I have been watching A LOT of NCAA DI WSOC lately both in-person, live-stream and on the telly, and I'm appalled at how many concussions are occurring. Does anyone else feel like more red cards should be issued, if nothing else, to make players more cautious, particularly when they leave their feet for headers, for tackles, et al.? Obviously, this doesn't just apply to the WSOC matches, but also MSOC. These concussions don't seem to be occurring as frequently at the professional level, or is that inaccurate?
At the professional level, there are more detailed protocols and procedures in place than what the average fan sees. Each site has a venue medical director who has their own VAR type system to review plays where injury may have occurred, especially concussion. The VMD then reviews their observations which team medical staff and decisions are made. At the college level, you still have team medical staff/sports medicine, but it's less procedural and more up to each school's policy. These kinds of challenges are points of emphasis for both professional and collegiate so each has provided specific direction to their referee pools.
Your viewing experience of college soccer is going to vary considerably from ACC to Sec to some of the West Coast conferences. While the protocols and huge emphasis on player are put into place. There’s a huge difference between full professionals and amateur soccer which is what the NCAA says they offer. NCAA for women’s soccer has some of the best in the world (plethora of international players) you’re still going to get a huge skill difference and even women and men who are still developing. True freshmen can be as young as 17/18/19. Couple that with an adult senior player who is 21/22.
I was at a pre-tournament lecture several years ago where many data about soccer injuries were presented. IIRC, there was a much greater number of concussions in women's soccer than in the men's game. During the Q&A session, it was surmised that females had weaker neck muscles and this was the reason, rather than an increased number of head collisions or more dangerous play. I am not sure if this concept has been verified. And I am uncertain if giving more red cards can solve this issue. Incidentally a similar concept was applied to the greater frequency of serious knee injuries for female players, because of weaker leg muscles. PH
Reffing NCAA is like reffing for the mob. Cross the wrong person and you’ll pay the price. And by “cross”, I mean make the right call but someone doesn’t like it or the consequences. As a result, NCAA has a “keep everyone on the pitch mentally”.
i think this use to be the status quo. Now since most of the major conferences have a conference assignor they do a much better job of taking the coaches officiating opinions out of it. Or at least the ones I work do.
From what I am hearing, especially, along the East Coast, you are 100% correct. Call the fouls, make play safer, and you get the nod.
I will respectfully disagree. Unfortunately, as long as conferences pay assignors there will be a conflict of interest. The old days of “we don’t want to see that ref again” are still very much alive.
That's fine I know some areas across the states there are certain fiefdoms where the coaches still have that influence. im fortunate the conferences I work have independent observers/referee coaches that write a report to the conference, that way if the coaches complain they have an independent opinion too.
The difference has less to do with conference Assignor's and more to do with the prevalence/accessibility of video. Now that the games are all available to pretty much anyone, there's less wiggle room
It's not as bad as it used to be. The days of ignoring clear red cards are over at the major conferences. You give an obvious red card and, if it's correct, there is no sanction against the referee. Let's say you have another assignment involving that team/coach that same season. You might get switched to another game to avoid that school/team for that season. Just so the situation isn't totally awkward. But you should be back at that school next year. You're actually seeing more complaints and tape being sent into the conference assignors of referees not awarding obvious penalty kicks and not giving obvious red cards. Most coaches now want the referees to get involved in the game if it's warranted. It's changing slowly. Some of the conferences are starting to hire current or former MLS officials (Chris Penso assigns the American Athletic Conference) and these new assignors are in turn with the modern game and wants the game to be cleaned up. They want officials to punish out of control coaches and sanction if appropriate. They will remove if you don't. Don't get me wrong, there are still a lot of college officials that still officiate by the "it's NISOA, I can't give a red card for that" mantra, but those guys are starting to slowly get weeded out if they don't get with the program.
But that's a fantasy that doesn't match the real world. There's a reason that "courage" is one of the top qualities that is looked for in referees. Taking it out of soccer but still using a term that applies to what we do, there's a reason why government and corporate whisteblowers need protection. There are societial, situational and institutional pressures that can come with doing the right thing--in all aspects of life. If you've never felt awkward when you've done the right thing in a moment of difficulty, I'd suggest you haven't always done the right thing. Smartly accommodating for or trying to mitigate awkwardness for a period of time isn't inherently a scandal. It's usually the sign of perceptive management.
Michael Oliver and Juventus are the classic example. Oliver made the right call to award the penalty and he was right to send off Buffon for his reaction. Nobody, apart from Buffon and maybe diehard Juve fans would disagree with the statement above. Yet, Oliver will probably never officiate a match involving Juve ever again during the rest of his career. Is it right or fair? Probably not, but that's reality. In two or three years when Chiellini and Bonucci retire, he probably should be able to referee Juventus again. Imagine if Oliver did a big Juve CL game. The headlines would be all about Oliver and it would make his job untenable unless the game turns into a total wipeout for either team.
I think it doesn't even need to go that far. As an assignor, let's say I have a referee that had to make a hard call against a team. Do I send him/her back to see that team again in the next few months? You know, if I can, it makes sense to swap people around. I'll back my ref up on making the call. But let's say we have another incident in that later game. If it's the same ref, I've still got his.her back. But if it's a different ref, I'm now saying "Hey, the common theme here is the team/coach, it's not the ref." If you think of the 2x2 decision matrix here, the good squares aren't any better, and the bad square is worse, if you take my meaning. So why bring that on if you can avoid it? That said, if this game needs that ref (that is, the "good" squares on that 2x2 are that much better), maybe it's worth it. At the first division college/pro/international level? Not a chance. I can always get a "just as, or at least nearly as good" ref to see the problem team/coach for the next few cycles, and I've always got another "hard" game to switch the courageous ref to.
I had difficulties with a coach in a U12 rec game. He "reported" me. A week or two later, I had a U14 game with the same coach. Pre-game he said, "I thought you weren't supposed to do any more of my games." I gave him my best incredulous look and said, "Why ever not?" - pretending I didn't recognize him. Sure, it would have been less awkward if I hadn't seen him again so soon. But how was my ref assignor to know the coach had 2 teams?
I agree with your points here. However, the post I responded to says "You might get switched to another game" "switched" is not making smart assignments in the future. That is saying you're being pulled from a game and placed in another. That's wrong. It sends the wrong message. It implies you were in error.
No, I think the assignor can make the switch without making it a lack of confidence in the referee, etc. "Billy, I know you are on the game next week at USC but I've had some problems with the Stanford coach this year and I know you can keep him from blowing his lid over every little thing, Okay?" I had a D3 women's game, AR1 in which there was a shot by the away team that hit the crossbar and came down. IMHO, the rebound from the ground took the ball completely across the line. I was closer to the goal than the referee, a lot closer, actually, but I did not go to the goal line and raise the flag to signal that it was in. Bad mechanics, no question. It turned out to be the only goal of the game. Home coaches were not happy. I didn't do a game there the next year. I had no problem with that. Yes, my mechanics were awful. Why would I want to go back there when the coach was going to be unhappy with me before the kickoff even took place? Two years later, I was back there and there was a new coach. I had another college game, this time in the middle. I had history with the home coach completely unrelated to college soccer. The visiting coach, from two time zones away, turned out to have the same last name as I have. Home coach assumed that we were related (we were definitely not) and I was going to do bad things to his team. Murphy's Law dictated that there would be an incident that would 'prove' him right. Two of his defenders collided with each other in the penalty area, causing both of them to fall down. The attacker had a tap in, and he's screaming about the obvious foul by the attacker. I'm less than 10 yards away and he's 60 yards away, but, hey, his player fell down and the other team scored. Why would I want to go back there, just to stir the hornet's nest? He was fired at the end of the season anyway, probably because they didn't win a game that year, for the second time in a row. And with the new coach, I had a blank slate. So who came off second best in that case? Play the long game. With the turnover in college coaches, it isn't that hard to just wait for them to move on. And, at least around here, there are plenty of other games to do.
Most of my referee friends think we just haven't bumped into each other during college season and don't realize that I'm not a member of the chapter. My philosophy is, while you guys are busy traveling for college games I have my pick of the best games in town. Additionally I don't have to deal with the politics that have been discussed above.
I assign a 46 school HS conference, so I have around 90 varsity teams with a couple of schools all male or all female. I have a do not want that school list from referees and I do not want that referee list from schools. One school has 9 of my top refs refusing to go there. One of my top guys is not welcome at three places. Since I am ending my first year, I made sure both referees and schools knew there were issues. As a referee, there is no need for me to go where I’m not wanted. As an AD, I would want to know if 9 don’t want any part of the coach.
I assign a school where the coach is a jack-wad. Most of my good referees block that school (I let refs block 3 schools and 3 partners. I let schools block 3 refs, and if they need more, we just need to chat). I have certainly had a long, frank conversation with the AD.
I have a lot of sympathy for Athletic Directors, especially right now. Covid, essentially two years worth of parents of kids who are new to high school sports, etc., etc. Typically, in high school, it's the AD who has the power. They hire and supervise the coaches, they have to work with the assignors, besides all of the other stuff like facilities, student-athlete paperwork, transportation, relations with other schools, volunteers/voluntolds to staff events , etc. Assignors have to, ultimately, satisfy the AD's. The basic economic fact right now is that high school AD's are much more concerned with just having officials for all of the games than they are with having the 'good' ones. College is a different deal. There, from what I see, the head coach of each sport is the one in control. If the assignor doesn't satisfy the coaches, they will be replaced. Naturally, there is some back and forth and both assignors and coaches are reasonable, to varying degrees on both sides. Even with all of the referee shortages, in our sport and others, the college level has always paid more than anything other than professional games. As a result, there's always a sufficient number of college officials, with plenty of wanna-be's out there. That gives the coaches leverage over the assignor, with the built in temptation to black ball the guy who calls a close one against you. A story: One of my friends, who is a very, very good referee, was doing a small college men's game. In over time, he gives the out of state visiting team a penalty kick, which they convert, to win the game. The home coach immediately comes running to him, very agitated and quite emphatic. "[referee's first name], I KNOW that was a penalty kick but, if we'd been playing up THERE [i.e. at the visiting team's campus in another state], we NEVER would have gotten that call!!!!!!!" As the referee, what do you say to him?