By Jerry Grunska
A while back a large city assigned football officials individually each year. There were no set crews. Coaches from about a half dozen high school conferences in the community and suburbs got together in spring for a large-scale “draft.” As a result officials were likely to work any position: umpire one night, referee the next afternoon. To be sure, there were advantages to the system. Officials got to meet a lot of association members (there was just a lone organization). Officials were conscientious about trying to perform well, eager to build a solid reputation among association members. A disadvantage, though, was that everyone had to learn the moves at every position, and some not only were better at particular spots, but they also felt more comfortable in a special niche. Eventually, a small number of veterans rose to high status as reliable referees. Over the years, the draft system wasn’t exactly a crapshoot.
But there was some impetus to consider forming crews. After a vote one year for the venture, association officers got together and chose crews, giving each a designated referee. The move, though voted on by members, was met with a large measure of unrest. The reason for that, of course, is that some officials were all right with their placement while others were not.
The crew system operated for a few years that way, with large dissatisfaction building up, and then another change took place whereby referees were able to pick their own umpire partner, and the rest of the crew composition was parceled out by association leaders. That too proved to be an uncomfortable jumble. Later the association leaders realized that all officials wanted a voice in whom they’d work with, and members themselves were asked to choose preferences.
To say this solved the entire problem would be misleading, but it did help alleviate widespread unease. Other components – requirements to cover underclass games – were added and crew sizes were expanded, so that displeasure continued to be a problem. But at least the movement (although it took some time) became a more democratizing method and hence was better received.
The lesson? If you’ve got a large issue to contend with, a major change in operating, be sure to engage your entire membership if possible. Let them have a voice. Figure ways to give them viable choices. The Internet works wonders in terms of instant polling nowadays. Dictatorial maneuvers aren’t a comfortable way to go about making major adjustments to the status quo.
Another large upheaval took place a long time ago near the city of Chicago where traditionally schools played doubleheaders in both football and basketball, with prelim games before varsity games. This is customary in basketball throughout the nation, but it is probably an accepted tradition in football only in suburban Chicago.
For years the practice was to use one set of officials for both games, in both sports. Officials grumbled, but they did it, even though they lamented (privately, but also sometimes to ADs) that they’d be expected to be at their best at the end of the second game when they were exhausted. In many ways sports officials are reluctant to become agitators, at least they were then. A few individuals bucked the system. Several prominent basketball referees brought a newcomer with them and let him work the preliminary game. The regularly scheduled fellow (this was before women’s sports were on the scene) would share his pay with the partner and watch him perform, purportedly as a mentor.
All right, the strong official who chose to defy (or skirt) the system was conceded his preference. But only a few “top dogs” could get away with that. The rank-and-file individuals worried about being black-balled for the next season if they tried to do that.
A movement took place, though, between a few pioneering leaders from a half dozen or so officiating associations that served the city perimeter. Each group sent a delegate to a strategy meeting where careful diplomatic plans were formulated. They knew the arguments they were up against: It’ll cost too much; there aren’t enough good officials to go around; hiring officials will be twice as much work; and so forth.
Here’s what the combined officials’ group, calling itself an Inter-Association Council, came up with to counter the stonewalling. They asked for representation at a principals’ meeting. They said they’d do several things to assure quality among separate preliminary officials. They would set up special recruiting and training programs for officials who were to work preliminary games. Varsity officials would attend prelim games to critique officials (volunteering, at no pay). Varsity officials would take a small pay cut for two seasons. In football, efforts would be made to “plant” varsity officials individually on some prelim crews so as to guide them on the field. And strongest of all, the consortium reps offered to set up one-day preseason clinics for all sports officials and to monitor progress by developing a rating system for all association officials.
The first year’s persuasion meeting met with entrenched resistance. The second year a few football crews declined to work doubleheaders and instead brought fresh faces with them to work the first game. In effect, they used leverage to force the schools’ hand. That year the principals and athletic directors caved, for the good of the sports.
All of the uplifting efforts from those combined groups are still in place. The Inter-Association Council now acts as a liaison entity between school administrators and officials. The total effort to improve officiating, to indoctrinate newcomers, and to hold significant clinics has paid off. The officiating program in Greater Chicago has never lost its strength.
The key thing in this victory was diplomatic persuasion and a commitment to improve quality. Threats and coercion would have been counterproductive, an us against them tactic. It wasn’t really a war; it was a peace mission.
Jerry Grunska, a retired official and educator, lives in Evergreen, Colo.
Loading ...
