"70%" might have might have been a little excessive. How about 50%? Why do baseball umpires signal strikes and balls to the ignorant fans. Can't they tell? Why do football referees signal the foul to the dumb fans, shouldn't they know. I'm sorry you're so offended by this. You don't do high school, right?
Huh!?! What does this mean? I guess you're the purist attitude that you have to have played to "understand" the game? Yeah. Right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hand Sgnalsi Don't you really mean grey, it's really about YOU, and how you keep your decisions and time secret? Sorry you have such a sordid viewpoint of spectators. Taken a lot of abuse from the spectators? Thanks for not officiating high school. We need some open minds in high school, because it's such a better environement. It's great to spin this in some obscure and excessive way to show your dislike for the rule, but if you can't come up with a valid argument, other than the spectators and participants don't deserve to know the call, then try harder; or quit putting down which you choose (or are afraid?) to try. I guess the hundreds of thousands of high school and college particpants are all knuckle draggers, and ignorant of your enlightenment? Small world.
Keith - try decaf. There is simply no compelling reason for the use of hand signals. The supposed intent of clarification is laughable - the majority of the time, a coach or player isn't confused about what is being called so much as why the call is being made - should we then be microphoned and stop play to announce the reasoning behind our calls as well? And, as Greyhound stated, the game at the HS level is not for the spectators, it is for the players. There is no conspiracy of silence by the referees to keep the game shrouded in secrecy. The only "hysteria" being displayed here is your doing, using such terms as "dirty little secret" and the obviously pejoritive use of words like "elitist" and "purist". And despite your pleas for "open discussion", you persist in slagging off anyone with the temerity to disagree with your opinion. I certainly hope you don't referee as you write.
Claymore, I apologize for too much decaf. I just didn't care for your flippant (arrogant?) attitude about something that most everyone else seems to accept, if not agree with. Interesting all this whining is coming from REFEREES. Maybe other sports officials sit back and gripe about rules and policy changes, but there's nothing like soccer referees who think only THEY should be making up the rules. This illustrates my point that relatively speaking soccer referees are more full of themselves, then other sports officials. We enjoy the power, and even the best of us forget it's not about US. Oh, we'll quote the standard mantra "it's for the good of the game," or "we do it for the players." Yeah. Sure. If the Federation decided to change rules or policy to make the referees be more aware of something or improve their performance, I could see the referees taking issue. But when the Federation changes a policy to improve the participants or spectators understanding and enjoyment, it's always the referees that seem to be offended. I don't hear that this is going to exhaust our physical ability, or will distract us from managing the game, or affect us personally. The argument is most spectators are "knuckle dragging" morons and don't "deserve" to know, the rest. . the participants and "knowledgeable" spectators KNOW what the call is (or don't care). This seems like an assumption if not a leap. What do you think the majority of the coaches, players, or spectators think? Do you think they're concerned about some negative affect signals will have on the game? Or do they feel there might be "some" benefit? Even for those who don't understand the game as well? I know most of us consider ourselves to be soccer experts (purist?), and we know it all, and understand everything, but an honest purist will at least admit to not understanding "a few" of the official's calls such that it causes doubt, second guessing, even frustration. How many time on this forum are we discussing "what the referee called" in some high level game? If we knew would it resolve "some" issues? And suggesting to only signal the controversial decisions sounds reasonable, until we try to define which are controversial to some, and which are obvious to others. This is not any huge burden for us to carry out there. It's not like foot ball signals, where the referee holds up the restart, goes to the center of the field, makes a ceremonial signal, and repeats it verbally into a microphone. It's a quick signal, that takes less than a second to do, and it's not required on ALL decisions. Even the Federation expressly points this out. They recommend not holding up play or quick restarts, and if play is developing down field to abandon any signals and move down field with the play. My experience with it many years ago, was to only signal the more questionable decisions, or any that might be confusing. I don't recall any officials getting in trouble or accused of "not signaling" enough. It's just a small effort to improve the game, ideally from the coaches/players standpoint, but admittingly also the spectators standpoint. Why do we display cards? Again, I apologize for getting overly intense about this, but I'm just always amazed at the typical response to anything that involves our participation and seems to offend our sense of tradition to this game. The notion if there's a different way or a different flavor of soccer (HS/college) then it isn't worthy of an open mind.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hand Sgnalsi I do about 50% USSF and 50% NFHS.... In my area the non-playing participants are MUCH less educated about the game...........Just what Ive seen.
Re: You misunderstood me, but we're getting closer Keith, I'm definitely not against high school or college soccer. However, if you want to taket his bet, you'd lose it. When you look at the most recent WC team, you'd be mostly right -- only a handful did not go to college. But NONE of the younger ones went to college and these guys aren't even playing out their high school careers. From WC2002, guys like Beasley and Donovan either went to residency or turned pro or both in their teens. If you look at the next group that are in the U20's there's a significant number of them turning pro in their teens and only playing at most 1 or 2 years of HS ball. You are correct that most of the guys who play club soccer also play HS soccer -- but in some cases that because there's no other option. I had a big long reply providing my comments on the merits of club soccer vs. high school soccer, but that's off topic, so I deleted the rest of it and I'll just leave it at that.
I find the discussion of hand signals in NF amusing. I don't work HS soccer, and I have no real desire to do so. Mandated signals are now part of the reason I stay away from HS. It has nothing to do with wanting to remain secretive or giving up a level of control, I just think the signals are stupid. I really don't care if each and every player on the field, spectator, or coach knows what I called. The important thing is that I saw a foul and caled it. I don't make up fouls, so I don't see the problem honestly. If a player needs an explaination, it's easy to say a couple words or give an informal signal. In my area, I find that the referees that mostly work HS games, but who also do USSF lack the ability to communicate clearly with the players. I think this is the result of the referees, not the players, being less experienced with soccer in HS as opposed to club ball. It's simple enough to communicate a call when it is required without being mandated to do the chicken dance after you blow the whistle. To me, being required to display a signal is just another way to fail an assessment. The NF people around here love that stuff, so I can easily see them being sticklers for that sort of thing. Besides, no one has stated the obvious. It's harder for those involved to learn the signals than it is to learn the game. The only times a call really is questioned is when it is a subtle hold or a quick foul at speed. Many fouls are obvious. Even if you don't know what to call the specific infraction, a normal person can clearly see that a foul of some sort occured. All in all, I'd much rather do club ball despite the better pay in HS. Club games are much more competitive at the higher levels and present more challenge. High level club soccer is about developing players for the next level. I see nothing wrong with that. The HS atmosphere is nice, but talented players should have an opportunity to play with and against the best they can. I honestly don't understand the elitism claim. Afterall, only the best players in HS programs actually play, so what is the difference? At my HS, we had 25 players on the varsity. Of those, maybe 15 played. A comparable club team would have 18 players and all would get some time. The rest could play for less competitive teams.
KEITH - what he said (1st paragraph). For a guy who writes so much, you certainly don't seem to be able to read too well. The segment here arguing against signals are saying that they are either - stupid - inconsistent with the way the rest of the world governs soccer, or - that the signals will be either counterproductive or not serve the intended purpose for such signals (education/information). Only you have introduced goofiness like ref power, secrecy and sovereignity as well as an irrelevant tirade about the alleged elitism of club soccer. LOL from Chicago - maybe you need some extra oxygen up there in Denver to get up and down the field.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hand Sgnalsi . . and I guess you get to be the sole judge and expert on this? What's your criteria for evaluation. . . disagreement? Let's leave this topic for another threat, but we understand this superior attitude. So will you lose any sleep having to perform signals in your NFHS games?
I've got to completely agree with what Claymore, and, for that matter (unbelievably yet again) what Greyhnd are saying here. Keith, you are very, very accusatory in your recent posts--to the point where you almost come off as bitter about something. Undoubtedly this will add fuel to the fire, but I have to take issue with one other thing you said. You stated this in response to csc 7: Why is it "purist" to suggest that those that have actually played the game will understand it, and, moreover, referee it, with better proficiency that those who've never played? I don't mean this, in anyway, as a personal slight to you. I think one can be a good, solid, referee without having played it. However, it seems accepted fact--worldwide--that the best referees, at the highest levels, are those that have played the game before and can empathize with the players. I don't find this to be a "purist" soccer mentality. The notion that players can make better referees seems to be pervasive in all sports. It isn't, of course, an absolute. Some players make terrible referees, and some soccer novices can make great referees (personality plays a large role in this). However, in the majority of cases, I--and I think most would agree--believe former players make better referees. Anyway, like I said, it's not a personal jab at you (I issue that disclaimer because the response I quote makes me think that you feel it is). I want you to know that I understand your definition of 'purist' in other cases (club soccer, academies, etc.), though I don't agree with it. However, I fail to see how the label 'purist' applies to the--widely held--belief that former players make better referees.
Re: Re: You misunderstood me, but we're getting closer Thanks for the information. I'm not a that knowledgeable on the histories or careers of our pro/national team. However, you said college. You don't think Beasley and Donovan didn't play high school soccer? I would be surprised if they didn't, unless club soccer was an option in their state during the high school season. What other sports have kids "turning pro" in their early to mid teens? However, I think I gave you the wrong impression. I'm not putting down club soccer. It definately is superior when it comes to development of players, but that's about it as far as advantages go. Maybe I'm being to sentimental or some traditionalist of some sort, but high school is a more true "American" venue that we're accustomed to here, in that it's played via community/school spirit like other sports. Baseball, some football, hockey, basketball, have off-season/club venues, but it seems the focus is on school sports in these sports. Soccer afficiantos point to club soccer as the stronger venue, probably because of the quality and purity. But when ever I go to ANY club soccer game, the only people there watching are the parents, staff, maybe a few close friends, and any scouts? Some how this doesn't represent a true competitive sport. Club ball seems to serve only the players (or parents living vicariously through their kids). Team bragging rights, even club bragging rights have some merit, but it seems secondary. High school encompasses everyone, school, community, even region. I still go to watch my kid's high school sports game, though my kids have all graduated. Still some resident loyalty. We go to our alma mater's schools to cheer on the "home" team. But in club ball, there is such a turn over of players and transition of players between clubs, head hunting, constant try outs. . . how does any person . . player or parent or fan. . .associate with just one club? I've talked to players who have played for several clubs.. . which ever offer the the best career opportunities. Alliegances are bought and sold in club ball, because the objective is always almost entirely self serving. Everything is self serving, and even footballers and other sports players will admit to seeking to getting a scholarship by playing high school sports, and maybe it's true college soccer scouts come to the club games rather than high school games (hard to believe), but unless it's ONLY about you, high school soccer can be a very rewarding experience. My other objective is to point out that the rules don't bring the sport down,. . instead IMO it bring it UP. Referees who criticize the signals forget it's not really imposing on them, but benefitting others. Soccer referees want that decision personal choice, rather than mandatory policy. Other rules contrary to traditional FIFA soccer seem to get in the way of appreciating high school/collegiate soccer as well.
Wow, Bill, what an extremely narrow perspective. You don't understand the purist/elitist label? You should because you're wearing it. You're too pure to do HS soccer because the signals offend you? Come on Bill, signals are relative new this year, what's your real gripe with HS soccer? The "soft red" not harsh enough? And you confessed that club soccer is about "developing players for the next level," isn't this about elitism? Your perspective on high school soccer is very naive. The competitive level is just as high as club level, and in my opinion, more so, when compared to the quantity of teams. In club soccer, there are maybe 3-4 really good teams. In high school there are more like 6-10 really good teams in the state. Oh, I agree the top 1-3 teams "might" beat the state high school champion team, but shouldn't they when they possess the top players in the state? High school isn't design around elitism or developing a master race of players. It supposed to be extra curricular and competitive. We now this is changing, and losing face, but it's definately not club soccer yet. Only soccer seems to have this elitism in club sports; probably by design, but probably more so out of origin, since it started in the clubs first. Don't you find it just a tad arrogant and biased to accuse the referees "that mostly work high school" are inferior and lack communication skills??? What possible criteria are you using? In USSF soccer there is little or no communication. The constant "tough" mantra spun by referees is well known, "I don't explain my calls!" . . . "ITOOTR!" . . . it's either direct or indirect. USSF soccer is NOT about communication, where NFHS is. So how do you make this assumption that high school referees lack communication skills; or is this just another attempt at a put down of high school soccer. I made the mistake of assuming greyhnd didn't do high school, but I can say I'm glad you don't. The players and high school referees deserve better. Thank you for not participating and prostrating yourself.
Dear "Windy City": You think arguments like . .it's "stupid" or 'everybody else doesn't do it this way so it has to be "stupid" . . or "it counter productive"??? or "not educational/informational" . . these are genuine intellectual, informative arguments???? And you accuse me of taking the liberty of suggesting I don't understand arguments like this from the intelligentia of our referee corps???! I realize denying the reality of your admiration of ref power, secrecy and self worth can be spun away as "goofy" instead of debating the argument a little more specifically, but I think "elitism" and "purist" are a little more quality of terms, then "goofiness" or "stupid." At least their more specific? This is ALWAYS the argument to such progress in soccer when ever concepts as signals, three-whistle sytem, etc. come up. The feel-threatened purists and traditionalists can come up with valid arguments, but instead disguise their disagreement with terms like "stupid" . . "goofy" . . or they create hysteria how it's going to "ruin the game" . . or "cause more frustration" . . "more trifling fouls" yada yada. I'll accept I don't always read the response that well, or sometimes rush to judgement , but I'm a pretty good judge of where these sources of comments lies on the scale of personal view and attitude. I'm not that far off when I size up an opinion from general opinion.
2 points - Let's try to keep our arguments less personal. - Different areas of the country handle soccer differently. In Iowa, club soccer for U19 and U16 disappear in the spring and almost all the players (boys and girls) and refs do both club and high school. The few minor rule differences are well documented and we all adjust.
I give up. You care about this more than I do. I am going to go back to enjoying soccer - reffing/playing/watching my kids and soccer worldwide on FSW. Pigeonhole me at will. THis is my last post on this thread ... no need to respond
You're probably right, Mass, maybe I am being too "accusatory," but I don't see anyone coming to their defense and disagreeing with me, but instead they seem to be either proving my point, or just attacking me; both of which resolve the accusation. While I don't claim to be a knowledgeable expert or a great/good referee (hey, I never "played" so how could I? ;o). . . I am rather good at discerning general types of attitudes, particularly in officiating. I don't if it's from my long experience as a referee, or just focusing on this through my instructing/assessing, and discussions with referees. But you're right on one point. . .I AM bitter. I am very bitter about people who have conservative viewpoints (that's narrow mindedness, not a political reference) on officiating the game. I also don't care for the controlling people. When people put down a verson of soccer like high school/college either because they don't/refuse to do it, or they're offended by doing it, it's slaps the face of not just the referees who enjoy doing it and appreciate the different rules, but all the hundreds of thousands of participants who seem to agree. This is narrow mindedness, arrogance, and controlling. Am I being accusatory? You bet, and if the label fits, wear it proudly. I could be less ascerbic, I agree, but certain things set me off. One is the constant putting down of high school soccer as impure, which yes I do a lot of, and other is certain "purist" attitudes about the prerequists of officiating,. . .which follows . . . I don't take it personal from you, Mass, and not even from others, but I do take it offensive for all of the officials who worked hard to develop as officials and are more than just successful. I don't want to start another thread/subject, but I can't just skip over this. I'll be the first one to agree "having played" especially extensively, gives a great advantage to officiating. I struggled for years trying to understand what a foul and misconduct really are and what frustration really was about and what was tolerable. I still may not understand 100%, but I think I understand enough to be a good official. I don't read up on other referees, but I'll bet there a lot of top referees who have "never played." Especially in other sports, and don't try to say "soccer is different," because it isn't when it comes to officiating. You said it best that not all players can be refs, and some who have never played make great referees. But you didn't reference quantities. I'm guessing (not accusing) that you believe that "most" referees who never played don't make good refs, and "most" refs that have played usually make great refs. I disagree. My instruction/assessing/assigning/reffing exposes me to a lot of levels of referees, and I never can make this connection to the "played or not played" criteria. I believe that referees of any sport require a certain "mettle" that isn't borne out of "having played" but more out of having managed or having the patience or having knowledge, the patience, the confidence. . . etc. THESE are the true qualities of successful and great officiating. . . not having played. You can take the top players in the world, and I'll bet you couldn't make great, even good officials out of them. Yet we can take some of the best non-player in the world and easily make them great referees. "Understanding the game" . . understanding game/man management doesn't come out of "playing." Playing contributes a lot of understanding how the infringements affect personal attitudes, tactics, even emotions. But it doesn't understand how to manage players. Maybe it would correct to say "having coached" would make better referees, I don't know. Because the "qualities" of great officiating, great man management, don't come from playing but from a resource that's probably impossible to put one word or profession or ability to. What raises my ire when this is mention. . . it smacks of elitism or aristocracy of bias, almost of bigotry. Harsh words? I agree, but the impact of being accused of automatically not being worthy or having quality of be a referee because one "never played" carries the same sting of being accused of being a member of a class where bigotry is the objective. I refuse to apologize for not ever been afforded the opportunity to play (it was available in my locale or time), and choosing to play as an adult just to be a "better ref" (as one ref suggested), just didn't seem like the quality of investment in refereeing development I was looking for. If that lowers or reduces the quality of my opinion or ability to officiate in your eyes, well, I'll live with it. "You're a better man than I, Gunga Din"
Well us "Iowans" seem to agree. I have been more personal than I should be and I am, and I apologize. Colorado is the same only fall is boys and girls in the spring for high school soccer, so the option for club ball isnt' there. And I couldn't agree more with you that the rule differences are really subtle and their both the same game, and those that can adjust or not feel offended, officiate both, which I am a whore to serve both equally and admirably. I apologize for personally offending anyone or being "accusatory." Lets' move on?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hand Sgnalsi My point is that I have an educated opinion. I will not be using the hand signals this year. Michigan has ALWAYS required them and most of us rarely use them. I try to communicate with my voice or with informal signals.
First of all, my perspective is not narrow. I've been involved in soccer as a player, coach, referee, and fan for 25 years. Second of all, if I wanted to work HS soccer, I could do so and make close to $70 a game doing less work that I do on weekends. I choose not to do HS. That is my perogative. I don't need to be told by what I perceive to be a half-witted organization that they know a better way run and referee a match than the USSF or Fifa. For all of the imperfections of the later two, the quality of instruction I have gotten from those connected with the USSF has allowed me to deal with tough situations and advance farther than I expected in a short time. That is more than can be said for anyone connected with my local HS organization. Third, the quality of HS soccer in NJ is extremely high, but nowhere near the level of soccer at the elite club level. In NJ and EPA, there are dozens of clubs that compete on a level comparable to what you see at USYSA regional tournaments, and we have several teams that compete in the Y-League. There is no shortage of high-level club soccer here from the U-13s all the way up to the amateurs. The "super clubs" in NJ, and there are many of them, play more tactically advanced and varried styles and the players are able to exhibit a higher level of skill. Here, I would guess that any of the state cup quarter finalists from U-15 to U-18 could beat their counterparts in HS (particularly on the girls side of the fence), with the exception of a school like St. Benedicts which produced players like Ramos and Reyna. They are the HS equivlent of a super club. Fourth, if it is elitest to believe that high level club soccer is for the development of future pro players, the so be it. The development of high quality players in a year round environment is what will push US soccer to that elite level in the WORLD of soccer. Not only that, but it improves the quality of officiating in the US. Some players are just better than others. That's the way things are. Who cares that there is a sense of community in HS soccer? When it comes to developing players, community or school spirit are superfluous. Fifth, I've been to several tournaments this year where the list of college coaches attending was literally a who's who of top 25 programs. These tournaments were like a candy shop for these coaches. Instead of watching one or two worthy players in a match like they do scouting HS soccer, they can see 30 in action in one game. Spread that over 6 games or so a day on a field and that's hundreds of potential players in action in a setting where they are playing against high quality opponents. Six, it is not a stretch for me to say the referees that who primarily work HS ball are inferior to those that primarily work high level club matches. I could list dozens of local referees that I have worked with that fall in to this category. I have worked club games with referees that are well respected at the HS level that screw up the most serene club or amateur matches. Quality referees that can handle both styles of soccer (some do exist around here, five at last count) are the exception not the rule. If you ever watched a HS ref from around me try to run a line on a club match or try to "man manage" a tough situation you'd understand where I'm coming from. In other parts of NJ, this may be different, but not where I live. NF, uses rules like a soft red because they can't take the time to train referees to manage situations, and because the NF is draconian regarding things like language. Therefore, it changes the game to suit it's needs. I don't need a soft red in a club match. If a player is approaching a send off, I can clearly tell him that he will put his team down a man if he keeps it up. That will shut the player up or get him to adjust. In a Y-League game this year, a player complained about a call that I made in a fashion that could have been a HS soft red. The player got cautioned, but was still upset. Do you know what his smart pro coach did? He subbed the player and it was only 20 minutes into the match. In the Y, there is no re-entry and only 7 subs for the match. He told the kid that he un-did every good thing that he had done by making a pointless complaint. The next two times I saw that team and player, I had no problem from him. You don't need a silly rule variation to manage situations. This is such a useless discussion anyway. If you like HS ball, fine. I don't, so I don't need to subject myself to it. I won't change my mind. I could take their money if I wanted, but I don't. The fact is that HS soccer, and to an extent college soccer, is not the future of soccer in the US. Elite club soccer is when it comes to the very best players. Players like Donovan or Beasley or Convey played very little if any HS soccer. These kids were on elite club teams, ODP, and in the U-17 residency programs. The most talented and ambitious kids are dropping out of HS soccer all the time. You can charicterize this as parents living vicariously through their kids, but at the state cup level in NJ, these are all talented players. If I had the talent that these kid had, I'd have jumped at the chance to play for the types of elite clubs that exist today. If the kids really didn't want to play, they could quit. I seem to remember being smart enough to figure out if I wanted to do something or not when I was 13. I've seen far more in the way of parents pushing kids in HS football or Little League baseball than I have in high level competitive club soccer. Finally, I'll leave you with this. You may say that USSF is opposed to communication, but you would be flat wrong. The fact is that Al Klenietis feels signals are helpful when used informally and sparingly. I do this all the time. I am not an arrogant referee, I communicate non-stop through a match and will admit mistakes. If there is a quick shirt hold and a whistle, all I need to do is grab my shirt a little and everyone knows what I saw. I've been told via USSF instruction that, no, I don't need to explain a single thing I do, but that I'm not doing myself any favors if that's stance I take. If you actually take the time to truly understand the USSF referee program, you will know the importance placed on man-management skills and personality in refereeing. None of that requires you to do the chicken dance after you blow the whistle.
I dont hate EVERYTHING about the HS rules. I like the soft red, it gives us another tool to use and a level of punishment above the yellow but below the straight red and makes it easier to use. I dont mind the no descretion on the throwins.............But the clock(sorry to the board members for bringing this up) and the hand signals are bad ideas.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hand Sgnalsi Lets say you have a "choice" rather than an "educated opinion. ;o) I assume if you're not using hand signals this year, you have made the educated choice NOT to do high school so you won't be coerced into using this evil scheme? I think we all communicate with our voices, and an occassional unofficial signal. . but the problem is many are too far away to hear us or see our unofficial signals (let alone have your unofficial signal interpretation manual), and therefore powers greater than us, feel the "other" participants, and yes, sadly those we disdain so. . the spectators. . also would enjoy knowing what our decision was. If you don't like sharing, leave it those who don't mind informing the illerate "knuckle dragging" masses.
Phew! Bill I sure labeled you correctly! You truly are an arrogant elitist. That's OK, it's a free country, even in New Jersey. I sincerely DO appreciate that you don't do high school. The players deserve better attitudes then yours. Once again, your arrogance and criticism of anyone not following lock step with your beliefs clearly illustrate the value of your opinion. On the behalf of NFHS and other "half-witted" people we apologize for offending you so much you have to get on forums and personally attack those who "choose" to officiate a form of soccer enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of players, coaches, parents, and spectators,. . not to mention quite a few national team players. Are we talking "Y-league" as in "YMCA league?" God, I hope not. I seriously doubt if your U15 fourth place finisher can beat all high school teams, but you've a right to your biased opinion. Course how would you know, Bill.. . you don't have any experience in high school soccer, just what you've heard, seen, and most of all . . . assumed to explain away why YOU don't donate your professional services to this evil brand of soccer. Thank you for vouching for my "master race" scenario. I guess Bill, you haven't noticed that even without this year round soccer development sytem, farm clubs, doing away with high school and college ball. . the U.S. still has managed to climb to 9th place in the world. I guess the master race argument isn't holding much water now? Well . . duh! If you were a college coach where would you go to see as many of the "elite" players a possible? THe club scene is about "elitism" and that's makes it conveninent for the college scouts. But last I checked it still takes academic success to get into college. . . something club soccer doesn't contribute an iota to. But hey, who cares. . as long as it develops a master race of soccer players and quality officials like Bill. . . Gosh, Bill, I'm sure glad you carefully explained your distain for those who don't agree with you. On the behalf of all of us "inferior" high school refs who also have officiated USSF soccer (a lot longer than you) we would like to apologize for offending you. You're the expert. Everytime you see a ref make a mistake, I bet you blame it on high school soccer. " must be a high school ref, Bill says. ." Its USSF soccer officiating that makes high school officiating successful. Not many that I've seen can step in and start officiating high school soccer, without doing USSF. In fact here it's required to have USSF experience. Oh, right, Bill. We high school refs who give the soft red, "need training" on how to be a hard ass in USSF laws. I think you need to look up the word draconian before you use it. I guess you need to remind your USSF players that if they keep misbehaving you will punish their team as well as them? Boy that will shut them up. How dare they argue with you. You don't need any nancy-boy, namby pamby, soft reds. Toss them all out if they offend you. Bill wants tough rules for tough referees. Duh! So now you have the coach doing YOUR job for you. You see, Bill, here in high school land, we don't need a "smart coach" even the dumb ones don't have to "do the right thing" nor does the referee, the rules make the enforcement fair, and yet still leaves the power of the hard red with the referee. It's very powerful option, but you wouldn't understand. Yes, why have silly rule variations, when you can have black and white rules where the referees get to warn rather than act or toss a player and punish at team in order to manage a player's behavior. Please don't change your mind, Bill, we don't need your super USSF powers. Take the "S" shirt off. I'm sure Donovan and Beasely were serverely impugned and injured by having to play high school soccer. Maybe you should ask them how horrible this experience was for them? Kids are NOT leaving high school soccer, because in most cases there is nothing to leave for, and some actually choose competition over personal careers at age 15-18. Hard to believe and sobering for you purists. And guess who introduced the signals into NFHS, Bill. Your buddy Al Kleniatis. We "teach" in USSF that unauthorized signals should not be used, and we discredit when seeing them in assessing. So don't suggest this is standard USSF policy. USSF officiating is about keeping secrets. Secret time, secret decisions, and explaining nothing. That's fine, some referees manage to rise above it, and the USSF game is adapting. The USSF game will progress, albeit slowly, and it will gravitate (for your benefit that's 'lower itself') to the tenants of high school and college soccer. Give it 5-10 years, and then write back, Bill. THen you'll have to quit officiating USSF so you don't have to "chicken dance" or offend sense of purity. Once again Bill, on the behalf of the high school participants, thanks for not officiating high school. We DO appreciate your self-commitment.
Hey, greyhnd, we're getting closer. You don't have to say you agree with me, just be honest with the high school positives. I don't like all the rules either, but I do like the clock rule. . . it's use in every sports venue, it treats time the was it should be treated, rather than subjectively to suit the referee. . . and the signal ain't no thang. Maybe you could get a doctor's excuse that says "hand gestures" are a physical impact to your tennis elbow, and you can't do hand signals? Trust me, you'll like the impeding signal when you do high school women.