The ego of "Legacy"

Well loyal readers of Kicking Back it is a New Year and with it comes some renewed effort around this blog. It's funny as since I have been writing so much in my "day job",  I have found less and less time for this site. I am looking to reverse this trend forthwith.

Over the last several months I have run into cases, and have spoken publicly in a few venues about what I have sometimes termed "extreme ego." I started to find myself compelled to write about it as I am beginning to believe it is one of the major causes for people to not be as successful as they really could. One of the most common ways I have heard this ego being thrown around is in the form of defining ones "Legacy."

As the necessary underpinning regarding ones "Legacy" we as a species have to grapple with the simple fact that we are mortal in a corporeal sense and only get so many turns on this mud ball we call Earth. Not an easy prospect I grant you and an understandable reason why, in some cases, people want to create a "Legacy" for themselves. In this way one can "live" on beyond their time on this planet. People want to be remembered and this would seem one way to accomplish this goal. For many, imparting life lessons to children, be it their own or others, is one way to accomplish this idea of "Legacy."

In other cases however, this creation of "Legacy" is a way for some to say "look at me and how awesome I am." This at times can include when one is at the end of their own life and is looking to "live on" or when one is transitioning to another thing in their current life and want to be remembered for how "awesome I am" and want to show everyone.

These later prospects are very dangerous, particularly in a refereeing context as actively working on ones "Legacy" of refereeing can lead to the exercise of that extreme ego I referred to above.

As I reflect on a number of things for 2017, personal, professional, and soccer related, I have (re)discovered a number of "life's little truisms" related to this use of ego.

• Don't ever believe your own press;
• You're not as good as you think you are;
• Even if you are pretty good, you can get better;
• Even if you are really good, there is always someone better.

I can say from experience I have fallen into this trap of "I'm good enough" and paid dearly for it at times in my personal, professional, and refereeing lives. In my current role as referee coach I can also say I am seeing this inappropriate use of ego played out again and again in fields across the United States. Not just from referees, but from players, coaches, parents, and administrators as well. (Not being paid to serve in a role is not an excuse for being a total f*k up at it.) 

As we collectively enter 2017, ask yourself what you can do to get better. Become a student of the thing you want to achieve and quietly put in the work.

It is one of the great paradoxes of refereeing IMHO, to really get THAT good, to be one of the best on the world stage, you have to completely tear yourself down and do the bitter work on the field and off. Take your lumps and learn from each and every one. 

At the end of this ride you may be surprised that one day, folks may recognize you as really good, maybe even one of the very best. One to be remembered for all time. To get there though ... and here is the paradox ... you have to leave your ego on the touchline and work to be forgotten every match you do. 

It is in this work to be forgotten, you may be forever remembered as one of the very best.

Happy 2017 and thanks to all for your steadfast support of Kicking Back.

What Soccer Referees Should Learn from #Deflategate - Part 3 of 5

All too often this is a lesson folks forget about generally and referees, being human are subject to this as well.

Check your ego at the touchline.

#Deflategate is filled with BIG egos, and it is my opinion that if a few of these folks on both sides get over themselves, a compromise can be reached. Take a look here and here for two opposing examples. Same is true for referees both on and off the field.

In this vein it is critical to remember that The Game belongs to the players, and yes, some of them too have massive egos, but it is incumbent on the referees to see through that (much like the Honorable Richard M. Berman).

Consider the judges role in this contest ... he is sitting between two ego fueled parties, none of which has a common goal among them, except to win (all for different reasons). His Honor is trying nothing more than to get these folks to work with each other to come to a managed solution and do so without exerting his (substantial) power in the process.

Sound familiar?

Yes folks, that's refereeing. It is managing a match to a positive conclusion knowing one party will likely be the losing one.

Judge Berman recognizes that he is not the show. People are not lining up to hear him pontificate about the Natural Gas Law, or how long it takes a typical male to use a bathroom, or if a ball can be deflated in that time.

His Honor is there to broker an agreement between the parties if at all possible and if not, apply the law straight down the middle based on the facts. That's it. He is seasoned enough to check his ego at the robing room because to do otherwise is counterproductive to resolving the issues. Also, frankly it would be unprofessional and undignified ... just as it would for a referee.

Trust me, referees have egos, and there are rare times when they can come out and use it effectively as while the larger egos may not belong to the players, no one is coming to see the referee do their job. Ask Zlatan ... and everyone else watching this match shown below.

This leads me to my #protip for the day (I learned this one the hard way):
It's okay to show a little ego, just don't be a jackass about it because it will backfire.

#Cannes2014 #UnitedPassions #LooksAwful

... But please, you be the judge.

Comments on YouTube however are #Priceless. Here's one:

Put an asterisk by his name too

I'll begin by saying, as I have in the past, I am not a "baseball guy." I have demonstrated this several times and been rightly corrected by JAFO on a variety of topics. With the whole A-Rod steroid thing, I just can't help myself though.

My ire is not for A-Rod, who while completely unlikable, is accurate in saying he did not test positive for PEDs. This is however similar to the NFL policy on recreational drugs, as a well announced test after training camp that you would have to be a dope (no pun intended) to fail.

I'm also not living in a fantasy world as one of A-Rods lawyers implied David Ortiz was using PEDs. My response is the same ... duh, of course he is.

I could go off again as I did in the Lance Armstrong affair and talk about robbing due process and other procedural issues that really let the leagues ... if they want ... investigate such matters.

Problem is of course, they don't want to, unless it suits them.

This is where my vitriol lies today ... to Bud Selig, the current commissioner of MLB.

To me, it seems clear that part of the reason why A-Rod is being singled out so severely is to preserve Bud Selig's name as he retires as commissioner. While conjecture on my part, the timing does line up.

After all, he is 100% sure that he is retiring in 2014 and is looking for a "Mariano Rivera-esque" 30 ball park farewell tour. (I'd be careful with that one Bud, you may not get what you are looking for) Selig has been the MLB commish for 21 years and stands as the 2nd longest tenure in the game.

He is certainly not without his controversy, including his Brewers ownership and was an active participant of removal of the, then seated, commissioner, Fay Vincent. (source)

Vincent certainly helped define Selig's tenure however when in 2006 with the Barry Bonds PED controversy swirling he stated Selig was "... an observer of a forum beyond his reach." (source)

Selig from that point forward owned the issue, and was seen as essentially neutered to deal with it due to the strength of the PA.

Now to his credit, he got the players (or their union) to agree to drug testing over time, over their very loud objections, and again to his credit, started to build some credibility back into the game itself. Some of this is an illusion of course as the testing protocol was hardly strict ... or unknown to the players ... but it was progress.

Enter around that time Michael Weiner the new MLBPA by all accounts both had no ego about his position, and put the game first. A man after my own heart, an one that tragically succumbed to a brain tumor and recently passed away. Before he did however he recognized PEDs were bad for the game, potentially worse for the user and worst for the non-user who's struggling with the question "to do it" or "not do it." He allowed the staunch anti-PED player to have a loud voice. Selig had no confidence of the players, Weiner did. (In a separate note, if you want to research what a man of integrity is like ... look up Michael Weiner.)

In the agreement reached with the PA and the league, a mainstay was confidentiality regarding any details of infractions and outlined a play by play protocol for any such issues.

Buddy blew it big time when he went to 60 Minutes on the A-Rod stuff.

I am struggling to even understand why MLB went to the media other than Bud's ego, and desire to "put a stamp" on "his legacy."

Really, MLB admitted to buying, even possibly stealing evidence and trashing a man and whatever due process rights and reputation he had all while violating the standing agreement with the PA.

For the good of the game, or for the good of his ego?

Similar to players who rightly should have an asterisk by their name for breaking a record when using PEDs, so should Mr. Selig for feathering his ego before protecting what he is charged to do. He may never have taken PEDs, but his performance was certainly altered by them.

Don't become the show

If your a geek like me the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is a place to see the new and upcoming as well as hear from some of the sectors CEOs like Yahoos! Marissa Mayer.

During the show, Samsung had scheduled an unveiling of its new 105" Ultra HDTV, and contracted Michael Bay (see here for full credits), director extraordinaire, to MC the introduction, along with Samsung Executive VP Joe Stinziano.

Take a look at the video below to see the results.



Now, while this could be a discussion about preparation, which is what I personally believe caused this meltdown. Or a discussion about lateral thinking, which there was none here, as when asked the question what were your thoughts, he could have simply said that Transformers (the movie series he directs) would look *awesome* on this TV.

My comment is about Mr. Bay becoming the show, when that is the very last thing he should have done. Now, in this case I also don't believe that it was intentional, but none the less, based on some of the reports, talk is not about the TV, it is about the person. See Samsung's 4K HDTV Reveal Upstaged by Michael Bay Meltdown, as an example.

Being a good referee requires being visible only when necessary, and not making the show about you. Folks are there at all levels of The Game to watch the players, not the referee. Now there are times when the referee inadvertently gets more attention that they should, and I believe that the able is just such a case. When you discover this, work to become invisible again as soon as you can.

There are also cases for very short periods of time a referee must be the focus to take some energy out of the game, and serve as a check valve for some of that pressure.

There are however for more insidious cases however when a referee make The Game about themselves from start to finish. For me, such a referee does not serve The Game at all, only their own egos.

If your goal is to stroke your ego by being larger than The Game, my advise is to try a new line of work, because you will not last long as a referee.

Hope Spouts Eternal

In a twist from "An Essay on Man", we again see the loose cannon, Hope Solo.

I have written about this in the past with, "What Will Solo Do?", regarding her seeming inability to curb her virtual and actual tongue. I guess it is time again for a reminder.

She is at it again recently with her comments slamming Brandi Chastain stating in several tweets that Chastain (stats here) made in her role as analyst for the media while commenting on a WNT Olympic match.

Further, she recently has made recent comments regarding the lack of league in the US and would seem to figure if she whines loud enough a new women's league will suddenly appear to appease the 31 year old goalkeeper.

Don't get me wrong, she is a tremendous talent on the soccer field, I'm just not quite sure if Solo should be the spokeswoman for the USWNT. She can be somewhat ... polarizing ... to be kind.

Others have noted this recently too.

Julie Foudy (a former teammate of Chastain, and analyst for ESPN) took polite note of it in her reaction to Hope Solo's tweets.

Sally Jenkins writing for the Washington Post I think comes closer to reality with her piece of
"Hope Solo could learn a few things from Brandi Chastain".

Her comment regarding that both nature and Hope Solo abhor a vacuum, is particularly insightful, as is her conclusion in the article:

"The most disappointing aspect of Solo’s behavior is that it suggests she hasn’t learned as much as she could have from players like Chastain. The real inheritance from that squad wasn’t fame, or the chance to make a great living. It was a sense of mutual indebtedness, and a brand of solidarity that prevented these sorts of spats. There was a striking lack of ego; they weren’t particularly conscious of their stardom or specialness. It was their most pleasant quality. And Solo could do with a little of it."

I think Ms. Solo forgets she represents the US with her antics, silly tweets inclusive. For a 31 year old, she is stringily immature in this regard based on her comments and the context they are placed in.

Maybe it's the comments. Maybe it's the antics like showing up drunk on national TV. Maybe it is the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude when she is getting slapped for things like a positive drug test by the USADA. Heck not even Lance tested positive that much. (Where is her lifetime ban?)

At the end of the day, for me, I think we can do with a better role model, and spokeswoman for the Women's Game.

Enjoy the Gold Hope, then I hope you start growing up.

"You ride for ME son"

I can almost hear those words coming out of Wiggo's mouth, holder of the yellow jersey, on the Team Sky bus after Stage 11 of the TdF where his climbing Lieutenant, Chris Froome, dropped him like a bad habbit, and had to be called back by the director to again protect Wiggins. As the stories go, Froome defied team orders in dropping Wiggo.

This of course has created much controversy (not as much as the happenings in Radio Shack land sadly) to many watching le Tour. So much in fact that the riders WAG's have got involved and had at each other on Twitter.

Lets face it, Froome is the better rider, yet Wiggo is the named rider. Now what? Hold back someone who can win out of tradition, or ego, or let the best person go forward?

Does this sound like a familiar scenario?

How many times have you as an AR worked for someone in the middle who you KNEW (objectively) you were better than?

How did you react? Did you "ride off" as Froome did and leave the referee to their own devices?

Or did you recognize that you are a team, bury your own personal ambitions, and support them as best you could?

Here is Froome right after the stage in his own words:



Good answer, mostly. His words were fine, how he said them, was less believable.

There are those of us who believe Froome is the better rider, and should be wearing yellow, and is giving up too much by letting Wiggo walk away with it.

My though on this is don't be so driven by ego. If you accept an assignment as an AR, you are there to serve as an AR until such time as you are called on as referee. Don't subvert The Game from the touchline by placing a match into disrepute with your ego.

Imagine, just imagine tomorrow on Stage 19 if Froome, knowing he is about 2:05 seconds back of Wiggo, rode out of his shoes to actually take the yellow jersey off him the day before riding into Paris.

Can you picture that, how horrible it would look, and the shunning of a career Froome would get? He would never be able to race professionally again.

Now just imagine if you did this as an AR ... what do you think the reaction would be?