Starting with one umpire

 The Field Hockey Forum is the resource for players, coaches and umpires of Field Hockey. Join FHF now to have full access to all that we have to offer! Don't be satisfied with lurking when you can interact with thousands of other FHF’rs, take part in Competitions, win Prizes, download Coaching Papers, discover our vast Photo library and get rid of this message - Register Now!

[UmpireHockey.com]

Third one I came on to umpire about ten minutes in when I heard there was only one umpire on it, by which point it had already degenerated and we weren't able to clean it up properly.

Whomever had started it by themselves, shouldn't have. Better to have no umpires than one. So many umpires think they're helping when they do this and all they're doing is undermining the profession.

...Cris

[Diligent]

When the players are prepared to take advantage of one umpire, getting up to whatever can't be seen, then I'd agree one umpire is a bad idea. But if that's what happens in your area, the player-umpire relationship has bigger problems.

I've done quite a bit of umpiring on my own, but being only ever friendlies and training games, players have been sporting and it has never been a problem. Under those conditions, the umpire does help - by correctly applying rules most players don't know very well - and that does the profession no harm.

[justin]

Spot-on, Diligent.

[mosley59]

Whomever had started it by themselves, shouldn't have. Better to have no umpires than one. So many umpires think they're helping when they do this and all they're doing is undermining the profession.

...Cris

Unfortunately, Cris, it doesn't work like that here. Our secondary school competition is timed centrally by some old bloke with an airhorn and a rather erratic watch, so once the hooter goes, the game has to start, compared to our club competition which is tightly run but we time it ourselves. We're extremely short of umpires for the secondary school games too and the person who organises the draw never turns up to check umpires have shown up, which leads to a lot of teams not being provided umpires or only being given one. Jesse didn't start the game by choice, he was forced to by the timer, something I'm not a fan of at all.

[jtsoldier]

Unfortunately, Cris, it doesn't work like that here. Our secondary school competition is timed centrally by some old bloke with an airhorn and a rather erratic watch, so once the hooter goes, the game has to start, compared to our club competition which is tightly run but we time it ourselves. We're extremely short of umpires for the secondary school games too and the person who organises the draw never turns up to check umpires have shown up, which leads to a lot of teams not being provided umpires or only being given one. Jesse didn't start the game by choice, he was forced to by the timer, something I'm not a fan of at all.

Don't worry too much about it. Even the mighty Manawatu (with our fairly sizeable supply of junior and qualified umpires) has similar difficulties at times... Except our centrally-timed day is Saturday, and has club games starting straight afterward (ie. if games don't start on time, they must finish on time - if they don't finish on time, the club games run late).

[Other] umpires for whatever reason, don't seem to like anything that looks bad weather and, especially right now, are all vulnerable to whatever wintery illness is spreading.

[UmpireHockey.com]

Whomever had started it by themselves, shouldn't have. Better to have no umpires than one. So many umpires think they're helping when they do this and all they're doing is undermining the profession.

Sorry, I didn't mean who started the time, I was referring to the person who started umpiring. Not "personally" who, just generically "the umpire who started umpiring alone" shouldn't have. Simple as that. Umpiring alone is umpire misconduct.

And, why start alone? Because the time started ticking? Who does it benefit?

What if both umpires were as late as you were? There would be zero umpires -- would the teams start playing?

Which game would be better? The game with one umpire, the one with no umpires? The only one that I'm certain of would be the one with two umpires....with certainty it's the only game that would be real.

It's just not sensible finding reasons --- even ones that are easy to come by --- to explain away why umpiring alone is okay.

We do ourselves, the players, the coaches --- the game --- a disservice by supporting the notion in conversations let "alone" on the pitch.

If we begin a game by not following the rule book, where do we go from there?

Cheers...Cris

[nerd_is_the_word]

so what do you tell the players who pay their (insert amount here) dollars a week in order to play their game? Where we are these amounts are paid in lump sums, not weekly so players who dont get a game that week still end up paying.

We are in the same boat as Mosley in that games are centrally times so if it doesnt start on time then you simply get less game time. That seems unfair to punish the players because an umpire hasnt turned up.

That being said if it was a higher level game i certainly wouldnt be doing it single handed

[Bondy]

Rules in our Club competition are that, if an appointed umpire doesn't turn up, then either:
a) the two teams agree on someone to umpire the other end, or
b) each team provides someone (coach/manager/supporter/sub) to umpire half of the game

To me, that seems like the best way to deal with a situation where the game has to be finished by a set time.

[Diligent]

Simple as that. Umpiring alone is umpire misconduct.

It's just not sensible finding reasons --- even ones that are easy to come by --- to explain away why umpiring alone is okay.

Cris you are being much too black-and-white about this, and I'm not sure why. I'm guessing that there are some specific issues in America driving you into that position - maybe a creeping acceptance of appointing lone umpires to serious competitions? But please accept that elsewhere, in more social hockey, it can be perfectly reasonable for the game to go ahead with one umpire.

It comes down to trust. If umpire and players trust each other to do the right thing, and not take advantage, then it's OK to start with one umpire. When the game turns out OK with a lone umpire it reinforces the trust. And that can only enhance the profession of umpiring.

On the other hand, if no one trusts anyone else, and coaches will blame the 'biased' umpire for every failing in their team's performance, and the players will use every trick they think they'll get away with... then Cris is right. Umpires would be foolish to try that alone, and it'll be tough to attract anyone to umpiring, so there aren't enough umpires, so lone umpires will be appointed to serious games... It's called a downward spiral. And then I would agree that the only way to go is to label umpiring alone as "misconduct" and "unprofessional". Take a stand until more sporting attitudes push out the 'win at all costs' coaching.


Take last night's men's summer league: "Who's my partner?" "He's not here yet" "When's he due?" "Errr... actually not at all". So we went ahead and I can recall for sure 4 incidents - 3 with new rules and 1 'competitive' tackle - that they probably wouldn't have picked on their own. Twice we corrected my call of a long corner and a 16. And once they confirmed it was indeed a fair goal when a breakaway stranded me half a pitch away. And I was there as an independent witness that, after the keeper half-saved, his defender did sweep the ball away before it completely crossed the line. The game was better for having one umpire than none at all.

By half time I had a partner. Some higher grade umpires had been watching from the bar, and eventually sent one of their number out to help. Then there were 3x as many goals, and I'd guess 3x as many PCs and fouls. At one PC a defender came back to halfway grumbling "It was better with you on your own" "Ah but you've all upped the pressure, haven't you?" "Oh yeah". The game was even better - more intense, more 'real' if you like - with two umpires.

That's not 'to explain away'; that's how it was.


Trust.

[F1-mania]

I don't really see why one umpire is such a big deal. League football games are often played with one umpire, as is rugby, and the majority of other sports.
Sure if its a big game then you need 2 umpires, but in the more social forms of the game, one umpire can do the job given.

[Goalie64]

F1 - and in the sports you name there are (or should be) 2 linesmen/ref's assistants as well.

1 umpire cannot do anything like as good a job as 2. They can make a stab at it (and I have done so, but not in a proper league game). When I've done it I have positioned myself as a football ref would be, but I can only cover well from 25 to 25, and if you aren't getting help from the players the game isn't worth playing.

Considering League games, my region (East of England) requires L1 or L1 probationers (lowest level of qualification) and has the following rule if one doesn't turn up. For the majority of games, each side is responsible for providing 1 umpire each, although umpire swaps are common:

5.3 Umpire Replacements. When an umpire unexpectedly fails to fulfill an appointment, the captains of both sides shall endeavour to find an appropriate replacement and thus fulfill the fixture. If a Level One umpire is required and only an unqualified umpire is available but is acceptable to both teams, the match may proceed. If both captains cannot reach an agreement regarding a replacement umpire prior to the start of the game, the League fixture must be rearranged. If a replacement umpire is used, a written explanation of the circumstances must be sent by the home team and received by their League Manager within seven days of the date of the match. If the problem arose from a genuine late withdrawal by an appointed umpire, the League Committee subsequently may consider to apply no penalty.

[Martindk]

Have done 2 games alone , 1 with succes and 1 total failed , the one wit succes was with two fair play teams who was spot on, they even came to me once in the game and said that their goal should be cancelled due to foot  the other game had one player who was not a fair play player , so that one was a bloddy nightmare looking at the watch all the time , so yes you can have a prober match with one umpire but both sides must play fair otherwise you have a nightmare coming 2 u