Message Board Use and the Referee Code of Ethics

[vetshak]

I thought this deserved its own thread, coming off a side discussion from the Chicago vs Dallas discussion...

I agree that public criticism of referees by other referees is unethical. There is a general unwillingness to throw one another under the bus.

On the other hand, how can we all improve if we can't have a respectable discussion on these decisions we see happen in front of us every week? Or discuss our own flaws, mistakes, and solicit the opinions of our colleagues?

The USSF Week in Review every week gives us examples, sometimes of referees doing very well, and other times making errors. Would anybody claim Alfred Kleinaitis, Paul Tamberino, or Brian Hall are violating the Code of Ethics by discussing the mistakes of our most qualified officials when performing at the highest level? Of course not. The WiR has been one of the absolute best efforts of USSF to provide continuing education to match officials of all levels.

When I started a discussion late last week on the Chivas-Chicago game, I didn't feel like I was throwing Terry Vaughn under the bus for noting he gave permission for PK #2 while the keeper's back was turned. Vaughn has a FIFA badge... for every little mistake he makes like that, I'd bet he could watch me work a game and find 10 mistakes more egregious.

But you know what? I would love to have Terry Vaughn assess me! And if he wanted to post video on the Internet and show everybody all of the stuff I do that nobody else should do, I would be honored.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is more critical of the referees who officiate MLS games than themselves. Those guys kick themselves for any error, and are always the first ones to point it out. None of those guys got there by claiming to be perfect.

Three years ago I worked a tournament in Ohio and was assigned to AR in the boys U17 final for Hilario Grajada (the same guy who DC United fans are swearing about this week). He had just flown in from working the Galaxy game three days earlier as the 4th.

While we were warming up, I asked him about a caution given in that match, and the first thing he said was that they (meaning the crew) screwed that up because they called it delay instead of unsporting (or something like that... that wasn't the exact mistake, but close), and the guy didn't accumulate as many misconduct points because of it. Nobody else in the world probably even knew or cared about this, but that was the first thing Grajada told me about that match. The best referees always know what they did wrong, when they did it, and are the first to admit it.

I have yet to encounter any criticism on this message board that I thought crossed the line. Yes, sometimes people get a bit snipey about things, but they're just sticklers for detail, and they are entitled to their opinions. The whole idea is for us to learn.

There is a difference between criticism and constructive criticism. It's utterly unhelpful to tell someone, "You screwed up," especially a good referee. But to say, "You screwed up, but here's how you could have or should have done it,"... that's what I see on these boards 99% of the time. I think it's great to be able to converse with people who take this task as seriously as I do, and I appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to give it in what is a very respectful atmosphere. I'm sure referee flaming occurs en masse on the fan boards, but that's for the fans to do...

[Ref Flunkie]

Totally agree. I never really understood the whole "Code of Ethics" stuff. If you can't point out flaws in someones performance and learn from them, then how is anyone supposed to improve their game. As you said, there is a difference between going on TV and having one referee say that another one is the worst in the world, or shouldn't be out there, and bringing up specific plays and discussing if the call was correct and if not, what the referee could have done to get it right. If anyone should be criticizing referees, it should be OTHER referees, since typically they (A) actually know the laws and (B) actually understand how hard this job is. Having players, coaches, and commentators criticize us is usually pretty useless; however, having a higher level referee evaluate/criticize our games would probably give us more information than we've learned in all of our years of refereeing up to this point.

[dadman]

Good idea for a thread, especially following on Stan Collins' questions in the DC/NE thread. I'm just a non-ref lurker here, but as I put in the "comments" when I repped your post, here in your Referee forum, the Mods have the tools to keep mouth-breathers like me out.

Peer-to-peer review is that constructive criticism you look for, but it can occur best in a (semi)controlled environment. Message boards are pretty public, and aren't really noted for posters' self-moderation and self-control. ;) Still and all, a great subject for discussion, and since the Mods are referees, they always keep their jackboots in good order. :)

I look forward to seeing how this progresses.

:: down periscope ::

[asler]

I thought this deserved its own thread, coming off a side discussion from the Chicago vs Dallas discussion...
Great thread.

I agree that public criticism of referees by other referees is unethical. Not sure I agree here - basically for the reasons that have already been mentioned. We work in a public venue and criticism will naturally be discussed in public. This does not make it unethical. Criticism (or making a judgement on a persons work) is not inherently negative or positive and therefor should not be considered unethical. What would be unethical is unfounded criticism that leads to false accusations. That is unethical. There is a general unwillingness to throw one another under the bus.This is probably more in line with professionalism and respect rather then ethics.

On the other hand, how can we all improve if we can't have a respectable discussion on these decisions we see happen in front of us every week? Or discuss our own flaws, mistakes, and solicit the opinions of our colleagues? Which is fundamentally why criticism is not unethical in my opinion.

CG

[NHRef]

I think referees discussing referees is fine, happens all the time, even at the youth level, hang around the ref tent at a tournament and see what gets discussed.

I believe the goal of the public criticism, is more targetted at refs standing along the sidelines watching and saying "boy he screwed that up". How many of us have been watching games and the others around know you're a ref? Something happens and they turn to you and ask "what was that call?" or "Was that right?" Happens to me when I watch my sons play.

Also has happened to me while reffing the infamous "I'm a ref and that was a bad call" I've even been threatened, though not to my face, but within ear shot, with "if he messes that offside(s) call up one more time I am going to meet him in the parking lot after the game"

That is what I think the code of ethics is targetting. At least with respect to most of us.

Now as it applies to FIFA/MLS etc. No way will I say "he screwed up". I will question what he did and why, mostly cause he's there, I'm not, I'd love to hear his thought process so I can learn.

And ya, as mentioned above, for every mistake they make, I make 20 :rolleyes:

[gosellit]

I
How many of us have been watching games and the others around know you're a ref? Something happens and they turn to you and ask "what was that call?" or "Was that right?" Happens to me when I watch my sons play.



That is why I never sat with the parents when my son played. Even when he was playing in college. I do have a very scarred tongue however.

[intechpc]

For me this all comes down to the difference between analysis and criticism. I believe most of what we do here is analysis. To me, looking at a referee's performance and pointing out errors and trying to understand them is not criticism. If our analysis is constructive and aimed at understanding how decisions have come about with the purpose of trying to learn from them, it does not violate the Code of Ethics and isn't what I would consider criticism. Now just complaining about what a bad game a referee had or pointing out how terrible a referee is over all, that's the type of thing that I believe the Code of Ethics seeks to avoid.

I've seen both occur on this board but easily 95% or better of the threads discussing other referees are not what I would consider criticism.

[chrisrun]

Since we are talking about the Code of Ethics for Referees, I figured I would post exactly what they are. Taken from the Referee Administrative Handbook.

(1) I will always maintain the utmost respect for the game of soccer.
(2) I will conduct myself honorably at all times and maintain the dignity of my position.
(3) I will always honor an assignment or any other contractual obligation.
(4) I will attend training meetings and clinics so as to know the Laws of the Game, their proper interpretation and their application.
(5) I will always strive to achieve maximum team work with my fellow officials.
(6) I will be loyal to my fellow officials and never knowingly promote criticism of them.
(7) I will be in good physical condition.
(8) I will control the players effectively by being courteous and considerate without sacrificing fairness.
(9) I will do my utmost to assist my fellow officials to better themselves and their work.
(10) I will not make statements about any games except to clarify an interpretation of the Laws of the Game.
(11) I will not discriminate against nor take undue advantage of any individual group on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
(12) I consider it a privilege to be a part of the U.S. Soccer Federation and my actions will reflect credit upon that organization and its affiliates.

[DWickham]

Referee Magazine had an excellent article on some of the ethical and legal problems using the "wide open" internet to discuss matters. The article centered on disciplinary proceedings against an official (non-soccer I think) who had blogged details about an incident involving minors, that contained disparaging information about others, and for which there was a pending protest/appeal.

When talking about our own incidents, we need to be very careful. We cannot control how far (and how long) email and internet postings will travel.

When talking about others, my view is that discussing events in professional matches is an excellent learning tool. The life of the law is experience, and we can learn from the experiences of others. IMO, the ethical issues arise when we make it personal (X was a disgrace) or we criticize the judgment rather than the mechanics (was there a better angle where the referee could see what happened) or the application of law to the judgment (an errant restart). Interpretation of the facts is the responsiblity of the referee alone. Understanding the correct application of the laws is the responsiblity for all of us.

I recently saw (but now cannot find) a news item that a Referee Association outside the US had banned referees from commenting in blogs and internet boards on specific match events as unethical. Perhaps someone else recalls which country.

[OhRef]

Italy

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/04/italian-football-referees-banned-from-using-social-media/

[vetshak]

How interesting Italy is so strict.

I respect the need to prevent commenting on officiating decisions, but to ban participation in social sites eliminates camaraderie and the possibility of feedback or evaluation.

If I hadn't had the opportunity to discuss a decision I made two weeks ago, I would have never realized I misinterpreted the decision and learned from my mistake. If a player from that game goes online to this board and reads about it, realizing I screwed up, well, I'm humble enough to admit my faults.

I think such a decision in Italy makes sense as long as there is some means for referees to still discuss their decisions amongst themselves. Frankly, seeing as 99.9% of us are part-timers, I don't see any means of doing that except a social web site in which you have to put in your USSF ID number or the like. The growth of the Internet has been a positive for this profession; to ignore its potential will damage the growth potential and possibility for improvement for all of us.

There is always a risk of discussing things publicly, but the benefits outweigh those risks, IMHO. It is the responsibility of the participants to monitor their content so that it is appropriate, and certainly in the case of these message boards, the responsibility of the moderator to screen or remove inappropriate comments. I do place my trust in them...

[nsa]

...
And ya, as mentioned above, for every mistake they make, I make 20 :rolleyes:

But it is much less painful to learn from someone else's mistakes. :D

[o5iiawah]

Maybe Italy keeps a leash on its refs due to the matchfixing problems recently?

Dont they also have a show called il processo (the trial) where ref decisions from the previous weeks matches are slowed down, freeze-framed and analysed in super-slo-mo from 400 different angles then each ref is given a grade as to how they did.

[Alberto]

Maybe Italy keeps a leash on its refs due to the match fixing problems recently?

Don't they also have a show called il processo (the trial) where ref decisions from the previous weeks matches are slowed down, freeze-framed and analyzed in super-slo-mo from 400 different angles then each ref is given a grade as to how they did.


I think this is exactly the reason why they are taking a hard stand on the matter of discussing matches. It just makes referees more accessible to influence from outsiders.

[Alberto]

How interesting Italy is so strict.

I respect the need to prevent commenting on officiating decisions, but to ban participation in social sites eliminates camaraderie and the possibility of feedback or evaluation.

If I hadn't had the opportunity to discuss a decision I made two weeks ago, I would have never realized I misinterpreted the decision and learned from my mistake. If a player from that game goes online to this board and reads about it, realizing I screwed up, well, I'm humble enough to admit my faults.

I think such a decision in Italy makes sense as long as there is some means for referees to still discuss their decisions amongst themselves. Frankly, seeing as 99.9% of us are part-timers, I don't see any means of doing that except a social web site in which you have to put in your USSF ID number or the like. The growth of the Internet has been a positive for this profession; to ignore its potential will damage the growth potential and possibility for improvement for all of us.

There is always a risk of discussing things publicly, but the benefits outweigh those risks, IMHO. It is the responsibility of the participants to monitor their content so that it is appropriate, and certainly in the case of these message boards, the responsibility of the moderator to screen or remove inappropriate comments. I do place my trust in them...

In the case of Italy it's a different dynamic from the US. There is a lot of corruption in Italy and there have been many scandals involving clubs, players and referees.

[boylanj64]

(10) I will not make statements about any games except to clarify an interpretation of the Laws of the Game.

This is the one that I feel comes closest to saying we shouldn't post here; I think it is properly interpreted to mean that we should not make public statements expressing an opinion, favoring one team, etc, but I could certainly see how it means don't ever discuss a game.

[MassachusettsRef]

This is the one that I feel comes closest to saying we shouldn't post here; I think it is properly interpreted to mean that we should not make public statements expressing an opinion, favoring one team, etc, but I could certainly see how it means don't ever discuss a game.I know there will be some that disagree, but I don't believe that's what #10 means at all. If read literally, it would mean you can't talk about soccer at all (because it doesn't say the officiating in the game, it specifically says "about any games"). In essence, if read literally, it would almost mean you can't be a fan of the game (or, at least, you could be but you have to be silent about it).

#10, in my eyes, means you don't make statements about games that you referee aside from clarifications of the Laws. That would be consistent with the advice professional referees are given all over the world in regard to their dealings with media. In other words, don't discuss the quality of play, don't disparage individual players, don't reveal private communications with coaches or other staff, etc.

#5 is the one that relates to what happens here. Again, I'm sure some will disagree--but I'm pretty convinced of this interpretation.

[snolly g]

(6) I will be loyal to my fellow officials and never knowingly promote criticism of them.
(10) I will not make statements about any games except to clarify an interpretation of the Laws of the Game.

so i'm not a referee, but i'm guessing 6 and 10 are the two oaths that some folks may be reading a little too broadly.

naturally, these are all absolutes on the pitch (because it directly affects the game and public perception).

as for when you're off the pitch, well... i would say that you also want to avoid being a douchebag.

the first point is functional: bad behavior off the pitch reflects a kind of personality/character defect that can subtly/subconsciously or even directly transfer onto the pitch. (most people aren't jeckyll and hyde. if you're a d-bag away from the game, you're probably also a d-bag at the game.)

the second point is perceptional: if people know you ref soccer, and they see that you're a dickhead, then they're more likely to lose respect for game officials.

and respect is the key. it's not an easy job. refs are human. mistakes get made. the real question is: what counts as bad behavior? what kind of comments fall under this category?

i'd suggest a sliding scale (in order of worst behavior to best, assuming a ref makes a mistake):

personal attack/character assassination--"what a ********ing moron"--unacceptable
respectful disagreement--"i can see how that's a tough call to make, but i would have called it differently"--acceptable
clinical analysis--"rule is x. what happened was y. he missed the call, but these things happen"--acceptable
the first case just shows no hint of recognition of how difficult the job is.

the latter two are criticisms, but they at least imply respect.

[blech]

***

the first case just shows no hint of recognition of how difficult the job is.

the latter two are criticisms, but they at least imply respect.

And, if directed to the referee in question, or even to another (or a group such as on a forum like this) in the spirit of discussing the play to avoid similar errors, one could argue that it is permitted, if not urged or even required by another Code provision:

"(9) I will do my utmost to assist my fellow officials to better themselves and their work."

I'd be interested to read how these principles get reconciled if such discussion is not permitted.

Of course, we get non-referees on here who are just reading for their own education, and sometimes even get questions from persons who admit to not being a referee. But the forum is for referees, and the fact that others might "overhear" our conversation should not be a reason not to have it if the purpose is legitimate.