A slice of humble pie

[Statesman]

"Even when the referee is wrong, the referee is right."
"I know I'm right because I'm the referee."
"I'm the referee, this gives me supernatural abilities to see things no mere mortal can see."

Just a few paraphrased quips I've noticed off and on throughout our discussions. Although said in jest, I can't help but wonder how many of us take them to heart. Do we really believe we can do no wrong? That we can see things nobody else can see?

How many of us here (present company included) have felt the desire to respond to a thread solely to demonstrate our own knowledge? To show off? An adequate answer to the original thread is already well stated, yet we still succumb to that inner desire to throw our two cents in. Often, what we share isn't even worth two cents. Posts are made solely as an act of posturing with little substance - painfully clear to all who read it, yet not something anyone wishes to point out to avoid an argument.

We all know the mantra - We are servants of the game. We are there for the players; it's their game, not ours. And yet here we are, doing what we can to make ourselves look and sound as good as possible, accurate reflection of reality be damned. I'll be the first to admit I've certainly come across as the know-it-all at times, making a post repeating what has already been stated with my own spin. Or cracked a joke about how perfect I am on the pitch because I'm the referee, and when I'm wrong I'm still right. Or describe how I handled that tough situation where I cautioned #19 because it was clear to me (and only me) that I would get some game control from it.

Maybe as an exercise we should all make an extra effort to actually evaluate what we are itching to write. Ask, does it really contribute to what has already been said? Is our intention truly to help and share, nothing more? Is our jokes about our perfection and divinity only a joke? Are our anecdotes really that informative, or are we just posturing?

Afterall, actions do speak louder than words - sometimes replying with a superfluous post says more about our refereeing knowledge than the content of the post itself.

[USSF REF]

[QUOTE=StatesmanHow many of us here (present company included) have felt the desire to respond to a thread solely to demonstrate our own knowledge? To show off? An adequate answer to the original thread is already well stated, yet we still succumb to that inner desire to throw our two cents in.
[/QUOTE]

To some degree, I think this is what a bulletin board is designed for.

Aside from that, I think what you had to say is really good.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

I like hearing the multiple opinions from various referees on this forum, even if a question is already answered. Most of the topics on this forum very quickly veer off topic anyway, and if everyone just stopped the discussion after the question has been answered, we wouldn't get the benefit of those "tangents".

For most of us, the purpose of posting here is to ultimately become a better referee, and to do that we need to hear as much as possible from our fellow referees.

But all that said, i was actually thinking about this last night, but not in reference to this forum, but in reference to referee meetings in general. I've now been to three; the original clinic i attended to become a referee, the upgrade clinic, and a general referee meeting for AYSO. Now you think this forum is about posturing and trying to sound smart? Attend an AYSO Intermediate clinic, and you'll know the true definition! Every student thinks he's a teacher, or more adequately, every student thinks he's THE teacher, and one can't even get a sentence in without someone interrupting you to tell you that you meant "kicks or attempts to kick" rather than "kicking", followed by some additional words of wisdom. Sadly, it even got to the point in my clinic where i was actually rooting AGAINST a fellow referee for the final exam, just to see him humbled (he ended up missing the passing score by one question).

I'm actually much happier with the way this forum goes compared to the spitting contests that referee clinics seem to become. At least everyone here gets to fully express themselves without being disregarded because he said "yellow" instead of "caution".

But anyway, as long as our humility is in the form of a Shepherd's Pie, i'll share a bit (i don't eat sweets).

[Ref Flunkie]

I think this simply comes down to the fact that we are professionals doing a job and we want to do that job well. With a bulletin board setting, 99% of the people here have never seen another poster referee. So in order to give ourselves some credibility, we have to advertise our abilities. Honestly, we did not respond to posts with answers already given, I think each of us would have about 5 total posts to our name. How do we make it known that we know all the tricky rules? By posting them, even if it is already posted. I think if this was a local message board where everyone knew everyone else personally, I do not think you would get the same chest puffing that you get here....which is fine I think. It makes me feel good when 10 other people have the same opinion that I do (and post it). I'm the first to admit I don't know everything, nor do I claim to, so if I have the guts to be the first to post an opinion, I like it if others chime in and say "Yeah, that's what I would do too".

As for your I comments, I think that comes down to the fact that so much in soccer is In the opinion of the referee which makes many of our decisions on the field unique to that referee. There are very few instances where everyone agrees on what should have happened, so you have to put the "I" into everything because it is truly what YOU would do, not what EVERYONE would/should do. Just my thoughts.

[macheath]

I actually find the discussion on this board better than most others I've seen (soc-ref l for example), where boards get hijacked by a couple of posters, who either fight endlessly with each other, or yak on and on with pointless stories. I agree on thinking twice about the point you want to make, and not piling on unnecessarily. But all in all, this board has pretty temperate opinions, and people behave themselves pretty well...in the opinion of this referee (sorry, had to do it...)

[Statesman]

Don't get me wrong, I think this forum does an excellent job and I'm not discouraging posts that do contribute a point. However, I also see many posts that do not contribute anything.

That aside, my emphasis is that while we all do talk about how we are there to serve the game and that it isn't about us, our word and action can reflect we aren't practicing what we preach. Some posts in this forum do just that.

[Ref Flunkie]

Don't get me wrong, I think this forum does an excellent job and I'm not discouraging posts that do contribute a point. However, I also see many posts that do not contribute anything.

That aside, my emphasis is that while we all do talk about how we are there to serve the game and that it isn't about us, our word and action can reflect we aren't practicing what we preach. Some posts in this forum do just that.

I hear what you are saying, but I think if you go out there with a "I am your humble servant" attitude, you may get eaten alive by the teams. I think comments like "As the referee, whether I'm right or wrong, I'm right", are there more to give us confidence and to not second guess ourselves if players/coaches/parents object, not to make ourselves out as gods or something. I do think some referees act a bit far into the deity side, but for us lower level referees, I think the more confidence we have in ourselves, the more likely we are to survive the day's game.

[Alberto]

Well, from a moderating standpoint all are entitled to an opinion. Therefore, in the interest of preserving the freedom of expression granted by the Constitution and as long as there are no violations to the terms of service, I am willing to allow people the right to express their ideas and viewpoints regardless of whether they are correct or not. I am certainly not going to edit or censure someone because they express an opinion contrary to the facts with respect to restarts (easy to refute by moderators and posters) or their opinions regarding interpretation of the LOTG (more difficult to do unless a memorandum was issued), because it is incorrect. Given that context is everything in soccer and life, I am willing to cut someone slack with respect to how they dealt with matters of interpretation. I find that if someone makes an erroneous statement with respect to restarts or the official position from FIFA or the USSF, someone will correct the poster quite quickly and repeatedly to the point of beating the proverbial dead horses with a stick.

[Wreave]

Maybe as an exercise we should all make an extra effort to actually evaluate what we are itching to write. Ask, does it really contribute to what has already been said? Is our intention truly to help and share, nothing more?

Afterall, actions do speak louder than words - sometimes replying with a superfluous post says more about our refereeing knowledge than the content of the post itself.

FROM THE INFAMOUS SOCK COLOR THREAD

Typically a "soft-billed" hat is your run of the mill baseball cap (cardboard) whereas a hard-billed hat is a helmet (plastic). If AYSO etc. considers a baseball cap as hard-billed then who knows.

Maybe not the best source in the world, but this is from drix.net/jim, and this is an answer given WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE USSF to an emailed question.
http://www.drix.net/jim/past043.html
All the way at the bottom:

USSF answer (June 16, 2004):
The USSF publication "Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game" advises referees:
QUOTE
4.4 GOALKEEPER UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
Under Law 4, goalkeepers must wear a jersey color distinct from the players of both teams. In addition, goalkeepers traditionally wear items of clothing besides those prescribed under Law 4. These items include soft hats or caps, gloves, pants with special hip or thigh pads, jerseys with pads along the elbows and arms, and separate pads for knees or elbows. There is no problem as long as these items of clothing do not present a danger to any players, are of a color distinct from the uniforms of players of either team and are, in the opinion of the referee, clearly related to the goalkeeper's function. The referee should prevent any player other than the goalkeeper from wearing an item of clothing or equipment that is permitted to the goalkeeper under these criteria.
If the two goalkeepers' shirts are the same color and neither has another shirt to change into, the referee shall allow the match to proceed.
END OF QUOTE
Traditionally the goalkeeper is allowed to wear a soft-billed cap, but there are few of those around any longer and baseball caps are generally allowed. However, the referee is the sole judge of the permissibility of these items, which must meet the requirement in Law 4 that it not be dangerous to any player. For other guidance, refer to the USSF memorandum of March 7, 2003, on player equipment.
Preventing a goalkeeper from wearing a baseball cap is overworking the principle of safety. Some referees get hung up on this matter by the term "baseball cap" and they fail to recognize the difference between the "baseball cap" worn by batters, which is rigid plastic (and clearly not permissible in a soccer match), and the "baseball cap" which is cloth with a cardboard stiffened brim. Sometime somewhere they have heard from someone that "baseball caps" are not allowed and they now lump all of them together . . . instead of using their head.

Thanks Chas.

I've been taught at AYSO, as I'm sure you have, not to allow hard-brimmed baseball caps. However, AYSO's Guidance for Referees and Coaches (the AYSO ATR, as it were) does not mention them at all.

I don't like how flippant Jim Allen is about some safety issues. He's not a sports injury expert, he's a ref. I'd rather hear him say, "USSF medical advisors agree that a standard baseball cap does not present an unreasonable safety hazard", rather than making an awfully silly assumption about our understanding of the difference between a batting helmet and a field cap. But what can you do? For USSF, he's the law.

Regarding matching uniforms, this is explicitly left up to the competition authority to decide. Reason being is that soccer is played globally, and sometimes getting matching uniforms is not economically possible. If FIFA mandates all uniforms be... well, uniform then in some areas they wouldn't meet the requirements of the LOTG.

Actually, the word "uniform" doesn't even appear in the laws. However, in the Q&A 4.2, it says:

"According to Law 4, the players of each team and their goalkeepers must wear jerseys or shirts of different colours to distinguish them from the other players. Must the referee and the assistant referees wear clothes with different colours to the players?

No. The players and goalkeepers must wear clothing that distinguishes them from the referee and assistant referees."

Now, the question actually goes to the issue of whether the players or the refs are required to change clothes, and the answer is that the players are. However, the beginning of the question makes an interesting statement:

"According to Law 4, the players of each team and their goalkeepers must wear jerseys or shirts of different colours to distinguish them from the other players." Two issues:

1. I cannot find this statement in Law 4.
2. It only addresses the jerseys, not the shorts or socks.

Now, the Law states that thermal undershorts must match the main color of the shorts, but they don't say that the players' shorts have to match each other.

Not to be a grinch here, but...

You all obviously haven't refereed enough in India, Ghana, or Belize where people are so dirt poor they are lucky to have *any* socks at all to play the game, much less matching ones.

Do not forget that the Laws of the Game are purposefully broad to ensure that anyone who wishes to play the game in a fair spirit may play. This includes everyone, all around the world. The Laws are flexible to allow everyone to be equal on the playing field. "Equality, safety, enjoyment," remember? If you go back to when I was playing, Law 4 didn't even mention mandatory equipment, and the Spirit of the Law remains. The whole point is players being able to distinguish their team from their opponents.

c. 1976 LOTG Law IV, IFAB Decision (1) "The usual equipment of a player is a jersey or shirt, shorts, stockings and footwear. In a match played under the rules of a competition, players need not wear boots or shoes, but shall wear jersey or shirt, shorts, or track suit, or similar trousers, and stockings."

All this is covered in rules of competition by leagues, not in the Laws, for every sensible reason. Players are not there for the convenience of the referee. They just want to play, so let them get on with it. This is a non-issue. Use some common sense, folks.

That being the case, most leagues require both socks to match, or at least be similar enough to appear uniform. I don't believe USYSA or USSF provides for mismatched socks in any sanctioned competition - no red on one leg, blue on the other.

To quote from the 2005 ATR: [i]"It is implicit in the Law that each side wear a distinctively colored jersey, that shorts and socks be uniform for each team, and that the uniforms be distinguishable from the uniforms worn by the other team." [i]If you're not in the US, that doesn't help you, but for those of us that are, that's as clear of direction as you could ask for.

And for those who don't judge last touch by sock color - sometimes that's all you see when you have a group of players bunched together and a leg stabs the ball out of bounds. You might not consciously realize you utilize the sock color, but I guarantee all of us have at some point.

I may have my head wedged but I seem to remember a question on Jim Allen's site and he said they were to wear socks of the same color. I know I HATE it when teams show up in one red and one blue and the other team is either red or blue.

Just so we're clear, my only real issue with sock mismatch is when when one team is wearing one sock that is the same color as socks of the other team.

I did a GU15 game last fall where one team had white socks, and one team had black socks. Except that *some* of the girls on the black-sock team thought it would be cool to wear one white sock and one black sock. Did it make it a little harder for both out-of-play and kicking/tripping calls? Yes. Was it a crisis? No.

I'm certainly not asking for the Laws to say that socks must match, though it would be nice to get a line in there that the teams must be distinguishable. As it is written, so long as the keepers are different from the refs and from each other, play on. USSF does say so, and I guess it's up to local leagues to make any more stringent rules (such as matching socks).

You're right, Statesman... actions do speak louder than words.

[whipple]

I believe boards such as this are a very healthy way for referees to expand their view of the game and the role the referee plays in it. Until one gets to the higher levels of officiating, experience is our primary teacher. The vast majority of referees benefit little from assessment and advanced instruction and rarely do we have an opportunity to expose and explore those areas of our officiating where we may have doubts or insecurities, in spite of the confidence we may exhibit on the field.

When we restate that which has already been said, we are reaffirming our own understanding, or maybe just discovering it. We can question ourselves and learn things which we may ultimately be able to incorporate into our games on the field.

Often these discussions challenge beliefs we have closely held, or were passed on by others we have seen or worked with. What is a foul? How would other referees call it if they were in my shoes.

This sharing is a good thing. The forum is a safe place to be wrong, so that maybe someday we will get it right.

[Statesman]

OK, you guys obviously missed the point, so evidently I didn't make a very good post.

My intent was not to suggest we refrain from making a thoughtful post.
My intent was not to suggest we should censor inaccurate posts.
My intent was not to suggest this forum has solely become a place to "try to sound smart."

In the past few weeks we've had a stream of posters who do nothing but throw in one or two sentences of total bull onto the end of a dead thread. Point blank, this was my veiled attempt to suggest that stuff be eliminated. I've also seen too many posters talk about how they are so humble to the game, but make posts that clearly demontrate their actual ego. On a larger scale, I think referees tend to joke too easily about their infallibility on the pitch.

So, consider my post wishful thinking that a select few individuals will at least give a little more pause before clicking that "submit reply" button.

Wreave - grow up.

[Wreave]

So, consider my post wishful thinking that a select few individuals will at least give a little more pause before clicking that "submit reply" button.

Wreave - grow up.

I agree with you, in general, on the annoyance of the one-liner "I agree".

However, you also stated: "How many of us here (present company included) have felt the desire to respond to a thread solely to demonstrate our own knowledge? To show off? An adequate answer to the original thread is already well stated, yet we still succumb to that inner desire to throw our two cents in. Often, what we share isn't even worth two cents. Posts are made solely as an act of posturing with little substance - painfully clear to all who read it, yet not something anyone wishes to point out to avoid an argument."

Now, you humbly included yourself. Typically, when one notes a problem, and also notes one's own involvement, one's next step is to stop being a contributor to the problem. Then, not 24 hours later, you apparently succumbed to that inner desire to throw your two cents in, to a thread which had been active for nearly three weeks without a single comment from you, and the entirety of your post was stuff that had already been said, and in most cases said better, by others.

One measure of maturity is the ability to admit one's mistakes. Maybe I'm not the one with growing up to do.

[Statesman]

Wreave, when I read that thread it gave the impression of many different opinions stated in a confused manner with no conclusions of fact. My post tried to take the jumble of good information lost amongst the counterpoints and consolidate it into a single conclusive post.

Regardless, I really don't give a damn what your opinion is of me - you're a pot calling the kettle black. Didn't your mother ever teach you it's not polite to point?

[nsa]

Take it to PMs, children. :rolleyes:

[USSF REF]

Didn't your mother ever teach you it's not polite to point?

Somehow, 95% of the signals I give in a soccer match involve pointing. :p

[Statesman]

Somehow, 95% of the signals I give in a soccer match involve pointing. :pI wouldn't try that in an Arab match...

You're supposed to "indicate," not point - pointing is rude (that's a joke, I'm not sure how to make the face icons other than :))

[KCbus]

I don't know about all the other posters here, but I am infallible. And I am getting tired of hearing all the other people trying to sound smart on these boards. I'm going to stop coming here because I already know everything.

Thank you. I now dismiss all of you to return to your dismal, dreary existances.

Seriously -- what's been said about this forum (people responding well after the question's been answered) would describe 95% of the threads on the entire website. But since everybody has an opinion, continued response allows us to gauge what percentage of the population agrees or disagrees.

For instance, the thread where Isaac Romo scored a goal against Colorado after intercepting a throw-in that was supposed to be a sportsmanlike "give-back" after an injury. The referee disallowed the goal. A controversial decision, to be sure. If that thread had ended after five posts, we never really would have gotten to the heart of the matter.

This forum, in particular, is a little more in need of said discussion. We're all trying to learn from each other how better to control matches for the better of the sport. And as we all know, there's about a thousand different ways of looking at different situations. Different points of view should always be welcomed.

Thank you. I'm done.:)

[Chas (Psyatika)]

I'm still confused. I guess if i am a source of anyone's problems, feel free to PM me.

[Caesar]

"Even when the referee is wrong, the referee is right."
"I know I'm right because I'm the referee."
"I'm the referee, this gives me supernatural abilities to see things no mere mortal can see."

Just a few paraphrased quips I've noticed off and on throughout our discussions. Although said in jest, I can't help but wonder how many of us take them to heart. Do we really believe we can do no wrong? That we can see things nobody else can see?

How many of us here (present company included) have felt the desire to respond to a thread solely to demonstrate our own knowledge? To show off? An adequate answer to the original thread is already well stated, yet we still succumb to that inner desire to throw our two cents in. Often, what we share isn't even worth two cents. Posts are made solely as an act of posturing with little substance - painfully clear to all who read it, yet not something anyone wishes to point out to avoid an argument.

We all know the mantra - We are servants of the game. We are there for the players; it's their game, not ours. And yet here we are, doing what we can to make ourselves look and sound as good as possible, accurate reflection of reality be damned. I'll be the first to admit I've certainly come across as the know-it-all at times, making a post repeating what has already been stated with my own spin. Or cracked a joke about how perfect I am on the pitch because I'm the referee, and when I'm wrong I'm still right. Or describe how I handled that tough situation where I cautioned #19 because it was clear to me (and only me) that I would get some game control from it.

Maybe as an exercise we should all make an extra effort to actually evaluate what we are itching to write. Ask, does it really contribute to what has already been said? Is our intention truly to help and share, nothing more? Is our jokes about our perfection and divinity only a joke? Are our anecdotes really that informative, or are we just posturing?

Afterall, actions do speak louder than words - sometimes replying with a superfluous post says more about our refereeing knowledge than the content of the post itself.
The irony is killing me. To me the post that started this thread reeks of the same smug self-assurance that it rails against. But then maybe I'm projecting. :rolleyes:

Seriously, whether we want to admit it or not referees as compared to the rest of the population have (I would say) a much higher proportion of people with overinflated egos. This has a lot to do with the fact that refereeing requires a special kind of person with enough self-belief to cope with the kind of condemnation, criticism and general oppositition and hostility frequently encountered from fans, commentators, coaches and players on a daily basis.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, not least of all because someone has to do the job and those referees with fragile egos tend to be the ones who wind up quitting in tears after a coach has torn them a new one after a controversial match. But I do think it's somewhat optimistic that you can gather a large group of these types of people into one "area" and not expect some preening and a lot of holding forth with conviction (mea culpa). Haven't you guys ever attended a local branch meeting?

[Alberto]

Statesman and anyone else,

you really need to chill. Your posts quite frankly speak of arrogance and elitism. Tone it down and speak as you would to another colleague at work. Let's be respectful of each other.

Alberto