RefBlog

Love these winter games

I have to admit, I love doing these games in the middle of winter. I know I said a lot about it last time, but still, it's full-field games when it's below freezing. And the quality of the games are also excellent!

I had two games for this day, a 50-minute match between two girls' ODP teams (I think 15 year-olds, but I could be off a year), and it was a lot of fun. One of the teams had already just finished a similar game, and then took on a fresh squad - the first half was dominated by the team who played an extra game, but by the second half, fatigue got the better of them and they let in the only goal of the game.

I've never refereed Olympic Development Program teams before, and it was a lot of fun. I know a lot of people who poo-poo women's games, but when you get to this level, put your preconceptions aside - they run you hard.

That was followed by an 18-girls game; on the home side was the boarding school, and though I was told the visiting team was a local club team; they wore jerseys and played like one of the elite girls teams I see at Regionals. And if the ODP game was fast, I wasn't prepared for the level of play that this game had to offer. I actually had a few issues in changing gears for this game - first was speed (which I was able to adjust to after the first few minutes), and the second was the physicality - this was clearly the most physical women's game I've reffed - and that took me about 15-20 minutes to determine what was going to be acceptable. There were several calls I let go, that after play had moved on, I thought to myself that I should have called them after the play moved on. I think I stabilized after then - figure out what I needed to look for and what I should and shouldn't call. I'd rather not have that long an adjustment period, but I was taken both by surprise and also had to adjust to a level I hadn't worked before. A final adjustment I had to make had to do with an uncommunicated change in timing between the first and second games. In the first game they played to the horns and not to the referee's whistle (because, like most indoor arenas, there's another game scheduled to use the facilities); but in the second, it was turned off. So I ended up reffing a free kick and corner kick a whole lot differently (meaning rushed) than I would have otherwise. I ended up apologizing to the coach, explaining what happened and that I would have done things differently - he seemed OK with it.

I did end up having a sendoff in the game, for a pair of cautions - both of which were pretty obvious. The first happened near the end of the first half, a clear professional foul as a player was about to drive into the penalty area. Then again in the 85th minute, while on the ground, she grabbed and tripped up a similar player in a similar position - and I mean took her legs and tried to circle around. From then on, the team, which was up 3-1, totally gave up attacking soccer and took to possession, and spreading out an already wide field (85 yards wide - gotta love it). This caused one player on another team to commit a quick series of iffy fouls, enough for a persistent infringement card.

Overall, I would have liked to adjust quicker, but I did adjust, and did well enough that nobody seemed perturbed or angry with me (even when losing by two or getting a player ejected). So, I can at least chalk up another 140 minute of full-field soccer during the dead of winter. (more)

28 January '08 - 20:38 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2007: Differing perspectives

I bash coaches on this blog a lot. No, I say that incorrectly, a whole lot. And while I think there are some that are a real disgrace to the game, I'd venture that most, even the ones I have issues with, are simply ignorant of what it takes to be a good referee, and how referees see the game differently from everyone else. I know I certainly found that out after I became one!

So in some ways, this entry is one of many that tries to explain how and why the guys in pinstripes do things differently than those in the technical area. I just hope this one illustrates it better.

One thing I didn't add, which would be a valid criticism to the "referee development hasn't matched player development" argument is that of coaching. Referees don't get coached: we get an inservice once a year, an assessment or three if you're a State badge holder or Grade 7, but that's it. There is also the odd additional opportunity: state associations may have training for young up-and-comers, but that doesn't address the 95% of us regular officials who have no expectations of making National. We could, of course: we could pay assessors enough that retired State referees would come out in droves to coach referees, or maybe come in from overseas like so many coaches have for youth teams - but who pays for it? Referees? My game fees are pretty much eaten up in their entirety by the costs for my personal trainer (which is a year-long commitment). If it's me, then the game fees have to be increased, which means it comes from players, teams, and the USSF - and it's not.

Differing perspectives

Wouldn't you know it - the assignor for the state cup took my suggestion (for me, anyway), and when I had a center in a knock-out round, the other game in the two game set was a fourth official; I made the request this year because in the past I would do two 17-or 18 year-old games, and the center would be in the second slot. This time it was the first game of the set, but you know the saying, you get what you ask for. I still don't mind it though - it meant I could give everything I had physically to the match where I carried the whistle.

I started the day with a 16-boys semi-final; and for the most part, it was very one-sided. You hate to say it, but the result looked pretty obvious from the get-go. No issues, no problems, and the game turned out pretty good.

The fourth, for the 16-girls semi, was similarly one-sided. The only issue in the game was one I had to deal with as the fourth official, and that was one of the coaches being overly persnickety about technical areas. The fields for the state cup, unlike just about anything else I deal with, has a rough technical area painted in - I say painted in, but there's just two lines painted that roughly divide the two teams. One one side - or I should say just outside of one of the areas, is a set of bleachers, and on the other there isn't one. All tournament long whoever had that one side used the bleachers to sit on and it's never been a big deal. Frankly, I'm not sure if anyone ever thought about it; but this one coach apparently did, and decided to make an issue out of it - after the game had started of course.

I ended up moving them at half-time, but during the first half, they all behaved, and, at least my thought at the time, was that it would be unfair to make everyone pack up at that stage and be disrupted. Obviously, if I had been more stringent about it in the first place, there would be no situation (at least not from that one team) - but I have a feeling that the only reason it really cropped up was because the coach had a referee there next to him to complain at. But it does speak to avoiding conflict by removing the potential for it first - which is a nice way of saying I blew it.

I ended up picking up a third game, another fourth, because the tournament was short referees, and when the person who's in charge of sending people to Regionals asks you to do it (especially after telling you that you're on the list to go - score!), you don't turn him down unless you have something urgent to go to. Actually, there are any number of reasons - because the assignor gives you good games and taking a bit of the load for them is a nice way to say "thank you" in more than just words. And it's just a helpful thing to do... besides, it was that or clean a really nasty pool.

The third game was the 13-boys semi. In my book, the thirteen and fourteen boys are the hardest bunch to referee, as far as sheer running goes; unlike the older kids, these guys still have unlimited subs and just seem to skip midfield play entirely. It's just a full-tilt run back-and-forth from each other's attacking third. The center referee was young but experienced, a fantastic runner, and more than competent for this match. Oh, god... did I just say young? He's in his twenties. Where's a beer to cry in? Damn it, I'm out.

Anyway, he had another experienced official on his senior line, and a green, but surprisingly competent official on his junior side (I think the rule is that you have to have reffed for two years, in which case, this was her first year at the cup - and she was good enough that she deserved this semi-final). The center waived down a flag for a hand-ball from the junior assistant early on, which started one of the coaches at me for a good portion of the game. To me, having been to Regionals once, I know that his waive-down was good - that they don't want us to call those types of fouls in the game, and to the AR's credit it didn't phase her, and she performed solidly for the remainder of the game. But to the coach, this was the sign of incompetence from the center; and how his players were so good (and they were quite good), but the reffing hadn't caught up.

"Why are there so few good referees?"

"It might be because 80% quit after two years." Do I have to spell it out? Can a fourth official carry a foam cluebat with his clipboard? It might be nice, because then I got this:

"It's because most of these people are here for the $40 and don't care about the game."

This is not the first time I've heard this argument, and it's flawed. Grossly flawed: At the most basic level (meaning money), nobody gets $40 for any game at the state cup - if you were in it for the money, you could get easier games, at younger ages, do more of them, and still make more money than at the cup per game. A lot more. So, beyond the insult (and it is insulting), we can go beyond that into the idea that referee development is lagging behind player development. My argument is that you can't compare the two: one of the things I've learned, when I started taking reffing more seriously than playing, is that referees look at the game differently than players and coaches (and fans): referees look at more of the minutia than the others - this is not to say that coaches/players/fans don't look close enough, but just look differently.

Think of it this way: while referees who can read the play and anticipate where play is about to go is a good thing (assuming you're on a game with enough skilled players where you can do that), ultimately we don't care about the tactics of scoring goals - only of fairness. So, a non-referee can look at two challenges, one whistled a foul and one not, and see the "same exact thing", because it kept the ball from going one direction or another, removed an opportunity from one team, and involved, for example, one player going over another's leg. On the other hand, the referee will look beyond the direction of the players in the challenge, but also where they're looking (or some other detail) - at the ball or the player or somewhere else entirely, and it can change our decision. Or not. But it's those types of things we look at; it's what makes, for better or for worse, reffing soccer a personality-driven avocation.

There are some other things you can look at as well - what's a bigger seller in the US: players making the World Cup, or US referees? The driving force behind the USSF is clearly player development - it's players and player registration that pays the bills. And although the USSF still has a very strong referee development program, there has been criticism for years that it's geared more toward moving referees that have the potential to make the National grade than the regular sandlot crews (although I can use myself, who has no aspirations, let alone potential, to go anywhere beyond a State badge, as a counter-argument). And the USSF has recently removed the position of referee representative from their board of directors (a real shame, if you ask me).

Players/coaches/fans just don't understand referees. It's easy not to, and I certainly didn't until I picked up the whistle myself and used it for several years. Understanding the referee thinks is the secondary purpose of this blog (the first was to vent because of my interactions with those other three types). You don't have to agree - I'm still a fan of my local professional team, and I don't always agree with the referee on their games - but it helps to understand their perspective, and I think, because I'm not too preoccupied with blaming the officiating for "bad calls", it has allowed me to enjoy the game far more than when I was strictly a fan or player. (more)

20 January '08 - 08:22 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2007: Starting in a hole

There's a well tested theory about reffing about unpopular decisions being the shovel to dig yourself a hole (think grave). Sometimes it's a good call, sometimes it's a bad one, and sometimes a fluke of just being human can land you in a pit. And when you're in a hole, everything is harder to sell - now toss in a controversial decision on top of it.

I chose this entry because of the amount of discussion it generated regarding the decision I had to make after I was already in the hole - I've copied them to the end of the article as well. Ultimately, I think I choose incorrectly - but that was after a lot of a combination of soul-searching, rule reading, interpretation reading, and finally my own interpretation... about something I hadn't considered as a realistic possibility before. Sadly, I haven't found a definitive answer.

Starting in a hole
I don't know how I did it, but I managed to hook my shoelaces on one of the nubs from my turf shoes early in the first half. That happens, although considering how short my laces are (and that I always double-knot them), it really shouldn't, but what was really stupid was when I tried to fix the shoelace, so I wouldn't trip over and make a fool of myself. Good idea, yes. but the problem was, I misjudged when I could make that adjustment, and ended up looking like an idiot, and starting a hole that made my job (and the center's) a lot harder in the second half.

The game itself was pretty one-sided. I seem to be cursed with having short-sided adult games lately (and until the high school season, that's probably all I'll have for this year); this game was no exception - a full team versus eight players. It was also the first game I've been at where the field was next to a cemetery. You could tell by the headstones that it was an old one, and the sign up front confirmed it (1875 - old for this neck of the woods, anyway). Walking though it was probably the last peaceful thing I'd have before I left for the day.

Oh yeah, I learned something very important today, too: don't go immediately from the gym to the soccer pitch. I have a standing appointment with my personal trainer to meet at a particular day and time every week - but because of the soccer schedule, it's difficult to have a constant time. Normally Sunday in the early afternoon (2:30 pm) works well, because I have a few hours to recover before going to the game - but this game was earlier, so I went straight from the gym to the game - I was still there about an hour early, but... well... my trainer apparently works me harder than back-to-back soccer games.

Still, fitness wasn't my issue today. It was judgments - my own and how I was perceived. Because the game was one-sided, most of the game was in one half. The second half was the half where I would be worked, and I had three calls that could be called controversial.

The first one I understand - I made a judgment call, and I'm going back-and-forth if it was the correct call (more)

13 January '08 - 17:55 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

More Referee News of Note

It's been pretty busy in the referee section of the paper, so I thought I'd bring another summary of what I've found lately:

The Canadian Hijab Saga continues: First, an indoor referee bans a player wearing hijab from playing in a game. For those who don't know - there is no central interpretive authority on the Laws of the Game in Canada - it's done provincially, which means it's OK in some, not OK in others. If you look at the picture, you can see why there's a controversy, even if you don't agree with the decision: it looks like it's wrapped around her neck. Is it a reasonable risk? That's a question for people with more time on this issue than I. I do, however, have to take umbrage at this quote by an activist: "It's not hard to see that it's just another attack against a Muslim woman." What kind of combative shit is this? Is it a decision made from ignorance? Maybe. Was it the correct decision according to the Provincial soccer authorities? Yes. Is this the place to make cheap political points? No. The Alberta Soccer Association" has backed the referee's decision but later published a policy change allowing sports-style hijabs; regular hijabs are still subject to the discretion of the referee.

In the hypocrisy department, I'd like you to first revisit the 10-year-old who was banned for 35-days on the last time I went through the news. Now let's turn to Sir Alex Ferguson, who now regains the title of Biggest Prat in the Premireship now that José Mourinho is gone; he skips the pre-season meeting with referees, shouts off his mouth on the biggest stage in the world, and gets a two-match ban and a piddly fine. I'm sorry, £23 for a kid is more than £5,000 is for this coach, and it just reinforces the 10-year-old's behavior.

I know more than one State Referee who says the best thing about getting promoted to Grade 6 is not doing youth games anymore. I have to agree - the younger the players, the more abusive the parents. We've heard about Silent Saturdays (or other days of the week), apparently some leagues in England are fencing off the spectators from the pitch just like in the pro ranks. Now if we can just keep the coaches from following us off the pitch as well.

A similar article, "Mum, the football hooligan" has a unique twist on the usual, "Parents are ruining the youth game" bit - it's also stifles the ability of kids to grow as players, and even posits that it might be the reason England's National Team has done so poorly of late.

Speaking of National Team play, the still unnamed assailant who clotheslined referee Herbert Fandel last year during a Euro qualifier between Denmark and Sweden (physically arguing a call that was indisputably correct, I might add), was given 20 days in jail. No word on a fine or the civil lawsuits from the Danish football federation.

Referee legend Pierluigi Collina is under police protection and has been for quite a while, because of unspecified threats. Collina was put in charge of Serie A and Serie B referees after the match-fixing scandals of 2006.

Finally, something on a positive note: an aid for referees when working with deaf players! I know of one player I've worked with who was deaf, and this will help a whole lot. The invention uses a vibrating bracelet on the players wrist, and a transmitter hooked up the referee's whistle. No word on when it'll come out or how much it will cost.

10 January '08 - 22:00 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

After-season ref meeting

The high school referee association had it's post-season meeting. Nothing too special about it - a couple hours grousing about the coach's rating system. Someone said that the high school league forced all the coaches to take the rules test, open book - allowing them to take it home or work in groups, much like they do for the referees, and only 40% had a passing score. But yet they are a major factor of how state tournament assignments are handed out, and part of their rating of us is how well we know the rules! Good god is high school sports fucked up.

There is one good counter-argument about it, though: which is that the high school league wants referees that won't cause a fuss at the tournament, one who the coaches are more likely to get along with, and will produce more acceptable (if not correct) results at the tournament. I don't think it's worked because I've seen coaches fume in the newspaper here, just like everywhere else, because they'd rather blame the referee for losing the big game than their team or their faulty strategy. But what can you do when the majority don't know the rules of the game they're trying to play.

Apparently high school referee registrations were down 20% this year, too. Lots of people in the meeting said they don't apply for the state tournament because of lack of respect from the high school league; because again, there were very few assessments done - leaving the decision making to the coach's rants, er, ratings, and a mysterious group of people who decides everything about high school soccer in this state rather arbitrarily.

And I owe $120 in assignor's fees. Blah. (more)

01 January '08 - 15:00 - - default| five comments, already - § ¶