I was just looking at reactions to last night's playoff games on other teams' boards and I was noticing how so many posters say "refs suck" sort of like they are breathing. The e-Quakes fans, of course I guess, go furthest saying things like they won't re up for their season tickets and other supposedly silly things. (Well they are Quakes, ah, fans.) But it really seems to me that it's not so much that the refs suck but that our society wants the refs to suck these days. Does this make any sense to anyone out there or do you buy into "refs suck" too?
I think the ref in the Quakes game (Salazar) was pretty bad but he was bad both ways so they really have nothing to complain about. He called some very stange fouls on high balls being contested. Overall though, I think people just want something to complain about. Look how well Hall did in the WC. In Italy, fans complain about Collina. Just something to do.
As a MLS fan, Soccer Coach and Soccer Player the level of officiating Worldwide does suck. I have had refs, while I was coaching, quote me rules and being totally wrong. I had one try to tell me that a handball called in the penalty area was an indirect kick. I had another call one of my players offsides as he recieved a throw-in. We all saw the errors in the World Cup. So I am of the ilk that the state of officiating does suck. My belief is that their are too many Booksmart refs and not enough who have played the game.
I thought Prus did the best of the Heron, Salazar trio. Heron gifted the Ruiz PK and let more violent collisions, shirt tugs, etc., go unpunished throughout the match. Having said that, however, lalagals deserved the win. Generally, the refs called the games extremely inconsistently. I was thinking last night how poorly the refs had called/not called the games. I see now that I wasn't alone. Some phantom fouls where whistled while some dangerous play and tackles from behind were let go. Very confusing. As for Hall doing well in the WC -- miracles occasionally happen. He's still the wanker who let Moreno get chopped down from behind at the 18 by Rusty Pierce at the start of the 2001 USOC semifinal game in Foxboro. Pierce derved a red for that one, and I'm not even positive a foul was called (although that could be my hatred for Hall clouding my memory). If you'll remember, it was Etcheverry and Moreno who got tossed by Hall in that game, not Pierce. Hall displayed one of the worst referee performances I have ever seen that night. I'd love to ask him what the hell was he doing that night. GM
I think that soccer refs in the USA have a particular challenge. We ask our refs in the "traditional" US sports to enforce the rules. That doesn't really work when it comes to soccer. Instead, a good soccer ref lets people play and invokes the rules (or their authority) when the game is impeded. Thus, in baseball, a strike is a strike. In soccer, a ref may choose to ignore a foul (b/c of the intent, the limited impact of the foul, the position on the field, the circumstances in the game, advantage). In football, you call a hold or encroachment if it happens. In soccer, you can call cumulitive or repeated violations (for instance, good refs making a call and then pointing to 3 or 4 spots on the field where other minor infractions occurred that led to the ref finally saying "enough"). My point: superior soccer refs seize control of the match and look to shape/influence the game but do so with their judgment and wisdom, not their whistle. Thus, a truly great ref is in control of the match but isn't calling lots of fouls, blowing their whistle or pulling out a bunch of cards. We've all seen matches like this where the play just flows, it's competitive hard-fought stuff but everyone knows where the line is and the ref laughs and kids but is a demon if you start to get close to that line. And it doesn't get crossed. That concept of referreeing is totally foreign to the roles we ask refs to play in American football or baseball and maybe even basketball. Basketball comes the closest to soccer (with the concepts of makeup fouls and "letting them play."). Still, its a very tough environment to grow good refs. Consequently, we get "book smart" refs when what we really need are game savvy refs with a feel for the match and good awareness of what is going on. These are refs that seem to have eyes in back of their head (b/c they saw the initial shirt tug by the D-mid and know that striker will try throw an elbow when he gets a chance to get back). Add to this that there is no professionalism (ie: not good wages, guys can't do this fulltime--lord knows there are enough games--they just don't get paid well enough) that it is no surprise that the best we can hope for is inconsistent refereeing.
Let me add one other response to my last post (that I forget to include). In most US sports (and with mediocre soccer referees), they view their job as to call the fouls or enforce the rules. Really good soccer referees view their job as to produce a good, well-played match. And they manipulate the rules to produce that (ie: limited down time or stalling, no unfair advantages, sportsmanship, opportunity to display skill).
I didn't see any of last night's games so I can't comment on them. However, I think it's fair to say that the officials in all sports use some leeway when making their decisions, so I'm not sure the contrast with American football or baseball is valid. There are all sorts of "penalties" that go uncalled in your average football game. They could call "holding" on virtually every play if they wanted to. But they only call it if its especially bad. Baseball is more black and white when it comes to its decisions. Safe or out? Ball or strike, however can be a rather large gray area. I think there are several issues at work with regard to the state of officiating worldwide. First and foremost, it is very difficult to attract and retain qualified officials. It takes a few years after becoming an entry-level referee to really get a feel for what you're supposed to be doing out there. In our local youth leagues the pay is not exactly huge, but it's not chicken feed either. The problem is, is there any amount of money that would make it worthwhile to go out there game after game and take the crap and abuse that many, if not most, referees are subjected to? In this area especially there are just so many games that it is virtually impossible to cover them all. What you end up with is a single referee trying to do the job of three officials on a highly competitive match with very emotionally involved spectators. That sort of environment is not something that very many people can stand for very long. As a result new officials are not groomed and brought up to a good degree of confidence or competence, and many will quit rather the deal with the crap. Another problem is that we expect perfection from the referees. If a player misses a shot we all groan and hope he does better next time. If the referee misses a call we are ready to shoot him on the spot. He is not allowed to be a human being capable of making mistakes. And in the pro ranks we've got instant replays to show over and over again to point out mistakes. It's not a game, it's a business, but as Joe points out we don't seem to view the officials as part of that business. There is some argument to be made with regard to referees not having played the game at a high level somehow hindering their ability to do a good job. I'm not sure I agree with that. One of the most important parts of refereeing is experience. If you've been playing for a long time and not refereeing you would have a great deal of playing experience, but you wouldn't have any curcial referee experience. The best refs are usually identified early on (in their teens) and groomed for higher levels of competition much in the same way that players are. I think playing experience helps, but isn't a necessary component of being a successful referee. As a player you are part of a team, as the referee you are generally pretty much on your own. As a player you have a support structure built in out there on the field. The referee team has 3 or 4 members, but not too many "supporters". Certainly not a problem that is going to be solved overnight, that's for sure.
A masterful referee in full control of a match is a wonderful thing to see. I wish I could remember the name of just such a referee who was always called in for the championship Montgomery County high school matches back in the mid-80s when my older kids were playing. I believe he was from Northern Ireland and had been a player. College coaches used to consult him about whom to recruit. But when he stepped on the pitch he had total control and the kids respected that. I never saw a bad call, and I never heard a coach or player complain, he was that good. In fact, in one semifinal a stupid parent shouted out an uninformed remark about a "foul" that should have been called, and the coach of that parent's kid got up from the bench and told him that the ref called it correctly, always did, and deserved respect.
GlennAA, I agree that refs in all sports choose not to call certain fouls. In some cases it's rep (of course MJ wasn't traveling, it must have been a foul on that rookie!). In some cases its b/c there were be nothing but whistles (the idea that you could call holding on the offensive line on any NFL play). But that's not my point. In soccer, the idea that referees can whistle you for repeated fouls (even if the fouls themselves weren't individually worth of a call--such as repeated shirt tugging) or that they can exercise such complete discretion. In the NFL, the ref doesn't hold on to the flag thinking "NE is going to score anyway so while call that defensive foul". In short, the refs aren't supposed to control the game. Their role in most American sports is viewed much more mechanistically--they enforce the rules. They use their wisdom about when to call. But bottom line, American refs in basketball, umpires, NFL refs, aren't given the power and degree of latitude that soccer refs are given.
I'm not sure it's adequate just to look at the refs. Some of the worst calls this season have been made (or, actually, not made) by linesmen. Offside infractions may not be the easiest things to see but it would be nice if the linesmen were at least in position to see them.
Clearly a complex question. I would add one other thought. One reason that officiating in general and for soccer in particular is less than one would hope for at certain levels is a lack of accountability. Poor officiating is often not detected by anyone who could have any impact on, say, future assignments, much less punished. You see the same horrible refs year after year at club soccer matches or high school basketball games. True, in the better leagues, the really bad refs are confined to the lowest divisions or freshmen games. But, more than one would like to see, poor refs appear at important game after important game and no one seems to be in a position to do anything about it. It is politically incorrect to defend fans or coaches who 'abuse' refs and we have all seen folks who go over the top. Nevertheless, watching a ref butcher a game and knowing that he/she will never have to explain his/her behavior much less change it is pretty frustrating. In many high school sports, it is probably more remarkable that the coaches are as calm as they are; that they have learned to except the fact that the refs, in many cases, are a necessary evil and are beyond changing.
I think we truly get upset at refereeing when there is an overtly bad call, like Ruiz' offside breakaway in LA that led to a goal that beat San Jose. I think most knowledgable fans ask simply for some consistency from the refs and ARs. My comment about last night's games was directed at the inconsistency of the calls within a game. If you don't think we get angry when a player misses a gimme, you didn't see the GrillMaster screaming for Jaime's head a couple of games this year. Do we expect perfection? I'd say no -- what we what is reasonable consistency. I love the games when the ticky-tack fouls are generally ignored so that the play seems to be unbroken. Tamborino used this style to garner ref of the year several times. The referee jobs that stick with us are those grossly negligent calls or non-calls. We are always going to have a goal kick awarded as a CK, and vice-versa. One thing I'd like to see is less "abuse" from the players. This was universal in last night's games. The refs should not put up with it, nor should the League allow it. The ref's decision is not going to change, so the players just need to stay focused on the game. The League must handle the awful or corrupt officials. I wish there were a website to hold referees accountable. GM
HS suffers from a host of problems. Not least of which is the fact that they play a great number of their games on weekday afternoons. That further limits an already small pool of officials. And, while they are finally coming into line, they also use slightly different rules and procedures. Many referees do both, but many also don't bother with HS because they have to deal with those issues. And again the referee shortage is a big factor in why some referees who maybe shouldn't be out there are out there. The only way to fix that problem is to add more referees. The USSF is holding entry level clinics all the time. And some leagues will even pay for your equipment and registration fees if you do a certain number of games for them over the course of the season. I'm sure feedback gets back to the assignors if some one is really doing a poor job. But unfortunately with the crunch of hundreds of games to assign in a weekend often times it's the willing and available bodies that get assigned. Some one once said that refereeing is more art than science. Some people are better artists than others.
WOW. You guys should look at some of what you've written- some of your comments are truly profound if you reread them a couple of times. There are several different levels of discussion going on at once here and it's one of those times for me here at BS when I just wish I could get you folks into one room and really hash this out. Here's another, historical angle that occurs to me, one borrowed from Bill James, of Baseball Abstract fame (which dates me, I know. But I'd rather be in my 40's any day than in my teens.): In his Historical Abstract, he identifies two decades in particular in which baseball (or base ball, as it was written back then) umpires were treated more poorly than in other decades: - the 1890's. About this decade, James wrote that if an umpire wasn't killed by the fans then then it just wasn't meant to happen because the abuse directed at the umpires often reached lynch mob proportions. Umpires were routinely hazed, had serious projectiles thrown at them, had guns pulled on them, had the crowds routinely pissed off at them and their decisions. -the 1930's. Here James says it wasn't so much directed at refs but at all the participants of base ball games. He notes, for instance, how sarcastic and derogatory nicknames were of the players- much more so than in other eras. But the refs got their fair share of abuse too. Both of the above decades were unusually negative in James' view. I wonder if we are in one of those periods again. Yes, the refs in MLS can be wildly inconsistent. So were the WC refs. But are they really worse than refs from WC's from 1970? Were NASL refs of a better quality than MLS refs? But you don't hear much from those older eras about refs calls. You tend to hear about great plays. But nowadays, with sports programing dominated by Jim Rome and "Pardon The Interuption", sports shows based on arguing and whining and bitching and with so many BigSoccer recaps of games dominated by how much the refs suck (or more likely on how such and such a team was screwed by bad calls) and posters backing that up by citing individual plays at the expense of looking at those plays in the context of the game (which in my biased opinion is the main way to look at soccer reffing) as opposed to focusing on the positive aspects of the games it sure seems to me that we are in a very critical time. As JoeW above says, As far as I can tell this is the preoccupation of sports fans in general. Not that being in a critical era is bad. Every era builds, corrects some of the idiosyncracies of the previous era, IMO. Possibly all this current bitching will help make the reffing more accountable, give more support to reffing in general, etc. Still reffing will always be inexact and open for argument. This is just another angle on this discussion.
I don't know if you meant this as a joke or not but there's enough interpretive uncertainty to merit me making a wee rant. [rant] I find it really disturbing when people who claim to support DC United bash other DC United supporters on this board. This, I fear, has become more common recently. Sure we have disagreements. Sure we argue. And there are some (I won't name names) who many of us think are crazy and who drive many of us up the wall. But even when we lay into someone because of their opinions and beliefs about DC United I think we right near always try not to insult that person. Why is that? It's because we all support the same damn team. That's enough to merit us all being decent to each other here. I have little tolerance when people who support other teams flame and troll on this board. But I have even less tolerance when DC United supporters flame and troll on this board. [/rant] ... now back to the regularly scheduled discussion ...
I think missing out on the playoffs 3 years in a row has had an effect on the short tempers of everyone, myself included unfortunately, on these boards, Knave.