Best Story of the WEEK 2021

No duals! If you have to use a CR, AR1, and a club line.

 

High school varsity. 8 v 8. Co-ed. cow pasture field. Final score, 7 to 11. We had 1-1 within 90 seconds of the start.

 

I know. USSF says no duals. So I will not use them for USSF games. I wish we could, though, in extenuating circumstances.

 

I realize it likely will never happen, but I'd probably be fine with allowing duals in small-sided games at the U12 level and below. With fields being smaller (and in the case of U9 and U10, a lot smaller) than a regular field, the need for three referees is far less. This would also give referees more games to work on foul recognition. I realize it will likely never happen because IFAB/FIFA won't allow it, but from a practical perspective it seems to make sense.

If I were assigning, I'd like to at least have that option available for non-tournament matches at the U9-U12 level. At that level, player development should be the focus (even though you'll always have meathead coaches and parents who want to see their kids win every single game - even those league games where no trophies are given out and absolutely no one will remember the result in a week's time . . .).

 

I've seen some USYSA Rec leagues in other states that clearly state they use duals on small-sided matches up to 9v9. Not sure how that's allowed or if maybe the powers-that-be ignore it because it's local rec and doesn't count for any official standings that USYSA really cares about...

 

AYSO, consistent with USSF, bans duals once there are GKs. (At U8 and below, there are no GKs, no score kept, no standings, and 1 or 2 refs on the field--very low key.)

The advantage of using three refs at 10U (which isn't really necessary, especially with the build out line as offside line) is mostly starting to train refs. AYSO relies on volunteers to ref (primarily parents and older siblings, plus those (like me) who hang around after their kids age out. By getting to start on 10U games, the older games aren't as intimidating (and in many Regions the barrier to entry at 10U is also softened by having parents ref their own kids games--"you'll be there anyway, you might as well volunteer!"). Since it is all volunteers, there aren't a lot of costs for using three instead of two (just the uniforms/equibpment the Regions typically give to the refs).

Alas, while I think the build out line has been good for the 10U game, it's not so good for referee training and development, as the 10U ARs hardly have to move and get few OS decisions to make--which also makes it less interesting and engaging, especially for those siblings that we'd love to see get the bug and keep doing it.

(When I started reffing in the late 70s in a local police athletic league, everything we did was duals. On the plus side, when starting out there is comfort in having another more experienced ref with a whistle out there, too. That could help with training. On the down side, there could be real issues with consistency.)

 

These two paragraphs show the possible benefit of, and drawbacks to, the dual system at younger ages.

During the rare times I'd fill in on a line for my son's U10 games, I barely ran. You just don't have that many offside decisions to make. In all honesty, you're paying an AR to basically call ball over the line and maybe a foul a game. The field is small enough that a referee should be able to move enough to be in a good position for any foul call on the field.

I totally agree on the issues related to consistency with two referees on the field. We obviously see that with our dual/duel in high school. As a new mentor/instructor, I'd actually try to use those types of plays as teachable moments if the situation presented itself. If you get both referees together after the game, you can discuss a particular call or set of calls and identify why one called it and the other didn't. But I certainly understand the optics of one play being called at one end of the field and the same play at the other end not called.

Given I don't think there should be any sort of USYSA "ranking" system until the U13 level, If I was the emperor of soccer I'd never have rankings at that age level and allow duals. I'd then do away with duals when we are at 11 v 11 and use the official methods of control. But that's all in theory . . .

 

100% this. U10 used to be a scaled-down version of the 11v11 and a great on-ramp. With the BOL it's a weird evolutionary offshoot (I'm talking reffing-wise, agree that it has developmental benefits for players).

As I've mentioned here before, our competitive clubs use solos, no offside, for U10. Totally baffled why we don't do the same for community clubs. Same kids, same field, same relation to life above the BOL.

 

When I was more involved with our local clubs, we used the U12 games to train AR's. Most of those assigned as an AR to a U12 could do a U8 center, but weren't yet capable of a U12 center. So they wouldn't be very effective in a U12 dual either.

 

In a complete twist in my area, the lower level long time travel league DEMANDS 3 man crews while the higher leagues go solo thru u12. Three man on u10 even for the new referees is just a complete waste of time effort and money.

 

Wild hypothesis: If the lower level league is competing for players with AYSO, they may feel they have to have the team of three or they look less serious. (But the higher league has a clear difference in level of play so it doesn't have the same concern.)

Of course, that only makes sense if you have AYSO in your area . . . Oddly, in my area I have heard from various folks that play AYSO and club that the level of reffing in AYSO (all volunteers) is higher than what they get in club.

 

You get what you pay for...
The best things in life are free..
AYSO clearly, then, is that than which no greater can be conceived

(St Anselm in the middle, with Aristotle and Boethius on the lines)

 

Demands? That's almost funny. From what I hear in my state there are currently about 1/4 as many registered refs as would be needed to fully staff all league games this summer. I'm guessing I will be working solo more often than not.

 

I have heard that many times....and I think that having 3 x refs at 10u contributes to that, because they have an opportunity to learn more and earlier.

 

Yeah, sorry, I meant pre-pandemic. I hope I’m working solo! That means the teams are coming back.

 

I think a lot also has to do with who stays. With AYSO refs, no one is doing it just for the money (since there is none). So at the older ages the refs are all folks with experience who stay because they enjoy it and enjoy supporting AYSO. (I'm not at all mocking anyone who refs for money--but those who do it just for money are not going to be the best refs.)

 

I'm not sure U10 is the best place to try to train AR's.

I presume your run-of-the-mill AYSO team is pretty similar to the run-of-the-mill rec USYS-affiliated teams that I saw. Typically there isn't much of a chance to learn offside in a U10 game. Many coaches at that level don't know how to coach well yet. They tell a defender to stay back at the "18" to "help out" the keeper. So that AR is going to be watching down the PA line and won't see any offside players unless the ball happens to be down in the area for a while and an attacker happens to wander offside.

Let alone the fact that many small-sided games don't call offside. In rec or select leagues.

 

On my local high school board, a coach complained about an official because he was "only doing games for the money." That official was also a local AYSO Area Referee Administrator/instructor/assessor.

 

Of course, how teams are coached can be very local. Before the BOL, at least around here, most U10 AYSO teams were not doing the GK-companion thing, and were pushing up. So there were OS opportunities. I agree that with the BOL it is a lot less effective. But at a minimum the ARs can start to learn the basic concepts of positioning, signalling, communicating so that when their kid moves up to 12U (where for us the refs from each team do the game before theirs), the learning curve isn't as steep. (And for us, no one should be "just" an AR--each volunteer should have whistled a game or two as well as ARing.) I'm not saying it's perfect, but when you have a system that relies solely on volunteer referees (and coaches), you have to do something at the younger levels to get refs into the pipeline--it's almost impossible (and largely unsuccessful, albeit with exceptions) to get volunteers to start at 14U. Different AYSO regions have wrestled with the problem in different ways--and some solutions that work well in small Regions are harder to use in large Regions.

 

That's obviously very hilarious...but what I wonder is the problem with doing games for money? I can understand if you're doing it for money and barely moving or dressed terribly or otherwise unprofessional. But just because you wanna make money that's considered wrong? That coach is in for a rude awakening to the modern world.

 

I've heard it put thus: "I don't do it for the money, but if it weren't for the money I probably wouldn't do it."

Also if a HS coach ever wanted to compare what (s)he gets for a season, to what I get for a season, they might sing a different tune.

 

I just want to be clear since I think I first interjected this into this thread: While all of my current reffing is volunteer (as my kids leave the house, that might change), I have no problem at all with those who only do games for pay. Heck, I got into reffing as a pre-teen largely because it was amazing to get paid to do something that was also fun. I don't think this issue is about refs who expect to be paid, but I also think we've all seen the disinterested ref only out there for the check who doesn't bring with it the idea of earning that check or feel the need to study the Laws (or rules), etc. I don't think that is going to describe folks on here, as everyone here is taking an extra step to keep up just by being here. (Of course, there are also volunteer refs who are out there for their own reasons (ego?) and don't bother to keep up.) I also think the "just for the check" can be nothing more than a non-creative cheap shot--such as the scenario that @Kit described above.

 

Given that the demand for referees clearly is outstripping the supply, I don't feel bad about being paid for what I do even if it's not much money in the grand scheme. It at least covers the post game beverages and if I'm lucky the inevitable physical therapy for the next injury.

 

I ref for fun, to stay in shape and to pay for my bourbon addiction . My assigning money pays for summer vacation. Or at least some of a summer vacation. I would be lying if I didn’t say money wasn’t part of it. But it’s not the only reason.