I have to laugh when you continuously INSIST on comparing the european leagues to MLS. I KNOW you want to believe that the level of play, financial situation and officiating quality in the USA is the same as in europe but it just isnt true. The English football association earned over $500 million in 2000. The italian, over $400 million. Spain and Germany just under $400 million and france just over $200 million....MLS has NEVER made a profit. THERE IS NO COMPARISON! Get over it. Yet another rediculous generalization. Lets talk about a mens open rec league that pays its centers $60 a match. 36 players would each pay less then TWO extra dollars a game to get an extra reff. for a 10 game season that is 20 dollars more in game fees......Hardly going to break the back when the market continues to support shoe sales for products that cost $150 plus........Money is not an issue.
That's a good one. Go to your average men's league commisioner and tell him you want more money. Let me know when he stops laughing. Better yet, show me a men's league team that actually has 18 players on the active roster. Most of them have a hard time fielding eleven players on any given weekend.
Well lets see.....Near you: The Northern Virginia Soccer League, Primier, 1st 2nd and 3rd divisions all have MANY teams with full rosters. The Capital Soccer league has 2 divisions of the same. I dont expect a league commisioner to pay from his pocket, just raise the league fees like a said two posts ago.
This thread has taken a rather interesting turn. In my other life, I work in the field of market research and market potential analysis. Recently there have been some discussions with interests who seek to better understand the revenue potential aspects of soccer in relation to its popularity and in comparison to other sports. It is important to understand that every sport has a range of revenue sources which include the sports organization itself, the sporting activity, sporting events, events licencing, branding, personality, co-branding, tie-ins, sponsorships, advertising and promotion. One aspect of soccer which has been a barrier to its growth in the US is that soccer events, the matches themselves, do not provide a particularly broad range of revenue opportunities, such as you have in football, baseball and basketball, and to a lesser degree ice hockey. This is most notable in the lack of advertising slots. Historically the European and Latin American revenue models were based upon direct events revenues, primarily admission, which is why we have seen such huge capacity stadia, much larger than anything we have here in the US. The problem is that stadia attendance has its limits, and the sport does not lend itself as well to other commercial applications, so, even in Europe and Latin America, despite its popularity, it is increasingly difficult to operate teams and leagues at a reasonable profit. In fact, from the data I have seen, few stadia events break even, including broadcast rights, much less provide profit. The problem is that sports officials are part of the overhead of the sporting events, and with the possible exception of the Collina T-shirts, referees do not themselves generate revenue. We are on the wrong side of the balance sheet. So the question becomes, even if the addition of two more AR's could improve the officiating (and I'm not really convinced that it would, though it my reduce the need for the AR to follow the ball to the line which would certainly make it easier to move back into position) such an improvement would not increase revenue, in an already marginal aspect of the game. It would be a hard sell.
I do Mid-Maryland and Maryland Major league games, so I know what I'm talking about. OK, so the league commisioner tries to raise the fee, and the teams laugh at him. We won't even go into what would happen if the youth leagues around here (NCSL and WAGS) tried to raise the fees to cover add'l refs; the teams in those leagues already pay some of the highest fees in the country. Other than the financial considerations, you'd still have the problem of recruiting and retaining a significant number of new referees. Ask your local SDI or league assignors about that one.
this is an interesting point that no one has discussed yet. how would having 1 CR and 4 ARs impact the recruitment of officials? i never minded running the lines, and viewed it as an important way to learn from some experienced refs, but i always preferred being in the middle. (my guess is this is that some people don't want to bring in a second CR in the first place because they'd have to share the middle). so, would it be more difficult to recruit refs if that many more of your games are running a line? especially if your duties are further diminished? i suppose it depends on the level - i mean i'd be more than content to run a line on an professional game - but i don't know that day in and day out i'd want to be on a line for 80% percent of my games. if i can add another thought to this thread, it seems to me like there would be value in trying to split the issues up. on the one hand, financial and recruiting and other issues go to the practicality (or impracticality) of implementing a new system. on the other hand, there has been much less discussion about whether a different system would actually result in a better match (and if so how much would the refereeing be improved). obviously, the additional amount one might pay (or shift from other areas in the budget) may depend on what benefit will be derived. in this regard, i might note that this may be a change (or a type of change) that only needs to be considered at the highest levels of play (where speed of the game makes the offsides call and keeping up with the game the most difficult).
I figured you did. That is why I named them. and then they write the check for the fees so that they can play the game. The cost increase would be minimal looking a the big picture. I dont expect WAGS and NCSL to be included in this change. I very rarely comment on youth issues as this is not my focus. I am sure you could find a few good men willing to do higher level games....I am available this weekend.
I wasn't really thinking in terms of "who wants to be an AR", but rather "where do we dig up all these new refs?" In Maryland, for example, we lost 750 referees last year - referees who did not renew their certification for 2002. You can imagine what kind of a crimp that puts on game coverage at every level, and now we want to talk about increasing the number of refs per game? The math doesn't work. The biggest problem is referee retention. We lose thousands of referees each year nationwide for a number of reasons, but the biggest one is the abuse that parents and spectators lay on young referees. Paul Tamberino identified this as our most pressing issue. These are referees who would eventually percolate up into the senior games that Greyhound is talking about.
Greyhnd, I don't want to get too much into this stuff again because we agree on principle about this 4 AR thing, but, let me set the record straight and clarify my remarks: First, I've never said the level of play in MLS is on par with the top European leagues. I've said it's on par with the second-tier Euro leagues. After one names the top ten leagues in the world (not necessarily in order: England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Holland, Argentina, Portugal, Turkey), they'd be hard-pressed to say that MLS--insofar as level of play--isn't in the next group (with Scotland, Norway, Denmark, etc.). The top MLS teams could fight for UEFA Cup spots in these leagues--and Portugal, Holland and Turkey as well. That's all I've ever said, and I stand by it. Most people that regularly watch such leagues would agree. Second, I also stand by my assertion that, when compared to the level of play on the field, MLS refereeing is well above average. You're welcome to disagree, but I just wish you did so with some firsthand knowledge of what the refereeing is actually like in the leagues I mention. Finally, I'm not sure where you got your figures, but I agree with you that European leagues operate in a whole different stratosphere financially. However, many European clubs are in dire straits financially. The fact of the matter is that while revenues have soared recently, club presidents' penchant for spending has increased even faster. They make millions more than MLS clubs, but they also spend millions more than MLS clubs. As an example, Real Madrid (read: the most successful club in Europe), amassed a debt of 400 million Euros and Italian superpowers Lazio and Fiorentina have literally been struggling to pay their players' wages. I don't want to get into a war of words about this stuff, because it doesn't concern refereeing, and, more importantly, is straying from the topic. However, if you want to see where I get a lot of my information from, I recommend the June 1st survey from the Economist titled Passion, Pride and Profit: A survey of football. We are still talking about 4 ARs and not 2 CRs, aren't we? In most amateur leagues, we'd be talking about 4 extra refs, nevermind 1 or 2, as all but D1 amateur leagues usually employ 1 man systems. Adding 4 ARs for every game is a tall order. On top of that, as Claymore points out, there's the issue of retention. I don't think there's enough quality referees at the lower levels to fill these roles. And, if there are, you'll be taking good CRs away from high-level youth matches in order to fill the AR voids at the amateur level. A host a problems become created--besides financial considerations--if you tried to use this system at an amateur level. Moreover, I don't think FIFA, USSF, or anyone else in the world is interested in changing these systems for Sunday rec games. Any changes to the DSC would be geared towards the international and professional level. You're not going to see a change at the amateur level unless you first see one in MLS and USL.
Your wording here seems to imply that you think the officiating in MLS is better then the play! I wont argue that one with you but I have to say I am surprised to hear you say it! Regardless the point is indeed moot. Strange how no matter how much you make you always seem to spend it! While the euro leagues dont have a huge surplus at the end of the year it would be much easier for them to cough up an extra $2000 a game then it would be for an MLS team much the same way that a doctor would have an easier time paying $1.60 for a gallon of gas then a ditch digger in rural Mississippi(no offense to them) Im not sure what we are talking about exactly now....Regardless I believe that the financial issue is not as signifigant as is put forth above. Teams will pay the increased money. I have not often been accused of being an overly optomistic but I think that an improvement to the DSC might lead to less mistakes, reduce the amount of player frustration and increase retention of referees.....I am not overly focused on reasons NOT to do this. I suspect those will be easily identified once we make the change. But we will overcome them.
With all the officials -- what is it, 8? -- they have in gridball, plus (not so instant) replay, they still don't get the calls correct. So, adding more officials is not a solution, and merely serves to alter football from a players game, into a lawyers game.
Preston, that's my main problem with any 2 or 3 CR system. There would be infinite discrepancies and constant conferences, etc. But I don't think that adding 2 ARs--if financially feasible--would intrude on the game too much. It's just adding two more sets of eyes. The CR is still the sole arbiter, acting on the advice of 5 people now. At lower levels, where there is a vast discrepancy in the ability of officials, I agree it could turn into a nightmare. But at higher levels, where officials have proven themselves and are pretty much on the same plane, with proper communication, I think two more ARs could prove to be a help in a variety of ways.
I agree with your point. However, the question then becomes, do they want to spend the money on refereeing as opposed to another player? League officials and club presidents are great at putting forward media soundbytes after a high-profile refereeing mistake, but when it comes right down to it, I doubt that too many will put their money where their mouths are. World-class players sell tickets and ink TV deals. Two extra referees don't. The fact of the matter is, the refereeing situation may be imperfect (well, it will always be imperfect) but it's not driving away fans by any means. From a business standpoint--which, I think you would agree, world soccer is--refereeing isn't a problem. I think this is overly optimistic. The vast majority of referees that certify and then are not retained start at the rec youth level where there's usually a 1-man system. They hear the abuse, etc. (whether "deserved" because of mistakes, or not) and then don't come back the next year. A 6-man system will not be employed at any youth level at all, I think we can agree on that point. So, I don't see how it would help retention.
So lets just get rid of all of the officials in soccer and in football and just let the players kill each other. WHile we are at it lets disband the army, navy air force and marines and call it quits becasue even with them we still have people die. Let just GIVE UP if a difficutl issue arises and accept mediocrity...........Might be good enough for you but not for me.
If we are going to have 4 A/R's then instead of coloured flags on sticks, why not give them yellow dusters to throw onto the field of play, so that ther referee can see where the offside took place. In order to distinguish the referee from the A/R's when they get together to discuss the point, he wears a white baseball cap and the others to wear black ones. Also to ensure that players are 10 yards back from free kicks, we can have two other A/R's (of the 4th official with one of them) come out with two tall sticks with a 10 yard chain between them to ensure that 10 yards is the correct distance. In order to ensure that the crowd knows what is going on, the referee has a wired up microphone so he can talk to them. Just in case all this officials are still unsure or not correct, have a 5th official watching it all on a T.V. monitor to tell the centre ref what he needs to do. ("Enough said").!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeff, Just as Greyhnd went overboard in one direction with his last post, you've been equally irrational with your last post. No one--especially not me--is suggesting an emulation of the American football officiating system, whatsoever. All that's being suggested is two additional ARs, with the same duties as the other ARs sans the ability to call offside. They are still there to assist, not to upstage or confer with the CR. The DSC, of which I am a unwavering proponent, is still preserved, you're simply covering the field better with more people watching. Just because people are advocating more officials does not mean they are trying to "Americanize" the game. Did you say the same thing when fourth officials were empowered to bring misconduct to the referee's attention? Adding two ARs is like adding two mobile reserve officials to the touch line. It takes the onus off the fourth official (now sixth) to catch all misconduct behind the play, and it puts two people at the touch lines deep in the referees diagonal for fouls and out of bounds plays. I suspect, if such a situation were ever employed, off-the-ball violence would be caught more, as would tactical handling and holding that skilled players typically shield from referees deep in their diagonals.
"MASS REF". That was meant very much "Tongue in cheek", if you are familiar with that expression. Basically it means, it was meant as a bit of fun!!! "Our" rules are simple, and we don't need a ton of officials. I am happy for people to think about new ideas for the improvement of the game, and if you care passionately about anything then you express yourself about the topic as many people do here. That is good. However, I don't imagine FIFA sanctioning this idea. Not so much for "the big game" invironment", but at grass roots level. It's difficult enough trying to get games covered with 3 officials, never mind 5. Personally I don't see it ever coming about. Also if the ref and 2 AR's are good enough then they should see most things anyway. If you analyse any game, how much is really ever wrong? Very little I would suggest. We all accept that even one thing wrong is one too many. but thtaq's not to say that that will not happen with 5. If things do wrong then. What next? 7, 9 11. One for each player per team? Things are pretty good with 3. Have you ever done games when no Ar's are available? It's pretty regular over here at "park" level. Then you are doing the work of 3. That sharpens the skills!! Let's all keep talking about the game, and try for improvement, but remember, just like my original post; it's supposed to be fun too!!!!!! JEFF.
I agree that it is supposed to be fun, but I also take this game and my role in it VERY seriously. Refereeing soccer is probably one of the top three things I like to do(you figure it out! ) As I have said before I dont comment much on youth topics as it is not my primary focus. I do think that many observers both outside and inside of the organization recognize that three officials is just not enough to cover a 110 yard field with all of the other duties that we are supposed to cover. Just this weekend I was an AR in a U19B final with the ball right in front of me and 3 yards to my left I was watching the 2nd to last defender as the acordian effect was going back and forth and the call was going to be close. Unexpectantly the ball went out of play to my left........No more then 10 feet from me...I wasnt watching the ball or the play as I was watching for offside..CR didnt see who it went off of so he looked at me..I made a guess. Sure it was just a throw in but when it happens right in front of you the players are understandbly frustrated.
Jeff, I realize what you were trying to do with your post, but just because you are having a little fun doesn't mean you can't be responded to. If you've read my posts, you would see I agree with you on most of these points. I don't think it will ever come about for a few reasons (namely financial concerns and recruitment problems). However, that does not mean that a viable experiment couldn't be sanctioned. The 1 CR/4 AR/1 Reserve system is, in my mind, far more viable than any 2 CR system ever would be, yet FIFA and the IFAB spent a lot of time on an experiment for 2 CRs. I don't see the harm in also attempting an experiment with 4 ARs for a certain period of time. If it was carried out, maybe success would prompt a change at the international and professional division levels around the world--however, I've said consistently that I think it's impossible for any change like this (even 2CRs) to be employed at any lower level. As you've said, enough amateur and youth matches are already operating with 1 official, nevermind 3; 4 is unheard of and 5 or 6 would be impossible.