USSF Singles Out Refs in Three DC United Games

[John L]

The refs for three of DC United's controversial ties and losses have been severely criticized by the USSF referee board

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060503070.html



In a strongly worded review posted on the U.S. Soccer Federation's Web site, directors of the referee program said that game officials erred in awarding a penalty kick to New England in the waning moments of a 2-1 victory over United last Saturday at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.

Paul Tamberino, the USSF's director of referee development, and Brian Hall, manager of assessment and training, concluded this week that the assistant referee's call was both incorrect and an example of "over-involvement." They wrote that "there is minimal contact. The contact is doubtful, soft and trifling.

Do these guys get any professional training? - Do they do any regular practice - Apparently not in England (judging by the outcries about bad calls in EPL games) and apparently not here - Anywhere???

[bluedevils]

Do these guys get any professional training? - Do they do any regular practice - Apparently not in England (judging by the outcries about bad calls in EPL games) and apparently not here - Anywhere???

Are you fishing for a certain type of response or something? Are you seriously concluding that referees in England and the USA receive no 'professional training' simply because referees in the top pro leagues in each country make mistakes?

Refereeing isn't as easy as people think. Mistakes happen. Referees strive to make correct decisions, but no matter how fit or how well positioned or how well trained or how well you understand the game, mistakes are going to happen. Sure, people can be upset when mistakes happen. Referees are upset. Referee program administrators are upset. Fans are upset. Coaches are upset. Players are upset. But a little understanding goes a long way.

[o5iiawah]

is publicly calling out the referee a good idea? or is it best at least to say "we at USSF try to maintain the highest standards and in the case of mr. _________ we will be offering any additional training to get these standards to where they should be."

[Ref Flunkie]

Are you fishing for a certain type of response or something? Are you seriously concluding that referees in England and the USA receive no 'professional training' simply because referees in the top pro leagues in each country make mistakes?

Refereeing isn't as easy as people think. Mistakes happen. Referees strive to make correct decisions, but no matter how fit or how well positioned or how well trained or how well you understand the game, mistakes are going to happen. Sure, people can be upset when mistakes happen. Referees are upset. Referee program administrators are upset. Fans are upset. Coaches are upset. Players are upset. But a little understanding goes a long way.

I'm sure they get the same training as NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL referee's get. Soccer is not a sport that is so complex or different that it requires some special training program.

[ManiacalClown]

Speaking from experience, I know I get plenty pissed off at myself when I make a glaring mistake, and that's at an extremely low level.

I'm sure others are the same way. Refereeing isn't just a job you do because it pays the bills. You do it because you love it.

[Bootsy Collins]

Refereeing isn't as easy as people think. Mistakes happen. Referees strive to make correct decisions, but no matter how fit or how well positioned or how well trained or how well you understand the game, mistakes are going to happen. Sure, people can be upset when mistakes happen. Referees are upset. Referee program administrators are upset. Fans are upset. Coaches are upset. Players are upset. But a little understanding goes a long way.
I don't think anyone's under any impression that refereeing is easy, or that it's sensible to expect referees to be perfect. Personally, I can't even imagine being a ref: very very hard, requiring a ton of work, for very little thanks, credit, or external reward.

In general, though (and as Dave Kasper was quoted as saying in the article), you expect that even though there'll be mistakes made that hurt you, there'll also be mistakes made in your favor, and so it'll average out over the course of the season. That's the expectation; and it's been my experience in past seasons that it's a fair assessment of how things go. And so in past seasons, my frustration over bad calls against my team has been tempered by my memory of other bad calls in our favor.

Not this year. There is effectively *zero* chance of it playing out that way this year, and everyone knows it. At this point, DCU has lost five points -- over a quarter of their current point total -- solely attributable to refereeing mistakes singled out for special attention by the USSF. Over the rest of this season, some decisions will go DC's way and some won't. But the chances that they'll go such that we'll recover those five points? There's a vanishingly small chance of that. Five points right now would put us in first; alternately, we missed the playoffs last year by just one point.

I agree wholeheartedly that too much bitching about referees goes on; but at the same time, I don't know how one can logically argue that DCU hasn't been especially fscked over by refereeing mistakes in this particular season. Perhaps that clarifies why the understanding you call for -- understanding I agree is warranted in general -- is nonetheless difficult to come by for many fans right now.

[DadOf6]

Do these guys get any professional training? - Do they do any regular practice - Apparently not in England (judging by the outcries about bad calls in EPL games) and apparently not here - Anywhere???

The fallacy of the argument from ignorance.

Since you do not know how referees are trained you assume that they are not.

Here's a question, let's see if you have the wherewithal to even make an attempt at answering it: How many decisions does a referee make in a game and how many of those are correct?

FYI, the lowest level referee who can work adult games (although pretty low level) is a grade 8. They have to recertify annually. This requires passing a written test and attending at least five hours of training in the past year.

To go to the next level (grade 7) they have to work at least 100 games (cumulative, not annually), pass a test, and attend the training. They also have to pass a fitness test and be assesed on one 90 minute game. If they fail an assessment they must pass two to maintain their level. This is an annual recertification.

Every level has different requirements for the annual recertification and the requirements are tougher at each level. The games that apply to the game are at higher levels, the tests are more difficult, the fitness levels are higher, more assessments are required. The training is more advanced. Some levels have to fly to multi-day clinics to recertify.

[intechpc]

Great, if we start seeing articles like this in the press I could envision it being the end of the WiR being publicly available. That would be a great loss but if people are going to use it as a way to further their criticism of referees, I have to imagine USSF would be motivated to move it behind "closed doors".

[MassachusettsRef]

The original link is dead, so I'm not sure if the article made clear (and therefore the original poster would know) that the USSF Weeks in Review are regular documents that single out mistakes on a weekly basis. I know that wouldn't' soothe the anger of a DC fan, but if the article implies that USSF went out of there way in extraordinary circumstances to say these calls were wrong--rather than stating that the analysis of such calls is part of a weekly process--while, that's some shoddy reporting.

That being said, this situation, where DC has seemingly been the one team screwed more than others this year, shows an inherent catch-22 with the weekly reviews. Yes, you want more transparency and the documents are great for those that take the time to read them. But, naturally, USSF can't highlight every mistake (or laud every great call) per week so it pulls 2 or 3 incidents per week to discuss. And when you flat-out say something was "wrong," and a couple critical "wrongs" go against one team, well, the fans of that team are going to be rightly upset.

Another thing that's interesting and, to me, troubling about this particular situation is the language used by USSF. Flat-out, the weekly review says: "the AR calls a foul that leads to a penalty kick that should not be called." Has "opinion of the referee" gone completely out the window? It's one thing to critique calls, discuss mechanics and procedures, and generally work to improve officiating. But are we really at the point where the federation is saying, post-game, that judgment calls were "wrong?" I've seen the replays, there doesn't look like much at all and, just like Grajeda, from my vantage point I doubt I'd call a foul. But there was a grab of the arm and definitely at least the hint of a foul. There have been and likely will be worse penalty decisions this year. Will USSF address all of them as bluntly, or did they pick this one because of the AR involvement and the time of the match? I also wonder how happy a Canadian FIFA AR (and the CSA) is about being called out publicly for blowing a game by another federation?

[MassachusettsRef]

Great, if we start seeing articles like this in the press I could envision it being the end of the WiR being publicly available. That would be a great loss but if people are going to use it as a way to further their criticism of referees, I have to imagine USSF would be motivated to move it behind "closed doors".Funny, I look at it from a completely different angle. USSF had to know, from a PR perspective, that this would happen eventually. When refereeing authorities come out publicly and say game-critical calls are erroneous, you have to presume the media will--quite rightly, I believe--pick up on it. Like it or not, it is newsworthy. I'm actually shocked it took this long to happen in a major media outfit and I suspect you'll see it a lot more going forward. If USSF's communications/media relations team (and I'm not talking about the referee department here) didn't foresee this, that says a lot about their competence.

[DavidP]

Twelve years later, I still remember the worst game of my life. It was also my last official game as a ref. I was at the point where simply I hated reffing, and probably should have given it up before then (I kept thinking things would change; silly me). It was fortunate for me that I had a conflict just about every weekend after that until the end of the season, so I could just bow out gracefully, instead of calling the assignor and telling her, "I've had enough! I quit!" I just told the high school ref assignor that I had "retired." I thought things would change a few years later, when I got involved with our church's Upward program, but nope, still hated it. You couldn't make me ref a game now, and you certainly couldn't pay me enough for me to do it of my own accord. I salute anyone who is still with it, and does their best, even though, according to some, their best is never good enough.

[shawn12011]

I am more bothered by the failure of the simple mechanics, as pointed out in the review. Play had stopped. The center did not make the call on his own but on the advice of the AR. Even if as the center you think there might and you treat the AR's flag as affirmation of that call you still confer. "I thought I saw something. What did you see to cause you to signal me?" Simple and does not take long. Instead an AR, with a worse angle interjects himself into a call.

Judgment calls can be discussed after a match forever and you still may not come away saying this or that needs to be fixed/changed. Bad procedures are easy to fix. Let's hope that these two have learned their lesson on mechanics.

[MassachusettsRef]

I am more bothered by the failure of the simple mechanics, as pointed out in the review. Play had stopped. The center did not make the call on his own but on the advice of the AR. Even if as the center you think there might and you treat the AR's flag as affirmation of that call you still confer. "I thought I saw something. What did you see to cause you to signal me?" Simple and does not take long. Instead an AR, with a worse angle interjects himself into a call.

Judgment calls can be discussed after a match forever and you still may not come away saying this or that needs to be fixed/changed. Bad procedures are easy to fix. Let's hope that these two have learned their lesson on mechanics.Two points. One a clarification and one a disagreement (at least in principle).

The disagreement is that the AR necessarily has the worse angle. He was further by distance, but that doesn't always mean he has the worse angle. I was on a match this Memorial Day where, as the AR, I could see a very clear DOGSO shirt pull even though it was probably 40 yards away from me. The CR had no shot because he was directly behind, chasing play (maybe 15-20 yards away). It's hard to say without being at field level, but it's very possible the AR has a better angle than the CR, despite the distance, if the (alleged) foul is on that side of the field.

The clarification is solely a reminder that there is audio equipment now on the officials. They can communicate through microphones. I'm not saying they did or didn't (we don't know). In fact, you might be accurate because Grajeda signals almost immediately (as he should on his ARs advice) but we don't see any visual talking into the mic after, though that could be do to dissent.

You, even if inadvertently, raise an interesting point. And that is the merit of going to the AR for a visual consultation even though you possess the radio equipment. In the NE/DC match, it didn't happen. Tonight, in the USMNT match, it didn't happen either but the radio communication was very clear and demonstrative. In the WC06 Final, Elizondo went over to his AR to show everyone how he got the information even though he didn't, technically, need to. It's one of the minor, minor aspects of officiating that not much time is spent discussing, but can go a long way toward selling a call with the thousands (or, in the case of the WC Final, billions) of people watching.

[John L]

Going from level to level with minimum number of hours or games plus training is NOT TRAINING - Its "Certification"

Training is working with teams while THEY TRAIN during the week to practice on things like off-side calls: For example

1) Defense tries the off-side trap or plays tight while half-back try to delay passes
2) Offense tries to beat the off-side trap or tight line defense with give & goes, diagonal runs, etc
3) Ref Crew tries to make the right call

Do this for 5-10 minutes - Study the tapes - Evaluate performance of all three groups - Repeat 4-5 times

(Obviously, Refs would train with a team they won't be scheduled to ref for about 3 weeks or so)

This is TRAINING - What goes on now is certifcation


To balance my comments on lack of training within the Referee programs, I always assert to teams I coach, "You players will always make more mistakes than the Refs" - And this occurs at every level - And for those who get heated about bad Refs, yeah as Bootsty said, try being a Ref for a couple of scrimmages for teams other than your own

[nonya]

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


6. I will respect the rights and dignity of all referees and I will not criticize them unless it is in private, constructive, and for their benfit.






hmph

[intechpc]

Going from level to level with minimum number of hours or games plus training is NOT TRAINING - Its "Certification"

Training is working with teams while THEY TRAIN during the week to practice on things like off-side calls: For example

1) Defense tries the off-side trap or plays tight while half-back try to delay passes
2) Offense tries to beat the off-side trap or tight line defense with give & goes, diagonal runs, etc
3) Ref Crew tries to make the right call

Do this for 5-10 minutes - Study the tapes - Evaluate performance of all three groups - Repeat 4-5 times

(Obviously, Refs would train with a team they won't be scheduled to ref for about 3 weeks or so)

This is TRAINING - What goes on now is certifcation


To balance my comments on lack of training within the Referee programs, I always assert to teams I coach, "You players will always make more mistakes than the Refs" - And this occurs at every level - And for those who get heated about bad Refs, yeah as Bootsty said, try being a Ref for a couple of scrimmages for teams other than your own

NFL referees do not work with teams while they train during the week, NBA referees do not work with teams while they train during the week, MLB upires do no work with teams while they train during the week. So where do you come up with this as the only true form of training?

Referees in all of the major sports go through post-game analysis of their performance. In MLS and I believe most pro-level USSF assignments, there is an assessor or multiple assessors on-site to evaluate the performance of the entire referee crew. Video evidence is used along with the assessors' written observations to discuss areas that need improvement. MLS has even hired a number of referees as Full-Time referees, meaning they're constantly in training because this is their full-time job. But even for the ones who aren't, don't make the mistake of thinking the only games these guys do are the ones you see on TV. All of the MLS referees work other lower level assignments as well. This to me provides ample opportunity for them to apply what they've learned from their assessments before the next pro match.

Beyond the re-certification and assessments, all referees do attend other clinics as well. These are often a part of high profile tournaments. At lower levels 8, 7, 6, 5 and even some nationals these clinics are a part of the Youth Regional and National Championship tournaments. Here too, all referees are evaluated on their performance in EVERY game. The assessments are given following the game so the referees can immediately apply the lessons in their next matches.

Finally, don't forget the week in review and other published articles that the USSF makes available to referees. These are also very useful tools and if you read them and watch the referees from week to week in MLS, you'll see them applying exactly what was discussed.

There's quite a bit of training going on that you may not be aware of. I can't speak to what the FA offers but I know that USSF is making a great deal of effort to constantly improve referee quality in the US. I can tell you that I receive much of the training discussed below as a Grade 7 referee (the clinics at regionals, reading all documents from USSF< etc) and it does help. At the same time, I do still make mistakes on the field. You'll never remove that human element from the game. It's a game played by people and officiated by people therefore mistakes will always be made by both players and officials.

[shawn12011]

I agree in principle with all that you say. I will clarify one thing though that it is my belief that the AR's has a worse angle/view in this case only. You are correct that in several cases the AR does have a better view. I have seen that be the case as well.

I also was aware of the headsets. I however think that despite the technology you can only benefit from a face to face consult on such a critical call.




Two points. One a clarification and one a disagreement (at least in principle).

The disagreement is that the AR necessarily has the worse angle. He was further by distance, but that doesn't always mean he has the worse angle. I was on a match this Memorial Day where, as the AR, I could see a very clear DOGSO shirt pull even though it was probably 40 yards away from me. The CR had no shot because he was directly behind, chasing play (maybe 15-20 yards away). It's hard to say without being at field level, but it's very possible the AR has a better angle than the CR, despite the distance, if the (alleged) foul is on that side of the field.

The clarification is solely a reminder that there is audio equipment now on the officials. They can communicate through microphones. I'm not saying they did or didn't (we don't know). In fact, you might be accurate because Grajeda signals almost immediately (as he should on his ARs advice) but we don't see any visual talking into the mic after, though that could be do to dissent.

You, even if inadvertently, raise an interesting point. And that is the merit of going to the AR for a visual consultation even though you possess the radio equipment. In the NE/DC match, it didn't happen. Tonight, in the USMNT match, it didn't happen either but the radio communication was very clear and demonstrative. In the WC06 Final, Elizondo went over to his AR to show everyone how he got the information even though he didn't, technically, need to. It's one of the minor, minor aspects of officiating that not much time is spent discussing, but can go a long way toward selling a call with the thousands (or, in the case of the WC Final, billions) of people watching.

[DadOf6]

Going from level to level with minimum number of hours or games plus training is NOT TRAINING - Its "Certification"

Training is working with teams while THEY TRAIN during the week to practice on things like off-side calls: For example

1) Defense tries the off-side trap or plays tight while half-back try to delay passes
2) Offense tries to beat the off-side trap or tight line defense with give & goes, diagonal runs, etc
3) Ref Crew tries to make the right call

Do this for 5-10 minutes - Study the tapes - Evaluate performance of all three groups - Repeat 4-5 times

(Obviously, Refs would train with a team they won't be scheduled to ref for about 3 weeks or so)

This is TRAINING - What goes on now is certifcation


To balance my comments on lack of training within the Referee programs, I always assert to teams I coach, "You players will always make more mistakes than the Refs" - And this occurs at every level - And for those who get heated about bad Refs, yeah as Bootsty said, try being a Ref for a couple of scrimmages for teams other than your own

In that case I would argue that no professional league TRAINS officials.

What league does that? I would love to see a link so I can see how it works.

Certification is not what you say it is either. Certification is the process of making sure that the requirements are met. Learning the LOTG is not certifiction, taking a test to prove that I know the laws certifies (proves) that I understand the laws. Refereeing the correct number of games to upgrade (and in some cases maintain) is not certifiaction, but providing the game list certifies that you have done so. Passing the required number of assessments certify that the referee can at a level sufficient to merit the upgrade (or maintain the grade) and that the ref can properly apply the LOTG to what happens on the field.

How would your training work? There is a fundamental disconnect in the goals of the team and of the referees. Do we keep having the team run an offside trap drill over and over until they happen to get one that is so close that the referee is challanged? Who decides if the referee is correct? I regularly watch MLS training and the opportunities for meaningful referee training are not there. They start with small-sided drills, and progress to larger ones. Almost every drill has restrictions that help the players work on the things that the coaches want to emphasize. They start each practice slow and work up to full speed. The first day they train they don't get up to full speed, it isn't until the last practice before the game that they go all out and be then the coaching staff is working on the game plan for the next team they face. I cannot imagine a coach agreeing to modify his training to accomodate training a referee.

And how in heaven's name do we train for no-foul/foul/reckless/careless recognition? In my opinion that is the most common and most serious shortcoming that we see in referees at all levels. "OK guys, the refs need to work on fouls. John and Mark, I want you to start fouling on your tackles. If you get the ref stright-lined go in studs up."

I'm sure our coaches will love offering that service as long as it helps train the refs.

The assessment progam is designed to do the same thing. As a referee progresses the percentage of games that are assessed increases. All professional games are assessed, MLS games are assesses by two national assessors and the ref is given a tape of his game that he has to evaluate and report on.

Assessments are not anonymous reports turned in to management. Part of an assessment is a face-to-face between the referee and assessor. They can be brutal (meaning frank discussions, not meanness).

Then there are tournaments. There are some that are used as intense training grounds for promising referees. They are important enough that some of the best referees in the country are not assigned pro games because they are need to mentor the up-and-coming referees. I can't say much more because I have not participated in any of these tournamants, but I have heard from people who have.

I have had the opportunity to sit next to a national assessor during an MLS match. He kept up a running commentary on what he was seeing. during lulls he would answer questions. I learned tons just by listening to him. I did not get to listen when he met with the referee team.

There are also mentoring programs that when done well will train the referee much better than what you propose.

[2wheels]

The original link is dead, so I'm not sure if the article made clear (and therefore the original poster would know) that the USSF Weeks in Review are regular documents that single out mistakes on a weekly basis. I know that wouldn't' soothe the anger of a DC fan, but if the article implies that USSF went out of there way in extraordinary circumstances to say these calls were wrong--rather than stating that the analysis of such calls is part of a weekly process--while, that's some shoddy reporting.

The Washington Post article resides here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060503275.html). It was written by one Mr Steven Goff (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060503012.html).


Here's a question: How many decisions does a referee make in a game and how many of those are correct?

From my experience, from an adult men's league mid-season match, 3-man crew, there are between 110-135 calls where referee makes a decision; out of these, my own assessment is that between 85% to 90% calls are correctly made and are also fair and timely. That is the ratio of incorrect + missed calls is between 1of6 to 1of10.

What would the participants on this forum predict about their call ratio-range?

[Rufusabc]

you are saying that YOU as the ref make between 10 to 15 mistakes PER game?

NFW.