The kernel of a difficult nut

Over the years I have been involved in this game, I've met more than a few referees who never quite "get" the business of officiating.  They may know the laws, they may have the ability to run around close to the action, they may even understand the way the game is played, but they don't quite grasp their own role in it.  It's as though they have in their hand a fresh, meaty walnut, but no matter how hard they squeeze it, they can't crack it open to get to the kernel.

I was reminded of this recently as I watched a referee in a local amateur league game.  It was an easy match, and it was apparent after ten minutes which team would be the victor.  All that was undecided was the number of goals to be scored.

So what was the kernel that the referee was not able to extract and enjoy with this particular nut?  It's not something written in the laws of the game, and it's not taught enough in clinics.  It is summed up in an old English proverb that says: He takes a spear to kill a fly . . .

I described this game as easy, and it was.  At ten minutes, any observant spectator knew who the winner would be.  And more to the point, the players seemed to know.  There was a carefree nonchalance about the eventual victors, and there was some frantic running about from the inevitable losers.  Challenges were casual, opponents picked each other up, smiles bounced back-and-forth.  You know that kind of game.

But before it was over, the yellow card was shown four times, and a second yellow once.  The first goal came at 17 minutes, a second was scored by the same player at 45 minutes, and the final score was 4-0.  In none of the yellow-card incidents was there any animosity; a couple of appeals came out at possible penalty-kick situations, and that was it for potential misconduct.

One of the cautions (all of which in my opinion could have been avoided) led to a sending-off, when a minute after the fourth goal was scored, one frustrated player on the losing side picked up the ball after a whistle, and punted it away.  Out came the second card, and off went the player.  That was the referee using a spear to kill the fly.

We are seventy minutes into a harmless game.  The score is 4-0.  A player on the losing side kicks the ball away in frustration, but with not a word to the referee.  What harm has the player done?  Time-wasting?  Yes, but it was his team's time.  Injured an opponent?  No.  Berated the referee?  No.  Is there any purpose in sending him off?  No.  All the referee did with his impetuous, albeit legally correct, action was tell the player that he won't be able to play the following week.

The kernel this referee has not extracted and digested is this: Do the least that is necessary to control the game.  He could easily have controlled this game by sensing the atmosphere, reading the behavior of the players, and then talking them out of any perceived or anticipated misconduct.  Instead, he threw misconduct points at both teams and cost a player at least a game.  As I wrote at the start: A few referees don't quite get it.

I live in an old farmhouse in a walnut orchard, and I can assure you from my gleanings every year after the harvest, that a walnut kernel is a nourishing thing indeed!  Seek them out.

 

Comments

[Dustin]

But without following the Laws rigidly we'll have utter chaos! I agree completely with this, but I don't think simply implementing this into training would be all that successful. Maybe I'm just slow but it took me years with a competent experienced Referee, coach, and national team player to grasp the more difficult side of the game. Constant instruction and experience on Premier youth games got me the best education I could hope for. I only wish assigners could notice that.

[Bob]

Notice, Dustin, that the incidents I described are not described in the laws as mandatory this or that. They were instances where the referee is allowed to use his discretion. But you have touched on a larger problem: that referees are not sufficiently coached and mentored in their early careers. Thanks for the comment. Bob.

[Eric Larson]

I love this example. It happened to me just this weekend: A player, on the team behind three to zero, kicked the ball away after the third goal. The cries came out, "Yellow Card!", and "Wasting time!" My answer, with a big smile on my face, "Yes, but who's time is he wasting?" As usual, it was followed by a nod and, "Yeah, that's right."

Bob, glad you're back.

[ObliviousScout]

It's great to have you back, Dr Evans.

I personally wonder what causes referees to miss out on this "kernel," and I can think of a couple of reasons.

The first is the nature of assessments: some (many) referees perform differently when an assessor is watching. The referee thinks the assessor will knock him if he doesn't go "by the book," so he forgets that his first duty is to the Game, not to the assessor. He may also think he needs a few cautions to make an "easy" game seem competitive and ratable.

The second possible cause was last year's emphasis on "100 Percent Misconduct" in Directives outlining the Game Management Model. I saw this as US Soccer's attempt to crack down on referees who lacked the courage to do right in the face of clear misconduct at the professional level (like the ones you've often highlighted here). As this instruction filtered down to lower levels, an important element got lost: not all misconduct is "100 Percent" misconduct. Indeed, in most cases the referee has wide discretion and should do only what's necessary to control the game.

Thank you for continuing to push instruction and referee development forward in this country. I always look forward to reading your posts.

[James]

Hi Bob, as an Assessor I have seen the same kinds of things, Referees taking management decisions that the Game didn’t require. As a Referee, I actually can’t remember when, where, or how I acquired this appreciation. This is what makes it so difficult as an Assessor or an Instructor to help Referees learn this for themselves. I’m torn between thinking that we can do better in teaching it, and thinking that it just can’t be taught, only learned through experience and some corrections by Assessors. For example in this game, I am sure you spoke to the Referee and perhaps he will take away from this game that he could have done it differently, and perhaps he will acquire this appreciation for himself.

I have also observed seasoned officials take this concept to the other extreme and fail to take action because they claimed that the Game didn’t need it, they had control of it etc. For example in a one-sided top amateur men’s game a frustrated keeper started kicking the goal posts and loudly swearing after his defenders let the 5th attacker by. It wasn’t just that he was swearing, but he was using particularly foul language that was extremely inconsistent with anything else in this game, or this league. Some action or response would have been appropriate. In another lop-sided game the Referee chose not to send an defender off who pulled down an attacker with a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity. He then later sent a defender off from the other side for virtually the same offence.

I’d argue that “do the least that is necessary to control the game” and recognizing that some offences must be responded to regardless are together what distinguishes a capable Referee from an excellent Referee. Recognizing what really is “100% misconduct” is not a simple as it appears in the classroom.

Looking forward to reading your posts!

Thanks

[john matthew]

I think the "kernel" this referee didn't get was that he, and I quote from Bob---- " knew who the winner would be. And more to the point, the players seemed to know. Challenges were casual, opponents picked each other up, smiles bounced back-and-forth."----.
ATMOSPHERE of the game! I bet you, Bob, that this referee DIDN'T enjoy this game while it was being played! He didn't show by word and action to the players the same manner and "tone" that the players from both teams interacted with each other. He didn't yet have the skill to recognized how a referee can "fit in and still be a referee" in a game that probably didn't need a referee as much as it needed a friend.