Anon...great post.....yes dont criticise Grannville for not kicking a team out cause u wernt there....dont pick on a team cause they have had 3 fights in a row.....guys its not about what do u do.....firstly its about GDSFA, then its about teh others.....but yes you probably wouldnt want us on teh board,....we speak common sense
Post by originaltiger on Jul 14, 2012 7:56:08 GMT 10
Shagger, How luckY are you, come this November is the GDSFA AGM for the election of a few positions on the BOD. All you have to do is complete a nomination/ resume and have 2 clubs to support your nomination and then forward your nomination/ resume to the Association office no later than 21 days before the fixed date of the GDSFA AGM.
Keep dragging it out...You cant comment unless you go on the board....please thats getting boring. The skipper of the ship needs a rocket tiger...then u might get a board that is functional. Whilst the "paid" front office is a rabble...guess what...so is everything else.. But thanks for the tip on the AGM....see you there
I for one am sick of the board and refs saying if you dont like it, put up your hand... let me make a few things abundantly clear...
1. The Granville Board will always be run by the same groups, and their affiliates. If a new comer was to attend a AGM and put his hand up for a position the outcome is predictable, they would not get voted in.
2. Dont criticise a ref until you are one or become one - a) I attended a ref's course last year late, only to be told that because of this i couldn't complete the course - despite 20+ years of football, and my willingness to pay for the test, if i failed, great, i dont ref, but nope, couldnt do it b) As a senior we are always refereeing. There is a lack of refs (as above for example) so we VOLUNTEER to do it. We know what it takes, and what it is like.
Stop passing the buck and pointing fingers - how about some accountability - accountability for management, outcomes, and most of all poor decisions by paid officials.
The ref is the only paid position i can think of that does not get reprimanded for poor performance... if they did the quality would rise, there would be less complaints, and the flow on would be more refs - lets think a little more strategic and proactive rather than reactive!
If you want quality in refereeing, then having a whole bunch of people that can do it, simply because they can pass the laws of the game theory test, this will not result in the raising of the quality. It will lead to quantity. The two strategies are generally, mutually exclusive.
If you focus on quantity, having anyone who can pass the test do it, then you cover the matches at the expense of the complaints, the poor decisions being let through as well for example.
If you focus on quality, then it is those that are rejected that enable a focus on those that not only can get through the course, but they also go through the materials and devote some time to it.
Therefore, I would believe that you not getting in, this results in higher quality of refereeing. It is often quoted that everyone enjoys a black and white when they get one, indicating that there is a fairly decent quality level running around.
The first thing that hits you when you start refereeing, especially for the olders ones, is that you go from watching just one match a week, that you thought you might cover if there was no referee available, to now being involved in the sport a whole lot more because you generally, cover 2 matches at least. So, the referees day becomes twice as long as what they used to do.
The answer from my experience is that there is too much quantity in the competitions. For example, some of the more senior teams in my experience, their competitions should not exist as they do.
A chat I had with someone recently for example was that certain o35 matches, they should be on Friday night so that these people are available for Saturday.
That, is some strategic thinking for future.
As for referee performamce, yes, when it comes to the higher levels there is a movement up and down, however, the current reality is that with 20% of matches or so not being covered each week, this results in every level of referee having a level to be involved with pretty much.