Ref numbers

[elliott70]

Are people having troubles with numbers (quantity not quality) of refs?
If yes, why?
If not, are you doing anything special to attract them?

[JSR]

Are people having troubles with numbers (quantity not quality) of refs?
If yes, why?
If not, are you doing anything special to attract them?

We are losing refs down here every year. So the pool of refs to pick from gets thinner and thinner. The refs I know who have quit (and it's only four of them so not a big sample size) have told me the following reasons:

- 1 of them said they were tired of being accosted after youth games by crazy adults
- 1 said he just didn't have time with everything else he was doing
- 2 said the ongoing mandatory refresher courses were too lengthy and involved and they were tired of them so they quit. They said they wouldn't mind a 1 hour refresher course each year to help with new rules or a few refreshers but they want two full days of their time down here. Was too much trouble and they felt they weren't learning anything and it was just a money grab.

[QuackerTracker]

Here is a good start on why. I'm sure I could find more stories but it takes a special person to get abused every night and keep coming back...


http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/278538 ... vestigated

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... --nhl.html

http://globalnews.ca/news/1766277/cultu ... refs-away/

[InigoMontoya]

In some areas the recession led to adults being happy to pick up extra games for some extra money - seemed like a lot of squirt (10U) and peewee (12U) games with 2 adults on the ice. This squeezed out opportunities for younger kids to learn and grow. 5 or 6 years later, there are fewer high school and bantam aged kids reffing.

[Mnhockeys]

In some areas the recession led to adults being happy to pick up extra games for some extra money - seemed like a lot of squirt (10U) and peewee (12U) games with 2 adults on the ice. This squeezed out opportunities for younger kids to learn and grow. 5 or 6 years later, there are fewer high school and bantam aged kids reffing.

Agreed with the observation even in the suburban areas. My older one took his time to get his level 2 certificate this year during his busy schedule of school, varsity sports and home chores. He was assigned with very few games so far, and the games are limited to squirt and u10 although his level is eligible for Bantam, U12 and U14's.

With the money and time that he put into, it might become economically less attractive in the future, who knows.

[Ref22]

In some areas the recession led to adults being happy to pick up extra games for some extra money - seemed like a lot of squirt (10U) and peewee (12U) games with 2 adults on the ice. This squeezed out opportunities for younger kids to learn and grow. 5 or 6 years later, there are fewer high school and bantam aged kids reffing.

Agreed with the observation even in the suburban areas. My older one took his time to get his level 2 certificate this year during his busy schedule of school, varsity sports and home chores. He was assigned with very few games so far, and the games are limited to squirt and u10 although his level is eligible for Bantam, U12 and U14's.

With the money and time that he put into, it might become economically less attractive in the future, who knows.

He'd probably struggle doing bantams as he is pretty inexperienced but not sure why he wouldn't be doing the other two levels except for the fact that assigners have loyalty to those who have been with the district for longer periods of time.

[goldy313]

Are people having troubles with numbers (quantity not quality) of refs?
If yes, why?
If not, are you doing anything special to attract them?

It's not just a hockey problem.
For football we have trouble filling out our high school crews every Friday night with experienced people, and that's 7 Friday's and one Wednesday per year.

The why's aren't always easy to find solutions to.
1) The economy changed and many employers aren't as flexible as they once were in giving people the time off to be involved in sports, be it as an official, coach or even as a parent.
2) Younger people just aren't as interested in being an official, most of our "rookies" are over 30. My crews average age has to be over 50 with one guy finally retiring after 3 years of us not being able to find a replacement for him.
3) With less officials we're asked to do more which leads to burnout or as in #1 problems with the employer.
4) to be fair..... some officials, coaches, parents, players, fans etc.. are just complete jerks and people wonder why they should spend their free time dealing with these people when they could just relax at home.

[SCBlueLiner]

In my 20's I spent 5 years as a hockey official doing everything from Squirt to HS. I quit in part because I started a career making good money so the money side of officiating wasn't worth it and I didn't want to spend my free time officiating anymore. Refs take a lot of BS and that was also part of the reason for quiting. As a coach now I don't get on the refs. I've been on their side and know it is a thankless job. Every coach, at some point, should put in a few seasons reffing. It would change how coaches approach the officials.

[Goose21]

It seems that we are good on the number of refs for our association. During our last home tournament I had a few out of town teams compliment us on the refs. We had different rinks with different crews and they all seemed to do a solid job. I think they appreciated having more experienced guys out there compared with some places were the refs seem only a couple of years older than the squirt players.

[JSR]

It seems that we are good on the number of refs for our association. During our last home tournament I had a few out of town teams compliment us on the refs. We had different rinks with different crews and they all seemed to do a solid job. I think they appreciated having more experienced guys out there compared with some places were the refs seem only a couple of years older than the squirt players.

The short answer is "yes" but, it certainly is situation/area dependent. I'm in my 25th year as a USA Hockey registered official and I'm also fortunate to still be working high school, Div. I & III college, and various junior leagues. I've also served two stints as the president of our local youth association as well as currently serving in other administrative positions on the playing side of the "house". In our area -- a northern Minnesota "metro" area -- there's a shortage in both the high school and the youth game. Our youth association is down approximately 40 people in the last two years while the high school group is down about 20. Between the two, we will be asked to cover approximately 2500 games and only about 7 or 8 of our high school officials aren't also youth officials (yeah, I know, why two separate associations? Hopefully, that changes soon although, we'd be the first such association to operate that way in Minnesota).
There are a number of reasons for the shortages in each group. Most are similar but one is not. Our youth hockey shortage starts at the referee association board level. In that, because the requirements of running a strong association in truly the best way possible (especially one that's a 501c3 such as ours) takes up so much more time than it ever used to (no different than a youth playing association board) that it's extremely difficult to convince people to not only serve on the board but, to do so in a way that really makes a difference. One of which is spending the time necessary to recruit on a yearly basis. And, at least in our area, we've definitely done a poor job of that the last two years.
Obviously, another reason is coach/parent behavior. Now, nation wide, USA Hockey contends this is the number two reason behind officials not getting enough games/progressing to higher level games fast enough. I can honestly say this isn't nearly that big of an issue in our area as we have a very strong assignor and, combined with a very strong philosophical message from our board to use ALL of our officials and eliminate the "good old boy" system, that's rarely a complaint we hear. However, coach and parent behavior has definitely chased away some of our younger people before they get their feet underneath them.
Another reason that I feel is contributing is that, quite simply, people just don't have the time to do it. Not only are people working 45-50 hours a week versus 40 but, BOTH parents are often working those hours. And, if an official has even just one kid -- especially if that kid participates in sports of any kind -- there simply isn't much time left over. Add that on to the way we approach raising our kids now, lessens how much free time we have to an even greater degree.
Now, include the fact that USA Hockey now requires all officials to have taken Safe Sport, as well as a new 3 hour on-line officiating module (3/4 of which was repetitive to the other modules) in addition to attending their annual 6 hour training seminar and you can see why are quitting. In fact, since the Safe Sport and the on-line module requirement were both new this season, I expect an even bigger drop off next year! Our youth association has already had to make significant adjustments in how we cover various levels of games (going from 3 officials -- preferred -- to 2 in bantam tournament games) to working Squirt/U-10 level games with only one official to not being able to cover some of outdoor Squirt league games.
Finally, since this is a youth hockey forum, I won't get into the challenges we have at the high school level other than to say it's about pay and mileage which, isn't an issue for our local youth group even though most of our officials work both.

There are members of this forum that will tell you "good riddance" and that if you aren't willing to put in the hours to become better that they don't want you..... I am not one of those, I am one who recognizes that this is not professional sports and adding all these "professional requirements" as I call them is a major factor in driving away volunteers both from the coaching and officials side of things. They just don't get that there are only so many hours in the day and there are good quality people who want to help but shouldn't be made to feel like it's a second job

[JSR]

The short answer is "yes" but, it certainly is situation/area dependent. I'm in my 25th year as a USA Hockey registered official and I'm also fortunate to still be working high school, Div. I & III college, and various junior leagues. I've also served two stints as the president of our local youth association as well as currently serving in other administrative positions on the playing side of the "house". In our area -- a northern Minnesota "metro" area -- there's a shortage in both the high school and the youth game. Our youth association is down approximately 40 people in the last two years while the high school group is down about 20. Between the two, we will be asked to cover approximately 2500 games and only about 7 or 8 of our high school officials aren't also youth officials (yeah, I know, why two separate associations? Hopefully, that changes soon although, we'd be the first such association to operate that way in Minnesota).
There are a number of reasons for the shortages in each group. Most are similar but one is not. Our youth hockey shortage starts at the referee association board level. In that, because the requirements of running a strong association in truly the best way possible (especially one that's a 501c3 such as ours) takes up so much more time than it ever used to (no different than a youth playing association board) that it's extremely difficult to convince people to not only serve on the board but, to do so in a way that really makes a difference. One of which is spending the time necessary to recruit on a yearly basis. And, at least in our area, we've definitely done a poor job of that the last two years.
Obviously, another reason is coach/parent behavior. Now, nation wide, USA Hockey contends this is the number two reason behind officials not getting enough games/progressing to higher level games fast enough. I can honestly say this isn't nearly that big of an issue in our area as we have a very strong assignor and, combined with a very strong philosophical message from our board to use ALL of our officials and eliminate the "good old boy" system, that's rarely a complaint we hear. However, coach and parent behavior has definitely chased away some of our younger people before they get their feet underneath them.
Another reason that I feel is contributing is that, quite simply, people just don't have the time to do it. Not only are people working 45-50 hours a week versus 40 but, BOTH parents are often working those hours. And, if an official has even just one kid -- especially if that kid participates in sports of any kind -- there simply isn't much time left over. Add that on to the way we approach raising our kids now, lessens how much free time we have to an even greater degree.
Now, include the fact that USA Hockey now requires all officials to have taken Safe Sport, as well as a new 3 hour on-line officiating module (3/4 of which was repetitive to the other modules) in addition to attending their annual 6 hour training seminar and you can see why are quitting. In fact, since the Safe Sport and the on-line module requirement were both new this season, I expect an even bigger drop off next year! Our youth association has already had to make significant adjustments in how we cover various levels of games (going from 3 officials -- preferred -- to 2 in bantam tournament games) to working Squirt/U-10 level games with only one official to not being able to cover some of outdoor Squirt league games.
Finally, since this is a youth hockey forum, I won't get into the challenges we have at the high school level other than to say it's about pay and mileage which, isn't an issue for our local youth group even though most of our officials work both.

There are members of this forum that will tell you "good riddance" and that if you aren't willing to put in the hours to become better that they don't want you..... I am not one of those, I am one who recognizes that this is not professional sports and adding all these "professional requirements" as I call them is a major factor in driving away volunteers both from the coaching and officials side of things. They just don't get that there are only so many hours in the day and there are good quality people who want to help but shouldn't be made to feel like it's a second job

JSR -- I don't post often but do read these forums fairly regularly so, am familiar with your feelings on this specific issue. Your point is well taken and certainly has merit. As someone who basically officiates as a career -- have a wife with a great job who's home on weekends so I can travel as much as I need to on weekends -- I often have to remind myself of your point as I'm a big believer in pushing our officials to always strive to improve and continue to become more "professional". And, although I genuinely believe most of what was covered in Safe Sport was standard common sense, there certainly were at least a few things that I learned that would help me be more aware of someone being taken advantage of or, wanting to take advantage of another. If, and I emphasize IF the refresher course is a much shorter version, then the requirement is probably more of a positive than a negative over the long run. However, I would make it an every 3 year requirement versus 2.
There's one other thing I thought of after I made my post last night that has also affected our retention. Every year each official is required to complete the open book USA Hockey rules test. This year, knowing we were as short on youth officials as we were and, knowing I'd probably be working more youth games than I had recently, I literally looked up every single question in the rule book and wrote down each rule reference for my answers. Which, is what USA Hockey recommends us to do. I scored a 90 out of 100... That's 10 wrong! If I would've missed one more I would've failed and had to retake it. What's frustrating is, once they've scored it and given you the score, they don't give you the exact question you missed. Instead, they simply provide the rule number reference the question was addressing. And, since there's always a number of questions that address the same rule, the amount of time it would take to go back and figure out exactly which question(s) you got wrong could take quite awhile.
Also, for as long as I can remember, the Level 4s were required to pass a 50 question closed book test (as well as a skating test). For awhile now, they've also required Level 2 and 3 officials to pass a similar 50 question closed book test. The first 5-6 years, those tests were pretty fair and the questions were reflective of what the average official at those levels should know from a rules standpoint. And, if you spent any time reviewing the book prior to the seminar, you had a very good chance to pass the test. The last few years the tests have become progressively more challenging in that they're worded in a fashion that could lead an official to believe their could be more than one possible rule or situation the question was addressing. The last time I checked, the statewide pass rate on this year's Level 3 closed book test was only about 30% and, it wasn't much better nationally. In fact, we had about 25 or so officials that participated in our local Level 3 officiating seminar and only 2, that's right, TWO officials passed the closed book test. This affects our association's ability to cover our district playoff games as you need to be a level 3 to work those. Not only that, our association's internal rating system (a 7 level system) is predicated on what an individual official's USA Hockey level is. So, we had drop a number of our better officials down a level and, sometimes two. This obviously can (not saying it should) have a negative effect on an official's attitude since, in our association, your internal level dictates who get's first crack at the upper level assignments (and, therefore, the opportunity to work the better games as well as make more $$).
The most frustrating aspect of this is that, the person writing the test has almost no experience in writing tests. When he's been confronted about this and the fact many of us feel the test is written poorly, he simply says it's not the test and that the officials just need to study more. If people think that the administration of the playing side of the house is out of touch with those on the "street", believe me when I say it's just as bad if not worse on the officiating side. [/i][/b]

Thank you for that, it was informative for sure.... There is a place for getting higher levels of education and there is a place for needing more professional refs at certain levels of hockey, I'm just not sure that the refs needed for the average association pee wee game is that place... I know you were not saying anything of the sort in your statement, I am just kind of adding some stuff and it just happens to be in conjunction here.... And don't get me wrong, I am not saying the content of the SafeSport thing is "bad" or anything but I do think there was a lot of common sense to it but I also think that the governing body organizations have to start realizing these are youth sports, these are volunteers for the most part (despite maybe getting some small amount of pay for refs or whatever) and we have to go back to respecting people livelihoods. It's not just reffing but in all sports. Having a practice at 4:00pm was unheard of when I was a kid because everyone's dad's (and moms) had a job that went to 5:00 (atleast) now people act like we're supposed to leave work early just to get our kdis to practice... with reffing my son referees in soccer and hockey. He decided to quit soccer reffing because they require a YEARLY (yep every single year) two day 16 hour course that also requires 4 hours of "pre class work" just to get re-certified at the lowest level possible of officiating (aka to ref kids 13 and under....). They also only offered these courses in the winter, smack dab in the middle of hockey season and he would have had to miss three games to attend the course... freaking ridiculous... and yet the area referee person is wondering why they lost another 80 referees in the area again this year