In Virginia, and especially northern Virginia, there seems to be an expectation that one who works tournaments will get three or four (or, gasp, up to eight) straight games without a break. So when referees received assignments which included a break, some referees were distressed. But overall, most comments have been favorable.

I have worked a number of tournaments in many different states and in none of them have I been handed a schedule of three or four straight games. One might be inclined to conclude that Virginia assignors have chosen this model simply because it’s easy. And make no mistake, it is the simplest way to assign.

But being simplest to assign doesn’t mean it is best for the game. And surprisingly, what is best for the referees is not always best for the game either. If tournaments (or leagues) wanted to do what was best for the referees they would give us Semi Final #1 at 9:00, Semi Final #2 at 10:30, and the Final at noon. We could have one crew working three straight games. That works well for referees and assignors too but it doesn’t work well for the game.

The game deserves fair treatment for the players and that is why the semi-finals are played at the same time at 8:30, requiring two crews, and then the finals are played at noon. Or 1:00. That is what is best for the game.

Having refereed in many tournaments and spoken extensively with assignors of those tournaments led me to provide better assignments for the tournament by including breaks. And for the same reason, I do not assign full day blocks of games. It is not good for the game.

If I am handed a six-game schedule by the organizers I will break those into two 3-game sets. But these sets often will not consist of games 1, 2, and 3 and games 4, 5, and 6. Rather the first set will be games 1, 2, and 4 while the second set will be games 3, 5 and 6.

This accomplishes a few things. First, it forces everyone who has a three-game set to have a break. Referees taking a break from 3-4 straight hours of running is good for the game.

Second, it allows the referee site coordinator the opportunity to act if someone in the afternoon crew, who must come in on time for Game 3, should happen to be a no-show. The coordinator could immediately get a volunteer from the break crew to cover Game 3.

Yes, if these were scheduled as consecutive sets one might still be able to find a ref who is finishing to stay for another game but that is the point -- they would have to extend their stay at the field for which they did not plan. Sometimes we can’t find someone willing to stay longer but almost always we can find someone who will give up a break for another game.

And during this time of a no-show (Game 3), the site coordinator also has time, two games (3 & 4) to find a replacement for the referee who was a no-show. This is good for the game.

Third, it forces referees to be social. Rather than show up, ref, and leave, they have break time together and actually can spend some time getting to know one another. Imagine that! This time lets them talk about their games and just about one another, but in the end, they will have an increased sense of teamwork. This is good for the game.

With many of the sites we have in play, we have single flights in play on one field. Mostly, with a break in the referee schedule, the crews end up on different fields after the break. A switch of crews from field to field cannot be easily done when all the games are back to back. This gets referees officiating in different flights with different teams and this is good for the game.

I’ve heard the arguments and am not convinced. The most common assigning request is to be assigned all day and to have all centers. That, my friends, is not good for the game. It is far better to use two crews to cover the games on a field than to cover one field with the same all day crew.

Is it easier for an assignor to assign someone all day? You bet it is. I may be using twice as many refs and making twice as many calls and sending twice as many emails and writing twice as many checks as an assignor who simply puts bodies on the field one day at a time. This assigning model is not the easy way. But it is good for the game.

I don’t believe that 98% who either supported this model or said nothing actually prefer it. But I hope you understand. The game does not exist for referees but we exist for the game. Sometimes we, referees and assignors, may have to do something a little less convenient if it is for the good of the game.