I'm going to be a little blunt here. Although I feel for your situation and understand that things are a little rough in WA, this is not the forum (no pun intended) to discuss this. There are times where you need to pull out all the stops and really stick it to the SRC. I would present to you the option of resolving this internally first before choosing the nuclear option. Airing the dirty laundry on BS just leaves you with smoldering bridges.
This is sensible, airing of dirty laundry isn't good for someones reputation even if it is justifiable and accurate. Think of it as though you were a protester, someone who's trying to stop gross misconduct, you have to think about strategies. Some strategies are damaging and some really work, sometimes whistle blowing (which is what this basically is) can be very helpful. So it's not that this should never be done as you pointed out, it just should be analyzed closely, what is the expectant gain here? Personally I like this, people should be challenged when they try to hold down other people who have followed the rules. This sounds like a personal vendetta, politics which we have all been subjected to at one point or another in our careers certainly. I honestly don't know how to proceed though, I've never been good at politics. I suppose what you could do is delete your posts and ask MassRef to destroy the evidence and take the advice of contacting McKee. Or you could take a stand and air it all out, this is a public forum and you're certainly within your right to do so. You know more than anyone that your actions have consequences, maybe they'll even keep you from pursuing your future in reffing.
themercenary knows damn well any "internal" complaint is heading straight under the rug without a desirable outcome. Why waste his time with that? That many unassessables? He's either choosing too many weak games to try and advance, or his assessors/state have already made up their minds. I've seen it happen. My gut tells me that his state is shutting him out and hanging him to dry. The comments on his assessment prove that.
Man, and I thought there were problems down in Cal North. Whew. At this point you might as well contact Chicago with your complaints. But if anything Bob Evans ever said is true, you may not get much sympathy there.
If I can accomplish anything by this or by whatever recourse I take. It would be to make sure that the administration remembers that they can't just do whatever they want they are no different then a government which has to report to the constituents it serves, and that no matter whom or how powerful one is that no referee after me will ever have to go through the same slanders, rumors, costs, and discriminations I had to go through just to take one step farther in whatever goals I set out for. They also need to remember that no matter what a state catagorizes sports officials as whether that is an employee or an independant contractor they still have to treat each person as if they are a worker and the environments they are in as a working environment.
I posted some thoughts a couple of days ago and now with so more of the story, here is my advice to our referee who is fretting about his future ability to have a "career in this field." 1. This may come across as harsh, but Grow Up! Your referee career? With a couple of clicks on the internet, I can easily guess that you are maybe 21. Listen to yourself - "whether I can..."; "They have..."; "How can I...." You seem to be 100% focused on making a career out of being a referee, but the rate you are going, you would burn out of this chosen career by 25. My most honest and serious advice to you is take a step back and get some balance to your life. Refereeing is a hobby. It is a passion and to do it well, it takes lots of committment and effort, but it is just a career for only a handful of people. 2. Posting all of that information including names of people who have nothing directly involved in this dispute demonstrates a lack of maturity and discretion. You are allowing yourself to be driven by emotion in this. That is never good, especially when you are trying to demonstrate that you have what it takes to be a State Referee. Being a State Referee is not just about getting your game counts, taking a class, and passing three assessments - it is not about checking off boxes. It takes much more than that - you have to demonstrate maturity, consistency, and an ability to set an example for others. I don't know what was said to you by any of these assessors or anything else after your matches or during this entire process, but your friend aluded to your having a big mouth. 3. Now, as to what is going on with your assessments and upgrade process... a. I now see why they required the fourth passing center assessment. The latest from US Soccer clearly states that the two make up assessments only negate a failed assessment and you must still obtain the required number of passing assessments. I honestly don't know if this is a new requirement or just has been interpreted differently in the past, but I had been under the impression that if you were trying to upgrade and failed an assessment, that two passing make up assessments equaled one passing for purposes of upgrade. Their email to you does seem to clearly state this, but I can see how there could be confusion because of this. So while this may have been unexpected, I think that they can justify it. b. Going back and changing the assessment result in the manner and for the reasons that are indicated seems to be a very clear violation of the ethics and the policies of US Soccer. The SDA has acted in what a court would likely construe to be an arbitrary and capricious manner. 4. Options: a. File a misconduct complaint against the SDA and the SRA with the State Association. US Soccer policies are quite clear as to the process for this and I posted links previously. Should you get an unfair hearing at the state level due to the level of the people you would be filing complaints against, then you can always appeal to US Soccer. b. Pursue litigation - You would need to consult with a lawyer on this - but I would think you would have a decent case to make to recover the costs associated with your trip to California. c. Walk away from the confrontation and take a year or two to actually focus on being a better referee without the stress of upgrading. You yourself mentioned that the Development Academy game was above your head. d. All of the above Based on what you have posted, I think that you have a decent case to make about the change in the assessment, but I also think that this demonstrates that you do need to take a step back from this and focus for the time being on being a better referee. As for litigation - you have to do what it best for you and I think most states have a policy against using officials who are involved in litigation related to their duties as a referee.
Good luck. I guess I should have paid more attention to the name you posted under. Are you looking for a resolution or revolution? As far as treating this as a work environment, if you were my employee and chose to turn to an internet forum prior to exhausting your internal escalation methods I would promptly fire you and turn over the case to my legal team. Even if you know the system to be broken you have to give it the ol' college try before you jump the tracks.
Thought I remembered a story about Jair Marrufo having assessment/advancement issues in TX-S, until he was seen elsewhere...anyone heard something like that?
I am curious as to the opinion of the state and national levels refs on this forum, as well as those who are members of their own states' referee committees. Is it fair and legitimate to disqualify a state referee candidate based on their off-the-field maturity and respectability?
I think it should be illegal. What I do privately or on my own time is my own business, it is not the concern of a SRC and they should be dissolved by the state if this is their policy. It is nothing short of discrimination. Imagine if Sian Massey had been held back by the FA when pictures of her at a club had come out? The FA would've been accused of the same sexism that Andy Gray and Richard Keys were guilty of. I don't really see how this is much different, it could even be attributed to ageism.
On one level I agree, but I think he's showing some balls. Unfortunately, the referee community can be an unforgiving and authoritarian place sometimes. I don't think that will ever change until someone jumps on a grenade. The people I dealt with were far more supportive, although there was a great deal of political BS in NJ that would have made getting further an issue.. I do not understand the benefit some in control seek by doing the sort of things described here, but it seems to happen anyway. If he fights the good fight, maybe his career prospects end, but it also might mean that others have a fairer chance going forward.
I'll concur, the state assignor and LAC in NJ is poison, but he's still there and some awesome people went down trying to do the right thing.
He's is there because he is best friends with a number of the board members of the NJSA. I have asked him why he hasn't retired. Not in a diplomatic way either. I was very direct. He didn't answer me. To this day he still calls me Albert and not Alberto. So much for both of us being native born speakers of romance languages. JZ does not deserve to be in his position. Playing favorites and caring precious little about his entire pool of referees is despicable and completely unprofessional. Most either went back to youth or moved out of the state.
I completely agree. I felt it took balls for me to post this thread first of all, but I'm doin that out of the appreciation I have for this referee helping me to grow and to upgrade, only to see him being held back by the person that did my assessment. I think it's wrong, and I'm also willing to risk my career for the future of others from my chapter and beyond. We are both also instructors and assignors, and have helped send other referees to state cups and hopefully beyond, with no appreciation being thrown our way from anyone. We are even assigning for free at the moment, putting the money towards the development of our new referees. And this is how we are being treated. I went to regionals last year as a grade 7, after being pressured into upgrading before leaving, and got worse games than our 8s. I made it know I wasn't happy about this, and have been left out of every single state cup, academy games, PDL, etc. I was even asked, along with this other referee, to join an Elite Referee Development group in August, which has not happened. Just fed up with all the crap this state does and will continue to do
Legal or not I don't know. However, what if the "state ref wannabe" goes outside the state and the commences to make the state look bad? Not in non-soccer stuff, but during games, in how he treats refs, shoots off his mouth etc. (NOT saying this guy did that). When you go out of state, you do so with the knowledge of your SRA, you ARE representing your state referee program. When you make them look bad, that's not good. Can that be used to hold you back? Not sure. The "curious" part here is a DA game was over his head? A 6 should be able to handle a DA game.
At face value, this makes me think that the state is completely in error. There has to be more to the story, though… Maybe the SRA actually is wrong and the Assessor even agrees that the action of retroactively failing someone is unjustified… …We get a few more facts introduced into evidence… Completely agree with everything you wrote. If the state decides that the referee is not ready, they should have an additional approval system in place. So it wasn’t because the assessor “was told to”… Trust me, there is more than “a” lesson to be learned here… Yes, there is. They, like every state association, want to make sure your records match theirs. The fact that you feel the need to write “which also I have in writing” immediately makes me think that you are coming at this from a litigious standpoint. It was unnecessary to write (since you already said you received a letter), but I think typing it is a product of your mindset. Again with the “in writing”? “Decided to make a battle”? Again, your choice of public language is causing me to associate you with being immature and a problem-causer. The assessment count is what I have always lived with wherever I’ve been. 2 passes cancel out 1 fail, so I’m not sure why you were confused about this from the beginning. I think the retroactive failure is cowardly, but at least now we see the state’s side of things come out. For the record, yes, handling yourself professionally off the field is a big part of refereeing at a higher level. How can it not be? As for copying and pasting emails like this in a public forum, holy sh**, man. That’s all I can muster. I feel incredibly awkward re-posting excerpts from them. Most people would give a very good friend a “keep this to yourself” heads-up before they even forwarded the email on, but you choose to copy and paste here… Sorry to blast you on this, and maybe I’m taking you a little out of context from what you meant, but as long as you choose to be a referee and surround yourself with kids or other people in the soccer community, your private life is open to scrutiny. This is why USSF asks you if you’ve been arrested each year. You can’t be a referee and be playing the ponies each day. Coaches at every level are under the same scrutiny. This hits the nail on the head. Your actions have consequences, and to quote Paper.St earlier, you did go nuclear. Please don’t be surprised when they fire back. Sorry for piling on you and not telling you what you want to hear, but maybe you or someone else reading this can take a tidbit here or there, at a minimum. You need a good mentor to kick you in the a** and show you the ropes. Your problem is that the only way someone would take you under their wing is if you did a complete reversal of your mindset. Stereotyping you, you probably don’t have the mindset to be open and learn new techniques, both on and off the field. Right now you’ve made yourself toxic. We’ve all seen “you” in our state in the past. I know guys in your shoes that have made comebacks and advanced past where they originally were, but it took them a few years of them being under the radar or not registering.
There is an underlying issue here than the 'he said, she said' that has been discussed. The USSF Referee Administrative Handbook is no longer valid or printed, except to the extent that the documents contained therein are posted on the USSF website. States may or may not have modified the requirements in their state for grades 5 and below and those modifications may or may not have been formally adopted by State Referee Committee action. However, in this case, it appears that the SRA has decided that the published upgrade requirements are not sufficient to determine whether a referee 'deserves' upgrade to grade 6. Nationally, 35% of grade 7's eventually become grade 6's. In Washington, the number is 33%, so there is not a significant difference from the national average. And, full disclosure, in my state the number is 29%. The open question for me is whether general reputation should be taken into consideration for those seeking grade 6 and who should make that decision. In the case of those seeking grade 4, it now is taken into consideration by the committee headed by Herb Silva. National Candidates present a portfolio of the games they've done. It is not a 'check off the boxes' thing, as it was in the past. In fairness, the 'check off the boxes' system wasn't working very well and I believe that the new system is as fair as we'll see. (i.e. no system is perfect.) But should that be true for State Referee? We have heard about the intensely 'good ole' boy' system at work in a number of states. They and some other states that are less controversial about it have gotten wrapped up in the internal politics and needs of the referee world, to the exclusion of serving the good of the game itself and the players and coaches. Bluntly, teams, coaches, leagues and tournaments don't care if the SRA likes the referee. They just want somebody who looks like a referee, keeps up with play, knows the "rules" and can keep people under control. So, we have a tug of war here between 'It isn't fair to require things that the rules don't say are required' and 'I don't care what his assessments say, the guy's a jerk and we don't want him representing our state referee committee.'
Somehow I keep coming back the the assessor changing an assessment from pass to fail. To me that is unacceptable and that assessor should no longer be allowed to assess. The most fundamental lesson referees are taught is fairness. The assessor forgot that.
In matters of soccer and representing yourself to the community of soccer players, coaches, and refs I completely agree with you. However to me it's similar to a teacher who was a pornstar in a former life, or had a sex change operation. As long as they do their job the state has absolutely no right to discriminate against them in my view. If you open that door you give idiots the power to ban teachers who are gay, or lack sufficient patriotism, or are female. I believe this is similar to universities and it's professors. You see a professor could be a hideous Nazi, spouting ridiculous theories and horrible things that really upset the students. However the students can't really get them fired as long as he is still instructing them, there's a high burden of proof there. There has been many cases of this, the contract is that you are provided with an education not that you are made to feel warm and cozy. As long as a professor is providing that education it's very difficult to act on them spouting out their personal beliefs. So the USSF inquiring of arrests and requiring background checks fine. However I don't think they require us to talk nicely, at least not in this country, nor should they. Below I've included a story that may be off topic but I think fits the larger point of certain people shouldn't get to make decisions. It's not a response to your post it's just something that annoys me. "The reason given, according to the referees: Campbell, as a woman, could not be put in a position of authority over boys because of the academy's beliefs." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330642,00.html#ixzz2M1v5D9wC
At some point, "works and plays well with others" needs to enter into the upgrade criteria. The two-fold question here is 1) is it coming into the criteria too soon? (I'd say yes.) and 2) was it made known that it was one of the criteria. (It doesn't appear so.) Moving goalposts are inherently unfair even if where they moved to is fair in and of itself.