New US Soccer policy regarding headsets and grassroots referees

Eh, reminding someone to stand on the corner for the kick and not with the second to last defender isn't exactly a hard instruction and definitely one that can be made quietly with a radio instead of stopping the game and showing all the parents that the small Teenager doesn't know what they're doing.

I don't get the issue, just leave me alone.

 

I don't own coms, but I have used them, from high school/U-16 up through the professional level, starting in the early days of coms. I realize that there are some specific protocols that FIFA's and probably PRO officials want used. But Grassroots Referees aren't doing those games and they are fairly unlikely to spend the money to buy them in the first place, unless they plan to get to the Regional Referee level.

I am sure there are times that the coms have become a distraction rather than a help. That's when the crew has to realize that they aren't helping and just referee without trying to use them. Unless the technology fails (e.g. had a game where we could hear the referee but he couldn't hear us) not using the perfect procedure isn't going to hurt that much. It's kind of like the referee turning their back on the AR at that end of the field. Yeah, it happens and you don't want to do it, but the game doesn't go to hell in a handbasket because of that error.

And Chicago is not going to be going to your local U-15 game behind the middle school to check whether there's a crew with a Grassroots Referee using coms. And, if they did, so what? This is a rule without any penalty specified for violations.

Next thing you know, they'll be ordering that beeper flags not be used because they distract the referee and let them get into bad habits of not looking at their AR. SMH.

 

We can use that same argument for USL refs who screw up while they are mic'd up.

I love blanket statements like that. "There have been numerous assaults with ball-point pens, so we are returning to fountain pens for the interns."

Surely if you have numerous instances where they have hindered amateur games, you can name them. At least give examples of the no doubt hundreds of instances you have when comms have ruined the integrity of the amateur game.

Molon labe, Chicago.

 

I think there are several problems with this directive, but wanted to mention two

- geography. It's a big country and there are areas where there are well-qualified grassroots referees working competitive amateur matches who have no intention of upgrading. If they want to spend their own money and learn how to use comms to better control a match, why should Chicago care?

- enforceability. Don't make a rule you can't or won't enforce. I would hope this would be obvious but it does not seem to be. Right now, this seems most likely to discourage those who who would use comms most appropriately while those who don't care are unlikely to be discouraged.

 

Maybe I'm old and have been refereeing longer without technology than with it, but maybe grassroots referees should learn the same fundamentals everyone else has before relying on a mostly unnecessary tool at the lower levels.

 

Or people who are technically Grassroots referees in USSF but are high level in other soccer organizations. I know that one referee in my local association is a Grassroots referee, but he does D1 college games. I think he knows how to use comms.

 

Which fundamentals? Is it looking at the referee during a stoppage, or monitoring substitutions when the ref is on the other side of the field? Because is one of my assistants isn't doing that, it's incredibly easy for me to go "hey, make sure they're off the field before you let the sub on." Rather than explaining it to them afterwards.

I just don't get it, this is an easy solution. I've been reffing since we switched to Fuschia, I have barely used radios but I can see the obvious benefits of using them in situations for instruction.

Does anyone here play online games? Do they know that the young kids coming up who want to be referees have? You have a headset on and there's constant back and forth and instruction over the headset with your teammates. These kids can do it, it'll make them more engaged and more likely to stick with this job.

 

Everyone here has pretty much given all the positives and negatives to using them. It would be great as a center to help fix an inexperienced AR's terrible mechanics on the fly mid game rather than suffering in frustration for an entire half. Or a mentor providing on-the-fly foul recognition help to an inexperienced ref in the center start seeing what to allow/not allow in real time rather than the mentor quizzing them at halftime on their mistakes hoping they remember every situation.

But in my opinion, the fact that so many responses in this thread are talking about the main benefits of radio use at lower levels being to correct inexperienced refs' mechanics rather than helping the crew's communication and performance as a whole, to me, is pretty damning evidence of their general uselessness at these levels. People are mentioning high school, ECNL and NPL level games. I've done all these and really, the only level of youth game where I think they would really be necessary are the ECNL/NPL level boys games at around U15-16 and above, or MLS Next (where they are explicitly banned) because the speed, skill, and potential for confrontation has been much higher in these games.

I definitely understand the frustration of blanket banning grassroots refs from using them, as there are even advanced and skilled grassroots refs who have no interest in upgrading to regional but do games where they should definitely be needed, like in our area they can do WPSL and NPSL matches and games in that tier of the adult amateur soccer pyramid. I don't think there should be any sort of ban at all, but that their use at youth games should definitely be pretty sparse.

 

I was planning on using comms more for adult games and older age youth games (15U and above), because those type of games might be more contentious and fast-paced than other games. I have also used comms in high school games, and will plan on using them for college games as well. At those levels, comms can give quick and effective input to other members of the crew.

 

Kind of an off topic question, and you might not know the answer, but given the fact that grassroots refs can do games all the way up to the USL 2 level, what incentives are there to becoming a regional? I imagine that NPSL/USL 2 in that tier of the pyramid is probably the highest that a large majority of refs will attain, maybe USL league 1. I imagine that a very small amount of regionals get up the the USL championship level and obviously MLS is a fraction.

Seems to me like if you have no goals/delusions of becoming an MLS ref, why bother going through all the hoops and politics of getting to the regional level? Looks like grassroots are even capable of doing college D1 games? I have gone most of my ref career thinking that a ref had to become a regional (or 6, 5, 4 in the old days of three years ago) just do even do any level of adult game so that was the incentive.

 

Regional pay incentive and you'll have an easier time getting higher-level assignments?

 

Why upgrade? So you can use comms, of course.

 

Is there such a thing as regional pay incentive? I know it's not in my area, and also there is one assignor who covers a lot and if he knows you, it's a decent way in regardless of grade.

 

Remember, college soccer is a totally separate thing from USSF. There is no requirement to have even done youth matches before becoming a college referee! I know several who began officiating high school soccer (also separate from USSF) and worked their way up to college soccer.

 

For one, to center USL 2.

 

Many weekend tournaments around me would pay $5 more per game if you were a grade 7. Not sure if a similar incentive is available now that numerical grades are gone.

 

So none then?

 

Obviously I'm not saying that upgrading is completely useless. I know that being a regional will get you benefits in getting assignments.

But when I see that grassroots refs are accepted just fine to do everything from the highest levels of youth soccer (like MLS Next, which our state referee instructor assigns) to UPSL/USL2/NPSL, if I didn't have the aspiration to become a National/FIFA ref, I would wonder what the point is of going thru all the qualifications and politics of getting to regional because if you're a good enough GR, you'll get them regardless.

Our assignor who assigns games for WPSL and NPSL even admitted (I asked if I could even do those matches as a grassroots) that like a third of their refs are great grassroots ones who don't upgrade because there are a lot of politics involved in getting up to regional, having to travel all over to "make yourself visible" (aka brown nose) with assignors to get favorable matches and assessments that can get you to regional.

He used the analogy of someone who got multiple degrees/certifications in higher education and might not actually need or directly use them in his jobs but that just having them will get his foot in the door and have people respect him more than others, might even get him additional pay (in line with people above saying that some places give a bonus for games if you're one, even though I've never seen that), and sometimes, even just that little bit of arrogance to be able to say "well I'm a regional"

 

For many years, US Soccer "prohibited" the usage of caps to be worn by referees. After many years, they finally relented. The headsets will obviously fall in the same category with folks ignoring it and this directive being long forgotten or reversed (I'm aware it's not a perfect comparison).

Goes to show how arrogant they are considering the negative feedback about their Grassroots movement. If they were sincere, they would have included a "How to Properly Use Headsets" segment in their 2022 recertification and added a 10 minute instruction on it.

Not a fan of using them at most levels with most referees. I find the "chatter" not very helpful and have already heard every lame soccer mom joke during stoppages. However, for those that find it helpful and want to use it...why get involved?

 

There are still mechanics that US Soccer/IFAB refuse to give a set in stone guideline to. I'm mostly referring to those AR mechanics and other things that annoyingly vary from crew to crew and the CR has to specifically cover in their pregame because everyone does it differently. The "proper use of comms" to actually teach people what should and shouldn't be said on them is way too far down their totem pole.

They prefer to just dictatorially apply blanket rules banning their use period rather than taking a bit of effort to actually teach people how to best utilize them instead of expecting the center to specifically tell them what they do and don't want on them

 

I for one am relieved to know that Chicago has such a bang-up plan to address recruitment and retention that they are also able to worry about this stuff.

 

Hey, the online "check the box" course with all of the scripted things is working just fine!

Wait, it's not? Oh, that's right. My wife called it a (and this is a direct quotation) a "cluster****" after seeing my son go through it. She said one of the sections that's supposed to take 40 minutes took nearly two hours because of the continuous "drop-down" menus that are a part of that course.

Also, while US Soccer doesn't want grassroots referees to use headsets, it still has no problem with referees buying five shirts with two sleeve lengths per shirt. Nothing wrong there, right??

 

I have a comms system that I bought primarily to use for HS games. It's invaluable for the dual system, but I've found it useful for the diagonal system as well.

I was pretty surprised when I got the email from our state association about not using comms. "Hey, there's a referee shortage. Maybe we should do something to piss off our existing referees who felt strongly enough to buy some tools/technology that they thought would help improve their officiating!"

I agree 100% that comms and technology can't replace mechanics. It's like safety features in cars. Just because you have a rear view camera doesn't mean you can forget how to drive without one!

But the tone and lack of justification of USSF's letter is infuriating. I would really like to know what incorrect decisions a comms system contributed to. In my experience, it has prevented many incorrect decisions. I'm sure training can make them more effective, but the basic usage is pretty damn simple: you just talk. How can improved and easier communication lead to an incorrect decision?