A Joke Is a Very Serious Thing

Joan Gould
Water Polo Planet
07/15/11

One of the most often asked questions in the water polo planet universe heading into the month of July is “What’s up with referees at JO’s”  Thus far, the best analogy I can come up with is my title; a quote from Winston Churchill “A Joke is a Very Serious Thing”.

This article was originally much longer but after sending it around to a few referee friends, I was forced to delete some of the more dramatic problems within the process to avoid involving people who have too much to lose. USAWP has become much like the Iron Curtain countries of the Cold War where enemies of the state disappear into oblivion. As such, I dedicate this to the referees of Southern California who are taking one every day for the team.

Loren Bertocci conceived of WPA in 2006 as a means to create referee consistency across the country. For too many years, referee training has been regional clinics taught by many different people and instructions passed down the chain within the referee corps. This essentially made referee training a game of “telephone” where the meaning and verbiage of the instructor changed each time it was passed down so that by the 6th iteration the instruction was unrecognizable as the original instruction. Loren and a group of other professional educators sought to change that-with professionally designed classes delivered online by the same professional educators to every referee in the country. The rules used were simply the current FINA rules. The online instruction was designed to be supplemented with on deck reinforcement of the online instruction.

It is important to realize that none of us in WPA care what rules are used-NCAA, CIF, NISCA, FINA, Beach Volleyball or Tiddlywinks. It does not matter…just identify the rules the collective wants to use, write them all down clearly and BE CONSISTENT.  Stop adding verbal instructions outside the rulebook that require the USAWP secret decoder ring and is exactly the thing that drive players, parents and coaches crazy. A few illustrations of secret, unwritten rules currently in use;

  1. The three chuck rule - you are allowed to hold a driver twice on a drive but on the third hold you are supposed to exclude the defender;

  2. The ball under by the defense rule - we are going to pretend that defense is now the offense (without resetting the possession clock) and it puts the ball under and the offense is now the defense and does not need to force the ball under (without resetting the possession clock either) so that the original offensive player just gets the ball back;

  3. The impeding while ducking under by the offense rule - the center takes a surface dive and comes up in a better position.  Because the center is now in a better position, we take the ball away and give it to the slow center defender because the center gained "advantage" unfairly.  However, "unfairly" is not defined either because the center violated no written rule;

  4. The move the ball down the pool rule - when whistling lower level games, so that we can pretend it is a higher level game, we will quickly whistle imaginary minor fouls on the perimeter so that the lesser skilled team can appear better and the referees are less bored.

  5. The help the losing team rule - if a team is behind, you whistle in its favor so that they don't get grumpy or discouraged;

To clear up a few misconceptions about WPA, the income from WPA is used to pay programmers, server space and development costs with very little left over for instructors. We sent full game DVD’s to all students free of charge, provided 24/7/365 live customer service and allowed students to retake classes at no charge. All material was in writing and available for free download. Coaches were encouraged to audit the classes and download all instructional material at no charge. From the beginning, the few of us who were involved were determined to do it right, independent of financial gain...which was a good thing because there was no financial gain for any of us.

In order to do WPA the right way, I left my full time job to provide full time customer service, IT and administrative support at a significant personal financial loss.  I am now happily back in a 9-5 job.   From Lorens perspective-WPA instructors spend an average of 6 hours a day teaching a WPA class; for far less than a minimum hourly wage. The move to USWPRA for training referees has freed up large chunks of time for Loren to devote to his full time (paid) job.  We are doing just fine.

What follows is not sour grapes-simply sadness that the referee training program is again in turmoil and the first clear illustration of this fact may well be at the expense of thousands of kids, coaches and families at 2011 Junior Olympics.

The concept of the USA Water Polo Referee association was presented to the USA Water Polo Board of Directors in 2009 by our 2 top officials as a means to “break the power of SCAF and Water Polo Academy”.  It is my understanding that the presentation received a standing ovation from the Board of Directors. I am still unclear what power we had in WPA but we'll leave that alone for now.

The goal was to grab the assigning and membership fees away from SCAF and the tuition away from Water Polo Academy to fund the ODP Referee Program. In the process, a couple of appointed (not elected) individuals would have complete control over every referee in the country via a referee rating system that is linked to referee game fees.

Unfortunately, as it currently stands, the referees in Southern California have the worst of it …after all; it is their money that the ODP Referee Organization wants…there isn’t enough referee money available elsewhere to bother with so the thrust is to make the SoCal referees indentured servants to the USAWP budget relief fund.

The "new and improved" Free Training began at the 2011 USAWP Assembly where referees could attend an in person class ($40.00 fee).  USA Water Polo spent several thousand dollars flying Boris Margeta in from a European country the size of New Jersey to teach Americans how to referee.   Boris is one of the best in the world but importing people from Europe is a clear indication that the ODP Referee Training Program has absolutely no faith in their own 2 top referees to teach referees correctly. 

In the end, with SCAF no longer involved and WPA no longer providing consistent instruction across the country, what are we left with? I imagine that question will be answered clearly at JO's.

A brief history of the USAWPRA in 2011;

It is time for USAWP to straighten out this mess and think about the quality of their product. Get the training fixed, get the rules test fixed and give the kids and coaches some value for their money with properly officiated games. Straighten out the referee pay and ratings and treat the referees like human beings. Doc warned everyone what was going to happen if we put all the power over referees in the hands of a USAWP referee union...and unfortunately, his predictions have come to pass.

USAWP 2011 Referee Recertification Rules Test

Correct answers are highlighted in yellow. The answers, if different, on the USA Water Polo Referee Certification Rules Test are listed below the question highlighted in red. Any relevant explanation follows.

Question: An attacking player is fouled inside the 5-meter line. The player picks up the ball to take the free throw, but a defensive player inside the 5 puts up two hands to try to block a pass to stop a probable goal. The referee should:

  1. Call an ordinary foul on the defensive player.
  2. Call nothing.
  3. Call a penalty foul on the defensive player.
  4. Exclude the player for the remainder of the game.
  5. Call an exclusion foul on the defensive player.

Correct Answer – WP 21.6 is a major foul violation. If committed inside the penalty area AND prevents a probable goal, it is a penalty foul (WP 22.2b). However, if it does not prevent a probable goal, the correct answer is E. It is much less likely that defending a pass prevents a probable goal than defending a shot prevents a probable goal. So, it is a misapplication of a major foul if a violation of 21.6 is whistled as a violation of 22.2b unless it prevents a probable goal.

Question:The attacking team shot the ball at the goal. While the ball was in the air, the 35 second shot clock horn sounded. A defensive player deflected the ball into the goal.

  1. The goal does not count and the attacking team is awarded a free throw.
  2. The goal counts.
  3. The goal does not count, and a penalty foul is awarded against the defensive player who deflected the ball into the goal.
  4. The goal does not count, and the defending team is awarded a free throw.
  5. The goal does not count, and a neutral throw is awarded.

Correct Answer: The USAWP Rules have had a 30 second shot clock for several years. It is important to read the rulebook before making a test that certifies all referee in the United States.

Question: In a direct substitution, the exiting player left the field of play under the side line and started to swim outside the field of play towards the reentry area, with the substitute player still in the reentry area. The referee should:

  1. Do nothing as the player exiting the field of play has committed no foul.
  2. Wait until the exiting player, swimming outside the boundaries of the field of play, reaches the reentry area and then exclude that player for the remainder of the game and allow the direct substitute to enter.
  3. Immediately blow the whistle and exclude the player who went under the side line for the remainder of the game for leaving the field of play without permission.
  4. Immediately blow the whistle and exclude the player who went under the side line for 20 seconds for leaving the field of play without permission.
  5. None of the above choices is correct.

Correct Answer – the language for WP 21.2 is as follows: “An excluded player who leaves the water (other than following the entry of a substitute) shall be deemed guilty of an offense under WP 21.10 (Misconduct). [Note]: An excluded under the Rules for the remainder of the game) shall remain in the water and move (which may include swimming underwater) to the re-entry position nearest to the player’s own goal line without interfering with the play. The player may leave from the field of play at any point and then swim to reach the re-entry area provided the player does not interfere with the alignment of the goal.” Additionally, the language for WP 21.4 is as follows: “For a player to leave the water or sit or stand on the steps or side of the pool during play, except in the case of accident, injury, illness or with the permission of a referee.” Thus, it is not a major foul violation to merely “swim outside the field of play.”

Question: A player is excluded for 20 seconds. The coach of the offensive team immediately requests a time out but the referee does not see or hear the coach. The game continues and the excluded player disturbs the game. A 5-meter penalty is awarded. The secretary tells you that the coach asked for a time out immediately after the exclusion.

  1. Maintain the penalty throw
  2. Ignore the information provided by the secretary
  3. Reverse the penalty throw, keep the exclusion, and stop the play for the time out

Correct Answer – the language of WP 12.1 is as follows: “If a timeout is requested, the secretary or referee shall immediately stop the game by whistle and the players shall immediately return to their respective halves of the field of play.” There is no explicit provision in the rules to go back in time.  In a stretch, you could apply WP 7.1: “The referees shall be in absolute control of the game. Their authority over the players shall be effective during the whole time that they and the players are within the precincts of the pool. All decisions of the referees on questions of fact shall be final and their interpretation of the Rules shall be obeyed throughout the game. The referees shall not make any presumption as to the facts of any situation during the game but shall interpret what they observe to the best of their ability” but that is a bit thin.

Question: A referee awards a contra-foul against the attacking player. But at the same moment the ball goes out behind the goal line. The goal judge throws a new ball into the water. The defensive player shoots and scores a goal.

  1. Change the possession
  2. Disallow the goal
  3. Allow the goal

Correct Answer –There are several relevant issues, each with their own rules references. First, the language of WP 14.3 provides two separate mechanisms (either 14.3c or 14.3d) by which this can be judged: “A goal may be scored by any part of the body except the clenched fist. A goal may be scored by dribbling the ball into the goal. At the start or any restart of the game, at least two players (of either team but excluding the defending goalkeeper) must intentionally play or touch the ball except at the taking of:

(a) a penalty throw;
(b) a free throw thrown by a player into the player’s own goal;
(c) an immediate shot from a goal throw; or
(d) an immediate shot from a free throw awarded outside 5 meters.”

Unfortunately, because there is the “at the same moment” phrase, the referee cannot distinguish between it being a goal throw (which it would be if the ball went over the end-line, last touched by a player on the offensive team, but in the case of this question, we do not know how the ball went over the end-line) or a contra foul (in which case, the free throw could be taken as a direct shot). Unfortunately, in either case, we routinely do not allow a shot on goal off a free throw if the ball came in from outside the pool. The relevant language is found in the exceptions at the end of WP 14.3:

“[Note … A goal may not be scored under this Rule direct from the restart following:

(a) timeout
(b) a goal
(c) an injury, including bleeding
(d) the replacement of a cap
(e) the referee calling for the ball
(f) the ball leaving the side of the field of play
(g) any other delay.]”

It is common practice that (g) is defined as any time the ball comes in from outside the pool. There is no rule on the books that further defines this.

Question: A player was excluded and did not immediately start to leave the field of play. What should the referee do?

  1. The referee should charge the player with a minor act of misconduct, and exclude the player for another 20 seconds.
  2. The player should be excluded for misconduct for the remainder of the game, with the substitute in the reentry area for 20 seconds.
  3. The referee should stop play as the player did not know that he was excluded, clarify the situation, reset the clocks and start play again.
  4. The referee should charge the player with interfering with play on the way out, award a penalty throw which is taken with the player in the reentry area.
  5. Either c or d is correct, depending on the referee's assessment of the situation.

Correct Answer – this is an entirely discretionary issue. The language of WP 21.5 is as follows: “To interfere with the taking of a free throw, goal throw or corner throw, including:

(a) intentionally to throw away or fail to release the ball to prevent the normal progress of the game;
(b) any attempt to play the ball before it has left the hand of the thrower.

[Note. A player is not to be penalized under this Rule if the player does not hear the whistle as a result of being under the water. The referees must determine if the actions of the player are intentional.

Interference with a throw may take place indirectly when the ball is hampered, delayed or prevented from reaching the player who is to take the throw, or it may occur when the execution of the throw is interfered with by an opponent blocking the direction of the throw (figure 13) or by disturbing the actual movement of the thrower (figure 14). For interference with a penalty throw, see also WP 21.16.]”

OK, so the player was underwater. Did the referee continue to signal so that the player underwater should know what was going on? Where does it say the referee screwed up and caused confusion? If I’m a player, I’m feigning confusion every time… and every time the referee lets me get away with this, it is a violation of WP 7.3 (the offending team benefits from cheating). If I am a coach, I tell my team to all go underwater every time they hear the double-whistle for the exclusion. Then, if this is not judged to be a replay (taking away the “quick” goal), I protest.

Question: A player in a dark cap shot and scored. Immediately after the shot, the shooter hit the guard in the head. Which is the correct call?

  1. The referee made no call as the event was immediately after the goal was scored.
  2. The referee excluded the shooter for misconduct for the remainder of the game with a substitute in the reentry area for 20 seconds, with the ball put in play by the white team.
  3. The referee excluded the player for misconduct from the remainder of the game with immediate substitution and the teams started even up as after a goal.
  4. The referee excluded the player for the remainder of the game for brutality, with the substitute in the reentry area after 4 mins; a dead-time penalty throw was taken;
  5. Either c or d is correct. It is a judgment call of the referee to decide if the act was misconduct or brutality.

Correct Answer : USAWP answer was E. It may or may not be a brutality, but NONE of these answers can be correct.

Here is the relevant language of WP 21.11:

“To commit an act of brutality (including to play in a violent manner, kicking, striking or attempting to kick or strike with malicious intent) against an opponent or official, whether during actual play, during any stoppages, timeouts, after a goal has been scored or during intervals between periods of play.

Should this occur during the game the offending player shall be excluded from the remainder of the game and must leave the competition area and a penalty throw awarded to the opposing team. The offending player may be substituted when four minutes of actual play have elapsed.

Should the incident occur during any stoppage, timeout, after a goal or interval between periods of play, the player shall be excluded for the remainder of a game and must leave the competition area. No penalty throw shall be awarded. The offending player may be substituted when four (4) minutes of actual play have elapsed and play will restart in the normal manner.”

Thus, even if this was judged to be violation of WP 21.11, the sanction imposed cannot include a “dead time” penalty throw (thus, no dead time penalty would take place in that situation).

Similarly, there is no provision that makes contact with the head to be defined as any kind of special foul.

WP 21.9:

“To kick or strike an opponent intentionally or make disproportionate movements with that intent.

[Note. The offense of kicking or striking can take a number of different forms, including being committed by a player in possession of the ball or by an opposing player; possession of the ball is not a decisive factor. What is important is the action of the offending player, including if the player makes disproportionate movements in an attempt to kick or strike, even if the player fails to make contact.

One of the most serious acts of striking is elbowing backwards (figure 19), which can result in serious injury to the opponent. Similarly, serious injury can occur when a player intentionally heads back into the face of an opponent who is marking the player closely. In these circumstances, the referee would also be justified in punishing the offense under WP 21.11 (Brutality) rather than under WP 21.9]”.

WP 21.10:

“To be guilty of misconduct, including the use of unacceptable language, aggressive or persistent foul play, to refuse obedience to or show disrespect for a referee or official, or behavior against the spirit of the Rules and likely to bring the game into disrepute. The offending player shall be excluded from the remainder of the game, with substitution after the earliest occurrence referred to in WP 21.3, and must leave the competition area.

[Note. If a player commits any offense mentioned in this rule during the interval between periods, during a timeout, or after a goal, the player shall be excluded for the remainder of the game and a substitute shall be eligible to re-enter immediately prior to the restart of the game as all these situations are considered to be interval time. Play will restart in the normal manner.]”

Thus, USAWP Referee Association has assigned an incorrect answer to one of the thorniest rules in all of water polo. Striking (WP 21.9) happens all the time. Aggressive foul play (WP 21.10) occurs too often. Violence or brutality (WP 21.11) occurs infrequently. Any referee who gets the USAWPRA “correct” answer is doomed to misapply EACH and EVERY ONE of these rules.

Question: Which of the following is not considered to be interval time?

  1. The time during a time out.
  2. The time before a penalty throw is taken.
  3. The time after a goal is scored.
  4. During an injury stoppage.
  5. Between periods.

Correct Answer -USAWP answer is D. Ok, D is correct also, but “Unlike high school and NCAA, the time before a penalty shot is not considered interval time in FINA events.”... as said by the NRD during a 2011 USAWPRA referee school. Thus, B should be correct also.

With respect to the rules, the term “interval time” is not mentioned at all. The word “interval” is mentioned in the rule-book in only special (time-specific) instances.

The most relevant reference is WP 21.10, with the following language: “[Note. If a player commits any offense mentioned in this rule during the interval between periods, during a timeout, or after a goal, the player shall be excluded for the remainder of the game and a substitute shall be eligible to re-enter immediately prior to the restart of the game as all these situations are considered to be interval time. Play will restart in the normal manner.]”

Another relevant reference is WP 21.11, with the following language: “To commit an act of brutality (including to play in a violent manner, kicking, striking or attempting to kick or strike with malicious intent) against an opponent or official, whether during actual play, during any stoppages, timeouts, after a goal has been scored or during intervals between periods of play … Should the incident occur during any stoppage, timeout, after a goal or interval between periods of play, the player shall be excluded for the remainder of a game and must leave the competition area.

Question: A penalty throw was awarded. A defending player taunted the shooter before the throw was taken. What action should the referee take?

  1. Exclude the player for the remainder of the game for misconduct with the substitute in the reentry area. Then take the penalty throw.
  2. Exclude the player for the remainder of the game for misconduct with the substitute in the field of play. Then take the penalty throw.
  3. Exclude the player for 20 seconds. Take the penalty throw with the substitute in the reentry area.
  4. Take the penalty throw.
  5. None of the above.

Correct Answer – this goes back to the question “Is the time before a penalty shot interval time?” If so, B is correct. If not, A has to be correct.

Question: The secretary forgot to wave in an excluded player. Ten seconds later the attacking team scored a goal:

  1. Allow the goal as referee determined that the team on defense should have called out when the player was entitled to enter and did not.
  2. Do not allow the goal, reset the game clock to the time when the excluded player should have entered, reset the possession clock to the appropriate time, allow the excluded player to enter and award a free throw to the attacking team. Resume play from the reentry time.
  3. Do not allow the goal and reset the game clock to the beginning of the exclusion period with the excluded player in the reentry area for 20 seconds.
  4. Allow the goal as the referee determined that the error was not significant, keeping the time on the game clock.
  5. Do not allow the goal and give the defensive team a goal throw from the time on the game clock.

Correct Answer – except for the fact that the referees are also responsible for tracking this and doing the wave-in, they got this one right. Problem – if the referee(s) wave(s) in the excluded player but the secretary does not do so and the player does not enter, someone  will imagine that this is an error.

In WP 21.3 we have the following relevant language:

“… The excluded player or a substitute shall be permitted to re-enter the field of play from the re-entry area nearest to the player’s own goal line, provided that:

a) the player has received a signal from the secretary or a referee; …”

In WP 21.12 we have the following relevant language:

“In the case of simultaneous exclusion of players of opposing teams during play, both players are excluded for 20 seconds. The 30 second possession clock is reset and play is restarted with a free throw to the team which had possession of the ball. If neither team had possession when the simultaneous exclusions were called, play shall be restarted with a neutral throw.

[Note. Both players excluded under this Rule, shall be permitted to re-enter at the next earliest occurrence referred to in WP 21.3 or at the next change of possession.

If two players have been excluded under this Rule and are eligible to re-enter, the defensive referee may wave in the player as soon as that player is ready to re-enter. The referee does not have to wait until both players are ready to re-enter.]”

Question: During play, a player of the attacking team commits a striking foul against a defender inside the five meter area of the defending team

  1. Exclude the offending player for the game with substitution after 20 seconds and award a penalty throw
  2. Exclude the offending player for 20 seconds with substitution and change possession
  3. Exclude the player for 20 seconds and change possession

Correct Answer – the word “striking” occurs in two different rules. In WP 21.9, the referee simply excludes for 20s. In WP 21.11, the referee must determine that there is “malicious intent” and can then apply violence or brutality to the offense. The rule incorrectly cited is WP 21.10 has the following language (aggressive or persistent foul play) but does NOT include the word “striking.” This is an invitation for a misapplication of a major foul.