Personally, I like it. http://assets.nydailynews.com/polop...vatives/article_970/soccer-referee-killed.jpg http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2015/03/13/soccer-referee-sentencing/70258968/
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/03/13/soccer-player-whose-punch-killed-referee-to-be-sentenced/ “In all honesty, if he ran over to the sidelines and pulled a gun and it was one bullet that took my husband’s life, there would be no question in anybody’s eyes that this was murder. But because of the fact he took the one weapon that was available to him, his fist, there’s doubt,” she said. “There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Saad murdered my husband. And the sentence, it is what it is. Do I necessarily agree? No, because now I have a 9-year-old son who says to me, ‘But mom, I thought if you kill somebody you go to prison for the rest of your life,'” she continued. “How do I explain that the system didn’t do his father the justice he deserved? I can’t.” Before stepping away from the podium, Kris Bieniewicz did one final thing to make her husband proud. “I would like to serve Mr. Saad with the red card that he was entitled to,” she said, holding up a red referee card.
Looking at the photograph of Mrs. Bieniewicz holding the red card, I found the gesture very moving and emotional. Not kitsch.
Bravo Mrs Bieniewicz....definitely appropriate. An 8 year sentence is a joke. She is right about referees being "on an island with no one to defend them". The board members of these adult leagues are complicit in this. In the adult leagues I'm familiar with, it's the same teams and same players, just how this guy had a past history of violence. They're afraid of losing money with folks not coming back. Some indicate in their rules that ref fees are not to be paid until the conclusion of the match....I kid you not. A great spot to put referees in after a 90 minute heated contest.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-death-had-altercation-at-2005-game/15559889/ http://www.wxyz.com/news/local-news...ed-a-soccer-ref-by-punching-him-during-a-game --- Going back over the reports about Saad, what seems obvious after the fact is that an individual with his background shouldn't have been allowed to play at all. I wonder whether national refereeing organizations can pressure some leagues to weed out problem individuals, perhaps create a registry to share information. An ounce of prevention vs something that's impossible to cure.
The league, the player, and the manager of the team are sued, 51m dollars, 1m for each year of the referee's remaining life - http://bit.ly/1y5vEAz and http://on.freep.com/1CCy3kJ According to the accusation in the lawsuit, the Michigan United Soccer League apparently knew about the player's violent behaviour.
So the standard is now anyone with violent behavior is not allowed to play soccer? And the league is supposed to do what, run background checks on everyone? Sorry, but lawsuits and this kind of expectations just drives the whole system into the ground. If the man had previously assaulted a REF related to play, then yes a suit would be reasonable. But just because he had a violent record, that does not (and SHOULD NOT) exclude him from being able to play. There are plenty of people who have an assault charge in the past and become perfectly reasonable members of society and this kind of overarching big brother monitoring is not a good thing.
So, if he's only bashing in the heads of opponents and not referees, the lawsuit is without merit? Wow. Since it's a friend of Bieniewicz, he's doing it pro bono as they have low expectations of collecting anything and their main goal in the lawsuit is to bring to attention the problem of adult leagues who do nothing to repeat offenders. Anything on top of that would be a bonus for them. We never found out what the punishment for his 2005 incident was where he sucker punched an opponent and repeatedly punched him in the head. Was he suspended for a whole season? Probably not. Adult Leagues have a responsibility to provide a safe playing involvement for all....and that includes keeping people off the field who have already shown a propensity for violence, regardless of whom it was towards.
Drives what whole system into the ground? I think the lawsuit will attempt to learn IF the people involved looked the other way. This guy HAD that assault charge in his past and then killed a referee. I wouldn't call it big brother monitoring. (BTW, if you had a choice between convicted felon and another equally qualified job applicant, who are you hiring?)
The lawyer acting on behalf of the Bieniewicz family may be doing it pro bono, but rest assured that the lawyers for the defendants will not be. That means it will cost them thousands, and possibly tens of thousands before the case is resolved - even if it ends up being thrown out of court. Maybe that is fair treatment in this case if the association is found to be grossly negligent, but less so if they are not. Do any amateur soccer associations require background checks for all participants? Not in my area that I am aware of. Is that where we want/need this to go? I'm not in any way trying to defend the killer or the adult league involved. I just wanted to suggest that this fact-finding lawsuit will be far from cost-free.
So what? I guy got killed. If they want to sue, let the legal system figure it out. Do you think that association doesn't carry liability insurance? If they don't, then why would you ever agree to an officer of that association? it's part of the dues of the association, no? Just like your insurance on the reffing side.
The Michigan United Soccer League no doubt has Directors & Officers Liability, which would cover them for defense costs and any court settlements arising out of any wrongful act allegations and lawsuits brought against the Board of Directors. I have not seen any article that suggests any league should. If there is anything good that can come out of the death of Bieniewicz and this lawsuit, it's that Adult Soccer League's might finally be held accountable for their actions and change their ways of doing business and not just give a slap on the wrist to those who show violent behavior on the field. There must be a Zero Tolerance Policy.
I am 100%++ for accountability and as I referee in several adult leagues I 100%+++ agree some of them need to get "better" especially on discipline. I 100%+++ DISAGREE with any form of zero tolerance. While reasonable people may be able to understand what that is and set reasonable bounds, I have never seen it happen. Zero tolerance policies always get convoluted into far more than intended and when you are dealing with humans you are dealing with many variables that a zero tolerance policy can not accommodate. It's easy to say zero tolerance for assault on a referee, and I agree but if you try to implement it what happens when a player is hurt, a referee goes up to check and the player sticks out a hand to inform the referee "I'm good" or whatever and it makes contact with the referee in the chest? Zero tolerance says that's assault and the player is punished however the policy dictates but reasonable people would see that as what it is, inadvertent contact. Zero tolerance will not allow you to be reasonable, even if the referee understood and had no issue with what happened, the opposing team sees an opportunity to play up a man etc. so they invoke the zero tolerance policy. In most cases leagues have disciplinary procedures that are already in place to handle issues. The problem is they do not follow what is already in place. Adding more policy or procedures is not the answer, enforcing what is already on the books but not being followed is. And NOT directing this at @MetroFever but at zero tolerance policies (and not the zero tolerance concept).
Those liability policies can have deductibles in the 5-10K range. I'm going to stop commenting on this now, because in no way do I want to come across as defending the killer or the league for their actions.
Agree 100% that if he has history of violence ON THE FIELD and IN THE SAME LEAGUE then the league officials would have culpability. Perhaps I was mistaken in my understanding, but I thought the implication was that if he had a history of violence anywhere (i.e. maybe a bar assault 5-10 years ago) then he should be banned. The former I am in agreement with, the latter I am most certainly not. And "zero tolerance" policies are universally a poor idea and a way for people to avoid making the tough decisions they should make.