For the Integrity of Soccer

You CAN go home again !

Brian Hall proved it.  Last Saturday he returned to northern California and gave a one-day program for assessors, to introduce referees and their evaluators to the “New Direction” of the U. S. Soccer Referees’ Program.  And how reassuring it was, that one of our own was a principal force in insisting that the program return to the tenets needed in officiating (and the ones that Ed and I have been preaching) !  Take a look at what he led us through . . .

The Perils of Assessing . . . and Some Good News

    You’d think that assessing would be a fairly safe activity, wouldn’t you?  After all, the referee and assistants hang on your every word (!), and even if they don’t like what you say, they’re not likely to assault you for it.  And if a coach knows what you’re doing and is upset with the officiating, you can always deflect his ire by saying something like “No, no, I’m not assessing.  I’m here for the USASA to write a report on the behavior of coaches . . .”  (I did that at the region 4 tournament earlier this year, and it got him off my back.)

Has the "Hockey Man" at last been put on ice? by Ed Bellion

First, as background to how far we have come, let’s reminisce a little.  After the first few seasons of MLS, we and many others observed that there were deficiencies in the officiating.  Perhaps the proper instruction and assessment were lacking, for we knew that many of the assessors in the league, although conscientious and well-meaning, had not had much substantial refereeing experience themselves at the higher levels.  So in an effort to contribute our collective experience to the referees, we both became MLS assessors, dutifully applying ourselves to the task, writing detailed assessments, pointing out the good, and providing constructive criticism to correct the weaker aspects of officials' performances.  Much of it was to no avail, because other influences were at work . . .

The Power of Reasoning

Much of the power of science depends upon clear thinking, and my lifetime experience of being around scientists of all kinds is that most of them incorporate clear thinking into their daily activities.  Not all scientists, you understand, but most of them.  And not all their activities, but most of them.  So what does this have to do with a blog about soccer?

Well, it’s nothing more than a mild, personal rant about the whistle, examples of which are here in an all-Starr catalogue . . .

Why the enforcement of location of a throw-in?

If you read the changes made to the laws in the last three decades, you may detect a pattern, a pattern that does not reflect well upon referees the world over.  Most of the changes have come about because at the time, referees were not doing their job, and so the lawmakers stepped in to correct things: DOGSO, placement of goal-kick, steps by the goalkeeper, delay by the goalkeeper, the goalkeeper at a penalty-kick, and others.

The lawmakers barely changed the throw-in, but they did make recommendations about how referees should deal with it.  Read on…

A disagreement, a diagram, and more explanation…

The disagreement (from “George”) is as follows (in its entirety):

    Respectfully disagree. In the case of 3, 4 and 5 yards... 1) It has little effect on the game. 2) The defense does not object. 3) You say "control is established" -- probably not. You have just spent some of your referee capital on something the players consider insignificant. You are now a "blade of grass" type, and the players will likely make sniping little comments about other ball placements. You have also lost some of the ability to just let the game flow, by quick FK restarts (for example). Logically, if you are going to call this "cheating" you must be in favor of using a one yard limit on throw-ins. Is that going to work for you? Yard and a half equals a foul throw...? Stay out of man-made holes. More than 5 yards, push them back. Otherwise let them play.

Striving for Perfection

This last summer and fall I travelled to two regional tournaments as an assessor for northern California, I went to two five-day ODP camps, a weekend tournament for women’s teams, and made many individual assessments of national referees and national candidates in amateur and PDL games. 

In not one of those matches in which I was looking at the individual for the first time, did the referee pay any attention to making sure that the throw-in was taken from the place where the ball crossed the touchline.  Any amount, from three to ten yards was stolen time after time without any attempt at prevention, and without punishing the foul-throw by awarding a throw to the opponent.  Why on Earth was that, since the law is so clear?

By their words . . .

From the days when I was pursuing in Santa Cruz my education as a science-writer, I remember the advice of an "old pro" in the business, that you should never write about something you don't understand.  In other words, don't try and bulls**t your way through a piece for publication.

The advice, as I am sure you all realize, applies equally well when you write on any subject, not only about the complications of science.  Well, like soccer, as this example shows . . .

To the Good Old Days: a balancing act !

[Warning: This article may contain text that could be interpreted as sarcastic, ironic or satirical.  Parental guidance is advised.]
When I saw this game summary the other day, I thought I had been transported back in time to the days before the “Refereeing Revolution” in MLS consigned “balance” to the dustbin where it belonged.  Take a look:

Curiouser and curiouser . . .

  I have had some of my best ideas in the fresh early-morning light of a new day, when the brain is alert and rested, and the hours of sleep have allowed inchoate thoughts to develop and mature without the confusion of new material constantly pouring into the flask of gray matter that gives us our functioning.      

    So it didn't surprise me that this morning, while looking over the press reports of the "phantom goal" from the Watford/Reading match in the English Championship division, I noticed something that gave me pause (again) about soccer administrators (and instructors, and assessors) who do not seek out expert information before making decisions or expressing opinions.

    Yes, yes, I know I've written about this before, but in this case I am not commenting on past goings-on in our own referee program, but upon opinions and decisions made in England, where you would expect a higher level of sophistication about the game, than what frequently used to come from Chicago.  Read this, from the Daily Telegraph of September 22, and if you need too, remind yourself of details of the incident described in Ed's piece (September 29).