Everyone makes a choice, Brandon, do they start out on the right foot, or the wrong one. There are always two ways to learn, watch someone doing it right, and emulate him or watch someone doing it wrong, and vow to do the opposite.

When you're new at something, criticizing others who may be doing something you perceive as wrong, even though you may be 100% accurate, is usually not a great way to endear yourself with your peers.

On a good day, even the very best of us should appreciate and accept constructive criticism, or be willing to explain what you might perceive as something questionable. Reality dictates that the newer you are, the more subtle and diplomatic your question or criticism might need to be to be considered constructive.

It's often better to simply decide, rather than speculate or criticize, to just consider the action (behavior, appearance, demeanor) and decide for myself to either emulate it or to avoid ever repeating it.

As you gain experience, hopefully you'll come to understand we get better at a lot of things on a week to week basis, but other things, or habits, take longer to work through and that very often we respond to a certain play, somewhat differently than usual, because of the unique circumstances of that particular play, which might be a good adjustment, or sometimes not.

The person you'll get the most benefit out of critiquing, even to the nit-picking level, is yourself, because you'll recognize a lot more mistakes you make than anybody else will and you should understand better what you may have done wrong.

A tip I was given in 1985 when I started officiating was to keep a logbook of every game I worked. For my first few years, I would write down what I did good and what I messed up (as well as basic stuff like the date, the teams, the score, the rest of the crew and who worked where). It helped me identify trends in my officiating so I knew what my weak areas were and I could work on them to try and improve.

Even today, I still keep a log of the date, teams, score, the rest of the crew and who worked where. But that's more to do with the memory not being what it was, as it drives me nuts trying to recall whether I'd worked with some guy before or not.

My local officials association have adopted that idea for our formal rookie training program. A rookie has a logbook and must get it filled in for his first 10 games by the crew - they say what he did good, what he needs to work on and the White Hat signs it off. We strongly encourage our newer guys to continue by keeping their own logbook themselves after those first 10 games.

And make sure you don't leave it in a piece of furniture the ex-wife is taking with her. I had one, couldn't find it, realized it was in a hutch that my ex took with her when she moved out. I asked her for it to be returned, she claimed she didn't have it. It showed up over a year and a half later in court, as an attempt to discredit me as an inefficient person as a whole (child custody was a factor). My attorney objected to it's relevance. The judge allowed it, but only after I made the comment that I don't appreciate being shown up in front of a fellow official (the judge is a high school soccer official), for which I got a stern talking to from the judge. :mad:

I try to keep a mental note of what went wrong and what was right. Usually but not always, if a white hat questions my call ill ask him to decribe to me what exactly the call im calling is. After he describes it to me ill confirm that that is indeed what I saw. if it is what I saw. (Ex. I call a false start, The white hat questions me and I ask him what exactly is a false start to be sure. He'll reply its when a offensive player gives any sign that the play has started before the ball is actually hiked and ill say I saw #82 jump the first time the snapper said "hike") and it usually ends there but sometimes ill have a white hat waive off a call because he himself did not see it. I guess it depends on who your working with. Either way im always appreciative of any constructive criticism I get. It might sting a little while its being delivered but after the game im always willing to go up and shake the man's hand that gave it to me.

I strongly suggest you know what your foul is and are absolutely sure of it before throwing your flag. And if I ask what you saw and when you saw it, you better have the answers or you had no business throwing the flag. Questioning the WH about a call YOU have while reporting it to him is not going to give the impression you probably want to make. You want to ask me during a time out, before the game, or after the game, no problem. I'm not trying to be a tyrant, but you have to understand if you come to me to report a foul and start asking me questions on what qualifies for that foul, I'm thinking you are not really sure at all about what you saw and I'm going to suggest we pick that flag up.

99.9% of the time i am 100% sure of the call when I throw the flag. If the white hat questions my call I do not have a problem explaining it to him. If I throw a flag and I think its questionable I will tell the white hat "Here's what I saw....." I don't claim to be perfect but like I said.....I have no problem being corrected.

Brandon, don't overcomplicate the issues.

First, forget the rec game. As you said, neither official was certified. There's a different standard when working with certified HS officials.

Second, the referee is in charge of the crew and the game. He wears a white hat so as to distinguish him from the other officials. Not sure what else you're looking for.

Third, in most areas, the referee has a say on who works on his crew. Therefore, yes, he can usually have a crew member replaced if he wants too.

Finally, referees usually have years of experience. They are going to make better decisions than you will. As this point in your career, you learning what to call. But even more importantly, you have not even begun to learn what NOT to call. This is where you will need to listen to the more experienced officials.

The veterans will listen to you but it's much more important that you are the one who listens.

I agree. I really do want to succeed in being a football official. I talk to certified officials on the phone at games and even work with them indivdually to be the very best I can be. One official even has it set up to where i get in his HS games free and stand near the field so that I can watch and learn. Im doing the very best I can and asking the questions that I feel I need to ask.

Heh, heh - and that's why God gave us one mouth and two ears, so we listen twice as much as we speak. :)

If you are already in contact with some of your local registered officials, then that is a good start. Pick their brains all you can, ask them why things were done as they were on games of theirs that you watch. They won't mind. Attend all the meetings of your local officials group. Show them that you are keen to learn. Hopefully one or two of them will become your mentor and take some time to help you along.

One final point. Officials tend to go through 3 stages.

Stage 1: the game is a blur. Apart from the obvious things (False Starts, etc), they don't see any fouls either live ball stuff or dead ball stuff after the play. They either move too much when they should stand and let the play happen, or they are static when they should be moving.

Stage 2: they recognise live action fouls. They flag everything because they see everything. The live action game has slowed down for them and now they see the fouls they've read about in the Rules and BANG! out comes the flag every time. They still miss some dead ball stuff though, they tend to be too keen on getting the ball in to the Umpire instead of watching players.

Stage 3: they've learn to relax even more. They think about whether the foul they saw affected the play, they won't flag stuff that doesn't (eg a hold away from the point of attack), but they may have a quiet word with the kid so he knows it was seen. Anything player safety related, they'll flag wherever it happens on the field and they catch all the dead ball stuff because they know to watch the players for that extra couple of seconds.

A good official recognises what stage he is at and works hard to get to the next stage. It also takes patience, it won't happen overnight.

Honestly guys everyone who replied to this topic I really appreciate it. Like I said this is something I want to grow in and you guys are giving me extremely good advice. Thanks again.

Two things:

1. If I'm the referee, I always give another official time to back out of an ejection. I will go over the call and ask him. "Do you still want to eject him?" The decision is always his. About half the time an official will change his mind (obviously there are situations that don't have much wiggle room-ie fighting). Sometimes in the heat of the moment we pull the trigger a little quickly and it is good to take a second to reflect.

2. I think the role of the referee is being mischaracterized. On any crew I have worked with, the referee is collectively "in charge". Maybe not officially, but as a practical matter, someone should have the last word. Thus, when a dispute arises, it is almost always the referee who ultimately will decide. That has been my experience.

This is what I ultimatly feel the White Hat's job is. He questions your call so that you may speak to other officials about what they saw and helps gather info you may not know. If it is determined you are wrong he is to tell you why it is wrong so that you don't make the same mistake again. However, He shouldalways leave it up to the calling official as to wether the call is upheld or waived off. Wtih that being said, He is also the dispute breaker. They guy who has the final say so should a disagreement arise.

Brandon, I can't tell if you're trying to split a hair beyond it's splitting capacity, but if you're still having trouble with the words, read the following rules carefully;

NF: 1.1.4 "The game is administered by game officials whose title and duties are are stated in the official's manual".

NF: 1.1.6 "The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not covered in the rules. The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.(Not the specificity of specifically identifying the "Referee" as the final decision maker)

If a referee's observation and conclusions about a situation are different than another official calling a particular situation, the rereree is within his right to tactfully and discreetly seek details supporting the call. In the vast majority of instances, information from the calling official, about his observations, will provide the detail necessary to support his reaction.

In those rare instances when that may not be the case, or when a rule is misunderstood and the referee believes has been misapllied, the referee should be able to educate the calling official of the error of his decision, which should then persuade the calling official to alter his ruling.

In the unusual circumstance where disagreement persists, the referee would likely seek input from the other game officials to try and back up either position, but the final decision, and responsibility for making it, belong to the referee.

It should be highly unusual, however, to reach the point of requiring a non consensus decision.

Brandon, I can't tell if youre trying to split a hait beyond it's splitting capacity, but if you're still having trouble with the words, read the following rules;

NF: 1.1.4 "The game is administered by game officials whose title and duties are are stated in the official's manual".

NF: 1.1.6 "The referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not covered in the rules. The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game.

If a referee's observation and conclusions about a situation are different than another official calling a particular situation, the fereree is within his right to tactfully, discreetly seek details supporting the call. In the vast majority od instances, information from the calling official about his observations will provide the detail necessary to support his reaction.

In those rare instances when that may not be the case, or when a rule is misunderstood and the referee believes has been misapllied, the referee should be able to persuade the calling official of the error of his decision, which should motivate the calling official to change his ruling.

In the unusual circumstance where disagreement persists, the referee would likely secure input from the other game officials to try and back up either position, but the final decision, and responsibility, are the referee's to make.

It should be highly unusual, however, to reach the point of requiring a non consensus decision.

Agreed.