Are soccer officals the most criticized in mainstream sports? Why?

[Ref Flunkie]

After watching games and reading the MLS/Referee sections of this board, I have got to thinking about why the heck soccer officials, from U-9 to pro, seem to get the most grief out of all officials in sport. Perhaps I have this view because I am one, but beyond a missed pass interference call or a phantom high stick or a missed tag, I just don't see the same level criticism/whining in other sports. Here are my opinions as to why this is the case (no particular order)

1. Soccer is low scoring, magnifying PK calls and other close to the goal fouls (of course so is hockey)

2. Low number of PK/scoring opportunity foul calls are even made, meaning they are examined closely each time they are made/not made.

3. Crazy soccer fans :).

4. Only 1 CR, making it easier to say he/she was wrong compared to saying an entire crew (basketball, football, hockey) was wrong.



I'm sure there are more, and I'm sure there are exceptions to these rules, but I'm just curious if people feel the way I do, and if they have any input into this discussion.

[Craig P]

The typical hockey crew of two ARs and a referee is comparable to a soccer crew of two ARs and a CR, in both number and responsibility. And hockey referees catch a ton of flack at the college level... if you take the critics seriously, there might be two good ones out there, in total (among all four major plus two mid-major conferences... Hockey East uses five different referees and I'd expect the others to use at least as many).

Having said that, I don't think NHL-level officials catch the same amount of grief as MLS-level (even World Cup-level) soccer officials. But maybe that's just because I'm involved in a lot more college hockey discussions than I am NHL discussions.

[Ref Flunkie]

Yeah I guess I was thinking NHL that has 2 referees and two ARs....I guess college hasnt gotten to that point yet. Thats good, I didn't realize college hockey officials got that much grief.

[AndyMead]

Home plate umpires take more abuse than any other sports official known to mankind.

[billf]

NHL referees receive merciless grief. They have a tougher job I think because of the speed and physical nature of the game, but they also have a two referee system that is still fairly new and that most fans detest. As a result, the NHL blooded a number of very young officials all at once on top of those retained due to the NHL's expansion. These guys are full time and the fans know them by name, face, and tendancies. In fact, about nine years ago, the NHL took names off the backs of the referee's shirts and replaced them with numbers to make them more anonynmous. I think that's helped a little, but all a fan needs to do is look up a number before calling for the referee's head.

From what I remember playing hockey, reffing is much worse at the youth levels than it is for soccer as well. USA Hockey and the Canadian Hockey Association have gone to great length to address this stuff recently as recruitment and retention of officials has been difficult in the wake of a number of incidents around north america.

Of the 30 or so referees regularly working in the NHL, I can think of maybe two who would be regarded as competent and fair by a braod cross-section of NHL fans.

Let's put it this way. I played ice hockey and soccer for decades. I was actually a much better hockey player and I'm a good enough skater that I could have worked some pretty good games as an ice hockey referee. When I decided to get into officiating, the choice between hockey and soccer was easy. I knew soccer better for one, but I also knew hockey presented a much more dangerous environment.

I think most of the complaints about refereeing in soccer is based on some misunderstanding of the laws. In hockey what upsets people is uneven application of the rules. Sometimes, you ignore them and let the boys play. At other times, strange crap is called on what seems to be a whim. That really burns people.

[Ref Flunkie]

I think most of the complaints about refereeing in soccer is based on some misunderstanding of the laws. In hockey what upsets people is uneven application of the rules. Sometimes, you ignore them and let the boys play. At other times, strange crap is called on what seems to be a whim. That really burns people.


I think this is where hockey and soccer are different than most other sports, the referee has much more leway on how the rules are applied. I'm not sure I agree that the complaints in soccer come from misunderstanding the laws, most of the MLS complaining seems to center around match control.

I guess this may also differ when you look at die hard fans and casual fans. I consider myself a casual NHL fan and usually have no issues with referees. However, you seem to indicate many out there feel there are only 1-2 good refs in the NHL. Perhaps this is true with MLS as well.

[MassachusettsRef]

I think, that at a pro and international level, soccer referees take the most criticism for two reasons (with hockey a close second):

1) They are 'personalities' more than officials in any other sport
2) The ability for players to dissent openly with minimal reprecussion

First, as some have pointed out, there is only one CR. At the top levels, even hockey has 2 'center' referees now. Soccer is the one team sport where nearly all the decision-making truly rests with a sole official. Combine that with the fact that, especially with international matches, there is a tradition of publishing a referee's name (and nationality) publicly, and referees become well-known to fans quite quickly. Like bill said, hockey referees have been pesronalities in the past (Stewart, VanHellemond), and some still are (Fraser, Magoo, McCreary, etc.) but with the removal of the name on the back of the shirt and the mandatory use of helmets for all new referees, that is quickly changing. Not many hockey fans know what the newer NHL referees look like, but most MLS fans could easily pick Brian Hall, Kevin Stott and Noel Kenny out of a lineup. Also, as someone said, hockey and soccer are the two sports where referees have the most discretion (with the notable exception of a baseball home plate umpire) and this can lead to some controversial calls (diving in both sports, penalties and cards in soccer, 5-on-3's and majors in hockey). In addition, hockey and soccer are the two sports where an ejection for a foul from dynamic play is most possible (serious foul play or game misconduct), and ejections always breed controversy and help to development resentment. Plus, ejections in soccer mean a team plays a man down, and an ejection in hockey is a 5 minute power play. Ultimately, not only do soccer and hockey referees have the most discretion, they also have the most power (I haven't even mentioned, as some have, the ability for officials to disallow goals in such low-scoring games).

The second issue, that no one has raised yet, is dissent from players. In hockey, if you dissent more than the 'you've got to be kidding me' hand gesture and few choice words, you get a 10 minute misconduct. If you dissent too much in baseball, you're gone. Dissent in the NBA gets you a technical and your opponent two foul shots and the ball. Dissent in football (rare because of helmets, mouthguards and the play clock) can get you a 15 yard penalty. In soccer, it gets you a yellow card IF the referee chooses to issue it. Because a yellow card is halfway to an ejection (and an 11 v. 10 advantage) most referees are very hesitant for issuing a card for minimal dissent (and those that aren't hesistant are instantly despised by fans). Plus, that yellow card only takes care of that one player (maybe) and could lead to even more dissent from teammates. Also, soccer is the one sport where players really have the time to dissent (at stoppages, or even during the run of play).
Anyway, my point is that this dissent on the field--the minimal kind of throwing your arms in the air when you feel a referee has missed a call or protesting slightly but constantly--helps to magnify 'controversial' calls and incite fans against referees.

That fact, coupled with the fact that referees are 'personalities' and are recognized when they return to stadiums, help to make soccer officials the most criticized/analyzed in team sports.

[Craig P]

I think hockey has a more pervasive problem with officiating standards changing with the situation in the match (a penalty called anywhere on the ice has much more of a potential impact on the outcome of the game than does a foul called at midfield). In fact, that disparate impact may drive a lot of the trouble generally. The analog in soccer, where referees will call a looser game in the penalty area, seems to have a much lower impact. Also, I tend to think that officials judge more infractions to be trifling in hockey than they do in soccer, but that's just an off-the-cuff guess. The result is that the line between penalty and not can get fuzzy, and I'm not sure anybody (myself included) really understands the finer points of match control. (On that point, I think discussion in the referee forum here has also been a little educational in appreciation of hockey officiating for me.)


If I may digress a bit about college ice hockey officials...
In Hockey East, the college conference with which I am most familiar, there are five referees. Two are vilified on a regular basis (Conrad Hache and Jeff Bunyon), one is generally considered lacking although not with the same vehemence as the previous pair (Tim Benedetto), and two are generally considered competent (John Gravellese and Scott Hansen). People have really mellowed on Gravellese, though (not sure if his officiating has improved or people are just judging him by lowered standards among his colleagues) -- he used to be considered incompetent, although I never felt that Northeastern got slighted in the games he officiated -- and I've seen Hansen take his share of heat.

One widely-respected CCHA official (Steve Piotrowski) is reviled by Maine fans for a) throwing Shawn Walsh out of his final game as a coach (although they mainly seem to be angry because they thought Walsh's tirade was righteous, not because they thought it undeserving of an ejection) and b) calling a penalty on Maine in OT of the national championship game the following season on a borderline play and then failing to "even up" when the Minnesota goaltender committed a marginal infraction a minute or so later.

Then again, the opinions on the on-ice officiating in the Frozen Four this year seem to be largely positive -- the questions are mainly reserved for the replay decisions. In particular, the championship ref called two penalties on Denver in the last two minutes of the game, while Denver was holding a one-goal lead. At the time, I figured that at least would get Maine into overtime, but I also felt they were correct calls and I applauded the referee's courage in making them.

[Ref Flunkie]

The second issue, that no one has raised yet, is dissent from players. In hockey, if you dissent more than the 'you've got to be kidding me' hand gesture and few choice words, you get a 10 minute misconduct. If you dissent too much in baseball, you're gone. Dissent in the NBA gets you a technical and your opponent two foul shots and the ball. Dissent in football (rare because of helmets, mouthguards and the play clock) can get you a 15 yard penalty. In soccer, it gets you a yellow card IF the referee chooses to issue it. Because a yellow card is halfway to an ejection (and an 11 v. 10 advantage) most referees are very hesitant for issuing a card for minimal dissent (and those that aren't hesistant are instantly despised by fans). Plus, that yellow card only takes care of that one player (maybe) and could lead to even more dissent from teammates. Also, soccer is the one sport where players really have the time to dissent (at stoppages, or even during the run of play).
Anyway, my point is that this dissent on the field--the minimal kind of throwing your arms in the air when you feel a referee has missed a call or protesting slightly but constantly--helps to magnify 'controversial' calls and incite fans against referees.

Hmmm I had not thought of this one. I do agree that it is difficult to give out a caution for every bit of dissent beyond the "what a bad call" remark. Basically we equate that to a harsh tackle or other cautionable PLAY, so some referees do not feel right about cautioning a player for a non-play (is that a word???). I guess a question I have is could something be instituted to penalize the dissenting player instead of a caution (which could come later if dissent continues)? I know we should use "stern words", but with today's youth that has little consequence (not like they listen to their parents or anything). I'm just thinking off the top of my head, but I do agree dissent may be a big part of the problem.

As for home plate umpires, I think if they are consistant with their zone, people do not mind as much, however even if a referee is consistant, he will be critcized if he does not call a game as certain people see that it should be called. Just my observation.

[billf]

Refs in the NHL take a lot of verbal abuse too. You can't continue to pop cards for every bit of lip, but you also can't keep putting guys in the box for two minutes or ten minutes either. If you ever sit behind the bench for an NHL or AHL game, you'd be amazed at the lip the refs and linesmen take.

[MassachusettsRef]

Refs in the NHL take a lot of verbal abuse too. You can't continue to pop cards for every bit of lip, but you also can't keep putting guys in the box for two minutes or ten minutes either. If you ever sit behind the bench for an NHL or AHL game, you'd be amazed at the lip the refs and linesmen take.Oh, I agree Bill. But, you make a key point. You basically have to be sitting behind the bench to pick up on dissent in the NHL. Fans in the balcony or watching at home don't usually pick up on it. Or, if they do, they don't equate it with being directed at a certain referee. Only the demonstratively visual dissent (like banging the stick against the boards or shooting away the puck after a whistle) is seen by all, and that is almost always penalized with a minor or a misconduct.

[billf]

Oh, I agree Bill. But, you make a key point. You basically have to be sitting behind the bench to pick up on dissent in the NHL. Fans in the balcony or watching at home don't usually pick up on it. Or, if they do, they don't equate it with being directed at a certain referee. Only the demonstratively visual dissent (like banging the stick against the boards or shooting away the puck after a whistle) is seen by all, and that is almost always penalized with a minor or a misconduct.

That's true, but the one thing that I've noticed the last few years is teams playing one ref off the other which is never good. The real obvious dissent is what's bad about soccer because it is so demonstrative. The clip of Spencer "saluting" an AR last year is a good example of that. I've never seen something like that in the NHL, but I did see a former Flyer punch a linesman during the mid 80s.

[Craig the Aussie]

I think it depends on what the major sport around is, and what gets picked up most by the media. Here for example, Aussie Rules umpires and Rugby League referess cop a huge amount. Noone except his mum would have heard of any soccer referees. Aussie Rules probably get the worst abuse - because the rules leave a lot up to interpretation, and given that there are 3 field umpires due to the huge size of the field and the speed with which play moves, interpretations can differ during the one match.

It is traditional here to boo and abuse the umpires as they enter the field - before they have even done anything. When they changed from their traditional all-white uniforms to coloured uniforms last year, part of the reason was to get away from the standard epithet of "white maggots" hurled at them by all & sundry. There is a big scandal here at the moment because one of the top players said on a footbal TV panel show that in his opinion one particular umpire was a disgrace and biased against his club.

[Crowdie]

There is a big scandal here at the moment because one of the top players said on a footbal TV panel show that in his opinion one particular umpire was a disgrace and biased against his club.

That wouldn't be more scandal on the Footy Show :-)

Crowdie

[Craig the Aussie]

That wouldn't be more scandal on the Footy Show :-)

Crowdie

Yep - James Hird about umpire McLaren

[bostonsoccermdl]

1. Soccer is low scoring, magnifying PK calls and other close to the goal fouls (of course so is hockey)

2. Low number of PK/scoring opportunity foul calls are even made, meaning they are examined closely each time they are made/not made.


4. Only 1 CR, making it easier to say he/she was wrong compared to saying an entire crew (basketball, football, hockey) was wrong.


Id agree with these. The main reason is related to the first one mentioned. Chances can be rare for either team, and this causes people and announcers to always say "remember that call made in the 18th minute.."

This coupled with interpretation leaves a gray area where the ref will undoubtley catch flack from the side losing out on the call. This grey area of interpretation varies from ref to ref, but the the ref has to be able to sell the call through body language (be confident, and sure of himself), and the best ones stay consistant during the game...

This is the biggest weakness of refs in my opinion.

I also believe linesman are much to quick to panic and call offside on a 50/50 call. It is always easier to call the play back on a close call, than it is to let it go on and risk a goal... This is a big problem in my book. To steal a phrase from baseball "tie goes to the runner." I wish if there was any question, the offensive player would get the benefit of the doubt, for the spirit of the game.. This very rarely happens. Especially in high level european games. The linesman are terrified of letting a controversial, yet fare goal get scored.

I am sure the purists will hate this..

[Caesar]

To steal a phrase from baseball "tie goes to the runner." I wish if there was any question, the offensive player would get the benefit of the doubt, for the spirit of the game.. This very rarely happens.
This is in fact FIFA's official line - the benefit of any doubt in any situation should go to the attacker.

I think you are correct in what you say about assistant referees being cautious however. I think one factor that this can be attributed to (as much as we would like to deny it) is the public reaction to a mistake... an incorrect call resulting in a lost opportunity is always going to draw less flak than an incorrect call resulting in a goal.

Not how it should be, but there you go.

[Ref Flunkie]

I think you are correct in what you say about assistant referees being cautious however. I think one factor that this can be attributed to (as much as we would like to deny it) is the public reaction to a mistake... an incorrect call resulting in a lost opportunity is always going to draw less flak than an incorrect call resulting in a goal.



Totally agree, and this is even true for centers and PKs. Benefit of the doubt always seems to go to the defender because we don't want the center to "decide the game" (whatever that means!!).

[whipple]

Totally agree, and this is even true for centers and PKs. Benefit of the doubt always seems to go to the defender because we don't want the center to "decide the game" (whatever that means!!).

This speaks to the very roots of the sport. Originally the referee (he who one refers to on matters of the law) was not on the field at all and did not have the authority to stop play. Only when the captains could not agree did they request the referee's intervention.

I saw some old prints of a game being played at an English public school back around the turn of the century. The referee was sitting in a tower along the touchline. like a tennis judge or lifeguard. One of the prints shows a player, the captain I assume, raising his arm, and the referee on the tower standing and signalling direction.

The problem is that the minute they put us on the field and gave us a whistle we became an outside interference. We have powers and duties, but also a responsibility embodied in Law 5; IBD 8 or "V8".

The point is that when you are out there bumbling about in someone else's game, irrespective of our lofty motives, we are going to piss someone off.

Sherman

[Craig P]

Totally agree, and this is even true for centers and PKs. Benefit of the doubt always seems to go to the defender because we don't want the center to "decide the game" (whatever that means!!).For whatever reason, it seems to be a given for many people that deciding the game by not making a call is a lesser evil than deciding the game by making a call. That's not my personal opinion, but I suspect I'm in a minority (generally speaking, not specifically in this forum).