First and foremost I want to acknowledge the USAWP referees for making JOs happen, a foundational memory for generations of water polo athletes.
Some questions and comments have occurred to me which I’d love to get feedback on:
USAWP sync with World Aquatics: How closely does JO gameplay align with international tournaments? Regardless of opinion on a specific practice at JOs, if it reflects international standards, that should take precedence.
Referee assignments between ages groups and divisions: It seems like the same referees are assigned to the same age group and divisions. So by the end of the four day tournament, of a team’s 8-10 games, they are seeing the same 6-8 referees for all their games. On one hand I can see how this familiarizes the referees with game play dynamics and the specific rules of an age group. On the other hand, I think that the same few eyeballs watching the same team and players puts referees in a difficult situation. For instance, how easily can a referee officiate a team at the end of a tournament when they have red carded that team’s coach or player previously? I think it would be beneficial for referees and teams if referees were reassigned at the end of each day. (This issue is compounded by Super Finals, and the fact that the same referees follow age groups and divisions to JOs a month later)
Foul Distribution: Obviously drawing fouls is a part of a team’s strategy, so if a disparity in Major and Contra foul arises during a game, it can 100% be a reflection of a stronger team’s successful strategy and having nothing to do with officiating. However at some point successful strategy can veer into a lopsided game call. There are games in which one team is called for 200-300% more major and contra fouls. In an intra game period, are officials aware of foul distribution? I believe foul distribution that gets too far out of balance is bad for the game. I believe referees need to be cognizant when they are seeing minor transgressions, and repeatedly awarding major advantages, over and over and over, without parity.
Game Awareness: Are officiating decisions made in a vacuum or should they be subject to game situation awareness? For instance, should a 5M penalty be awarded in exactly the same circumstances on Day 1 in Q2 of a blow out game vs Day 3 in Q4 of an elimination game that is tied? For instance, I watched a game on Day 3 in which during Q4 of this tied elimination game, an officiating crew awarded 5 contra fouls to one team and 0 to the other team. My opinion is that situational game awareness should be emphasized.
This is asking a lot. I’ll chime in with my input and hope others will too.
The rules are very similar but not exactly the same. The concept of what is a foul is mostly the same. Most of the new ideas (after the creation of the 2 meter box) are not yet adopted. Player safety may be a bit more of a concern at USAWP than WA/FINA.
Most referees are assigned to an age group before the tournament. They may move between pools and levels based on performance, agendas and politics. Your double edged sword is real but it’s probably better for all to be familiar with what they are going to get, both ways. When referees are given games that are unrecognizable to them based on the quality of play, it can be a real problem as they don’t know what they are looking at and the teams have a hard time adjusting to the ignorance of the official.
Good referees will call the game as they see it and shouldn’t factor in a concept of leveling the foul distribution. If they feel they are calling it consistently both ways, more or fewer calls shouldn’t be made so the stats look similar.
Calls will be different based on game situations. Calls in blow-outs will not be the same as calls in close games. At younger levels you may see that a better player has to work harder for a call when a weaker player may earn a whistle much easier. This is best for everyone’s development.
Hey Gibson, I really appreciate the perspective. Thanks a lot. I know you are right about a good referee making calls consistently and not worrying about balancing. But when I see the extreme examples of teams that are hardly able to finish games because all their subs are rolled, it has caused me to question…thanks again
I’ve rewatched some of the 18UB Platinum big games. Until USAWP stops treating JOs like a trial ground for wholly unqualified referees, it will continue to be a flawed experience for so many teams. There is no justification other than political agendas to put referees in games that they can’t comprehend. Competency doesn’t seem to factor in. When a ref asks the other ref “does the ball have to go completely over the line” to be a goal, you know you’ve got problems.
There’s an assignment approach for JO’s that I will never understand.
Referees from outside zones are typically given priority specifically because they lack exposure to that kind of water polo, consistently. It’s absolutely counter-intuitive to a national championship tournament, and they keep doing it. I can’t say that I’ve seen a championship game completely blown, but I’ve seen it wreck a team’s tournament on day 3 more than I can count. 20 years ago, when USAWP was hell bent on growing the game outside of California, that approach could have been sold for a time. However, now we have a session 3 for those refs to work. If you’re not a California ref it’s actually not a bad gig. Your game ledger isn’t as long, but you get priority looks at EVERY session of JO’s, or any other national tournament.
I get the need to “grow the sport”, but that’s USAWP’s responsibility, and should not be put upon athletes and coaches who work hard all year for their moment.
That being said players need to adjust to how the game is being called. Sometimes they call it tight sometimes they call it loose. Calling it tight is safer for the players as the alternative invites players to see how far they can push it. Growing up laying hockey I much preferred ref that called a tight game out of the gate as it eliminated “extracurricular” activity and was true to what the sport is supposed to be.
The international game is played loose and often players that come to the states are shocked at how the game is called.
I don’t disagree on the whole, but I do want to point out that two of the highest rated referees in the US come from outside of California. In fact, there have been multiple years where the Men’s NCAA Championship game is refereed by two non-California officials. That being said, there are definitely many inexperienced referees from these zones and they should not be put on high level Platinum games. But I wanted to dispell the idea that only California has good refs.
You’re correct, and I haven’t seen those two in particular at JO’s in several years. East coast officials who are of a higher caliber are working in California multiple times a year, not just once for a National Championship tournament. At JO’s you get referee representatives from every zone, and the non-California zone reps are always given assignment priority. When they first started splitting the tournament in 2008 (?), they would put them on the Gold Championship games, and that made sense as it was a lot of their teams anyway. I don’t know when the switch happened, but it seems like every platinum championship game has one official from out of California, and usually someone very young at that. It’s obvious that the coaches hate it.
For the most part, the partner is usually one of the higher rated California refs, and they somewhat carry the game, but like I said, I’ve seen it really screw things up in those play-to-semi games.
Refs should call the game without adjusting for score. I’ve sat through games where a team had to play 6 on 7 because too many players were rolled… painful for everyone involved. However changing calls based on score makes it that much harder for the players to learn what is and isn’t a major foul and adjusting to how a game is being called. Consistency is critical imo.
That said, I suspect refs are evening out fouls calls between teams. There is a paper that found a bias for calling fouls in favor of losing teams at the elite level, I’d be surprised if refs were less biased at the age group/high school level.
Offensive teams who are winning/tied are about 31% less likely to draw a defensive foul and 32% more likely to get called for an offensive foul than teams who are losing. The magnitude of losing team bias tends to increase over the course of a game, but is not significantly affected by the size of the lead. A team’s odds of getting called for a foul also increase by about 10% for each consecutive goal scored or foul called in their favor. These biases persist across different offensive and defensive tactical decisions and tournaments suggesting that they are widespread and that it is referees, rather than teams, who are responsible for a lack of independence in water polo foul calling rates.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3233/JSA-160019
This is often a sign that the team is repeatedly making the same mistake and getting called for it over and over again. If that coach hasn’t talked to the referees (at an appropriate time) about what all those calls went against his players, he should have.
Is it at all possible that one team actually committed 5 contra fouls in the fourth quarter and the other didn’t commit any? And the refs simply called what they saw in the water?
To me situational game awareness applies to aspects of the game that won’t impact the final outcome. Such as allowing the clock to run a little longer in the 4th qtr of a huge blow out.
I haven’t seen this game but I agree that it could be one team repeatedly doing something and not adjusting to the calls. For example, there are teams and players who repeatedly swim under defenders on counter attacks hoping to be rewarded with exclusions. That should be a contra foul. Unfortunately, many referees call the exclusion, so players keep trying. A referee should call the contra and explain why. Then the behavior should stop. In your case, maybe some exclusions had been called earlier and the coach explained to the ref what was happening and the ref made the adjustment.
That being said players need to adjust to how the game is being called. Sometimes they call it tight sometimes they call it loose. Calling it tight is safer for the players as the alternative invites players to see how far they can push it. Growing up laying hockey I much preferred ref that called a tight game out of the gate as it eliminated “extracurricular” activity and was true to what the sport is supposed to be.
The international game is played loose and often players that come to the states have a hard time adjusting.
Has anyone gotten the official USA Water Polo survey yet? I thought they normally send that out as well as info about the location for next year’s JOs the days following conclusion of the sessions.
I’ve also heard a few coaches mention they are looking to permanently move JOs to a location/area. Has anyone else heard that?
Irvine is much better of a host location than Stanford - but if they insist on flip/flopping sites every year, I wish the Invite and/or Classic divisions would move away from the Champs when it’s in NorCal - for example:
Champs in San Jose, Classic in East Bay, Invite in Santa Cruz - do something to simplify the hotels when games are in NorCal