After the recent piece on the continuing abuse of referees by experienced assessors, instructors and administrators who should know better, I received an e-mail from a referee, assessor and administrator whom I have known for more than twenty years, and whose word I don’t doubt. He told me that I had got it wrong, that he was at the meeting at the Nike Friendlies, and what happened there was not as I was told.
As a scientist and writer committed to accuracy, I was concerned about his comments, and what they might mean for my claim of “accuracy first” in these weblogs. Had I indeed got things wrong? Or worse: Had I been misled?
After the recent piece on the continuing abuse of referees by experienced assessors, instructors and administrators who should know better, I received an e-mail from a referee, assessor and administrator whom I have known for more than twenty years, and whose word I don’t doubt. He told me that I had got it wrong, that he was at the meeting at the Nike Friendlies, and what happened there was not as I was told.
As a scientist and writer committed to accuracy, I was concerned about his comments, and what they might mean for my claim of “accuracy first” in these weblogs. Had I indeed got things wrong? Or worse: Had I been misled?
I have known Jozsef Michna (former FIFA AR from Florida, and now very active in the referee program in his state and in Region III) for more than twenty years. I trust his word, and so in the interest of accuracy and fair play, we talked on the ‘phone about what happened in the referee meeting at the Nike Friendlies.
First, although Julie made comments to Dave McKee about the fact that referees had not read recent publications from the federation, and why should the federation bother when no one was paying any attention, she did not “lose it” when she discovered what had happened. Another instructor there did “lose his temper” when emphasizing a point about what a referee should do in a match, but that’s another matter. So, thanks to Jozsef, one error corrected.
Second, I checked again and some referees in the meeting were intimidated by the atmosphere of criticism and negativity, as they were at the other tournament I wrote about recently.
Third, Jozsef was clear that had he been in the audience as a tournament referee, he would not have been at all intimidated by what went on.
So what does all this mean? I think it means that we have two realities based upon the same set of facts. Jozsef’s reality; and the reality for the developing referees’. I knew Jozsef as a referee and he was not one to be easily intimidated, and of course now he is in a position where he is not beholden to people in power. So I wouldn’t expect him to be put off. But I also know that there have been many instances where junior referees have been insulted, criticized, censored and scared out of speaking up because of the atmosphere created by the present instructional program. Both situations came into confluence in one room, creating two different impressions.
And for me? I was glad Jozsef called and set me straight. I will always be glad of that kind of comment, because I don’t intimidate easily either, and I am not so insecure that I can’t admit when I am wrong. Ah! Would that Chicago behaved the same way.
Comments