After being involved in the game of tennis for well over 50 years now (both as a player, official, and parent of a player), there are still some things that greatly perplex me... Such as:
* Why do some certified officials also serve as tournament directors and then cut or limit our pay? Perhaps it is time for some of them to decide which side of the fence they are sitting upon. I imagine that EVERY TOURNAMENT pays for the tournament director's meals.
* Why do some officials change so drastically when they start calling lines in pro tournaments?
* Why can't we offer officials schools at times other than January and February?
* Why does a certified referee (with Texas Section rules training) have to attend an additional training school taught only in Austin in order to referee tournaments in Texas?
* Why do some provisional officials think they know everything about officiating when they have done their first ZAT tournament?
* Why do some tournament directors tell us that their expenses have gone up so we shouldn't raise our rates even with a cost of living increase?
* Why do some people think we are getting rich at $15/hour?
* Why do some parents think we are deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid?
* Why do some coaches think we just arrived on a late bus?
* Why do we put up with people in leadership complaining about our rates when they are charging nearly $50 for each entry in tournaments?
* Why don't we consider the possibility of organizing into a Player's Organization and providing at least some limited benefits and retirement plans for our officials?
These are just a few of the things that perplex me after these many years of being involved in the sport of tennis. We would welcome your comments and perplexities...
2 comments:
The primary reason for all of your (and our) problems is stagnation at the leadership positions. How long have the same "icons" been in leadership positions? As long as I've been officiating which has been a very very long time. Until the USTA Officials leaders (or should I say warm bodies wasting carbon footprints) are empeached or otherwise forceably removed from their posisions via a revolution, nothing will happen.
This is yet another situation where a union could be fruitful. Unfortunately, the officials pushing for a union aren't much better than what we already have, and in actuality may be worse.
Here's something that perplexes me every year about this time.
The Big 12 Conference has put out their schedule and is accepting availability information. Other Div. 1 schools are doing or will be doing the same. Officials are quickly going to discover that they are "bidding" on more than one match on some dates.
That puts officials in a bind. When the Big 12 and these schools begin putting out their assignments, what do we do? Do we automatically accept the first match offered on that date AND THEN decline any subsequent offers? Or do we wait and see how many offers we get on that one date and accept: the closest to home (SMU, UTA, TCU don't pay mileage), or the match that pays most (Big 12, UT, A&M), or what?
The code of conduct says we are not to accept an assignment and then withdraw in favor of another offer. But that's not the problem here. Is it unethical for us to say to multiple coordinators that we're available and then when they offer an assignment, we turn it down! Or we could just roll the dice and bid on only one match and hope we get it! Not a good plan either.
How do others feel about this?
Post a Comment