to whom it may concern

[menace]

Perhaps when they become an employer and pay you for services or it's slander, then perhaps i might concede they might have some rights to tell you what you can and can't say in public.

But i know the reality is if you don't tow their party line, you will pay via reduced progress and opportunities...but other than that they cannot force you. It becomes a choice thing. Cody chose to do as they say, rather than limit his opportunities into his future refereeing career. I think a wise choice at his age and stage.

 

[Davet]

Whereas I would say : every right.
If you dont like the society, leave it​

No - if you don't like it change it.

Freedom of speech is a basic human right. Anywhere that freedom of speech prohibited is, virtually by definition, a totalitarian, non-democratic regime - and such are, in my view - unacceptable; and people are entitled to work for change.

 

[crossref]

freedom of speech is about our relationship with the state, not with each other.
you have the right to free speech without fear of prosecution -- but not the right to exercise free speech in my back garden.

or indeed on my touchline, or on my pitch when I am refereeing.

 

[B52 REF]

dave clark -your presence on this thread has been noted and will be secretly discussed before tomorrows meet :smile:
davet/menace et al - go get 'em !!- whilst i have some sympathy for the argument of those who have bludgeoned :chair: cody i am all for "open and transparent " when it doesn't breach neccesary confidentiality , or offend as i was explaining to my hospital chairman this morning whilst beating him around the head with the Francis report and ordering him to recite " i will no longer extensively redact (a la gordon brown) board minutes"

 

[Davet]

freedom of speech is about our relationship with the state, not with each other.

Wrong.

Freedom of speech can be abused, when it becomes abuse.

But on the touchline (Which is not YOUR touchline, just as it is not YOUR game - it belongs to the players) anyone is entitled to air the view that Decision X was actually wrong. Provided they do not do so in an offensive manner then you have no right to prevent that.

Telling lies and defaming people is covered in law anyway, but people have a right to an opinion, however bloody stupid it is.

 

[Dickie E]

Cody - a thought. How many Kuxmann's are there refereeing in London? Perhaps it's time to retire your user name and call yourself Joe Bloggs.

or Dickie II?

 

[SimonSmith]

As soon as there is an organizing body, of any kind, it ceases to be free speech between individuals.

As soon as there is an organizing body, free speech becomes a very important concept

 

[Simon Thomas]

The basis on which I offer my services as a qualified Match Observer as a volunteer, is that my assessment report is a private de-brief and document between me and the referee, plus the Grading Committee, and if he has one his Referee Coach.

If that report is published in the public domain or to others, with just the referee's comments (ands so a one-sided monologue), in DaveT language I may consider withdrawing my labour.

Once you join a Society you are bound by its constitution and operating principles - if you break them, expect to suffer the consequences.

 

[crossref]

Wrong.

Freedom of speech can be abused, when it becomes abuse.

But on the touchline (Which is not YOUR touchline, just as it is not YOUR game - it belongs to the players) anyone is entitled to air the view that Decision X was actually wrong. Provided they do not do so in an offensive manner then you have no right to prevent that.

Telling lies and defaming people is covered in law anyway, but people have a right to an opinion, however bloody stupid it is.

everyone has the right to an opinion but, as you yourself point out!, they don't have a right to stand on a touchline voicing that opinion in an offensive manner.

now
- voicing an opinion from the touchline in an offensive manner is NOT (quite rightly) a criminal offence. That's what free speech means.
- but the officials of a rugby club are quite entitled to ban the voicing of offensive remarks from the touchline, in their club, and to ban any individuals who break the rule. That's not a contravention of free speech, you are still entitled to hold and voice the opinion free fo fear of prosecution - but you have to do it outside the club, away from the touchline. You can't be in the club without obeying the club rules.

Free speech governs what the state can prosecute you for.
It doesn't mean that a rugby club - or a referee society - can't have rules about acceptable behaviour for their members.

 

[Davet]

voicing an opinion from the touchline in an offensive manner is NOT (quite rightly) a criminal offence

You may find that it is a criminal offense. In addition, swearing in public, at someone whom you can reasonably feel may be offended is a criminal offence. There are cases where people swearing at a police officer have avoided conviction on the basis that a police officer will have a higher tolerance for such language than the general public, this has not been tested (as far as I know) in relation to referees.

but the officials of a rugby club are quite entitled to ban the voicing of offensive remarks from the touchline,

That really depends on the defintion of "offensive remarks". It may well offend someone if you say in a calm an reasonable manner, that you believe they are incompetent. But you have the right to that opinion, and to express it.

Free speech governs what the state can prosecute you for.

NO - absolutely wrong.

Free speech is a cultural contruct and to limit it to a legal state versus citizen situation is not acceptable. Free speech exists in communication between individuals. As we have seen recently it also transcends contracts of silence, which even the government suggest should be unenforcable (eg recent NHS "gagging" clauses in compromise agreements) when they detract from the public interest.

 

[menace]

The basis on which I offer my services as a qualified Match Observer as a volunteer, is that my assessment report is a private de-brief and document between me and the referee, plus the Grading Committee, and if he has one his Referee Coach.

If that report is published in the public domain or to others, with just the referee's comments (ands so a one-sided monologue), in DaveT language I may consider withdrawing my labour.

Once you join a Society you are bound by its constitution and operating principles - if you break them, expect to suffer the consequences.

I'm sorry, but I find that a selfish and overly defensive view of your role. I thought you match observe and write a report, to be given to the referee as reference, to be of benefit to the learning referee? You advise referees so that they can improve and often that means they take your advice, decipher it, and devise action plans to implement it. So why get so defensive when the referee seeks the help of others, using your words verbatim, to help them decipher what you mean?? Why shouldn't the ref get assistance off his peers to help become a better referee. If an assessor is going to get offended or embarrassed because others see what they've written about someone else, perhaps they should change their writing style and be more careful what they write?

I guess I don't fully understand the position you're taking? Perhaps I will if I decide to go the assessor path, and I may end up agreeing with you...but at this moment I don't.

However, I understand and agree about your point about following the society rules when you're a member (and if you don't, then go elsewhere).

 

[Davet]

The basis on which I offer to watch and report on referees is that I am trying to assist the referee.

My debrief generally takes place in the clubhouse - in a relatively quiet corner, and I avoid places where we can be overheard - mainly as a protect for the ref, I may need to criticise him in some way, and I do not want to make that criticism public, for his sake. Similarly my report is sent to ref and the relevant authorities in the Society. I will not publish them more widely, again in order to protect the referee should my comments be critical.

If the referee then chooses to publish the report I have no objection. There is nothing in it which I am not happy to have said or to stand by. If the ref were e.g (and I am not suggesting this - it merely a hypothetical) to selectively quote from the report in public and by doing so misrepresent what I say then I would feel free to publish in full, and comment publicly in turn.

But nothing I say is anything I want to hide from anyone.

 

[OB..]

The basis on which I offer to watch and report on referees is that I am trying to assist the referee.

My debrief generally takes place in the clubhouse - in a relatively quiet corner, and I avoid places where we can be overheard - mainly as a protect for the ref, I may need to criticise him in some way, and I do not want to make that criticism public, for his sake. Similarly my report is sent to ref and the relevant authorities in the Society. I will not publish them more widely, again in order to protect the referee should my comments be critical.

I imagine we all work that way.

However if the referee chooses to publish the assessment, you need to ask why. If he is trying to understand something or seek advice on a weakness, then he is doing no harm. If he wants to hold the assessor up to ridicule, he is damaging the system. And as always there is a grey area. Like Davet I am happy to stand by what I write, just like reports on staff at work, but I will not join in any general discussion on the contents.

Personally I like to see other assessors work because otherwise I only see my own (bar the occasional training session). I benefit from seeing many different referees, and referees benefit (I hope) from many different assessors. We need to work together.

 

[Davet]

If he wants to hold the assessor up to ridicule

Then let him do so.

I reserve the right to respond.

 

[OB..]

Then let him do so.

No. It damages the sort of trust the system depends on.

 

[Davet]

I think rather it opens up what can otherwise be a secretive process to the disinfectant of scrutiny.

Trust doesn't arise because we have a private communication - it arises if we test that communication and determine if it passes the test of scrutiny.

Your arguement follows that of Civil Servants who want to able to make private recommendations to government, for which they cannot be held accountable by the wider public. The arguement runs that they will not offer recomendations so freely if they can be held accountable - my view would be good, it will make them think about their recommendations more carefully and not fly so many very silly kites.

Open and transparent communications lead to trust - secret ones lead to mistrust.

 

[OB..]

I think rather it opens up what can otherwise be a secretive process to the disinfectant of scrutiny.

Trust doesn't arise because we have a private communication - it arises if we test that communication and determine if it passes the test of scrutiny.

Your arguement follows that of Civil Servants who want to able to make private recommendations to government, for which they cannot be held accountable by the wider public. The arguement runs that they will not offer recomendations so freely if they can be held accountable - my view would be good, it will make them think about their recommendations more carefully and not fly so many very silly kites.

Open and transparent communications lead to trust - secret ones lead to mistrust.

A lot depends on context and content. Some ideas might be political dynamite that need careful handling. Some might reflect security. Some might have individual confidentiality involved. etc. They need to be able to co-operate, and they can't do that if they do not trust each other, at least to a limited extent, to handle sensitive issues confidentially.

There is a parallel in rugby. ARs are told not to make the referee look an idiot. The same applies to assessors and referees.

(I suspect we are really only arguing about the size of the grey area).

 

[Davet]

Probably,

I accept there are issues where confidentiality is important.

But I see these as the exception not the rule.

Political Dynamite - is often a euphamism for party political interests - which are nothing to do with the Civil Service. If they being treated as such than that needs changing. It also often reflects a desire to hide inconvenient truths rather thah face them - a recipe for disaster.

Security - accepted. Subject to strict oversight - the notion of a trial wherebey the defendent is not entitled to hear the evidence against him is worthy of Robspierre at his dreadful best.

Trust that someone will keep your secrets depends on what those secrets are - and even the confessional should not be sacrosanct (sic) under all circumstances.

 

[Blackberry]

I'm quietly letting assesing take a back seat right now for me, first off I'm long in the tooth and want to make the very best of my remaining games, and second I'm not entirely confident that the system is sound. As an assessee, my last four assessments have shown the consistency of a pin ball on Red Bull, each assessor stumbling across different and apparently very important positive features / areas for development. I am very couteous, but while my face says rapt attention my mind is saying WTF too many times. In my last assessment, where both captains gave me excellent, a very serious faced assessor said he was surprised and concerned how much I spoke with the players, almost coaching them.

What I should have said to him was "Do you know, that's exactly what they said at my last assessment. Hang on . no, they didn't, it must have been the one before that, yes, that's it. ..... No, now I think of it they didn;t, so it must have been the one before that one, there you are.

No, now I think of it they didn't mention it then, so perhaps it was in fact the one before that one, I think that must have been it. Yes, that one.

Whoops, my mistake, they didn't mention it then either. Not at all. Silly me.

Obviously then it was the one before those one. Ah, hang on , I wasn't reffing then."

But of course you don't, your face says thank you for this brilliant insight, while your mind goes "I will never fit in here, I hope my assessing is not like this, what time does Doctor Who start?" Our Saturday evenings are quite tame.

Best ever quote was my first Level 8 match where the assessor was sucking his teeth at this new bloke's performance, coming in and taking the Level 8 games, bit borderline, things to work on, when, and I jest not, both captains came across sat at the table and gave me my score card, again both excellents. My poor assessor instantly folded his arms, glared at the floor and hissed "Well there's more to reffingthan getting excellents". That was the day I realised I had perhaps reached a ceiling.

 

[OB..]

I have had referees say they were told such-and-such by a previous assessor, at which point I discuss the pros and cons of whatever it may be. There are things an assessor should notice that players don't. One game I recall where both sides gave the referee a good mark and said they would like to see him again. I agreed he refereed well, but I asked about his lineout positioning. He said he had previously been advised to alternate between front and back. I like to see a referee go to the back occasionally, but most play is at the front half. I commented that he stood as close to the line of touch as he could and we discussed the advantages of being at a 45 degree angle, plus the need to move as play develops.

The referee needs to be proactive so that he gets out of the assessment something he can use. I treat it like a conversation, though one I am guiding.

If my reports differ from others, then it is up to the grading committee to tell me. THey have a responsibility to stop me giving bad/inconsistent advice.

We also have a feedback from on which the referee can say what he thought once he has seen the report.

Have you spoken to anyone about your concerns? It sounds as if they need looking at. Are other referees of the same opinion? Are some assessors seen as better than others?

I would certainly encourage you to make the most of your refereeing days, but please do something about unsatisfactory assessing if you can.