Solutions, Part I: Knowledge without integrity . . .

   All refereeing activity depends upon integrity—absolute integrity—of the officials.  An honest result in any sporting contest is nurtured by knowing that you can trust the unbiased judgments and interpretations of impartial men and women.  Nothing less will do.

    How do you train such people?  How do you convince them of the virtue of honest competition, and the need for them to be virtuous?  Expert in the laws they may become, but their expertise is useless if it is not applied even-handedly.  "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful." (Samuel Johnson, 1709-84).

    To my mind, from the first day of their training, you have to set them an example of incorruptibility, probity and—to borrow the word Herb Silva has used so well these recent weeks--honor.  Now if you like that notion and if you are still with me, let’s take a look back at the last few years of national testing to see how we are doing in setting such an example.

   

• We could start with the fitness testing of this year.  A new test, administered in one place, but not in another, where most of the officials were senior to the ones tested first.  The first lot had almost no notice, and no advice about preparation.  Bottom line: two groups, different treatment.  Is that fair?  Or honest?  The comments, the anger written on this site after the tests says all.

    • How about the written test of a couple of years ago?  A lot of people failed, including some senior referees (MLS and above), so the whole thing was scrapped.  Bottom line: some referees passed the test, while other more senior people failed but still retained their rank.  How do you suppose the ones who passed felt?  For them, was that fair?  Or honest?
   
    • People on our international panel have failed fitness tests more than once, yet retained their position on the list.  Is that fair to lower-ranked referees who passed?  Is it honest?

    • There is evidence of past cheating on written tests, by getting answers from others, by having help in translation during the test.  Is that fair to those who didn’t cheat?  Is it honest?

    • For several years now the selection of our international panel has been a secretive process.  Referee committee members were not allowed to see all the data upon which the selections were based, but were expected to rubber-stamp the nominations from a “technical committee” of very few members.  Sometimes the deliberations (if such they can be called) were via a telephone conference-call !  The consequences of doing things that way  were serious.  One international referee remained on the list, even though clearly injured for the best part of two seasons.  Another left the list because  he suffered from a medical problem that was drawn to the attention of the referee committee privately, yet should have been discovered in an open, free discussion.  Is this way of doing things fair?  Is it honest?  Read the comment by “John” to see how the rank-and-file referees in the system feel about this.  Do you think the average referee doesn’t see what is going on?

    • How are the selections of officials for MLS made?  Friendships or favoritism?  By a systematic system of grading officials from around the country?  By open discussion in national referee committee meetings?

    So what would I do to restore the integrity of the process by which we test and choose our top officials?  I feel qualified to write about this since for several years I directed the process of testing, and I deliberated about our international selections with the rest of the referee committee.  The ranking of NASL referees (based upon their assessment scores) was available to us all, and an open discussion of their various attributes and qualities led to the decision.
   
    The national testing was similarly above-board.  The standards were sent to referees months before testing, along with a training program.  Anyone who failed—anyone—came back the following year.  There were no favorites.  If a candidate failed the written test, the paper was examined by a small committee that tried to add points on disputed questions.  But the whole process was transparent and public.

    It is my opinion that only when you have such a program can you convince officials that integrity matters.  It is only then that you can send referees onto the field to do no more nor no less than defend the honor of the game.  (Acknowledgement to HPS.)

Next: Modernization of training of referees and assessors.

Comments

[Mike]

Integrity, honesty and character are not rewarded traits in the referee program. No need to exhibit high standards if no one cares, especially the front office and assignors. Instead of leading by example and high standards, double standards and favortism is the name of the game.

Referees have figured out the politics and adjusted their game accordingly.

[Jeff Forward]

Those traits were not normally rewarded by certain people, you're correct, under the old system.
Let's hope it changes. My worst experience involved me being assaulted by a player; the referee insulting that player's religion and giving him a yellow card instead of a red; then the coaches trying to break into the referee lockerroom after the game and me stopping them.
When it was all said and done, I was busted and informally suspended by Esse for who knows what? Meanwhile, the referee got sent to a wide variety of tournaments; assigned to int'l friendlies; and MLS reserve division.
So, I know all about the problems.
Jeff Forward