Best of 2003: The High School Rules Meeting
This seems to be one of the more popular articles in search engines, because, if I had to guess, because it covers so much. It asks the question of why the NFHS has to differentiate themselves from the governing bodies of other sports (quick answer: to keep their jobs); and the differences in attitudes between an organization that is purely dedicated to soccer, and one where soccer is merely an annoyance that gets in the way of football (and, for that matter, referees are merely people who get in the way of coaches). It's a relatively short article, but here is is :Ahh, the High School Rules Meeting
I know there's a few refs out there that think the NFHS's rules are superior to FIFA's, but they're a very small minority; while I tend to side with minorities on many things, this is not one of them. We had our annual rules meeting yesterday, and once again, I am suitably not impressed.
First, and foremost, there was little respect for the referees. Now, I realize that refereeing is a thankless job - but usually the governing body (when not doing high school or college, the USSF) does a bit to make the refs feel welcome. Yes, the game would probably be better all around if you didn't need referees (after all, the game went hundreds of years without them just fine), but the reality of the situation is they are. And USSF referees are actual members of the USSF, and feature prominently on various committees concerning the game. Referees are not members of the NFHS, schools are: this means representation is centered around athletic directors and coaches - there's one person, Joe Manjone, who represents referees at the NFHS Soccer Rules Committee. Who is Joe Manjone? Who knows - Googling his name produced little more than squat. Aside from the fact that he assigned referees for the Alabama High School Athletic Association, we don't know anything about him. In the USSF, referees place their names on position papers, are involved in training videos, and books. For all I know Manjone is representing us well - but we will never know. We do know that there are 13 other members on the committee, none of which have referees concerns at heart .
The person who did the clinic is a former referee (long removed), but I don't know for how long, and I'm not sure how much he respects us, either. Right off the bat, the cheap shots against refs started - after the first couple I decided to do a count, and in little more than an hour, my shot count registered seven low blows against refs, two against coaches (and this being my third time with this person, I don't find it atypical). One of the most interesting bits was the annual attempt to curb the number of ejections we have in high school soccer - a laudable goal, to be sure. He used some slides prepared by the high school coaches association as to why red cards happen, broken down by the people involved. Most of it was the usual stuff: players protecting their teammates, being overly aggressive, etc.; coaches inadvertantly (and sometimes intentionally) encouraging ejectable behavior; and then the usual litany of things against referees.
Now, before you jump the gun, the list against referees was good, and they ARE things we, as a group need to improve on, but it cetainly doesn't mean that referees share 1/3 of the blame when someone decides to physically unload themseves upon somebody else. The referee, if he does his job correctly, attempts to prevent misconduct from happening, but if he doesn't prevent it, does that make it his fault? The list presented correctly listed common failings with referees: inconsistency (well, this list DID come from coaches), improper or overuse of Advantage, arrogance or unwilling to communicate, misapplication of the rules, and so forth. If a referee exhibits these behaviors, the game may well spiral out-of-control, and he may be unable to contain it - however, that excuses the misconduct from the player? This is what the NFHS is trying to teach our kids?
And the NFHS does like to intone that their job is to be educational (which is why they do their rules different than FIFA's Laws - though what banning bumblebee socks does for education I don't know), but what they are teaching them, in this case, if they do something grossly illegal, the fault does not lie with them - but with also with the enforcer. That if the referee is poor, you are excused from being violent. Here's reality, kids: when you're an adult, and live on your own, if you break the law (even if it's in retaliation to a wrong done to you), you go to jail. The police don't feel guilt about throwing you in the slammer, nor should they; and neither do, or should, referees feel guilty about putting you in the book or showing you the exit.