I actually don't mind USSF's instructions for this situation. I just think the instructions need to be stressed more. IMO, if we're going to do it their way, referees need to be decisive and clear by their action if a free kick is to be ceremonial or decisive and clear by their inaction if a free kick is to be unceremonial. Either no interference at all or we're whistling the restart. In any case, Marrufo handled this situation poorly, as we can see. Maybe it would've been better if the goal had been scored from the free kick because then US Soccer might have taken the time to clarify or emphasize their instructions on this situation. Still should show up in WiR given the lack of interesting situations to have arisen this week.
The only issue I have is WHERE the ref was, he was pretty close to directly in the way, between the ball and wall. Even if it's not asked for, he creates an impression of ceremonial by being there. I also think I saw him motion to his whistle. So what happened? I bet Henry took it after being told not to, missed and the ref let it run, why call it back to give him a second try?
You know, I had the same thought that this is what Marrufo went with. It's the just result in this instance. But it's also a dangerous path to go down, because the rebound wasn't fully controlled by Dallas and a subsequent attacking opportunity did get created. Also, if Henry was actually told not to take it, you have a cautionable offence and you haven't exactly asserted your authority for future situations in that match. I find one major problem with this, though: there's no way to proactively deal with delays like Benitez's without making it a ceremonial kick, which is exactly what Benitez wants. If you card him for his delay, it obviously becomes ceremonial. But we don't typically card for what he was doing. So what's your recourse? Technically, even just forcefully yelling "get back!" or "get out of there!" is interference and you are now supposed to make the kick ceremonial. The instruction forces us to play the part of an aloof bystander in situations were simple man-management could really help maintain the quick kick option for the attack.
They look like RUNNING shoes. I've never understood the American obsession with calling every kind of sports footwear a "tennis shoe". He's coming into town next week for the Olympic qualifiers. I'll ask him then.
The players on both teams were pointing to his shoes just before kickoff and joking with him about it. I don't know what they're called, but they definitely look sharp and comfortable.
'T will be interesting to see what WiR looks like this year . . . anyone hear any rumblings? I keep fantasizing that they'll go back to the old style, but I'm certinly not holding my breath . . .
USSF is plenty 'mature.' "Show me the money!" As long as Nike is a USSF sponsor, adidas uniforms will not be adopted by USSF. The decision about referee uniforms is not up to the referee department or even the Referee Committee. It is strictly a USSF National Board of Directors decision.
Then why not Nike? Nike supplies uniforms in plenty of other countries like the Netherlands. It also supplies the Concacaf uniforms.
I've seen other referees in MLS wearing similar shoes. Maybe Salazar? Vaughn? I just got a pair of Reebok running shoes I intend to start wearing. So light you can barely tell you are wearing them. Good support and cushioning. Way more comfortable than a pair of cleats. Another possible issue for the WiR would be a couple of things from the RSL-LA match...other than the dissent. Apparently RSL wanted to make a sub but were not allowed to do so despite having the player prepared and at midfield with the 4O because LA kept throwing the ball in too fast. Is it really permissible to deny a sub who is properly presented because the team in possession wants to throw in quickly? There was also an occasion that match where the throw in was taken very far from the point where it went out of bounds and a goal nearly resulted. I seem to recall a big deal being made about this a year or two ago when Seattle actually did score when they threw it in about 20 yards further up the field than they should have.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I think USSF has had some concern to changing uniforms too quickly and forcing refs to replace their whole wardrobes. It will be interesting to see what happens next time the OSI contract comes up, as the uniforms will have been static for a number of years, which I wuold imagine makes it more likely we would see either an OSI revised uniform or a new vendor. (And I would imagine Nike would evaluate what it thinks the business opportunity is and make a pitch if it thinks it's a big enough market to warrant diving in.)
I don't think you're naive, that's why officially there is only a design and set of colors proscribed, but I don't think we should derail this thread with that topic again.
I've always wondered about the last part. Unless I'm mistaken, Nike doesn't even make the swoosh visible on any of the referee uniforms it provides (CONCACAF, AFC and the French and Dutch leagues are the most notable users). If Nike doesn't even brand its jersey for its most high-profile use, you've got to wonder if they see any hope for seriously breaking into the referee market or, perhaps, if they would see that as a benefit overall. Here are the current Dutch version: http://www.dutchreferee.com/wp-cont...vb-scheidsrechters-presenteren-tenue-2011.jpg This jersey is the first I've ever seen with the Nike logo showing, but I don't think the one produced for the KNVB actually had the swoosh: http://www.plutosport.com/shop/Referee_clothing/Nike_KNVB_Referee_Jersey-258399-302.html
They didn't show the logo when the Premier League used Nike either. I would think that if Nike ever became an official referee supplier it would only be in official competitions like Dev Academy finals and the US open cup as well as pro referees doing friendlies. Realistically, I don't see Nike setting up a specialized distribution network for the rank and file referee, unless, it contracted or licensed the job to a company like OSI. At the same time, the USSF would have to proscribe some sort of standard design to ensure that styles didn't change rapidly which opens the door for alternative vendors anyway.
Why not caution? He knows what he's doing. At any level above, say, U-16, the players know very well what they're doing. It takes away the potential advantage for the attacking team just as tossing the ball away from where the restart will take place does. It's not different at all. We ought to be given instruction to caution this sort of behavior immediately. If referees all over became consistent in immediately cautioning this crap, it would disappear from the game.
I am sure there is plenty here to destroy this thread. From the USSF video: "Once a referee is seen to intervene, either by voice, body language or gesture in a free kick situation, the referee must restart with a ceremonial free kick". They then go on to repeat it various ways to make sure the mandatory part is not left to discussion. I suppose there is syntactical room to parse the meaning of "seen to intervene", but the straightforward interpretation has to be that if the ref does anything beyond signal direction, it's ceremonial. Of course, even on the very next "here's how to do it right" segment (5:26), the ref has had some little communication with the defenders prior to being asked by the attackers. By USSF's own black and white mandate, he had to be on ceremonial already! Now, I do think this restart was handled improperly. But I also think the video is over simplifying.
Anyone know why some referees wear long sleeve even when it's a mid afternoon game in Houston in July? I notice Kevin Stott always wears long sleeve, same thing with Marrufo and some others as well.
Stott said he always wears long sleeves because he thinks he has skinny arms. Mass can handle the this for the others though.
My guess is that they think they look sharper in long sleeves. That and they don't have to worry about sunburns on their arms. As an AR on a QF at Far West Regionals last year, our grade 5 CR had us wear LS yellow in the 85-degree heat. It wasn't as bad as I'd expected.
Agreed totally and I thought this when I first saw the video. I love the fact that a teaching tool like it was produced, but felt a little more time could have been spent to really nail it and make it unambiguous.
Sure we can caution. And sometimes we do. But once you do it in a match, your hands are tied and you have to do it on every instance the rest of the game, or you lose all credibility. You can't just do it for that most advantageous free kick from 20 yards out... otherwise there is no consistency. So we are, rightfully, reluctant to do it early in a match so as not to tie our hands later. Or we might be reluctant to do it in midfield where the effect of the delay isn't always as major. Or reluctant to do it when it didn't appear that the team was going to take a quick kick anyway. Or we might just be reluctant to card because it would further delay things, and getting the player back immediately is preferable to the attacking team. There are all sorts of valid reasons for us to be reluctant to give the caution straight-away. And they are even more valid if we are allowed to proactively intervene and tell the miscreant to back away without causing a ceremonial restart. You're right that if we were instructed to always immediately caution for this and got support from the authorities, it would disappear. But that's not going to happen. It would be far, far too many "technical" cautions for the liking of the powers that be. Yes, everyone wants to cure the disease of too much delaying on free kicks... but no one wants to swallow the only possible medicine, which is a tsunami of yellow cards for a few weeks.
I was joking. I actually remember you and Dan were totally on board with it. Added bonus that it ended up being, in sum and all things considered, likely the most interesting and memorable game I ever had.