ESPNsoccernet: Getting it wrong and losing it

VERY interesting read. I have some thoughts - TBD later.

 

Video Highlights of the game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Bl7sVKPWw

Snippets of the second yellow comes at 20" - 34"

... interesting article though.. gives the casual fan a little insight.

I didn't see the first yellow, but the writer is giving even more benefit of the doubt than I would to Mr Thomson... unless there's something I missed, that tackle didn't even warrant a warning. It was a missed attempt at the ball, not intentional, wreckless, or with any force.

 

What game was this??? who played

 

This is way outta bounds...

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=439539&cc=5901

Your thread was a duplicate of an earlier thread. Therefore, it is merged into the older thread.

 

Reflexively, i wanted to say that he was wrong to write this about a fellow international referee, and then i considered that it's not bad for the shortcomings of referees to be examined (consider the analysis of Graham Poll's disaster in the World Cup). But then i reconsidered a third time, because this was the wrong forum for what Roberts did. He committed the cardinal sin of hanging out a fellow referee to dry, and that's not tolerable in any profession.

First of all, he started with the "some of my best friends are..." idea in his opening paragraph -- without offering any details about his own nightmare game. While I understand that the details might have been edited, this is a poor way to begin any commentary.

Next, we have the criticism that the card was "too early," because Roberts thought it was not worthy of a caution. He might be correct, but it's is much more correct that "you're not in the game so shut it" applies in this case. Match assessors never criticize a referee for a decision he makes; they ask "what did you see?" because on the field, things are different.

Roberts then delves into the second caution. Here he is touching upon nuances that referees understand but that most fans (even hardcore ones) and players simply don't know. What's left then is an impression of "see, if you caution early, you're a bad ref," which is so inaccurate as to beggar belief. It is ironic to note that this misconception is precisely the ones that inexperienced referees talk about.

"First of ten yellows and one red" -- in this case, Roberts makes no indication if any of them were warranted. Some of the best, most competitive games the world has ever seen have had many cards issued. For all we know, all 11 of the cards issued by Thompson could have been necessary to control the game. This is not touched upon by Roberts, so we can't tell; again we are left with the whiff that Thompson did a sub-par match.

Finally we find out that while Thompson's actions COULD have made this an explosive game, it wasn't. No fights, no slinging accusations, and tellingly, no complaints in any of the international accounts I was able to find. So in all actuality, it appears that Thompson did a good, professional job. Perhaps there were decisions that might have been questionable, but certainly nothing anyone could point to as damningly incorrect. What, then, was the point of hanging this ref out to dry, and making ALL referees look bad in the process?

Jarringly, Roberts then goes on to discuss needless directives from tournament officials. It appears that this is the meat of his argument. Fair enough, but he could have done so without trying to make another referee look bad in the process. There have been many arguments about using important international tournaments as showcases for FIFA directives, but no other one that I have read has ever dissected a referee's game to make its point, ESPECIALLY without offering any proof of bad decision-making.

I am therefore left with the conclusion that Roberts clearly had some agenda when he wrote this. I won't accuse him of anything specific, as it could have been as innocuous as simply getting an article in under deadline. As a professional referee and referee instructor, I am appalled at the unprofessionalism that Roberts demonstrated in writing this article in this way.

As a journalist, however, I am equally appalled at Roberts' lack of judgment and his weak reporting. Despite the title, Roberts does not show that anyone was either lost it or got it wrong. It may very well be that Thompson deserves to be called on the carpet for his performance in this game; unfortunately, thanks to Roberts' unprofessional reporting, we cannot tell. Basic cause-and-effect was not shown, but it is apparent that an agenda was advanced.

I expect more from ESPN.


Richard Pinto
USSF Referee
USSF Referee Instructor

 

The information listed in the article on Craig Thomson and in your
description of Dave Roberts are very interesting, but, unfortunately,
totally untrue. Mr. Roberts is no more an "international referee"
than I am -- and I have refereed in four countries. He is not now nor
has he ever been an international referee, which refers solely to
membership in the international panel of referees acknowledged by
FIFA. Nor is he qualified to handle top-level soccer games. He just
happens to be a referee who moves to different countries because of
his job. As I understand it, he is originally from Middlesbrough in
the UK and had a job with SkySports. He since moved to Hong Kong and
eventually the United States. He may at some future date leave the
U.S., depending on where his job takes him. His refereeing
experience in the UK topped out at Level 3, a contributory league
referee.

Other national associations are very familiar with Mr. Roberts. As
soon as he arrived in the United States, and as any referee should do
upon moving to another country, he applied to the U. S. Soccer
Federation for accreditation. In Mr. Roberts' case, he sent a
complete portfolio with newspaper clippings that mentioned his name
or included a picture. From what I have learned -- and this is
clearly reflected in his article on Mr. Thomson -- Mr. Roberts was
quite offended when he was told he would have to follow the same
procedure as any other referee. He should realize that, as in the
UK, no one can enter a country and expect to be placed immediately at
a high level or standard of refereeing. A newly-arrived referee has
to prove his ability within that country's system. For example, as I
understand it, FIFA referees from Iraq were placed on a contributory
league by The FA in England and found the standard tough.

Despite his self-aggrandizement, cogently described in his article as
"ego," Mr. Roberts has no standing in this country or any other as a
soccer referee. He can register, pass the fitness test, and be
placed on a league within the USSF system for referees, as with any
referee from another country.

As regards his refereeing assessment of Mr. Thomson, we all know that
referees, just like players, have a bad game occasionally. It was
unfortunate that it happened in a FIFA tournament, as it did with
Graham Poll of England. It showed Mr. Thomson's capabilities when he
was subsequently asked to referee the game between Italy and the
Czech Republic. There were two cautions (yellow cards) in the first
half, and he had an excellent game.

Mr. Roberts may have considerable skills as a sportscaster or
commentator, but his comments on Mr. Thomson -- although several of
them were right on target -- smack less of penetrating analysis than
of sour grapes.

 

Roberts was apparently at least a ref in Conference North, the sixth overall level of English club football. The Football League has the top four: Premiership, Championship, League One, League Two. Then comes the National League System, top level is National Conference, then two regional conferences (North and South). Don't know if he ever worked higher than that in England.

 

Both of the posts that I included were written to ESPN in protest of the article.

 

soccernet isn't the only place Disney is screwing up a good thing.

Mr. Pinto, I did a very similar thing during the England/Portugal quarterfinal of the last World Cup. I'm just an experienced Grade 8 whose first badge was in 1984, but I couldn't believe what I heard from America's World Cup broadcasting crew. I wrote to a SVP with ABC/ESPN what turned out to be a 1700 word essay on the lack of quality...informed...announcers to convey to their viewers what was happening on the pitch.

Stream of consciousness...when I looked up I couldn't believe how long it was...but Disney's presentation of their interpretation of the sights and sounds of the World Cup sucked.

Please excuse my overindulgent ego but I just have to share part of what I sent to Sean Bratches, a president of some sort who seemed to be the head MFWIC of the World Cup broadcasting crew:

SKIP PAST IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ MY RANT...but sometimes you just gotta say what you think and I did.



"The commentary during this England vs. Portugal match has not only misinterpreted the intentions of the players so many times that your average American viewer now knows even less about how the game is played than before, but now is actually creating a dangerous environment on the playing field for all players due to their complete inability to see an action, watch the response of the referee, and offer an opinion that is vaguely close to what actually happened.

Numerous misinterpretations have occurred. The most outrageous and dangerous statement that I heard came immediately after a tackle from behind of a Portugese player by an English player. The opinion offered by the ABC Sports employee is that (1) faking a foul to gain an advantage is OK, and (2)there was no actual foul committed. As a referee (my grade is the lowest possible among "professional" referees...advancement had not been a goal of mine until recently, although I do referee fairly high level matches...nothing nearing professional, but adults who do have high opinions of their own levels of skill and sometimes actually come close to their own expectations...and sometimes the only English spoken on the field is from myself and my assistant referees), my objection in the strongest possible way must be addressed to those comments and others I have heard today.

The play that caused my complete disgust with the opinions of the ABC Sports employees is known as a "professional" foul. If you watch the replay...at 68:03 minutes of the match (about halfway through the second half)...you will see that the English player's front leg makes a weak attempt at the ball and maybe brushes the foot of the player from Portugal. This is what the average fan sees. The English player then, with his left leg, kicks the opposing player in the back of the leg, an extremely dangerous method of play which could lead to serious physical injury (torn ACL, torn Achilles tendon etc.) for the opposing player.

If that play was missed completely by your employees and their conversation continued, their general ineptitude would be acceptable. Millions of Americans, however, were led to believe by your supposedly experienced employees that (1) no foul was actually committed and the referee was fooled into calling a foul, and that (2) the rolling around
by the Portugese player was a tactically sound method of delaying the game to allow his teammates to rest and therefore gain an advantage.

Their interpretation of that event was so horribly wrong that I had to stop watching the game, look up your name and email address, and write this letter. Around America as I write this, tens (hundreds?) of thousands of soccer players (many at the youth level) now believe that faking a foul is OK...because the ABC guys said so. What will happen later is that those kids (and maybe even your own) will behave in such a way in their own youth, high school and adult league games, which detracts from everybody's growth and experiences. That will be followed, of course, by wild gesticulation (an older FIFA term) in disbelief as they receive a caution from the referee for timewasting. Due to that gesticulation, they may possibly receive a second caution and be sent off, after which their mother will be horribly upset that her son received a red card for behaving in a way that was encouraged by the nice folks at ABC Sports."



--Remember, this was only part of the whole complete freight train of consciousness that I had going.

--I'm still holding my breath waiting for their response...not

Is it bashing ESPN if I point out factual errors in their commentary?

 

NOW WAIT A MINUTE...

Is this Dave Roberts that is the "international referee" the same Dave something that was the lead (center) announcer during World Cup matches? Now I really really want to know. For the sake of sports officials everywhere I hope that they are not the same person.

Because I started calling him (ABC's World Cup announcer) stupidDave due the stunning continuity of factually incorrect (regarding the LOTG) statements.

A point to consider:

During this same WC qfinal, England/Portugal, there was a quick ball in - out - in on the touch...about a third to halfway into the left wing of the attacking half and (to be fair) completely in the referees quadrant according to the DSC. CR glances over because the ball may or may not have gone out of play. AR's flag goes up, whistle for ball out of play, throw in going the other way. Portugal goes crazy...upset blah blah blah whatever. ABC's announcing crew (I know his name is Dave but not sure about the last) says that the referee was being LAZY by not getting all the way over to the touch line to see if the whole ball crossed the whole line. That's the impression that this announcer Dave something left with the entire American viewing audience. A World Cup referee was being LAZY and therefore made a MISTAKE that, of course, screwed someone.

Never was it mentioned that (DUH) the AR is tasked with ball in and out of play and the officiating crew made the correct call.

I'm SERIOUS...I couldn't make this stuff up...find someone that has that game on tape and check out my assessment.

And also please let me know if I am completely mistaken in confusing the ABC/ESPN announcer Dave with this "international referee" Dave Roberts.

If so, my apologies go out to every Dave Roberts out there.

 

Yes, you are completely mistaken. The World Cup announcer is Dave O'Brien.

 

OK one more and then I'm done with Dave Roberts for the day...sorry for hogging the blog (just made that one up) but I re-read his bashing of Craig Thompson and something ELSE jumped out at me...

"International referee" Dave Roberts writes:

"We referee for the ego. I am no exception. I crave that golden verse at the end of every match, 'Great game ref!' "

HUH???

Correct me if I'm wrong, but could most of us agree to the following statement. The golden verse referees crave at the end of a match is silence. Walking off the pitch without anybody noticing because we did the job correctly and respectfully withOUT showing our need to feed our ego by being the center of attention.

Sure I enjoy a compliment as much as the next ref but the utmost goal of every referee I know when their matches start is to be able to leave without drawing a crowd.

Seems like Dave Roberts is trying to attract the attention of the crowd...nothing like humoring the guy who's fishing for compliments.

 

Thank you Thank you. I probably could have found that out on my own.

They do, however, enjoy bashing referees about equally.

My apologies to anyone and everyone for my stupid mistake. I do, however, stand behind what I wrote, I just need to make sure my aim is in the proper direction. (Get that shot on goal!!!)

 

Wynalda should be bashed . His comments really frustrate me, I can't remember which ones specifically though.

 

100% agreement regarding Whinealda (got that from someone else on this board), although I will stick to my guns re O'Brien calling the referee of the England Portugal quarterfinal lazy and not in the proper physical condition to properly officiate the game. Again I have to apologize for mixing my Dave's which I'm sure added a bit of confusion...although I have stuck to the major topic of criticizing Disney-owned media outlets regarding their treatment of soccer referees.

That one anecdote is only the most glaring example that sticks in my mind a year later...I know it was only one of many.

I myself watch as many matches as possible on Spanish TV (putting up with their vocal theatrics after goals are scored are insignificant compared to the ABC/ESPN/Dunce School of soccer broadcasting etiquette) and avoid the whole Wynalda red card/yellow card Dave O'BRIEN idiocy crap anyway.

The thing that made me most upset about the O'Brien/lazy referee story is not so much his lack of knowledge but the fact that Marcelo Balboa sat right next to him and didn't point out that the ARs, not the CRs, are responsible for ball in and out of play. I'd take a nice fat paycheck to sit on my butt and keep my mouth shut...matter of fact a couple of coaches have jokingly offered me just that.

If ABC/ESPN/Disney want to present and sell this product, they should maybe look at how the rest of the world does it (did I say that???) rather than make a mess of it like when they started broadcasting NHL games. Remember the "fiery" streak of the puck or that damn little blue bubble they put over the puck for that season when I didn't watch games on TV? I (of the '80s video games generation...Atari rules!) thought I'd go into an epileptic fit from their graphics package. How long before they suggest (read demand) TV timeouts during MLS games?

Anyway...I'm not truly knowledgeable about which I complain (hey I could be a soccer parent!), but I do know that almost every time I listen to someone from Walt Disney's conglomerate discuss our sport, I wonder if they are talking about the same sport I know and love and continue learning about on a regular basis.

 

How could you possibly remember them...they come at you so fast and often it's like a shooting gallery. I simply revert to my old..."damn, there he goes again" recording in my mind.

 

Good point .

Oh, and a thing about the Portugal/England game. I'm sure he(who ever said he was in bad shape) must have felt stupid once E..(How do you spell his name, the center of the WC final).. once the referee of that game was chosen for the final. Come on, there would never be a referee not in shape doing a WC game in the first place!! How stupid can they get?

 

Stupidity knows no boundaries. That's how my new pet name for Dave O'BRIEN became stupidDave after listening to him do a couple of the WC preliminary matches. Immediately became a huge fan of the Univision broadcasters. I do, however, know that I had enough restraint not to use that nickname in my email to the head of ABC's WC broadcasting team.

 

That was Fox, not ESPN. ESPN has always done hockey respectfully.

 

Oops once again I find myself apologizing for a mistake...good thing I don't make this many mistakes with whistle in hand