Another glitch in the system?

Referee Issues moderated by WPP's Righteous Referee

Moderator: Righteous Referee

thesupernuge
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:36 am
How are you connected to water polo?: Player, Coach etc

Another glitch in the system?

Postby thesupernuge » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:12 pm

Last week during a high school game the 'back' ref called an ejection on the defense during a fast break not far from their goal. As a result the counter attack was momentarily stopped while the player was ejected, thus destroying the man-up situation on the counter. It never occurred to me that the defense could draw an ejection in the "back court" to avoid a nearly sure goal in a one-on-nobody situation.

When I asked the (forward) ref about the call after the game he agreed that advantage was taken away from the attacking team. His explanation/guess was that the back ref had to make the ejection because of a possible "egregious foul" that needed to be addressed. It's obvious to me that the move to get ejected was to prevent a counter attack goal and clearly it worked. If the foul was that egregious, should he have been removed for brutality?

Thoughts?

oldtimer
Posts: 2289
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:57 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: All of the above

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby oldtimer » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:43 pm

See You Make The Call #27 for a discussion on this exact situation: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12801

Saw it happen at a JV game not too long ago. It's the result of a referee that needs some additional education, IMO.

thesupernuge
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:36 am
How are you connected to water polo?: Player, Coach etc

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby thesupernuge » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:50 pm

That one is sorta close but this situation I saw was much worse. Almost all the players had come back to counter or guard the counter attack. The only two left in the back were the offense and the defense who was called for the ejection.

oldtimer
Posts: 2289
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:57 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: All of the above

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby oldtimer » Mon Oct 17, 2016 8:06 pm

How could it be worse than a one on nobody with the closest defender being on the other side of half? Without the call it is an almost certain goal.

The point is, an incorrect call by the referee is not a 'glitch'. It's an incorrect call by the referee.

Doru Roll
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:56 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: player, fan, referee

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby Doru Roll » Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:31 pm

WP21.11 specifically addresses the case of a defender fouling in the back court during transition, which usually occurs for the purpose of stopping a counter-attack. However, pursuant to WP7.3 the referees must consider the entire play situation before awarding the foul. By their nature, kicking, striking, misconduct and brutality typically take precedence over WP7.3 and must be whistled in order to prevent injury or escalation. If the foul was egregious, the referee should have excluded the defender for the remainder of the game.

set2set
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:38 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: Fan, parent, referee

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby set2set » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:06 am

Hockey solves this problem with the delayed penalty. I believe creating a delayed penalty in WP would solve a lot of inconsistent calls. By allowing the offense to have both the advantage and the penalty.

thesupernuge
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:36 am
How are you connected to water polo?: Player, Coach etc

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby thesupernuge » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:17 am

Doru Roll wrote:WP21.11 specifically addresses the case of a defender fouling in the back court during transition, which usually occurs for the purpose of stopping a counter-attack. However, pursuant to WP7.3 the referees must consider the entire play situation before awarding the foul. By their nature, kicking, striking, misconduct and brutality typically take precedence over WP7.3 and must be whistled in order to prevent injury or escalation. If the foul was egregious, the referee should have excluded the defender for the remainder of the game.


Exactly. That was the point I made to the ref, either don't punish the attacking team (by stopping the counter) or exclude the defender for the game for the egregious foul. Unfortunately neither happened and the tactic worked as intended...

thesupernuge
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:36 am
How are you connected to water polo?: Player, Coach etc

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby thesupernuge » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:18 am

set2set wrote:Hockey solves this problem with the delayed penalty. I believe creating a delayed penalty in WP would solve a lot of inconsistent calls. By allowing the offense to have both the advantage and the penalty.


At least let the counter attack play out as to not take away advantage-but this is not a bad idea either...

thesupernuge
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:36 am
How are you connected to water polo?: Player, Coach etc

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby thesupernuge » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:32 am

oldtimer wrote:How could it be worse than a one on nobody with the closest defender being on the other side of half? Without the call it is an almost certain goal.

The point is, an incorrect call by the referee is not a 'glitch'. It's an incorrect call by the referee.


Well in situation I mentioned, the defensive player did it intentionally to prevent a goal (or high probability) during a counter attack. In your example I don't think the kid deliberately mouthed off because he saw the offense taking off early (and therefore worried about a goal). To me a player who is able to prevent a goal by the other team by manipulating the game has taken advantage of a 'glitch.' I agree it's a bad call but it obviously worked and it's my guess it has worked several times in the past.

User avatar
fanofpolo
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:26 pm

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby fanofpolo » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:26 am

Isn't there already something in the rules about fouling with the intent of preventing a goal that results in a penalty throw? That would certainly take care of the situation.

Doru Roll
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:56 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: player, fan, referee

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby Doru Roll » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:40 am

fanofpolo wrote:Isn't there already something in the rules about fouling with the intent of preventing a goal that results in a penalty throw? That would certainly take care of the situation.
There is, but only for a foul that occurs inside 5m.

thesupernuge
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:36 am
How are you connected to water polo?: Player, Coach etc

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby thesupernuge » Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:51 am

fanofpolo wrote:Isn't there already something in the rules about fouling with the intent of preventing a goal that results in a penalty throw? That would certainly take care of the situation.


In front of the cage (inside 5m) I think that is easy to see objectively however at the other end people are going to argue it imo.

ValleyPolo
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:58 pm
Location: LA

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby ValleyPolo » Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:06 am

This reminds me of why I gave up reffing. Yes, this ref was 100% wrong, but maybe they reffed some of the teams I have.

A few years ago I was at a game and the blue team had a 3 or 4 on nobody going down the pool. There was a foul in the back-court by a white team player. Nothing too bad, but I did see it and let it go, obviously due to the advantage for blue. Of course, the blue team shooter throws it right to the goalie and their coach goes nuclear - not about the bad shot, but that I should have called the foul 10 seconds before (I guess he was yelling for it the whole time). At the next break (maybe a minute later), I talk to the blue coach and explain my rational about his team having the advantage. He is adamant that I should have called the foul and ejected the white teams' player. I didn't see it as deserving of an ejection, but tell the coach " so next time you have a 3 on nobody, you want me to call the ejection so you have a 6 on 5 instead?" He replied, "Yes, that's exactly what I want". I never thought it would happen in the same game, but 4th quarter, basically the same situation. I call it, look at the coach and he just drops his head, hopefully realizing that what he wanted was not the right call. I'm hoping the coach learned form that situation, but never can be sure.

I 100% agree that refs are not always correct, but most are doing what they can. Without the refs that are trying, there wouldn't be enough refs to go around and games would have to be cancelled. As someone who has played, coached and reffed, I think there is the need for both coaches and refs to get more training and development - especially when they are newer.

oldtimer
Posts: 2289
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:57 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: All of the above

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby oldtimer » Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:30 pm

ValleyPolo wrote:I 100% agree that refs are not always correct, but most are doing what they can. Without the refs that are trying, there wouldn't be enough refs to go around and games would have to be cancelled. As someone who has played, coached and reffed, I think there is the need for both coaches and refs to get more training and development - especially when they are newer.


I would drop the last 5 words and then I would agree 100%. The rules (interpretations, whatever) change frequently - sometimes mid-season. Referees seem to always get minor (or major) tweaks throughout the year. I personally know of more than one coach (age group and HS) who cannot name a single rule/number out of the book, and constantly complain about calls (and no-calls). They do it in front of parents and players, creating a culture where the referees 'are idiots'. I also know of coaches who are referees or who frequently discuss rules and interpretations, and who are much more respectful even if they disagree with calls or interpretations. The latter are generally the more successful coaches.

ramman
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:47 pm
How are you connected to water polo?: coach

Re: Another glitch in the system?

Postby ramman » Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:11 pm

There are so many issues with the way water polo is refereed that Richard Hunkler, wrote an article called, "Go Play God in Some Other Sport". He nailed the issues on the head. What has been done about it? Nothing. I'll take the novice referee that doesn't know all the rules and calls the whole game consistently bad for both teams over the ref that calls in favor of one team over another. Too many games played by evenly matched teams are decided by the will of the referee.

Richard Hunkler, Ph.D.
Slippery Rock University
11/15/05

Aren't you tired of some referees playing god on the pool deck? I know I am. Maybe you are not certain of what I mean when I say that some referees are playing god during a water polo game. Let me explain what I mean by giving several examples, and you don't even have to go to church to understand these examples.

Talk First About the Bad Guys

Example 1: One of the referees calls a brutality foul and rolls a player, and the other referee does not agree with the call. This referee then calls a questionable brutality foul for a player on the other team to make the sides more even. This person is not refereeing but rather this person is playing god.

It is not the job of one referee to either "make teams more even" or to give "make up calls". It is not only the referee's job to call what he or she sees but also to make certain he or she tries to call things they see the same the entire game. "Making teams even" or giving "make up calls" is a never ending job and it does way more harm than good to the game of water polo.

Example 2: A referee dislikes a player on a team or dislikes the way a particular player plays the game. This referee calls a thousand ticky tack fouls on the player or this referee turns everything this player does into a turnover or this referee makes a borderline exclusion foul into an exclusion foul every time he can against this player. This person is not refereeing but rather this person is playing god.

As hard as it may be, a referee has to leave his or her prejudices for a player locked in the referee's dressing room locker until the game is over. This is what professionalism is all about and this is good advice not only for a referee but it is also good advice for a player or a coach who is biased toward a particular referee. Many times what is good for the gander is good for the goose and vice a versa.

Example 3: A referee makes a value judgment before the game that one team is better than the other and this referee calls exclusions and penalty shots according to this belief rather than according to what is truly happening in the game. This person is not refereeing but rather this person is playing god.

I thought you were to make value judgments after all the facts have been gathered and not before . Prophesizing and fortune telling glass balls should be for mystics not referees. Referees should not try to predict anything in a water polo game, but they should watch it unfold in real time similar to video games on the computer. If you wish to be a prognosticator get yourself a forked stick and find some water - water that has not been made murky with "What ifs".

Example 4: A referee gives 80 to 90 percent of the 50 - 50 calls to one team. This person is not refereeing but rather this person is playing god.

Why does this referee think they are called 50 - 50 calls? If one team receives from 60 to 65 percent of these calls then I believe the referee is being reasonable but more than that is questionable. In the early days, every time my women's team played a California team with a California referee in California, I felt as if our team started the game all ready three points down. The day I concluded our team was accepted by the California refereeing Promised Land is when Felix gave us about 65% of the 50 - 50 calls in the 3rd place game at the Collegiate Nationals playing UC Santa Barbara in UC Santa Barbara's pool.

Example 5: One of the referees gives a coach a red card, and the other referee does not agree with the call. This referee then gives the coach on the other team a red card to make the sides more even. This person is not refereeing but rather this person is playing god.

See explanation concerning Example 1.

Example 6: A referee reverses a disrespect call during a game or a brutality call after the game has concluded without a formal protest. This referee has to realize that there is no place in the game of water polo for either disrespect of a referee or player brutality. This person is not refereeing but rather this person is playing god.

There used to be a rule in the USWP and NCAA Rules book that a referee may reverse a call if the ball has not been placed back into play, but if the ball has been put into play then the referee's action can only be addressed by a formal protest after the game has concluded.

Example 7: A referee who is refereeing two teams of the same ability gives an inordinate number of exclusion fouls to one of the teams. Or if a referee awards many more exclusion fouls to one team allowing this team an insurmountable command of the game going into the fourth quarter, then the referee begins to give the other team bogus exclusion fouls so that the score sheet will not leave a paper trail of his or her misdeeds. This person is not refereeing but rather this person is playing god.

Give me a break, would you? Because I can see one team with 14 to 3 exclusions if the team with 14 is much better than the other team or if that team has a history of causing a large number of kick outs in their games. A large difference in exclusion fouls between comparable teams is harder to swallow than the referee that swallows his or her whistle in the last quarter of a game which brings me to the next example.

Example 8: A referee that calls a consistent game for three quarters and then in the fourth quarter swallows his or her whistle. This person is not refereeing but rather this person is playing god.

The referee that does this many times gives the explanation that he or she was letting the players decide the game. Why didn't this referee let the players decide the game by swallowing his or her whistle in the first three quarters as well? Player actions that warranted exclusion fouls and penalty shots in the first three quarters should demand them in the fourth and sometimes critical quarter. Games refereed similar to this belong in the Hall of Shame, and they should be recorded in the book of the most inconsistent games ever refereed.

Return to “The Quicker Kicker Outer”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest