Opinion: Common accommodations should be standardized

Officiating (Public Read-Only)
1

I have recently been asking folks about how they accommodate skaters who have visual or hearing impairments. We usually talk about who they are during captains’ meetings, and sometimes we talk about what to do. It’s a “checklist” item to ask about this, but I have seen several options for how crews actually handle it.

Example 1: Penalty Box. Some skaters with hearing impairment ask to be tapped rather than to have the verbal cue used. Personally I am not comfortable doing that, because no other officiating role expects physical contact. So in my opinion, if tapping is a potential expectation for a game or tournament, we should be saying that in advance to ensure that NSOs who do not wish to touch skaters can decide not to check the PBT/PBM boxes.

The alternative here is to do “bigger” hand signals such as leaning forwards to get into a hard-of-hearing skater’s visual field to make a visible “stand” and “done” hand signal. If this is to be the standard, we should be practicing it, so that we are doing it the same way, so that a skater with a hearing impairment knows what to expect when they travel.

But mostly, it does not seem comfortable or ideal to have to negotiate and discuss this in a captain’s meeting while the skater in question and the officials who will need to adopt a new practice are not present, since the issue comes up worldwide.

Example 2: Skaters who do not hear their own penalties. Scenario C5.4.B is relevant here, but it says the penalty should be issued if the skater is neglectfully failing to immediately exit the track, and it does not mention hearing impairment, so it is not clear whether we should give skaters who are known to have a hard time hearing extra time or repetition, or if they should be excluded from penalization entirely.

But, for most of my experience, the HR tells the crew that they should be as big, as visible, and as loud as possible, all the time, for all skaters. And while that does sound fair, the scenario already mandates this: “1. The Official calling the penalty was correctly positioned for the Skater to potentially see the call. 2. The Official calling the penalty did so loudly enough to be heard, given the Official’s position, and the constraints and volume of the venue.” So technically this is literally not providing any accommodation. Another thing I have seen is the HR telling refs to give all skaters a few extra calls just in case, i.e., to have everyone use a different metric, which can lead to missed expectations for most of the skaters and also to inconsistency among the crew for what the “new” metric actually is.

I would also note that I have never heard discussion of how to handle hard-of-hearing skaters for Failure to Reform if they do not hear or see a No Pack call. It seems relevant for the same reasons but is absent from the conversation.

…

In both of these examples, most Crew Heads I have been on do not communicate the numbers of the skaters who require the accommodation to the crew’s members. Rather, they ask that the bigger more-visible more-audible performance be performed consistently for all skaters, for three reasons: One is that it is hard to remember who needs which practice in-game, two is that it “feels unfair” to treat different skaters differently, and three is that practice makes perfect so by practicing on everyone we increase the likelihood of doing it effectively, consistently, and correctly, when it is important.

…

My rule-of-three for standardization is that we should standardize issues that are common, that are inconsistent, and for which the inconsistency is harmful. This issue has long met the first two, but I recently received an email from my local league hit the third point for me: The game’s head referee said “we’re all hard of hearing in this venue” (paraphrased; I was not present) which probably meant “we’ll do our best for everybody” but could be interpreted as making light of a disability or worse. Having standards for how to handle stuff would help tremendously in terms of how we communicate about it at the Captain’s meeting.

…

What does your crew do? Are there more options? Does this meet your intuitive standard for standardization?

1 Like
2

Honestly I already set hand signals as standard in the PB when I HNSO, whether we have skaters who need adjustments or not. There are, at least in my area, so many skaters who require these accommodations that there is no way I can expect the box officials to remember who does and does not need them. I also find that if they aren’t practiced as routine then they are the first things to get forgotten (especially by less experienced officials) when the box gets busy - which is probably when they are even more important to those who need them.

This also doesn’t just affect hard-of-hearing skaters. Many neurodivergent folk have average or even above average hearing, yet also have auditory processing difficulties which mean they need those same accommodations. Some who are undiagnosed may not feel able to request any adjustments for them, especially if it feels to them that they will get “special treatment”.

Finally I’d add that an incredibly important benefit to standardising this is that less skaters will feel obliged to divulge what is essentially part of their medical history to the entire team of officials. If the standardized procedures meet their needs already, they can keep this information confidential if they wish to.

5 Likes
3

As a CH I make sure to tell my PB officials to use big gestures and to make them in the skater’s peripheral vision (as best as they can) to avoid unnecessary contact – skaters are sweaty and gross, and a lot of officials don’t want to touch skaters without explicit consent. Moreover, I tell my PB officials to do this for all skaters who come to the box, regardless of whether or not these accommodations were asked for.

My home league has a skater who is D/HoH, and to ensure that they’re not excluded or feel called out for their needs, everyone on the team requests taps/big gestures. To me, this feels more inclusive and said skater has said they prefer this approach instead of feeling singled out.

As an aside, I personally feel uncomfortable when Coaches/Captains tell me as the C/HNSO that # skater is D/HOH and needs taps – I don’t need to know (or want to know) someone’s physical status unless they come to me and tell me personally. I always feel weird telling Co/Ca that I don’t need that information because I just need to know if someone needs or wants a tap – I don’t need to know the “why.”

3 Likes
4

I strongly support standardization of penalty-box hand signals and specifically contextualizing them as accommodations.

As HNSO, I always train my PBM and PBT officials to perform large, peripheral-vision gestures for every skater equally. In my experience, the vast majority of deaf and hard-of-hearing skaters (and those for whom English is not a native language) accept this accommodation. My crews have received specific and grateful feedback from multiple teams for this accommodation.

I believe that whenever possible, accommodating changes should be practiced equally for all skaters. This ensures that skaters who require accommodations are not singled out; does not unwarrantedly disclose their need for accommodation to the entire community; and ensures that officiating error doesn’t lead to a skater missing an accommodation they need. Penalty box hand signals are a place we can meet this standard and make derby accommodating by default.

Separately, I am interested in considering the case of the tap as a penalty box accommodation. I have had officials state that they are uncomfortable performing the tap. It’s implicitly discouraged by JRDA officiating procedures, where a coach must request it on behalf of their skaters (emphasizing the consent angle). I’d love to go even further than JRDA and discourage this practice unless a skater specifically requires that accommodation and cannot have their needs met by a more standardized practice.

7 Likes
5

On the topic of tapping skaters in the box, while it’s true that “no other officiating role expects physical contact”, it’s also true that no other officiating role expects the player to be relatively motionless with their back toward the official. I think that variance warrants the possibility of (very slight) contact as an accommodation.

Something that someone proposed during Skate Wars was having skaters who do desire a tap hold one hand over their shoulder while seated to receive the “stand” tap, and hold a hand back relay-runner style while standing to receive the “done” tap. Skate response to this option at both Skate Wars and Blue Collar Brawl has ranged from positive to incredibly positive. Not only does it provide a clear, standardized target for the tap, it allows the skater to dynamically self-identify their desired accommodation. Coaches and captains don’t need to maintain a list, it doesn’t need to be brought to the captains’ meeting, officials don’t need to maintain and distribute lists of (what is essentially) private medical history.

On the broader subject of whether we think someone should be able to hear us, we really need to treat every situation as thought it’s impossible for anyone to hear. I’m not an acoustic engineer, but I do know enough about wave propagation to understand that unless there is a direct, unobstructed line of sight between the transmitter (your mouth-hole) and the receiver (the skater’s ear-hole), there is a substantial chance that the sounds you’re making literally never enter the skater’s ear to be heard, regardless of their own hearing acuity. And when I say a direct, unobstructed line of sight, I mean 0 degrees of variance up or down, left or right, center of mass oriented at center of mass. There is no such thing as loudly enough if there is no good path for the sound to travel. So really, we shouldn’t take that into account at all. We should instead rely on visual communication, making sure the “Report to the Box” hand signal is pointed directly at the skater in question and that they can see said hand signal.

3 Likes
6

When I HR, I always ask for any disability (not just HOH) and what accommodations that skater needs. For example, a skater with an auditory processing issue may need a longer wait time before an official repeats a penalty, as their brain is still processing the initial information. A hard of hearing skater may need a tap in the box or a point from a skating official or may need a line of sight to an official issuing a penalty. A skater with sensory issues may need to wear ear plugs and will want to see a larger hand signal coupled with a louder voice.
I instruct my crews with the specific examples and the general recommendations of big signals and loud voices for all.

I would like to see some level of standardization, but I also recognize that what works for one person may not be a good accommodation for another.

But we all really need to get better at recognizing disability outside of hard of hearing, as we have skaters with all different needs.

5 Likes
7

:bulb:: If a player requests an accommodation to be tapped, but the penalty box officials are not comfortable touching a player, they could use an object, such as a foam pool noodle or rolled towel, to tap the player.

This is the method the time keeper uses in CHSAA wrestling to let the referee know the clock has expired. I’m sure there are examples in other sports as well.

4 Likes
8

Hi there

Rather than asking for athletes’ medical information, it’s common practice where I am to ask if there are any athletes that require specific accommodation. If a skater has a medical condition or disability that requires nothing from the officials, they shouldn’t have to disclose it to us
Additional perk of doing this is removing the focus on hard of hearing and allowing skaters with visual impairment or other specifics to request accommodation if they wish so

9 Likes
9

Summary of thoughts thus far:

  • We should update the SPs for PBTs to include “bigger” hand motions in all cases, such that HoH skaters do not need further accommodation and PBTs can practice in advance
  • Overall when a skater asks for any accommodation for any reason, we should listen to it and do our best
  • We should not expect officials to touch skaters for any reason (but if skaters truly need physical contact, there are alternatives available such as touching with a device)

Any thoughts about the other scenario I brought up, regarding expectations for “hearing penalty calls” and whether we should use a different impact spectrum for HoH skaters who don’t leave the track after several calls?

10

I am not certain that I understand the question. We already penalise differently based on a variety of factors including acoustics, loudness of the venue, loudness of the call, physical orientation and proximity of the official and of the skater, experience (first scrimmage of the last newbie class anyone?) and, of course, whether the skater is hard of hearing or not, or whether they have attention issues, or other needs. What are you suggesting that we do, on top of these things? Is there something we can do that is better than “asking skaters if they have special needs and catering to them”?

1 Like
11

I’m not suggesting we do anything. But if the understanding is that our existing practice is designed to be acceptable for HoH skaters and that no further accommodation is ever needed for penalty calls / audibility…then my suggestion is that we start saying this during captains meetings to indicate that we do not intend to treat HoH skaters differently in this way.

My concern here and request for standardization is in the interest of leading those Captains’ meetings to be more consistent and streamlined so that newer HRs and newer Captains don’t end up in a situation like the one that motivated this post.

1 Like
12

When I have run Captains meetings in Australia, I’ve literally said, all skaters will be treated as if they are HOH to ensure an even playing field for how the “failure to respond to penalty” is applied. That way everyone gets treated with equality and fairness.

1 Like
13

I agree that this way, everyone gets treated with equality. However, this equality of treatment can be unfair. Some people need special accommodation in comparison to others, we need to give them that. Or said differently: treating someone who is not HOH as HOH may give that person an advantage, depending on the context. If it’s in the box, I don’t see an issue with assuming that everyone is HOH and use visible hand signals with everyone (maybe experienced NSOs do?). If it’s about determining whether a penalty is warranted for failure to leave the track, I find it unfair to treat everyone the same way. Some people need visual information to realise that they have been penalised, others do not. We try our best to give that visual information to everyone, but it is nonetheless unrealistic to expect every athlete to have the same ability to react to penalty calls.

14

Stepping back you make some interesting points a