RefBlog

Five-game night

The blister seems to be doing better, especially since I packed it in about a quarter-inch of gauze before heading out to the games. The games were pretty uneventful, being the first of the session. I ended up doing five today, as there was a schedule problem that I was asked to fill. I did four games, as usual, then two hours later picked up a single.

I was really looking forward to the single, as it was the perennial two-best teams in the league; but it ended up being a rout - with one team going up five-nil, and ending the half 5-1. The final score was 7-3, which is pretty shocking.

The only real other thing of note was my calling a foul on a woman (she put out both hands and shoved away an opponent) who after being called out for the foul said, "Oh, he's a man, he can take it" - and she meant it!

It's kind of hard for me to gauge trends in the area with regards to play, because as I've reffed longer, I've gotten better games; but these adult co-ed leagues are pretty close, and there's been a definite upswing this year of women who are unafraid to play up to the men, and unafraid to hack. It's kind of hard to say if it's a good thing or not.

On one hand, I like a good physical game - like most caucasion referees in the US, we tend to emulate what we see on TV - and if it's not MLS, then it's the English Premiere League. But on the other hand, I don't want the same bad habits that men have: the bad attitudes, the poor sportmansship, the blatant cheating and more to get into the game, too.

I just don't know.

30 January '05 - 22:05 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

A look at the proposed Law changes for 2005

I did this last year, and it was kind of fun (hey, when you're a ref, you study the Laws, at least on an annual basis - so this is kind of fun) to see what the possible changes were for the Laws of the Game. And the annual International Football Association Board (IFAB) meeting is about to be held again (February 26th if you want to be exact), which means modifications to the Laws of the game are on the table again. Let's look at what's on the table (the entire agenda can be viewed here.):

Changes to Law 3 - The Number of Players
Nothing big here - FIFA submitted a change that added a bunch of verbage to the amount of substitutes allowed - mostly for the benefit of National Team games (FIFA earlier, much to the chagrin of England, limited the number of subs to six for friendlies). The following text has been proposed to be added to the existing text (more)

28 January '05 - 17:53 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2004: How to Complain About Referees

Yes, the point of the site is primarily for me to vent, and secondarily for people to learn what goes through the head of a referee - but yes, referees can and do sympathize with players' concerns. Most of us do or have played - maybe not at the same level we ref, but I think the concern with reffing the lower levels are much the same as the uppers; the differences are the skill levels involved.

And yes, there are times when you should complain about the officials for your game - I've done it (on one occasion, which I describe below); and I take the game and my job in it seriously enough to know that there is a time-and-place to do so. I wrote this piece because I want more great referees on the field, but to do that means knowing how things are done with referees, and how to let the authorities know that a referee isn't ready for that particular level (not to throw them off the pitch completely - do you want to increase the ref shortage?). It's important to know when, why, how, and if it your complaints will be taken seriously. One hint: "Worst referee ever" won't be taken seriously.

So, the final entry for my Best of 2004 list, was also published pretty darn early in 2004, January 12th, to be exact. Here's How to Complain About Referees, also known as The Small Guide to Effectively Complain About Referees (more)

25 January '05 - 22:06 - - default| five comments, already - § ¶

Annoyed at Myself

I have to admit that I'm a bit annoyed at myself; I bought a new pair of flats to ref in, and didn't think to bring the old pair when I tried to break them in. The end result was that they broke me instead. End result is that, after two games, I had to leave early because I could barely even walk.

Pisses pisses pisses me off.

I think part of the reason is that I've never had problems breaking in flats before - turf shoes yes. I always attributed my problems with turf shoes to the thicker and less flexible soles - but never with either flats or cleats.

So now I'm stuck with a small blister on my left heel, and one between a quarter and half-dollar on my right. I'm going to end up missing one night's reffing to allow it to heal, too.

Nobody to be pissed at except myself.

21 January '05 - 16:11 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2004 Bonus: Web reffing web site

I just had to include this site - I love it. It's great information from a referees point-of-view, while being informative to referees themselves. Please, please, please go read the "More for fans and players" section!

Reading Referees Association (more)

20 January '05 - 21:08 - - default| three comments, already - § ¶

Referee Roundup

I haven't had much of a chance to go through the news lately, so there should be some good tidbits inside:

A player from a church-associated league received a 30-year ban for headbutting a referee after the ref went back to his locker room. The official was thrown across the room from the attack, knocked unconscious, and received a broken nose.

Hurrah for a ref with the gumption enough to enforce the Law regarding movement in penalty kicks. Even if the coach doesn't understand it, of course.

Not really news, but amusing - what happens when there's no referee for a game (an increasing trend), and you can't call one up? Look for a neutral referee in the crowd. But who's credentialed as a referee and still neutral? How about the guy who's writing the game up for the newspaper?

The same writer, writes about yet another game that didn't happen because of the referee shortage. Just think, in the US, we're required to have three.

This could be another John Runk saga, as a man charged with assaulting a referee after the game was terminated for the use of an illegal player was in court saying that it wasn't him that assaulted the referee. A followup article is here, which goes not only into the trial, but into the effects this has on the club, which is not a rich one. A snippet from the article:

...if his first appearance on Dec. 23 is any indication, he intends to deny the misdemeanor assault charges against him and delay the proceedings as long as possible.

At one point during the hearing, he denied even being the Cabritos' coach and said police had the wrong man. When Alameda County Deputy District Attorney John Creighton showed Alvarez a photocopy of his driver's license photo, Alvarez claimed it was too dark to identify his own picture.

A third follow, from January 14th, is here. Apparently his strategy is working, as the trial has been delayed for a month.

18 January '05 - 17:53 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Updated Look

I was doing some work trying to figure out the problem with the search box, then decided to throw in a new template altogether. Feel free to let me know how you think.

17 January '05 - 19:27 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2004: Refs We've Lost

I thought about picking a person, but it just didn't seem fair. At least in my life, I lost two very important referees in my life. The first I only met once, and it didn't even register that it was him until after the tournament: Michael Cotleur was the the SocRef philosopher - you didn't have to agree with him, but you couldn't help but love is passion for the game (reffing a few weeks after hip surgery!), and admire his studies of the Laws and any other materials that came his way.

I only wrote one article about Michael's passing - again because I didn't know him personally. But in a listserv of hundreds of people, he stood out, and was an inspiration in the passion of understanding the game inside and out.

Sal Sanchez was one of the reason's I kept reffing;  the man loved soccer more than anyone I know. He may not have painted is face for his team, but he exuded everything soccer should be: a love for any level, and a positive attitude that never quit: not on the pitch, not in the hospital, not in hospice. He was the kind of person who knew everyone on the field, and the kind of person who, just in his attitude, kept me from quitting the game in disgust after things went ugly.

I wrote about Sal on four occasions, as I followed his rapid degeneration, first when I found out about the cancer, next after visiting him in the hospital for the first time, next after his passing, and finally his funeral.

Life, some say, is full of regrets - I don't know many people who say they visited their friend enough when they were dying, and I certainly fall into that. As a society we just shy away from death too much, and I haven't yet become strong enough, although I have gotten better then when my grandmother died, to be where I want - maybe none of us can ever be.

16 January '05 - 22:12 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

I love a staredown

A couple week break for the holidays ended; first yesterday with a referee meeting at a local restaurant and bar. The meeting for this league was vastly different than what the USSF or High School has: because it's a local private league, we were invited to comment on some of the policy changes instituted this year - the big one being the red card policy. There were other topics, such as the a team arriving to a game collectively drunk, and a desired crackdown on female hackers.

The fun thing today was that I had the team (and the player) who was singled out today regarding the women hacking; I didn't know who the player was, but it was pretty obvious that it was one of the two teams I had playing in my fourth game. It was a great game too (a playoff game to boot): the white team had a substitute goalkeeper in the game to start with, as their regular one was missing. He actually played the previous game and remarked about not having to do much during the game; he more than made up for it, because he was pounded by his opponents; the red team had control of the ball for a good 75% of the half - and while the keeper didn't make it look easy (as I said, he was being shelled), he made it look awfully pretty. He was unceremoniously booted in the second half, when the regular keeper showed up (that's life as a sub), but before he went, I was able to get in a quick comment: "Remember what you said to me last game?" He had a good laugh out of that... before diving to his right to make another pretty stop.

The half was 0-0, and there were some good hard fouls on each side; both teams were in good temperaments, but the game had the potential to draw some plastic, especially if a team pulled ahead. Fortunately for the game, that's what happened (going to PKs would be so unfair for this game), but it was white that pulled out two quick goals; Red now put themselves into overdrive and pushed as hard as they could to muster a goal or two... and along with that started racking up some more fouls.

Just so you know, as a referee, getting fouls does not piss me off; it's part of the game - it's the serious stuff that pissed me off, going in a bit too hard because you're vision is in a tunnel is not going to bother me, unless it's a pattern. But when a woman slid into the back of a striker with the ball, I decided that there had been enough fouls for slide tackles, and decided to pull out a yellow, but before I did, she started mouthing off - she got a word out, I pulled out my card, and started glaring, only to be quickly pulled away by a teammate.

I'm going to have a brief aside; as far as I know, I'm the only certified referee in this league, and most of the refs use communal jerseys (ick! ick! ick! ick!) and sweats; I come out in a full kit, including two sets of cards - two in the book, a red card in the back pocket, and a "quick draw" yellow in the front. This is apparently a new thing for some of these people, but I keep getting comments it looking like I pop up the yellow like a magician ("Nothing up my sleeve... Book-o!") - this was the case here, I quickly drew out the yellow, and I think it just shocked her that it came out so quickly - she was expecting the front pocket for a card, so this came without any warning, as far as she was concerned.

Thirty seconds later, she did it again, tripping up the same player in his defensive third, I blew the whistle, and she gave me the Stare of Bloody Dismemberment. I love staring contests, because when I referee I always win them. As a referee, all you have to do is give back a blank face, waiting for the player to say something incriminating. You know when people are so reasonable it pisses you off? This is it - I'm doing it, just waiting for her to say something stupid - and everyone knows that it doesn't have to be much... including her teammates who also pull her away, heeding my advice, which I said quietly, "I suggest you sub out now." Despite rumors to the contrary, refereeing is not a power trip - it's more self-flagellation for voluntarily taking the abuse; but situations like this are fun - because everyone can see that you're in full control.

And that turned out to be a good thing, because the next tactic of red was to dive. Red's number 17 had taken a pair of hard fouls in the second half (including one that I let go for advantage), and I decided that a third would merit a persistent infringement card - but it never game. Red was a trying desperately for a goal, and wanted a few calls to go their way, which in this situation is unlikely - not because of referee bias, but because the team ahead has bunkered down, which includes a desire not to give up a stupid foul or penalty. So red 17, in the penalty area, but covered tightly, tries to turn around, bumps into the defender and flops. I really should have booked him, but I think it was enough to call out, "No way!" and move upfield, since white had the ball again and was pressing.

The final score was 2-0, and it was a really fun game - one where there was an expectation by the coordinator for ugly things to happen. It's nice when things go the way you want.

13 January '05 - 22:57 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2004: The John Runk Saga

John Runk... well, what can I say? The man just struck a nerve. Part of it is because we were able to follow the story of abuse, even see a little bit of it, and follow it until he received the usual slap on the wrist. As a ref, and one who's had to call the cops twice (and threaten a few more), it really pisses me off. Because no one, I don't care if it's the worst referee in the world, deserves it; and even the best referees in the world park their car in the "getaway position" - because most have had it happen to them.

So maybe on one hand John Runk got a bit more hostility from me because of the visibility; but on the other hand, I think he more than deserved it.

I wrote five articles concerning John Runk, and even though most were just short follow-ups, I think it's important, and rare, to see something go from start to finish, and see the reaction of Runk throughout the process (one of, "It's not my fault.")

Here's the first entry, Don't Shoot! It's just Soccer! published on March 4, 2004:

Interesting story out of Maryland: coach leaves to argue call with referee, allegedly pushes referee, off-duty cop who's armed comes down and confronts coach, and allegations fly about said coach threatening the referee, cop threatening the coach, and lots of naughty words being thrown around.... in front of eight-year-olds.

I have some advice for coach John Runk: all of this would have been avoided if you just shut up and did your job. I mean, do you have the next Freddy Adu on your team? Did the other team bring in crowbars to beat your players with? I highly doubt it. But we do know that the players are eight frickin' years old! Why did you take that game so seriously? What did it matter? There's no money on the line; no trophy; heck, some leagues don't even keep score at that age!

I'll do Mr. Runk the honor of completely ignoring the whole "who said what" and "who pushed whom" thing - all that is strictly "you had to be there". But let's go through what we do know that happened:

• You showed very poor sportsmanship by arguing a call in front of eight year old boys and girls.
  
• You were standing close enough that, even if you didn't push the ref, your position was close enough to have people reasonably assume you did. You see, we have this thing called "Personal space", and in the US, it's huge. No really, I mean it. Go talk, face-to-face, to someone from France and you'll understand how much personal space we're accustomed to. Most of the time in the US (of which you are a part), it's barely touching distance, let alone shoving.
  
• It apparently was nasty enough to warrant a parent, a cop no less, to come down onto the floor to confront the situation.

As for the referee tripping over himself, yeah it's possible. But I have hard time believing it. I have tripped while reffing indoor, over seams in the carpet, even over my feet when running; but I can't think of the last time I tripped over my feet while walking. I think Runk's in it deep.

Apparently Runk's also the chair of the soccer club he coaches, and is afraid that he'll lose that job. I would hope so - do you want this guy setting an example for your kids?

---

Maybe you don't have to be there, after all, originally published March 5, 2004:

Hey wow, video reply in soccer I support. Looks like the altercation between a ref, a coach, and an off-duty police officer I wrote about earlier today was caught on tape!

Unfortunately, the news blurp doesn't say if the coach actually pushed the ref or not, nor is it downloadable. Pooh, bad news-people! We're not all in Baltimore, you know!

---

Video of Baltimore Altercation Now Available, originally published March 6, 2004 (more)

10 January '05 - 22:59 - - default| three comments, already - § ¶

Best of 2004: The consistency myth (aka boo freakin' hoo)

The first paragraph of this article is throw-away; partially because it's a blog and I can write about what I want, even if it's not soccer related - but the other reason it's a throw-away is because, like players, interviewers lie. They'll tell you that they'll be in touch next week, and to call them right away if you get another job offer - but then ignore you for months on end. Maybe it was a player I don't remember who decided to have some revenge or something. Oh well, I'm employed again, now.

Consistency is an oft-bandied term when it comes to officiating (especially soccer), but little understood. The game I wrote about in this article really demonstrated that refs see things differently than players. Refs, unless they played high-level, don't know much about technique - we don't study it, we don't need it; but we do study the Laws, and use them all the time. Where the slightest twist in an ankle may turn a shot into one David Beckham would drop his jaw over, it's also the slightest motion that turns a clean action into a foul, and a foul into a clean maneuver.

Of course, players and coaches won't understand it, when it comes to the "heat-of-the-moment" in the game, but maybe afterwards...

I can dream, can't I?

The consistency myth (aka boo freakin' hoo), originally published on August 16, 2004 (more)

05 January '05 - 21:49 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2004: Just keep makin' up the rules, Monkey Boy

Refs are human beings - which means on one hand players, coaches, and fans should treat us like one; on the other it means that if you don't, we will do what we need to do. That may mean tossing you, and it may go as far as making fun of you, or even gloating when your behavior finally catches up to you.

This is two parter, about a person who, depending on the time of day, I would either say, "I'm sorry I gloated about his injury" or, "I don't feel sorry about his injury." The guy was just the epidomy of everything that's wrong with sports today. Loud (which isn't bad, unless it's coupled with...), obnoxious, ignorant, arrogant, and overly aggressive. The saga actually started in December of 2003 (Is there a Kobayashi Maru for Refs?), and continued for the rest of that session, which went into 2004.

As for the 2004 entries, here's Just keep makin' up the rules, Monkey Boy which was originally published on January 13, 2004 (more)

03 January '05 - 23:39 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2004: Why refs slag on coaches

Anyone who's read this site with any regularity knows that I don't get coaches - and even in some ways I don't want to get coaches. Often I can sympathize, but other times I rant, rave, and go as far as declare them sub-human.

Why? Am I just a frustrated man who can't take the heat? Or is this the method that I use to take the heat? I tend to think that it's the later. If a former FIFA referee can exclaim "I want to rip off his head and shit down his neck" about a coach in a youth tournament - then dang it, chances are so must I.

As much as I liked that story, though - it didn't make by "Best Of" list. I liked the story I chose because it involved the most numerous type of referees on the field in the US: kids. And even kids who are twelve-years-old, reffing U-8 girls in non-travel leagues, get the nasties from coaches. I've seen it, and what sickens me more is that parents see it, and allow it to continue. This is not acceptable behavior people!

Unfortunately, as a ref, I'm not in the position to give the parents dope-slaps; so I try to teach these kids coping behavior: the laugh at the asses these coaches are making of themselves.

Why refs slag on coaches, originally published on April 13, 2004 (more)

02 January '05 - 13:56 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2004: If Refs Were Sportscasters

Refs dream about having one of their own "the booth" - doesn't have to be them, just someone who can put the coaches, players, and out-and-out wankers in their place. A person to explain why referees make the decisions they do, why television angles and instant-replays don't always tell the whole story, and most of all, when to tell the other talking heads that they're full of decaying refuse.

It'll never happen, though. Networks invest a lot of money to make their commentators and play-by-play people look good and knowledgeable - even someone on the air explaining a call that one of their guys disagrees with, devalues that person, in the commercial-sense. We can dream, though.

I like this article in just how it's written too - it's was written with my head cranked 90 degrees, to watch the Bundesleiga I was commenting about.

If Refs Were Sportscasters, published March 4, 2004

I had this idea in my head, and pretty much had to write about it - but on the other hand, I'm also raptly watching Suttgart and Werder Bremen on Fox Sports World, which is hugely entertaining (3-3 in the 67th minute, as I write). What's causing me to type this, yet simultaneously crook my head left to watch the game (as well as be thankful for my ability to touch-type)? One little throw-away shot (the video type, not the soccer type), of a player complaining to a ref.

Opps... now four 4-3 Stuttgart; they beat the trap very nicely, beat the keeper outside of the area, and easily tapped in the ball. Ack! 4-4 less than a minute later - Bremen took advantage of a poor head back to the keeper - Hilderbrand made the initial save but the rebound was another easy put-in (71st minute).

I may not get this written before the game is over.

Currently, if there's a "controversial decision" made by the referee, the standard procedure is to show replay after replay to determine if the referee was correct, followed by much blathering (usually by people who don't understand the Laws of the Game), and close-ups of the referee or assistant in question. For all but 30 seconds of the 70+ minutes I've watched so far, it's been all the same. But after one foul, on Werder's left flank, they showed a close-up of the defender whining and complaining, and gesturing the referee to open his eyes... after he clearly fouled the Stuttgart striker - there was also a replay to prove that he was the villain.

And of course, we referees know that we have a thankless job, and that most players complaining about calls either don't know crap about what they're doing or saying, or are too pumped up by the game to be aware of the subtleties that we have to watch for - but because the sportscasters don't know these either (and this falls more into the "don't know crap" category), refs continue to get the reputation of idiots who need really thick glasses (OK - I do need really thick glasses, fortunately contacts can still handle my 8/8.5 prescription).

Christian Schultz of Werder just picked up his second yellow (81st minute) - they're blaming the center, but the foul was called by the AR. I'm waiting for the replay to take a better look.

But if referees, people who's job it is to study the game, and to know it inside-and-out, were in the broadcast booth, things would be a lot different. Yeah, coaches may be better tacticians, but if referee commentary is going to be fair play, let's at least get someone in who knows what's going on.

First, we wouldn't hear about this "new offside rule" - it's not new, it's been that way for years. FIFA issued a clarification because some ARs were jumping the gun (it caused me some self-doubt about my job as an AR last August). But we had a bunch of Premiership coaches act like prats and complain about the "new" rule and position their players to intentionally make a mockery of the game. Fortunately, neither the FA, RA, UEFA or FIFA backed down, and after a few weeks play resumed as normal.

Second, if referees were in the booth (assuming they had retired from the professional levels), it would become quite clear that most coaches are prats... at least on the field.

Third, for every commentary over "controversial" calls, we'd have a commentary about coaches or players complaining about calls where they were clearly guilty. For added emphasis we'd have the sideline reporter sarcastically report, "Hey guys, you know what? You really can see better from here!"

Nope, I didn't made it before the game - ends 4-4; great game, but still no replay of that second yellow.

Fourth, the center wouldn't be assessed for a call made by the AR - especially one where the AR is in a superior position to make the call.

Fifth, the words "Play On" would be banned, except in it's proper usage, where the referee exercised the Advantage Clause.

Sixth, players exercising poor sportsmanship, regardless of how "worthy" their cause was, would be duly chastised.

Nope - no replay. Some commercials, then the fairwell. Oh, well.

Seventh, we'd understand why those people in the middle do this - because we love the game just as much as the players, coaches, and fans. Considering what comes with this job, a good argument would be put forward that we love it more.

01 January '05 - 16:18 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶