At the March Referee Committee meeting the idea of already qualifying all professional games as "challenging" and thus acceptable for assessment was proposed. The board decided to enact a trial period of one year under this proposition for D3 games only. The rationale behind the proposal is that many referees "make the game look easy," or less-challenging than it really is simply by doing a fantastic job. A game that has all the potential to blow up and present a myriad of challenges for the referee suddenly looks non-assessable simply because the referee knew how to keep things under control. This is something I've thought about many times over the past decade or so. Throughout my career I have had numerous assessments where the assessor deemed the game not challenging enough. However, if that assessor had been in my position he would be more in tune to the intricacies of player interactions which could very easily have incited a "challenging" game. I'll admit that in one upgrade assessment I purposely ignored a hotspot for the sake of making the game challenging so that I would pass the assessment. It is not something I am proud of and would never do again, and I do not recommend any other referee ever try it. At the time I simply couldn't risk not having another "non-assessable" game as the registration deadline was approaching. Anyway, I'd like to hear others thoughts about this enigma. Do your job and the game is too easy. Don't do your job and you fail the assessment. Do something in between and it isn't for the good of the game itself. It's almost as if USSF's assessment process promotes the referee placing his own advancement over the spirit of the game by doing what I did above in order to upgrade. I don't have a solution other than to simply accept certain games as automatically "challenging" based on the history of the teams.
I like the idea. I've never had a formal assessment and have been a level 8 for 25 years. I've heard of referees allowing games to get a little rough so that they could bring them under control and not have the "too easy game" issue.
That makes me wonder whether I'm a good ref or not. Grade 8 for about 4 years, give or take a season, and 2 formal assessments and an informal one.
IaSocfan you da MAN!! I like your style. I've got 42 yrs of playing experience and 2 yrs as a level 8 with NO desire to upgrade. Don't want to play the political game either.
Two quick points! I am VERY reluctant to classify any game that I assess NOT to be "sufficient test." To me, assessing a state ref on a U-10 game would not be a sufficient test. The reason I feel this way is the same reason that was originally mentioned - the ref may have done such a good job he made it look like an easy game. Secondly, assessment and upgrading was more of a personal challenge and achievement. To meet all of the qualifications and to make the effort to do so is a reward in itself. Upgrade is NOT necessarily a political move. You can play that game, but it is not for everyone. You can think that I have bettered yourself but upgrading gives you an outside measure of having improved. Just my opinion.
If you only want to do youth or rec soccer then there's no reason to upgrade. Anything higher and you better get your state badge. Most tournaments around here won't assign U16-U19 comp centers to an 8 unless they are trying to upgrade. You'll be stuck doing U14s and adult rec. Maybe it's different in other states since we have so many referees here. Anyway, there's no point in a state ref being assessed on anything less than semi-professional men's soccer. Youth games don't even contribute to their game count at that level. What I'm talking about is going into a men's semi-professional or professional game and being it deemed unassessable simply because it "wasn't enough of a challenge." Same goes for U17-U19 men's games. In most amateur matches the game will go flawlessly until one specific mistake by the referee. After that the game is very challenging. They can turn for the worst on a dime, even if the game is perfect until the 89th minute. However, a very defined referee can make it through the entire game without any problems if that "moment of truth" is handled properly. All a referee has to do is purposely not manage that moment of truth and next thing you know the game is assessable.
In my limited experience this may be more of a state-by-state issue, and also depend on the specific standards set by your SDA and SRA, as well as whether it is an assemment for upgrade, what level of upgrade (8 to 7, 6 to 5) or if it is a maintenance assessment. I have heard that some state associations, including MA in the not to distant past, put referees through a lot of hoops before they are upgraded and have been known to set quite arbitrary requirements which are then, inconsistently applied. Others are quite lax, or it depends on who you know, particulalry from the 8 to 7 and 7 to 6. I have a cousin who was a referee in another state. He was a grade 6, after only three years, and had never done a match more competitive than a B14. As it turned out, this was not based on skill, but a policy of uprading adult referees every year to keep them in the program, and because the pay scale increased for each increase in grade. Some of the most capable referees I know are 8's, who I am absolutely confident in assigning for adult amateur tournaments. At the same time there are 6's and 7's who I would not be comfortable assigning to a competitive youth match. In MA, there are now fewer of these than in the past and more deserving 8's being recognized and getting upgrades. If deserving referees are being penalized for doing too good a job during their assessment, it may be time for your state committee to reassess its priorities. Sherman
My experience with assessors is a mixed bag. Some have really contributed to the assessment and they typically do upper level matches like MLS or prestigeous tournaments. They are insightful and take the time to not only discuss mechanics as a means of managing a match, but most importantly spend the time on the pyschology or art of refereeing. I've also had assessors that knew absolutely nothing about the game. They had no business assessing above a U14 level. Honestly there are things that happen in matches as Stateman noted that can turn a well managed match into a distaster. Some are out of the control of a referee. Just ask Brian Hall about it. Evidence the friendly in SF between Mexico and Uruguay?
Absolutely agree about the moment of truth comment. In many ways adult competitions are much easier then youth in that you dont have idiot coaches and parents and the players are usually reasonably intelligent about the game. They expect you to do a good job and generally control the game themselves(or undestand when you have to) UNTIL you make a mistake in a crucial moment. Then things can get ugly fast.
Management mistakes are the most painful to endure as a referee. I don't care if the way I do things makes some matches that I work hard at look easy. The best challenging situations are the ones that never happen because the referee is proactive. IMO, the assessor needs to look at the game realistically and give the referee the benefit of doubt. If the game should have been a challenge and it looked easy, then the match must have been well managed. Even if a D-3 match goes 6-0 and turns into a walk, that can't be held against the referee.
PZ, Why would you say that? You should be glad that you have had 3 assessments in 4 years. Most referees go years without being assessed. Consider yourself lucky!
Yes, and no. I believe it takes a very experienced assessor to discern the difference. Designating the match as not challenging doesnt hurt the referee, it just doesnt help them. There are too many 6s and above that got their badges because of generous "benefits of the doubt".
This is good. You have a lot more potential. In a year or two, you could be a 7. In that time, I'll be slower and over 60. I'll never be a national, with assessments, improvement, work, and maturity you could be. Keep up the good work.
This is absolutely true. As you suggest, there has to be a happy medium somewhere and that is where the experienced and perceptive assessor comes into play.
I'd like to withdraw my intial comment about not hurting the referee, because in the long term, it really does hurt the official. Consistently giving the benefit of the doubt is not a solid foundation from which to build.
What meeting was this? All "pro" games have always counted as competitive enough. PDL games maybe not. In fact, D3 game scan be much tougher than MLS or A-league. Not the skill level but in game control.
March Referee Committee meeting, like I said. I was sifting through the minutes and decisions of some of the meetings and stumbled upon this. Thought it was a good topic. I don't remember what I had done to look it up though, I don't go through that stuff all that often.
The March NRC or a state committee? A pro game has always counted as a sufficient test. Very strange if true.
I believe I found the document at ussoccer-data, so it would be the NRC. I wish I bookmarked it. I'm not too good with the Internet and looking up stuff like that... it took me a couple months just to figure out how these forums work. I don't think all pro-level games automatically qualify, only MLS and possibly A-league. That's my guess on why they are testing it out for D3.
My experience says that you may have misread what was posted. MLS, A-league and D# have always counted. That's why we have so many Nationals.
That's certainly a possibility. I do know the general topic was brought up, maybe it wasn't specifically referring to professional games, so it still is an issue. I know I didn't misread that part
Below is the exact wording. It does say pretyt much (as I stated) that up until now all pro games were counted as a suffient test. They will be starting a test in the D3 to see if all games should be counted. It doesn't mean, at least for this coming season, that these games will not count. If they like the feedback after this coming season they may leave it up to each assessor as to whether or not that particular game was suffient or not. "Professional game requirements. A request was received to consider “changing pro matches from automatically counting as challenging.” Extensive discussion on the merits of counting all pro games as a test for the referee. Are games “easy” or are the referees “good” and thus make the games look “easy?” Moved and seconded to establish a one-year pilot program to review the elimination of sufficient test on Pro Select matches from automatically being considered a sufficient test for the referee for D3 only. This program will be reviewed in the spring of 2004. Further discussion. On a voice vote the motion was affirmed. One abstention."
Here in MD, you typically won't be assessed on anything less than a U-19 Boys match, especially if you're upgrading. As most U19 matches are usually challenging, this pretty much eliminates the possibility of an assessor saying the match wasn't sufficiently competitive. If you're moving from 7 to 6, the assessors here want to see you in senior men's amateur matches, which is getting difficult because there aren't enough of those to go around lately.
That's very appropriate for grade 5 and lower. However, what the NRC is talking about is National assessments and pro games. It has always been for lower grades and mostly upgrades.that if a game is not a suffient test according to that assessor at that time the game would not count.
Ironically, the level which can often be most challenging to a referee's skills is B15 and B16 premier youth.