A "statesman" on one of the other soccer sites made the comment that although he liked my (and Ed's) book, he thought I had lost credibility because of my observations about the national referee program. That's an easy statement to make when you don't have to justify it with data, so I chose not to respond to the site. But what he does not know is how many people around the country share my views. Take a read of this...
My long-time friend and supporter Pat Smith thought that the principal reason for the failure to have a referee in the World Cup was not the people running the program, but the "politics" associated with the selection of referees for the major tournaments. Certainly the reality of politics is something we have to understand, but nevertheless we have to show the international people that we have a good program. Here are some comments I received from someone who has also played a significant part in referee development in the US.
Be aware that I have edited but not altered the comments to protect the identity of the writer. Responding to the failure he wrote:
I agree with Pat Smith about politics, BUT that is the game that is to be played by those you mentioned. Their job is to train and highlight our referees and keep them in front of FIFA. They have been more worried about their jobs, as it relates to the MLS, than about the standing (politically) of the US referees. Good referees should not be involved in the politics; that is the venue of the referee administrators. They must first have a good product to present, and it is obvious they don't have that. The standards have taken a fall ever since you left. .... if a referee came to National camp and could not pass the fitness or written test they went home; their next chance was the next year. Now everyone gets many chances even before they leave camp. The blame for the low skill level is blamed on the National Assessors, but the buck stops at the National camp, that is the final test, and that is the job of those you mentioned.
Many good referees have left the program ever since Paul (Tamberino) became the pro assignor, since.... if a referee was not on his list they all of a sudden did not get any more assignments. .... Many good up and coming referees I have talked to .... see no reason to go to National since they see no chance at the higher level games with the current USSF administration. Many have opted out of the USSF for NISOA (more money, more player discipline).
The Federation's priorities are the Senior National teams and both of them are rated in the top ten in the world. I would say the Federation is doing its job, but the referee administration in the Federation is not.
As with any program failure, the ultimate fault is with those in charge. Changes must be made, but who cares (to make them)?
Those are comments worth paying attention to, and I thank you for them.
I dont wish to beat a dead horse about who is or isnt responsible for Kevin being treated rather harshly.To me,the Federation is a family,which means there has to be a head of that family,It could be the new president, the secretary general. or the executive committee,my point was that Kevin had the qualifications, i am not concerned if he has a bad game at some time in his career,the point is he was our best mam nominated.The people at the top should have been indignant,if we are proud of our team who represent us then we have to be proud of our officials,who are nominated.If we feel we should criticize the technical staff that is our right.but personally the blame is higher up,it goes to the top,we either have credibility worldwide or we dont but doing nothing about the slight was the crime but raising hell with the lower echelon isnt the ansert
Posted by: Pat Smith | April 05, 2006 at 05:35 AM