4 AR's (Alternative to 2 CR's)

[Claymore]

So when do we get our zebra stripes and yellow flags? I mean what the hell, we've already covered hand signals and instant replay. ;)

Just my $.02: keep it simple.

[kevbrunton]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
I do see some problems with eye contact and other communication. The more people there are on the field, the more likely there can be missed signals or miscommunication. In actual practice, any 6 man system would probably have to utilize beeper flags to work efficiently (which creates other small problems....namely the fact that one set of beeper flags can interfere with another, having four different sound frequencies and vibration rates, and how many receptor packs you can tie to one CR...but I'm sure those can be solved).

I thought about this too. I was thinking that if the CR is still using a DSC, he should continue to have one set of referees in his vision -- preferably NOT the pair calling offside. That way, the pair calling offside are the only ones who would need the beeper flags. Possible.

[blech]

i'm tempted to fully respond, but it looks like i'm in the minority.

you're always going to have budget/cost issues. if those limit the options, then you have no choices. period. it's simple. although my experience is that there is always some flexibility in budgets, and these same arguments were used at one point to justify only sending out one certified ref to handle the center and just giving flags to parents to run the lines.

my limited experience with 2 CRs has not been that negative. the current system seems to promote a hangup with there being one official in charge. it isn't necessary (as demonstrated by basketball). if the two CRs see it differently, they have to discuss what they saw and have a system for resolving it, just like they do in the NBA. but i can live with a short discussion between them if it helps to get more calls right. again, this primarily is just a shift in attitude.

same with 4 ARs. i actually think this is probably slightly excessive, as a single AR ought to be able to cover most of his/her duties. unfortunately, what we saw from the last world cup is that, especially at the top levels, it isn't always so easy. there seems to be some concern about the 2 ARs not being in agreement. except, that was, in my opinion, the solution. if they're not in agreement, play on. sure, the defenders would be complaining that one AR put the flag up, but that would primarily be the goals that are currently being called back on bogus offsides calls.

as for technology, if it's feasible at the top levels, even if only the world cup, i'd be in favor of using video/instantreplay/slowmotion to get the offsides calls correct. it doesn't take long, and would improve the game. and, heck, if i get into the little booth for free, they wouldn't even have to pay me.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
I'm glad we agree, however, I have to ask you, if MLS isn't the measuring standard, then what is?

First, if you're suggesting we only discuss leagues outside the US, then I think you should take a look at the finances of leagues abroad. They are not as well off as you might believe.

More importantly though, if this were going to be implemented in the US at all, it would be at the MLS level, no? How can you ignore MLS if we're talking about US soccer at all? Moreover, look at PDL and other USL leagues. It's a fact that they don't have the money for 4 officials, nevermind 6. I don't think any of us would suggest that this system should start at the MLS level. Referees need training in it well before then.

I think if an experiment were to be instituted, after sanction by FIFA, in the USA, it would have to be on the USOC again (USSF is the only body that has the money to pay for this, although even this is questionable, as USSF typically likes to use local referees for USOC matches). If successful, though, serious thought would have to be put into the financial circumstances surrounding further implementation, because right now, there's no place in the world that would be able to finance this system past a first division level, and even first divisions are probably limited to 3-4 leagues.
I cant argue that MLS is the standard for AMERICAN implimentation of this new system but I am just pointing out it is not in the position that other leagues are in with respect to budget. When you look at the salaries paid to playes in europe and the liscencing revenues it is pretty clear that the foriegn leagues have a different ballance sheet then MLS. We cant even get a game on a non-football field here and I dont expect us to suddenly get the money to install a complicated electronic system.
Adding 3 referees would not cost that much money per game.....I would expect an additional $1500 which is a drop in the bucket when you consider the overall cost of running a professional match.
I have ZERO idea how much it would cost to add a camera or two to cover the offside issue. I suspect the money would materialize if FIFA dicated to MLS that they had to do it.

[MassachusettsRef]

Greyhnd,

I understand that MLS is operating on a different salary scale than some other leagues around the world, but when it comes right down to it, they're pretty much in the same situation financially. The better European leagues use so much of their money on player salaries that they are on the verge of having dozens of bankrupt clubs. Players make a lot more in Europe--that's true. But there's not much money left for anything else--in Europe or the MLS. As I said in an above post, the simple fact is that club presidents are much more ready to spend money on another midfielder than improving refereeing, no matter what they say in media soundbytes.

Also, you are correct that adding 2 referees (you'd just be adding two, not three), in the MLS, would cost about $1500 (fees, airfare, hotel, per diem). However, in many leagues around the world, it would cost thousands of dollars per match. And, in the US, it would cost a few hundred dollars for USL teams. That doesn't sound like much, but I can tell you from experience that that is a few hundred dollars that the vast majority of USL teams don't have the ability to spend. They are refusing to pay for fourth officials and they are, in some unfortunate circumstances, short-changing referees on travel expenses. That is the unfortunate state of the financial situation in USL. There is just no money available for 2 more refs at any level below MLS in the States, and it's even questionable there.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Greyhnd,

I understand that MLS is operating on a different salary scale than some other leagues around the world, but when it comes right down to it, they're pretty much in the same situation financially.
is the unfortunate state of the financial situation in USL. I have to laugh when you continuously INSIST on comparing the european leagues to MLS. I KNOW you want to believe that the level of play, financial situation and officiating quality in the USA is the same as in europe but it just isnt true. The English football association earned over $500 million in 2000. The italian, over $400 million. Spain and Germany just under $400 million and france just over $200 million....MLS has NEVER made a profit. THERE IS NO COMPARISON! Get over it.

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef

There is just no money available for 2 more refs at any level below MLS in the States, and it's even questionable there. Yet another rediculous generalization. Lets talk about a mens open rec league that pays its centers $60 a match. 36 players would each pay less then TWO extra dollars a game to get an extra reff. for a 10 game season that is 20 dollars more in game fees......Hardly going to break the back when the market continues to support shoe sales for products that cost $150 plus........Money is not an issue.

[Claymore]

Originally posted by Greyhnd00
Lets talk about a mens open rec league that pays its centers $60 a match. 36 players would each pay less then TWO extra dollars a game to get an extra reff. for a 10 game season that is 20 dollars more in game fees......Hardly going to break the back when the market continues to support shoe sales for products that cost $150 plus........Money is not an issue.

That's a good one. Go to your average men's league commisioner and tell him you want more money. Let me know when he stops laughing.

Better yet, show me a men's league team that actually has 18 players on the active roster. Most of them have a hard time fielding eleven players on any given weekend.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by Claymore


That's a good one. Go to your average men's league commisioner and tell him you want more money. Let me know when he stops laughing.

Better yet, show me a men's league team that actually has 18 players on the active roster. Most of them have a hard time fielding eleven players on any given weekend. Well lets see.....Near you: The Northern Virginia Soccer League, Primier, 1st 2nd and 3rd divisions all have MANY teams with full rosters. The Capital Soccer league has 2 divisions of the same. I dont expect a league commisioner to pay from his pocket, just raise the league fees like a said two posts ago.

[whipple]

This thread has taken a rather interesting turn. In my other life, I work in the field of market research and market potential analysis. Recently there have been some discussions with interests who seek to better understand the revenue potential aspects of soccer in relation to its popularity and in comparison to other sports.

It is important to understand that every sport has a range of revenue sources which include the sports organization itself, the sporting activity, sporting events, events licencing, branding, personality, co-branding, tie-ins, sponsorships, advertising and promotion. One aspect of soccer which has been a barrier to its growth in the US is that soccer events, the matches themselves, do not provide a particularly broad range of revenue opportunities, such as you have in football, baseball and basketball, and to a lesser degree ice hockey. This is most notable in the lack of advertising slots.

Historically the European and Latin American revenue models were based upon direct events revenues, primarily admission, which is why we have seen such huge capacity stadia, much larger than anything we have here in the US. The problem is that stadia attendance has its limits, and the sport does not lend itself as well to other commercial applications, so, even in Europe and Latin America, despite its popularity, it is increasingly difficult to operate teams and leagues at a reasonable profit. In fact, from the data I have seen, few stadia events break even, including broadcast rights, much less provide profit.

The problem is that sports officials are part of the overhead of the sporting events, and with the possible exception of the Collina T-shirts, referees do not themselves generate revenue. We are on the wrong side of the balance sheet.

So the question becomes, even if the addition of two more AR's could improve the officiating (and I'm not really convinced that it would, though it my reduce the need for the AR to follow the ball to the line which would certainly make it easier to move back into position) such an improvement would not increase revenue, in an already marginal aspect of the game. It would be a hard sell.

[Claymore]

Originally posted by Greyhnd00
Well lets see.....Near you: The Northern Virginia Soccer League, Primier, 1st 2nd and 3rd divisions all have MANY teams with full rosters. The Capital Soccer league has 2 divisions of the same. I dont expect a league commisioner to pay from his pocket, just raise the league fees like a said two posts ago.

I do Mid-Maryland and Maryland Major league games, so I know what I'm talking about.

OK, so the league commisioner tries to raise the fee, and the teams laugh at him. We won't even go into what would happen if the youth leagues around here (NCSL and WAGS) tried to raise the fees to cover add'l refs; the teams in those leagues already pay some of the highest fees in the country.

Other than the financial considerations, you'd still have the problem of recruiting and retaining a significant number of new referees. Ask your local SDI or league assignors about that one.

[blech]

Originally posted by Claymore



Other than the financial considerations, you'd still have the problem of recruiting and retaining a significant number of new referees. Ask your local SDI or league assignors about that one.

this is an interesting point that no one has discussed yet. how would having 1 CR and 4 ARs impact the recruitment of officials?

i never minded running the lines, and viewed it as an important way to learn from some experienced refs, but i always preferred being in the middle. (my guess is this is that some people don't want to bring in a second CR in the first place because they'd have to share the middle).

so, would it be more difficult to recruit refs if that many more of your games are running a line? especially if your duties are further diminished? i suppose it depends on the level - i mean i'd be more than content to run a line on an professional game - but i don't know that day in and day out i'd want to be on a line for 80% percent of my games.

if i can add another thought to this thread, it seems to me like there would be value in trying to split the issues up. on the one hand, financial and recruiting and other issues go to the practicality (or impracticality) of implementing a new system. on the other hand, there has been much less discussion about whether a different system would actually result in a better match (and if so how much would the refereeing be improved).

obviously, the additional amount one might pay (or shift from other areas in the budget) may depend on what benefit will be derived. in this regard, i might note that this may be a change (or a type of change) that only needs to be considered at the highest levels of play (where speed of the game makes the offsides call and keeping up with the game the most difficult).

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by Claymore


I do Mid-Maryland and Maryland Major league games, so I know what I'm talking about. I figured you did. That is why I named them.

Originally posted by Claymore


OK, so the league commisioner tries to raise the fee, and the teams laugh at him.
and then they write the check for the fees so that they can play the game. The cost increase would be minimal looking a the big picture.

Originally posted by Claymore

We won't even go into what would happen if the youth leagues around here (NCSL and WAGS) tried to raise the fees to cover add'l refs; the teams in those leagues already pay some of the highest fees in the country. I dont expect WAGS and NCSL to be included in this change. I very rarely comment on youth issues as this is not my focus.

Originally posted by Claymore


Other than the financial considerations, you'd still have the problem of recruiting and retaining a significant number of new referees. Ask your local SDI or league assignors about that one. I am sure you could find a few good men willing to do higher level games....I am available this weekend.

[Claymore]

Originally posted by blech


this is an interesting point that no one has discussed yet. how would having 1 CR and 4 ARs impact the recruitment of officials?



I wasn't really thinking in terms of "who wants to be an AR", but rather "where do we dig up all these new refs?"

In Maryland, for example, we lost 750 referees last year - referees who did not renew their certification for 2002. You can imagine what kind of a crimp that puts on game coverage at every level, and now we want to talk about increasing the number of refs per game? The math doesn't work.

The biggest problem is referee retention. We lose thousands of referees each year nationwide for a number of reasons, but the biggest one is the abuse that parents and spectators lay on young referees. Paul Tamberino identified this as our most pressing issue. These are referees who would eventually percolate up into the senior games that Greyhound is talking about.

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by Greyhnd00
I have to laugh when you continuously INSIST on comparing the european leagues to MLS. I KNOW you want to believe that the level of play, financial situation and officiating quality in the USA is the same as in europe but it just isnt true. The English football association earned over $500 million in 2000. The italian, over $400 million. Spain and Germany just under $400 million and france just over $200 million....MLS has NEVER made a profit. THERE IS NO COMPARISON! Get over it.Greyhnd, I don't want to get too much into this stuff again because we agree on principle about this 4 AR thing, but, let me set the record straight and clarify my remarks:

First, I've never said the level of play in MLS is on par with the top European leagues. I've said it's on par with the second-tier Euro leagues. After one names the top ten leagues in the world (not necessarily in order: England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Holland, Argentina, Portugal, Turkey), they'd be hard-pressed to say that MLS--insofar as level of play--isn't in the next group (with Scotland, Norway, Denmark, etc.). The top MLS teams could fight for UEFA Cup spots in these leagues--and Portugal, Holland and Turkey as well. That's all I've ever said, and I stand by it. Most people that regularly watch such leagues would agree.

Second, I also stand by my assertion that, when compared to the level of play on the field, MLS refereeing is well above average. You're welcome to disagree, but I just wish you did so with some firsthand knowledge of what the refereeing is actually like in the leagues I mention.

Finally, I'm not sure where you got your figures, but I agree with you that European leagues operate in a whole different stratosphere financially. However, many European clubs are in dire straits financially. The fact of the matter is that while revenues have soared recently, club presidents' penchant for spending has increased even faster. They make millions more than MLS clubs, but they also spend millions more than MLS clubs. As an example, Real Madrid (read: the most successful club in Europe), amassed a debt of 400 million Euros and Italian superpowers Lazio and Fiorentina have literally been struggling to pay their players' wages. I don't want to get into a war of words about this stuff, because it doesn't concern refereeing, and, more importantly, is straying from the topic. However, if you want to see where I get a lot of my information from, I recommend the June 1st survey from the Economist titled Passion, Pride and Profit: A survey of football.

Yet another rediculous generalization. Lets talk about a mens open rec league that pays its centers $60 a match. 36 players would each pay less then TWO extra dollars a game to get an extra reff. for a 10 game season that is 20 dollars more in game fees......Hardly going to break the back when the market continues to support shoe sales for products that cost $150 plus........Money is not an issue. We are still talking about 4 ARs and not 2 CRs, aren't we? In most amateur leagues, we'd be talking about 4 extra refs, nevermind 1 or 2, as all but D1 amateur leagues usually employ 1 man systems. Adding 4 ARs for every game is a tall order.

On top of that, as Claymore points out, there's the issue of retention. I don't think there's enough quality referees at the lower levels to fill these roles. And, if there are, you'll be taking good CRs away from high-level youth matches in order to fill the AR voids at the amateur level. A host a problems become created--besides financial considerations--if you tried to use this system at an amateur level. Moreover, I don't think FIFA, USSF, or anyone else in the world is interested in changing these systems for Sunday rec games. Any changes to the DSC would be geared towards the international and professional level. You're not going to see a change at the amateur level unless you first see one in MLS and USL.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Second, I also stand by my assertion that, when compared to the level of play on the field, MLS refereeing is well above average.
Your wording here seems to imply that you think the officiating in MLS is better then the play! I wont argue that one with you but I have to say I am surprised to hear you say it! Regardless the point is indeed moot.


Originally posted by MassachusettsRef

Finally, I'm not sure where you got your figures, but I agree with you that European leagues operate in a whole different stratosphere financially. However, many European clubs are in dire straits financially. The fact of the matter is that while revenues have soared recently, club presidents' penchant for spending has increased even faster. They make millions more than MLS clubs, but they also spend millions more than MLS clubs.
Strange how no matter how much you make you always seem to spend it! While the euro leagues dont have a huge surplus at the end of the year it would be much easier for them to cough up an extra $2000 a game then it would be for an MLS team much the same way that a doctor would have an easier time paying $1.60 for a gallon of gas then a ditch digger in rural Mississippi(no offense to them)

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef

We are still talking about 4 ARs and not 2 CRs, aren't we? In most amateur leagues, we'd be talking about 4 extra refs, nevermind 1 or 2, as all but D1 amateur leagues usually employ 1 man systems. Adding 4 ARs for every game is a tall order. Im not sure what we are talking about exactly now....Regardless I believe that the financial issue is not as signifigant as is put forth above. Teams will pay the increased money.

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef

On top of that, as Claymore points out, there's the issue of retention. I don't think there's enough quality referees at the lower levels to fill these roles. And, if there are, you'll be taking good CRs away from high-level youth matches in order to fill the AR voids at the amateur level. A host a problems become created--besides financial considerations--if you tried to use this system at an amateur level. Moreover, I don't think FIFA, USSF, or anyone else in the world is interested in changing these systems for Sunday rec games. Any changes to the DSC would be geared towards the international and professional level. You're not going to see a change at the amateur level unless you first see one in MLS and USL.
I have not often been accused of being an overly optomistic but I think that an improvement to the DSC might lead to less mistakes, reduce the amount of player frustration and increase retention of referees.....I am not overly focused on reasons NOT to do this. I suspect those will be easily identified once we make the change. But we will overcome them.

[Preston McMurry]

With all the officials -- what is it, 8? -- they have in gridball, plus (not so instant) replay, they still don't get the calls correct. So, adding more officials is not a solution, and merely serves to alter football from a players game, into a lawyers game.

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by Preston McMurry
With all the officials -- what is it, 8? -- they have in gridball, plus (not so instant) replay, they still don't get the calls correct. So, adding more officials is not a solution, and merely serves to alter football from a players game, into a lawyers game. Preston, that's my main problem with any 2 or 3 CR system. There would be infinite discrepancies and constant conferences, etc.

But I don't think that adding 2 ARs--if financially feasible--would intrude on the game too much. It's just adding two more sets of eyes. The CR is still the sole arbiter, acting on the advice of 5 people now. At lower levels, where there is a vast discrepancy in the ability of officials, I agree it could turn into a nightmare. But at higher levels, where officials have proven themselves and are pretty much on the same plane, with proper communication, I think two more ARs could prove to be a help in a variety of ways.

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by Greyhnd00

Strange how no matter how much you make you always seem to spend it! While the euro leagues dont have a huge surplus at the end of the year it would be much easier for them to cough up an extra $2000 a game then it would be for an MLS team much the same way that a doctor would have an easier time paying $1.60 for a gallon of gas then a ditch digger in rural Mississippi(no offense to them)I agree with your point. However, the question then becomes, do they want to spend the money on refereeing as opposed to another player? League officials and club presidents are great at putting forward media soundbytes after a high-profile refereeing mistake, but when it comes right down to it, I doubt that too many will put their money where their mouths are. World-class players sell tickets and ink TV deals. Two extra referees don't. The fact of the matter is, the refereeing situation may be imperfect (well, it will always be imperfect) but it's not driving away fans by any means. From a business standpoint--which, I think you would agree, world soccer is--refereeing isn't a problem.

I have not often been accused of being an overly optomistic but I think that an improvement to the DSC might lead to less mistakes, reduce the amount of player frustration and increase retention of referees.....I am not overly focused on reasons NOT to do this. I suspect those will be easily identified once we make the change. But we will overcome them. I think this is overly optimistic. The vast majority of referees that certify and then are not retained start at the rec youth level where there's usually a 1-man system. They hear the abuse, etc. (whether "deserved" because of mistakes, or not) and then don't come back the next year. A 6-man system will not be employed at any youth level at all, I think we can agree on that point. So, I don't see how it would help retention.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by Preston McMurry
With all the officials -- what is it, 8? -- they have in gridball, plus (not so instant) replay, they still don't get the calls correct. So, adding more officials is not a solution, and merely serves to alter football from a players game, into a lawyers game. So lets just get rid of all of the officials in soccer and in football and just let the players kill each other. WHile we are at it lets disband the army, navy air force and marines and call it quits becasue even with them we still have people die. Let just GIVE UP if a difficutl issue arises and accept mediocrity...........Might be good enough for you but not for me.

[Claymore]

Originally posted by Greyhnd00
So lets just get rid of all of the officials in soccer and in football and just let the players kill each other. WHile we are at it lets disband the army, navy air force and marines and call it quits becasue even with them we still have people die. Let just GIVE UP if a difficutl issue arises and accept mediocrity...........Might be good enough for you but not for me.

Can we close this thread now? Rational discourse just went right out the window.