Last updated on November 1st, 2023 at 08:56 am
I had an “Aha!” experience many years ago at a weekend training for new swim meet referees. There, highly-experienced and excellent referees taught us. As we discussed various situations, decision-making, and correct resolutions, I realized I didn’t fully understand the foundational principles they were using to make fair and consistent decisions. I wasn’t sure how they correctly interpreted and applied the rules in situations where it wasn’t clear what to do. I understood what they decided. But I wasn’t clear on why. As a result, I didn’t feel confident in my decision-making as a swim meet referee. I wasn’t sure how I could make consistently correct decisions in situations where the resolution wasn’t clearly spelled out in the rules.
I wasn’t alone in this trepidation. Many participants asked questions to seek clarification. As the training continued, it was obvious that some resolutions were more favorable, or correct than others. The standard response was, “You just need to use common sense.” I’m a pretty sensible person but didn’t find this answer helpful. Instead, I found it hard to anticipate how I, as a swim meet referee, would consistently and correctly make judgments on issues not clearly covered by the rules. These types of issues are neither clearly legal nor clearly not legal. In other words, they’re not black or white. These issues lay somewhere in the middle, somewhere in “the gray.”
Contents for Decision-Making Help for Swim Meet Referees
Making Good Decisions and “Calls”
I wanted confidence that my future decisions would be “good calls.” Calls I made on a correct interpretation and application of the rules and guiding principles. As the workshop discussion continued, some rules seemed inviolable — or unchangeable in the slightest degree — while others seemed more pliable depending on varying circumstances. I was nervous about my ability to judge which rules were absolute, and which ones were more yielding.
As a stroke, turn, and chief judge, I had primarily worked with the technical, or prescribed form, rules of the individual strokes and relays. As a referee, I was now responsible to know, understand, interpret, and apply all of the rules in a fair, equitable, consistent, and correct manner — and it wasn’t always black and white. I wanted my decisions to stand on a “firm foundation” even when I was dealing with issues in “the gray.” Or those issues within the range of variance outside of the easier “black” and “white” judgment calls and decision-making. (For more on this issue as it pertains to stroke and turn judges, in addition to other positions, see Improving Swim Meet Official’s Judgement)
What Can “Give” and What Can’t
During a break in the workshop, I spoke with one of the presenters about my apprehension. He gave a simple rule of thumb that has been extremely helpful in my development as a swim meet referee and in learning to “deal with the gray.” He said that the technical, or form, rules for the individual strokes and relays were inviolable — or unchangeable — but that some of the administrative rules could have some “give” depending on the circumstances. For example: At that time one rule required officials to submit disqualifications (DQ’s) on written slips of paper. But in one of the shared situations, the official submitted DQ’s via radio only. Prior to this clarification, I wasn’t sure why they felt it was okay to “set aside” the rule that required officials to submit DQ’s in writing. (NOTE: The governing organization has since revoked this administrative rule.)
Please let me be clear. I am NOT suggesting that any official should carelessly set aside or not follow any rule. (Want more on why one must follow the rules of the governing organization? See Governing Bodies and Swim Meet Hosts. ) I am a huge proponent of knowing, understanding, correctly interpreting, and applying the rules in all situations. However, some situations are not specifically covered by the rules. Others show up in the crosshairs of the rule and what appears to be an opposing, but vital guiding principle. In situations like these, the correct resolution is not always clear (i.e. black and white.) Yet, swim meet officials may have to make a decision.
Example of Decision-Making “In The Gray”
For example, many years ago a team traveled several hours to compete at a state championship meet. Upon arrival, they learned that none of their team members showed up as entered the meet. The coach swore that the team entries had been submitted via email prior to the entry deadline. But, the meet entry person never received the entry email. To make things more challenging, the coach had since cleared out their email inbox and deleted the original entry email so there was no proof of submission. The meet announcement forbade late entries so they couldn’t just enter then.
Additionally, there was another important factor to consider. About the time coach claimed to have sent the entry email, a large, well-documented power outage occurred in the coach’s part of the state. It was suggested that perhaps this was why the entries weren’t received. Also, since the person accepting entries didn’t send a confirmation of receipt to any who entered the meet, the coach had no reason to suspect any problem.
Meet Jury or Committee
The referee opted for a meet jury to resolve this issue. A meet jury can be a great tool in difficult-to-determine-the-best-resolution situations like this. It usually consists of a small, odd number of coaches, athletes, officials, or organizational members who are on-site (or connected to the meet) and not directly affected by the case. Your governing organization may have more information about using meet juries or committees.
Factors to Consider in Decision-Making
There were many factors to consider in this decision-making including:
Rules
- The meet announcement clearly stated that in order to compete in a meet, a swimmer must be entered in compliance with the event entry requirements. (The members of this team were not.)
- All the other competitors submitted their entries in compliance with the meet-entry requirements. (There is a need to be fair to these teams and competitors.)
Events Beyond the Coach’s Control
- It’s possible that the regional power outage affected the entry email and kept the entry person from receiving the entries.
Coach Controlled Factors
- There was no proof that the coach submitted the entries on time.
- The team had traveled several hours, made hotel, and other travel arrangements, and obviously planned on being at the meet all three days. (A sign that they were not aware of any entry problem and believed their entries were submitted.)
Meet Host Controlled Factors
- The person receiving meet entries was new. So unlike more experienced admin people, didn’t think to contact the team to ensure that their lack of entry was intentional.
- Note: The rules did not require this action. But a more experienced meet-entry person might have taken this proactive step. Since this meet was a state championship meet, most teams sent athletes. This team regularly sent swimmers to this seasonal meet. So, it was unusual to not have their entry.
Guiding Principles
- Those who followed the rules when entering the meet should not be penalized by the addition of those who did not. (If one of the added athletes placed well, they would displace another swimmer who had entered according to the stipulations of the meet announcement.)
- The reason we hold swim meets is to give athletes the chance to compete. (“Let the kids swim” mentality)
One Resolution
It was a tough situation with good arguments on both sides of the issue. The question was, “Should the meet leadership allow these athletes to compete? Why or why not? And if so, under what conditions?” The jury heard all sides. Then, had a thorough discussion and careful deliberation. At last, they decided to let the athletes swim, but not score points. They also gave a suggestion to prevent this from happening again. As a result, state championship meet announcements in this area now contain a new clause. It states this. “If the person submitting entries does not receive a confirmation of entry receipt within 24 hours of the meet entry deadline, it is the submitter’s responsibility to contact the meet entry person to confirm receipt.”
A different group at another meet may have come up with another resolution.
Decrease the Range of Variance in Decision-Making
The material point is this. Sometimes decisions and judgment calls fall outside the clear-cut determination of the rules. Is it possible for swim meet referees to decrease the range of variation among them on calls of this type? Yes, and it’s important that we learn how to do it. Why? Because it improves the swimming experience for all involved. How? Because no matter where or when they attend a swim meet, the decisions made there will be consistently reliable and within the rules and guiding principles of the sport.
A key learning for me and the “Aha!” moment at that workshop, which increased my confidence in making consistent and correct calls was uncovering the concept of “influencing factors” associated with decision-making. More on this in Weighing Factors: Swim Meet Decisions
Preparing for a swim meet? Check out The Ultimate Swim Meet To-Do List. Then, get a bird’s eye view of Who does What at Swim Meets. Both include easy-to-follow links to related information. Doing a smaller, simpler meet? Host a High School or Developmental Swim Meet will help.
Need more help? See 20+ Ways to Get Swim Meet Timers and Officials: 20+ Ways to Get them for Swim Meets.
Also, discover a few things you can do to Increase Safety at Swim Meets. Find ideas to implement before your meet as well as last-minute quick and easy tips!