advice to referees 'book'?

Hasn't been around for a while. It was out of date after some big changes in the laws and US Soccer went a different route for disseminating those details.

 

uh, no. The ATR disappeared around the same time IFAB expanded what is in the law book- there’s less “missing” then there used to be. And there was growing pressure for federations to not have their own guidance documents, as it created potential for conflicting “official” guidance. While I miss the ATR, it also got some things wrong. But the end of the the ATR has nothing to do with USSF being touchy freely.

 

It has to do with them cancelling something that was a great helpful resource for many referees though, without giving the guidance or training to replace it. Just, watch this slide and then here's a true or false.

 

That I agree with. They definitely could disseminate more materials that trickle down to grassroots.

 

But don’t you love being told by someone supposedly in “the know” that this is what FUTURO says and they are the ones getting the message from the top.

Even though it contradicts everything we plebeians have to work with.

 

I don’t agree with “highly flawed.” Yes. They got some things wrong but I was mostly a very valuable tool that was created when there was a lot less guidance—at least that could be found. The original edition was, in part, a response to the fact that the best info many folks could get came from a discussion board that USSF thought was giving some seriously flawed advice. Some of the language people complained in the ATR about actually came from prior IFAB statements. The fact IFAB later said something different didn’t mean the ATR was wrong when it was written. And they did run it by IFAB (in one case the feedback took too long and there were differences between the print and pdf versions as it went to print before IFAB clarified). I also think many of the alleged “misstatements” were actually gray areas that IFAB didn’t/wouldn’t clarify and USSF took a position to create consistency in the US. Don’t get me wrong, it made some mistakes; but overall it was an incredibly useful document that did help create consistency in the US.

 

Some of us remember a time when there was virtually no instruction from USSF, beyond the entry level course. The "intermediate course," required, supposedly, for State Referee, was something very rarely offered. Some years, you got the USSF print version of the Laws of the Game, but not every year. USSF was still using a lot of volunteers in those days, including the referee "department," because they had no money. A lot of the referee 'training' consisted of greybeards yapping in the referee tent at youth tournaments. Endless discussions about whether AR1 was supposed to have the red linesman's flag or the yellow. MLS didn't exist year.

The two big changes that started movement towards what we have today were USSF getting money from broadcast rights, after the US men qualified for the World Cup in 1990, for the first time in forever. That allowed the hiring of Alfred Kleinitis (sorry, I've probably misspelled his name), who became the itinerant instructor for referees. The other was the rise of the internet. Socref-L was the discussion forum for referees. USSF bigwigs monitored it without posting but it's existence and resulting discussions made it clear that there was a hunger out there for real world information and rulings.

The Advice To Referees was a consequence. USSF compiled some of the postings from Socref-L that they thought were right and they added some of their own material. (I remember reading it and coming across a paragraph that sounded very familiar. "Oh, wait. I wrote that.") Just like here, of course, not everything written on Socef-L was correct. And socal lurker is exactly right that some of what was written in the ATR was different than what the Laws say today because stuff was changed after the ATR was written. And I believe I overheard Alfred saying one time that they had shared the ATR with FIFA. It wasn't that many years later that the IFAB/FIFA became more expansive in the Laws, detailing more restarts et al., which had previously been left out because 'everybody already knows what to do in that situation.' Right or wrong, though, everything in the ATR was approved by USSF.

 

This is revisionist history. To say that there was virtually no instruction beyond the entry level course is totally incorrect. It is all a part of the false narrative that soccer began either in 1990 with the US team in the World Cup or in 1996 with MLS, or that Brian Hall was the first native-born American referee to go the World Cup Finals. (FYI it was David Socha, Massachusetts, who actually went twice 1982 and 1986).

Certainly there was not much happening prior to 1970, but I doubt there are many remaining who go back that far.
However during the 1970s, 80s and 90s, there was a very large referee instructional infrastructure in place that began in the early 1970s. It was initiated by Eddie Pearson who was both the NASL Director of Refereeing and the USSF National Director of Instruction. Together with people like Pat Smith, Harry Baldwin, Bob Sumpter, Bob Evans, Don Byron and Roger Schott they put together the National Referee Instructional Program. This system trained referee instructors and referees at Basic, State and National levels. Most states had a State Director of Instruction, reporting to the National Director, and a cadre of trained instructors. Instructional clinics were given by USSF in the late 1970s at several sites throughout the country where people could earn State Instructor certifications and they then returned to their own states to put on clinics to train basic level instructors. Some well-known names that came through these include Kleinaitis, Bratsis, Bellion and Silva. This was how USSF went from just a few hundred registered referees to over 100,000 in a very short period of time. Baldwin, Sumpter, Evans and Kleinaitis all eventually held the position of National Director of Referee Instruction. There were annual State Referee Clinics in many states, with leading Instructors sent from USSF. And there was the much coveted National Referee Annual Certification (aka National Camp) that was started in the mid 1980s by Sumpter and Evans and held originally for several years at the Olympic Center in Colorado Springs which often featured guest lecturers from FIFA and other National Federations.
MLS didn't exist, but NASL did, with many world class players, and that provided a lot of the incentive to develop National level referees. The program continued after NASL folded, and it was several years later that Kleinaitis was hired as a full-time USSF staff member. But a lot of this infrastructure was slowly dismantled beginning about 10-12 years ago, and now it is essentially non-existent in that format.

It is true that there was not a lot of published written material other than the Laws book available, but this was true at the FIFA level also. The ATR was an attempt to help in this regard. Although Kleinaitis was listed as the "author" it was actually ghostwritten piecemeal by about a dozen or so different instructors which goes some way to explaining its somewhat uneven tone.

PH

 

Pierre Head, I respect your longer experience. I know all of the names you mention and met several of them, particularly Alfred and Herb.

I will suggest that the pioneering work that these men did had limited effect at the local level, where 99+% of games are played. Between NASL folding and the start of MLS, there was little high level soccer, particularly outside of the northeast. Yes, they made efforts to develop referees but, without much play beyond some adult amateur tournaments, there really weren't a lot of games more challenging than the local ethnic men's league. E.g. one of my friends played in the New York City high school championship game, as a senior. A guy came into the locker room after the game and, after congratulating them, told them that the USSF men's national team was having tryouts in Philadelphia the next weekend, and they were all invited to try out. My friend did go try out but quickly discovered, as he put it, "my name ended in the wrong vowel." It clearly was a less sophisticated time. The major problem I saw was the huge growth in the number of referees reflected enormous growth in the youth leagues, with games refereed by youth officials, who just got a book (maybe) and a badge and four youth games to do solo next Saturday, usually from an assignor who had never played the game, much less officiated it.

 

Once again, a lot of this simply is not correct. During that time period between NASL and MLS, here were several other pro or semi pro leagues operating in various parts of the country. Chief among these was the American Soccer League, and a similar one operated on the West coast and had teams that used NASL names. Although not having the funds and playing at the same level NASL, there were still many players from NASL teams playing in these and the other leagues. (E.G., one George Best to name just one). And during this time period, the National referee certification clinics were held every year, and many people were able to get the games, evaluations and training that led to the award of their National badge. This could not have happened if there was "very little" referee training and development beyond the local level.

Nice story but nothing to do with referee training.

I do agree that the majority of referees were (and still are) at the grade 7 and 8 levels and never try to move up, but the pathways were there as they are today, and many referees were able to attend clinics and get evaluations for their State (grade 6 and 5) qualifications. Furthermore, there were in-service clinics required every year for re-certification often with fitness tests.

The assignor issue is a separate matter, and I agree it is not ideal. As we read frequently on this board many such assignors are tyrants and bullies, with favorites and others who are on the outs for various reasons. One good friend of mine who was a referee in the professional leagues, had disagreements with one particular assignor and was never assigned to the local mans' amateur league games as a result. On hearing the news that this assignor had died, my friend responded with "perhaps I can now get a game in the _____ League at last!

PH

 

I know there were a lot of complaints about the new USSF online materials, but I actually think there was a lot of useful information in there for new refs about practical sorts of things. Ultimately they just need to get out there, run some lines, and start learning.

 

Have you made the same inquiry with your State's SDI? Your question appears to be right up an SDI's alley.

Mentoring of new referees on their initial matches will probably provide the biggest jump-start. Like @Pelican86 said, there's no substitute for experience - both in them getting it and a mentor sharing theirs. Mentors/referee coaches can further explain the Laws and their application right there as new referee experience match situations. It's a learning process and they need guidance. I'm not an instructor/referee coach, but since a number of our newbies get very little post-certification support, a couple of us play mentor for them whenever we can.

Some on-line resources off the top of my head...

• The USSF Referee Program Youtube Channel has a number of instructional videos.
• The Current and past FIFA Futuro Teaching Materials are all available on USSF's box.com site.
• I used to go through the previous USSF Instruction Resources for grades above mine for more advanced topics; many are still applicable.
• IFAB has their Practical Guidelines for Match Officials (for what it's worth)
• USSF emails a quarterly newsletter with blurbs like the February's Highlight on Effective Advantage
• Other State SRC's sites might have other materials & links. My State's SRA used to link to a bunch of training vids that the MN SDI (previous poster here) used to publish.
• Have them re-take the on-line training course from the USSF Learning center if it didn't make sense the first time around.
• If they find the Laws "hard to understand", have them re-read them after some matches. Then do it again after some more. They should start to make more sense as more real-world experience can be related to the text. I say that not to be formalist, but it is imperative that we referees (eventually) know the Laws and their proper application better than most. This forum is a good example... when opinions on a topic vary widely, it often comes back to, "what do the Laws say on this".

 

The IFAB Laws of the Game app also has a REALLY BIG FAQ section in it. Things to do, things not to do, that kind of stuff.

 

While the ATR was discontinued for a good reason, I still feel that there's a lot of material that doesn't make it to the states for instruction. In my opinion, a big part of this is that PRO, which does an excellent job of instruction for professional level referees, currently provides the most advanced instruction in the country. Because they're outside US Soccer's infrastructure, the only way that information gets into the states for instruction is if someone on the SRC happens to be a part of PRO.

 

I don't think new officials are ready for flash-lag. Step one has to be calling what you see and getting experience. IMO only once you have the basics and some experience is there any value in discussing flash lag. (Newbies are likely to be shy about flagging in the first place--they don't need an excuse to avoid making decisions.)

 

The ATR often covered topics that IFAB/FIFA cannot, such as what to do when something goes really wrong. An example that came up recently in some discussions I had: what do you do with a field whose uprights for the goals are not the same width as the goal lines? Additionally, what do you do if some of the required lines are either missing or mismarked? The LOTG imply a simple answer: you can't play the game unless the problems are fixed. Fine for high-level matches, less relevant for rec-level kids or bottom-division amateur adults.

From (at least) 2009-2012, the ATR had reasonable advice for both of these circumstances if they could not be corrected. From 2012:

"In the event that the posts of portable goals are not the same dimension as the goal line, the plane of the back edge of the post must be aligned with the plane of the outer edge of the goal line."

"If the lines are not marked properly, the referee should try to have proper markings put down by the home team before starting the game, time permitting."

The 2013 ATR apparently dropped the advice on what to do with goals whose posts differed in width from that of the goal lines. It did, however, offer additional advice about what to do with problematic lines:

"Lines must be clear, accurate, and consistent with the rules of competition. However, missing or inaccurate lines (other than perimeter lines) can often be overlooked unless they are considered dangerous, so far outside the norm as to be unfair, or likely to detract from the enjoyment of the game."

Is there any reason to believe that this practical, real-world advice for these two situations should be different today for low-level games? I had a recent discussion with friends about how to handle goals that are either too skinny or too fat. Possibilities would include:
1. What the old ATR said: back of the post on the back of the line.
a. If the posts are too skinny, then the front of the goal would not stick out as far as the front of the goal line. But a goal is judged using the same criteria as ever: past both the goal line and the goal posts, which are lined up.
b. If the goals are too fat (I've never seen this, but I can imagine situations in which it could happen), then the front of the goal would extend into the field further than the front of the goal line. A goal is still judged as ever.

2. Reverse what the old ATR said: front of the post on the front of the line; and for a goal to be scored, it has to pass the goal line; forget about passing the post.
a. If the posts are too skinny, then the back of the post would not reach the back of the line. A goal would have to be judged solely by paying attention to the line, which should be reasonably visible to an AR (who has an AR on games with fields like this?).
b. If the posts are too fat, then the back of the post would extend beyond the back of the line, making judging whether a ball had gone beyond the line hard when the view of the line was obscured by the posts.

Any thoughts? Any recent teachings?

 

Since the only part of the goal line that matters is the outside edge, it seems pretty obvious to me that the back of the posts should align with the back of the line, just as the ATR opined. (This also means that the AR has them as a tool to know when the ball has crossed the whole line on close calls.)