RefBlog

Small blog hiccup

I found a hiccup in the blog software last night, where most, but not all, of the blog entries had disappeared. This has been, at least for the moment, resolved. All of the archives have been restored.

30 March '07 - 13:42 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2006: My own playing paradox

This is in my Best of list not because it's terribly well written, but because it gives an example of what referees eventually have to do if they love the game well enough to continue to ref it - which is give it up. As you may know, I got into reffing because of two reasons: the first was I wanted to do some more running in game situations, (I played goalkeeper because I had the prerequisite brain damage to actually want to play it, and play it aggressively), and because I just wanted to be involved in more soccer games period.

Now, when it comes to below even the lowest USSF-sanctioned recreational league, I'm not a bad goalkeeper: I mark my strengths as aggressiveness (better in indoor than out, but if we face a team that gets a lot of breakaways, then we'll lose by a few less goals), and my voice (I'm very active it letting our defense know where attackers are and what needs to be covered); my main weakness is skill. Despite this, I love playing the game - I also love reffing it; I'm also a far better referee than I could ever be a player, and it's given me an opportunity to be part of games that I'd never have a chance in participating in, which in turn has given me levels of excitement that I'd never had as a player. Nonetheless, I'd like to keep playing.

But now I don't play, and that decision was made because I was a referee. So now we can chalk up the things referees have to deal with are verbal and physical abuse on the field while wearing the pinstripes, to verbal and physical abuse coupled with threats of debilitation injury even when not wearing the official strip.

I, we, shouldn't have to choose.

My own playing paradox
There's a long held school of thought that referees who play are better referees that don't; the idea behind it is that they understand the game better, the tactics, the pitches, and can empathize with the players better. There's also a long-held rule that you don't referee in leagues you can play in.

Here's my problem: I'm not a good player, and I don't play on good teams. Tactically, I get more from watching local professional games (MLS on TV doesn't cut it - you miss a whole lot of what goes on off the ball); they're usually far better than the "get it to our best player and run" scenario I'm used to when I play. During the summer I'm reffing all sorts of games, and I had to make a choice between reffing a third less games than I had done before, in exchange for playing on a regular basis - I choose to ref rather than play because I'm far better at it, and maybe even enjoy it more - but I still want to play. So I wait until the fall and play on a city league in the suburbs that has some of the best fields that cruddy little players like me can get on (even when it includes the gravel from the overlapping baseball fields). But now a new problem has occurred: Due to a late signup, we've moved up two divisions, and now I'm playing against players I reffed this summer. During the game, as I ran out and dove for a loose ball (I'm the goalkeeper), the striker for the other team made a remark about my reffing and how he wanted to kick me in the balls right then. I had no previous interaction with him during the game (it was early in the first half); he wasn't even near me - this was something he was sitting on as soon as he recognized me for who and what I am.

The fact that I'm recognizable is a problem; I decided to grow my hair back out, and although there are other referees with pony tails, mine's not long enough to pull back, so I end up wearing hair control devices across my forehead, which makes me more-or-less unique when it comes to refs around here. This is a problem because as a referee I have to, and I certainly try to, remain true to myself and make the correct calls, no matter how much it's going to piss someone off. But because of circumstance, I'm forced to play with the same people I referee, even if it's not an affiliated league and technically OK (like city leagues care). What this situation makes apparent that without the badge I'm open to cheap shots.

My last game in that league was three weeks ago, when I sent a player off for a late, high, and hard tackle; when I saw the game in front of us, I recognized at least half-a-dozen players from that same league - I didn't recognize that guy, so who knows how many more I've dealt with with the whistle, and may have a vendetta.

There doesn't seem to be a good and safe, alternative. It may mean I don't get to play at any time of year and choose to only be a referee. (more)

30 March '07 - 09:35 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

The carrot and the stick are not necessarily related

I finally got a chance, after taking almost the entire winter off to train, to do some honest-to-goodness reffing. And although the weather was beautiful, the games were indoors, on basketball courts. The only time and place I know of around here that plays futsal is this one pre-season tournament. I knew the assignor from reffing - we've done games together in the past, and he found a way to get me around my normal three-hour limit when working a tournament: offer me a championship game. So, I worked three-and-a-half hours instead.

The tournament wasn't bad - the oldest teams were U16, and in one of the boys games I was even able to flash a card: one of the players was getting a tad too rambunctious for such a small court. When shinguards go flying as part of a challenge (they were his, but who cares), especially in a game that's supposed to be much less contact that a normal game, you've usually gone into the realm of reckless.

So the assignor got me with the carrot, but it was the final where I got the stick. As far as my performance goes, I wasn't unhappy - I think I did decent - but one of the coaches was very unhappy. This was the third time this tournament I had him, and I've had him outdoors as well, and I know that as soon as he decides he doesn't like one of your calls, you're going to get an earful from him the rest of the game. I loved watching this guy play professionally, but I'm not terribly fond of him on the sidelines - he definitely doesn't strike me as someone who provides that good of an example, at least on gameday.

But let's for the same of argument, say I did miss the calls he wants - all it does it point out a flaw in typically American soccer tournament structure: when players play multiple games, fatigue is part of the tournament, some could say it's part of what makes them interesting, and eliminates some of the luck that comes with small-field short-game tournaments. Not so with referees - despite the shortage of them (I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm perfectly happy doing a single game where I can put everything in and not have to save something for another match), our fatigue is not something to use as an excuse (like a player or coach), but something to be ignored in order to heap more abuse on us. Did I feel physically OK after three hours of work? Yes. But will I be as mentally ready as I was in the first hour? No - and that's why I don't like doing more than three hours.

Granted, just because I took the carrot doesn't mean I'm going to get the stick in that last game, or any game - but it does increase the chances. And just because a coach doesn't believe me when I say a saw a deflection doesn't mean he's right. If there's a good think about the last two US National Team friendlies, it shows that I'm in good company when it comes to dealing with people not believing you.

29 March '07 - 21:04 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

Best of 2006: Why the ref just won't believe you

There are three ways of answering the question, "Why won't the referee believe me?" (or anyone else, for that matter). The one word answer is "cynicism." The slightly longer answer is, "We don't go into the game biased; and we've had too many people try to pull the wool over our eyes to believe anything from anyone." The third is far more detailed, and goes into the history of any particular long-serving referee - it'll speak to the attitudes we see, let alone the actions. There are good ways to talk to the referee, and it's not difficult: respectfully, quietly, and understanding that what we see may be different that what you see; asking us to watch that player over there who's just a little too grabby is a good one - but it's unfortunately quite rare.

Here's my answer, including some of what to do:

Why the ref just won't believe you

I took the high road, I asked the coordinator to just pick a field, any field, because I wanted to ref one particular team too much, the one where a guy was complaining two weeks after the game. I knew I could be fair, but I wanted to see if he'd still complain about it, four weeks after the actual event. Him being a coach, I suspected he would. I've known the player from long before he became a coach, and the good news is that the guy isn't nearly as reckless as he used to be (he knocked a goalkeeper unconscious the year before he started coaching), but he quickly picked up the coaching habit of holding grudges - grudges that had no basis in reality.

But I was good, and I got the games on the other side of the dome; the first one opened with a planned blow-out. Apparently each team in the "B" division gets one game against an "A" team, although because of the way the league structures their table (they lump both the A and B divisions in a single group), they may not know it. It turned out to be the shooting gallery that everyone who knew the match background thought it would be; the good news is that the losing side didn't get overly frustrated. There was one guy who started crossing the line, but given the skill and speed gap, I wanted to see if he just needed to get a little bit out, and if the other team could easily avoid him, and it turned out yes on both counts; I was afraid that if I called a foul on a minor frustration move (that was still a foul, but on the edges of being called trivial) that I might frustrate the guy further. I didn't want to fuel the "Why the hell are they getting protection?" mentality that can just lead to worse things. It worked, they still managed a couple of goals, and everyone got through the game in reasonable shape, mentally and physically.

The second game was a top quarter-of-the-table team versus the cellar-dweller, and they had a good clean hard game that ended in a four-four tie. I had one card early in the game for a reckless challenge, not quite totally from behind, but enough where the guy who got the card didn't moan; I had a couple extra seconds, as they had an advantage situation, and I waited until the ball was out-of-play. The game went very smoothly from then on.

The third was great - two teams tied for first. The game was very fast, very well played, and featured a come-from-behind win with the final, go-ahead goal, coming in the final three minutes. Not too many fouls, certainly no complaints, aside from a couple (one for each side) of line calls that each team thought should have gone the other way. But here's the thing, after the goal, a player from the losing side gets all riled up about a guy putting his elbows up all game long; I do some yelling, his teammates get him out of the way, and because I have to turn around back toward the pack (I much prefer to exit the field immediately after the game rather than become an object for an easy cheap-shot), he says that I missed the aforementioned elbows all game long.

OK, here's a hint kiddies: if a guy is doing anything illegal "all game long", the wrong time to tell the referee is after the final whistle. I thought that this would be self-evident, but apparently it's not. It leads us referees to believe that, hmmmmm, you just lost a game that you were ahead of for 80% of, could you be trying to blame the referee instead of your own play?

Nyaaaaaa. Players would never do that. Would they?

Sarcasm aside, it is a pretty good assumption that if a referee is missing something repeatedly, he's going to continue to, and it is a good idea to let him or her know, so that you can see if the referee is actually seeing it, and if so, stress (nicely!) that you would prefer that it be stopped. Case-in-point: in the first game, one of the teams was subbing out on the goal-lines in their on-the-fly substitutions, but their replacements were coming in at center giving them an unfair advantage. I normally don't watch substitutions in indoor games, if someone asks before the game, I usually say it's an honor system and there's usually very little time for me to keep track of subs, especially when they're allowed on-the-fly like in this league. So, after telling the player I would watch it (and reminding her that it would be difficult), lo and behold, I did notice the substitution pattern, and delayed the next restart to ask the bench to sub in-and-out from their bench area (and throwing them a bone saying that during a dead ball, they could exit the field wherever they liked). Problem solved, nobody is unhappy.

Oh, and after that final game, I watch the player from two (and four) weeks ago complaining to the referee again. Apparently she missed a hand or elbow to the face. When she said straight out that she missed it, that should have been the end of the conversation; I mean, what else can you add to that? You can't rewind time, and even if you could, you can't backtrack to a call after the restart's been taken. It you want a last word, it should be, even if you want to be rude, something like, "Please be more observant of that next time." But no, he has to go on-and-on-and-on about it. Eventually the referee just said, OK I'm done, and just broke off that one-way "conversation." We talked afterwards, and we both agreed that, because of the way he plays, and how he tends to exaggerate contact to himself (while playing like a freight train when it comes to contact with others - and I refer you to the unconscious goalkeeper mentioned early on), that it might not have happened at all. His reputation has preceded him. I hope he doesn't teach that to the kids he coaches, but that would just involve me being cynical again. (more)

26 March '07 - 22:51 - - default| Only one comment - § ¶

Best of 2006: Why it's difficult for us to card dives

Graham Poll once got into a lot of trouble by speculating that teams must practice diving - and while a practice, if it had an agenda, would have "14:20: Diving practice" on the evening's bill of fare, you have to wonder because of its prevalence. And, like so much of what we see at the highest levels, it makes it way down to the lowest levels, because players see what it gets them.

This is a problem area for me to call - I think it is for a lot of people, because it can be awfully hard to determine what's a legitimate foul and what's a forgery. The best divers take actual contact, and even manufacture the contact, and go in for the foul (or, heaven help us, the penalty). And no matter how obvious the dive is, we'll be sure to get an earful from the player we book for it.

The point of this article, when I wrote it, was partially so I could deconstruct a situation I had for myself (which is the major reason for this blog - to allow myself to understand a situation later by writing about it, and also to vent steam when it arises; even if I didn't make this open to the public, I think I would have had to start writing to quit blowing the whistle long ago), and partially to figure out why it's hard to call it. And I think the reason comes down to this: calling a dive is fundamentally different than any other type of call we have to make in the game. As cynical a we need to be when we take to the field, it takes a special type of cynicism to start thinking of the dive, and a certain type of meanness, even if completely necessary, to book the person even if there was contact. The whole point of diving is to make it look like a legitimate foul, so the act of cautioning a dive is to, with the exception of the YouTube clip I linked to above, is to issue a caution 100% based on a judgement call - a call on how much of a cheater do we think this player is.

Why it's difficult for us to card dives

As I was doing one of the games in the second-to-last week of the indoor league, I ran across one person who started giving me trouble in the last five minutes of an otherwise trouble-free game. I had two playoff games that night, one given to me specifically because she wanted me to handle the teams (both had potentially explosive players that I've handled before - in fact, I had their last regular season game, and the coordinator was equally worried then as well) - both playoff games were fast and for the most part clean (I got to do a little yelling, as well as a little joking, in the game the coordinator was worried about, but it was otherwise just a slightly more difficult than normal game).

I'm writing about one of the other, bonus games, that I had that night. It involved the second-to-last chance for an 0-7 team to earn a little respect and pride. A female player, who was big had a nice touch on the ball and surprising speed caught the other team by surprise in the first half, getting off several nice shots. Unfortunately, and this happens a lot with co-ed teams, the men didn't pass it to her all that often - especially the other man on her team who provided any type of offensive spark (he was much faster than her, but didn't have the same ball skills). One has think the woman was wondering why the hell she plays - when she's trying to support her teammates, she doesn't get any in return, even when she had possession of the ball.

In any case, she got a little feisty near the end of the second half, probably when it became clear that they were still going to remain winless in the lowest bracket with only one match to go. She started playing much more physically, which as a player and observer I like, but as a referee I need to watch closely because all too often guys can't handle a girl playing the same way they do. Then she took a dive. It was a good dive, too - I'm pretty sure I would have bought it if I were anyplace else on the field; she was trying to box in a defender with the ball near his corner and I ran to cover it from in-touch near her bench in order to be very close as it's very common for elbows to be thrown in that area and in that situation. I saw it clearly: no contact whatsoever, and down she went crying for a call, I waived her to get up in the fashion that trainers tell you not to do, but you see MLS refs do all the time, and let the game continue. Her bench even joked about the dive, "Can't you give her something for her effort?" She was too close for me to joke back, so I stayed neutral, said no, and went back to play.

I should have carded her. The USSF said I should have carded her. FIFA says I should have carded her. Collina says I should have carded her. But I didn't. I could have said it was because it was late in the game, would have only inflamed the situation (in fact, any tension on that team pretty much evaporated at that point - not sure why, maybe it was my showing that I really was on the ball even in such a slow game as that), but I would be lying to myself. I can't speak for every referee, but I think even when we "know" it's a dive, there's something way back in the back of our minds that asks, "But what if it's not? Would the caution make the injustice of a non-call worse?"

It's really easy to sell a call for a reckless challenge: there's contact, it goes further than you want, and it doesn't matter if the player got the ball or not - it's simply a crossing of the line, issue the card. OK, there are grey areas too, when you can at least try to get away with a stern talking-to because you'll get more milage out of it than flashing some plastic. Diving is cheating of the worst sort, and as referees, we, I, aid it because we want to be 100% sure before declaring that this player is of the worst sort; because when it comes down to it, I don't think there's anything referees fear more (aside from assaults, injuries, lawsuits, and others) than carding someone who doesn't deserve it.

The downside is that we (I) have erred too much on the side of caution, and have let things get away from themselves. Yes, a card for diving should be something you're very very sure about, but I think we (I) need to drop the bar a bit, from that 99.999% to simply 90%. We have to be willing to face some heat for making the call, and not just get by with the path of least resistance, because that action will be repeated. I saw it earlier in the season, when I let a dive go (albeit with a warning to a teammate who also agreed with me that it was a dive), and I'm certain she'll try it again, too.

24 March '07 - 10:05 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

The inevitabilities of spring

As things have finally started to warm up here, I've found myself running into a few things that seem to happen every year. The first of which is watching my wife play indoor soccer: most of the winter it hasn't been a big deal - she's been playing on an all-women's league that isn't terribly aggressive; I recognize a few players who play on the third division of the women's league, where aggressiveness is permitted (and on a few teams, encouraged) - but such behavor just doesn't lend itself down to that league. Then a couple of weeks ago, I watched her play in her second league, a co-ed indoor league that plays MISL style (hockey rink with Astroturf layed down). Not only had I recognized a bunch of players, but most of the people on her team were people I've played with. It was a really fun game to watch, our team lost literally on a last second goal. The game was hard played, fast, and I was really really joneing to play - but instead I answered questions and generally gave a running commentary to the mother of one of our players, who hadn't seen her sone play in some twenty years.

I knew why I shoulnd't play - I'd get hurt. I've gotten hurt in those leagues before; I get hurt in those all too easy in fact, even though I grew to love soccer watching MISL games in the 1980s, and despite it's being seen as an abhorration by some people, still really enjoy it. But I've been saving myself for the referee physical, which I've been working so hard on all winter long. I still don't know if I'm going to make what I need for an upgrade - but there's been definte progress on the running front (my trainer decided that my best method is to interval the run), and I should be able to do the maintenance run OK.

Spring tournaments are coming out as well: I'm able to do the futsal tournament I coulnd't last year, but had to turn down the early outdoor tournament I did, because it's conflicting with my physical. Get some, lose some.

I've also had my annual cold, which true to form, comes with less than two months to my physical. A combination of the changing weather, stress at work, and stress at home (relatives died over the last couple of months, and my best friend was in ICU for a week before she was diagnosed, House-style, with a primarily Japanese disease that's only been seen in the hospital once before in 30-years). I think the change in daylight savings pushed me over the edge, becuase I hadn't been getting much sleep while my body adjusted - ironically enough, I think the three days I spent in bed finally allowed my body to adjust to the new time, and may have given me enough time not only to recoup what I've lost by not going to the gym for a nearly a week, but to build up further and hopefully make my goal.

BTW - there are no spell checkers from this terminal, so I apolgize for the misspellings.

21 March '07 - 12:12 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

I just don't understand high school

I realize that Referee Magazine isn't a news magazine - it's designed to assist referees and make them better. But sometimes I wish they had a slightly harder edge - not often, but they clearly have more access to the NFHS that we plebs do, especially when it comes to soccer. So when the magazine had a one-page interview with the current chair of the Soccer Rules Committee for the NFHS, Dr. Robert Lombardi, I would have liked to have asked a few more pointed questions.

The problem is, we got the same platitudes that we get year-in and year-out from the NFHS, but little in the way of actual explanation:

• NFHS is an extension of the classroom, not just a competition. Despite normally seeing better behavior on the field in USSF matches.
• Rule differences are are to keep student participation, risk avoidance, and good sportsmanship at the forefront Unfortunately, the examples he gave were a bit too obvious (free substitution, when most of youth and adult soccer in this country also has it; and stopping play immediately when there's a dangerous situation when the USSF and FIFA permit the same - they just don't at higher levels). Don't get me wrong - some of them I can see, even if I think it's over-the-top (like padded goalposts), but it would have been nice to ask what the difference in throw-ins, the NFHS-required balls, and the ban on bumblebee socks have anything to do with those so-called ideals.

The signals, maligned as much as they are by much of the USSF referee people, could be a good example of something that fits in their ideals - I just don't think they're implemented that well in this particular state (where the signal is more important than keeping the game from going to pot).

It also would have been nice to have them ask more about why, when they asked him the "if you could do anything" question, he chose implement the Double-Dual (aka Three Whistle) system. I'm sorry, but I'm extremely leery about the system, for several reasons: first, there's jack-squat about it online; second, outside of this country, it's not tested, and where it has, it's failed miserably; third, because the NFHS just has a poor record on training its referees on anything (look at all FIFA and the USSF put out - not just the publications, the steady stream of memos to help and clarify things, but even sites like Jim Allen's Ask a Soccer Referee, which carries the weight of official USSF answers; finally, we'd be better off trying to work better within the regular DSC system, then trying to learn a different set of rules plus a different referee system.

I think Dr. Lombardi is working with some false presumptions when it comes to the double-dual: the first is that it gives more authority on the field with the referees. I have to disagree for two reasons: one, because I have plenty of inconsistency when working with the Dual - as soccer referees, we develop our own styles on how to deal with players, marginal fouls, and working with our other officials. I've seen officials from 60 yards away overrule ones in perfect position by blowing the whistle after the near official just announced that it was clean and there was no foul - ick. Now toss a third. Other reasons this is a poor choice is that too many referees are poorly trained to begin with - if you have an experienced center referee you can at least overrule a flag on an overzealous assistant - you can't do that with a whistle; and if the assistant is good, the center should blow the whistle for the foul.

I may give him this: the double-dual may be an easier system to start with, and it may be easier for official from other sports to cross-over into. But even if the traditional DSC (and that's changed quite a bit over the years as well) takes more work to get right, it also produced better results when everyone is working together properly; and that's going to work better for everyone involved.

And frankly, I'd rather seem them get their house in order on the sportsmanship side (which is a joke) before tinkering with the way officials work their games. (more)

11 March '07 - 11:49 - - default| three comments, already - § ¶

Best of 2006: A terrible way to end a game

This was a big deal for me: centering a final in a State Cup game; I'd lined several finals, and centered a couple of semis in past years, but never a final, and a 16-boys final was a fine show of confidence by the assignor and the tournament staff. Being a game of such importance for the teams, it was such to be hard played. Every play of the players mattered, every call I made mattered; and I had two really tough ones, one of which could have decided the game.

Whenever I think of this game, I think I should have made the second call (the one nullifying a goal) sooner. My thoughts at the time was that it looked like an easy save given the skill of the team, but I didn't take the near blinding rain into account before he bobbled it; and it took me a second to turn around and see that the kicker had taken the kick before I had finished setting the wall. But the idea was, if the keeper saved the ball, I'd let play go on rather than allow then a "second" free kick (not technically true I know, but having been on the other end, it does piss you off, more-so if they score on the "real" kick). So I did what I had to, I became very visible, became the big bad referee, and called back the goal. How big and bad I had to be depended totally on how the other team took it.

A terrible way to end a game
I always thought that the worst way to end a game was by penalty kicks - I know now that I was wrong. I centered the 16-boys State Cup final - a game that because of numerous cancelled dates due to poor weather, was being played at the last possible day - a result was needed, and the tournament director was willing to wait most of the night to get it.

The first game for me was a line on the 16-Girls final; a game that sent one of the coaches in a rabid froth; the center nearly ejected him at halftime. What was amazing was that he actually kept his word that he'd behave in the second half and didn't hear a word from him.

In this state, there are two traditional power-clubs (they don't quite hit the definition of Super Club, a term which has been bandied about by some of the national powers), one for the girls and one for the boys. I had the boys team, and another more standard, city-based team. I felt good in the first half, I wanted to get deeper (so did one of my ARs, who was a State Referee), but they were transitioning quickly, and I didn't want to get caught too far behind; both teams seemed responsive to any verbal items I brought up (one player used way too much power on his challenges and I fouled him repeatedly for it, as well as a few minor things). The second half proved more interesting.

It started with a pass mixup: in the State Cup (and for the winners, the tournaments that follow it), substitutions are very similar to college: if a player subs out in the first half, they can return in the second. We take the passes of the starting eleven at the beginning of the game, then the passes as players sub-in, and finally return them at half-time where the process starts anew - you can't get on the field without a pass. Apparently there was a mixup, and a player who was on the field didn't get his pass in the starting eleven, and another player's got in the pile instead; the good news (as opposed to couple years ago) was that the fourth official knew which players who were mixed up (it helps that they weren't identical twins). The coach then wanted to put the player who he thought was supposed to start into play - which was fine if he wanted to sub the original player out. When he realized the condition, he kept the original player on the field, and the fourth obtained the correct passes (and gave the other pass back to the bench player).

The city (more)

07 March '07 - 15:50 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

IFAB decision (?) on the hijab issue in Canada

If you haven't read it yet, read The Global Game's take on the issue. It's by far the most in-depth coverage I've seen on it. Hats off to everyone involved on the site - it's well recommended.

A couple reports this morning that IFAB has made a decision, of sorts. I don't see anything official from them (only a couple of reports from Canadian news sources), but apparently their decision was to not make a decision. Rather than make the Law book look like a legal book with each and every possible situation written out (and who can blame them for that?), they've decided to leave it up to the individual associations, instead. That means if a national association doesn't take a stand (like the CSA), then a regional one can - which is why Ottawa says players can wear them, and Quebec says they can't. If none of them do, it goes down to the individual referee. And depending on how it's attached, a referee is still empowered to make a on-field decision. As one person on Socref said, "I'd rather have them decry my bigotry than have to face the grieving parents."

One thing to keep in mind, however, is what FIFA does on the international level - there's a picture on the article from The Global Game where members of the Iranian women's national team are playing another national team in a Federation Championship game: they are all wearing hijabs. FIFA knows about hijabs in high level soccer; if this was a big a deal to them as, say Cameroon's one-piece jersey, they would be all over them. But it's not. I, for one, would love to see a predominately Muslim country's women's team play a friendly against Canada in Quebec. Will Quebec shut it down and risk an international incident? Or will the provincial authority quietly back down, allowing all those players who wish to play, and do so safely, actually play? (more)

04 March '07 - 11:18 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶