Advice for National Series refs

The following is included in the LHBPA rules (thanks Jono!), but I thought it might be worth posting these seperately:

**Referee Guidelines
**Attend the referee meeting of the tournament you're attending to ensure you understand the rules and can ask any questions before reffing your first game.

Starting out:

1. Source goal refs (make sure they know how to call a goal) and make sure the goals are the correct size.
   
2. Equipment check of all players (bar ends, mallets plugs, etc), no excuses accepted or exceptions allowed.
   
3. Give the players a mini summary of your understanding of the rules above.
   
4. Make an impression, tell the players your style of reffing and ask for any questions from them pre-game.
   
5. Check who's charging (left on right charging is not allowed).
   
6. Start the game (be ready to call a "false start" if necessary).
   
   

**Dos and Don'ts:
**• Do be impartial and consistent, this ensures a fair game.
• Do be vocal (keep telling the players what you're seeing, issue warning, whatever suits your style).
• Do be attentive (it's crucial you have your full attention on the game at all times).
• Do say what you see (don't be swayed by anyone and don't call something that you didn't see).
• Do give a reason for what you're calling ("illegal bike on bike", "t-bone", "pushing", etc).
• Do give a reason for not calling anything ("that's ok", "incidental contact", "like-for-like", etc).
• Don't stop the game on crashes unless a foul was committed (polo is a contact sport, aggression/crashes is part of the game).
• Don't forget to play "advantage" after fouls if necessary (don't penalise the innocent team if they're on a break).
• Don't engage in conversation with any players, tell them you'll "discuss it afterwards" or similar, (penalise the player if they keep giving you backchat).
• Don't just call foot downs, or crashes (for example: a hand grabbing another player's bar is an instant strong foul regardless of anyone crashing).
• Don't be afraid to use "strong foul" calls (sin bin offenses) and call incidents/fouls first time, don't allow each player one "first offense".
• Don't use your whistle for anything except to stop the game (to issue ball turnovers, sin bin offenses and call time-outs, etc), be vocal and animated instead.

**General thoughts:
**• Know the rules inside and out, ask questions of others if you think of a situation you wouldn't know how to call (pre-game).
• Try to think of the players as either "playing the ball" (regardless of possession, you're still either involved in a play or not, for example: being ready to intercept a pass/break) or as "playing the
player" (for example: not looking at the ball/play and trying to force foot downs), if someone is "playing the ball" then it's likely there will be more incidental incidents, if they're "playing the
player" then it's likely there will be more malicious incidents (fouls).
• Make your call and stick to it, don't be swayed.
• Try to think of fouls as either "weak fouls" (no need to stop the game, tap out offenses) and "strong fouls" (play advantage, then stop the game and issue a sin bin or a ball turnover).
• Players with possession should be given the benefit of the doubt if your unsure of the call. A classic example of this is when a defending player brakes and an attacker runs into their back wheel
and crashes. Obviously if the attacker is not looking up (knowing where they're going) then they are at fault, otherwise it's likely that the defender is at fault.
• Not all refs will make the same calls, this is fine. Ensure that you make consistent calls and you'll be a good ref.

• Don't stop the game on crashes unless a foul was committed (polo is a contact sport, aggression/crashes is part of the game).
• Don't forget to play "advantage" after fouls if necessary (don't penalise the innocent team if they're on a break).

• Don't just call foot downs, or crashes (for example: a hand grabbing another player's bar is an instant strong foul regardless of anyone crashing).
• Don't be afraid to use "strong foul" calls (sin bin offenses) and call incidents/fouls first time, don't allow each player one "first offense".
• Make your call and stick to it, don't be swayed.
• Try to think of fouls as either "weak fouls" (no need to stop the game, tap out offenses) and "strong fouls" (play advantage, then stop the game and issue a sin bin or a ball turnover).
• Not all refs will make the same calls, this is fine. Ensure that you make consistent calls and you'll be a good ref.

ok, so I hope this is the right place to put this, even though the incidents werent in the NS. Its a bit of an essay but these things arent the simplest to explain

Ive been trying to do as much reffing as possible (ie not being goal ref) recently cause I want to improve that understanding of the game.

There were two games at the BFF that I am still not sure whether I made the right calls.

1: A) TWATs vs ?? There were two occasions where there was some hacking going on. However, from where I was standing, it was hard to see who's mallet was whos as there were at least three players around the ball/in the close area. Being in doubt as to who it was i let the game go on despite (fair enough) protestations from Lockett. I also felt it was ok because his side came away with the ball so the victims still had some kind of advantage. I didnt feel it warranted a 30 second sin bin, but thinking about it after the event, maybe I should have played advantage, then offered a turnover if it didnt materialise and issue the other team a general warning about hacking....?

B) Same game, same players, same issue. 45 seconds to go Lockett had the ball and was attacking for an equalising goal. he got hacked badly which put him off his attack but he still kept the ball. I again let play go on because it was close to the end and they still had a (reduced) advantage. Should I have binned the guy, stopping play or made him tapout (the incident was right next to the tapout point)? A ball turnover was a moot point as they still had the ball, just not in such a good situation....

1. Spring Break v Netto.
   A really fast, rough, physical game. Mirek and Ali began a running battle almost from the whistle, on and off the ball, really borderline stuff. Again I let play go on because both players were equally as culpable. I gave Mirek a verbal warning, and he then continued the rough play but I felt that on balance, to haul him off for a 30 second would have been inconsistent and unfair to Netto, as Ali was playing equally as rough (All players were playing some tough stuff but these two especially). At the time I took the line that polo is a contact sport and as both sides were rough/borderline dirty, but equally involved and 'getting on with it', referee interference could be a negative thing.
   
   

If I was reffing this again, I think I would have done things differently. As soon as I saw that there was a personal battle going on, I should have called a timeout at an appropriate break in the game and called Ali and Mirek over and warned them that anything else of the 'borderline' play would be an instant bin, to keep the game safe. Hopefully that would have nipped things in the bud. Or was it right to allow things to flow?...

We all want to play beautiful polo but sometimes getting physical can be an effective way to even the odds abit. I felt that Netto were looking to be physical to counter the fast plays of Spring Break and in doing that it was almost very effective (3-2 to SB). If I had asked them to stop such physicality or otherwise get binned, then would that have been removing a legitimate (but ugly) tactic from them?

constructive comments appreciated

It can sometimes be a mistake not to stop the play if you think things could escalate, because they often will escalate. On the other hand, sometimes stopping the play makes no difference, and the foul-play escalates anyway. In which case, having stopped the play, you are then well placed to start dishing out penalties.

1 A) You can't call what you can't see, so issue warnings "no hacking" and penalise someone if you see it again. Andy's "protestations" should be disregarded completely or (at the very least) taken with a pale of salt. The idea that there is a "victim" if you haven't seen anything and are just going on complaints is bad reffing, but if you felt that a team were deserving (with the winging removed) then playing advantage followed by a ball turnover sounds correct to me.

1 B) Tricky call. It's hard to tell if an attack has ever truly been hindered or assisted by the events in a game until the ball does/doesn't go in. Instead, try to imagine that as the ref you should maintain the status quo and restore order/advantage (if a foul occurs). If Andy still had the attack then play advantage, but if the attack failed then issue the ball turnover and consider the "incident" paid back to Andy by given him possession of the ball again. If the foul was bad or stopped an "easy" route to goal (a last man situation, etc) then take the player off and allow a power play (enforce a 2 minute penalty if you truly believe the player cheated the other team out of a goal).

2) I hated this game, mainly because I was enjoying a non-physical day and it came as a bit of a surprise. If two players enjoy a rough game then so be it, but if things start getting out of hand then take control by being very verbal, or by stopping the game (when neutral) and asking everyone to calm down, or if you've had enough and it's getting stupid/dangerous, then remove the offending players (if it's obvious) and allowing the game to continue 2v2, or simply remove the next person that fouls for 30 seconds and repeat as necessary. (Some games are physical and clean, others are physical and dangerous, others are physical and malicious, don't just see a physical game as a reason to make calls... look for t-bones, blindside checks, elbows, slow bones, etc.)

oh and also, lets try and have stopwatches and whistles for refs at every tournament. Fuck using your phone to time it cause in that quite intense SB v Netto game someone called me just as people were asking for how long left which caused instant confusion on my part :P

Can it be made a little more official that refs call time at certain points through a game and in a specific way, rather than whenever the big hand gets to the top. I got really confused during the twats v mmm game, ref called "1 minute 30" with nothing additional to back it up, I genuinely thought we had 1.30 left on our game (not 8.30 left as it should've been). Ref then called "2 minutes 30". That was confusing and threw me off, as well as seeing all the hacking not getting called. To be fair to ref, it was dark and the other side of court, but still.

How about, Ref only calls the time when asked by players, plus at, say, 5 minutes left, 2 minutes left, 30 second etc... and keep it "X minutes/seconds remain/left/to go" (not; gone/you've had/played so far etc) with no ambiguity.

Plus, what about giving goal refs some chance at helping ref catch fouls; shares the load and keeps the goal refs from nodding off..?

ben, i realise it was you reffing, no hard feelings, just got a bit confused is all. i know how it feels to be ref being called out by players on stuff that you haven't seen properly on the court.

It can sometimes be a mistake not to stop the play if you think things could escalate, because they often will escalate. On the other hand, sometimes stopping the play makes no difference, and the foul-play escalates anyway. In which case, having stopped the play, you are then well placed to start dishing out penalties.

yep, stopping the game can only be helpful. I will try and use that a bit more (obviously not unless things look like escalating)

2) I hated this game, mainly because I was enjoying a non-physical day and it came as a bit of a surprise. If two players enjoy a rough game then so be it, but if things start getting out of hand then take control by being very verbal, or by stopping the game (when neutral) and asking everyone to calm down, or if you've had enough and it's getting stupid/dangerous, then remove the offending players (if it's obvious) and allowing the game to continue 2v2, or simply remove the next person that fouls for 30 seconds and repeat as necessary. (Some games are physical and clean, others are physical and dangerous, others are physical and malicious, don't just see a physical game as a reason to make calls... look for t-bones, blindside checks, elbows, slow bones, etc.)

The lines can be pretty hard to define, while I like the idea of only looking for specific fouls, if the intensity levels get a bit too crazy it can be hard not to look at things in the context of the game. I suppose Bill's comment covers that though

Plus, what about giving goal refs some chance at helping ref catch fouls; shares the load and keeps the goal refs from nodding off..?

really like this idea, the goal refs can often see stuff thats far from obvious from the other side of the court. Advice can be given but the final decision stays with the main ref, just like in football...

ben, i realise it was you reffing, no hard feelings, just got a bit confused is all. i know how it feels to be ref being called out by players on stuff that you haven't seen properly on the court.

no worries at all dude, i asked for constructive criticism

The problem with calling time as a ref is you may be intently watching the game when that specific marker is coming around. I tend to do: 5 minutes, 3 minutes, 1 minute, 30 seconds, 10 seconds and call the time after a goal is scored... sometimes I call 4 minutes, 2 minutes, 1 minute, etc if I missed the 5 minute marker (or similar).

Also: Try to call the time and the current score at the markers and try to do it when the game is "neutral", don't put someone off their shot, etc!

Yesterday when I was timekeeping for a ten minute game while Mark was reffing, I'd call out

• time passed by when a goal was scored (up to five minutes of play),
  
• time remaining when a goal was scored (after five minutes of play)
  
• five minutes left
  
• four minutes left
  
• three
  
• two
  
• ninety seconds
  
• sixty seconds
  
• thirty seconds
  
• twenty
  
• ten
  
• and five to zero
  
  

Anything I'm missing there?
Maybe something like that could be standard, rather than calling it out every time players or spectators are asking, which might distract the ref if he / she is on their own?

Yeah that's good. I've timed games in the past while i've been goal reffing, which helps main ref out a lot and keeps their eye on the game more so. I struggle to juggle the score sheet, timer, pencil, electric cigarette and beer when I ref.

Talking of how the goal refs can help, wouldn't it make sense for one of the goal refs to be the timekeeper? Why does the ref need to be doing it?

If you are stopping time, it makes it trickier.

The scheduler stopped/started time and allocated goals on the ref's whistle in Konstanz (digital scoreboard), it worked very well.

By the way the subject should be 'every teamthat might win a game in the national series needs to read this thread' if winning teams reffing is now the norm?

By the way the subject should be 'every teamthat might win a game in the national series needs to read this thread' if winning teams reffing is now the norm?

Absolutely agree.

By the way the subject should be 'every team that might play a game in the national series needs to read this thread'...

...as losers ref the next game in the losers' bracket.

Yesterday when I was timekeeping for a ten minute game while Mark was reffing, I'd call out

• time passed by when a goal was scored (up to five minutes of play),
  
• time remaining when a goal was scored (after five minutes of play)
  
• five minutes left
  
• four minutes left
  
• three
  
• two
  
• ninety seconds
  
• sixty seconds
  
• thirty seconds
  
• twenty
  
• ten
  
• and five to zero
  
  

Anything I'm missing there?
Maybe something like that could be standard, rather than calling it out every time players or spectators are asking, which might distract the ref if he / she is on their own?

This is fine if there is a dedicated time-keeper, but a solo ref really should not be taking his or her eyes off the play to look at the stop watch until the last minute or so of the game. Players, play to the whistle! Refs, keep your eyes on the play, and only look at the stop-watch when it's convenient for you to do so, not at the request of the crowd and/or players.

I would much rather see refs allow a little too much time, than see a ref taking their eyes off the play at crucial moments.

Yeah I don't think calling time that often is useful.

5, 2, 1minutes and ten second count down is enough, isn't it? Also that removes any confusion about which way you are counting.

Yeah I don't think calling time that often is useful.

5, 2, 1minutes and ten second count down is enough, isn't it? Also that removes any confusion about which way you are counting.

My personal problem with this is that if I am using a stopwatch counting up, as opposed to a timer counting down, I find it a genuine effort to do the subtraction, so that I can shout 2 mins left etc.

2 minutes,
1 minute 59,
1 minute 58,
1 minute 57,