According to http://www.highleveltraining.com/ref.html the referee program is a done deal. Everything is laid out there, including new training methodologies, the fact that referees will have to travel to an HLTC in order to recertify or upgrade, and the inclusion of a database of referees to be shared with member schools from which they can invite certified referees to their events. As an official partner to the USAT, the involvement Mr. Perez has in USAT affairs, and the presense of our Referee Director on the testimonials page all lead me to trust the veracity of the information on that site.
I expect that there is very little room for negotiation on this plan as the author is chair of the new committe supposedly working on the new plan. I say supposedly because having talked to a couple of the committee members somewhat recently, they professed to be ignorant of any progress. I personally believe there will be no work or progress by the committe and the plan as outlined on the aforementioned web site will be presented as fait accompli in November.
If there is any desire for or hope of changing the posted plan I don't know. Personally, I am not impressed by the idea of having to spend more vacation days, travel time, travel cost and lodging expenses in order to travel to an HLTC for training, certification or upgrade in addition to event travel. Even if they eliminate certification fees, which I actually expect to rise substantually just as coach fees did, this is additional cost that I expect few referees will relish.
The database of referees to share with member schools I advocate, as long as some provision for credit to the referees that participate exists.
This web site seems to be the only source of information on the new RIDP. I am basing my expectations and lack of interest in the new plan on the information provided therein. If it is not in fact the new paradigm, then it should be removed until such time as an accurate description of the program can be posted.
One other thing that I do know, is that I have talked to senior referees that are disenchanted enough to seek other avenues to ply their trade. Look for a few in Knoxville instead of Atlanta this year. The USAT leadership has to do something positive if they want to attract and retain good referees, many of us only have so many resources to dedicate to the "good of the kids".
Grant
This website says exactly what I just said, "...the program is very much still in development" "...John indicated that he and other actual referees are going to be involved..." "...complete release in January 2007...".
From the website you reference,
"Referee Programs 2007In 2007, the USAT and HLTC will initiate our new Referee Identification and Development program (RIDP). This program will focus on new as well as existing members who desire to build their skill sets and obtain continuing educational opportunities.TimelineThe program is currently being developed in consultation with the current referees, USAT, HLTC and several education specialists. The program will be standardized with the inclusion of measurable evaluation tools so that all referees will be able to obtain consistent and quality information."
I see no detail. I certainly don't see everything 'laid out'. Since has been proposed that there be 40 or 50 HLTCs, traveling to them would not be any great hardship. Less so than the system under the USTU, where many states were unable to have referee seminars and the only way for a referee to learn was to go to a national event. TRUE has long advocated virtually all of the elements discussed on the referenced website, including the database of referees.
If the "committe(e) supposedly working on the new plan" is the USAT Referee Study Committee spoken of several months ago, I'm afraid you are misinformed. That committee has never met, not even over the phone. They are not working on this plan.
Is the USAT absolutely abysmal at communication? Absolutely. Isn't that also what I said above? Looks like it to me. Does it surprise me that the AAU will benefit from this poor communication? No. The only thing that I cannot understand is why people see this as an either/or situation. Many of our best referees support both AAU and USAT. The only conflict between those two organizations exists as personality issues between the people at the top. That and in the minds of 4 or 5 people who leap to conclusions with minimum or faulty information.
There is no doubt that the referee training program, both under the USTU and the USAT, had serious failings. This is why the Referee Reform Committee undertook the study they did in 2005. However, despite that, the United States consistently fields the largest and most well trained team of referees in the world with many of our referees are looked to for leadership by other countries.
It's too bad the USAT was unable to implement reforms without outsourcing. That suggests some serious leadership problems. I'm sure this proposed program will also have problems. Perhaps by talking amongst ourselves we'll make some suggestions that will be heard and will help prevent some of them. Perhaps not. It costs us nothing but a little time. We'd probably be playing solitare anyhow.
"If the "committe(e) supposedly working on the new plan" is the USAT Referee Study Committee spoken of several months ago, I'm afraid you are misinformed. That committee has never met, not even over the phone. They are not working on this plan."
I'm completely uninformed. There is no communication. Which is it? Is there a reform committee? I thought so. I also said they appeared to not be working on anything based on conversation with members of said committee. Who is developing this "in cosultation with current referees et. al.". Perez? Will it be a profit center for Gold Medal Training?
"There is no doubt that the referee training program, both under the USTU and the USAT, had serious failings. This is why the Referee Reform Committee undertook the study they did in 2005. However, despite that, the United States consistently fields the largest and most well trained team of referees in the world with many of our referees are looked to for leadership by other countries."
Really? Well then, I guess having serious failings has some benefits. Perhaps, if it isn't broke, we shouldn't 'fix' it? I've already said that the seminar training is bogus. More seminars won't help anything. Ring experience with somebody, other than the offended coach, there to tell you when you screw up and how to do it better is the only useful training.
My opinion is to keep the seminar system for beginners, eliminate the rediculous 12 step program and base referee rank on the ability to do the job. A board of evaluators can be appointed at every national event where they can assess candidate skills and recommend promotion or even demotion. The idea of time in grade being the sole determinant of ability is wrong. Doing something improperly for five years doesn't make someone better than another that does it properly for one year. It does, however, guarantee some income for the USAT, or now, Gold Medal Training.
Anyhow, since the secrecy principle of the USAT renders their communications almost nil, I'll wager a carbonated beverage that what is on the HLTC website will come to pass and that there will not be anywhere near 40 to 50 HLTCs by 2007 when this is supposed to be implemented.