Quote:
Originally Posted by Basel A
Refs must be pretty thin-skinned, because no one is attacking them personally. No names are named.
|
I disagree. Indeed I don't recall any 'names being named' but the ref is usually in the video. The ref (if following CD) knows the name, the entire reffing crew at the event knows who you are talking about, the ref's team's(and former teams') members know who you are talking about, many volunteers at the event knows who you are talking about, and so forth. They
are being attacked personally. Would you say "The driver of team #### really messed up and it cost us the match"-- no because that would be attacking them personally, even though you did not name them.
Would you be willing to sit down with the ref and say "I think you made the wrong call, I'm going to post a video of the match on CD and state my arguments so hundreds of people can also make judgments about your call, many of whom will post in agreement with me."
If I have a co-worker who is screwing up, I don't blast an email to the whole company describing the situation in enough detail to identify the person, but avoiding naming names. I go through proper channels, which for FRC as was stated partially in the OP and re-iterated in another post is the question box, the VC, and the regional director, and then HQ (though I hope very little would rise to that level)
Perhaps FIRST should formalize a referee 'complaint' system that codifies this. Head Ref would still have final say on the field, but the complaint system would help sort out the more qualified refs for advancement to head ref positions and DCMP and CMP roles. Unfortunately, it is likely such a system will have its own disadvantages.
The biggest unintended (and mostly hidden) consequence of these public airings (and I have personal knowledge of this occurring) is that many people who would otherwise volunteer to be a ref don't even start, and others who have ref'd stop doing so, especially at DCMP and CMP events where the stakes are greater.