The Influence of "Hockey Man" - Part I

    I first entered the United States in late August of 1965, after my wife and I and our two daughters drove from Halifax, Nova Scotia in our clapped-out green 1960 former delivery station-wagon--nicknamed “Dinah” (for Dinosaur)--all the way down the east coast to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and then west to Lawrence, Kansas, where I had been accepted into graduate school to study for a Ph.D. in Geology.  For all four of us, it was the start of a grand adventure.

    Within days of arriving, I was approached by the athletic department of the university to see if I would be interested in coaching (and playing for) the university’s club soccer team.  How could I resist?  Play on a team of more-or-less all foreign students in seven games in the Fall against local colleges; get driven around on a university bus; supplied with equipment free; a good relief from the stress of courses and research and academic referees . . . but not soccer referees, as I came to find out . . .

    In our first match, versus Rockhurst College in Kansas City, Missouri, I saw my first two American “referees”, dressed in a funny garb of white knickerbockers, topped by black-and-white striped shirts and little caps on their heads.  I had never seen anything like this before, nor had my team-mates.  As the coach of K.U., I felt obliged to ask if these two gentlemen wanted one of our fans to act as the second linesman, but they refused, informing me that two stripers could handle it, thankyou very much, and get your guys ready for the inspection.

    The match ended 1-1, with our thirteen playing against their thirty or more, but Rockhurst claimed the result 1-0 because we refused to play overtime we hadn’t been told about.  (None of us foreign students had heard of playing extra time in anything other than a cup match, and since they had an army of substitutes competing against our two, we thought it a bit unfair.)  That match was my introduction to the idea that here in America, people like to do things their own way, and a little differently from the rest of the world, even if we were playing the world’s game.  That was more than forty-two years ago, and things haven’t changed much.  It is still a grand adventure.

    Those four paragraphs will serve as the background for this Part I of a short series about the man widely held to be the most influential person in determining the selection and career of referees at the professional (and therefore international) level in this country: Joe Machnik, Major League Soccer’s Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner for On-Field Competition, the guy who acts as the league’s liaison with the US Soccer Federation on officiating issues.  He had begun his very successful coaching career at about the same time as I began my graduate work at K.U. 

    What I saw at Rockhurst College was an attitude that persists to this day in all versions of soccer, from youth play, through high school and college, to adult amateur play, and even into the professional game.  In many ways, Joe Machnik epitomizes it, and his influence is pervasive, reaching into the MLS final, and even the college division I final this last week. 

    Succinctly put, it is this: In our domestic competitions, we wish to do things our own way, and will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the field to play the game according to a set of laws written by eight members of that organization based in Switzerland.

    I don’t think I have to elaborate here on the silliness of all the various versions of the laws that we have to deal with, and how they affect our participation in world soccer—you’ll have to wait for the book for that—but I will show how our professional league and the referees who function there are being affected.   In MLS, Joe’s attitude is key, and fortunately for this discussion, is well-documented.  If the nutting in the MLS championship was not enough, let me ask as a teaser if you would send someone off for this:  

Answer: not in the good old U.S. of A. you won’t!

Next: the heresies of Joe Machnik.

Comments

[Gary LeMay]

As I sat reflecting upon the comments made on this blog and my own opinions about the problems that plague soccer officiating in this country, the history of the compensation of those employed by academic institutions (i.e. college professors) came to mind. Prior to the twentieth century, college professors at many academic institutions received compensation directly from their students rather than from an institution like today. The reason the policy was changed is obvious: the practice of asking professors to accurately evaluate students while concurrently having to ask for money compromised their objectivity…..and this brings me back to soccer.

In this country, from the U/6 developmental games to the MLS, officials are assigned by individuals who often times work directly for a particular league. When this occurs, the allegiance of the assignor ceases to be with the referees and inevitably ends up with the league – the organization writing the check. When I was just getting started in officiating soccer in the early 80’s, there wasn’t much money in assigning. It was more of a service to the soccer community than a job. Now, it’s big business. Assignors make tens of thousands of dollars a year, some even get a fulltime job with an expense account working for professional leagues (no names to protect the guilty), and most if not all lose their objectivity and independence sometime during the process.

I respectfully submit that the “hockey puck” and those like him are just symptoms of a more serious problem. [I have heard stories of youth assignors threatening to revoke the games of novice, teenage referees if they cautioned any of the players on the home team for fear of the team being penalized by the league for exceeding the allowed number of cautions in a season. We need a system where referees primarily control the assigning of game officials, beginning with the youth leagues and ending with our nation’s top professional league. Input from the coaches, players and leagues should be solicited and valued but not controlling.

[Phil]

Video of the incident in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-voTtPx6WNE

Incident occurs about 1:20 into the clip, replays and discussion follow intermittently thereafter. Good clear look at the effects around 3:05.

[Magres]

Perhaps the referee heard that Mr. M was in attendance and he wanted to audition for MLS :> Seriously, that such incidents could occur in the top pro and college matches gives me worries. The NCAA has been producing critical decision videos for a while and hopefully, the incidents from this match will be included in the next production, along with comments that, in no uncertain terms, indicate that a red card is expected to be shown.

[Craig]

In theory, the role of the league in assignment *shouldn't* be a problem, assuming that by "the league" one is referring to the top level of competition if there are multiple levels (as otherwise there is a potential conflict of interest introduced if the league is in competition with another). At least in theory, the league is motivated to put on a fair and compelling competition. The problem comes in when "fair" collides with "compelling" or their view of what is "compelling" disagrees with one's own.

Something that may be related to this (and is a huge problem) is the fallacy of "the referee deciding the game". This is almost universally introduced in a one-sided manner, when a referee makes a controversial call that significantly impacts the result of the game. Not nearly enough time is given to the opposite occurrence, when the referee makes a controversial no-call that significantly impacts the result of the game, but they are both two sides of the same coin. (As a fan of other sports than soccer, I find that this fallacious criticism occurs with equal frequency in other sports, where there are misguided imprecations to "let them play" at critical junctures of a contest.)