RefBlog

Whoo boy did I have an active day

Yes, the floodgates have been opened: three games, eight cards, one red.

The first game might have had two reds, except I was late getting my eyes to the ball very early in the game. A shot from the corner went to the opposite corner of the goal, and a defender (another referee!) jumps up and bats it down from the goal-line. My problem was that I couldn't tell (and with no ARs, I can't ask for a better opinion) if the ball was going to hit the cross-bar or go in. Since I had to be absolutely sure, I had to go with yellow, even though I wanted to go with red, and is probably was the correct color, I can't eject someone on a probably.

The offended team scored on the PK, and the game went pretty smoothly until the last few minutes. One team, blue, had a player was under five-foot, and was sent flying, twice, by opponents more than a foot taller (one by someone over six feet tall). Now, there's normal contact, there's the realization that someone that small is more likely to eat turf, but there's also a player's responsibility to play within the safety level of their opponents - this had been crossed and I blew for the fouls both times. The second time, white, the other team, complained and green started shouting back (very typical). I did what I usually do, talk to the fouled player first, because we're more likely to agree, since I just called something in their favor, and ask them not to egg on the situation. She complied, so I worked on the other team, and things looked OK.

But it was a one-goal game, and then the shit hit the fan. Under heavy pressure from blue, the keeper made a save, and was looking to distribute the ball upfield for a counter-attack, but a blue player had other ideas; he kept purposely getting in the keeper's way.

This is not a good way to make friends with a goalkeeper. The keeper pushed the guy away with one arm (the other had the ball), open palm, eyes still forward for the counter opportunity that was being unfairly denied. The blue miscreant however, came back with a two-handed shove that sent the keeper to the ground. Scrum ensued, and I was fortunate enough to keep things from getting worse (my whistle at full-force, under their noses, didn't even work). He was going to get a yellow for unsporting behavior anyway, but he just upped it to violent conduct (not that it matters in this league). Some words with the offended team (now white) to keep their heads, and a loud announcement that cooler heads would need to prevail if they wanted to see the end of the game, seemed to hold to the final whistle.

The next game didn't see any reds, but did see four yellows in the first 25-minute half. The odd thing on this, it was the team ahead that was having problems with their temper. The first card was a nothing - too many players on the field (there are open subs on the fly in this league), but then I had two more for temper issues. One was a player who retaliated a good 15 seconds after I blew the whistle - what did he want? I already fouled the guy, it was nowhere near card level (it wasn't even that hard a foul), and he gets pissed because I don't let him hack the other guy before he takes his free kick? Huh? The team (also in white) continued to have temper issues, and a woman gave a good shove to another player, who merely feel in front of him - tempers are high, and my threshold for cards is low, and I book her immediately, and came pretty close to giving a second, because she was yapping something awful.

I have to thank a player on the other team (also in blue) for making a smart comment, because that was the card that saved the game. The misconduct was truly a gift, because it showed that I wasn't just picking on white, but anyone who opened their craw to my dissatisfaction. I don't want to think what would have happened blue behaved themselves throughout the whole game - it would have turned into a bloodbath. Instead, the second half was much better - no grief, just one other card for an obvious reckless challenge, also to blue. I really really need to thank them for not behaving perfectly.

The final game was the easiest of the bunch. There was just one player that I was worried about, not because he was malicious, temperamental, or clinically insane. He was a very good player that tended to play to wild - throw he body into others with reckless abandon. I talked to him, carded him, and at halftime asked a teammate of his to see what he could do. I think I had one more warning for him in the second half, but then was fine.

These are the reasons I do these games.

30 January '06 - 23:06 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Managing players going apeshit - that's what this league's about

The indoor league finally showed itself for what it is: a bunch of adults devolving into children, and my trying to keep them from regressing into territorial apes in heat (speaking of devolution, have you heard of Devo 2.0? This is just wrong!). This is what I do this league for: man management skills, and I had fun exercising them tonight!

Sometimes you have to wonder if there's something in the water, because both sides were going nuts, too. Both fields had two games that were a little bonkers - mine started in the first one. Not too bad, but there was a player, and woman, who entered the game with a child on her shoulder, and the chip grew as the game progressed. It's been said that women will remember an injustice committed against them for years, be it against a player or a referee. If it was against me, my memory of the incident, even of that player, has long passed my memory. Late in the second half, she get involved in a small tangle, nothing malicious, nothing even major (trifling would be the word, I believe - and that would be the entire game, except for her), but it set her off, and while I was tempted to card, I decided a warning would be better. A warning like, "You better quiet down, or you'll find yourself exiting this game prematurely." It worked, but in the next sequence she clobbered the ball-handler with a nice hockey-check - sadly, not enough for red, but the yellow card was whipped out pretty quickly. No additional words from me - that definitely would have made things worse.

The next game was pretty uneventful. It was a team I wrote about earlier - they tended to launch balls from mid-field to try to hit the upper corners of the nets (which are out-of-proporation to the length and width of the field). The competition wasn't as high as before, so they actually were able to move the ball around, but they still got blown out. I ended up calling a PK against them, and an indirect in the area for a keeper sliding feet-first (damn that rule) - both of which they were scored upon. They ended up tying the game 2-2, but gave up a couple more goals in the first half, and then were skunked in the second, while giving up another four.

The third was just really weird - and definitely where I had to do the most work. It was the fastest game of the night. The first half was fine, until the last minute, and that just set the tone for the second. I was about to blow my whistle to end the half, as the keeper was going to throw the ball out of his area, when a blue player jumped up and swatted it down, basketball-style. I immediately carded him, gave the white team five seconds to make something out of the free kick, then ended the half.

The second half started OK - Blue was up by a three goals, but gave one up in the first minute, then another a few minutes later, then got serious. But it wasn't Blue that caused things to go apeshit - it was White, and it was for no good reason:

A White player, in the corner of the offensive third, was fouled after a not overly physical chase for the ball. I immediately blew the whistle, and the Blue player immediately apologized for the foul, even though it wasn't that bad. But a White player, who was a good thirty yards behind the play, went nuts, yelling and screaming about it. Her own player was trying to calm her down, I was trying to calm her down, but it took a good minute to get the ball back into play. Everyone on her own team was OK with the call, except her - but because she was so vocal (and frankly, unreasonable) about it, it pissed Blue off. I firmly believe that if she just left well enough alone, we would have been fine, but something went "boink" in the men's heads, and they decided that they would give White a reason to whine about fouls.

From then on, it became a battle. Holding, tripping, wrestling maneuvers, the lot. After one such incident, I invited the players that they were welcome to leave the dome, and pursue their inclination for boxing, but if they wanted to play soccer, then calm down any play. The problem further became that White was starting to get into one-upsmanship with Blue. I pulled a Blue player, one that hadn't been a problem, aside: "Look, I need you to talk to your people, and get them to calm down. I have called everything you want, when you've wanted a card, I've carded, but you're actions are only making this worse, and I'll have to deal with you if it keeps up like this." He agreed, but it didn't work - I had one more incident, that seemed to do the trick: another no-foul situation, where, and I choose these words precisely because it infantalizes the players, they started getting into the "He's touching me!" argument - like it mattered! I ran out and carded both of them, "You, this is for egging him on. And you," showing the yellow card to the other player, "this is for buying into it."

I can't say I haven't carded adults for acting that infantile before, because I have, in this league. But that's why I do it - because it seems to make me better for the summer, when I do league games.

29 January '06 - 09:44 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Game of inches

Change of pace - this time it was the first game that went all out. Not the "shitkicker" of last time, but hard, fast, evenly matched and mostly clean. Given the circumstances of the game, I think I came out pretty well to be pretty evenly disliked by both sides.

Each side had one call they disliked: the first was a no-foul call concerning dangerous play. A striker and a defender were in a one-on-one/breakaway situation, and the striker raised his boot high to get control of the ball, the defender flinched, the defender flinched, and the striker took advantage of it to get around her and score. Terxtbook Dangerous Play call? Unfortunately, no - because the defender was a good 2 1/2 to three yards behind the striker, which meant I had to quickly judge how fast the striker was going, and if there was any danger of him making contact with the defender? Or to put even better, did the defender have a reasonable fear of contact beyond what you would get in the normal course of the game? Or, since I can't mind-read, did I think the defender, given the level of play and the likelihood of contact, was reasonable in flinching? If the answer was yes, then I should call the dangerous play. But it was just so darn close - a couple inches closer, and it would have been a pretty easy call.

The Laws are simple, indirect free kick if the ball is played in a dangerous manner. The USSF's Advice to Referees (of which I'm using an older online copy, since I don't have my new one handy at the moment) gives three criteria that must be met before calling it: first, the action must be dangerous, even if to himself (yes); second, the action caused the opponent to cease play to avoid the consequences of the dangerous action (yes); and finally, the action must be committed close by. That last one (which is out of order from the ATR, but hey, it's easier to work into my own thoughts this way) is the kicker. The ATR further goes on to say that the referee must take the skill level and the experience of the players into account when calling Dangerous Play, and its those skill levels and experience that made this such a difficult call.

So, in that fraction of a second, I decided to simplify my decision-making process: given the skill level and experience of the players involved (pretty high), I concluded that the deciding factor would be if there was any way the striker could have made contact in his present position; my answer was, not without the skill of Jet Li or some wire-foo.

I was told that whatever decision the referee makes is right, as long as he does it honestly. I made an honest decision, and while I can't guarantee that both teams would be happy (they weren't, and I doubt it would be possible to make them that way), all I can do is be honest with myself.

The other issue I had annoyed the other team, but this one was more of the league's own making, and not mine. The league (as unaffiliated leagues can do, because they're not governed by anyone) instituted restrictions on goalkeeper slides during the indoor season (although I imagine, if I did outdoor games with them, which I don't, I'd see it outdoors as well): keepers cannot slide after the ball feet-first. Not just the traditional slide tackle, but coming out feet-first. This has annoyed several goalkeepers (and probably would me, since I tend to favor, when diving for a ball, a contast left-to-right slant of myself regardless of which side of goal I'm diving to), and added yet another grey area of which I have to administrate. What I've been telling keepers is that if they're going to dive after a ball, go head-first; and if they're going to dive to cut off the angle (or as I keep imagining, The Cat from Red Dwarf saying, "I gotta make myself look big!"), then I want a roughly 90-degree angle between the oncoming attacker and the keeper - or, to put it differently, diving out with his gut.

The keeper did dive "with his gut", stopped a point-blank shot by a rushing striker, who jumped over him after the save. This also brought up some complaints because they saw the keeper as diving out toward their striker. In a chat with the coordinator, who was playing in that game, I pointed out my reasoning, and said if you're going to cut off two-thirds of the way keepers can dive after the ball, you might as well get rid of that third, say keepers must stay on their feet, and take out the grey area.

I wouldn't like it, I know the players wouldn't like it. The scary thing is that, if she hasn't already, she'd probably consider it.

27 January '06 - 18:04 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Scanning the headlines for referee news

I haven't done this in ages. Here's the latest and greatest in news about soccer referees:

• Lack of Referees Affects 2 Matches. Six red cards in one high school game. Ouch. What's to blame? The two-referee system. I can't disagree - the two-man system is just not equipped to deal with competitive games. There's way too many compromises in it; and I say it as someone who's been tossed into a heap of crap doing a dual in a high school game (two players tossed, two coaches, terminated game - I was admittedly over my head, but due (because?) of the referee shortage here, there wasn't anyone telling me to wait a year before doing varsity games like there should have been).

There's a referee shortage nation (world?) wide, mostly because there's so few of us who'll take the crap year-in and year-out, and actually enjoy it. But the further south you go on this continent, the more club and high school seasons overlap, causing a greater shortage, at least according to this article.

One fascinating statistic from that article, and I wonder if it carries to other states: 65% of ejections from varsity soccer are from coaches.

• I just find this amusing - now that we're into a (Men's) World Cup Year, we're seeing the Official blankety-blanks of World Cup 2006. This one is the official Referee's Watch. I miss my Football Referee Watch, but it broke down too often. Now the watch I replaced it with (a $60 runners watch) has a broken backlight - a pretty minor thing (if it's too dark to read without the backlight, it's too dark to play), but annoying.

• Buena, Ventura soccer teams roll around field, then settle for tie. Coach quiz time: "It's just disappointing because it is the officials job to check the nets." All together now: bzzzzzzzzt! I feel for the guy, because a 3-3 game hinged on a goal that might have gone through a hole in the side of the net, but it's not the ref's job to repair them. Yes, the referees should have checked the nets, and reported any problems to the home coach, and under FIFA it's the home team's job to repair them - the NFHS doesn't have anything to say on the matter, so it would still fall into the home team's lap, because they're in charge of the facility. There's also nothing stopping that coach from taking a look at the nets too, on checking it before game-time (I've seen some do it, too).

For some reason, high schools tend to have worse nets than clubs teams who play in city parks. They best you can do (and who knows, maybe the refs did this, and the coach selectively forgot, I've seen that a whole lot more than coaches who check the field) is lets both coaches know, and get on with the game.

• Commissioner Garber upholds Herron suspension. The bigger news for me isn't that the suspension was upheld, but that the MLS Players Union actually appealed! The guy gets into the face of two referees, and made "unacceptable physical contact" (meaning he shoved them), for a call that was absolutely bang-on right. So right that the USSF is using the call as training material! So right that the TV announcers, who never agree with anything the referees do, said they were right! What the bloody hell can the MLSPU appeal for? That because it was a playoff game, Herron should be given some slack?

I said earlier that I liked where the MLS was going during last season's playoffs; I'm happy to say that they're continuing down that path. It's nice to see the MLS let us do our jobs, and take a tough stand on those who denigrate us on and off the field. Hopefully this too, will trickle down to those of us in the trenches.

25 January '06 - 13:55 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Still awfully nice

This is just not what I expect from this league - the players are still being nice to each other. Where's the bloodlust? Where's the violence? OK, I'm exaggerating, but I can't help but think about what Garrison Keillor would say, probably something like, "The nicer they are now, the meaner they'll be later." Sort of an adaptation of what Minnesotan's think about nice weather.

At least the games had more oomph into them, and didn't involve anyone purposely trying to lob in balls from 30-yards away. The first game had a brand new team that was burned because of the field logistics (a small field with big goals takes some getting used to from a strategy point-of-view); they lost 4-1, but only gave up one goal in the second half. A little experience in this environment, and they could do well.

The second game was pretty boring; one of the teams thought they would do better, and found themselves in a division that totally outclasses them. The final was 8-1, and that was with one team holding back. I had one small incident, where their bench didn't like a foul I called (gee, they're at the opposite corner of the field, and therefor must be able to see better than their own player, who accepted the call without complaint), and started razzing me, then the player who was fouled. There are teams in this league that wouldn't take kindly to that, and if they continue it, will find out in a very painful way. I did my best to stop them, and tell one of their players on-field how bad an idea that was - considering there was two fouls in the entire game (and that was number two), we'll have to see if they paid attention or care.

The last game, well - looked like it should have been more contentious, but after one team scored on consecutive foul restarts, they gave up, and lost 4-1.

I wasn't at risk for falling asleep, but it's not the practice I was hoping for.

24 January '06 - 10:32 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

The last game was the shit-kicker

Evil - I do four games that were relatively easy, only to have the last game be run-around madness. I was actually pretty surprised that I got away with only one card, because these guys were just plowing into each other at full speed for the entire game. It was a lot of fun to watch, and even better that it didn't require any serious juggling on my part - just some really sore legs after doing seven hours of reffing in two days.

21 January '06 - 22:15 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

When the first caution comes out in two minutes, what's the rest of the game going to be like?

I had two games today, the first one wasn't difficult, but the teams played hard, and I got in a good amount of running. There wasn't a whole lot of fouling, but one caused a doozy of an injury. The foul wasn't hard - your standard chip on the ankle without any malice, it was just misplayed, but the guy who was fouled went down hard, and landed with his arm underneath his ribs.

Nobody was upset about my not carding him, although I was a little perturbed when he started saying he had "all ball, which was clearly not the case. Divers are usually careful enough to not hurt themselves on the way down, and I've known the guy who was hurt enough to know he wasn't a diver. It was one of those things that you know is a fluke, you get the foul and the rest is unfortunate.

I talked to him after the game, he was still on the ground, and teammates were figuring out which hospital to take him to (there's one right next door, but with insurance the way it is, you often have to go to the other side of town to have anything covered), and he said that it wasn't a broken rib, because he had that before; it wasn't a torn muscle, because he had that before and it hurts much worse; but he could feel something move, so he thought maybe he had torn some cartilage.

The second game started with me getting worried. Two minutes into the game, a player retaliated at an opponent whom he thought was riding him too tightly. He was riding him tightly, but I thought did a good job to not hack the guy - so bang came out a card really early into the game. The first half was a little tense, as another player came very very close to earning a card for persistent infringement, which he thankfully didn't do. The second half was a different story - the teams just played, and played cleanly - even the player I carded said he was out-of-line.

You don't get those too often - I'll try to enjoy it.

20 January '06 - 09:41 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

More reasons I hate the NFHS

You would think, that my taking a year off from reffing high school might mellow me out a bit - I would think so, too, but the local association has found a way to keep me pissed even during an extended offseason: they sent a newsletter.

Since I hadn't written about high school much this last year, here's a quick summary of the things I really hate about the National Federation of High Schools, at least when it comes to soccer:

• "Rule" changes seemingly done to benefit the existing of the Rules Committee members, and the lawyers who have the give the "OK" on any such change.
  
• Organization run by Athletic Directors and Coaches with no input from referees at all (technically, there is a referee representative, but what good is it when you can't contact the guy?).
  
• Hypocracy: saying that the game is an extension of the classroom, and then permitting coaches the most abominable behavior that would never be permitted inside the school house door.
  
• Coaches "rating" referees, when they've probably never read the rule book in their lives.
  
• For a program that's supposed to foster sportsmanship and learning, the NFHS doesn't publish, and will quickly get on the case of anyone who publishes, their "Rules Book" without ponying up money to them, first.
  

Or, I could just let it go at, "Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy."

So how did the bee get in my bonnet this time? Let's see, we have one article entitled, "Coaches work to prepare young people for life." As you might expect, it waxed poetic about how wonderful coaches are, how they emphasize good sportsmanship, etc. and onward. Yes, some do, but too many others do not. And this association at least, doesn't punish them.

Then, there's "Officials do impact sportsmanship", which starts good... for one paragraph. The first paragraph talks about officials' concerns about lack of sportsmanship, and why they quit (certainly one of the reasons I considered taking a year off last year), and that this article would be focused to what the officials can do. Fine, but put simply, if it was done fairly, it would be a short article. It would have these major points:

• Learn the rules, learn them well.
  
• Don't make up rules because you don't think its fair.
  
• Talk to the kids before something bad happens, but don't be afraid to make the hard decision.
  
• Decline games that you have a conflict-of-interest in.
  
• Decline games that you don't think you're fit enough for.
  
• Decline games that you don't think you're at a sufficient level to referee at.
  
• Keep your temper in check.
  
• Attend training sessions.
  

Opps, they don't have training sessions, do they? Instead, they talk about lack of consistency. And who calls for that? Coaches. Referees know better, because after you've done a few hundred games, you realize that you look at the specifics, while players and coaches (unless it adversely affects them) look at the general picture - they see the "exact same thing", when you've seen a slightly turned knee that turns one type of motion into another with an unfair advantage. But since it's the biased coaches that do the ratings (as well as the slobbering rabid dog impersonations), we get lambasted for it. Of course, for the last three years, the local association said that they would be doing impartial assessments of referees - but never* have (well, they did an entire six the first year, I suppose that's more than never, but not much more).

Being a good sport means being able to deal with a call, even one you disagree with vehemently, like a reasonable human being. Just because an official makes an unpopular call, even one obviously wrong, does not give you an excuse to behave like an asshole. Try doing that to your teacher, your boss, or a police officer. You'll be out of school, out of a job, or in the pokey if you do. Phrases like "Officials are still accountable for their actions" only invites people to make these exceptions to acceptable behavior - even moreso when there's no training, because they expect the USSF to do that (it's ironic that the "letter to the editor" that praises a referee, is a USSF National Referee, and arguably one of the most experienced in the state - and my first time recognizing him, before I started reffing, was him yelling, "Don't make me laugh" to a coach who was having a fit), and no methods of fairly assessing or improving one's on-the-field performance.

There are several other articles going poetic about coaches, but nothing about what coaches can do to improve sportsmanship. It's ironic that, once again, the NFHS feels that sportsmanship responsibility goes not toward the people who are working with the kids day-in and day-out, but toward the referees. It's also ironic that when they say they want officials to enact penalties (like eject players and coaches when necessary), those same officials will get blacklisted from post-season play. Is it any surprise that for the last three years, the boys state tournament have all been officiated by USSF and NISOA National Referees, and lined by new people? It's because, despite their overwhelming qualifications, Nationals don't do many games in high school - in the fall when high school games happen, they do college games, which pay better and have a better training program for referees (NISOA). You get newbies on the line, because they're not confident enough to make the correct call and piss off coaches (or be put on highly contested games where they'll be required to make the tough call). It is any surprise that last year, I had referees say the SRA was shocked they didn't get any post-season games? Because the SRA is one of us - someone who knows what it's like to referee, and how the unpopular call is often the correct one. Until the NFHS realizes that, and starts trying to get their coaches and ADs to realize this, they'll always be a hypocrite in my book. (more)

18 January '06 - 14:41 - - default| six comments, already - § ¶

The players were so.... nice.

This was weird - another first night of the session (the company has multiple leagues, each playing on the same day of the week), but even I didn't expect everyone to be so nice. And I don't mean nice, but played hard and made it a fun game to watch, regardless of the skill level. But nice, as in wake me up when it's over. No fouls, no aggression; the coordinator was enthused about it, but until the last game I was pretty much with saddled with lightly jogging for three hours.

The first game pretty much summed up why: one team, in white, was totally out-classed by their opponent, in red, who was faster and more skilled then they. But while red worked the ball around the field, with deft touches, nice runs, and playing the game well; the other team exploited the weakness of this indoor game: the field is short, the goals wide, and if someone has a good touch in shooting the ball, you can easily lob in goals one-third of the field away. So, what should have been a blowout, resulted in a close, but extremely boring game? Why risk injury when you can lull your opponent to sleep?

The second game had a halftime score of 4-1, with the team on top also very much outplaying their opponent, except they let themselves go to sleep, and nearly ended the game tied. The third was just a blowout - but in all of them, I think there was maybe one foul, and nary a shoulder-charge, or any type of physical contact for that matter. For a league that I expect to put my man-management skills to the test, this was really strange.

The final was was my saving grace - the teams were still nice, but they also played hard, so I had some reason to run around, even if there was little reason to do any juggling of my own. It ended as a one-goal game, and had one feature that I always like when I see co-ed games being played: the women were just as equal to the men on each team. Men in co-ed games tend to be ball-hogs, tending to only pass amongst themselves or trying to go for the big strike - I swear than when there's a whiff of estrogen in the air, it must combine with something else to make the testosterone super-concentrated or something.

Hopefully I'll see more games like the last one a little more often, otherwise it'll still be a long winter, even if the dome is open and I'm reffing.

17 January '06 - 23:01 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Tournament for a friend... in a four-way tie.

How many referees have tournaments named after them? Not too many, I would gather - if they did, I would bet most did things beyond "merely" carrying the whistle (those of us who do know better, the others just don't want to). He was one of those referees who became the face of the league - strict when necessary, but always friendly and jovial off the pitch (and on, if you let him). I wrote about him two years ago when he passed away from cancer.

The tournament was set up in two skill levels, and "A" and "B" - I reffed the "B" games - with eight teams split into two round-robin groups; the winner of each group played the other for the Cup. Pretty straight forward, except by the final round, the standings for one of the groups looked like this:

             Win Tie Loss Pts Goal Differential

Team A   1     1   0     4    +1

Team B   1     1   0     4    +1

Team C   0     1   1     1    -1

Team D   0     1   1     1    -1 

I was done reffing by the final game in the group, where Team C was playing Team A, and Team D playing Team B. Being that this was a one-day mini-tournament, should everyone end up tied in points and Goal differential, then we'd end up having everyone do kicks from the mark, followed by the winners having more kicks from the mark.

It almost happened, too - both C and D won, and in the only games that day, won by more than a one-goal margin. One team won 2-0, one 3-0 (the only team to score three goals in one game). It was a lot of fun to watch, and I took a bit of perverse pleasure in trying to explain it to people.

The games I had were pretty fast and intense (since they were only 30 minutes in length, each), but also quite clean. Except for one incident, where a striker just plowed right into a goalkeeper - I spent a good three minutes making sure things didn't come to blows, and I'm rather thankful that the keeper had enough restraint to not bring it up to that level. And when I say almost, his fist was cocked back, but thankfully able to listen to reason.

16 January '06 - 07:18 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Possibly losing referee representation at national level (USSF)

I'm just going to copy an email that came across the SocRef Listserv (join it if you haven't already). As I've done in the past, I'll omit sent the email, in case someone has a vendetta about this site, and mistakenly links that name with this one. I've done some editing to clean up the email, but haven't changed it's content at all.

Possibly losing referee representation at national level (USSF)

*Below is a message which I received from Angelo Bratsis whom is the referee representative for all USSF referees at the national level. Just thought everyone would like to know what is happening, so I am passing the word around.*

*STAYING IN TOUCH AND KEEPING YOU INFORMED*
*All Referees, all Youth and Adult Presidents and Executive Directors. *
*Happy New Year.*

* *

*If you haven't already heard, you should be aware of the Federation's proposal to reduce the current Board of Directors from 40 to 15 or less members. This proposal will be put forward for adoption by the National Council at the AGM in March, 2006. I expect that there will be some changes and further recommendations in this matter by the National Council, but as you can see below, the present proposal identifies the structure of the Board and its proposed composition.*

* *

*It is imperative we as referees have representation on this new board. We are 143,000 strong servicing the game at all levels and generate $1M in annual revenues for the Federation. We are a very important intricate part of the Federation and we should have representation.*

* *

*If you wish for us to continue having this representation, you need to pick up the phone, send an email, pass the word to fellow referees, and get in touch with your youth and adult presidents as well as your state delegates to the convention expressing the importance and need to continue having referee representation. These are the people that will decide on the final composition of the Board.*

* *

*One position under the heading of "other member" or "at large member" should be allotted to the referees.*

* *

*CURRENT Proposal to reduce the Board to 15 Members*

*Changes in Structure of Board*

*3 officers (President, Vice President, Treasurer,)*

*2 representative from Youth Council*

*2 representative from Professional Council*

*2 representative from Adult Council*

*3 representatives from Athletes Council*

*1 representative from "Other Members"*

*2 representatives who are "outside" or "at large" directors (current Board decides on "outside" directors, who are external to the Federation; "at-large" directors are non council specific cannot come from the Athletes Council)*

* *

*Immediate Past President (Ex-officio)*

*Secretary General (Ex-officio)*

* *

* *

*We all need to lobby within our state associations for this and do our share to get the message out.*

* *

*Angelo Bratsis*

14 January '06 - 15:43 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Holy cow... we're in the dome!

Who knew this day would even come? We were actually inside the dome... although I have to admit that I was half waiting for it to pop; a sometimes teammate of mine was in another dome a few years ago that did tear - it was under-inflated during a storm and ripped from its moorings. I didn't have to worry about that this time, but there was a huge patch that went from the base of the dome up the entire quarter-panel to the roof, as well as a number of other tears and patches that weren't there last year.

The games were pretty tame. Because of the dome fiasco, there are a ton of teams that haven't played this winter, and they extended the season to accommodate more teams, which mans more byes, and means that each round in this league will essentially take two weeks.

The first game I had looked to be difficult - a team that I've had issues with in the past, but they played well, didn't complain (and that is a first), and had a good 6-5 game. During that game, I forgot about how this field encourages different, wider play. The goals are wider (8-yards as opposed to five at the other location), and the teams play wider, which means I play wider and run more, too. I rather like that. The scores are also much higher, as a result (you don't have to be within ten yards for a good shot on goal), although the second game was an odd 2-1. A pretty clean day all-around, but it won't stay that way.

13 January '06 - 10:34 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2005: One call out of a hundred

This is the final, semi-randomly selected entry from my favorite ten entries of the last year (semi-random, because I decided that one entry had to go in front of another, because they referenced each other). I think this is a fitting entry to finish the series with, because I think it emphasizes one of the reasons I started this blog (the main reason being for my own venting purposes): to get people to realize that we're human, we mean well, we make mistakes, and you as players would be better served to let us work through them, to learn from them, and to let us keep reffing, than to yell, scream, and make us doubt further. Because even the best of us make mistakes, at any level; I've had National Candidates confess screw-ups that 99 times out of 100, they would have gotten away with.

For those who've read even the "10 Best of 2005" series know, as much as I would like to be, I'm not always the best ambassador of this message, with or without the whistle. But I try, and I've improved each season I've reffed. Hopefully this kid will, too - because he has the potential to be better - if we, both players and refs, give him the chance. This entry generated a good deal of commentary, so I'm going to include that with this entry as well.

One call out of a hundred

There were three other games going on around mine, and mine turned out to be the shit-kicker of the bunch. One team was all Irish, and the other your stereotypical Americans (meaning white with varying degrees of body types - although you'd be surprised by the mobility of the bigger guys). The game started out physical by the Irish side, and the Americans had a tough time adjusting, or rather, decided to retaliate instead. The problem was that both teams were coming into challenges rather sloppy - I know it's early in the season, but they're second division and I was rather surprised.

Things came to a head in the 20th minute, when I booked a player on each side after they both started shoving each other. It really turned out to be a gift for me, because it really let me put my stamp on the game, and didn't have anything that came close to needing a card the rest of the game - although there was plenty of man management to be had.

Against the run of play, the Americans scored two goals within five minutes, both off blown defensive assignments, followed both by fouls, and followed both by advantage calls before the ball went into the net. I thought there was going to be a third, but the defender pulled the shirt of the striker - I had to retract the card after failing to look at the assistant for an offside flag - I got too caught up in the game.

The Irish team quickly equalized (how quickly? The American goals were in the 68th and 73rd minutes, the Irish in the 75th and 79th) after pressing everyone up, and with some really risky, but effective, field play by their goalkeeper, keeping the American's inches away, but never fully taking advantage of their counter-attacks. All the while it had been a physical game, with plenty of foul language (I decided early on that this was NOT a battle worth fighting), and hard challenges.

Then the Hole of Dug (more)

11 January '06 - 09:37 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2005: Overconfidence?

I still think about this one quite a bit, partially because it only happened recently, partially because I haven't had as many games as I would have liked to put it behind me (although for the most part I have), and partially because I wonder if I did suffer from overconfidence in that game. But why was I feeling good about how I handled the game up until that point? Was it because I thought, "They know me, they respect me, and damn do I look good"? No. It was, "This is a difficult game, I'm working hard and it shows, and damn I look good." On one hand, we should feel pride about what we do - if we didn't, we wouldn't do it - it's part of what motivates us to do better, rather than to just settle.

So, while I was feeling good about myself, I don't think I was overconfident, but I did misjudge some signals from the first half. Maybe, if I had the right historical context about that player, I could have prevented it; maybe some people, like in "Revenge! Revenge! Revenge!", some people are just ticking timebombs.

Overconfidence?

I've had some time to cool down from the second game - I might rev back up again by the time I've finished this, but I at least want to go back to the first game because I was sure I was going to need to write about it right away when I got home. That might not have happened due to the events of the second, but I still need to write about it, albeit later than expected.

This winter's been kind of odd - because of the whole dome deflation thing, I've only done a handful of indoor games, the other indoor locations have all gone on without me, and when I got some matches, it was already into the session playoffs. It was really weird, because the most I'd been able to do is run on occasion (very occasionally, too - it turned out my wife has smaller kneecaps than normal, so she's still only at 50% weight-bearing on her legs, post ACL reconstruction surgery, which means I have to be around to carry anything and everything - since when I'm gone, someone else needs to be around, it doesn't lend well to reffing much, or just to run and stay in shape). These teams had had a full eight weeks to get to know and dislike each other. And this first game was tough - very fast paced and very hard.

Fast paced games are what indoor's all about, but it's inherent dangerous (and a reason I'm not playing it anymore... well, much of it) is that when a game is going at that level, it requires discipline; and when it's not there, bad stuff can happen very quickly. The goalkeeper for one side made a early hard challenge outside of the penalty area that was a probable card, but I opted for a good talking to; I hoped that, given that I could get away without a card, that spending some eye-to-eye time with the players would send two messages: first, stay calm; and second, I don't mind the level of play as long as it's kept the way it was for the first ten minutes.

And it worked, all through the rest of the half, and more than 20 minutes into the second 25-minute half. At halftime other refs and players waiting for their game were watching this game, because it was so intense. And it was a beautiful game to watch; and for the most part, it was clean. But with a couple minutes left, the keeper, who was down by two, did it again, this time breaking the leg of the striker, requiring paramedics.

This was the third time paramedics were summoned to my field: Once in my second year when a kid at the State Cup dropped from heat exhaustion (something I've become better at noticing since then, or at least noticed it once; two years ago when a player stepped on a ball and dislocated her knee; and this time - the only time when it involved someone else's recklessness. Except was it reckless or malicious? I thought reckless, and carded it as such - he didn't come out feet first, he just didn't pay the least bit of attention to the attacker, at least to me. But to his own teammates, he was a "psycho" - and that's in quotes because his own teammates said that about him to me after the game! They tossed him off their team then-and-there, and said they didn't want to play for or against him, asking for a league ban.

Apparently the guy has issues.

The thing is, in retrospect there were things I could have been tighter on (that first non-card would be the obvious one), both in his actions, and in how he was communicating to his own teammates; and stuff that happened behind me away from play (I'll omit the problems about single referees for now) but I lacked the background on the guy to realize that this was more trouble than I knew. The other refs, who reffed him prior to this game, all pegged him as a problem person, several wondering why he hadn't been tossed before this game. It's humbling, because I thought I was doing a damn good job up until that point - and you wonder if it's overconfidence.

If there's a silver lining, or at least a rescue for my own ego, it's that the team that lost the attacker didn't yell about it, didn't scream about it, and actually said I did a good job, and meant it (it wasn't just the perfunctory, "Good job, ref" you sometimes get after a game is over). They understood about how I missed stuff behind the play (see single referee rant); and overall, they were not that unhappy with my job, just that the keeper was able to do what he did.

It'll keep me reffing, but it's not much of a consolation.

07 January '06 - 15:39 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2005: Referees make the worst players, and now it's my turn

A very popular phrase in media circles is "Full disclosure"; if you're writing an article about Microsoft, and you used to work for them, or Bill Gates bought your butt, you disclose it ahead of time, or at least somewhere in the article, so people can take it with an appropriate amount of salt. This article is my full disclosure, as it were, that yes, I know the frustration of being a player, that I can be just as much a jerk as any player, and I should, if necessary, be sent off like any player.

It's also full disclosure in that just because I am a referee, doesn't mean I have to like every referee, or support every referee.

And, just to add a new bit of disclosure, I haven't played in that league since then (although this incident really had nothing to do with that).

Referees make the worst players, and now it's my turn

I've said on more than one occasion that referees make the worst players. We, as a group, tend to want games called the way we call them
them, and tend to get loud and obnoxious when things don't turn out that way (which, given the amount of latitude referees are given, is most of the time). In my first two years of being a ref I earned a red card apiece (one was written up as a pair of yellows - he wussed out, because he showed a straight red - I think it's because he realized he let things escalate for a good minute before even bothering to cross the half-way line), but none since. As a player I try to give referees the benefit of the doubt on calls - because so much of it is what angle you're looking at the play from; as a goalkeeper, I want my players to not argue with the ref, and instead pay more attention to stopping the oncoming attack.

So why am I writing about this? I don't normally write about the games I play in. But today I am. because I was flipped off by the referee today. (more)

06 January '06 - 23:32 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

2006 starts much like 2005 left off...

... with a closed dome. Good grief.

06 January '06 - 12:04 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2005: "Simple rule of soccer: if you want to keep playing, don't say 'Fuck You' to the ref"

Indoor soccer is my man-management training ground. Despite the recent issues I've had with the management of the league (things that thankfully just don't happen, or at least I've never experienced, in the USSF), it's a great place to test your metal on some serious soccer psychopaths. In 2004 I think I issued a single red card in affiliated play (more in High School), and I can't think of any in 2005 (although I skipped High School) - the level of play in the affiliated leagues is higher, but there's also more discipline, and more consequences should someone lose control (I've seen several "life bans" overturned in this league after a few years, and I don't think there's a written record, which means they can come right back in when the position of coordinator turns over). I often attribute my ability to juggle players and situations in the higher leagues to my being able to deal with this league.

So when it seems like I just breeze over sending two people off, in this league, it's pretty much business as usual. And it's interesting to see how highly skilled players, the players I see behaving so much better in USSF matches, drop to the lowest common denominator when they're put in this league.

Simple rule of soccer: if you want to keep playing, don't say "Fuck You" to the ref

Tossed out two red cards this morning, for two different reasons. I feel good about both of them, although in a perfect world there would have been three; I'm doubtful they could have been prevented, and in the second one, pretty much did all I could do, short of withholding a righteous card.

The first one happened with about fifteen minutes left in the second half (out of a 25-minute period), and shows, once again, the inherent weakness of a single-referee system: nobody watches our back. The game was a "B" level, and was pretty mellow; a couple fouls either way, but nothing of serious consequence, nothing that indicated that people were pissed. Well, the goalkeeper picked up a ball, and threw it down-field. Right before the throw, an opponent tried to block the throw, but nothing happened out of it; and the ball was quickly in the offensive third of the keeper's team (small fields strike again!). I brought my attention toward the new center of play, when I heard shouting behind me. Turning, I saw the striker bringing down his fist from above his head, downward into the keeper's face. I'm unsure if it connected or not, but it really didn't matter. Whistle screaming, I sprinted between the two red card in hand, and immediately sending off the striker (and if you're fluent in soccer, there is no attempt at a pun, even if it is appropriate).

You know, for a team that just had a player sent off, they were incredibly well behaved. (more)

05 January '06 - 22:51 - - default| three comments, already - § ¶

10 Best of 2005: Week of the Living Wingnuts

I've worked 645 regulation USSF games so far in my career- that doesn't count indoor, unaffiliated, or high school, which means I've seen a lot of stuff - some good, some bad, and some so bad that it's funny when you first look at it, then sad when you think of the broader implications. Take this, a U9 game where an adult gets so into the game that he makes a scene in front of his child (or grandchild). It's the epidomy of what's wrong with sports today; at that age (well, any age really, but that age in particular) it shouldn't matter what the refs do, or even how the kids do on the field - the idea should be that they have fun, and learn something positive from play. He shouldn't have to learn that, "My dad can't control his temper." It makes me shudder to think what he's like at home.

Week of the Living Wingnuts

Something is most definitely in the water this week, because I've got people in both of my jobs going nuts over stupid things. With the job, it's not just stupid things, but things that are absolutely impossible to put one-and-one together to make a duce; but they rant rave, and insist, and I charge them $150 an hour for it (it's actually not as good as it seems, because I end up having to neglect my other clients just to placate these bozos).

I was asked by my assignor to help out on a game today; it was right before my scheduled game, at an adjacent field, I had a short drive and I'm usually very early anyway. I've heard it's really bad manners (and signs of a terminal ego problem) to turn down games because they're "beneath" you; and I figured, hey, a U9 would be fun, especially after the last game.

Unfortunately for me, there were major similarities. Fortunately, it involved a parent, not the coaches - and in this game even the coaches were on my side. How can you screw up this game? The kids don't know, let alone are cynical enough, to foul - I think there were a pair where a kid's eyes were so focused on where they were going that they didn't realize they just plowed over their opponent. If there's any such thing as a milk run for an adult referee, this is it.

In this case, the antagonist was a rather large male, either a father or grandfather, who fancied himself a coach rather than a spectator. He was loud, obnoxious, condescending to his peers, and thought he could be an AR while in a lawn chair Can you just see my eyes rolling, even though the text? I thought so.

So in the second half (more)

04 January '06 - 15:44 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2005: Almost my turn

Despite my stated hope that I don't do USA Cup this year (which means that I'll be doing Regionals, instead of the Cup, instead of dissing or blowing off the USA Cup), I still had a lot of fun, like I do every year. Despite the smaller number of teams, and the dramatic drop in overseas participants, it's still a great place to expose yourself to different styles and tactics of play. It's a pretty common occurrence to see teams with expectations on how the game should be played, or reffed, get along with teams with very different expectations. The most striking example is when you have an English or Latin American team or referee on the pitch: stereotypically, one sees the game as, no harm/blood/exposed broken bones, no foul; the other any contact is a grievous attack and should booked immediately. Exaggerations, to be sure, but it demonstrates the point, and when you're a referee dealing with teams that have vastly different expectations, you're in for, at least in my case, an interesting juggling act (some refs can pull it off by sheer force of personality, but for-better or for-worse, that's not me).

Such distinctions also exist in the US, although you can argue how applicable they are. East Coasters brad about how much more physical their game is than in the midwest, and, given you see a lot of teams from Minnesota in the USA Cup, you tend to see that played out. Strangely enough, I haven't seen a whole lot of West Coast teams, maybe because they have this impression of Minnesota that requires gloves when it drops to 70-degrees.

I had my first playoff center, and it was a East Coast (Maryland) team versus a Midwest (Minnesota). And everything was peachy, nobody complaining about the physicality of the match, until the stereotypically more physical team falls behind. At least one thing is consistent, no matter what part of the country (or world, even) you coach in: when you fall behind, things become crystal clear that it's been the ref's fault all along.

USA Cup 2005 Day 7: Almost my turn

Another sizzler of a day. We often joke about "USA Cup weather", but it would be awfully nice to have a little rain and some cooler weather for a day or two. My second game of the day was a center (which is a pleasant surprise, considering that in the last four years at the USA Cup, I'd never centered a playoff game, and this was a semi-final), and it was beastly hot. Why it was still a green flag I have no idea, because by the time I was done with the game, every part of my torso was covered in sweat, and the pool was rapidly going outhward.

I desperately wanted to toss a coach from this game, too. It was a 13-boys semi with a team from Minnesota, and one from Maryland (I'm thinking it was Trophy Flight, the middle rung, but I'm not sure). The team from Maryland dominated the game: they had great passing, good vision, better speed - but they couldn't get the ball into the penalty area, and they limited themselves to two shooters. While they were big, fast, and had good ball skills, they lacked tactics; it's one thing to work your way down the flanks, but another to get past several defenders waiting for you at the penalty area's borders. The Minnesota team, for all their inadequacies when compared to the Maryland side, as two major advances: they pressured up front into the penalty area and they had a diversified attack. The Minnesota team took advantage of defensive and goalkeeping mistakes by Maryland, and made up a 1-0 deficit in just eight minutes, off a great cross from the goal-line that a defender mishandled and played into his own net. In the second half, they scored goals in two consecutive minutes simply by mixing things up inside the penalty area.

Maryland wanted the perfect shot; Minnesota would take nearly any shot. Perfect shots rarely happen, and while Minnesota's goals weren't
pretty, they don't need to be.

Shortly after their third goal, Minnesota slowed down the pace dramatically... while the ball wasn't in play, and I started
considering how much time I wanted to add onto the game. This was something, given the heat and the age of the kids, I didn't really want
to do a whole lot of, but on the other hand, I didn't want to gyp the Maryland side, either. Maryland started a frenetic pace, which netted
then another goal in the 52nd minute (game length was 60 minutes). Then their coach started going nuts.

I thought I had called a pretty consistent game, and one that was vocal enough that people would have a good idea of what I would call and what I wouldn't. Furthermore, the USA Cup is pretty well known (and if you don't know, you find out pretty quick) for allowing physical play. A Maryland player had the ball along the near side (to the benches) in Minnesota's corner, and the striker and defender were battling it out for possession; since it was out of my AR's corner, I came very deep, into touch, only a few yards away in great position, and then the coach started screaming about being played on the back. Yes, the striker was shielding the ball, and that usually happens with the back, but no, the defender wasn't grabbing, kicking, or otherwise doing anything illegal to him. I let it go to the next stoppage (he didn't), which was a throw-in on the opposite side, stopped the throw in, and made it very clear that his continued comments were unwanted. "Coach: You will not argue my calls, you will only talk to your players. End of story."

But of course, coaches, never one for actually understanding the Laws of the Game when gamesmanship, testosterone, or plain simple insanity will do, didn't stick with it. A few minutes later, he started screaming about something else (and once again, about something where he was 100% wrong). I was ready to kick him out, normally I would have because he had been already warned once, but one thing stopped me: there were no other coaches there. So if he got the boot, the game ended, and I didn't want to tell a bunch of thirteen-year-olds, let alone the tournament staff, why I had to terminate a game that had been well under control for the first 90% of the game; so I pulled out a trick that others had used, but I never had: the, "Warm up your assistant" card. "Coach, do you have an assistant here? I hope you do, because if you don't and I kick you out, this game comes to an ignoble end."

I wish I could say that it shut him up for the remainder of the game (about seven minutes total, five and two added for stoppage), but it still did the job enough to finish it: he had one more yelp, but nothing sustained or worth the trouble over. I was satisfied when the game concluded with no additional scoring. Of course, the coach turns around and leaves after the handshakes with the players, ignoring the referees, but that's the kind of good example I expect that fine man from Maryland to set. He's certainly not doing anything to help change my predisposition toward New Englanders (that short while in Connecticut was bad enough).

The next game, which I had a whole ten minutes to change shoes, was on the I-fields; the most crap fields at the National Sports Center. I
know most of the fields take a beating, but according to the locals, the I (or Italy) fields were garbage to begin with, and were certainly
some of the worst I'd worked on all year. I-3 was taken out-of-service in the first couple of days because both teams and referees refused to play on it, and my line on I-2 had a number of holes, including one that caused an ankle-twist. Thankfully, I anticipated poor footing, and put on an ankle brace (one of the serious ones with surgical steel), and ran a good yard-and-a-half behind the touchline. When the almost inevitable ankle-twist did come, I uttered a few choice words that little kids should never hear, hopped for a few minutes - shortly thereafter, I was fine. After the game, I was asked to do another game at referee headquarters, but simply said that I just did a line on I-2, twisted my ankle, and would be lucky to walk the next day. I think I was given the "Oh, say no more" speech as soon as I said I-2.

We also came within thirty seconds of extra time as well. Yellow flags came up following my center for this game (and then went to red
only a few minutes later), so when a goal was scored in the second half, ending a 0-0 deadlock, the center told me that he thought it was
scored too early, and that an equalizer would happen, which was exactly what did happen. Extra time looked inevitable, but thirty seconds after he gave me the signal that he was adding one minute of stoppage, the tie was broken, and it was nearly time to hit the showers.

03 January '06 - 16:31 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2005: Revenge! Revenge! Revenge!

I think every referee has something that sets them off - probably every person in a given situation, but for me, when the situation is reffing, it's coaches. I just don't get them - I mean, I've never seen a referee question their tactical instructions, but they think it's their god-given right to question our interpretation of the Laws/Rules, or even what we saw with our own eyes. The former wouldn't be so bad, but aside from the few coaches who also ref (and they're usually worse, because they want refs to call it exactly like them), they don't read the Laws/Rules. Not a one. I think it's really sad that the USSF doesn't include the Laws of the Game for any of their coaching licenses; I think it's even sadder that member of the National Federation of High Schools (the governing body of high school sports) talks a good game about sports being an extension of the classroom, then let their coaches run wild, being the most god-awful role models you would ever want your kids exposed to. Seriously - as a fan in the stands you can watch them spaz; as a referee on the pitch, you can hear them swear, make sexist and demeaning comments, and generally come to the understanding that, if the jocks act like their coaches, you can see why their bulling victims might come back with guns.

You know the schools, high school leagues and NFHS have seen this behavior, and yet they allow it. How sad is that?

And it's not just when they coach. Over the winter, I had the, ahem, pleasure of reffing a team made up of high school coaches. And found out that they're just as bad on the field, possibly even worse, as when they're ignoring the technical areas.

Revenge! Revenge! Revenge!

I say "revenge" somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because I certainly don't look for that going into a game - but after I found out what I
had after the game, it suddenly made a whole heckuva lot of sense.

What happened? Four yellows, two reds, a third would-be red written up, and a terminated game.

The reason? The team was made up of High School coaches, playing exactly like they coach: whine whine whine! No, wait. It was actually more than that: it was whine whine whine over one single call! It's amazing!

The game was fine,until I had to make a judgment call over the toughest rule in the league: the slide tackle rule. (more)

01 January '06 - 10:30 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶