2 Balls + 1 Goal == Big Trouble

Special thanks to Erich and Angelo for this one!

Goal? No Goal? Something else?

Comment away!!

Golf, Soccer, and Headbutting

Turkish golf president sorry for 'headbutting' journalist on first tee

The president of the Turkish Golf Federation has apologised for his part in a brawl involving journalists which threatened to overshadow the Turkish Airlines World Golf final.

Ahmet Agaoglu was accused of headbutting a journalist during the incident amid chaotic scenes on the first tee before Tiger Woods's opening match with Charl Schwartzel in Antalya on Tuesday. ...

See the whole article here, from the Guardian.

Kicking Back Comments: Check out the analogy Agaoglu made about crowing the 1st tee box. It would seem fairly clear where his allegiance lies, and where he believes most people will understand with his example.

A Nichol for your thoughts?

Now I've done it.

I have put myself right between a rock and a hard place with this entry. To refresh our recollection, take a look at Should We Punish the Innocent? which details allowing referees in the EPL to administer (what I called) "speculative cautions" if they think (feel?) a player is cheating.

While I did not like the idea generally, I was offered a good discussion by an Anon commentator, and even doubled back on myself with regard to offside decisions, in thinking that "when in doubt, keep the flag down."

Now here we have Jim Boyce, VP in FIFA who took over for the still warm seat of Jack Warner when he was launched from the position, looking for video review post-match of diving incidents. His suggestion honestly is not unreasonable in this day and age, and is used in other contexts in many places today.

See "FIFA VP call diving a 'cancer'" for the complete article.

Critical incidents after a match are reviewed in some leagues, some disciplinary committees review on field incidents to stiffen, or loosen a suspension at times. All of this seems reasonable to me, what about diving?

Well, I am less clear on this one, and here's why. Besides characterizing diving as a 'cancer', which to me acts to trivialize the disease (I personally like plague much better), it puts some guy in a glass booth right in the path of altering the outcome of a match by making a decision that should be left for the referee.

Not on the surface this sounds like hubris, and I don't deny that is a factor. However, lets play out a common scenario and see where it goes.

• Player had ball and carries it to opponents penalty area.
• Defender challenges the player with the ball and contact is made which is not a foul.
• Player with the ball simulates a foul.
• Referee awards a penalty (incorrectly).
• Team of fouled player converts penalty to win the match.

Pretty common right?

Now give the review is POST-match, does the result of the match stand? Why not only take action on the individual player, but also the team by not counting the goal? But wait, if there was no goal, how would the rest of the match gone? Was the converted PK the goal that broke the defending team?

I hate video review honestly. I do. I think it starts to sap the life out of any game that uses it to alter action on the playing surface. To me the most egregious is the NFL who is just one step away from doing something like American Idol, where they show the TV audience the play, and for .99 everyone votes on it during a commercial break. Popular vote gets the call.

MLB with balls hitting foul poles and the like I think is the best use as the distances are so far, and motion so slight, that this makes good sense to me.

I do agree with the use of video after the fact for suspensions and violent conduct after a match. In these cases the referee has made a decision and it is the length of time or fine that is changing, not the decision itself generally.

So for me, doing something like this after the fact just opens the box for tinkering with on pitch incidents that can have massive adverse effects to results. I would think we want to minimize the outside interference and "let them play", not wind up with 10's of people reviewing every inch of film only to have to wait a week for a decision on something that was done in an instant inside the field.

Take particular look at the video clip as well, Steve Nichol makes a great point of what a managers role is in such diving incidents. For those who have never had the pleasure of working with Steve in a referee-manager situation, it demonstrates what a class act he truly is.

Be Nice or Be Gone

I apologize for the delay in my writings folks, it has been a crazy holiday week. Family time, soccer, and to cap it off on Columbus Day, the Jamestown Classic, a small but tons of fun road race in Jamestown RI I was a part of.

During the weekend however I had a life lesson reenforced to me that has relevance inside the pitch. It is as the title states "Be Nice or Be Gone." Another way to state this would be to maintain your decorum at all times when representing yourself as a referee.

While the particular situation I faced is not relevant, or for that matter even worth mentioning, the take away was.

Failure to act professional can have far reaching consequences. As much as one may want to dress down a player or a coach ... maybe even a spectator, don't do it. It may be justified. Heck it may be needed for everyones sake, just deal with it above board (i.e. as the LOTG proscribe) and move on. To do otherwise invites trouble for you.

Here is a real example that I faced when my lack of decorum got me in some long lasting trouble.

I was refereeing a college match in CT. Good match, good teams, nice campus and facilities. One team was down a goal and pressing on the opponent in the last 10 minutes or so. Throughout the match the coach who was down a goal was chiding me about use of advantage and how I was not doing enough to let the play flow. I came to find out later, it was his particular "hot button" in general.

Well I had had about enough, and already working hard on the match, and keeping him in it, as sending a coach off in college is a one way ticket to not coming back to that school generally, there was a particular play that was the beginning of the end of my time at that school.

From the back, the team down a goal received a ball to their lone striker from a quick counter, who then was faced with (4) defenders to beat before being able to get to goal. No one else around, no reasonable chance to move the ball (35) yards for a reasonable scoring chance. She was fouled by the closest defender resulting in a free kick to the striker for the foul. Simple, right? Wrong.

Result ... a screaming coach for use of advantage.

Well, I had just about enough at this point and was going to give that coach a piece of my mind, and said in a raised voice "(the player) did not have a chance to make it through there to have a reasonable chance on goal."

The pitch went silent as it was immediately taken as a slight to the player and not a rebuttal to the coaches poor conduct. I actually heard a mom in the stands say "... oh my ..." in response to my comments.

The coach went silent knowing he had finally baited me to the point he wanted, and the match concluded with that team down a goal. We however were far from done.

In a week or so I received an email from the assigner of the league stating the coach and the whole team were insulted by my comments and I needed to apologize. It was a bit of an inflated claim I am sure, but the coach wanted his due, and to be honest the comment was intended for the coach, and not to disrespect a player.

I apologized genuinely to the player, and offered one to the coach as well because it was the right thing to do. The coach was wrong in his analysis of the play, I know that, and he may too. It was still important for me to apologize for losing my cool to demonstrate that I am a professional. It was wrong to lose it and not deal with the situation in a civil manner.

It did continue to cost me as I was not invited back to that school again for a match for either the men or women.

A big deal? Not really as I do college for fun, and I have seen my "days in the sun" with MLS and WUSA.

It does serve as a constant reminder however that being professional means being civil, even being nice, when you may not want to be. You may be 100% right about something, but to react inappropriately can cost more than the brief satisfaction you get from acting outside yourself.

Let's Start Here

So you want to be an NFL referee? As the replacement officials showed, it's not easy

When those newly appreciated NFL officials return in force across the land today to save football, among them will be a high school principal, a retired firefighter, a retired dentist, an inventor, a dairy farm owner, more than a dozen lawyers and financial advisers, insurance executives and assorted captains of industry.

Faces obscured beneath their caps, homogenized in jailhouse stripes, forgive them if they need a quarter or two to adjust to newfound celebrity buzz. Reserve a drop of sympathy, too, if they lag trying to keep up with an NFL game, played at lurching speeds by bison-sized men. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of NJ.com.

Kicking Back Comments: Take a look in particular at the 2nd half of this article and how it closes. It makes me wonder, is it about the game, or the man.

Can just someone who is very knowledgable about a game be a referee, or is it something more?

All Done ...

NFL refs approve eight-year deal, scramble for Sunday return

IRVING, Texas (AP) -- NFL referees voted and approved a new eight-year deal with the league on Saturday. Now they all can get back to the business of calling games.

Referees approved the contract by a 112-5 vote, officially ending a lockout that led to a rising chorus of complaints from players, coaches, fans and politicians. The next stop for the refs who gathered in Irving, Texas, was the airport, where most were to hop on planes taking them straight to their Sunday game sites. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of SI.

Kicking Back Comments: So many angles on this story. Amount of money in the agreement; use of D3 referees as D1 and D2 guys would not go; how the D3 guys did; use of the word "replacement" with regard to the substitute referees .... on and on.

We'll start on Monday. =)

Elite referees meet in Zurich

Elite referees meet in Zurich

Potential referees for the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil™ are meeting for the first time in Zurich this week, with 52 people hailing from 46 different countries taking part in an initial referee workshop being held from 24-28 September. Having undergone medical tests over the past few days, the 52 candidates were officially welcomed by FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter on Monday morning.

"I would like to congratulate you for being selected for this trip to the World Cup at Brazil 2014," said Blatter. "The preparations ahead of the tournament are incredibly important. You will form my team, which will be the 33rd team at the World Cup and one of the most important." ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of FIFA.

Kicking Back Comments: Big kudos to FIFA here. Getting these folks together early and often will lead to very homogenized refereeing at the 2014 World Cup, which is what everyone is after. 

It's about time ...

Let's face it, I spend a lot of time pointing out, and at times just bashing, FIFA and their failings. While it makes good fodder, it is also somewhat one sided, as FIFA does some really good things in the name of The Game as well. Following is a good example:

FIFA sets ball rolling on grassroots mission

BANGALORE: FIFA's mission to reach the innards of India's football-frenzied populace got a fillip on Monday at the launch of its one-of-a-kind Futuro III Instructors' Course in Bangalore, aimed at promoting the sport among children at the grassroots in South Asia.

The six-day seminar, which ends on Saturday, features 18 participants — 12 of whom have been nominated from Afghanistan, Bangladesh,Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka — and will be trained by FIFA instructor Vincent Subramaniam from Singapore and AFC instructor Chan Hiu Ming from Hong Kong. ...

See the whole story here, from The Times of India.

SQUEALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL !!!!

NFL’s regular refs return tonight

NEW YORK — So long, replacement refs. The NFL’s regular crews will be back on the field starting Thursday night.

After two days of marathon negotiations — and mounting frustration among coaches, players and fans — the NFL and the referees’ union announced at midnight Thursday that a tentative agreement had been reached to end a lockout that began in June. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of the Boston Herald.

Kicking Back Comments: I am (obviously) not at all surprised. Much, much more on this soon.

Have We Reached the Squeal Point? (NE v. BAL)

Back on September 7th, I penned "No Agreement ... No Referees." In my comments to the cited Washington Post article, I mentioned a squeal point where the NFL union caves to the Referee Union. After Sunday's New England v. Baltimore game, and Monday's Sea Hawks v. Green Bay game, I wonder if we are there.

Now regarding the New England game, some may come right out and say that I am a New England-ite and have a baked in bias. Well, they would be part right as I do cheer for the team, however I am largely ruined when it comes to most sports as I am far to into the refereeing to be anything other than objective. On a level this is actually really pathetic as I generally watch referees, and not the actual game itself. A noted exception is Little Ms. Saturday morning "magnet ball" sessions.

Now, Bill Belichick is reportedly going to be fined $50,000 for his Sunday night incident where he grabbed a referee (please note I am not using the adjective "replacement" as they are referees), in an apparent attempt to dispute weather the winning field goal actually passed through the uprights, or over them.

I frankly support the fine as grabbing an official is off limits, period. Even if, and I do believe this part, it is done to try to get the attention of the referee. I think there is a lesson in there as well for referees in general, and that is how to deal with end of match confrontations.

Take a look at Belichick defends his contact with replacement referee, from SI, note that "replacement" word again. The first thing that struck me was the picture of a growling Belichick, and a cowering referee. It smacked of "just get me out of here" instead of "let's talk about it."

In the article, Belichick hit the nail on the head had this quote:

"I've coached in this league a long time and never been penalized, never had any incidents with officials or anything like that," he said. "I have never meant any disrespect or in any way tried to abuse or be disrespectful to the officials and the job that they do. I was just trying to get an explanation for, obviously, an important call.

"That's the No. 1 thing between coaches and officials. It's always at the forefront. It's just communication of what's going on, what's happening."

Communication. That's what he states (and I believe) he was after.

Imagine, just imagine, if that referee when Bill tugged on his arm, turned, waited for Bill, and walked side by side with him to allow Bill to ask his questions, or plea his case for the time from the field to the tunnel. What do we think the result would have been?

I opine much better for all. Bill would not be receiving a fine, and the referee would have earned some additional respect from Bill, and the coaches in general.

Both men knew that the call would not change, but Bill wanted to vent, and likely even genuinely ask what was happening. I think that is good, and high level referees employ this technique often to great effect.

It should have happened here, and as it is not, it smacks of "amateurish" behavior for some current NFL referees.

Honestly it is not dissimilar with College soccer and amateur and pro level play, where in my experience a referee who does mostly college matches I find sometimes very "thin skinned" when it comes to a player or coach giving them rubbish. It is the environment they were brought up in and are used to. Keep in mind many of these referees are D3 football referees ... in a college program. Their heads have to be swimming.

Point being here, talk to players, talk to coaches, hear them out, let them vent (not abuse you ... think Brandon Spikes on Twiitter), and things will go better for all.

After all, everyone want to be heard when they have something to say. It's just human nature. 

Have We Reached the Squeal Point? (GB v. SEA)

Back on September 7th, I penned "No Agreement ... No Referees." In my comments to the cited Washington Post article, I mentioned a squeal point where the NFL union caves to the Referee Union. After Sunday's New England v. Baltimore game, and Monday's Sea Hawks v. Green Bay game, I wonder if we are there.

In the days ahead I will write about the NE game and how I believe that a lack of communication between the referee and coaching staff of both teams continues to dig a hole for the guys in stripes, and for the games themselves. Although I'll say tongue in cheek, if the NFL was looking for an additional revenue stream they may have found it via fines for offenses to referees.

Today is a discussion about the ending of the GB v. SEA game on Monday night, and the mess that followed.

A good "blow by blow" of the single incident that may be that "squeal point" is detailed in "So about those replacement officials …" (there's that replacement word again), and the video is here, at CBS Rapid Reports.

Take a look at the video before reading on ... I'll wait. It's below for as long as the NFL allows it on YouTube.

My first reaction was an audible groan, and let me assure you it was not from the call itself, or the need for a review, it was for watching (2) referees a few feet apart failing to talk to each other before giving a signal, and each going the other way.

That one hurts.

This was a game changer at the hands of the referee, it was the squeal point. The referees could have made everyone say ... Hey, we're here, deal with it, and we are going to make the calls. Instead they seemed to say ... Hey, we're here, and we are not at all on the same page.

Again, this is not about the call itself. I don't care, and am not so knowledgable about the rules of football that I can figure it out anyway. It just looked horrible.

Both go touchdown, both go interception, both call a timeout for the review (the worst of all evils as it shows a lack of conviction), they just needed to BOTH GO ONE WAY. They were right there, they should have looked, heck even talked, before raising their arms in the air.

It's tough being a pro referee, I know that first hand. The pressures are tremendous, and things happen fast, fast, fast. Jobs are on the line with split second decisions. Referees (in general) in these positions, need to communicate, and get it right, all going the right way.

A tall order to be sure, but that's what separates pro referees from the rest.

This one incident showed clearly that the current NFL referees are not pro referees. This is true more than any other set of incidents so far this season. Can they eventually get there? Some certainly will. Will they be allowed the time to do so? I don't think so. I think Monday nights incident was the beginning of the end of the current set of referees.

We have officially hit the squeal point.

Resistance is Futile

FIFA corruption probe 'being resisted'

The man appointed to investigate corruption at FIFA has said the organisation has "skeletons in the cupboard" and that he has encountered resistance to his work.

Mark Pieth was brought in to chair FIFA's Independent Governance Committee (IGC) by Sepp Blatter, the president of world football's governing body. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of ESPN.

Kicking Back Comments: So while "Jenny from the block" wows folks at FIFA (yawn), Sepp and company remain hard at work resisting the ethics probe he set up.

It's all for show guys, we know this, right?!?

So, in fine Borg-esque fashion, Sepp is reminding his ethics appointee that 'resistance is futile' and there will be no cleanup of FIFA ... at least when Sepp is there.

Again ... yawn ... as this is no surprise to me.

Step 1 ... get rid of Sepp.

The rest will fall into place.

Friendly Match huh?

FIFA extends Luisao's two-month ban to all competitions

FIFA has announced that it has extended the two-month ban incurred by Benfica defender Luisao to cover all competitions.

The 31-year-old was already suspended from domestic games until Nov. 14 after attacking a referee in a preseason friendly against Fortuna Dusseldorf in the summer. ...

See the whole story here, from Yahoo Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: I've said it before, and I'll say it again, friendly matches are not friendly, they are dangerous to referees. This incident is another good example.

Here is a true story for you. In the mid/late 1990's I was on the cusp of being a National Referee for US Soccer. I was already participating, and refereeing D3 and A-League games on a regular basis, and 4th and JAR in MLS locally.

I was asked to referee a friendly between our local A-Leage team, the Boston Bulldogs (formally Worcester Wildfire). Before taking the match I asked who the other team was, and was told it was a group of "Brazillian All Stars." Digging just a bot deeper raised no other concern for me as I was assured, and I believe not deceptively so, it was a local group of former pro's just playing friendlies.

Well, you can imagine my surprise when a significant number of players starting that day were from the 1990 Brazilian World Cup Team including, Dunga, Branco, and Bebeto.

A friendly huh.

Coaching and playing for Boston was Liverpool legend, Steve Nichol. Can you see where I'm going?

Now for sure, Steve knew it was a friendly, and even before the match we joked and laughed with each other expecting a "friendly" match. It was clear however that when the temperature got turned up a bit, he would have none of it and correctly demanded equal protection for his players.

Friendly or not, I had to send one of his players for a tackle from behind in front of the Brazilian bench, and had to caution several players from Brazil for similar tackles, and antics.

It was not friendly, and could have easily got WAY out of hand, because like it or not, athletes (current or former) compete when you mix them together. It's almost chemical.

There is no clearer example than the O-40 "beer league" I play in on Thursday night. Guys really knock the crap out of each other. Cycling (as I write this) is similar too actually. While less contact is made on the bike, it is just as intense at times.

If this match was not in control, it would have damaged my career I am afraid to say. There comes a point when even town line scrimmages for a referee can be problematic if they go sour.

Always remember, referees are the "red shirts" of FIFA and US Soccer. We are, sadly, expendable.

So, when you go out to referee. Every time you go out to referee, be ready for anything. Even former World Cup stars coming out to play.

Ichiban!!

FIFA'S Goal-Line Technology On Schedule in Japan

GENEVA (AP) -Officials from two FIFA-approved goal-line technology systems arrived in Japan on a Club World Cup inspection visit on Tuesday, hours after English football witnessed yet another disputed incident.

Everton was denied what appeared a clear goal against Newcastle in a Premier League match on Monday, as a referee's assistant did not spot that the ball had crossed the line. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of NBC Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: Geez. I am just back from Japan and would have stopped by had I known.

Timing on these installations are interesting, and it makes me wonder if just more than a full year of testing will really be enough to ready the technology for "prime time", that is to say, the World Cup.

While goal-line issues are embarrassing to FIFA in a sense, a failure of GLT at the World Cup would be a huge blow to The Game overall I believe.

I remain very, very interested in the trials.

I do still think this is hilarious how this is being portrait in the media, as a referee failing, not as the speed of play these days. Even more hilarious however will be the blame on the referee when the GLT Technology itself fails. That on is coming too folks.

Take a look below for a brief GLT overview.

Programming Note

I will be out of pocket for the next few days so I will not be able to write regularly. I invite you to read the archives at right.

Thanks for reading, and we'll be back at it in a few days.

Finally, just to reflect for a second on yesterday's post ... do we really want an MLS match to look like this?

Sadly Gillette Stadium may soon unless things get better.

Front Page of the WSJ, and "Below the Fold"

To Show Their Support, Soccer Fans in the U.S. Need to Master 'Tifo'

SANTA CLARA, Calif.—Members of the 1906 Ultras, a fan club for the San Jose Earthquakes soccer team, had a lot at stake as they trooped into Buck Shaw stadium here for a game earlier this season.

The concern wasn't so much their team's prospects against rival Real Salt Lake. The big test was their own performance in the stands. ...

See the whole story here, from the WSJ.

Kicking Back Comments: Here are the article on the front Page of the WSJ:

Mideast Turmoil Spreads,

Fed Acts to Fix Jobs Market,

President Holds Lead in Three Key States, and

U.S. Soccer Fans Attempt 'Tifo'

Which story does not belong?

I am a little surprised frankly the WSJ went there. It's not even a good article.

Why is this on A1? I have to believe there are a few other things going on that should make A1.

Now I get this is a WSJ "A-Head", and the library of WSJ A-Heads can be found here. It was just widely out of place, and had almost no point to me.

I dunno, I'm not saying everything has to be serious all the time, but this article to me was particularly vapid. This includes the reference to ultras-tifo.net, which is running ads from holliganart.com.

Maybe its me. Is this the A-Head to run?

Really?? I'm Shocked!!

Clubs demand more World Cup cash

The European Club Association president Karl-Heinz Rummenigge has opened talks with Sepp Blatter after calling for more of FIFA's World Cup money to go to clubs.

A total of 575 clubs are receiving payments from UEFA for releasing their players for Euro 2012, with Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester City and Juventus all due to receive more than ¬2 million. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of ESPN.

Kicking Back Comments: Best line of the article is the quote from the European Club Association president Karl-Heinz Rummenigge. It states in full:

"Sepp Blatter told me that he recognizes the clubs as the roots of football," Rummenigge said. "You know the roots always need water, and the water has to come from FIFA."

More like blood from a stone.

A Freaking Armadillo?

Armadillo to be 2014 FIFA World Cup mascot

Rio de Janeiro: A rare species of armadillo is set to be the official mascot for the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil.

World football’s governing body FIFA registered a patent for the mascot on the European Union’s trademark website OHIM Tuesday, just days after the design was shown on Brazilian TV show Fantastico, reports Xinhua. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of FirstPost.

Kicking Back Comments: What a horrible choice for a mascot! There could have been so many more creative picks. I think they make it worse by allowing the name of the horrible choice to be picked via internet poll. Surely nothing can go wrong there.

Other than the animal being able to roll itself into a quasi-spherical shape, where is the tie in?

I am a way bigger fan of Jaunito or Tip and Tap from the 1970 and 1974 World Cups respectively. Even Pique was pretty good, but would likely never pass today's PC standards.

I think it was the US who took it off the rails with Striker, the World Cup pup, after that it has been all animals, all the time. See a history here of the World Cup mascots.

I wait with anticipation what the World decides the armadillo's name to be.

Any guesses? Post them below.

"Law 18" Strikes Again

Time To Gift Them Common Sense As The ‘Football Laws’ Continue To Fail Them

Referees, you either loathe or hate them. Their very presence on the football pitch fills you with rage, safe in the knowledge that they’re just moments away from a complete lapse in judgement or inexplicably getting in the way of a sweeping counter-attack.

I will confess to having launched a few foul-mouthed tirades in their direction, remarking about how they should have gone to Specsavers or joining in when the crowd refer to them as Wayne Kerr (whoever he is). Perhaps we are too quick to criticise those men in black, especially when their job is made impossible by the playacting antics of a select few. It’s always been my belief that referees are hampered rather than helped by Fifa’s governing directive, constantly trying to justify their mistakes with the phrase, ‘the letter of the law states…’ ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of footballfancast.com.

Kicking Back Comments: The conclusion of this article is interesting and I think paints the picture of what people want out of referees. It states in full:

"I personally believe the game would benefit from placing the trust in referees to use their own knowledge and experience to make decisions. If the Fifa handbook allowed enough flexibility to be used as guidelines rather than strict commandments then perhaps officials could go one week without suffering ridicule from the stands or in the press. It’s certainly a better solution than having two wand carrying statues at each end of the pitch."

Now the interesting part is that referees have full authority to do as the author of this piece suggests, with a couple of notable caveats.

It is interesting though as it remains clear this is "what the people want", and frankly, what the very best referees do innately.

Where is Gellette Stadium?!?

FIFA 13 stadium list

The list has been leaked, but here are the stadiums that you will be able to have matches in FIFA 13.

See the whole list here, from The Examiner.

Kicking Back Comments: While Gillette is certainly no Old Trafford, I think it rates. After all, a couple of World Cups, and a ton of international friendlies. What would it take for EA to render it??

No Medal For You?

FIFA sets date to judge case of South Korea player’s political banner at London Olympics

ZURICH — A South Korea soccer player who displayed a political sign after the bronze-medal match at the London Olympics will have his disciplinary case heard on Oct. 5.

The verdict will help decide if Park Jong-woo gets the bronze medal that the International Olympic Committee has withheld since Aug. 10. ...

See the whole story here, from the Washington Post.

Kicking Back Comments: This is interesting to me. Remember before in "Should We Punish the Undeserving?" where we spoke about FIFA and other competition authorities "feeling the scenario"?

Here is a good chance for FIFA to do just that. Villa in that case lifted his short during play to reveal a heartfelt message about his family who nursed his soul through his broken leg.

In the current case Jong-woo, seemed to have a similar spontaneous, yet far more political expression after South Korea's win over Japan in August for the bronze medal.

Remember, the IBD states "... political, religious or personal statements." While the Villa statement is certainly personal, and the Jong-woo message is certainly political, both are equally prohibited.

Let's see if FIFA is evenly handed in enforcing their own Board Decisions.

U.S. Defeats Germany

U.S. defeats Germany for FIFA U-20 World Cup title

The United States won the women’s under-20 World Cup for the third time on Saturday after Kealia Ohai scored late in the first half to secure a 1-0 win over defending champion Germany in the final.

Crystal Dunn beat a German defender in the area and squared a pass to Ohai, who sent a right-foot shot over goalkeeper Laura Benkarth in the 44th minute. ...

See the whole story here, from The Globe and Mail.

Kicking Back Comments: Well, this is better than the MNT who lost 2-1 to Jamaica. While still in 2nd place in Group A qualifying ... its far from over.

Happy 46th Anniversary!!

Doodle courtesy of Google

'Star Trek: The Original Series' Doodle nod: 3 enduring years

The Google Doodle's "Star Trek" tribute offers up a fine way to waste some time on a Friday: an interactive homage to the groundbreaking television show on its 46th anniversary.

"Star Trek" was a relatively short-lived science-fiction series, running from 1966 to 1969. But the show, starring William Shatner as Capt. James T. Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, left an indelible mark on our culture, a mark that exists today. (And we're not just talking about those Priceline Negotiator commercials.) ...

See the whole story here, for the LA Times.

Kicking Back Comments: "Live long and prosper", readers of Kicking Back.

You can tell people are getting amped up for (the new) Star Trek 2 as well due out in May 2013. Take a look at this fan film trailer. It is off base however as Simon Pegg and Chris Pine have said that the film is not Kahn (or KKKAAAAHHHHNNNNNNNN in Kirk speak). It's fun none the less.

No agreement ... No referees

NFL, officials’ union meeting ends without agreement

NEW YORK — The NFL and its on-field referees union failed to reach an agreement when they met Saturday, and the league said it’s proceeding with replacement officials.

The NFL locked out the referees in early June, then hired replacements, whose work in exhibition games has been heavily criticized. ...

See the whole story here, from the Washington Post.

Kicking Back Comments: One very interesting part of this article was the NFL's thought of hiring (1) full time crew to essentially be a liaison between the referees and the league. Now the less interesting part was the NFLRA's response of ... pay us better. That was pretty weak.

That said, the NFL should take a page out of the MLS playbook as they have employed "full time" referees for a while. The exact numbers has flexed a bit from what I understand (at one point it was up to 3 guys), but the concept is there.

From what I have heard on the street, these guys were getting paid in the order of $50K per year. It makes me wonder what the NFL is proposing for a salary.

Now, given the player minimum league salary for the NFL is $390K for 2012 (source), and for the MLS is $34K for 2012 (source), should it scale appropriately? Should a NFL "full timer" get $500K a year in salary? Or asked another way, why should a referee be paid near the level that a rookie is making?

Take a look at MLB unpires. After a stint in the minor leagues, these guys when they hit "the show" can make up to $300K annually ($140K is the average). NBA, about $120K on average annually. NHL is about the same as MLB on average.

Now lets be fair, MLB, NBA, and NHL schedules are grueling, NFL is not. Even MLS plays more than the NFL and its referees get paid far less. (NFL salaries are ~$25K - $70K, MLS is based on number of games, but assuming you do a match every week ... which you won't ... you would make about $19K (36 weeks * $600).

I'd be interested in the actual numbers from the NFL, but a game a week for 20 weeks or so ... $100K? That's pretty good, and the league can certainly afford it.

We'll see where this goes, and what happens after week 1 ... but I think there will be a "squeal point" in there from the NFL that will be directly proportional to the number of "blown calls" in real matches.

After all, its how GLT made it to reality.

US stop Falconets from FIFA U-20 World Cup final

US stop Falconets from FIFA U-20 World Cup final

Nigeria’s Falconets on Tuesday failed to qualify for the final of the ongoing FIFA U-20 Women’s World Cup in Japan, after a 2-0 loss to two-time champions, the U.S., at the Tokyo National Stadium. Goals from Morgan Brian and Kealia Ohai halted the ambition of the Nigerian side who were runmners-up at the last edition, two years ago in Germany, and had appeared destined for the 2012 edition’s final match.

The Falconets domintated the game in terms of possession, always keeping the U.S on the retreat, but the failure to take their chances as a result of poor shooting did them in. ...

See the whole story here, from Business Day.

Kicking Back Comments: Anyone hear of Margaret Domka? I hope so, she is representing us well in Japan. Take a look at her blog here for the details.

Pia Sundhage steps down as United States Women's coach

Pia Sundhage steps down as United States Women's coach

Pia Sundhage has decided to step down as manager of the United States women's team, ending a successful five-year stint with the side. Sundhage declined to extend her stay as she wanted to coach in her home country Sweden.

"After the Olympics we had discussions and early in the process it became clear that Pia was very interested in returning home to Sweden," said U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati in a statement. ...

See the whole story here, from Goal.com.

Kicking Back Comments: I think she got it just right ... go out on top. I wonder if she saw issues with a 2015 World Cup victory? I do not think it was, as some have commented, that it was a Hope Solo issue.

Happy Labor Day

In honor of Labor Day, there is no post today.

See you all in a few days ... thanks for reading!

Send in the Clones

NFL to use replacement officials for Week 1

NEW YORK | The NFL will open the regular season next week with replacement officials and said it was prepared to use them "as much ... as necessary" afterward.

Replacements will be on the field beginning Wednesday night when the Dallas Cowboys visit the New York Giants in the season opener, league executive Ray Anderson told the 32 teams in a memo. Negotiations are at a standstill between the NFL and the officials' union. ...

See the whole story here, from nwi.com.

Kicking Back Comments: Can you imagine what must be going through these replacements heads? I remember my first pro match as a 4th official back when I was 19 or so. It was at BU and involved the Boston Bolts.

I was terrified as it was the first time I was even involved with the pros at any level. My last match before that was an amateur match the previous week between two ethnic Boston area teams in a lousy neighborhood of Boston.

It was easier than the very well behaved pro match.

Heck, when I joined the MLS ranks in 1995, and served as a 4th, JAR, and SAR for several years before getting a shot in the middle, I figured I was a "seasoned pro." I was ready and could handle anything they threw at me, right?

Wrong.

I vividly recall Spartan Stadium, and the match between the (then) San Jose Clash, and Colorado Rapids. I was welcomed by Marcel Balboa almost knocking me on may a$$ and telling me to get the hell out of the way during the opening minuets.

I was kinda in the way ... but he was making a point ... and I took note of it.

I was not in Kansas any more Toto ... and neither are these guys who are stepping in this week.

After failing that assessment I went on to take some lumps and learn a whole bunch ove rthe next 10 years as a pro referee. Most importantly, the pro's are a whole different level than anything else.

I would imagine our replacement brethren will figure this one out soon enough on Sunday.

Good luck to them all.

Well ... not quite what I expected on age limits

Blatter opposed to age limits for FIFA officials

BERNE (Reuters)- FIFA president Sepp Blatter is against age restrictions for officials in soccer's governing body although he would be prepared to accept a limit on the length of time they can hold office, he said on Wednesday.

The 76-year-old Swiss said he was also opposed to standing areas in soccer stadiums, placing him on a collision course with both the Bundesliga and the national league in his homeland.

"I'm in favour of limiting the length of time officials can serve but against an age limit," he told Germany's Sport Bild magazine. ...

See the whole story here, from moneycontrol.com.

Kicking Back Comments: And here I was thinking Sepp was saying that REFEREES should not have age limits if they can perform. But alas, the ever benevolent Blatter was concerned more about his fellow government officials.

I am happy to see he at least supports term limits ... which would take effect after he left of course.

There was nothing reported about you can only embezzle your weight in Swiss Francs. Maybe next Executive Meeting they'll get to that one.

Should 45 really be the age cap?

Maybe because I am quickly approaching this age served as my inspiration for writing this article.

Maybe it was watching Jens Voigt win stage 4 of the USA Pro Cycling Tour, or pull on the KOM jersey. He will be 41 Soon.

Maybe it was watching Chris Horner finish 13th in the TdF, 93rd in the Olympics two weeks later, and two weeks after that 13th in the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, where he helped RSNT win a the team classification as well. He will be 41 soon too.

I can go on, and on, and on about elite level athletes that are not 20 somethings, or even 30 somethings but take a look here at 40 something Olympic athletes. There were even more than a few medals won by folks in that age range too.

Now you may say that some of these events, almost anyone could compete as there is not a ton of "athleticism" needed. Shooting is a good example where you need to be very skilled, but not particularly aerobically fit. Ah, but what about tennis, equestrian, or yes, soccer.

So, if one can be 40+, or even 50+ and Olympic fit, why does FIFA limit the age of referees to 45?

I don't think it can reasonably be seen as a fitness thing anymore. Take a look at Joel Friel's blog on aging athletes. In particular, The Aging Athlete - My First 68 Years. The data just is not there that after 45, you drop off a cliff in fitness.

Fit is fit, and if you can attain, and maintain it, there should be no reason why a referee should not be able to work matches. US Soccer has actually almost got themselves into some trouble over this from a veteran MLS referee, Marcel Yonan. While that case was tossed (opinion here), as age discrimination is not a factor in dealing with independent contractors, such as referees, it likely sent the correct message to the Federation ... even old referees should be able to work in MLS.

Take a look here for a brief debate on the topic from UEFA:


Then again, and the point is made in the video, 45 may be perfect to "go out on top" as many of us don't know when to quit. Just look at me and my cycling ...

I still think 45 is too young though, and the wily veteran referee has a special place in the international game today. They should not be excluded just because of an incorrect perception that us old folk are not fit anymore.

MLS In Lance Armstrong's Corner

Donors standing by Lance's foundation

NEW YORK (AP)
Lance Armstrong's reputation may be in tatters but in the eyes of corporate and individual donors, his charity still wears an unsullied yellow jersey.

Armstrong announced last week he would no longer fight the doping allegations that have dogged him for years. He was subsequently stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles and banned from professional cycling. ...

See the whole story here, from Fox Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: From the article:

"And the home of Major League Soccer club Sporting Kansas City will continue to be called Livestrong Sporting Park. The club, which has promised to donate $7.5 million in stadium revenues to Armstrong's foundation over six years, says it will not consider renaming the Kansas City, Kan., venue."

I had a tough time convincing Anon the other week about how folks would separate the alleged drug cheat from the philanthropist. It would seem form this report, that is exactly is what is happening, and indeed is rallying support for Livestrong.

I'm glad to se it personally, as I have shared here, regardless of if the man cheated, or created a ring of cheaters, he is doing great stuff now, and should be recognized for that.

Qatar in the hot seat

FIFA investigates: World Cup host Qatar in the hot seat

Three major investigations into corruption in global soccer are putting the credibility of major soccer associations and World Cup 2022 host Qatar to the test and could challenge the Gulf state’s successful bid as well as a massive Asian soccer rights contract.

World soccer body FIFA’s newly-appointed corruption investigator Michael Garcia announced this week that he would investigate the controversial awarding of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar as well as the 2018 tournament to Russia. FIFA Independent Governance Committee head Mark Pieth concluded earlier that the awarding of two the events had been “insufficiently investigated." ...

See the whole story here, from playthegame.org.

Kicking Back Comments: Bah. It's not nearly hot enough yet for Qatar, whose average daytime temperature is about 101F this time of year. Great place for a World Cup ...

Uh Oh ...

FIFA to review the awarding of 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar

The new chief of the FIFA Ethics Committee has pledged to put the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar under scrutiny.

The awarding of the 2006 World Cup to Germany will also be thoroughly analyzed as part of the inquiries. The newly-appointed joint chief investigator of FIFA’s ethics committee Michael Garcia, made the comments on German television. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of RT.com.

Kicking Back Comments: Interesting, but at the end of the day I think the decisions will stand. I believe these have the best hope of a thorough investigation, and no doubt some noise, and maybe even a Blatter "retirement" will come out of it, but little else.

Too much time will have gone by and money changed hands for FIFA to reasonably yank the tournament certainly from Russia, and likely not from Qatar.

Kudos to the ethics committee of FIFA however, for even being willing to open Pandora's Box with regard to this matter.

Lance Armstrong Has Won the War

This one has been stewing in me for the last couple of days. I have gone through a range of emotions from shock and disappointment when Madame X  whispered "Lance quit" in my ear Friday morning, to anger wondering why he quit with Jr. asking me the same thing Friday morning, to elation when I really starting thinking about what the result of Lance refusing to go to arbitration means.

First, let me be clear about my position on steroids, blood manipulation, and the like. They are bad, and even deadly if not used properly. The USADA I believe, serves a legitimate function is assuring that young athletes understand this, and keep those substances and practices out of their growing bodies.

Next, let me equally clear that I believe the USADA has completely exceeded its mandate generally, and with regard to the Lance Armstrong investigation, and is indeed, in Lance's words, on a witch hunt.

In the end, because of the USADA's Travis Tygart singular focus, and what would appear to be personal axe to grind, Lance by refusing to enter arbitration has dealt a death blow to the USADA and Mr. Tygart.

Now a bunch of the bobble heads out there, aside from getting the reporting all wrong, have stated that by Lance not going to arbitration, is an admission of guilt. Some would say implied, some say directly. Some even say stupidly, like the WADA chief John Fahey, who frankly should know better, or if not should really be relieved of his post.

All are wrong, and here's why.

One of the largest arguments that Lance has made all along is regarding the procedure which the USADA follows ... arbitration, and how he believes it is fundamentally unfair.

Well, as the Hon. Sam Sparks held, it is not. There are enough due process safeguards that allow it to pass muster as protecting the process that is due. Is it robust? No, certainly not as the USADA's record in arbitration is 58-2 as I talked about in Back to Arbitration?

Here's the kick about arbitration though ... you don't have to go. The USADA has exactly zero ability to compel (in the legal context) someone to appear before them to give evidence. I think lots of folks are confused, or just don't know, the difference between a criminal court, and a government organization that has limited powers. While Congress created the USADA, it did not make them a "court of sport." By Lance not appearing, it is not a nolo contendere plea, which is generally seen as an admission of guilt. It is just a choice not to appear.

I wonder if Mr. Tygart is having CAS envy?

Not only can the USADA not compel Lance to appear and give testimony, but they can not relive Lance of his TdF titles. That folks is in the sole purview of the UCI, and from what I have heard (plant tongue in cheek because everyone has heard it) the UCI and USADA are not exactly getting along these days. How likely do we really think it is the UCI will enforce a USADA request?

Even past rider Indurain is saying "... the tour victories are his ... " and are seeing the USADA's investigation as many have ... being "... without scruples ... ."

So now what? Why do I think that Lance has won the war? It comes down to a few simple points.

1. He provides no further information (note I do not say evidence) to the USADA regarding the matter.

    This has the following beneficial effects for Lance and team:

• Without this information, the case against Johan Burynell get's much thinner, and may indeed fall apart without it. If there was any actual physical evidence, Tygart would have delivered it personally to folks "... like a grim little Santa Claus ... ."
• It keeps longtime teammates off the stand, and out of trouble. Guys like Big George, Levi, DZ who would have been slapped with a minor sentence for doping as quid pro quo for testifying against Lance. Let's face it, it would have really killed everyone to see that, and frankly Tyler and Floyd are not credible even in USADA's eyes to make this case. It's not going to happen now.

2. He can stop spending money on the matter as there is nothing left for him to do, and again as the

    USADA is essentially toothless to bring an action to Lance, it is the end of the litigation line.

3. He can get on with his life. Litigation take a toll folks as many of us know. It would seem, Lance

    is more at ease now than ever before.

4. He may not, and in my opinion, will not, lose his TdF titles as the UCI will steer clear of that. Not

    only because of the tiff with the USADA, but all the 2nd place riders from those 7 TdF have doping

    issues of their own ... and it is reasonable to ask ... where is the USADA enema on those guys?

5. It denies the media more red meat. To say that the media have generally been unkind is an

    understatement. They have been in some cases, just down right grizzly and hide under the "well

    he's a cheat now" blanket to bash him senseless. Some of the best ones are slightly more neutral such

    as that from Samuel Abt, in "Rip Lance Time."

6. It denies Ahab his whale. By walking away, Lance has won the war because Mr. Tygart is toothless

    to do anything else. It very simply will never come out. So all this time Ahab has been chasing that

    whale is for naught. No ticker tape parade, no head on a mantel, nothing. Even as the camera lights

    dim on Mr. Tygarts 15 minutes, he continues to try to make deals with Armstrong to "go easy" on

    on him. What do you think Lances' reaction is to that?

7. While reaction from the media has been negative, reaction from us common folk has been positive,

    in the majority. Heck, most folks don't care if he doped, or the ring of doping he was accused of

    setting up. They care that his is a cancer survivor, and is helping people through Livestrong, and

    will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

So with all of this, Lance has won the war. It may be uncomfortable for a bit, and his image may take a hit for a short time, but I don't think it will be too long.

At the end of the day, he's just a man that rides a bike, who has survived cancer, and absolutely no one can take that away from him, not even Ahab.

Watch and React

Enough said ...

On Means In ?! It Just Might Work

For those of who who know him, or know of him, George Cumming lead the FIFA referee program, lead and consulted on several Olympics and World Cups, and oh yeah, help revise the Laws Of The Game in points of his career.

It suffices to say he is an expert, renowned, and respected on The Game.

In his blog George Cumming's Football Blog, he writes about a variety of topics about The Laws, various incidents, and soccer pop culture in general. His writings are very good, and his site is also linked to the right, as I have noted before.

Recently with all the discussion of GLT and FIFA stating they will adopt it, he came out with a couple of posts that I thought were really insightful, and one that was way out of the box thinking, that was really, really clever.

His first, Goal line technology for .01% of world football, I think is a simple, yet eloquent recitation of the reality of FIFA's decision is on GLT.

His second, Is it time to think outside the box?, is a devilishly clever idea to twist The Laws slightly to possible avoid much of the controversy. It is "out of the box" as he says, but worth considering.

Both are good reads to put GLT into perspective that we will start to see soon around the globe.

Should We Punish the Undeserving?

So for today, take a look at the NYT article, "Soccer Punishment That Is Undeserved."

It details the return of David Villa, and his return from a broken leg last December. In doing so however, Rob Hughes, reporting for the NYT, takes a somewhat circuitous route through the referee José Luis González, and FIFA.

He describes the incident from the recent Barcelona and Real Sociedad match where, Villa scored, removed his jersey, and displayed a touching sentiment to his family with their picture, and the words "Impossible Without You", clearly referring to his time recuperating from injury.

Villa wanted to make that statement, and knew that González would caution him for it as required by FIFA under Law 4, IBD 1, which states in whole:

Decision 1
Players must not reveal undergarments showing slogans or advertising. The basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal statements. A player removing his jersey or shirt to reveal slogans or advertising will be sanctioned by the competition organiser. The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or statements will be sanctioned by the competition organiser (sic) or by FIFA.

Clear enough, as is FIFA's stance that such offenses will be cautioned by the referee. This is not a suprise to anyone, FIFA, Villa, González, me, or Hughes, who clearly does not call for blaming the referee, but FIFA. His comment, I found rang of some truth:

"It all smacks of a game ruled by people who never played, or forgot how it felt to do so."

Now, for those who read me here, you know I'm not a fan of zero tolerance anything. I do feel for FIFA on this one however as without the very tough stance on this topic, I think it could run away from them significantly. I can see it now, a FIFA blue ribbon panel who has to meet every Monday to decipher what was shown on various T-Shirts around the globe.

Yes I am being a little silly, but there may be some reality in there. It is easier to ban it outright than clean up the mess after. Now there was another part that was interesting to me on another level. From the article:

"Villa, now age 30, could miss a vital game later this season if he receives another yellow card."

Hmmm ... this works on (2) levels. First is that FIFA would be absurd if they held Villa to task for such a gesture. Understanding what it was about ... and who wouldn't, FIFA should see fit to waive any such possible punishment understanding the extraordinary nature of the comment Villa was making. If FIFA does not, shame on FIFA.

On another level, remember those speculative cautions we were talking about earlier in "Should We Punish the Innocent?" Now we see that such speculative cautions can have such an impact (not that this one was ... it was an earned caution) are we as referees willing to guess at what may or may not have been a dive, and book a player for their acting?

I am still very unsure about that, and don't believe referees should guess given the dire consequences players can face if we as referees get it wrong.

That said, I think FIFA, or the relevant competition authority should have the ability to correct such decisions  after the fact (e.g. waive the caution to make a player eligible, or in the alternative, add points if a player dove), and take consideration of incidents such as Villa's where the caution was required, but the man should suffer no other ill effects from such a warranted emotional display.

In that way, as referees are asked to "feel the game", so to should the competition authorities, and on that point I am in Mr. Hughes corner that many on such disciplinary committees have no sense at all what Feeling The Game is all about.

Should We Punish the Innocent?

To put this in context, take a look at, "Keep the heat on cheats", from Mirror Football.

It details that to wrongly book players who may not be actually cheating is alright, so long as it is done for the "right reason" of doing so for The Game.

I'm not so sure I agree with this personally.

Trust me, I get that a referee can make mistakes. I have made whoppers throughout my career from the local U6 match, all the way up to the international friendlies I was involved in. Making mistakes in a match is unavoidable, and I found an attitude of "try your best, and fix the rest" was particularly helpful. One can always get better.

There is nothing wrong in my estimation to book a player for something, like a dive, when you genuinely believe in your heart of hearts the player dove. In my career I found myself asking these players often, after the match, if it was, or was not a dive. Some answered honestly, some did not, some declined to answer fearing it would taint my opinion the next time I saw them. In all cases I was trying to learn what goes into a good dive.

If however you are not sure, bringing out a "speculative caution" is a big risk. It alters the management of the match in a big way, and if not really earned, places an undue burden on the cautioned player. Let's face it, a player generally plays differently when playing with a caution, than without.

This also does not take into consideration, at some levels, fines, sanctions, or even suspensions that can occur to a player who has accumulated "points" by so many cautions. Is that fair to punish a player for something they may or may not have done?

Where I believe however, this is at its most dangerous, and referees will not go, is if a player is already under a cation in a match, and commits an offence that, without the previous caution, would have resulted in one, but now with a caution already, a "speculative caution" will likely fail to appear. I just don't think referees will go there.

Where is the consistency there? If a player should be booked, book them. Even if this "speculative booking" should take place, send them off. Right?

I don't think they will because a send off materially changes the match, and to speculate, even for noble reasons, about a players motive, is not appropriate.

In short, the ends (of eradicating diving in players by cautioning) do not justify the means (of speculatively cautioning, or sending off these players).

It's a laudable goal, but I think to guess, and have a handy excuse from the league, is intellectually lazy in this case. If you think they dove, caution them. If you don't know, let them be. If you make a mistake in judging, shame on the player, not the referee. But, the referee should learn form it, not just duck under a handy made excuse.

Now, in speaking out the other side of my mouth, there are times when I think this IS appropriate. Particularly, in offside decisions that are just that close.

We have heard it before, if there is doubt, leave the flag down. This is to promote the attacking nature of The Game.

One in the same? Maybe.

One big distinction to me is that a speculative caution causes harm to individual players that is unrecoverable in the course of the match, where allowing a goal can certainly be harmful to a team, but is generally recoverable in a match.

A fine line distinction ... yes. One I personally can live with though as I have a very difficult time justifying booking a player when I am not really sure if they did it or not.

Henery : Liverpool == Soros : ?

Man U?!?!?

George Soros Is Manchester United’s Latest Fan

Kicking Back Comments:
You have to read it (from the WSJ) to believe it.

Back to Arbitration?

In a non-suprise of a result, as I opined here in "USADA in trouble on Armstrong?", that Hon. Sam Sparks would rule on procedure, and not on merits.

In his 30 page ruling, that is exactly what he did, and set up the case of the century on jurisdiction between the USADA and UCI, which is likely to wind up in CAS lap later this year.

One aspect that surprised the crap out of me was US Cycling seeming about face in agreeing that UCI should have jurisdiction on the matter, not USADA. This was filed as a late information to the case before Judge Sparks ruled on it August 20.

That said, there was plenty to go around in the ruling for both sides.

The Court indicated in its ruling that it did not want to interfere with an organization that Congress put in place for the express reason that it was acting on. Also any "irreparable harm" that Lance would have suffered as a part of the process was not proven to be there as USADA follows procedures similar to the American Arbitration Association.

The Court was clear this was enough to proceed without due process concerns.

I'll bet Lances' attorneys don't see it that way, particularly in light of the USADA record of 58 wins, 2 losses in arbitration. That's even with each side picking an arbitrator, and agreement on a third for the panel that decides the matter. Strong evidence, or slanted process ... these are the real results the USADA has.

It also does not take into account the very, very relaxed standards of evidence that exist in arbitration as opposed to that in a federal court. I say this knowing that Armstrong's team will at least get to see and cross examine evidence and witnesses in the matter. It is far from a court of law as far as what can be introduced.

Both sides certainly had a bunch to say after the ruling. The USADA heralded the decision as correct and thanked The Court for keeping the US Courts out of the mix, and forcing the matter to arbitration to the USADA, assuming Armstrong's team does not appeal the ruling from The Court, which I do not think it will do.

Armstrong's legal team picked up on a particular damning comment from The Court regarding the USADA promising lesser sanctions to other riders who allegedly doped for their testimony against Armstrong, saying:

"... it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations …"

The Court and I seem to agree on this one.

Even further:

"Despite its many misgivings about USADA's conduct leading up to and during this case, the Court is bound to honor Armstrong's agreement,"

Ouch. Misgivings about conduct?

Throw on top of that Sparks calling the USADA charging letters "woefully inadequate", and I till think the USADA is in deep crap in a court of law ... or CAS.

Now while his comments are not actionable per se, he took the time to make them part of the judicial record, and I would be very surprised if we did not see or hear them again from Armstrong's legal team in the future as part of a disclosure to CAS.

At the end of this, the USADA won the day no question in getting Armstrong to arbitration. I don't think he is going to appeal the ruling as the USADA has never, as in never ever, lost a jurisdictional fight.

If I had to guess, Armstrong's team is going to choose the USADA route, and may even first, seek CAS interference to get the UCI back in the mix so the matter won't even go that far. I am still shocked about US Cycling going with UCI.

I think both parties will fight to the end now. I don't see that either has a choice based on what he has done to date. Whomever loses at the USADA is going to go to CAS.

It's going to make for an interesting off season, that's for sure.

I'll Believe it When I see it ...

FIFA president Sepp Blatter warned to clean up football's governing body or put his job at risk

German judge Joachim Eckert, chairman of the committee's adjudicatory chamber, told Focus news magazine that FIFA members should be obliged to co-operate and sanctions could range from fees to exclusion from FIFA. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of Fox Sports.

Kicking Back Comments: As I have opined here in the past, we are around the bend when this action needs to happen. That being said, I will still welcome his resignation, should it come as Sepp, I believe, has done irreparable damage to a once prestigious organization.

Of Course They Are Trumped Up ...

Bin Hammam accuses FIFA of trumped-up charges, says payments came out of personal accounts

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Mohamed bin Hammam said accusations he enriched his family and supporters while president of Asian soccer are politically motivated and that he plans to fight “this clear abuse of power and process at the hand of FIFA.”

In a letter to 20 Asian associations, bin Hammam confirmed he made payments to soccer officials and others but said they came out of his own bank accounts and were driven by a desire to help those in need — including Zhang Jilong, the current AFC president who ordered the PriceWaterhouseCoopers audit that instigated the investigation by FIFA’s ethics committee. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of the Washington Post.

Kicking Back Comments: Uh ... of course the charges are trumped up. This is far more about a PR campaign than anything else. FIFA will try to make an example of Bin Hammam to make themselves look better. FIFA needs the image lift, but I am unconvinced this is the way to do it.

Now, I don't think this will go to a trial of any sort as  it gives Bin Hammam and equal opportunity to decry FIFA's behavior, and something tells me FIFA will not be happy about that. If I had to guess, this will eventually "just go away" which will ultimately suit FIFA just fine.

A good read, and gives some context as to the depth of the controversy.

"The answer is to never give them the option."

How to Get Doping Out of Sports

WHY does an athlete dope? I know why, because I faced that choice.

My life on a bike started in middle school. When the buzzer on my Goofy clock snapped on at 5:30 a.m., I popped out of bed with excitement and purpose. Rushing down the stairs, I stretched 20 some odd layers of still baggy spandex onto my 90-pound skeleton and flew out of the garage. Into the dark, freezing Colorado morning I rode. For the next 30 miles, I pushed my heart rate as high as it would go and the pedals as fast as they would go, giving various extremities frostbite and giving my parents cause to question my sanity. ...

See the whole story here, courtesy of the NYT.

Kicking Back Comments: Here is a preview from Sundays OpEd in the NYT.

A very eloquent admission from one who knows. This is truly the way to end doping, and Jonathan cuts to the heart of it. He recognizes it's a choice. Illegal, not illegal, that won't matter to someone who wants that "2%" as he details it. His IRS analogy is spot on.

Where I think he misses in the article, is where he has flourished as a manager. Garmin takes great steps within the team itself to assure that there is no doping going on by entering ACE, and maintaining a "biological passport" for each rider. They know upfront if they dope, they are out.

This to me is far more of an incentive than USADA or UCI punishments. It allows the free choice, up front, and a clear path otherwise. Like the IRS, the USADA just does not put fear into the hearts of some as the molecular biologists designing this stuff are better than the enforcement ever can be.

Business spend millions every year in accountants that find ways to twist the IRS code to save the companies billions of dollars. People will continue to do so regardless of the regulation.

I still contend, it is the individuals who choose not to dope, or condone it that make the biggest impact. People who are determined will always find a way around the rules.

Think about this in a soccer context. Do players behave themselves during a match just because FIFA is looming, or US Soccer?

Nope.

Players will do what they want, and suffer the consequences if they do. It's all about personal choice and responsibility. Jonathan in his article made it clear the failing to dope was his, and I give him great credit for the admission. He also allows his riders to make a choice, in the most positive of ways. Not under threat of sanctions or dismissal, but with the simple choice of riding for Garmin or not. For any who want to be at that level with that team, it is a Hobson's choice.

From Humble Beginnings

Zimbabwe: Fifa Hail Local Refs

FIFA have hailed the development of younger referees in Zimbabwe and believe the country could soon scale the heights it reached at the turn of the millennium when it supplied officials for the World Cup and Confederations Cup tournaments.

The World soccer governing body's instructors - Carlos Henriques and Felix Tangawarima - are in the country for an Elite referees course which began in the capital last Friday and has been running at Prince Edward School.

Another course for the match assessors also ran concurrently with that of the referees but it ended on Sunday night.

Fifa referees development officer Henriques who is no stranger to Zimbabwe having been in the country on a number of occasions on the mission to improve the standards of officiating yesterday expressed satisfaction with the 34-member class of elite referees they have been taking through their paces since Friday. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of AllAfrica.com.

Kicking Back Comments: I have to say this article gave me great pause. It is one thing to work toward an Olympics or a World Cup within a program like US Soccer which is very well established, very well funded, and very well recognized around the world.

It is quite another to build a program from the ground up having nothing established, little money, and even littler recognition on the world's stage.

Big kudos to these folks whose big dreams, will certainly flourish into big reality in the years to come.

 

USADA in some trouble on Armstrong?

Judge questions USADA, Armstrong lawyers

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A federal judge had tough questions for U.S. anti-doping officials about the fairness of their effort to prove seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong cheated, grilling them at length in a hearing Friday.

But U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks also asked attorneys for the cyclist why the federal court should step into an arbitration process already set up to handle doping cases in sports.

In a 2 1/2-hour session, Sparks criticized USADA about the vagueness of its charges and wondered whether Armstrong would get a legitimate chance to defend himself against allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career.

Sparks also questioned USADA officials about why they don't turn their evidence over to the International Cycling Union, which has tried to wrest control of the Armstrong case from USADA in recent days. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of Sports Illustrated.

Kicking Back Comments: Reading between the lines, this is not great news for the USADA. In particular when a judge starts asking questions about vague evidence, or turning over evidence or jurisdiction to another, there are some serious procedural questions in play.

Justice Sparks is said he will rule before the 23rd. If I had to guess, he will push the matter to arbitration as all the other options would seem less tenable legally.

I found the prepared remarks from the USADA amusing. From the article:

"Mr. Armstrong agreed to play by the same rules that apply to every other athlete and we believe he should not be allowed to create a new set of rules that apply only to him,'' Travis Tygart, chief executive of USADA said in a prepared statement. "From the beginning our investigation has been about ridding sport from anyone in the system that uses their power or influence to encourage or assist athletes in using dangerous performance-enhancing drugs.''

Hope Solo; 1 positive test; public reprimand; competed in 2012 Olympics.

Lance Armstrong; 0 positive tests; state, federal, and international tribunals; DQ'd from IronMan and faces a lifetime ban from sport.

Ahab needs to get his Whale.

There is a positive test explanation I'd never heard before

There is a positive test explanation I'd never heard before

''I took a medication prescribed by my personal doctor for pre-menstrual purposes that I did not know contained a diuretic,'' Solo said in a statement.

UPDATED JUL 9, 2012 6:55 PM ET

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. (AP)
U.S. national team goalkeeper Hope Solo received a public warning Monday from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency after she tested positive for the banned substance Canrenone in a urine test.

Solo has accepted the warning and will still play for the United States in the Olympic tournament.

The 30-year-old Solo tested positive for Canrenone in a test on June 15. ...

See the whole article here, courtesy of Velo news.

Kicking Back Comments: Here is the official press release from the USADA and no doubt a flurry of lawyers. I have to admit the excuse is pretty weak, but that is a far cry from Hope doping.

I do have to say though, she is the ONLY soccer player in the last decade with a sanction (not that has been accused) of doping. USADA stats are here (right from the USADA) and have sanctioned over 300 athletes since 2001. 

A little more smoke maybe? At the very least following her (not unreasonable) excuse, her doc, and her teams docs failure to understand what prescriptions she was taking as such a substance should be well understood, unlike picking up a substance "off the street" as some Mexican players did, blaming tainted beef, which was later dropped by USADA.

My thoughts here go more to the USADA and their inequitable treatment of athletes in their sanctions, and also some of the really unexpected (to me) stats they produce regarding doping.

Take a peek here regarding their testing numbers. Pretty incredible stuff ... no wonder they need $9M in US Tax payer funding.

More on this soon as the Armstrong case (who has even less positive test results than Hope Solo with ZERO) continues to heat up.

Again, let me be clear, I don't know if Hope or Lance doped. Part of me does not care. I am more worried about the USADA pendulum of justice being completely out of whack.