RAMADA INN

GAINSVILLE, GA

Present: Appleyard, Chen, Craig, Fuller, Grudt, Langford, Sholl, Wiener

Absent: Johnson

Also in Attendance: Sean Fedak (partial), Ken Corkery (partial)

1. Call to Order: Langford (8:15 AM)

2. Lightweight Weighins: Sean Fedak, chair of the Lightweight Men’s Committee, presented a request which had been discussed with the other Lightweight Committees to revise the weigh-in rules to allow for lightweights to weigh in only once per day rather than the once per event as the current rule reads. The main issue driving the request is the safety of athletes that do not have adequate time to re-hydrate and weigh in after rowing in the first event. Concern was expressed over the fairness of one weigh in per day when one athlete weighing in earlier in the day will have more time to re-hydrate before the race than will the person rowing only in a later event who will not have the opportunity to re-hydrate. It was pointed out that this should be balanced by the athlete rowing in more than one race presuming the athelete will have expended a significant amount of energy in the earlier race.

MOTION: (Chen/Fuller) The Committee recommend to the Board of Directors the following rule change to be effective immediately upon approval:

Old Reading

Rule 4-110 Weighing of Competitors

The weight of a rower in lightweight events as described in Rule 4-106 (“Lightweights”) shall be determined on each day no less than one hour and no more than two hours before the scheduled time of the first race in each event in which the rower is entered. A rower entered in multiple events conducted on the same day must therefore weigh-in for each event, but need not weigh-in for subsequent races held on the same day for the same event. The weight of the coxswain shall be determined no later than one hour before the first race on each day the coxswain completes. Competitors shall be weighed in racing uniform, without shoes or other footgear.

New Reading

Rule 4-110 Weighing of Competitors

The weight of a rower in lightweight events as described in Rule 4-106 (“Lightweights”) shall be determined on each day no less than one hour and no more than two hours before the scheduled time of the first race in which the rower is entered. A lightweight rower entered in multiple events, therefore, may if he or she wishes, use the weight recorded for in one race for any subsequent races on the same day in which the rower is entered, provided that the rower actually competes at a racing cadence (Rule 2-409) in the earlier race for which the weight is recorded. A rower may also choose to rerecord his or her weight no less that one hour and no more than two hours before any subsequent race in which the rower is entered in that day. The weight of the coxswain shall be determined no later than one hour before the first race on each day the coxswain completes. Competitors shall be weighed in racing uniform, without shoes or other footgear.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

3. Approval of the Agenda:

MOTION: (Chen/Fuller) Approve the agenda. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

4. Approval of the Minutes: The following corrections to the minutes and IOP were offered:

December 1994 Meeting, 15a Start: The Committee feels that with the exception of Trials, Starters at USRA registered regattas should make no conscious effort to vary the pause between the “Set” and “Go!” in the starting command.

IOP # 10: Add Joan Zandbergen to list of Clinicians

IOP# 42: Correct Marty Wiener to SE region

Email vote 4/95 Rules Changes for USRowing National Championships: Weight averaging for light weight women - Chen Abstained (incorrectly listed as voting no).

MOTION: (Langford/Wiener) Approve the minutes. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

4. Treasurer’s Report: The Committee has spent approximately $2,147.77 out of our budget of $10,000. Fuller will be sending an updated report to all Committee members when he is able to get a status report from Indianapolis. The majority of the Committee costs for travel to the June meeting was covered by ACOG. ACOG picked up the costs of all Jury members that flew to Gainsville. However ACOG will not reimburse those Judge-Referees on the Jury that did not fly to the National Regatta. The Committee may be asked to help supplement the costs of reimbursing the Judge-Referees on the jury who drove.

The Committee video recorder was stolen out of Chen’s office at Rutgers. Due to the small number of requests to use the video recorder, and the ease of finding ones that can be used, the consensus of the Committee was not to replace the video camera at this time.

MOTION: (Wiener/Sholl) Approve the budget based on Fuller’s subsequent distribution of an updated budget status report. MOTION PASSES (Y-7; N-0; A-1)

5. E-Mail: There is still one member of the Committee who is not connected to e-mail. Wiener will continue to provide support for Johnson to get connected to e-mail.

Chen has established a Judge-Referee Committee World Wide Web page. Information regarding Judge-Referees, including the Rules of Rowing and FISA rules, is presented. The Committee thanks Chen for his work. The address for the web page is:

http://sunwukong.rutgers.edu/rowpage.htm

The new Committee e-mail voting procedure was reviewed. Grudt encouraged all members to provide feedback and share their thoughts prior to voting. One of the strengths of the Committee is the decision making process and discussion that goes on as a part of this. It is important to retain this when resolving matters through e-mail.

6. Newsletter: Appleyard reported that two issues of the Clipboard are planned for this year. One issue was published in March. The second one is scheduled for late August or September. Appleyard solicited additional information for the newsletter including regional information and news. Fuller volunteered to write an article on the AGSO start system.

7. Referee College: A Chief Referee course is being planned for this year’s college. Julian Wolf was reaffirmed as the dean of the College. Fuller will contact Wolf regarding budgetary issues.

8. Julian Wolf Award: At the December 1994 Committee meeting Craig was asked to contact Julian Wolf regarding the criteria and award process for this award. Wolf emphasized that the award should be based upon one, several, or all of the following: outstanding performance, dedication, heroic acts, or outstanding contributions to officiating. This Award along with the Franklin Award, given for a lifetime of contributions, should be awarded at the annual convention. Wolf outlined that he has requested that money from his estate be set aside to ensure that the Wolf award will continue to be awarded in the future.

Wolf also suggested that in order to prevent the award from becoming a political/popularity award, rather than the earned award it is intended to be, a committee should select the winner rather than leaving it to a popular vote. The Committee concurred with Wolf that with the present method of selecting the winner of the Wolf Award, the objectives of the Award can not be maintained. Appleyard, also requested that a clear time line be established for the selection process.

MOTION: (Craig/Sholl) Criteria for the Julian Wolf Award will be sent out to all of the Judge-Referees. The nominations for this award should be solicited from the entire Judge-Referee corps. A panel composed of five past winners of the Wolf Award, who are not current members of the Judge-Referee Committee, will be selected by the current Chair of the Committee to select the winner of the Award from the nominations. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

MOTION: (Chen/Craig) The following time table be established for the annual awarding of the Julian Wolf Award:

August 1 A mailing soliciting nominations is sent out

September 1 Deadline for nominations

October 15 Deadline for selection of the winner

The winner would then be notified to allow the person to make arrangements to attend the Convention.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

It was noted that there are currently five past winners of the Julian Wolf Award who are not current member of the Judge-Referee Committee. They are John Quinn '86, Chuck Colgan '87, Howard Smith '89, Martha Ferguson '90, and Sam Dempsey '94.

Craig will prepare a statement describing the criteria for the award and the changes in the selection process. The secretary is instructed to send out a letter with this statement and soliciting nominations in keeping with the established time line.

9. Athletes with Chronic Illnesses: Both Sholl and Wiener have contacted physicians regarding athletes with critical illnesses. This issue was raised by several Judge-Referees after encounters with athletes with asthma. The consensus of the physicians is that the responsibility needs to be placed on the athletes. For registered regattas, the athletes sign a waiver that certifies their ability to complete and acknowledges their acceptance of the risks involved. We as Judge-Referees can not ask athletes regarding what illnesses they may or may not have or prevent them from competing. It is suggested that an article detailing the limited role of Judge-Referees in dealing with athletes with chronic illnesses be prepared for the Clipboard.

10. Judge-Referee Waivers: Fuller raised the issue of what a Chief Referee should do about Judge-Referees who have not or will not sign waiver forms. Should a Chief Referee allow these officials to officiate? If a waiver is not signed by all or a majority of the participants of a regatta the deductible for the liability increases to $25,000. Given this increase in liability, it is within reason that the Chief disallow a Judge-Referee who has not signed the waiver from officiating. Discussions focused around how the Committee can monitor, control, and inform Chief Referees of Judge-Referees that have signed the waiver. The general consensus was that this would be a difficult task for either the Committee or the USRowing staff to do.

MOTION: (Fuller/Sholl) A statement be added to the Safety Check List stating that the Chief Referees and all Judge-Referees officiating at the regatta have signed the waiver form and that copies of the waivers are attached to the Safety Check List when it is returned to US Rowing. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

The USRowing staff should be instructed to follow up with Chief Referees who do not attach the waiver forms.

Concern was raised over the timing of the Safety Checklist being sent to Chief Referees. To help with this situation Safety Check Lists and Waiver forms should be sent out with the updated Rules of Rowing each year.

11. National Team Trials: Chen reported on the February PanAm Games Trials conducted at both San Diego and Oak Ridge. The lightweight women’s double legal challenge was briefly reviewed.

The Committee briefly went into executive session to discuss trials staffing.

Chen outlined the concern that the Trials Sub-Committee (Appleyard, Chen, Grudt) expressed to the Board of Directors over the ability of the selectors to restructure boats for the second round when the draft of the current trials procedure was first issued. Although this ability was left in the procedures, the Board and International Committees did review it.

Appleyard reported that the Augusta Trials for the Olympic events went smoothly.

The next Trials for the non-Olympic events and Juniors will be held the week of July 10 in Mercer County.

12. Rules of Rowing:

a. Crews urinating from boats on the water: This is covered in rules 1-202 and 2-411 covering Unsportsmanlike Conduct

b. Starts: Discussion on starts was deferred to December.

c. Boats deliberately interfering with another crew in order to advantage their teammates in another boat: Discussion was deferred to December.

d. Gender of crews: The issue of crews containing both male and female rowers rowing in a non-mixed category events was raised. Rules 2-504d and 4-107e forbid this with the exception of coxswains.

e. Coxswain weights: Discussion was deferred to December.

f. Uniform blade designs for a crew: Discussion was deferred to December.

Committee members are requested to solicit feedback from the rowing community prior to the December meeting for all items deferred to that time.

The intent of the Committee to focus Rules related discussions on the December meeting was reaffirmed. It was also requested that the Rules of Rowing, along with a summary of changes to the rules, be sent out earlier than the current late March date.

13. NCAA: Collegiate varsity women’s rowing programs will be moving to NCAA. Rowing has been classified as a “developing sport” by the NCAA. Rules and officiating have not yet been addressed in the process but have the potential of presenting many challenges when they are addressed. The Committee will for now monitor the progress of this transition and will be ready to lend any assistance that may be requested.

14. FISA Candidate Selection Criteria: Appleyard related Clyde Voigtlander’s concern over the lack of a phase in period for the criteria. Concern over the 12 regattas per year was also expressed. The Committee reaffirmed it’s original decision on both of these issues.

Ken Corkery presented the following concerns over the criteria:

- If attendance at three Elite National Championships is required then opportunities for those candidates who have identified themselves must be provided.

- There should be some evaluation of the performance of the candidate at these regattas.

- The candidate should have an opportunity to address any concerns that are raised concerning their qualifications, including when the decision whether to allow the candidate to sit for the exam is being made.

- Criteria A-F are very straight forward but criteria I can be subjective.

The Committee discussed how to mentor candidates and allow avenues for both meeting the criteria and for allowing feedback by the candidate especially when the formal application is late in the process.

MOTION: (Langford/Fuller) A mentoring process be established where by a current US FISA Umpire would be paired with each FISA candidate as they identify themselves. The mentor would be serve as the advocate for the candidate in addition to a resource in the candidate’s preparations. Ideally each of our FISA umpires would be paired with a maximum of one candidate. The Chair of the Committee would assign candidates to FISA umpires. This procedure will take effect immediately. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

The Committee will allow the candidates to participate in discussions regarding their sitting for the examination. This includes being present when the decision is being made.

Corkery expressed his feeling that the Committee was addressing the bulk of his concerns. He recommended that the Committee contact past candidates regarding the new procedure and mentoring process.

Regional representatives are asked to help identify candidates early in the process.

15. Conflict of Interest: It has been raised that the Committee has a conflict of interest in making most of the assignments it is charged to make. The policy of the current Committee of trying to make assignments to non-Committee members was reiterated.

16. Region Reports:

a. Mid-Atlantic: Philadelphia area is increasing its development work, both in recruiting and training.

b. Midwest: The mentor process is working well and will be continuing.

c. Northeast: Appleyard reported an increased number of regattas using USRA Judge-Referees. Due to this, the opportunities for training Judge-Referees is increasing. The number of Judge-Referees is correspondingly increasing.

d. Northwest: The number of observers has increased to 7. Work is also being done to implement self-evaluations of the Judge-Referees.

e. Southeast: The Southeast is benefiting from a strong USRowing Field Service person, Jim Buckalew, who is working hard to develop new officials. More workshops are being conducted in addition to clinics. A new regional steering committee has been established. This Committee is made up of all of the regional representatives to the various USRowing committees.

f. Southwest: The Southwest is working on increasing the number of officials and also developing a mentoring program.

17. Regatta Review:

a. Northwest Regional Junior Regatta: A drowning of a non-regatta involved individual at the regatta site occurred. A number of the regatta participants where instrumental in the rescue attempts. The situation points out the importance of the Chief Referee to:

- Address safety and rescue plans with all of the officials prior to the beginning of the regatta.

- The importance of having trained and competent emergency rescue people on site.

b. Empire State Regatta: When the racing conditions deteriorated to the point where racing could not be safe or fair, J. Matzdorf, the Chief Referee, stopped the regatta. After all of the USRA Officials had left the site the local organizers continued to run the remaining races. Feedback from athletes was that the regatta should not have been resumed.

18. Examinations and Rank and Structure:

MOTION: (Grudt/Appleyard) Combine the discussion of Examinations with the Rank and Structure and table the discussions until the remainder of the agenda is disposed of. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

19. Chief Referee Appointments:

RESOLVED: Wherever the Judge-Referee Committee exercises its power to appoint the Chief Referee of a championship regatta, whether as a body or through one of its members, it shall, whenever practical, consult with USRowing staff before making this decision. This policy shall govern national championships, national team trials, and regional championships.

20. Chef de Mission: It has come to light that the US is not sending a Chef de Mission to international regattas with the national team. This was articulated during the PanAm Games in Argentina, when a situation arose with the US men’s lightweight sculler where the Chef de Mission could have served as an advocate for the athlete during a protest jury. The Chef de Mission works as an advocate for the athletes and should be someone who can gain access to FISA juries. At one point in the past, the Committee appointed the Chef de Mission. The three US FISA umpires who were members of the PanAm jury will contact the president of the USRowing voicing their concerns over the lack of a Chef de Mission.

21. Blazer Patch: Concern was raised over the general availability of the USRA patch that is used by Judge-Referees in conjunction with the Juge-Arbitre bar on blazers. It is the general feeling of the Committee that the Juge-Arbitre bar will differentiate between Judge-Referees and other people wearing the patch.

22. Uniform: It was the previous practice of USRowing to sell Judge-Referee uniform components at cost. Since the USRowing merchandising function has been sub-contracted, these are now being sold at retail. Langford will contact both USRowing and the sub-contractor to clarify this policy.

23. Summer Committee Meetings: A request was made for the Committee to rotate it’s summer meeting between the national championships (USRowing, American Rowing, Master’s). It is the policy of the Committee to rotate the meeting. With the USRowing National Championships acting as the pre-World Championship regatta last year, and Pre-Olympic regatta this year, the Committee meetings were timed to coincide with these regattas. Next year the Committee will resume the rotation.

24. Term Limits: Fuller presented the idea of the Committee implementing term limits for the regional representatives on the Committee. This would allow for the development of more individuals. It was expressed that the terms are limited by the elections. Appleyard pointed out that the voting electorate are the organizations and not the referees. Discussion then centered around whether the Committee should make a request to the Board of Directors to change how the Committee is elected. Since the Committee is a general committee defined in the by-laws, changes on how the Committee is elected can be made by the Board of Directors. A recommendation to change how the Committee is elected was made in 1987 but was rejected at that time. It is late in the process for this Committee to effect a change in the way the Committee is selected (vote of organizations vs. vote of peers) before the elections early next year. This issue is referred to the next Committee. Without Board level changes, any type of term limits that the Committee would enact would be non-binding.

MOTION: (Fuller/Appleyard) The Judge-Referee Committee self-impose a 3 term limit for regionally elected representatives. MEASURE FAILS (Appleyard-Y, Chen-N, Craig-N, Fuller-Y, Grudt-Y, Langford-N, Sholl-Y, Wiener-N)

25. Long Distance Telephone Carrier: Craig introduced a long distance telephone plan whereby for each Judge-Referee that signed up for the plan, a non-profit group such as the Judge-Referee Committee of USRowing would receive a percentage of the revenuegenerated by that person’s long distance activity. An example of $2 being given to the non-profit for a $38 monthly bill was cited. The Committee decided that at this time it is not in a position to participate in such a plan.

******** Executive Session ********

26. Review of the Judge-Referee Corps: The Committee extended the license of one Judge-Referee who reached the age of 65 in 1995 but was not reviewed at the 1995 December Meeting. It is the policy of the Committee that the age of a referee will be considered to be the age that the Judge-Referee was on the first of January for that entire calendar year. The Committee reviews all Judge-Referees who have reached or passed 65 years of age for 1 year extension of licenses at its December meeting.

One Judge-Referee who had been deferred at the 1995 December meeting was promoted to Full referee.

It is the policy of the Committee to focus the review of the Judge-Referee corps on the December meeting. Committee member are reminded to send information on any Judge-Referee requesting a status change to the Secretary by November 10 for inclusion in the packet that will be mailed out.

27. Olympic Sports Festival: Alternates were discussed for one of the regional representatives who may not be able to attend the festival.

***** Out of Executive Session *****

28. Rank and Structure: (Deferred from item 18) A meeting was held during the USRowing National Championships to obtain feedback from the Judge-Referees in attendance at the regatta regarding the proposed rank and structure changes. Approximately 60 Judge-Referees attended the meeting. There was a positive response regarding the proposed changes.

From the meeting support was given for the Candidate position and the test over the Rules of Rowing in order to become an Assistant Referee. It was suggested that within the Assistant Referee there be two tracks: 1. those individuals moving to Judge-Referee, 2. those who desire limited capacity participation (finish, judge at start, marshall). This would allow for those who do not want to work all positions.

After debate the Committee concluded that for those people just wanting to work finish line there is not the need to have a license. However for those working other positions there is a liability to:

1. all of the participants of the regatta for their safety;

2. the athletes for the fairness of racing.

Because of this, a level of competence is owed in all positions and this level should be maintained through the Judge-Referee license. It is important to understand the interworking of all positions, even though work may be primarily done in one position. The Committee believes that a single track system is the best way to ensure this.

The two to three year program for the Assistant, with those not successfully completing the examination leaving the program was questioned. The Committee, after review, remains committed to this policy.

Proposals have been made that in addition to the Clinician certification, other certifications should be established. Some of the proposed certifications are:

- Regional vs. National Judge-Referee

- Chief Referee

- Level of regattas

Concern, both external and internal to the Committee, was expressed over the creation of multiple “merit badges” that lose their meaning and dilute basic Judge-Referee rank.

The Chief position has been perceived as an obligation for which full referees would be penalized if they did not accept when offered to them. It is the position of the Committee that Judge-Referees should not feel obligated to accept Chief referee positions if they are offered to them. At the last meeting, the Committee stated that “market forces” would dictate Chief Referees. After review, further discussion is needed regarding the possibility of a “Chief Referee” designation.

Fuller has proposed that Judge-Referees be on a four year cycle for recertification. The second year of the process each Judge-Referee would be given a written examination. The fourth year a practical examination would be given. The Judge-Referees would be required to stay current on the Rules of Rowing. An on-going level of competence in both judgment and performance would also be expected. Before the details of recertification activities can be determined, a statement regarding what is expected from a Judge-Referee with regard to competency, demeanor, and rules knowledge needs to be defined. From this definition the recertification activities should fall out. The criteria would also dictate what activities are required in the training of Assistant Judge-Referees.

MOTION: (Fuller/Craig) Appleyard should work with Peter Kay and Bruce Wilson to develop criteria as to what a Judge-Referee should be. These criteria should be prepared and provided to the Committee by October 1, 1995. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

MOTION: (Fuller/Craig) Discussion on examinations be tabled until after the criteria for a Judge-Referee are developed. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

Chen is requested to continue his work on the outline of the practical examination based on the preliminary work that he presented to the Committee.

Based upon feedback from Judge-Referees, the amount of work remaining prior to implementing the new rank and structure, and the need for communication with the Judge-Referee corps, the implementation date has been changed from January 1, 1996 to July 1, 1996.

29. Next Meeting and Convention: The following schedule has been set for the next Committee meeting to be held in conjunction with the Annual Convention in Augusta:

Thursday November 30, 1995 6:00 PM-9:00 PM

Friday December 1, 1995 8:00 AM-6:00 PM

Saturday December 2, 1995 As needed

Sunday December 3, 1995 As needed

A workshop will also be planned for the Convention, on Saturday morning, for Judge-Referees. The Committee will ask John Quinn to chair this practical oriented workshop.

30. Motion to Adjourn: Motion to adjourn was made at 6:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Kristopher A. Grudt

Secretary

This document was produced using an evaluation version of HTML Transit