’t be consistence then don’t wear whites on the pool deck or wear the new fancy blues and reds as well. Usually it is spectators who can’t tell what a 2 meter foul is or is not. The dialog goes something like this: “How was that a kick out when it wasn’t a kick out at the other end of the pool.” “What’s a no call? “Why was that a no call the defenders were holding the 2 meter person.” Why was that an ejection on the 2 meter defender both were holding?” Why was that an ejection on the 2 meter player both were holding? “I thought it was against the rules for the defender to hold up two hands for a free throw or a shot?” At the 2012 Olympics it wasn’t just spectators having this dialog. It was players, coaches and referees saying the same thing.
Not long ago I said that today’s referees needed to carry a coin so they could use it for 2 meter calls – heads for an ejection and tails for a contra foul. Well, I was wrong the referees at the Olympics needed to carry a three sided die – one side for an ejection, one side for a contra, and one side for a no call. Have you ever seen so many “no calls” in any prior Olympics? It appears that today the referees control weapon of choice is no longer an ejection at 2 meters but rather it is the no call at 2 meters. It is very easy to take away an ejection by using a no call and a no call leaves no written paper trail the way ejections do.
I really don’t blame the referees for such a dismal showing at the Olympics I blame the TWPC for waiting until the Olympics to try to educate and train them. FINA’s method of training of referees is abysmally bad. Interpreting rules for the referees on the deck during the Olympics or a World Championships is beyond ridiculous it is absurd. Who has ever heard of a sport in which the interpretations of the rules are created during a world championship? This Olympics it appeared as if the members of the TWPC were talking to the referees not just before and after a game but also during the quarters of the game. What is really sad is that if you don’t do what the TWPC tells you to do you don’t get to referee any more games. There should be a new rule in the FINA By-Laws that states that a member of the TWPC cannot talk to a referee until 30 minutes after a game is over.
FINA’s training of referees is a decade behind the times. The water polo community should demand more transparency and less politics. The days of only a chosen few knowing the interpretation of the rules should disappear much faster than the referee’s flags did. The current FINA Water Polo Official Schools should be shut down and replaced with online water polo courses so everyone in the water polo community can learn not only the rules but also the interpretation of the rules. Instead of paying for all the FINA “fat cats” way to the Olympics and World Championships use that money to hire some electronic gaming company to create refereeing simulations. If FINA is not willing to attempt these changes then the International Referees should start their own union because the art and science of refereeing should be placed in the hands of the referees and not under the political thumbs of the TWPC.
It is said that some banks are just too big to fail. The way I feel about it is that FINA is just too big to prevail. Years ago the US Congress said that the AAU was too large so they broke it up into individual sports. The IOC should do the same thing for the aquatic sports and break it up into the following independent sports: Men’s and Women’s Water Polo, Men’s and Women’s Swimming, Men’s and Women’s Long Distant Swimming, Men’s and Women’s Diving, and Women’s Synchronized Swimming. I don’t think water polo can thrive under FINA’s tutelage and I don’t think water polo is going to survive without better rules and without good referees.
When I finished the article I asked Loren Bertocci if he would give me a referees perspective of my remarks. Here is what he wrote (thanks Loren for the straight talk):
Referee perspective: Mark Koganov was selected to whistle the Championship game at the 2009 World Championships, the 2010 FINA Cup, and the 2011 World Championships. Why was he not invited to the 2012 Olympics?
Referee perspective: unfortunately, in our sport, those who make referee decisions do not illuminate the coaches, whose jobs/careers depend (in part) on understanding what referees do. When coaches are not put into a place where they can (at least) know referee instructions, how do we expect coaches do to their jobs?
Referee perspective: consistency is in the eye of the beholder… or, in this case, in the eyes of the evaluator and/or game assignor. If the instructions to the referees are some combination of unclear and/or conflicting, consistency is impossible.
Referee perspective: now it gets ugly. There is a training program for referees that is run by a small member of the FINA TWPC. It is clear that this group wants a less physical game than has been played before now. Sadly, this small group of instructors possesses the following limitations:
None of them are referees. Why is this an issue? Because none of them know how to communicate to referees in the language referees understand. Thus, even if their instructions were valid (no opinion here), their instructions would not necessarily be understood by the referees being instructed;
None of them are able to articulate the end-product (the game) of their vision AND THEN reward those referees who whistle in a pattern that matches their vision. Imagine a calculus class where the instructor tells the group how to solve an integral, then the grader does not think this is the best way to solve this particular integral;
Worse? These “instructions” are limited to entirely text and unsophisticated “push” instructions to referees in a classroom setting and the only reinforcement is at elite events. Giving instructions to referees at elite level events is the referee instruction equivalent of “too little too late.”
Referee perspective: the current training program for referees is completely ineffective. The biggest limitations include, but are not limited to:
None of the instructors are referees. Why is this an issue? Because none of them know how to communicate to referees in the language referees understand. Thus, even if their instructions were valid (no opinion here), their instructions would not necessarily be understood by the referees being instructed;
None of them are able to articulate the end-product (the game) of their vision AND THEN reward those referees who whistle in a pattern that matches their vision. Imagine a calculus class where the instructor tells the group how to solve an integral, then the grader does not think this is the best way to solve this particular integral;
The instructions are neither public nor transparent. How do we expect players and coaches to adjust to a "secret" set of rules/instructions?
Worse? Failures (defined as poor or no-further appointments) are presumed to be the fault of the referees. ALL referees know the extent to which their next game assignment, and worse, their long-term careers:
Are completely in the hands of instructors who are not referees
Are intrinsically impartial (yup – adjust – referees, those few who are not crooks, ARE impartial) view of the referee;
- Are completely dependent on referee evaluators who have decided that "referee training" can be done via giving post- (or worse, mid-) game inputs to referees whistling at elite level events. This is the referee instruction equivalent of "too little too late."
Referee perspective: the current construct is hopeless:
We have a FINA TWPC that argues for a less physical game and a FINA Executive Director whose appearance at a major FINA event results (as if by magic) in referees being told to stop whistling;
We have no connect between referee training and referee assignments;
We have no connect between referee training and referee evaluation (evaluators are NOT present at referee training, and anyone of you who imagines they "get it" are (at best) delusional;
We have no connect between referee evaluation and referee game appointment.
Referee perspective: the current construct is hopeless. Let me assure you, it is no better anywhere else… do NOT imagine it is any better in the good old US of A in our USAWP or collegiate settings. The ultimate referee perspective? The decision-makers in our sport are not (a combination of) smart and courageous enough to fix this. It IS fixable. I hope none of you out there imagine there will be a fix without a greater change in the population of the decision-makers than is even imaginable.
Referee perspective: adjust, enjoy what we have, and do not commit your hopes/dreams/emotions to a sport with these "judgment" inadequacies.
Sorry.
Adjust.
