Judgment Day

 

US Squash has followed the rest of the world in trying to improve its referees. Are they actually getting worse?

 

“Kill the referee!”

Okay, no one actually said these words, but the sentiment was voiced during a number of the professional matches at this year’s US Nationals. At first, this doesn’t seem odd, for as long as there have been sports that have needed some kind of officiating, cries like this (and far, far worse) have been common, but it seems strange that it has become increasingly common in US squash over the past few years.

               One of the primary reasons that a rise in refereeing complaints is surprising is that great efforts have been made both nationally and internationally to enhance the quality of referees. In the United States, for example, the efforts of Rod Symington have led to a far greater knowledge of the rules by a broader cross-section of participants. Why then, has the quality of refereeing deteriorated and why was it particularly bad at this year’s Nationals?

               Interestingly, one of the reasons for these problems may lie in the introduction of a certification system. Whenever a certification process is initially introduced to any existing group, a number of things happen. First, there is resistance from the established experts (“Why should I have to get certified? I’ve been doing this for the last twenty years?”). Second, there is an enthusiastic group of wannabes who embrace the opportunity to get certified so that they can join a group for which they might not otherwise have qualified. Finally, those who get certified often develop a false sense of security that sometimes manifests itself as arrogance.

               Though these are standard initial problems that occur with any certification process, they seem to hold true for US squash today, with the end result that many (if not most) of the best US referees aren’t the ones doing the actual refereeing. Instead, there is often a group of – admittedly dedicated and enthusiastic – referees who aren’t much good.

But this is a problem that time will eventually sort out – as long as those who are refereeing are interested in getting better. One of the most troubling things heard at Nationals was when one of these knowledgeable but less competent referees was asked how he thought he might answer his refereeing critics. He replied, “Anyone who doesn’t think I’m a good referee doesn’t know the rules.”

By responding that way, he unwittingly pointed out the two most significant problems faced by individual US squash referees: an unreasonable focus on the rules and a big ego.

               Some of today’s referees have become “rules nerds.” That is, they are so focused on the minutiae of the rules that they have forgotten that the essence of being a referee is to facilitate play and fairness and not to show off arcane knowledge. If you often find yourself saying, “but the rule clearly states…” you may be a rules nerd. Be careful. There are some rules nerds who are good referees, but not many.

               The ego problem is subtler. One of the best ways to tell if a match was well refereed was how much you noticed the referee (the less the better). But because some of those who have become the more serious referees have invested much of their selves in refereeing, they want to be recognized for their efforts. As a result, they may unconsciously delay a call for a few seconds to allow the crowd to focus on them. Since speed of decision-making is perhaps the most important aspect of top refereeing, this makes them poor facilitators of play. (This may be why players – who get ego recognition from playing – are usually better than average referees.)

               Part of the refereeing problem, of course, is that many of the calls are subjective. We want lets and strokes to be clearly delineated, but they aren’t, and thus there will always be differences of opinion about the quality of refereeing. Nevertheless, we need to continue to impose some standards on our referees, and we need to encourage them to take the same long looks in the mirror that we as players do every time we lose.

 

How to Improve Refereeing

1.     Adopt tennis’s Head Tournament Referee system

At all major tennis tournaments around the world, there is a Head Tournament Referee who oversees the refereeing for the tournament. His role is to assign matches, make sure that courts are covered, evaluate referees throughout the event, and be the final arbiter of major penalties or strange situations. One thing the Head Referee does not do is referee. This would provide a role for the “rules nerds” and allow players who are acting as referees to have back up for the strange situations (like defaults, injury time-outs, etc.) that sometimes arise.

 

2.    Have matches refereed by players (or former players) at the same level or better

One of the consistent places where referees seem inadequate is in refereeing players who are playing at a level that the referee has never approached. It might be different if there was an opportunity for referees to get the almost daily exposure to the game at a high level that occurs in other professional sports, but in squash, the people most likely to be exposed to the game at their level are the players themselves. For this reason, it is paramount that referees not referee above the highest level at which they have played.

 

3.    Provide incentives for players to referee

The pros have gotten used to refereeing themselves, so they don’t need a whole lot of incentives to referee each other (in fact, they prefer it to the referee enthusiasts). Nevertheless, it can be very hard to get players to referee the match after their own. Tom Rumpler sometimes charges an extra $5 in the entry fees for the tournaments he runs and returns the five-spot back to you once you referee a match. Good idea.

 

4.    Use effective refereeing protocol

There are three effective refereeing protocols that have been proven over time: a single referee (who makes all calls and keeps score), a referee and marker system (where the marker keeps score and calls out and not-up calls and the referee makes let and stroke calls), and a referee with two judges (where the referee makes all calls but can be overruled by the consensus of both judges). The last is the best with a referee who knows how to manage it quickly and effectively, but all work well. The system used at Nationals (a referee with an appeal referee) is senseless, for it causes complete confusion and totally disempowers the original referee. This was used during the crucial Marty Clark vs. Grantley Pinnington semi-final, and the match was impeded by the refereeing.

 

5.    Establish a formal review process

The review process should be a simple post-match scoring of referees by the officials involved, both players and the Head Tournament Referee. The factors it should take into account include speed of decisions, consistency and role as facilitator. Over the long run, these abilities are more important than detailed knowledge of rules.