An astounding statement from a referee in MLS !

Over the years of being deeply involved in this lovely game of ours, I've heard some crazy statements from referees.  Now admittedly, many of the weirdest came from people who were still learning about the sport.  Like the student in a introductory referee class: When you give a free kick for offside, which team gets the kick?  Or another man who thought that the coin-toss was inherently unfair to the loser of the flip, and so he could not in all conscience officiate in a sport that allowed such unfairness.  But you don't expect bizarre statements from referees at the professional level, or so I thought . . .

Starting a number of years ago, MLS arranged for post-game gatherings for local officials to meet the referee and ask questions about the match they had just witnessed.  When they started, I thought it was a good idea, a way to spread the word about what was expected, what were the difficulties and so on.  The meetings were introductions to the fine art of doing professional games.  There was a risk involved, however, because you couldn't script what the referee might say, and if he said something nonsensical, then innocent listeners might take his word as gospel.  Like this, for example, sent in by a reader . . .

After a match at D.C. United, one member of the audience at the post-game meeting asked the referee for his thoughts about persistent infringement.  In particular, he asked what his threshold was (the number of fouls before he intervenes), because one player (Fred) had six fouls.  That's a fair question, but the answer was not.

The referee replied: "I don't keep track of the number of fouls during the match.  Too many other things to keep track of."

No matter what the Laws of the Game say ("A player is cautioned . . .if he . . .persistently infringes the Laws of the Game"), this referee is going to do what he damn-well pleases, because it's too much trouble for him to keep track of who is fouling whom.  What else does he have to keep track of, if it's not the players kicking each other?  And if he can't do what the laws require him to do, why is he out there?

But the story doesn't end with this referee's lack of professionalism (not to mention the foolishness of going public with his own strange ideas about refereeing), for on the stage with the official was the in-stadium observer representing one part of the assessing process of MLS.  He said not a word, thereby giving his tacit approval.

And people still wonder why MLS refereeing is not-so-hot?  See here for a discussion.

Comments

[Sean]

I'm not sure this is an overly fair attack, when you consider it in the context in which the question was asked.

The questioner was asking what the "magic number" was, the number of fouls committed that makes the referee pull plastic for PI.

And the referee's response was, I think, "I don't keep an exact count how many fouls each person committed. I have a lot of things to keep my eye on that I can't keep a mental tally for each player."

It's /not/ saying, "I don't card for PI." It's saying, "I don't have a mental tally sheet for each player, and one someone gets enough checks, plastic comes out." This referee might simply keep his eye on a player who is fouling a lot and pull a card when it feels right, rather than at any particular number of fouls. In other words, when it is necessary for the game.

Which seems fair. There are 22 field players. Do we expect the referee to know exactly how many fouls each committed? When he's busy trying to find positioning and see fouls in the first place?

I think you're reading the answer from your preconceived view of MLS refereeing, when there is another reading of the answer that is equally plausible and not so damning. This is especially true when you consider the response was unscripted to a crowd of fellow officials and wasn't meant for internet consumption. In those circumstances, we should be more generous on how we interpret these comments.

[JimG]

I don't think the criticism is unfair. It might have been put in other terms, but the fact remains (attested by foul counts after games) that many refs and most MLS refs don't pay much attention to persistent infringement.

I'm not the best ref, I can't recall details of each and every foul after the game, the way some refs can (and this is a mark of genius). I HAVE, however, managed to properly caution for persistent infringement on occasion. Simply subvocalizing (to myself, obviously) something like "Red6 fouled Blue9" allows me to recognize the pattern of fouls that constitutes PI. If there's a long interval between fouls and I can't recall what went before, then apparently there is no pattern.

What troubled me about the reported comment is that a player had somehow committed 6 fouls in 90 minutes. We're that as few as three fouls can constitute a pattern of fouls and thus PI, and MLS and other refs are allowing far, far more fouls than three. I've been told by one excellent top-class ref that he has cautioned, and might again caution, for PI on the second foul, after having whistled and specifically warned the offender at the first foul. This ref was truly protecting the game and the creative artists who make it great.

And that National Referee who is the subject of this blog needs to pay better attention in his training clinics, where one of this year's points of emphasis was the need to clamp down on PI.

[Jax]

With all due respect to the first poster -- your point might have been valid were it not for the fact that PI is an enormous issue in MLS.

That referee's answer is absolutely in line with the results that we see on the pitch every week. I know that after 20 minutes of any given game, regardless of teams, that I will be exasperated with at least one player who already has three or four fouls. With no reaction or indication of such from the referee.

Any State Referee - no, any good Grade 7 - knows to watch for certain players. It's much easier in the pros, where players come with reputations so a referee knows who to keep any eye on.

Even if this were not the case, however, yes there are 22 players, but the ones that cause the problems in any given game are no more than two or three. Even if we were to say a handful of players in each game cause problems, that is still only five and much less than 22.

If the referee has done his homework, he knows which players will cause problems. He'll know which players need to be protected. He should know which players get a long leash, and which get a shorter one.

PI is the sort of misconduct that can establish a referee's reputation, or ruin it. Sadly, too many MLS referees are not recognizing PI, to the detriment of the reputations of everyone involved.

[James]

Excellent point about dealing with PI, though to be fair to everyone involved in the post-game discussion, I'm hesitant to go quite as far as this critique without hearing the entire quote in context (as Sean said in the first comment).

Regarding the ISO, however, I'm not sure I would be so quick to criticize that person's actions. It has been noted in many places, including this blog, that the best way to teach a referee is to provide guidance with dignity rather than through direct confrontation. Flatly contradicting and/or correcting the referee publicly, immediately after the match and in front of the assembled group, might not have been the most graceful way to get this point across, correct though it may have been. Perhaps the ISO chose to have a quiet word with the official afterward?