|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
A Note from the Chairman of the Judge-Referee Committee, Kris Grudt
As a Judge-Referee, each of us is seen as an authority figure. Athletes, coaches and the general public look towards us to play the role of an unbiased facilitator and decision-maker, a champion of good over evil. We are at our best when they hardly know we are there. But when something interferes with the athlete's fair chance of winning, they expect an unbiased adjudicator. In this, as in all our roles, we need to be very conscious not only of the need to act impartially, but also to have an awareness of the perception of favoritism in our actions.
Although a strict code of ethics has never been adopted for Judge-Referees, there are several guidelines that govern our conduct. The first is the basic role of the Judge-Referee as found in Rule 2-101 Primary Duties of Officials (*):
(b) …. it is the duty of all race officials to ensure that all crews have a fair and equal opportunity of winning or placing. Where a crew has been affected by unfair advantage or disadvantage, whether due to another crew or outside circumstances, it is the responsibility of race officials to restore racing conditions.
A number of us have become Judge-Referees through the involvement of family (spouse, child, parent) in the sport. This fact may sometimes challenge the need to maintain a professional, non-biased image. It is with this in mind that the Judge-Referee Committee adopted the following statement as a part of the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP) about six years ago:
The presence of a crew from an USRowing official's own rowing club does not automatically disqualify a USRowing official from officiating in a race, but the official should use good judgment in avoiding the appearance of partiality in cases where he or she is particularly identified with competitors in a crew (such as being a coach of the crew). USRowing officials should not be put in positions where they must exercise judgment involving crews in which close family members are participating.
While these two guidelines do not cover the whole range of possibilities for potential conflicts of interest, they do give us a starting point. It is important for us, as officials, to avoid situations where we may be identified as being biased; we need to be sensitive to others' perception of our biases as well. Chief Referees, and officials especially, should take potential conflicts of interest into account when making and accepting assignments. Discretion is often the better part of valor. It may be better to come forward and step aside and allow someone else to follow your family member's race to avoid any possible acrimony later.
Many of us wear more than one hat in this community, even on race day. Although we may clearly understand the role we are speaking from on a particular issue, others see only our blazer and white hat and assume that what we are saying is an "Official" position, rather than a personal or LOC position. It is important that we be aware of the perception that, because we wear the white hat, people think that everything we say or do is 'Official.'
Finally, it is also important to realize that we cannot please all of the people all of the time, and we cannot always avoid the perceptions that others may harbor. However, if we come across as officials, not officious, and approachable, but not approaching, we will come a long way towards projecting an image of an unbiased facilitator and decision- maker. I have found that the best course of action when confronted with an upset competitor is to take a breath and ask them what they feel was wrong and what their desired outcome would be. I try to do this even when I know the rules do not support their claim. This step sets a positive tone and demonstrates openness and unbiased behavior. The results can be amazing: "I know you can't really do anything but I just wanted to be heard." The image that is left is one of Referees being for the athletes, rather than adversaries to the athletes.
The Judge-Referee Recertification Exam
Two of the basic tenets that guided the decision in 1995 to revise the rank structure of the corps of USRowing Judge-Referee were to provide an adequate number of trained officials capable of meeting the demands being placed by the growth in our sport, while also providing consistent and competent officiating throughout the country. The goals of restructuring were to provide more systematic training for new officials, and a more structured system to ensure that fully licensed officials maintain a competent level of proficiency in the Rules of Rowing and their application. Implementation of this second goal has been centered upon the provision of increased training opportunities, and development of a periodic examination of officials to ensure that they are maintaining a basic level of proficiency in their knowledge and application of the Rules.
With the exception of those who just passed the plenary exam for promotion this year, all fully licensed Judge Referees were send the first of these recertification exams this past month. The purpose of this exam is not to weed out officials who incorrectly answer the questions, but rather to provide a learning opportunity and motivation to again read carefully through the Rules. Licenses will not revoked as a result of a low score, although those individuals will be asked to review the questions they missed with either their regional representative or with a clinician.
To develop this exam, each member of the Judge-Referee Committee took the examination in its original 37 question format. Based upon input from each committee member many of the questions were rewritten, with some being eliminated so that the final exam totaled 25 questions. The intent is for each Judge-Referee to individually complete the exam as an open-Rulebook exercise.
Please note that the due date for returning the completed exam was November 10! If you have forgotten to do so, please return yours today, as failure to return the completed exam will result in revocation of your Judge-Referee license!
We Want You for the Elections, by Kris Grudt
2000 is an election year. No, not the Presidential election, but the USRowing elections. Every two years in January, all of the USRowing elected positions come up for a vote, including the six regional representatives on the Judge-Referee Committee.
Beginning in 1998, in addition to each organization in USRowing being allowed one vote to determine their regional representative to the Judge-Referee Committee, each licensed official may also cast one vote. In the numbers game, the number of organizations in each region is about equal to the number of licensed officials. However, in the last election only about 20% of the organizations voted, compared to over 30% of the licensed officials. Obviously, we would like to see more organizations, as well as more individual officials, voting in the upcoming election.
In the past, the three additional at-large members who also sit on the Committee have been selected by the out-going Committee during its December meeting preceding the election. These at-large members may be selected either from sitting members of the Committee, or from new people outside of the Committee. The Judge-Referee Committee will address the selection of the at-large members during its meeting in Philadelphia in December.
This article is more than a request for you to vote. It is a call for you to consider getting involved by running for either a regional representative or an at-large position. The first step is to contact USRowing headquarters in Indianapolis for an application form. If you are interested in an at-large position, this form must be returned to Indianapolis prior to the Convention, which begins on December 10. The only requirements are that you have a full Judge-Referee license and are a member of USRowing.
Serving as a member of the Judge-Referee Committee requires a commitment of both finances and time. Committee members are usually reimbursed for their transportation to the two or three annual meetings, but they are personally responsible for room and board expenses during the meetings (these expenses are tax deductible). There is also a definite commitment in time beyond just the meetings, to accomplish the goals and tasks that are established by the Committee. However, the potential for personal growth by serving on the Committee is immense. Talk to any present or past Committee member and they will tell you that the time spent on the Committee has been a time of learning about officiating and the sport of rowing through out the country. An experience that they treasure.
Decisions made by the Judge-Referee Committee affects all of us. So, whether you decide to run for a position or not, I encourage each of you to get involved and vote next January for the person who will represent you and your region. In the last election, the winner in two regions was decided by only one vote, so each individual vote really does count! For those of you who would like more information on the Committee, please contact a Committee member.
Working at the National Championships, for the First Time; by John White
(editor's note: We asked if one of the first-time referees who worked last June at the USRowing National Championships on the Eagle Creek racecourse in Indianapolis would be willing to write about their impressions of one of the "Big Shows". John White, from Arlington, VA agreed to help us out. What follows is his personal account.)
My first USRowing National Championships proved to be every bit the experience I had anticipated. Many of the things at the national level could be expected, but were still a bit of a revelation when compared to local regattas. For example, the physical set-up at the start: split-screen video for the Judge-at-Start (in an air conditioned booth, no less!), a well-marked and precise starting line with adjustable stakeboat platforms, a stakeboat holder supervisor (who had a headset listening to the silent alignment) that took immediate action on adjustments, rotations, and any emergent requirement. It all made for a very professional operation. And the support was superb – launches had experienced drivers, all equipment operated, spares were on hand, nothing had been overlooked.
Overall, the regatta was comfortingly routine, that is, it was no differently conducted than in my home region. Preparations, briefings, assignments, marshaling, starts, finish line, following races – all were similar to that practiced at our local regattas. The expectations, however, were high, very high. You knew that your conduct and demeanor were being watched, and any error by an official would not go unnoticed. The adrenaline level remained elevated.
The most lasting impression, though, was made through meeting and working with referees from all over the U.S. You cannot help but learn and gain more insight to being a better referee than from the variety of experience represented at a national event. There was, too, the pleasure of renewing some old, and making new, friendships in an atmosphere of shared professional goals.
The Big Shows! by Roxanne Everetts and Kris Grudt
All athletes love to compete, and none more so than rowers. While every regatta is another opportunity for success, there are some that are truly special, which most rowers (and their coaches!) look forward to every year. The three USRowing National regattas; USRowing Nationals, US Club Nationals, and US Masters Nationals, are three such regattas. Athletes train all year in anticipation of these events. Referees look forward to these events as well—both for the opportunity to see excellent rowing, and to renew old acquaintances and make new ones.
Elsewhere in this newsletter is a personal commentary on what makes attending a USRowing national regatta special. The purpose of this article is to discuss the process that governs how referees for each of the three USRowing national championship regattas are selected. The selection process involves two significant inputs. Early in the year, the Judge-Referee Committee asks every licensed referee to indicate their interest in working at one of the national regattas. These responses are received and combined with the results of an annual regional evaluation to determine who is offered the regional positions for each regatta.
A typical National Championship needs a team of about 15 referees to run efficiently. To ensure that these referee teams reflect a broad, national representation, the Judge-Referee Committee set the goal that 12 of the assigned positions be filled by two referees from each of the six regions of the country. These selections are made based upon a rank order determined by regional panels of evaluators, who are appointed each December by the regional representatives to the Committee. Each panelist answers two questions about each referee in their region. First, is the evaluator personally familiar with the individual's performance as a referee? Second, for each individual with whom the evaluator is familiar, has that person developed sufficient skills to work at a national regatta? Each evaluator is then asked to assign a rank order to those referees they have identified as capable of working at a national regatta by distributing 100 "quality points" among those individuals. The only restrictions are that they may not assign more than 25 points to any one person, and they may not assign more than a total of 100 points. These scores are submitted directly to the Judge-Referee Committee in February. The Committee tallies these scores in a spreadsheet by region, and sorts them based upon the total quality points assigned by each of the three evaluators. The selections are then just a matter of reading the intersection of the two data sets: the two highest ranked referees in each region who indicated USRowing Nationals as their first choice are offered one of the positions for their region for USRowing Nationals. If either decline, the offer is made to the next highest ranked referee who indicated USRowing Nationals as their first choice. Then the two highest ranked referees in each region who indicated USRowing Club Nationals as their first choice are offered one of the positions for their region. Finally, the two highest ranked referees in each region who indicated USRowing Masters Nationals as their first choice are offered one of the positions for their region.
For each of the national championship regattas, the names of the referees chosen through the above process are forwarded to the Chief Referee, along with the list of the remaining individuals who indicated a preference for that particular event. The Chief Referee, in consultation with USRowing and the local organizing committee, evaluates the regatta length, prospective weather conditions, site location, geographic representation, and budget, to determine the number of additional referees to be invited. The Chief Referee then uses the list received from the Judge-Referee Committee to select the remainder of the referee team for the regatta.
Each year, we hear comments from our fellow referees that include: "they always pick the same people" or "they'll never pick me!" The ranking process ensures that every referee within each region receives consideration, but invitations are only issued to those people who indicate an interest in working at a particular national regatta. The bottom line is: if you don't mail in a response, we assume that you are not interested! Another comment we receive is: "It's January, I can't possibly commit to working a regatta in July! That's too far away." You aren't being asked to commit in January, you are being asked only to indicate an interest. The referees offered the regional positions will not be asked for a commitment until late March or April. You can always say no at that time; nothing horrible is going to happen to you if you have to decline an invitation. But you won't have that opportunity if you don't send in the response card in the first place.
Last year 112 response cards were received, that's less than a 31 per cent response rate. Let's try and raise the bar on that figure this year! Please show as much of an interest in working at our national regattas as our athletes show in rowing at them!
Who are you gonna call if you got a question?
Within each region a certain number of experienced Judge-Referees have been designated as "Clinicians" by the Judge-Referee Committee. In addition to being experienced referees, these individuals share a very important common characteristic: they are personally willing to share their experience with others. "Experience" can be viewed in two ways. First is longevity. The typical Clinician has been active as a licensed referee for an average of 15 years. Second is breadth of service. Most Clinicians have "seen it all" at least once, and sometimes more often. Their service spans regattas at all the different levels of competition, usually spread out across more than one geographic region within the country.
Designation as a Clinician carries with it an expectation of service. As the title implies, Clinicians are the people who serve as instructors in formally scheduled clinics and workshops for referee training and development. But in a much broader sense, Clinicians also serve as mentors to all of the referees within their region.
For the newly licensed Assistant Referee, every regatta presents a new set of questions and problems to consider: "Did I make the right decision when I flagged that crew that went off course in the women's 4+ race?" "Was my launch correctly positioned in the last 750 meters of a heat for the varsity 8+ when the crews in lanes 2 and 3 pulled out to a three-length lead over the rest of the crews?" Oftentimes, we all find ourselves thinking about things like this hours after the regatta is over, and everyone has already dispersed. How can one resolve these questions? Wait until the next clinic? No! At the very least, seek out one of the Clinicians at the next regatta and make it a point to ask them about what has been on your mind! Take advantage of their experience and their willingness to share with others. If your question is really pressing and you are concerned that the situation might occur at the very next regatta, call one of the Clinicians on the phone. Its OK!
Whether you are an Assistant Referee, or have been working as a fully-licensed Judge-Referee for a number of years, situations arise that present new problems and questions to be resolved. In the end, we always learn from the collective experience and wisdom gained from one another as peers in the pursuit of common goals and standards. In the "old days" the network was small, and personal contacts between the individual referees occurred on a regular basis. Nowadays, we are more spread out as a result of the explosive growth of competitive rowing in virtually all corners of the country, and because of this risk a greater sense of isolation. The Clinicians are one of the best resources available for anyone with an unanswered question, or anyone who desires a second opinion, or seeks a reasoned critique, regarding a decision or action they made. Take advantage of them!
Listed below are the clinicians by region. Their phone number and e-mail address are listed in the Rule book.
Northeast: John Garnjost, Sandy Killen, Eugene Perry, John Quinn, Michael Richardson-Bach, and Bruce Soden.
Mid-Atlantic: Michael Bergen, James Buckalew, Ronald Chen, G. Joseph Creed, Thomas Dowd, Roxanne Everetts, William Fritz, William Howard, James Kelly, Dan Thompson, and John White.
Southeast: Jerry Burson, Sam Dempsey, John Iacovino, Tom Lotz, Sam Martin, Robert Petersen, Kay Quinn, Michael Siconolfi, Martin P. Wiener, George Wilson, and Joan Zandbergen.
Midwest: Robert Appleyard, Kevin Doyle, Peter Kay, Donovan Langford, Larry Lokuta, David Lynch, Steven Tewkesbury, Lawrence Tolle, Nikola Vajda, and Robert Walton.
Northwest: Robert Cummins, Tom Fuller, Kristopher Grudt, and Robert Willenbring.
Southwest: William Collins, Ron Hudson, Robert Scurria, Stanley Shawl, John Walker, Julian Wolf, and John Younger.
Why did you become a referee?, by Michael Richardson-Bach
While contemplating what we could do to improve recruiting, I realized we had not yet tapped the best source of ideas possible: The Corps itself. So, I sent out the question "Why did you start refereeing?" via email to approximately 220 Judge-Referees, and was amazed, gratified, and overwhelmed at the response.
35%, a huge response for a survey, responded from every region of the country, including freshly minted Assistants to emeritus Judge-Referees, non-rowers to Olympic medalists. I read some wonderful stories connecting today's corps to some of rowing's legendary figures, along with simple honest statements of commitment to rowing and the next generation of rowers. Thank you to everyone who wrote back for a truly uplifting experience.
After sorting through these responses and trying to categorize the feelings in each, here are the top reasons people gave for becoming a Judge-Referee:
Give back to rowing 36%
I was asked/drafted 33%
Support my kid's program 31%
Stay involved with rowing 19%
Saw a need and did it 14%
Best volunteer job 13%
Thought I could do better 13%
Most rowers, and rowing parents, feel they have gotten a lot from rowing. The message here is that they can give some of that back, and get even more in the process. Talk to them, tell them what Judge-Referees do for rowing, resolving issues, helping and teaching both rowers and LOCs. Then tell them what they can expect back, the sense of satisfaction after a day of smooth racing, the great people, the pleasure of being on the water, the contact with the athletes.
Ask a likely candidate to follow a race with you! A key reason we as a group started is that we were asked. Then we were hooked! Often people are just waiting to be asked, to feel that they are personally needed. Personal contact is critical. With the need for more Judge-Referees so great, we all have to be actively hands on, recruiting all the time.
Many people realize that they miss being in a boat or around a boathouse, but they don't know how to stay connected. These are a prime source of recruits. Rowing alumni newsletters are a great advertising media for former rowers. Send me an address, and I can send back to you or the newsletter a paragraph to include in the next issue to get some of those people back where they belong, with us and with rowing.
Here is just a sampling of the responses I received:
"The region had to have more referees, and it was up to rowers who cared to referee some and race some."
"Saying to myself, "self, a morning in a boat is better than an afternoon in the parking lot!""
"The nice hours, great working conditions, and excellent lunches... She literally pushed me into her boat and I received a one-day intensive clinic... At the end of the day, I was hooked."
"It looked more interesting than selling hot dogs. 16 years later it's still more interesting than selling hot dogs"
"I was looking for character material for a murder mystery. Found lots. Refereeing is a fascinating human behavior laboratory!"
"If I expect and want good officials, I feel that I have to add to the pool of good refs."
"Quite simply, I saw that regattas in the noblest of sports would suffer if more people did not volunteer their time. I was willing to give back some of my time to a sport that had meant so much to me!!"
"The experience is incredible....."
"I would like to offer to others the opportunity to enjoy the terrific high that I got when I rowed."
The Judge-Referee Committee has developed a new recruiting brochure for you to use, incorporating what we learned from this survey. Your regional rep can provide copies to you. I am collecting alumni association addresses if you care to send them, and will be sending out a recruiting blurb to them.
So, talk to your launch drivers, timers, dockmasters, parents, old or current boatmates, and tell them what they can get out of being a Judge-Referee and how they can make racing better. Then get them on the water. It is really not a tough sell. The experience sells itself-- you all know what I mean.
From the Umpire School: Handling a Protest on the Water
The Basic Skills Umpire School was held at the ARCO Olympic Training Center outside of San Diego, CA, from Oct 1-3, serving 28 students from around the country, whose experience ranged from Observer to recently promoted Judge-Referee. One of the topics of discussion was how to respond to a crew that raises a hand at the end of the race to indicate a complaint or protest, when you are the referee. Your initial response should be to listen to what the crew has to say. Given the fact that the coxswain or rower has just completed a grueling race that may have left them physically and emotionally exhausted, you must consciously approach the crew in a manner that will encourage and facilitate the needed exchange of information between the crew and yourself. Try to position your launch close to the crew to avoid the necessity of yelling. If possible, turn off the engine, especially if it belching exhaust in the direction of the crew. Identify one spokesperson who will voice the complaint, and to whom you will ask questions. This is typically either the coxswain or the stroke. Establish direct eye contact and speak in as close to a conversational tone as possible, as aides to establishing a non-confrontational mode of communication. In both appearance and tone of voice, present to the crew an approachable and neutral demeanor.
There are four key questions that you need answered by the crew: What happened? At what point in the race did the incident occur? How was the crew affected? What action is the crew asking you to take to remedy the situation? Initiate the exchange with a simple statement asking the crew what is wrong. Allow the spokesperson some time to relate their complaint (remember, the crew has never seen or learned these guidelines!). If the discourse becomes rambling and non-specific, then interject with a question such as: "What, specifically, occurred?". It should be mentioned that in the majority of cases, the referee should already be aware of what the crew's complaint will be, since the referee is the primary observer of the race. If you feel it appropriate, ask the crew whether or not what you had observed is what they are voicing a complaint over, but first allow time for them to describe what their concern is. The objective is to bring the crew to stating a specific complaint, if they do not come right out and say it themselves.
Once a particular incident has been established and the crew has stated how they were affected, it is time for you to quickly digest what the crew has said, compare the crew's statements against your own mental record of the race, and determine whether you can issue a judgement right on the spot. In your opinion, did the incident actually occur? Did the incident constitute a violation of the rules? Was the crew unfairly hindered by the incident? And, in your own opinion, was the crew's final placing in the race adversely affected? These are the questions which the referee must answer, in order to render a judgement that either accepts or denies the crew's complaint. If you agree that the crew was unfairly and adversely affected, then you should say so to the crew, followed by a statement as to how the situation will be resolved. If the resolution involves either reversing the order of placement between the offending and the aggrieved crew, or the exclusion of the offending crew from that race, then this should be announced directly to the crews who are still on the water. If it is first necessary to consult with the Chief Referee with a recommendation for resolution (e.g. advancing the aggrieved crew into lane 7 of the next race in a progression), inform the crew of that fact, and that they will be notified on shore once the resolution has been decided. At this point, you would then raise the red flag to indicate that a protest was made, followed by the white flag to indicate resolution of the protest. At the same time, you must be certain to advise the Chief Judge of the situation, and any actions you took in terms of changing the order of placement or the exclusion of a crew.
When a crew claims that they were interfered with by another crew, or that other circumstances unfairly hindered their progress in the race, the referee is the sole and final judge as to the accuracy and validity of the claim (Rule 2-604c). If your assessment is that the crew was not unfairly and adversely affected, the crew must be told. Informing a crew that you disagree with their protest will oftentimes provide the severest test of your patience and skills at maintaining a professional demeanor in front of the crews. The objective is to inform the crew of your decision without initiating debate or argument. The crew then has two options: either accept your judgement, in which case the protest is effectively withdrawn; or else indicate that they wish to appeal your judgement to the regatta jury by filing a written statement of their complaint, accompanied by a $25 deposit once they land on shore. If the crew begins to protest, that is the appropriate time to inform them of their right to appeal your decision by filing the written protest on shore. If the crew does not protest, it is your decision as to whether or not to remind them of the jury option, remembering that we don't want to encourage crews to file protests with the jury when there is no factual basis to their complaint. But the jury hearing serves as the crew's protection against incorrect or misinformed decisions made by the referee on the water, so informing the crew of their right to appeal your decision to the jury is usually the most efficient way to terminate debate or argument on the water.
It is the referee's responsibility to try to resolve the protest while still on the water. Written protests should go to the jury only for situations which the referee could not resolve on the spot (e.g. the referee was not in position to observe the incident, or is uncertain as to whether or not the crew was, in fact, adversely affected), or when the crew decides to appeal the referee's decision. However, the referee cannot unilaterally dictate to the crew that their protest has no basis and that they cannot, therefore, file the protest on shore.
The crew always has the right to appeal to the jury whatever actions the referee did or did not take, once they have initiated the process by raising their hand and informing the referee of their complaint while on the water. The one caveat is that if the dispute is simply over what did or did not take place, then the referee's factual report of the race is not subject to appeal or review by the jury. If you inform the crew that you disagree with their complaint, you should then ask if they will accept your decision without further protest. An affirmative response concludes the exchange, and you can signal with your white flag to the Chief Judge to accept the order of finish and declare the race as final. If the crew either disputes your decision, or says that they are not certain whether they are willing to accept it or not, then signal with a red flag to indicate that the results of that race should not be released to the public as final, pending a potential review by the jury if the crew turns in a written protest within the one hour time frame that the Rules allow.
A crew always has the right to question the fairness of the race they were just in. Your job as the referee is to weigh the crew's complaint against your own factual observations, and then judge whether or not the crew was unfairly compromised and should be afforded some restorative action, as defined by the Rules. Your exchange with the crew should always reach a definite conclusion, insofar as whether or not you can resolve the issue right there on the water, and then whether or not the crew wishes to appeal your decision to the regatta jury. In many instances when you have decided that the crew's protest does not merit action, you can help to convince the crew that a jury hearing would not further their complaint by stating the situation from your perspective in a matter-of-fact manner, followed with a brief explanation as to why you do not feel that you can penalize another crew so as to advance their own interests. The one rule is to never become condescending or argumentative. Responding to a protest on the water is one of the key moments in which we are dealing one on one with the crews and individual athletes, and how we manage this exchange plays a major role in determining not only the efficient and timely resolution of a protest over the fairness of the race, but also in cementing that crew's individual view of officials, in general.
Over 50 new referees in the past year!
Recruiting new members to the referee corps has been a major issue in the past few years, as more and more regattas come on line across the country. The good news is that since November, 1998, 52 people have been newly licensed as Assistant Referees. This brings the total number of licensed and emeritus rowing officials in the US to 389. By region, there were 5 new officials in the Northeast, 17 in the Mid-Atlantic, 15 in the Southeast, 4 in the Midwest, 5 in the Northwest, and 6 in the Southwest. These newest members to our corps are listed below, by region. Welcome!
Northeast: Peter Davies, Charlotte Hollings, Laura Kunkemueller, Linda Muri, Richard Branch, and Dennis Streebel.
Mid-Atlantic: David Allen, George Bangs, John M. Brownell, Eugene Barnes, Richard Caniglia, Joseph Carlson, Melanie Davis, Vincent Dougherty, William F Ernst III, Martyn Greenacre, Joseph Herrera, Kenneth Kelleher, Jr., Suzanne Kray-Idziak, Edward Lucas, Thomas Mannle, Jr., Roger Messersmith, and Christopher Wetzel.
Southeast: Patricia Bailey, Susan A Demorsky, Morris Elsen, George Fry Jr., Donna Grillo, David Hirsch, Richard D. Lewis, Beth Marten, David Markey, Faye Markey, Augie Merolle, Anthony Miller, Roger Palmer, Jorge A Salas, and Barbara Sanchez-Salazar.
Midwest: Roger Bailey, Kirsten Butler, Vojin Drenovac, and James Lamal.
Northwest: David Gudgel, Barbara Knight, Rachel LeMieux, Olivia Montgomery, and Warren Polensky.
Southwest: Christine Flowers, Ginny Knudsen, Dan Loeb, Vale McDermott, Richard Robinson, and Cathy Wooten.
In addition to these new Assistant Referees, in the past year 13 individuals were promoted from Assistant Referee to Judge-Referee: Susie Mahan and Ron O'Conner (NE); Kathleen Dameo, Victor Galick, Gayle German, and Chip Kerby (MA); Michael Chambers and Cab Stitt (SE); Roger Frederick, Kim Lozier, and Phil Mork (MW); and Karan Davies and JD Schafer (SW). Congratulations, and keep up the good work!
Editor's Note: We are publishing in this newsletter a "Call for action", asking US Judge-Referees to become involved in a project to provide development support to a Central American national rowing program, the specifics of which were established during the World Championships just completed in St. Catherines, Ontario. Jean Reilly, of Playa del Rey, California is the primary contact for this project, that was incubated by a group of Judge Referees. In St. Catherines the rowing community was informed that without broader geographic representation of the participating nations in the Olympic regatta, the sport of rowing may be either reduced or altogether dropped from future Olympic Games. While this may not be of immediate concern to the average participant in junior, collegiate, or master's level rowing within the United States, the Olympic movement provides a significant level of funding that directly supports not only national team activities, but developmental programs as well, including production of the start procedures training video just released by the Judge-Referee Committee. In addition, the capability to generate community and corporate support for the sport of rowing is greatly enhanced by the fact that rowing is a prominent Olympic sport. Since the Judge-Referee community represents a broad cross-section across all levels of skill and participation in rowing, it is both Jean and the team's belief that Judge-Referees can provide the leadership and manpower that is needed to bring the goals of this project to fruition. As you read about the Boats for Central America initiative, think about whether this is something that you might want to become involved in, and whether you might be able to provide any assistance, even if it simply a referral to another individual or organization who might provide material support.
A Call for Action: Judge Referee Leadership and Participation is Requested to Advance the Globalization of Rowing , by Jean Reilly
"Boats for Central America" (BFCA) was launched by a cross regional team of US Judge-Referees in September, 1999 upon learning that the continuance of Rowing as an Olympic sport was in question. Based on similar programs launched by Germany, France, Spain and Argentina, three foundational areas of focus were chosen – Equipment, Training and Competition. Was the US rowing community ready to look externally and embrace a globalization program? "Feelers" were sent out to coaches and programs in a few regions. The BFCA team received a positive response and actual equipment donations, thus began setting required infrastructure for the program in-motion (equipment storage, insurance, USRowing approval of the concept, tax deduction incentives, etc.).
It is now time to roll out BFCA to all regions and to make it happen. As Judge Referees, we hold a special passion for the sport. It's what makes us give so much of our time and identity to be on the water assisting athletes of all levels and categories in competition and their quest for personal/team success. We'd like to see the Judge Referees continue to play a leadership role in BFCA and ask your assistance in the following areas:
Contact the rowing community (Clubs, Universities, programs) in your immediate area regarding BFCA. Find out what equipment is not being used and what equipment is being replaced. Find out what it will take to get it donated. Let us know and we'll help you secure it. Small boats are preferable. Tax deductions are available. Let us know it's there and we'll help you get it to where it needs to be.
Offer your time, energy, and resources to refurbish donated equipment (as needed) prior to transport to Central America
Secure guest invitations to regattas in your area for Central American Crews
Provide leadership for one of the initiatives out | | | | | |