When an assessor or mentor meets a referee after the game to discuss events on the field, he or she is there as an educator, a teacher, a guide. If something went wrong during the game, and the assessor feels that the referee was responsible for the error or the disturbance, then it is the assessor's job to guide the referee to an understanding of his role in whatever it was that went wrong. Notice that I wrote guide, not tell, lecture to, chastise, yell at. There's far too much lecturing and not enough learning taking place while assessors de-brief officials in the dressing-room after matches.
I'll start with the foul itself, and how the assessor can help. And as background (or context as journalists like to say) here's the response of Esse Baharmast, as reported in the Vancouver Sun. The newspaper paraphrased his response thus: "The referee's No. 1 priority is to protect the safety of the players, said Esse Baharmast, U.S. Soccer's director of advanced and international referee development who oversees all professional referees in the country. Not just one or two players, but every player." I haven't edited the quote from the newspaper in any way, and later in the article the Sun included this summary: "Baharmast defended the way referee ______ handled the situation."
My own opinion is that those responses are not "real", but are the standard "motherhood and apple pie" quotes that an administrator will spout to support a referee and downplay a controversy. A more inquisitive journalist might have got a better answer by asking some probing questions to get to the essence of the foul and the referee's action. Nevertheless, there's the response of record, and it is as I expected it to be, because since Esse has been a significant mentor to the referee of the match for several years, for him to state that the official had made a grievous error would be to admit that his own mentoring, teaching, assessing/coaching of the man was failing. The fact is that Esse has far too much experience as a referee to believe that a yellow card was all that was necessary (especially if he does an analysis as I did for the piece preceding this one). He must have seen the video by now!
So now the assessor (A) is in the dressing-room at the end of the match, trying to find a way to help this referee (R) with the foul on Beckham. The following conversation is entirely imaginary, but exemplifies a style, an approach that is easy on the referee, and that might allow the official to learn from his own knowledge or experience. Better that than to be told, told and told again. We have known for a long time that lecturing is efficient only in that you can get a lot of information out in a short space of time; it tells us nothing about how much of that information stays in the students' head!
A: So tell me what you saw in the final minute of the first half, with the foul on Beckham by Marsch. What did you see?
R: Well, Beckham had latched on to the ball coming his way, and it looked to me like he was going to break away. The defender saw it too, I suppose, because he chased after him and tripped him. I thought it was a clear tactical foul--professional--and so I cautioned him.
A: How did he trip him?
R: With his right leg, I think. He stretched out and got him.
A: Where did he get him?
R: I'm not sure, but I know he got him.
A: And where was the ball?
R: It was in front of Beckham because he had just gone after it.
A: And how far away were you?
R: Less than fifteen yards. I was quite close, so I had no doubt about the foul.
A: Did you check with your assistants?
R: Yes, I glanced over, but I was closer than they were, and I thought I had the decision.
A: Well, normally I wouldn't second-guess a referee, but I've had a chance to see the video. I'll make sure you get a copy. What would you think if I told you that the ball was six feet away from Beckham when Marsch fouled him?
R: I'm surprised. But I'm not sure that I would change the card. It didn't seem like that bad of a foul, really. I mean, he tripped him good, but that was it.
A: And if I told you that the tape shows that Marsch kicked him almost waist-high, and pretty close to his golden balls?
R: You're kidding, right? That high?
A: Yes, really! What do you think now?
R: I'm not sure. That makes it a lot worse foul than I thought...
A: Did you tell me how the ball was bouncing?
R: No, but it was bouncing, maybe about a foot above the ground, as best I could see.
A: That's about right. So Marsch swings his boot way above where the ball was. What now?
R: I can't have that! If he really swung that high, with the ball near the ground, that must mean that he had no intention of playing the ball. That's a pretty serious foul.
A: And...?
R: I see where you're going. You think it should have been a red?
A: It doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what you think, and it seems to me that you have reached a different conclusion from the decision you made in the match.
R: After what I now know, I would change the decision.
A: OK, but what concerns me is that you didn't see the whole picture. How can we change that? I mean, where could you have gotten a better view?
R: I'm not sure. I was stuck behind Marsch, and couldn't see the actual contact, even though I was close.
A: OK. Any ideas? (Pause) If you had been off to one side...?
R: If I had been on the right side of Marsch, I would have been able to see the high kick.
A: Good! So how could you manage that?
R: Run like hell, for one thing! And not behind the player, but off to one side of him.
(Assessor then reaches into his bag and hands the referee a copy of an educational DVD about the importance of the angle at which an official sees an incident.)
I think you get the picture of how to conduct a more effective de-brief of a referee. I taught this method a year-and-a-half ago for national assessors in NISOA, and they seemed to like it, and to "get it". It's a technique, and it has to be learned like any other technique. But at the federation's national assessor recertification session in Chicago earlier this year, instruction about techniques was not on display.
Don't get me wrong, there was some interesting material presented (notably on the "holding midfielder" by Esse), but it didn't advance the progress of assessing very much. In one session we had on giving feedback, all the material Sandy Hunt presented was accurate, all the analysis of what went wrong was correct, but the instructor concentrated on what to say to the officials, but not how to say it, or how to get information from them. If we applied what she said to our work in the dressing-room, we would lecturing officials, not encouraging them to learn.
So from my observations of the incident involving Beckham and Marsch, I can make the following suggestions about how we educate officials:
1. Teach referees about the importance of the angle of view, and provide the material to as many referees as possible, certainly in the professional game. Suppressing useful information because you are upset with the person who produced is not what we should expect from a national federation whose declared purpose is to produce the best referees we can, using all our resources.
2. Develop and use more effective methods of giving non-threatening feedback to officials after matches. This could have been done over the last few years, but the assessment program and the instructional support for it has been ineffective; witness Chicago this year. Our whole instructional program needs a boost.
That's enough for now. More coming: a summary of all that happened in the Marsch/Beckham incident and what we can do with it.
Comments