[Anne Shade]

There have been attempts to improve refereeing made this year. I agree that the online training and "certification" process was the start of a good idea. At the very least, it forces the referees to look at the rules before they show up to the competition. This should help the head referees come competition. BUt how does it help if the referees are allowed to retake the test 53 times before they pass? At one point, you'll end up guessing the right answers with still no understanding of the rules.

To continue the list of improvements to the refereeing:

1. Limit the number of times the referees are allowed to take the test before they fail (I think this may have already been done but want to make sure it's mentioned in case it has not).

2. Provide for a method of evaluating the referees, specifically the head referees. Training is only half of the equation. Training provides the knowledge but is it being applied correctly? Referees in all professional sports are evaluated by their organization after all games. If too many mistakes are made, they are re-trained or released. Where is the evaluation for FIRST referees? How do we know that the training received was effective if their is no evaluation of performance? Some people are just not cut out for the job but we have no way to determine that until something goes grossly wrong.

3. This has been said already but to reiterate, provide hands on, face-to-face training for all the head referees in FIRST. It should be no different than what FIRST does with FTAs...

4. Give Aidan some help during the game design process for development of the referee process and during the regionals to evaluate performance of the other head referees. Maybe the Championship head refs should be determined at the Championship the prior year so they can form a referee committee to help Aidan? It is way too big of a job for one person.