Ref only policy revisited

[BatFasterson]

I've appreciated having the luxury of the refs-only section. I don't often notice what's posted there versus elsewhere, but there are times I've used it for the firewall.

In one situation, we had an emotionally charged bout I was head-reffing, involving the death of a skater linked to both teams, and it was a good place to post some of those mixed emotions I was having (veering close, perhaps, to what Professor Murder referred to above as "referee therapy sessions geared around one person") while also seeking feedback and similar stories from others.

I'm not sure whether that was an inappropriate post for the forum, but I think it was one that could aide other refs in similar situations. The response certainly helped me. And were it not for the firewall, I wouldn't have posted it because of potential fallout had that bout gone badly. (It didn't.)

[SeerSin]

I don't see a Ref only section as encouraging inappropriate discussions even though some have occurred. It is useful for asking questions of your peers, and having a discussion in context of rules and procedures as opposed to strategy and gameplay. I don't agree that it's about hiding, though it can be used in that fashion, which isn't good. Often limiting a discussion to a smaller group is beneficial in and of itself.

The biggest drawback to a ref only section is that others who could benefit from the discussion can't. And there's something to be said for pulling back the curtain and letting everyone see how the sausage is made.

I suggest keeping a small ref only section, while opening the majority of the board to others. We still have moderators for both sections and certified referees on this forum and we're far from letting "any ole joe" give officiating advice.

[Major Wood]

Ok, so it seems as though most everyone appreciates having a ref only section. Moving past that discussion, some of you mentioned that it be made smaller.
What areas are necessary to be ref only and which should be made public?

[ExceptionHandler]

Ethics discussion needs to stay ref only in my opinion.

[JoeXCore]

In my opinion there should just be a "ref only" section... no description. Let those who post decide what should be available for all and what should not, with no restrictions.

The only time I think something should be moved from full view to ref only would be in the case of someone specifically requesting a move. I believe I did this once on a topic. I believe I said something like "I would speak with greater candor if this were moved to ref only"

[SeerSin]

I like the idea of one ref only section, let the individual posting choose who their audience is.

[mick hawkins]

i like that at the monent - in ref only area - any rules discussions are separated from the rest
it's convenient when looking through past discussions

apart from that, everything else could go into one section (IMO)

[Major Wood]

i like that at the monent - in ref only area - any rules discussions are separated from the rest
it's convenient when looking through past discussions

apart from that, everything else could go into one section (IMO)

Why is there a need for a ref only rules discussion section? Not necessarily saying that there shouldn't be one, but I'd like to hear your opinion if you particularly value that section.

[mick hawkins]

Sorry for not being clear
I was reffering to the rules-discussion-leading-to-strategy section that exists now

JoeX's reason for such a section is a good one...

To better discuss to to officiate said strategy.
Be ready to recognize it when it comes up.

example there are different methods for reffing "slow pack" as compared to "fast pack"

It's impossible to discuss certain situations without mentioning things that can be used as effective strategies. It has been policy on this board that if things are brought up in a way that teams may use what is discussed as strategy it has been moved to the "ref only" section. There only coaches and skaters can't see it... unless they're also refs.