In the past few years, the National 3 met a higher level on the Cooper test (the physical test ) given at National camp. This year, the National Referee camp was split into 3 groups, 1)Professional (those officiating MLS, WUSA, and A-League) 2)those Natl Referees recertifying, but not chosen for the Pro group 3)National Candidates (newbies going for the badge) In the future, there will be a totally different format for camp. Only the Pro group will be attending the camp. All other referees will attend regional clinics. National 3 badges will now be awarded by invitation only, based on performance. Prediction: There have got to be a large group of very unhappy 2002 National 3 badges that will choose not to recertify next year.
Yes, together with those returning Nationals who are not in the "elite" group. That elite group will probably be no more than about 80 or so guys.
Is this because the total number of National referees and candidates has gotten too big to handle at one camp? If so, what do you consider to be better options? Personally, I think smaller is better in terms of being able to better identify and focus on individuals. However you do run the risk of inconsistencies from Region to Region.
I believe it's partly because Camp has got too big,and partly because its felt that the top guys dont get the quality/level of instruction they need because they are a small group, and the classwork has to be targeted to the majority. Its also because its felt that by splitting it up regionally, it gives the new/newish guys a chance to be seen and heard much more easily. It will be much easier for them to talk to Al Kleinitas, Esse Baharmast, Tambo and the likes in a smaller group. This will also address your valid concern - that core group are going to be at each of the regional camps, so lack of consiistency shouldnt be an issue.
My response to what we were told Sunday at camp is that we are not being told the whole truth. Also, that how they expect to do this is not even worked out yet. The invitations will go to those working division 1 games. It is not all pro games. This puts many of us at a great disadvantage because many don't have D1 teams close by or near enough to work them. The performance based selection is not really the reality of how some are selected either. Some that were selected into the group 1 were lucky to have run lines in WUSA games or have middles in A-League this year because they have teams to work. Many were left out because they didn't have the teams this year but have a lot of experience working games. 4s won't really be seen either if it is performance based, at the regional clinics. There are no games, just clinical time and testing. That can be done at camp now. They can also meet all the guys at camp now, everyone is there for 3 and a half days. I think it is really a "diplomatic" way of trimming down the size. It is very hard to take for most because because of all the hard work t takes to get there, all the encouragement to move up, even this year at camp. Mixed messages, poor planning. There has to be a better way. making it easier a few years ago to get your assessments in didn't help. Creating the minimum passing grade for written tests and then lowering it becuase some "elite" guys didn't pass doesn't help. Make the standard higher, that will help. Make the assessments harder, that will help. At least it will be a fair way to weed out the group. There were many who felt like second rate Nationals this weekend by the way we were seperated by color. We all were given the same tests. Some ran more, some ran faster, most passed the written, a large group didn't. The"elite" color were well represented in that group. To make it performanced based, everyone has to have to same chance to perform. Won't happen.
I agree with that statement and most of the rest of what you say. Also from what I heard the "elite" group for next year will be even more selective than the "red" group was this year. I think next years Camp will be only FIFA panel, MLS guys (centers and ARs), WUSA centers and the top A-League centers. I still hope that the regipnal camps would give everyone else easier access to the "big chiefs". Even though they are there for four days everybody knows that the way things are now they only really have time to talk to the top guys.
Many of us have done a good number of A-League centers already with the top teams, but, the franchises pulled up stakes and left us with nothing last season. Now, we will be ignored and not have the same chance at "performance based" selection. USSF will be using many lesser experienced officials because of the way last season wound up and who was getting assingments in what league. They are leaving many with a very bad taste in thier mouths and feeling that the double talk all weekend was now a joke. I'm not giving up, but many will. Nice payoff for all that hard work. (ha -ha)
look behind you. reality is about to bite you in the butt. If you're so concerned because you dont have a team close to you. Move. Why should USSF or the leagues pay to fly you around when the funds arent there for the lower divisions?
Re: Re: National 3 vs National 4 I'm sorry, but this isn't a fair comment. To suggest that someone move to get the assignments he's earned is asking a lot of someone. Here's a person that dedicated his life to being a referee, made National, did well in A-League assignments, and now is in a position where he is not close to a level of competition that he can handle. Telling someone to uproot a family when he has a real job already just to get a chance he earned is wrong. Now I realize that we need to be flexible people to referee at the highest levels and I also know that we need to be in areas that have top amateur games to work your way to that level, but pro leagues need to be about having the best possible referees. If a referee EARNS a national badge and he proves he can handle a particular level of play, the USSF should do all it can to get the best referees the matches. Afterall, doing well in the A-League gets you on the MLS radar One of the biggest complaints fans have is the lack of qualified referees. If the USSF is basing assignments on location first, then it's likely that some referees that aren't as ready will advance to the higher levels over someone that can do a better job. If that's the way it turns out, then we can't even defend our top referees because even we will be have to admit that a better qualified referee may have been over-looked. There are quantifiable ways to measure the performance. They should be used to determine who gets assignments for the good of soccer in the US. This is a country that put men on the moon. We can figure out how to get referees to a game 300 or 500 miles away at a minimal cost.
Firstly I agree with billf - It certainly would be ludicrous to suggest that someone should move for the sake of furthering their referring career - in this country that career cannot support a living, so would be foolish. While I agree with a lot of what whistle said, I feel some clarification is needed here - not least because there are a lot of us in the same boat (something like 200+). HOWEVER, the reality is that selection to that elite group (the reds this past weekend, even more selective next year) IS BASED ON PERFORMANCE. It has nothing to do with geography. Even at A-League level, the centers are flown in for very many of the games - not to the extent of MLS where sometimes all four guys fly (often clear across the country) but the centers are often flying for A-League, though usually on a more regional basis. If people are not travelling to do A-League it is either because they have been tried and not made it, or have been assessed at a lower level, and judged not to have the potential. There have been academys and tornaments all over the country where people are tested all the time. I very much doubt that anyone at Camp last week has not been to at least one such event (and probably many more) over the past few years. Everyone has had a chance to make their mark, and I think generally USSF has done a pretty good job of assessing where each of us fit, and what our potential is. It will take a while to sort this out, and maybe some good guys will fall by the wayside - hopefully people like whistle will come through it even stronger and will get their due - but overall I think it gives those of us who are struggling to be seen a better opportunity (long-term) to get noticed and make our case. But, please, to suggest that membership of either group is based on geography is quite unfair - a look at assignments on A-League for last season will quickly dispel that notion.
Deep, Thanks for clearing that up. I think I may have mis-understood slightly. I hope it works out to be a better system in the end. If anyone gets short-changed though, I'll feel bad for them.
Im not saying that someone who has earned a certain level will lose their chance. But reality is that if you dont have top level matches within a reasonable distance dont expect to have people knocking on your door. A referee from say Southern Cal has a much better chance to go places than someone from Montana. If you want a refereeing career (not saying you will live off it) reality says you just might have to move to where the games are.
deep-throat, I know what USSF told us in Chandler but, I , as well as, many others know it is not really performanced based. That was proven in Chandler when there were many surprises in who failed tests. The other proof is how the "fast" trackers have skipped over what most had to do to make FIFA and get to camp and prime tournaments. Yes many have had a chance over the years to prove themselves and some have failed at it. Without saying too much to reveal my indentity, I have had personal experience with this and when the decision was made it wasn't performenced based at all. But, this is not a problem with me because I know who I am and what I have done and proven. The problem is that the way it is to be done now is not fair to everyone who has earned that right to work higher level games. There are many helping hands that bend the rules so that some can keep the badge or even get one. Some on the red list got lucky because they happened to be working as a junior line on a WUSA match. This is not performenced based at all. Not all A-League games were covered by travelling officials. The standards should be met properly and they should be raised. That would at least give us a fair chance and give us something that we could understand when dropping a grade or not. Not all of the red group has been seen to get into taht group. Lists of who got assignments in 1st Division matches or A-League made that group. many surprises there too. We were pumped all weekend, being told we are the best, it's up to us to make it, we can do it. Belive me, some of those guys have nine lives and a little more than "performence based" to get them there. And just so no one thinks I am just sour graping, I am not the only one who is thinking this at all. I passed my tests with a high score and passed my fitness at an average. I'm not the fastest nor the distance champ, but I have a lot of experience. experience that many in that red group doesn't have. Maybe I'll get my chance and USSF will hold up to thier promise to invite everyone that was at camp to an academy this year to be seen. Performance based should be just that and everyone should have the same chance whether that means travelling a few hundred miles or passing the written test.
Several people have moved to be closer to more games. If you can do it, that's great. It's not always the best thing to do, though, because there are no promises you'll even get them if you do move. I know that personally. I also know many of the people who have moved - some have benefitted, some not. Even harder if you have a family and in this economy. Think about this from a player's perspective - if I'm going to get a college scholarship, I have to get seen. It may take going to tournaments to make it happen. Ask your SRA for an explanation - they should have no problem being honest with you. And, yes, unfortunately geography does come into play sometimes. But tell me it kept Kevin Boisen, Seattle (or at least close), from getting his shot. If you work hard, you'll be seen. And if you're not happy, then you have to make a decision and not blame others for your (mis)fortunes. Think of the logistics, too - 263 or so National Referees, two primary leagues (plus WUSA) with 30 something teams total. Not easy for those making the decisions, either. I think they're being truthful and are going to try to get people their shot, unfortunately, some will still fall through the cracks.
I would be most concerned with the assignors for the various leagues. Much more so than the pantheon of the USSF. I understand you need to get recommended, but I have seen a clear bias in many appointments. The issue of fast tracking is an interesting one since it seems to have been a fairly recent occurrence. I can't recall this program being in place for more than 5-6 years. Can anyone confirm this? Also what is the criteria used for fast tracking? Are they looking for referees 25-30 instead of 35-40?
Although you have some good thoughts here you missed my points. And, I know Kevin, he has many chances where he lives and by going to National tournaments. I think there was something else there like wanted to be a Referee but only being offered an AR slot. I don't think you were at camp (just by what and how you are sayingthings), it was very two faced there. We all can accept failure at that level and negative feedback. We all know there is always going to be someone better, younger, prettier. But, when it is stated that we all will be looked at and that getting that invatation to the real National Camp instead of the regional one will be performanced based only, we know that isn't true. Tambo stated that when we look down at that badge we should feel proud and wear it proudly. It's hard. They have cheapened and watered it down and by working hard and meeting all requirements, passing the tests on the first try without any help, some still are being passed over because it is too costly to fly or spend money to give everyone an equal opportunity at that level. e all have earned it. Many have not been given the chance yet. If I named the names that were on the failure list posted at camp, you would be very surprised, heart broken, and let down. The badge has lost some of it's sparkle because of the two faced action and words. We only want a fair shot.
whistle, I cant really disagree with any of that. I understand the feelings. Mine are very similar. Maybe just a little easier to take since I think I didnt expect to get any further than I am now, and so for me nothing has really changed. For others, and you are obviously among that group, their hopes and ambitions may have been dashed by the revelations of Sunday morning. I really didnt like the way they did it - wait until last thing Sunday when everyone is getting ready to head to the airport then hit them. After the highs of the the rest of the weekend, it was a very depressed bus heading to the airport.
It was,wasn't it. I could go on and on about why and what should have been done, but I am more positive than that. I got home and my two young daughters had made a sign and hung it over the living room archway. "You did it!" "We love you!" Now, what could be better than that? They understand what it has meant to me to become a National Referee and work those games. They have been there watching me work them many times. They have watched me go out and train at all hours and work through the pains. Even at thier young age it has menat a lot to them watching me and learning that if you work hard and show committment you will make it. (hard to explain to them now what could be happening). I'm not done, I will find a way to keep doing what I have been doing. Yes I will show them. I have much to offer still. Like Tambo says, "question authority."
No one has responded to my question regarding fast tracking. Has this become an issue for many who have toiled long and hard to make it.
Herb Silva and Esse Baharmast once said at a regional pro clinic back in 2000 that critieria used for finding fast track candidates is whether or not the referee had "it". Defining "it" in any true words seemed impossible. However, as to the question of whether or not age is a vital factor, an example from my own state would seem to refute that widely held belief. Erich Simmons, Rachel Woo and Gus St. Silva have, for all intents and purposes, been 'fast-tracked'. I may be off by a year in some of these cases, but Erich made MLS at age 26, Rachel made WUSA at 32, and Gus made MLS at age 42. The wide discrepancy in ages for those three fast-trackers suggests that it is not limited just to younger referees. Now, will most fast track candidates be younger referees who are noticed at academies and major regional/national tournaments? Probably. But that does not mean that older referees who get in to the game late and show that they have "it" will be kept from progressing.
Alberto, forget the statement on fast tracking. They are definately looking for the young, very fit, referees. Fast tracking seems to apply across the board, not gender or age specific.