Assessment problems

1. Law5 makes very excellent points and I was thinking earlier today about how they should move the State upgrade process to something more akin to the new process for Nationals.

2. Chomsky - your link is really off topic.

3. Regarding what a SRC can do about a State Referee whose actions may not be reflecting well on the State, there are processes and policies that guide this. If a referee is acting in a way that violates the referee code of ethics, then someone could file a complaint with the state and they could hold a hearing and then admonish him. The further it gets away from the game and the referee program, then the harder it would be to prove a nexus to refereeing, but if one of the complaints about a referee is that he is badmouthing other referees or officials or is constantly argumentative about matters related to the game, then there is a process to deal with it.

4. Linking back to #1 - what this episode really highlights is the trouble that expectations cause in the whole upgrade process - both of the referee who is upgrading and those of the assessors and the SRC. My speculation is that what probably happened here is that the referee who was trying to upgrade EXPECTED to breeze through the process and when the process didn't go as smoothly as he expected it, then it got personal to him and things began to deteriorate.

Let's face it, when referees decide to upgrade, they have already set the expectation for themselves that they can perform at the next level. And those who are already at that level or who may be assessing someone to get to that level may see someone that they like or that they want to succeed, but they say hey, this guy is not ready yet and needs to get another year under his belt. And this sets up the mismatch of expectations.

Unfortunately, I think that as currently structured or implemented, the State Referee upgrade process does not do a good job of factoring in the intangibles and the expectations side of things, which then leads referees to believe that the process is unfair. Couple this with the fact that the referee is on the hook for the costs of all of the assessments and you can really get into a situation where referees can have some legitimate complaints.

 

At the State Upgrade clinic I attended the year I upgraded the guys giving lectures/role playing excersizes etc etc were very clear that the biggest thing they were looking for was not the black and white application and knowledge of the laws, but ones ability to manage the tough situations. And while at times it was frustrating for me (mainly getting through the "unknown" stuff that was deep in the paperwork regulation process.) it also allowed me to show the ability in part they were looking for: turning adversity into a solution. I ended up needing 6 assessments (4 middle and 2 line), all passed (and each higher than the previous) to get the badge. And I feel myself a better and more confident ref for those assessments.

 

I will note that the USSF registration form does not ask about arrests. It asks about convictions. (Cue the Bill Murray clip, "NO.....convictions!") For some offenses, you will not be allowed to register, period. On the other hand, I have about five guys who have to mark the box every year but who are allowed to register because the USSF legal department has approved it.

I tend to agree with Eastshire's comments. The Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which grew out of the Tonya Harding case and the US Figure Skating board's bungling, says that participants, which includes officials, are entitled to due process. And you can not have due process if the standards are not in place before you did whatever you are accused of doing inappropriately. Sometimes, groups get embarassed because a big incident comes up and they didn't have a process in place to deal with it. Too bad, so sad, should have been on top of stuff that could happen, but, as the committee member told the officials for the NCAA National Track & Field championship, "Please, don't make up rules!" Probably unconstitutional, too. See Article 1, Section 9.

 

Haven't we seen this movie before? It has the usual characters:

UPSTART: The energetic young guy who wants to advance -- not great at organizational politics, and perhaps a bit rash, but ready to take on the world, full of confidence and swagger. Complains that nobody will give him the responsibility he craves and deserves.

STATESMAN: The gentleman entrenched in power -- has a lifetime of experience and connections, knows the ways of the world and tries to protect the status quo, having become complacent (or at least comfortable). Complains that he has to keep doing the same work year after year because no qualified replacements are available.

As the Upstart tries to move up, the Statesman is torn between the role of mentor and gatekeeper. He wants to help the Upstart but seldom considers the Upstart ready. During war, the time scale is compressed; new recruits can become seasoned battle commanders in a matter of months. In peacetime, it takes decades.

Organizationally, there are some benefits to having long-tenured officials: institutional memory, established trust, and streamlined procedures. There are also drawbacks: burnout, slow innovation, resistance to outside ideas, and lack of opportunity for others. Some of the best ways to maintain balance and efficiency are a commitment to transparency, a strong system of oversight, an appeals process with truly independent review, and adherence to term limits.

This particular story has a few interesting plot twists, mostly due to ineffective safeguards. The Upstart views the Statesman's rules and judgments as overly conservative but can't effectively challenge them. A private challenge will be summarily dismissed, and a public one will be taken as proof of the Upstart's immaturity.

If it were up to me to fix this system, here are a few things I would change:

1) Make sure that any review or appeals process is independent. A complaint about a particular person or board should never be heard by that same person or board. Assemble a panel from outside the state if necessary.

2) Impose term limits. Nobody should serve in a given position more than an agreed number of years. People always complain that there is no replacement available, but that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Vacate the position, and someone will fill it.

3) Insist on transparency. Publish the criteria for advancement, worded clearly, and stick to them. If changes are needed, provide an explanation, an opportunity for outside input, a rationale for the decision, and an effective date.

4) Extend the upgrade process beyond one calendar year. It's difficult and expensive to get all those assessments completed in a short time, and frustrating to have to start from scratch the following year after being nearly successful.

That's what I would do if I were in charge. I'm not, so my advice to the Upstart remains the same: buy the Statesman a beer, and try to get along. Enjoy the games you work, improve your skills, and don't hire a lawyer to challenge this apparently capricious denial, because that would be expensive and unlikely to have a positive long-term outcome. Vent to your friends and anonymously on the Internet if it helps.

- QC

 

I really like this post! I remember sweating out an October waiting for my last assessable game to make up for one that wasn't a sufficient test. It added stress knowing I'd have to start over again.

 

Many of the previous posts are very interesting, and provide a very nice analysis of
the issues in a generic sense. Yes, we all have seen some similar things over the years
with personal factors getting in the way of objective criteria. The comments about
entrenched administrators are also very appropriate. In some situations a person
can wait out until administrators change, (both in refereeing and in a job/career) but if they turn into lifetime appointments, it gets difficult. How many of us have known a great person on and off the field who later takes a title and position and then eventually transforms into a tyrant? Then he loses support and is forced out or resigns, gets disillusioned and and bitter and retreats from soccer activities entirely.
And raising these issues in an Internet forum may not have been the best idea, but that
is one of the features of the electronic age that was not available to previous generations.
But it also seemed as though the referee in question had tried, although perhaps not in the
most productive manner, to resolve his problems with the administrators concerned.

But I still feel that the main issue here is the retroactive changing of an assessment result.
This is extremely unfair and IMO unethical. Although some people think this cannot be
done, as I mentioned in a previous post, I believe certain people have the authority, not to change the assessment themselves, but to open it back up for the original assessor to make corrections or whatever. That is what seems to have been done here. I don't think this procedure was intended for retroactive result changes months after the game.

The referee was told what he needed to do and he did it.
Perhaps the admins did not think that he could jump through all the hoops in time, but he
did so by going to California and so satisfied the requirements.

I think that the fair thing to do here is that the original passing assessment should be restored, and the referee should be upgraded. There are other mechanisms in place to prevent people who are genuinely not ready for one reason or another to advance in the program, and these should have been used. It is too late to go back after the requirements have been met.

The analogy with getting to National these days is reasonable. With all of the academies and events that candidates are required to attend, any "bad apples" will easily be seen and can be
corrected or eliminated. This was not possible in previous years. But I am not sure if it is
feasible at the 7 to 6 step.

As mentioned previously, there have been quite a few very high up referees both in the
US and other countries who were not exactly the nicest people you ever met, and
in general were not liked by their colleagues, and not all of it due to professional jealously and rivalry. But it was always conceded that they were excellent referees (although they wouldn't want their daughter to marry him.) Sometimes the very qualities that makes the person an SOB to deal with also are what contributes to his being a good referee.

In summary it is somewhat of a dilemma in general terms. Should personal differences
be allowed to interfere with the real objective? In theory, no, but sometimes it does.

I hope this case can be resolved properly, but I am afraid that it most likely will not.

PH

 

I am 100% against "general reputation" or any other personal characteristics away from the field being taken into account. Having this criteria in a closely scored assessment will easily transcend the very fine line between passing and failing. Two referees who perform identically on identical games...one passes because he "bought his Statesman a beer" and the other fails because he may have had some negative attention a few years back...this is a load of cow manure. Nobody cares if Geiger goes to Atlantic City every day, they want to see him perform flawlessly.

My referee "hobby" is in its 17th year. I've dealt with not having a mentor, being told I couldn't work outside of my home town, restricted to younger games/lines only, being "banned" from one soccer association in my younger days....to playing the political game, dealing with he said/she said referee spats, being the sounding board for those who aren't happy with my referee association's policies...I've seen a lot. As an assignor, I've put faith in the wrong guy, and that still follows me around. As a referee, I've probably pissed off more than my fair share of "Statesmen", and that still follows me around. But nobody (at least, none with balls) can say to my face that I can't advance because of X Y and Z from my past. I became an instructor and took a few years training, developing, and mentoring referees. I've directly impacted 5 referees who have upgraded from 8 to 7 and was recognized for it in 2011. I took a step back and tried to fix my image and what people associate my name with. I will be able to see in 2013 how my investment has paid off.

This is my upgrade year. Realistically, it's the last upgrade I will get. I can easily identify with themercenary and what he is going through...I can see myself as making the same posts and jumping through the same hoops that he has. I know he will read this...know that your issue sucks, that you're going to have to deal with it for a very long time. You're young. Yes, you probably got screwed out of your State badge...if that was my goal, I wouldn't sit quietly either. But even if you get it, you'll not get the same consideration as your peers. Clean up your image...take on a handful of promising 8's and mentor them into 7's. Make yourself an asset instead of a liability.

 

I don't pretend to know all that's needed to upgrade, but in my state you get approval before actually starting an upgrade. I would hope that whoever decides it is OK to seek an upgrade would factor in these "intangibles" and let a candidate know that they needed to work on whatever before starting.

I agree that behavior around soccer and especially toward other referees/officials should be considered. I don't agree that whoever is in charge can decide what constitutes good or bad behavior. This is where trouble can arise, whoever is in charge has an axe to grind personally so they are going to show you who's in charge.

Professional behavior has a certain standard but that standard does not include going along with others or especially those in charge when they are wrong. Professionally handling a disagreement and stating your case when in opposition is a trait anyone needs, and especially referees as this skill will help as much as any other in dealing with on the field issues.

As mentioned the state has a very vested interest in those it says are state referees. Having someone represent your state poorly reflects directly on the organization, not just the individual so back to my first statement, it would seem every state should be in a position to say BEFORE an upgrade is started to allow it or not, and if not give tangible areas to improve and a method to eventually get there.

 

I've never seen an administration get blamed for a referee except when its in a referee event in which is directly tied to the state, such as Regionals, State cups, referee events in which the state chooses the participants. My state does just fine on its own making itself look horrible on just an administrative level. I don't think any amount of "bad referees" or "good referees" could ever change what people think of the admins or what other states know about the admins. If the State looks bad its the states fault because most of the time the state picked the given variable within the equation to represent them in some form or another in that given event. How often when you think of a good referee or bad referee you think of the representation of the state in a none state sanctioned event? If your just randomly in the summer going from one tournament to the next no one really thinks of you representing the state they look at the need for how many games they have, equate your badge or rank into it and treat you mostly as an outsider till they know you and only think good or poorly on that person... When I assign an out of town referee or out of state referee in one of the tournaments over the summer no matter how bad or how good he/she was I never thought of the state he came from.... I only cared about the job he/she did. I don't think if a coaching director came to me and told me how bad a referee was on his game and blames me because I'm the assignor that the excuse, "oh hes from blah state" would even resinate with the director as a valid excuse...... if that were the case no Grade 8 or 9 should be allowed to ever leave the city or state they reside in till upgraded because most likely the state has never taken the time to know anything them... there are over 4000 referees in most states the state maybe at tops hand trains maybe at best a random number of 100... which is usually the same group form year to year with maybe a slight variation depending on the size of the state. I know for a fact not a single state administrator ever came to my association of over 100 referees ever to instruct or mentor.... and maybe only a small handful ever went outside of the town. If the state really was influenced by one referees image in every little tournament or game than the state would need to actually leave homebase and do some road preaching.

 

themercenary - So Mr. (name struck), please tell us, at what point in your upgrade process did you get the lawyers involved?

 

Nice tone you got there, it goes right through the internet.

 

Not sure I get your point Chomsky - my question is a very simple one and gets to the heart of the matter, which is at what point in his upgrade process did he have a lawyer engage in this.

(name struck) latest post informs us that he is an assignor, that his group of referees gets no attention from the state and that he doesn't hold his state's SRC in much regard. Oh, and he doesn't think that assignors or coaches care about what state someone is from.

What I am left wondering is what would he do if the parent of one of his referees decided to send him a letter stating that he didn't think little Johnny was getting to work enough games or the right games and that he was consulting an attorney to ensure that some perceived wrong is rectified. How would (name struck) view this referee and parent?

Look, I think that based on what we have been told by (name struck) and his friend, that the post-facto changing of the assessment is wrong and unethical and that he has a case to that deserves to be heard - either internally through the Washington soccer association and throughUS Soccer or externally through litigation, but I also think that this kid needs to understand that his own actions have consequences and that he would benefit by taking a step back and trying to see how things may look from the other side.

 

This stuff gets so silly at times. Here in cal North, EVERY state ref (except one) that I personally know, has gone emeritus not because they WANT to, but rather , they simply cannot get the assessments . The excuses given are either really lame, or the assessors simply DON'T SHOW UP. Their replacements are, to a man, (ain't seen no local young lady state refs, but I could be wrong) these young greyhounds who can run circles around most of us older refs, but who lack some of the common sense that only time, thousands of games and maturity can bring.
It's pretty much a given that either you get fast tracked, or slog through the years trying to get your game count (good luck with that)!
I feel sympathy for this kid. It seems as if the noble keepers of the flame have marked him for failure and it is a no win situation no matter which path he chooses, ie. fight the good fight, maybe get your state, but earn the undying enmity of the power structure in your district (and EVERBODY ELSE THEY KNOW IN OTHER PLACES) or... back off , kiss major ass for an extended period of time, with much groveling and mea culpas and hope that your obsequiousness soothes their tattered egos.
Hell, he's already burned all of the bridges, why not go the first route and put his noble SRA up against the wall. If nothing else, the resulting carnage could bring about real change albeit at a grim toll and it would give us Ernies here something to talk about.
So.....Go for it kid! Anyway, kissing ass for extended periods of time is bad for the soul.

 

You used his name...you've called him kid...you used a disrespectful tone in your post. I'm not stupid, I saw through it as any reasonable person would. You could have asked that question and you would've been right to, without it coming from a place of animosity. I called you out on your attitude, own up to it.

 

Gosh oh golly gee - I am so sorry to have offended your sensibilities. I am also quite impressed that you can hear tone so well considering that you are a referee...

Seriously though, animosity? On what basis?

I didn't call him or address him as "kid," I addressed him as "(Name Struck)" which is the proper way to address someone directly. As for the use of the phrase "kid," I used it in response to your post to make the point that he needs to take a more mature approach to these matters.

And attitude? Really? You can sense that? What attitude do you think I have right now?

 

Oh I guess I was completely wrong, you don't have an attitude at all. Ignored.

 

It is probably an unspoken fact, but there may not be enough suitable games and available assessors to do the annual requirements for all higher grade referees and upgrades.

Slightly off-topic, but the emeritus business is baloney. It was initially a good idea for referees reaching the end of their careers to keep the badge they retire with. But it quickly became an "out" for younger people to avoid annual requirements, fitness tests etc., because they can still get the games they want to do. It is especially bad at the National level. Initially people could go emeritus almost as soon they got the badge, and a few people did. This was later prevented by putting in a three-year rule, but even then people just hung on for the three years and took emeritus as soon as possible.
So we now have emeritus State referees in their 20's or 30's and emeritus Nationals in their 30's and 40's. IMO there should be a longer time in rank before emeritus is available, more like 10 years, or an age minimum in the 45-50 range. If people cannot or do not want to be bothered to meet annual requirements, but still want to continue refereeing, they should just drop back in grade. I heard of one ex-National who simply registered as an 8 each year; the registration fee was lower, no fitness tests etc., and he still got all the games he cared to do because of his
experience and ability and the assignors and teams loved him!

PH

 

Pierre, that would require humility and the understanding that the badge does not make the referee. Something that the dramatis personae in this sad tale could all use more of.

 

I know.
The sad fact is that, as I have mentioned in posts a long time ago, no-one else involved in the game, players, coaches, spectators, even notices, much less cares, about what badge a referee has.

But having said that there should be more integrity involved in the badge process, or
have everyone wear the same badge, as is done in many federations, and grade is known only to
the referee and assignor. If everyone refereeing a game in the US had the same badge, it would avoid much of these issues. The only exceptions would be for FIFA refs actually doing International games, but not regular league matches.

PH

 

I would love there to be a single badge for everyone, that would be great. Can we bring that up with the USSF somehow?

 

I agree with this and I think there is too much emphasis on the badge. Personally, I think they should do away with the state badge, not the grade, the badge. I think the extra word on the badge encourages some people to upgrade for the wrong reason. The only people who really notice the badge are other referees anyway. I'd really rather the focus be on the way one works rather than the extra word on the badge.

 

Yes, that would be my last name sir. I involved a lawyer in only 1 aspect back in the fall when things started showing up as controversial for a lack of a better term. When I started my upgrade process they gave me details of what was needed and I tried filling them up no problem whatsoever. The only problem I ran into was the SRA refused to let me do any games in her area for upgrade till I pressured her by using some of my friends that I knew would have influence. She gave in eventually after about a month or so but gave me the least assessable games she had for my centers even the assessor questioned why bother assessing the game. I decided after a few unassessables to not bother with her area now that spring was around the corner and soccer was getting out of its hibernation that story you all well know from my previous posts.

When I failed my academy assessment between crossfire and vancouver white-caps. I was told both in writing and verbally that I would need to just to 2 more assessments periods showing up as 4. I questioned whether to even continue or not took months off from upgrading. I continued the process starting in the early fall and passed two more assessments in which I showed as 4 from what I understood in writing to be done. I turned in everything and a few days later I got an email stating that The SRA is asking both the Secretary and the SDA to Audit your upgrade process which all I asked if I was the only one being audited and why. They responded that it was just me and didn't explain why or give a reason other then they had to fulfill her request.
I ignored it till a few days later they got back to me in writing saying that the state previously required only 1 make up assessments for a fail but has decided this year to change it to 2 assessments to make up.
I asked several times for the policy in writing and in the minutes which is should show whenever the state makes a decision. Which they were refusing to give me any details period for the most part period. I never threatened the SRC with a lawsuit nor did I ever tell them I was sueing them. I simply to make sure I wasn't going to get shafted 2 times decided to make sure of the policy they were making by making them solidify it in writing as well as get a clear and exact interpretation of what I had to do. I wanted to make it as close to a contract basically as possible so there was no room for them to come back later and say oh we changed this or that so you got to do this or that. So I involved a lawyer to investigate and write up for me since my grammar is so poor so that everything would be solid and there would be no wiggle room.
The Lawyer was only intended for them to force them to follow procedure and to put everything in writing. They claimed that they starting 2012 were going to follow the strict guidelines of the Referee Administrative Handbook though previously they were only following parts of it. The wordering of the part they were now newly using on my upgrade process isn't very exact if you look up every words definition and how it is used in a sentence it isn't very exact unless you have a previous record, Hence why WA state was in 2011 doing 1 to make up the fail and 1 to pass but then decided to reinturpret it in 2012 without telling the referees till I came along that it would be 2 to make up and 1 to pass. They told me that as a state they can either choose to follow the handbook or stray from it but had chosen to follow it and that every referee within the State would also be treated the same.
When my Lawyer was doing some investigation upon this to help me write the formal letters and while waiting for USSF to say something to WA state. We discovered several discrepencies with the help of an SRC member an a few old time assessors within the records of the SRC right off the site any user or assignor could actually access at the time. Every referee when they register if anything was waived or any complication came up is listed in the notes section of each registered member. We came across several individuals which for there protection I will not list their names that had very interesting notes. One such member resides in EKCSRA which we contacted by email whom also wrote back confirming our question. There are between 1-10 referee within the state that all hold a Grade 6 badge or higher that were given their badge without assessments, fitness testing or any previous involvement with officiating to meet the requirements of the badge. In fact one of the State badges never officiated in his life! He was a national licensed soccer coach which was given the state badge by the SRA because it was deemed by the SRA that he fit that particular badge. There are a lot more examples and a lot more notes but that is just repeated the same point.
When they told me that every referee was going to go through the same process and same handbook I published to them in writing straight from their site asking them "so am I being equally treated as these referees as recorded by your records". They never replied answering that question my point was I wanted everything in writing.
A week later USSF actually replied which was a very public response but it was directed towards WA state, that all forms of the Referee Administrative Handbook would not be valid, print electronic etc...

I never tried appealing nor sueing or telling them I was planning on sueing. I wanted a clear explaination and a clear policy ruling in which technically I accomplished that in one form or another. I was told that I would have to seek 1 more assessment by a formal letter from the SRA as directed by the SRC. I could not have gotten this response without a lawyer because till I involved one they were being shady and shirking me every which way. I accepted this and told them thank you and that I would continue my process. I was being told by several assessors as well as individuals that the SRA as well as a few others were trying to influence assessors in my upgrade process but didn't have solid evidence to prove such so I ignored it and just kept looking for a game. I asked Idaho, and Oregon if they had any games in the winter months that would be assessable. Both states got back to me saying the pickings were slim. There was only one league in WA that had games that were assessable and the SRA was refusing to allow me naturally like always to do them I still kept requesting but knew she would just ignore me so never put my money on it nor really cared the league isn't much of one any way in quality. I chose to contact some friends in South Cal in which were able to hook me up with the SRA down there. I got the written permission of the SRA of both Cal South and WA along with both states SDA's to seek assessment. I did this upon coming back thats when the shit hit the fan and they proved in writing and in action that they could finally be caught actually affecting my assessments.
My biggest pet peeve other than trying to persuade assessors and changing assessments is why did they give me permission to go down to california and tried betting on me failing instead of just doing the shit before I had planned out california. SEcond pet peeve is I'm being blamed for a mass email which I recieved as well as the next guy that I didn't even write for one my grammar isn't that good to write such a thing any of my college professors could show you my grades on that, which was also put on my assessment as why I failed..... so I failed for another reason which had nada to do with me.

I burned the SRA's bridge years ago unknowingly did and at the time didn't know much of the world of officiating. I never left Yakima to referee till about the 5th year in my officiating career which was 4 or 5 years ago close to sometime in this month. I never knew what a grade 8 was hahaha thats the kind of instruction our state had for eastside referees! So yeah when the state really cares about its reputation it needs to first clean its own house and make clear policy and then it needs to actually start caring about how it treats its outside colonies. I unknowlingy burned this bridge because at a low end tournament the center referee whom every one in the State of washington dislikes because of how he treats his AR's was disrespecting myself as well as the other 16 year old AR infront of the coaches by telling us how much we sucked even though the coaches were mad at him for having a stick up his ass not the AR's. At half time when he made personal remarks toward me I threw the flag at him and told the SRA who loved him that I would never work with him again and she needed to find another AR to take the second half of that game. Later on there was a committee hearing on the game and I was found to be in the right and she hated me ever since.

 

This was not the best thing to do and was highly unprofessional. You should have finished the game. If you knew the referee was a SOB you should not have accepted the assignment in the first place. I don't understand why this committee would say you were "in the right." I certainly would not have and would have recommended that both of you receive suitable punishments.
However, all this not withstanding, and even if some of your troubles could be partly of
your own making, I still believe that your assessment result should not have been changed retroactively.

PH

 

You finish the game. Unless the referee has dismissed you as an AR you must stay and you must finish the game.