Mike Petke rant

I think many here will take a different view to this, but I like the idea. Logistically, I'm not sure the best format but I feel like the current pool reporter question results in answers that frame the decision in terms of the laws of the game without any real insight. They are political answers and I understand why. You have to have some sort of forum that allows people to understand context and which allows parties on both sides to acknowledge mistakes safely. This is ultimately something for the CBA however. The really tough thing here is that coach jobs are on the line and to a large degree referee jobs are as well.

 

You want them to ask anything they want, or restricted to certain things?

And why do you like the idea?

 

The biggest risk I see is emotion clouding communication. Beyond that, I don't see a reason to be overly restrictive. My perspective is building an understanding the scope of the challenge involved in refereeing a match at that level, some insight into what was seen and the thought process, how VAR was/was not used, what was learned etc. An opportunity to build empathy is helpful. Right now there's no insight and a wall is in place. Maybe this isn't a public thing but a post game conversation between coaches and referees in private. Right now there is a lack of trust and that needs to be addressed.

 

So, no questions like, "how did you feel when those players were surrounding you?" or "what was your opinion on the manager's decision to do X?"

In an open question format I could see any number of set up style questions designed to create contraversey and would have the side effect of disrupting the referee pool.

 

https://www.mlssoccer.com/league/official-rules/pool-reporter

Are you aware of this? I'm guessing most fans aren't. It's rarely utilized unless something very 'controversial' happens and only when the home team is the aggrieved party.

 

The times it is used you get very generic and fairly useless answers. It’s often also unclear exactly who the pool reporter is. That’s a little different than what Petke and poster here is requesting.

 

The problem with this is that it is not unusual for the referee and the reporters to disagree on who the pool reporters are and the referee will refuse to answer questions due to this. It also is not unusual for the referee to refuse to answer specific questions because, in their opinion, it is not something the referee is required to answer and they rarely give an explanation as to why they aren't required to answer. On occasion, the reporter is not clear as to which incident they are asking about and/or the referee does not provide a clear answer and the lack of ability to follow-up has created issues. Sometimes there is more than three incidents in a game that the reporters want to ask the referee about, but due to the limitations, they can't do so. Etc. Etc.

Basically, most of the issues that reporters and coaches have with the current written process would be resolved with a formal interview.

 

That's because the pool reporter's aren't following the rather simple directions in most cases.

CBA negotiations between PRO and PSRA are just starting so if it's something that is important to the league then maybe it will get changed or tweaked.

I highly doubt PSRA would ever agree to live post game interviews.

 

Well of course that's what you're going to get, which is why they want to be able to ask them questions live and on camera preferably to try and make them feel uncomfortable or say something to use against them. All they want are more bullets to shoot them with, and if the referee can provide it themselves then great!

As to your comments about coaches jobs being on the line in regards to one or two decisions that just doesn't belong in this context. They aren't getting fired because a referee didn't call a foul. They get fired because they lose DOZENS of games. Sure it explains the roots of their behavior at times when they are on the hot seat, but maybe they should be better at coaching or work for a team with deeper pockets that can afford better players. Having referee interviews is going to help them keep their job? Help them feel better about themselves? I don't see the end game.

GM: Why should I let you keep your job?

Coach: The ref didn't call a foul that lead directly to a goal, which made us lose that last game boss! The ref even admitted he made a mistake on camera!

GM: You've lost more than half your games the past two seasons and haven't come close to the playoffs. Again, why should I let you keep your job?

 

I think there is more transparency called for, but I'm not sure the best way. I would like to know more about the thinking behind a decision, what differentiates one decision from another and so forth. I also would like it to go beyond the pool reporter-written questions, in which the referee answers are always so sterile and uninformative. But it's really tough. Will teams accept that a referee made a mistake, or will it actually make things worse? Imagine a referee fails the assessment and that is made public. Does the losing team now have a right to call for a re-play of the game?

Also, there's still the aspect that two high-level referees can look at the same situation and come to different conclusions. These decisions are subjective, always will be.

 

This to me is part of the beauty of our game and something which I hope the march toward SkyNet does not squelch.

 

If the emphasis is on following a set process rather than answering questions, then that is a problem.. I obviously don't see all of the times that they were rejected, but the ones I've seen are generally because the home team failed to post the list of pool reporters in the referees' lockeroom, the referee incorrectly said the reporter wasn't on the list, and, on rare occasions, the designated pool reporters weren't available and the referee rejected the selected alternate.

While I understand the need to prevent the referee from getting inundated with questions from multiple sources, the process should not be used to allow the referee the opportunity to not answer any questions.

 

I think the attitude presented here is why I’d favor actual dialog and insight into how referees make decisions. There is a productive way to do this. What that would look like in this context I’m not entirely sure. I think people paying to watch games would benefit and I think the mutual respect you can develop between everyone involved would make our game better. I think if we approach it from the perspective that people are out to get each other then it won’t work but the reason Petke and Curtin a few weeks ago spoke out is because there is some amount of mystery and distrust that can be repaired.

 

I also think it would be beneficial to hook the ref’s mikes up to the broadcast. I’ve been watching rugby the last few years, particularly the recent MLR season (Go Seawolves) and I’ve really like how their referees are miked. From a fan perspective it is removes a lot of the questions about the simple things like what the ref called and, in some cases, why they called it. It’s also interesting to hear the discussions between referees and, in some cases, the players.

I also think it would help with the mass confrontations and general lack of respect the players show the refs. If they know whay they are saying is going to be broadcast, it’s bound to change how their interact with the referees.

 

Petke is a hot headed moron, what he wants is to have the ability to dress down the refs on camera after a match. What is he expecting to hear? He obviously doesn't understand how VAR is applied, he isn't in a mindset to hear an explanation of anything, he just wants a forum to rant.

100% agree on the open mic, especially for VAR interactions. I've been saying since before VAR was implemented in MLS that it needs to be transparent and that rugby should be the template for how it's implemented.

 

@Yoshou - You are making up scenarios and then trying to pass them off as facts.

Once or twice a year, "rejections" are because the home team will forget to post the list. It most famously happened in Orlando last year, and the team quietly acknowledged their error after-the-fact.

If a referee ever "incorrectly said the reporter wasn't on the list", don't you think that would get shot down pretty quickly? After all, it's a posted list. And don't you think that the reporter would raise holy hell about it? What you may have meant to say is that the reporter errantly thought he was on the list, or tried to fake being on the list, and was not allowed to submit questions.

To your last conspiracy theory, if a pool reporter isn't available, why would the team list him? And even if you're right, if there is an alternate listed, then we're back at my point above. A name is on the list or it isn't.

Your posts on this topic are weak.

 

So... I’m making up a scenario that happens several times a year...

It has happened several times at Sounders games over the years. In one case, the reporter tweeted a picture of the list that was displayed in the referees' locker room and it pretty clearly had their name on the list. As to why the issue isn't caught, the team official handed the slip with the question to the referees, waited outside, then was handed the slip back as the referees were leaving the building. For whatever reason the official didn't call the referee on the issue and they were gone before the reporters caught the issue.

The pool reporter list is set before the season even starts and, as you are probably aware, reporters are humans as well. In the particular case I'm thinking about, none of the reporters on the pool reporter list were able to make the game. Since the list isn't created on a game by game basis, the reporters that were at the game tried to get someone from the same news organization added to the list, but either the team official or a referee said that wasn't possible.

Perhaps, but that still doesn't mean that strict adherence to a faulty process means the referees should be able to dodge answering questions from reporters.

 

I'm out of touch on all this -- do MLB, NFL, NBA or NHL officials answer questions from reporters?

 

I don't know about official policies, but I've heard NBA refs talk about crucial calls they made or missed in postseason play, usually a day or two after the fact. And when Jim Joyce blew the final out in what would have been Armando Galarraga's perfect game, he did an emotional taped interview shortly after the game ended when he saw the replay.

 

Interviews might be possible in a league where the governing body supported their refs more consistently, but MLS is not that place.

You don’t hear news stories questioning an umpire in the MLB when they toss a coach or player like you do in soccer. The MLB supports its umpires almost unwaveringly. Whereas the MLS and PRO have been known to throw their refs to the wolves when political pressure doesn’t favor their support.

 

NBA has a system where they review the last two minutes of a game.

http://official.nba.com/2017-18-nba-officiating-last-two-minute-reports/

As you might guess, the refs aren't happy with it. I did find a clip where Kevin Durant said it was "Bullshit for the NBA to throw the refs under the bus like that". He was worried refs would start second guessing themselves.

I don't believe there are interviews with the referee crew.

 

They definitely don't do this in the NHL. They consistently do "mic'd up" specials on the referees interacting with players, but they don't take questions on calls or anything like that.

 

Nothing to see here..

After a 30 minute wait, the fourth official came out with handwritten answers. The rules stipulate that the game official has to give an in-person interview. After being notified of this, fourth official, not the game official, verbally read off the answers from a piece of paper. https://t.co/MbLraKUY32

— Jesus Acevedo Jr. (@jesus_acevedojr) July 26, 2018