RefBlog

Five Best of the First Five Years: When do I tell the assessor it's only my third D1 men's center? (2008)

You may have noticed something slightly different with the title of this entry - unlike previous years, I actually picked out a favorite. I figured, this being my fifth year writing this, that I'd pick out my favorite entries from each of the five years I've written this blog. And here it is, the first of the Five Best of the First Five Years.

This is my favorite for several reasons - it's an achievement for me, being assessed on a level of game that I clearly wasn't experienced in, and passing. Even passing with a mistake (even if it was a mistake made for the right reason - a mistake made from lack of experience). And more importantly, and the value of a good AR. The later is something I've been accused of neglecting on this blog a bit, which may be true - the AR position is completely unglamorous, and if you're the senior assistant and the coaches or players are pains in the patoots, aggravating to the extreme. This article, at least to me, did a nice job of expressing just how important an on-the-ball AR is, as well as what referees need to do not only to get through a game, but to move to new and more challenging levels.

---

Q: "When do I tell the assessor it's only my third D1 men's center?"

A: "You don't. Ever."

That was a bit of my post-game conversation with my senior AR, a National Candidate. Not only was this my first game in three weeks, it was only my third Division One men's center ever, and one of them was from last year - so it was a welcome back to the game of soccer, with a vengance.

I found out at halftime that one of the teams, at the top of the table (ummm, shouldn't this game be handled by a State Referee, not a 7 with little experience at this level?), was composed of players who formed a high school dynasty, winning something like three state championships in a row, ending eight or ten years ago. The other team was at the middle of the table, and played short-handed the entire game; they started the game very defensive, but when they found they could manage a decent attack, kept at it for the reset of the match.

The whine was also on... for 90 straight minutes both teams were complaining about something or other - to hear both teams tell it, I could do no right. At one point when players from both teams were disagreeing with each other, I let out, "See? This is why I don't listen to any of you." And it's true - my listening to either team would just be a real problem, especially when they all contradict each other so much.

The match was scoreless throughout the first half; I issued one caution for a takedown on a hard run to goal (there was another defender later on, so DOGSO was never an option), and you could feel the tension escalating. And in another time when it would be nice for both teams to actually sit around and cool off, they both, even the short-sided team, were back on the pitch in three minutes. So when the goalkeeper picked-up a back-pass 12 yards from goal, we had a nice little mess getting the kick organized.

I made a glaring mistake on that free kick: on previous kicks where the attacking team wanted a wall, I always moved back to the location by back-peddling to the spot I wanted. But in this case, there were already three defenders right on top of the ball (and I hate it when they do that - even if I understand why), I ended up standing in front, and trying to push them back - which meant I turned my back on the ball. My turning my back left an opening for the attacker to move the ball closer to goal, which caused a greater commotion as all the defenders wanted to get right back and have a piece of the attacker. In other words, what I thought was a good idea, to take a strong position against the defenders, was a big big oops. The good news is that my aforementioned National Candidate AR was off the line as soon as he saw what was happening, we got the ball back to the blade of grass it should have been on (and a free kick inside the penalty area - you're damn right it's a "blade of grass" moment), and saved my ass with no permanent harm done.

So game over, score 3-0 on three late goals from when the short-sided team finally lost their steam (all in the last fifteen minutes), it was on to the assessment. The first thing I was asked was this: "So, how do you treat a game when both teams are whining from the very first minute?" And mentally I'm shitting bricks, thinking that this may be the start of a very long debriefing; I'm thinking, "I don't have the mental references to put this into perspective for this level," followed by, "arrrrrgh!"

I actually answered something along the lines of, well, as long as it stays at a low level, doesn't get nasty or loud, I'm willing to let it slide. He replied, "And does that amount of talk-back affect your game?" And again, I'm thinking, "Aw, shit. I don't know. That's why you're there - to tell me if it is." So, I waffle: "I try not to have it affect me."

"I don't think it did." YESSSS! "I saw a lot of smiling from you, you had a good presence, and it was that presence that kept the game in control. You heard their whines, acknowledged it, and moved on." Whew!

I also got the constructive criticism: I need to be more talkative, which is a repeat from last year's assessment, from a different assessor, so you know it's not just someone being persnickety. It sounds like they almost want a running commentary by the referee on what's a foul, not a foul, and advantage, instead of the occasional that I did. I think I did more talking than on my last assessment, but it's clear they want more.

Still - it makes me a happy camper.

25 February '09 - 11:26 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2008: Going up a level

I'm not sure what to say about this, other than it was a milestone for me. A team of semi-pros with myself in the middle... solo. So many things that could have gone wrong, but I made it through.

---

Going up a level

I knew going into this match that it would not be my best; it involved a team playing at a different level, not only with skills, but with acceptable levels of physical play; and I had not reffed a team at this level before, except for a couple of fouth officials and one line. On the team there was at least one player who regularly started on a USL division 1 squad, one retiree, and a bunch of people who want to make it to that level. I'd have to adjust to a different tempo, differences in where the play would go, and degree of physical play that I never had to deal with before.

For the first time in a long time, I was a greenhorn. Now why the team that was full of retired USL players garnered a full squad with a National referee at the helm, while I did the active team solo, I don't know - but there I was. And I think, after taking about 20 minutes to get a feel, and making a couple of poor positioning choices (choices that may had been mitigated with proper ARs), I did OK. My biggest mistake? Not asking for an informal assessment, as I really could have learned a lot from someone focusing on me for ninety minutes.

The good news is that it was competitive - especially after the kids (kids being 18-year-olds) scored a very nice goal early. While I tried to let a lot go before then, especially given what I was told earlier - but things were ratcheted up a notch, and I tried to clamp down. Here's the problem I had, and I'm going to split it into three parts:

1. I've been told before that the higher the level of play, the more crap you should allow (after all, these are people who are giving up a lot for the chance at going professional).

2. But you're also told that the players will let you know where the game should be at - if you're too tight or too loose.

3. Finally, MLS players have gone on record that they'll go as far as the referee allows them, and they do try to "work" the referee.

So how the heck am I supposed to actually judge if I let enough, too much, or not enough, go? Assuming item #3 also applies to USL Division 3/NPSL, does that mean #2 is no longer valid? And even if not, item #1 means making that self-assessment on #2 all the more difficult! I suppose you could say it comes with games over time, but I'm unlikely to get a center of this quality anytime this year - which is another reason I'm kicking myself for not asking the referee committee for a coaching session.

The good news is that despite a physical game, both coaches seemed OK with things - both seemed to make good points when I asked them for their own opinions and suggestions (and they even made the same ones, and it's hard to argue against that), and even the players seemed OK. Moreover, I seemed to feel a lot more comfortable in the second half, even as things were heating up (it was 2-1 for the school until late in the game when they iced it with a few minutes left); as players wanted things their way, I was happily smiling as I disagreed (something I didn't in the first half).

Damn, that was fun. (more)

16 February '09 - 16:53 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2008: You know it's too cold when...

I found this a nice contract to my last 10 Best piece, because it shows constructive criticism by members of our team, in a heated match. The game was actually more intense than the one assessed in the previous piece, too. Sometimes it's just nice to have a game that stretches you, even if there's nothing spectacular about it. If we wanted easy, we'd stick to U-littles.

But the other reason I like this piece is because, well - it shows the referee, me, as a person. Someone who works hard, harder than most others I know as a referee, and just not getting to where I wanted to go. And to answer the question, yes, I probably will be doing fewer games next year - not necessarily because I want to do fewer games, but since I know promotion isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future, I'm not going to sacrifice other things I won't be able to do when I'm older, like I did before.

---

You know it's too cold when...

... you finish your game to find frost on your jacket and your water bottle frozen shut.

I know we've had unusually warm summers for the last couple of years, but this late into April you'd think the temperature wouldn't just sit at above freezing, but here we are (or there I was, depending on when you read this), doing my first two games for the State Cup, after a couple of cancelations.

My first game was a line, a U15 boys which was reasonably competitive, but neither team seemed skilled enough to advance far into the tournament. I have to admit, that my heart just doesn't seem in it yet - oh, I enjoy the games, but my emotional state just seems a bit flat. As you know, I've been working with a personal trainer for almost a year-and-a-half now; I've also been going to the gym regularly, running regularly as well as other cardio routines - and it hasn't really helped. Despite all that, despite eating better and eating less - I'm fatter. It's more than just a little disheartening. But even before then, when I realized that it's going to be at least two years before I could even make an attempt for State, and the chances of being able to that were slim: Trying to balance work, the continued workouts that I'd need (versus the 3-5 days a week I got in now), and the real possibility of a kid into the mix - well, apparently my body just isn't naturally small, and it just ain't going to happen. I've also decided to take up a different sport - one I thought might be something to do during the winter - but I got into it now, am very excited about it, and will need to spend much of the summer getting up-to-speed. Maybe because it's new or maybe because I can actually play a sport now (instead of ref - I had to give up playing soccer because of saftey concerns - that being players with grudges) - I'm more jazzed about this than I am about soccer. Of course, I've only had one practice so everything is new and shiny, even if I suck - so maybe that'll change over time, too.

But, since this is a blog about being a soccer referee, I'll turn back to that particular sport. If there was some downtime on the line when I wondered about what I was doing there, you don't have time to think about it when you're in the middle. This game was a U16 boy's play-in - the winner of the match joined the State Cup at the group stage. Much better quality of play than in the first game. It took me about 20 minutes before I started getting comfortable in the match - much longer than I'd like, but even though I had a few games over the winter (who knew that one in March would be warmer than now), it just wasn't enough to get me in shape mentally. Overall, though - I think I did well. I had some issues late in the game with the start of cramping (so did everyone else - did I mention that my water bottle froze shut?) - but was able to stretch through it on the next couple of a stoppages.

I can't say my game wasn't without controvery. My first booking, in the first half, was deemed weak by the AR on that side (to me it was for more of a professional foul than the strength of the action - the one team was beating them with speed all night long, especially on the flanks, and this late challenge killed a change for him to dribble up 15-20 yards along the goal-line). Another card, which my assistants knew was for Persistent Infringement was not greeted well by the recipient: he thwacked a ball carrier in the shin solidly - no ball at all - but the ball squirted out to another on the same team who took advantage of it, until he, too, was thwacked by the same guy. Since I told the guy to watch it on the first one, then he did it again not three seconds later - well, it had to stop, and it wouldn't be by talking, not that late in the game.

"But I was going for the ball!"

"I don't care what you were going for, it's what you got. Repeatedly".

I actually did the point, point, then card (to show the locations of the infractions before the booking). I hadn't done that before.

The only score in the game is what worried me the most. Everyone screamed hand-ball as the player took the ball for a break-away and score. What worries me is that I was watching him, but couldn't see squat on his arms. It's the same reason I don't like to wear black on night games - I can't see the other officials. In this case it was a ball that came in high, and on a black-clad player with black long-sleeves and black gloves against a black background (also known as night). Well, I don't like to call handling fouls unless they're really deliberate anyway (something I pointed out in several my non-calls throughout the game), and I certainly can't call it if I or my AR can't see it (he couldn't either - apparently a player got in his way). So, I don't know if it was a legitimate grievance or not. It may suck if it happened, but it would suck more if it didn't and I didn't call it - because then I'd perpetrated a lie just to look good. (more)

11 February '09 - 16:18 - - default| two comments, already - § ¶

10 Best of 2008: Teaching styles

One of the best things about upgrading to a seven is the assessments - agree with them or not, I've found them all very helpful, because it's someone else spending 90 minutes watching my game... until this time. At this one time, a referee who I greatly respected, just refused to take the thing he chastised me for, the thing he said would fail me over had this been a formal assessment, and make it something to learn over. Even after almost pleading for him to answer my question, which I carefully phrased to not have it sound like I disagreed with him, he refused. Which meant, to my great sadness, the assessment he gave was useless. For how can you learn if you don't have the answer to the question.

Probably sadder still, I still don't know the answer to it.

---

Teaching styles

I'm going back to the original point of this blog - to vent frustration, although for a change it's not the players, coaches, or fans causing the frustration, it's the assessor. The good news is that it's not an official assessment, so I don't have to go through additional assessments to make up for it, and it's not even the information he gave out. It's... well, you'll see in a bit.

The game was pretty easy - it just had one really difficult call early on - the 12th minute. It was a State Cup match between the private school I did a few games with over the winter (specifically, the one that played the semi-pro team), and another club. The private school, from experience, is fast, disciplined in both play and in attitude, plus well organized. The other team also had very good attitudes, but was sorely lacking in organization: first, they only had ten players suited-up; then they didn't have enough socks to change (both teams had the same color socks, and as the designated home team, they had to change). They scavenged a couple of black, but non-matching socks, and we played, but it was clear it was going to be a blowout.

Then the decision, a player on the right flank gets a breakaway, turns in toward the goal, the goalkeeper is outside of his area challenging him, trips him up (not getting any ball). There are no other defenders anywhere near him, or anywhere near getting toward the goal. Send-off. Probably one of the easiest sells I've had with a red card - the coaches agreed, his own players agreed - I still didn't want to do it, because it would drop them down to nine players and make it even more of a blowout. Which it was. 14-0. And most of the second half was the leading team just passing the ball around.

So, now the unofficial assessment, which was done by a current National Referee. Here's where I want to start: I've always been told that, when critiquing someone else, regardless of what it is, find something, preferably three things that the person did good, and start out with those, even if the performance totally sucked. The idea is that it helps the person being critiqued take the negatives, and build them on top of the positives. For example, a positive may the person's speed on the pitch (or maybe how hard he worked if he's not fast), then bring up his crappy positioning. Or, conversely, bring up good positioning, then suggest going deeper, running harder, or something along those lines.

If you guess that we got nothing positive out of this guy, you're correct; congratulations. That's one more positive than our entire team got.

Maybe it's done differently when you're a National Referee. Maybe with the National badge the assumption is that you should be great, and that you shouldn't take a 100% negative assessment badly. But we're not Nationals. We're not National Candidates. Hell, none of us were even State referees.

OK, maybe it wasn't a good idea to start with one of my ARs, who was, admittedly, not up to the standards of a U18 boys State Cup match. He didn't run to the goal-line, his mechanics were poor, he had a tendency to stop even when the offside line continued toward onward. OK, so I don't have that many positives - but he didn't piss anyone off, except maybe the assessor, because he argued back, repeatedly and belligerently. So by the time he got to the rest of us, he wouldn't answer any questions - which is a real problem if you're trying to learn from the experience of someone who has more than you.

He started at us with the socks. Some of them had white bits to them (you're typical Adidas socks), instead of the all-black that the others had. He said we should have told them to fold them back, because of the tournament. OK - that's good. So I told him of our situation earlier, and asked what we should have done if they didn't have those socks at all (which looked like the case for a while, and the visiting team didn't, either - thinking they didn't need to, since they were away). Question ignored. I asked again. Question ignored.

Then the red card. He insisted that the player wasn't heading toward the goal, and we ignored the "Direction" portion of the 4-Ds. In my mind, no I hadn't - he was turned directly toward the goal, even if on the outside of the penalty area, had a clear path toward the goal, and would have no interference in an easy score. But we kept hearing, multiple times, "If you're not sure about the direction, don't issue a red." OK - is he saying that the player needs to be more demonstrably heading toward the goal or needs to be more centered? To me, this is critical, because I'll have this type of situation again at some point. But did he answer the question? No! He just said again, "He was not heading toward the goal. I was right here - he was not heading toward the goal". The problem was, that "right here" was on the opposite touchline!! He could have said, "If I can't see it from here, then you should not issue a DOGSO card" - that would make sense, it meant that the player had to be demonstrably moving toward the goal, beyond a step or two. But no, he just said, "He was not moving toward the goal. If this was an assessment, I would fail you."

I now scream in frustration in the untimely passing of a teachable moment.

Again, to vent my frustration (which isn't intense, but I was there to learn from my betters, and while he may be a better referee, my assessment is that his teaching style sucks), I need to point out what how I think it should have been done. How other situations have been deconstructed. It's very simple, get the referee to describe the situation, first. Let's do this hypothetically:

Assessor: Describe for me the red card.

Referee: Player had a breakway down the right flank just outside of the penalty area, the keeper charged outside of his area to challenge him, missed the ball, tangled up and fouled the attacker. There were no other defenders anywhere near, the player was heading towards the goal, and I thought it was DOGSO and issued the red card.

Assessor: Where was the player heading when fouled?

Referee: Toward the goal.

Assessor: Are you sure? It looked like me like his angle wouldn't take him directly toward the goal.

And there you have the teachable moment - you can substitute that last comment with "He wasn't clearly moving toward the goal, even if turned," or something else. Anything other than simply, "He wasn't going toward the goal."

At that point, I kind of gave up. The guy has a wide assortment of knowledge, and is showing us that he has it, but isn't actually sharing it. He rattled off several other negatives, but instead of trying to get the specifics, trying to piece my memory of the events into what was right and what was incorrect, I simply got a "You're wrong." It's like getting a test back with a score, but no markings on what questions you got wrong.

I'm sure he meant well, he wasn't nasty or anything. But unfortunately he didn't really teach me anything, either. (more)

04 February '09 - 20:32 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶

10 Best of 2008: When coaches invoke Law 18

I've been having lots of discussions with various people about how rulesets are written according to different sports. I've decided on a rather, admittedly incomplete, comparison on how we write rules in the US, versus in Europe. In comes down to this: in the US, we write our rules like lawyers; in Europe, they write their rules like philosophers.

Let's just stick to soccer, comparing how FIFA writes the Laws of the Game, versus the National Federation of High Schools... no, wait. I can't actually repost any of the NFHS rules, because it would set down another set of lawyers down on me. Anyway, there's good points and bad points to each, and it comes down to flexibility. With The Laws, you have a binding philosophy of how the game is played that can be applied to when new situations come down the pike. One example is that once a ball is out of play, you have a particular restart, and it can't be changed because possession is determined by play, and you can't actually play until the ball is "in play." NFHS, and other US-centric sports have to include every single situation in their rules, and if there's a situation not in the rules, it's by definition legal, no matter how unfair it is. FIFA (or its confederations or federations), can simply issue a memo about something being "unsporting behavior" without having to re-write the laws, such as Italians mooning a goalkeeper in order to distract him on a free kick.

The downside is, of course, is that FIFA has a lot of flexibility with their officiating, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. To use the Italian asses again (sorry, I couldn't resist), a similar situation in the MLS in 2006, that didn't involve baring ones buttocks, but identical enough in the ruling. But apparently since it involved an American league, and even though FIFA made an official review of the incident (which I wrote about), it was safe to ignore because it involved the US.

But I've found, since I've had these discussions, that fans, players, and coaches - especially coaches - in any league, in any sport, think their officiating is inconsistent. And that how the rules are written really doesn't matter, because some people are always going to look for loopholes. Some will exploit the lawyer-like rules by looking for the particular play that isn't written in stone, and some will try to abuse what should be the most basic tenant of officiating soccer, which is of course, the unwritten Law 18, Common Sense:

---

When coaches invoke Law 18

It happens every year at the beginning of the season - someone misplaces their pass, or worse, the entire team's passes. Another year, another headache with missing passes. And big shocker, another coach trying to blame me for his own boneheadedness.

I realize that it's only U14, but you'd think this being a regional league, and the team wearing State Cup champions badges on their jerseys, and with the team coming from out-of-state that we wouldn't have this problem. You'd think they'd have their shit together, wouldn't you? I actually should have seen it coming: warmups were being strictly regulated to areas off the pitches (mostly the adjacent baseball fields), so they could keep them playable - these were the same fields that got canceled a week ago because of the amount of water on the pitch (following a late thunder snow storm). But despite it raining again the night before, and drizzling before game time, the games were on. But it was a bit of a hike to get everyone checked in; I checked the out-of-state team first, and the coach says, "Oh, we've already been checked in, we don't have our passes or the rosters." I reply that I would check and see if things have changed from the last few years of this regional league, but I was fairly certain I'd be back - so after journeying back to the tournament tent and back, I verified to the coach that, yes, there's another check-in for the game. Thankfully, the team manager was nearby and had the rosters and passes, and I began checking in the team. Then the problem: no coach's pass.

"Oh, I left that pass at the check-in tent."

"I'll go back and double-check it for you coach, but if they don't have it, I'll need a pass from you." Big shock - it's not at the tent, and it's relayed rather emphatically that they would have no reason to hold any passes, let alone the coach's. By this time the rest of my crew had shown up, and I ask them to deal with the other team, because this could be an issue.

So back to the warm-up area I went, and I get the gamut of excuses for why he should still be allowed to be on the bench, including calls from the president of his league "vouching" for him, a printout of authorized coaches from the league's website, and just out-and-out pleading (although, as pleading goes, it was rather calm, collected, and not desperate sounding at all). First, I don't know the president of their out-of-state league from my uncle's best friend. Second, just because he's authorized to coach (if you even believe the website - which I never saw) doesn't mean he's not suspended. Third, the six magic words that seem to show up on every USSF-affiliated youth league I've ever officiated on: "No pass - no play. No exceptions."

The manager did have a pass, so we let him stay with the team, and we got started within five minutes of when we were scheduled to (not bad, all things considered). The game wasn't any trouble at all - the home team scored within the first two minutes, which put a bit of a damper on the visiting side, and I'm sure the coach as well, who ended up driving back to his hotel and back to fetch his pass. At half-time, he was in a huff asking if I knew what Law 18 was ("Common sense" for those who aren't familiar with it), as if he should be an exception from everyone else. I mean, I'm all for Law 18 - I try to use it every game, but in my context, I'd be massively ignoring Law 18 by making an exception; reffing soccer is a game full of grey areas, but one area that's fully black-and-white is that of the pass. It's "No pass - no play. No exceptions." Not, "no pass - no play. Unless the coach wants an exception."

I know what kind of dressing down I'd get from the league, the SRA, and god knows who else if I let him in. What would the coach get for forgetting his pass? A mild razzing? At most? Probably not anything at all.

Apparently he went on about it back at the tournament tent as well - we didn't even mention it, and the tournament contact said he kept yelling, "Law 18! Law 18!" at them. So the tournament staff double-checked for him again (if you're counting, this is now the third time we've double-checked various stuff the coach has screwed-up on), called the regional league headquarters, and they backed me up (and now the third time he'd been wrong).

First game and there's a pissed off coach blaming me for his own mistakes, and more importantly his own blatant lies - it's gonna be an interesting year. (more)

02 February '09 - 23:13 - - default| No comments yet - § ¶