Kicking Back comments: For some time now I have been following LE's work at the Examiner and have enjoyed her articles. The other week the Examiner caught up with me and I shared a few candid thoughts about women referees in todays professional and international game as well as some thoughts about MLS refereeing and the use of technology.
As the interview is intended to demonstrate, I very clearly believe that women referees are just as capable as men. Success in any referee depends on their ability to manage a match both through the laws and through their personality. Anyone who is able to do so will succeed in such a role.
While there are very few women currently employed in (men's) professional league matches, and I can not think of any in recent (men's) international matches, I opine that doing so, and therefore challenging the thinking of everyone involved, may not be such a bad thing. I do recognize however that doing so may run against social constructs and in result, may decrease the entertainment value of THE game for some.
Just one persons opinion ... but please read on and comment away ...
All comments are welcome, and I will answer them all.
No female referees in MLS: a referee assessor speaks
As part of an interview with former MLS referee and current state assessor Peter Kokolski about officiating in MLS in 2011, we discussed the absence of women officials in the North American league. Kokolski refereed in MLS for eight years. Kokolski is not affiliated with U.S. Soccer and his opinions are his alone based on many years working with U.S. Soccer. He regularly shares information and thoughts about officiating in his blog Kicking Back. In a separate story, Kokolski explains MLS referee directives to manage with personality in 2011. ...
See the full story here from LE courtesy of the National Soccer Examiner.
Back on 11-JAN-11, I posed a video clip and a question. Here is the video again:
The answers (with poll percentages) were:
A. Caution Purple #5 ==> 0%
B. Caution Purple #11 ==> 28%
C. Caution Orange GK (#21) ==> 0%
D. A and B ==> 57%
E. A, B and C ==> 7%
F. None of the above ==> 7%
My answer is B, with a restart of an IFK for Orange at the edge of the penalty area where #11 entered. Here is why ...
For this answer please refer to the 2010/2011 LOTG here, Advice to Referees here, and FIFA Questions and Answers from 2006 here.
First, we are well in Law 14 (Penalty Kick) on p. 30 of the LOTG. Here the law states that the ball must be placed on the penalty mark, and the kicker must be properly identified.
Regarding the ball, if the field is marked properly, there is a spot, not a line, indicating where the ball goes during a penalty. This spot should be 9" in diameter, which is not surprisingly just about the diameter of a #5 ball that is used in older youth and adult matches as detailed in law 2.
Mechanics tip: Let the players place the ball. It is not the referee's kick and there is considerable pressure on the kicker generally. It's their game, let the players play it by allowing them to place their own ball.
Also ... it is hard to refute that the player who places the ball on the spot is not properly identifying themselves as the kicker.
But what is proper identification? Where is this defined?
You guessed it folks ... its not. A fair reading would imply that this is a measure to allow the goal keeper to know who the player is that will be taking the kick to avoid the trickery that we exactly see in the video. In the :30 point of the video, when #5 places the ball on the spot, I would opine he is properly identifying himself to the goalkeeper and referee that he is the one that is going to take the kick.
Now, can a player change their mind after they place the ball they want someone else to take the kick? You bet!! However as a referee you would need to be somewhat ceremonial about it to assure that the change in kicker was understood by at the very least the keeper ... and frankly the more public you can make it the better, for everyone's sake.
Now clearly that was not the case here as the #5 walks away from the ball, but continues to participate in the ruse by walking away from the ball and not leaving the penalty area after the referee blows the whistle to take the kick at :47 (as the referee is required to do). Note this matters as if all of this happened *before* the whistle we would have a very different result.
At this point the #11 comes in and scores the penalty.
Now, if you look at the law you make be tempted to look at p. 31 and begin to apply the section on "A team-mate of the player taking the kick infringes the Laws of the Game." This makes logical sense as it would seem clear that the #11 created this mess. You however would need to look a little deeper for this answer.
Refer to the 2006 Q&A on the LOTG from FIFA. Specifically question #4 on p. 35. From that text:
4. When a penalty kick is being taken, and after the referee has given the necessary signal, a team-mate of the player identified to take the kick suddenly rushes forward and takes it instead. What action does the referee take?
The referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team where the infringement occurred i.e. where the player advanced closer than 9.15m. The player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.
This is also reinforced in the Advise to Referees document which states in relevant part on p. 75:
The exceptions to the above chart (this is the magic PK chart) of decisions are:
• If an attacker other than the identified kicker takes the penalty kick, play is restarted with an
indirect free kick for the opposing team where the attacker illegally entered the penalty arc or
penalty area, regardless of the outcome of any kick that may have been performed by this
attacker.
• If the kicker plays the ball backward (any direction other than forward), play is restarted with an
indirect free kick for the opposing team at the penalty mark, regardless of any further play that
may result from the kicker’s action.
From this it would seem clear that we have at least an IFK out. What about the caution? FIFA says book the player running in, US Soccer is silent on it.
For the professional match on the video, I book #11 as the FIFA guideline states. I do this for (2) reasons. (1) What he did was really against the spirit of the game, so a caution for USB works for me. (2) FIFA's Q&A, while not the law, state how they want it interpreted. Following FIFA's interpretation in a professional match is not a bad thing, and will keep you out of trouble in their eyes. Note however, there is latitude here. The laws do not require a caution, so if #11 is under a caution, I would have to think an extra second.
Regarding #5, you certainly could caution him. Would I personally in that professional match? No. Denying a goal, and booking a player I think would be just about as much as a team could take. Adding another caution onto that for, yes, being part of the trickery would be a legitimate caution, but somewhat "ticky tack" in my opinion and may invite issues longer term. Legitimate? Yes. Required? No. Desired? No. A different match may yield a different result including not cautioning anyone, or both players involved.
Regarding the keeper, I would not caution him for moving early, he fell prey to the ruse that was being done to him and no more.
... and my opinion about the penalty in the first place. Based on the excellent camera angle ... no way =)
While not in the context of a match apparently, a 4th grader from Arkansas was killed when a falling soccer goal crushed his skull. Further details on this story are reported here.
While by itself this represents a horrible tragedy, it serves as another reminder to check those nets as the spring season begins as it really can save a life.
For me personally it gives even greater pause as Jr. is currently in 4th grade and is often found on various soccer fields. You can bet, I will check the nets myself, acting in an official capacity or just as a parent.
Football's world governing body has announced that it has extended its Middle East and North Africa broadcast rights agreement with Qatar-based broadcaster Al Jazeera to cover the 2018 and 2022 World Cup football tournaments. ...
As I have stated here before, I am part geek. In fact I may actually be mostly geek. To that end I have been poking around waiting for the designs for the Qatar stadia and how they are going to be "carbon neutral", "eco friendly", and "able to be dismantled and transported for use in poorer countries."
Well, I just ran across one such article here from Inhabitat. An example is shown below.
Photo courtesy of inhabitat.com
It is pretty cool stuff, and worth a look, if for no other reason, to see what is cooking with some of the architectural ideas in the future of stadium design.
Back in October 2010 we saw, and wrote about, the sale of Liverpool FC to the owner of the Boston Red Sox, John Henry. To be even more specific the club was sold to New England Sports Ventures of which John Henry is a member.
Well, the Beantown Bankers (as I am starting to call them) are at it again, and are now investing in the Serie A Club, AS Roma. ESPN is currently reporting that a final meeting to seal the deal is imminent. Thanks to Andy Weiss for bringing this one to the fore.
Finally, in what I consider one of the best "feel good stories" in a while regarding sports business, CNN and others are reporting that "angel investor" Robert Rich is making capital investments into the 9th division Bedlington Terriers FC.
This is truly an inspiring story where a man has realized his heritage, and want to give back to his community. He is reported to not be asking for a share of the team that draws about 120 fans per match, and the players get paid only expenses, not a salary.
Take a look at the story here from Guardian, and the video below from CNN. You won't be disappointed.
Mohamed Bin Hammam: Sepp Blatter has been Fifa president for too long AFC head hasn't made up his mind concerning the elections
Asian Football Confederation president Mohamed Bin Hammam insists that Sepp Blatter's long reign as Fifa president should come to an end, as it has begun to hurt the credibility of the governing body of world football.
Now the AFC head believes that the exit of the 74-year-old would ensure that Fifa would not be defenceless against accusations of corruption in the organisation. ...
Why is football knowledge measured by the offside rule?
The row over remarks made by Sky Sports presenters Richard Keys and Andy Gray about female assistant referee Sian Massey centres on the offside rules. But why is the offside law such a benchmark of football knowledge? ...
One thing that my father taught me when I would referee as a youth is a healthy disrespect for authority. While like most kids I would imagine, I was taught by my parents to always be polite, say "please", and "thank you", and generally be nice. One other lesson that was taught was to "respect your elders", which was essentially everyone else at my tender age as I started refereeing.
My dad carved out an exception for me though. He allowed me to use appropriate language and acts to make and defend my decisions inside the field. Essentially I was allowed to (appropriately) stand my ground with my decisions regardless of how the adults involved felt about it.
This was very liberating to me personally as it allowed me to do what I thought was right and appropriately challenge some of the assertions. This had a positive effect of letting some of these youth coaches know I was not a doormat and they would get comments back to out of bounds criticisms. This may actually have been the genesis of the BAYS "Zero Tolerance" policy, which was derived shortly thereafter with my dad leading the charge, while serving as BAYS referee commissioner, and thankfully with the full board in support.
Granted in my youth I blew it a few times and constructive comments at times degraded slightly (not overly). Also, I was not always correct in my interpretation about what I was calling. Fortunately I was not a prisoner to "confirmation bias" and even then had a few folks who would gently guide me in being less aggressive with my comments and a better listener and referee.
Later in my career what I found was that there are many, many people who really don't understand the LOTG, as the "experts" here clearly demonstrated. I say that fully realizing that your typical youth parent does not, as would your typical adult player. Where I became surprised was my time in MLS and the brief touch with the international game that a percentage of those players and coaches do not understand aspects of the LOTG either. I was floored and continued my policy of challenging the incorrect ... in a more appropriate way these days.
Now beware, there are folks that know an awful lot about the game that inhabit youth fields, and certainly at the professional and international level. Don't assume that you are better because you are wearing the badge. Take an objective look at your performance later, but don't be bullied into calling something a particular way from pressure from someone who may think they know more, or better. Sian knew better. I suspect the other blokes do now as well.
If you want to see what can happen when you assume, take a look at the clip below from the ageless Benny Hill ... it speaks for itself.
Sky Soccer Presenter Andy Gray Is Fired After Remarks
Sky Sports soccer announcer Andy Gray, who made sexist remarks about a female assistant referee at the weekend, has been fired by the U.K. broadcaster.
“Andy Gray’s contract has been terminated for unacceptable behavior,” Barney Francis, managing director of Sky Sports, said in a statement. “After issuing a warning yesterday, we have no hesitation in taking this action after becoming aware of new information today.”
The new evidence relates to an off-air incident in December, Sky said, and came to light after Gray had already been disciplined for his disparaging weekend comments on match official Sian Massey.
See the complete story here, courtesy of Bloomberg.
Does anyone think it is tougher to be a woman referee? I have an answer, but judge for yourself.
Kudos to Jenna Powell for finding this one.
Andy Gray and Richard Keys comments about assistant ref Sian Massey 'make my blood boil', says Karren Brady
West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady admits off-air remarks by Sky Sports presenters Richard Keys and Andy Gray about both herself and Premier League official Sian Massey made her "blood boil".
They concurred that female officials "don't know the offside rule", with Keys adding: "I can guarantee you there'll be a big one today. (Liverpool manager) Kenny (Dalglish) will go potty." ...
See the full story here, courtesy of the Telegraph.
Would you as a referee allow a player to play with those beads in their hair?
How about this?
... and this?
Should these be allowed as well?
My answer for these players, at these levels, is yes. My answer is also yes for players at any level with a bona fide religious belief that requires a head covering or medical condition that requires a bracelet for such.
Should a referee allow a player to have beads in their hair, or for that matter anything ornamental at any other level?
My answer is no, and it is backed up by the LOTG and Ask A Referee here.
So why allow professional and international players to do so?
Keep in mind that at these levels the LOTG will flex as much as the players want to play, and the referee allows. This is after all for the entertainment value of the game itself for those who are watching. As I have said many times here, it is a business, and one that the referees are a part of protecting. Asking Zenga to remove his hat, or Sutter to remove his head covering would put the referee in a bad spot as it would intrude on the "branding" that player is engaging in. Also it would no doubt bring about a poor reaction for the player themselves.
To remedy this in MLS there were specific memos that came from the staff to note that such accoutrements were allowed and the referee will allow them during play. As neither of these were outwardly dangerous it made some sense.
In all cases, a referee must draw the line when an article can put another player into peril. I don't believe that FIFA, MLS, or anyone else would have issues with that. The trick of course is what is "dangerous" varies at different levels. For those upper levels, there has to be real danger as just adornments need not be removed. At any lower levels however, it should all come off.
I agree, its not fair ... and is one of the many ways that the professional and international game sets a very bad example for younger players and referees.
I am going to be unable to post for a couple of days, but expect to be able to by the weekend. In the mean time, I leave you with this video as a friendly reminder that players are human too ... just like referees.
The other day I wrote about the incident where the FA was acting as the Twitter Police by sanctioning Ryan Babel for his comments regarding Howard Webb after the fixture between Man-U and Liverpool. In this post I opined that the FA got it wrong as it really does not serve the FA or the referee well to take such action that really, looking at the long view is untenable.
Juxtapose this with the incident recently with Rafael da Silva from Man-U in their fixture against Tottenham after (frankly) da Silva lost it on FIFA referee Mike Dean after being sent off for a second caution. Here is an excellent example of the FA stepping in and doing the right thing to keep the game in check by sanctioning da Silva for "Improper Conduct." Here, da Silva was plain and simple out of line with his conduct being referred to as "toddler like." Take a look at the pictures below (and the 1000 words they speak) and the linked articles.
Some may be familiar with the China Syndrome as the hypothetical idea of a nuclear reactor melting down and burning through the earth straight through to China. Fewer may be aware of the idea of Confirmation Bias where an individual uses and recalls information, accurate or not, in a selective manner, to confirm a belief they hold. I am seeing these two in a cause-effect relationship for referees, among others.
My impetus for this post was an email I received from refereeing legend Angelo Bratsis, citing a very good article, Referees and The Confirmation Bias, from epltalk.com. While I will not go into the article per se (but please read it), it reminds me of a real need in refereeing and in life about getting objective opinions.
As we are all aware there are several sources of opinions about a referees performance, all of which are subject to some form of bias or another, even the most objective ones. On one end of the spectrum I would put spectators who are generally both unaware of the nuances of THE game, and have a declared bias for a particular side. We all expect this as fan(atics) are there to cheer for a team. I continue on this spectrum of least objective to most, to include commentators, local media, players, and coaches (in order).
Note that while players and coaches clearly have a bias, I believe they have valuable information to share as well and should be carefully listened to to derive that message during a match.
On the more objective side are referee self evaluation, other referees and assessors in ones immediate sphere, and rounding out with assessors/instructors/inspectors and other trained 3rd party observers, regardless of discipline (again in order).
Let me say that while I believe there is a "spectrum of bias", I also believe there is no such thing as a lack of bias and to be honest this is a good thing at times in my opinion. An evaluator needs a hint of bias to be able to have context in the current situation. For example, does a referee go into a U-10 local match in the same way he goes into a MLS final? I hope not. The experience itself lends to a bias. Not of one team over another, but of context that the latter match will require different skills to be brought out. Assessing a match is much the same, one needs context to be able to understand how to react to a given situation and know what to look for.
So what does this have to do with the title?
By way of a recommendation I would suggest as a referee to expose yourself to as many different types of matches and situation as possible. Also, seek out as many diverse opinions as possible about not just your performance, but also how you "are" inside the field. An example to explain ...
As I have stated here, I was also an indoor referee for a very long time. It is where I picked up many of my skills that I carry today. One day I received an impromptu assessment from someone who I did not expect, yet was extraordinarily insightful ... the bartender. As I came to find out, he would watch me and like any good assessor would dissect my performance. His suggestions to me were simple, elegant, and spot on. His most insightful comment was about I used to tip my head back and lift my nose after calling a foul. He recognized that it was a reflex, but it looked disrespectful to some players. Since then I have corrected the mechanic with better results.
So what's the point?
My point is simple. Take all the feedback you can get, from all the sources you can get, and learn to parse the useful information from the non-useful. Keep in mind that your own nemesis may have the key to your survival, and your biggest friend your unhinging, neither with intent. Seek critical opinions and question them. The wider the net you cast, the less chance of any confirmation bias.
To listen only to the glowing comments and ignoring the rest, will certainly one day lead to an epic meltdown inside the field, on the scale of a China Syndrome.
Qatar's winning bid to hold the 2022 World Cup was marked by a spending spree that included investments in the home countries of several executives who were responsible for choosing the host nation, according to internal documents from the emirate's bidding committee.
The spending sheds light on how FIFA regulations—outlined in the two-page rules of conduct for World Cup host-nation bidding—left the door open for hopefuls to open wallets to exert indirect influence on international soccer's small circle of decision-makers.
Qatar also paid soccer-world luminaries—hailing from France, Spain, Argentina and elsewhere—who publicly endorsed its bid, according to Qatar bid committee documents and emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Some were paid more than a million dollars in connection with the endorsements, said a person familiar with the situation. ...
For anyone who has been keeping up with the FA Cup and Liverpool's loss to Mann-U on Sunday the 9th, you may have been treated both to some of the decisions Howard Webb made, but also the Twitter fallout by Liverpool winger Ryan Babel (@RyanBabel).
I am not here to debate Webb's decisions that allowed a penalty in the 1' to have Man-U go up 1 - 0, or the later send off. Both are in the video clip below. You can all judge for yourself.
Instead, I am more interested Mr. Babel's actions on Twitter to edit a picture of Mr. Webb in a Man-U kit (see the picture here) and with the comments shown above. These are detailed in an excellent article from the BBC, Twitter ye not? Also, I am interested in the FA's response in sanctioning Mr. Babel with "improper conduct."
Now, Twitter is an incredible medium to communicate info quickly, 140 characters at a time. If you are reading this you likely already know that, and I hope you follow Kicking Back on Twitter (@kicking_back). My question is should players really be sanctioned for being openly critical in such media?
Please note my use of words, specifically the word critical. My stance is much different when public comments get personal, provocative, or threatening. There is no place for these types of comments at all, regardless of who they are cast at, and equally so when cast at an official. I also have no love for parents slinging criticism to younger referees. They are not ready to understand how to process that rubbish at such a young age. This leads to legions of referees resigning their badge after a year or two and must be stopped.
I have a very different opinion regarding critical comments, parody, and the like, which I believe are absolutely essential speech, even if done in a mean spirited way in the detailed situation. Without this speech, a critical component of discourse is unavailable. Honestly, can you image a match without any critical comments? What fun is that! I mean really ... has anyone logged into Big Soccer lately and looked around? There is an incredible about of information exchange there. While not always "glowing" for some, the opinions shared are largely tremendously insightful and can certainly lead to a good takeaway from those willing to read and understand.
I will got out on a limb here too and support Mr. Babel in his comments. Not because I believe he was correct, but rather because I support his right to do so as necessary discourse in a society. Keep in mind that I am an advocate for the 1st Amendment, and this speech would fall under this amendment, but also understand that this does not extend outside the US. For free speech principles on the internet in the US see Reno v. ACLU (51 U.S. 844) where SCOTUS struck down the CDA.
That said, I believe the FA is asking for trouble in this regard. To begin to sanction players for their comments in any media is a slippery slope. Again, personal, provocative, or threatening is another matter and should be dealt with fully by the FA. These comments however were clearly not that. An opinion was expressed, accompanied by a very clever picture showing the same displeasure. I somehow think that Mr. Webb's first reaction was hardly fear or anger. I'd be willing to bet that his first reaction was a snicker and a smile. Why does the FA need to turn into the "Twitter Police" over this?
While I appreciate the FA riding in on its white horse to save Mr. Webb from the wounding words slung by Mr. Babel, somehow I believe the referee from the 2010 World Cup final is up to that particular challenge.
For any who are unfamiliar, futsal is a variant of association football that is played on a smaller playing surface and mainly played indoors. Its name is derived from the Portuguesefutebol de salão and the Spanishfútbol de salón (colloquially fútbol sala), which can be translated as "hall football" or "indoor football". During the sport's second world championships held in Madrid in 1985, the name fútbol de salón was used. Since then, all other names have been officially and internationally changed to futsal. (From Wikipedia)
If you are looking to take in a match ... now is the time to act!
On January 14th through the 17th 2011the Northeast Regional Futsal Championships are being held in Massachusetts. This is the only US Soccer sanctioned futsal tournament in New England and will have teams of all ages and even include FIFA fustal referee Jason Krnac who will be officiating.
So if you have some time, stop on out as the competition will be tremendous and the winner heads to the National Futsal Championships in February 2011.
Take a look here for full details. See you out there!
PARIS — FIFA talk of possibly switching the summer World Cup of 2022 to winter is scandalous on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin.
For starters, what arrogance. The World Cup takes a full month. Add to that pre-tournament training camps (essential for teams to gel) plus warm-up matches (equally essential) and at least one week of post-tournament recuperation for the players (they earn it, no?) and you're talking six to seven weeks.
So what about the rest of Planet Soccer? Would it simply be expected to stop and twiddle its thumbs while FIFA holds its party in Qatar, the Gulf emirate that roasts in summer? ...
