Where's the replay?? Do something to get the replay!!

Take a look at this one at full speed. Goal?

FIFA Prepares to re-vote on 2018 and 2022 World Cups!!

It would seem that the independent ethics probe lead by Michael Garcia has done far more than survived the plot to overthrow him, it has now fully convinced the FIFA EX-CO that a revote on 2018 and 2022 World Cups is needed to save a shred of ethical fabric and show the world FIFA can again be a pillar of good will for football.

Mr. Garcia now has strong EX-CO support lead by Mr. Blatter and Mr. Boyce, who recently stated that he "would have considered quitting" had Mr. Garcia's probe been cut short.

Granted there are very strong words from both Russia and Qatar, with both nations angry at FIFA for allowing  revote and not giving back any of the monies both nations "advanced" to FIFA for being considered a host nation.

While Mr. Putin was busy with other matters apparently, sports ministers Alexander Sidyakin and Michael Markelov, have demanded that the US is thrown out of the 2018 World Cup. While largely unreported it is apparently for Mr. Garcia's ethics probe and nothing to do with the gun running Russia was caught doing under Mr. Garcia's watch. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Qatar was equally nonplussed with FIFA's sudden reversal on a vote and immediately ceased work on all those air conditioned stadia which needed to be ready for 2022 in a clear sign of defiance. This however did give the Qatar organizing committee and FIFA an opportunity to discuss workers rights which as we know is a vital concern to both FIFA and Qatar.

One clear winner would seem to be Japan who is willing to undertake the 2022 role should FIFA strip the Qatar nation of its duties.

Even England is not without controversy in this go around as recently Howard Webb expressed regret at some of his decisions in the 2010 final.

In hearing this, FIFA immediately expelled Webb from further consideration at the 2014 World Cup and replaced him with Springfield USA native Homer Simpson, as announced on 30-MAR-14 on Fox.

Happy April 1st.

Why players don't need the referee

I'll tell you honestly folks, I genuinely believe that this statement (players don't need the referee) is true.

In fact, I'd go so far to say that The Game may be better without anyone except players. Other than my personal feeling and experience of getting the heck out of the way to let players (in a good natured way) sort things out for themselves, I offer (2) examples.

First is from our friend Dutch Referee in his blog entry "10 Rules of Football as a Kid." Pay close attention to rule #6, "No Referee."

Why not? Because no one other than players has a real interest in sorting out who the rightful winner is.

Think about how many times as a kid we were playing together, and something happened that was unfair. Who dealt with it? The players themselves.

How did they deal with it? Well it depended on what happened and to whom right?

If someone got a little hurt, we checked in and kept playing, but if really banged up, we would stop and get mom.

If someone did something outside "the rules" it would bring protests and if it continued we would say "We don't want to play any more." This very think happened yesterday to Little Ms.. She was out playing with some friends and came in when another playmate pushed her into a puddle. Game over.

It is rather incredible when we allow players to self regulate, more often than not, they can take care of it themselves. Yes, I know sometimes we have to play the role of "mom" and look in on more seriously injured players, or give cookies out when feelings are hurt. Yes, at time we play "dad" too when a stern warning is in order to make sure that does not happen again, or if it does you send the player "to their room."

All and all however, we should strive to let the players play and manage only those exceptional situations that really, REALLY, need our direct involvement.

A second example was provided to me my a friend of mine (thanks Pat!) and speaks to the fact that players will look out for each other when things get very serious.

Take a look at "WATCH: Ukrainian soccer player may have saved opponent's life."

Here we have a higher level professional match, where players are paid to compete, yet despite that there was a clear sense of compassion when an opponent was knocked out cold by a keeper and seemed to suffer respiratory distress as a result. In came a team mate of the keeper to save the life, or at the very least come to the aid of, an opponent that was in some form of distress.

When I get the opportunity to speak these about match management, to start the discussion I take a copy of the LOTG and either tear it in half, or toss it over my shoulder to make a couple of points.

First, is that you are not going to find the majority of what you face as a referee in the LOTG. Look at the 2013-14 LOTG ... the 17 laws don't even take up 50 pages of text. There is not a lot there to go over the myriad of situation you will be put through. In that way the LOTG is a guide, not a "rule book" on what to do. That is one of the beautiful things about the document and being a soccer referee, the ability to craft a unique path every time and still adhere to the spirit of what is in that book.

Second, is that ultimately the LOTG does not matter, the players are going to do what the players are going to do and nothing in that 50 page book is going to help. You as referee, once realizing this fact, should seek to unobtrusively manage those players on that day to come out with a result that they think is just.

Some may be sitting back and thinking this is refereeing by some Lord of the Flies method. Its not as there are certainly bounds. My point is the players will let you know where those bounds are well before the LOTG does ... and you as referee should be listening.

THIS is the type of strike we need!!!!!

Is FIFA now a sponsor of terror?

The proof FIFA gave the 2022 World Cup to sponsors of terror

• Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE withdrew ambassadors from Qatar in protest at country's support for destabilising factions
• The sermons of extreme Islamist cleric Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi are regularly broadcast on Qatari state television
• Al-Qaradawi is banned from entering the USA, UK and France
• The Doha-based International Centre for Sport Security's vice-president retweeted a campaign to raise funds for Syrian jihadists

See the whole opinion piece here from Mail Online.

Kicking Back Comments:

An interesting article with many points that if taken as factual, add up to FIFA essentially knowing they gave sold a World Cup to a state that sponsors terror.

Do I believe that FIFA is, or supports, terrorism.

No.

Why?

Very simply, its bad for business in the long run.

Now I certainly believe that Sepp has an axe to grind against the UK, and would do everything in his power to make sure another World Cup is never played there again. I have to believe he has similar bias toward other countries, or at least individuals, that do not support him outwardly.

That however is a far cry from supporting terrorism.

No workers rights are another story ... in Brazil where there have been several workers who have died building stadia, and Qatar where there have been multiples more ...

Sadly I think FIFA has made the calculation they can "PR" these incidents away with promises and strong statements like "no more."

To them I believe it is a calculation about how much FIFA can extract from countries, without looking "too bad" in the process.

Dying workers seems to pass muster ... but state sponsored terrorism is even too far for FIFA. They would be shunned from the world and left penniless (except for their billions in the bank). Which after all seems to be the primary reason for their existence ... to line their own pockets.

Let's (re)Start with a Bang!

Since this is my first post after coming back from Italy on business, I somehow find it appropriate to roll out this clip. It depicts a goal and subsequent celebration from an Italian league match.

Excessive?

Programming Note

Friends,

It has been a trying couple of weeks with the loss of Madame X's mother who succumb to Alzheimer's Disease and the accompanying ceremonies for such an event.

As fate has it I will also be traveling for a period of time and generally unplugged.

Have no fear however as the MLS Referee Strike has "graced" the opening of the MLS season this year, and I certainly have more than a few things to say about it.

Also, as we tick closer to Brazil 2014 we are starting to see a host of security concerns coming from FIFA, as they start to already place the blame for any bad event on the host nation.

Oh yes folks, the snow is melting and we are just getting started to kick off another season in the US ... and a World Cup in Brazil.

Stay tuned!

Experimental Rule 7.13, et al ...

Major League Baseball has adopted Experimental Rule 7.13, governing collisions at home plate. Including the rulebook commentary, which guides implementation of the rule, it takes 351 words to say that runners may not go out of their way to barrel over a catcher, and that a catcher cannot block home plate without having the ball. The word “buttocks” is included, so you know it’s good. ...

See the whole story here, from Sporting News.

Kicking Back Comments: I'm not sure what is funnier the "rule modifications" suggested by SN, or concern showed my MLB to make this "experimental" for 2014. I mean, come on folks, if you think it is important, do it, don't go half way.

For any interested, the text of the rule itself can be found here, in a tweet from MLB.

It's the people, not the rules

I caught an interesting article from Mike Woitalla in Soccer America titled, Put refs and coaches in the same room. Similar in venue to what we discussed last week with He Blinded Me With Science!, this discussion too was from the US Youth Soccer gathering in Philadelphia. The .pdf of the slide deck can be found here.

In the ether, the points have some merit. While I am sure that some actual polling went behind the conclusions, I have to believe the sample size was so small and the focus so narrow that the actual results are not quite on point or at least so general to be not helpful to anyone specific.

Don't get me wrong, they are worth reading as again, each has merit, at least at the highest level of abstraction. Also, the title is a good idea unto itself as well ... provided they are the right referees and coaches. At the professional level this is an absolute necessity, but even there, with the right people. Can we really imagine the outcome of placing a group of young, youth referees in a room with a bunch of older coaches? Are the issues all rules and regulations, or is there something else at play here?

Do we really think that if we take Peter Walton's advise from this article and have referees be more demonstrative in signaling fouls that the types of issues hurled on referees, such as abuse, will end?

How about inconsistency? Do we as referees always want to be consistent regarding fouls all the time for the same reason? I hope not as any number of situations may cause us to intentionally stray from this course of action.

Two very concrete points I really like are (a) make players and coaches take a referee class and exam. This sadly was recently removed from anyone who was getting their "A" license and to the best of my knowledge the certification requires no actual referee classroom work or experience. (b) Is to require coaches to referee a set of matches to feel what it is like to referee.

Some have commented this is not very practical and I disagree strongly. With these (2) steps you could make at least coaches feel empathy for these young youth referees which is what I believe is the intent behind "getting in the same room."

I think we keep forgetting, it is not about the silly rule book or how it is executed in the majority of the youth soccer games across the planet ... it's about the people and how we choose to manage each other. I believe humility and empathy are far more important than demonstrative signals and consistency.

Don't believe me? Try using NFL type signals the next time out and see the reaction you get.

How Brad Meier got screwed (not how he screwed the Russians)

By now most have heard about how the US Men's Olympic Hockey has advanced to play Canada in the Semi-Finals today (21-FEB-14) at 12:00 EST.

Team USA has played well, but not without controversy during the match with Russia on 15-FEB-14, where the USA won in overtime after a goal (box score) which was disallowed by American NHL referee Brad Meier.

To be clear I am not here to dispute the call. By all accounts it was correct for the international game. I am also not here to talk about the fanaticism of the Russian fans united to "make soap" out of Meier.

My beef is actually with the supervisor of officials for the International Ice Hockey Federation, Konstantin Komissarov. Now you say, that's odd as Komissarov was front and center in defending the referees for making the correct call, and has been vocal about it since the event occurred. My issue is why Meier was even assigned in the first place.

Meier was born in the US (Ohio) and was shortly moved to Canada where he has spent his life, however has never renounced his US citizenship and holds passports for both countries, making him both a Canadian and US citizen. From this my question becomes why oh why was a US citizen assigned to a US match!?!?!

There were several other referees available to do this (list of 2014 officials here) so why even have a whiff of impropriety‎? Yes Meier is supremely qualified and did a nice job in the match and no I don't think he was tainted in any way, but why even risk it?

Now look what we have ... protests be damned as they are of no consequence ... we have a good referee that made the correct call who will be excluded from any future games this Olympics IMHO. Now functionally that may have been the case anyway as if either the US or Canada go through he would be excluded due to seeing them already or his citizenship, respectively. Then again, can he "turncoat" to US citizenship if Canada goes through?

My point being that I think it was actually pretty silly to assign a US Citizen to a USA match, even if that citizenship is shared with another country. It has put a fog on the USA win over Russia, will certainly have a similar effect if they medal, and most importantly to me, has an excellent referee out of the ruining at a chance to referee a medal match.

He Blinded Me With Science!

Over the last couple of years I had described how like soccer players, soccer referees are endurance athletes, particularly when it comes to refereeing a several match set in the same day.

Recently, the NSCAA held its annual convention in Philly and was attended by Jay Williams, who is the author of several publications including the blog The Science of Soccer. Kicking back has been following him for some time and enjoys both the raw science and commentary he provides.

Mr. Williams was recently asked to speak at the NSCAA annual convention and provided an excellent presentation and slide deck about recovery, both can be viewed here at his blog.

Why beyond curiosity is this important you may ask? I'll offer (2) reasons:

1. It helps to further understand the sport and its participants from a scientific perspective. Understanding what a player is going through is important to understanding how to manage a match. If you have ever run into a player who is "bonking" and their mood, you'll know what I mean.
2. Referees are endurance athletes and this information applies to them as well. Don;t forget a referee is running around for 90 minuets as well, and expends energy just like anyone else. Keep in mind, the ability to make accurate decision is also based on fatigue, and how quickly one fatigues depends in part on energy levels of the individual. You want to make good decisions for 90 minuets, fuel yourself properly.

Take a look at the preso as it presents some very necessary steps to assure an individual recovers properly for the next effort.

I'd also recommend the blog generally as the information presented is quite good.

Who said they can't sing

The song on Valentine's Day from English soccer fans



For any interested, the is a cover of Truly, Madly, Deeply by Savage Garden



Not quite "battle of the bands"... but not bad at all.

Happy Valentines Day. Don't forget to thanks those who you love in supporting our passion.

PA to ask FIFA to expel Israel

Chairman of Palestinian Football Association says Israel should be expelled for failing to abide by FIFA conventions.

The Palestinian Authority will ask the Federation Internationale de Football Association to expel Israel from the organization for failing to abide by its conventions, Jibril Rajoub, chairman of the Palestinian Football Association, announced Wednesday.

Rajoub, a senior Fatah official and former Palestinian Authority security commander, said that the Palestinians won’t accept any compromises or half solutions to solve the problems facing Palestinian athletes and sports. ...

Se the whole story here, courtesy of jpost.com.

Kicking Back Comments: While I hope that FIFA does not take this issue seriously as everyone should be welcomed by FIFA, later in the article I noted some of the supporting nations for this action, one of which was Qatar.

Also recently I took great note late week when in the Qatar capital Doha, during the Swimming World Cup, local officials both refused to fly the Israel flag, and in at least one occasion, whitewashed it. See Qatari Insult from jpost.com for the details.

From this editorial the author suggests that FIFA should be taking a hard look at this conduct and weigh in for the 2022 World Cup. I do agree.

While in recent days the focus on Qatar rightfully is on their exploitation of  the migrant workers and have recently signed on to a new set of conditions for these workers (source), we will see what actually comes to pass.

I am personally doubtful that things will change significantly as from reports these workers were literally dying every day. How much better can things get from there?

It continues to make me wonder what FIFA uses as a template for suitability for a World Cup. We are on the cusp of a World Cup in Brazil and there are serious questions about safety and security of all participants, and that is saying nothing about the unrest in the region toward the displeasure of the Brazil government.

We see Russia openly making laws against homosexuals and sub-standard conditions for many during the ongoing Winter Olympics which have become iconic on Twitter (https://twitter.com/SochiProblems).

Now we have Qatar with its workers literally dying at its feet, a World Cup calendar moved, and about an air of brown envelopes and promises of beautiful weather.

Like many of us, I have read some of the bid specs ... but through those outright lies in some cases, FIFA has to exercise some common sense to protect the crown jewel of The Game.

Anytime now FIFA, anytime now.

A Bridge Too Far

Enough!

At this point I am opining FIFA is losing its collective mind with the news they are actually considering video replays for matches.

Ah, have no fear you may say as it sounds innocent enough.

It is just being studied ... they say.

Simply a proposal ... some muse.

Why oh why are they doing this? It is clear enough they are unwilling to trust their own referees with the advent of GLT and have the ability to retroactively dole out punishment for incidents caught on tape that the match committee feels warrants additional action (this later practice I agree with).

Why, when GLT has been proven 100% effective in tests conducted by FIFA, used in various competitions, and is about to be used in all World Cup matches this year (assuming the stadia are competed) do we need more?

What is FIFA after?

Well ... here are some thoughts on this topic.

First, is a big fat I told you so. I somehow knew that once the camel's nose was under the tent, FIFA could not help itself. Take a look at what I wrote back on July 6th 2012 on the topic. I saw it then and am scared to death of it now.

Second, FIFA has no faith in its GLT system. It went to the lowest bidder after all. GoalControl has yet to be proven in any actual significant action and am willing to bet when really tested, it has not, and will not, perform well. PR videos of the "testing" are hilarious and I hope are not representative about what was actually done.

Third, FIFA really wants replay, and in fact it will swallow GLT whole. FIFA I opine is not happy with Goal, Offside, and Penalty decisions. I'll throw it out here that any replay decision will include all (3) of these.

How it gets implemented is anyones guess, but in any case it will be a disaster as you are going to have to stop the match either for the review, or the action that comes from the review.

Take the NFL or MLB as examples. In these cases, a review can be easily worked into the flow of the game itself as there are natural starts and stops all the time. Here it makes the most sense (I still hate it though).

Of all the other sports with reply the NHL may be the closest analog where they can look at a goal which was awarded that may not have counted for a variety of reasons (e.g. kicking the puck in the net). This, assuming I buy replay at all, makes the most sense ... but wait ... FIFA now has GLT that is 100% effective ... why are we changing course?

I think we are changing course folks as soon we will see either a booth referee looking at incidents, or a challenge type of system like the NFL and now MLB (thanks a lot Bud) where a limited number of challenges are allowed in a particular period of time.

It is unworkable in soccer as the game is too fluid for such drivel. That what makes it a beautiful game, and with continued tinkering how FIFA is going to ruin it.

Call of the Superbowl

In a past article (What Tony Hayward and referees have in common) I discussed in part how NFL referee Phil Luckett on November 26, 1998 made exactly the right call on a coin toss which several NFL players and coaches tried to imply the referee made a mistake that cost the Pittsburg Steelers the game. From my article: 

My favorite of all time is Phil Luckett. Anyone know him? NFL referee extradornare who had the guts to follow the rules during a coin toss on November 26, 1998 when the Pittsburgh Steelers were playing the Detroit Lions. Yep, this is where Jerome Bettis called "hea-tails" during the coin toss, Luckett when with "heads" as per the rule of the game, the first call uttered is the one to be used. You all know the rest of the story, Steelers lose the toss, and eventually lose the game.

As we can see history can repeat itself and even with the NFL changing how the coin toss must be conducted, if not for the actions Terry McAulay, Superbowl 48 would have started in controversy.

Take a look here to see the article and video.

Mr. McAulay saved the game for falling into controversy with a great catch before the game ever started.

I believe however, he did make one potentially fatal mistake during that exchange ...

Anyone have an opinion?

Why not the ARs too?

As we discussed back in June in, Sex was the price to fix a match ... and lose a FIFA badge, we saw the reports of the Lebanese refereeing trio of referee Ali Sabbagh and assistants, Ali Eid and Abdallah Taleb, getting tried and jailed for the exchange of sex for attempting to throw a match in Singapore. They never did of course as they were removed previous to ever setting foot on the pitch.

Out today however was a report that FIFA Bans Lebanese Referee for Sexual Favours. This ban for the referee from FIFA is a lifetime and worldwide, effective immediately.

Good on FIFA, this is the right thing to do. 

But ...

Both ARs were only given a ban of 10 additional years each, where the referee was given a lifetime ban. Now, practically speaking, this may have been a lifetime ban as (although I can't find these guys online and their birth dates) another 10 years may have put them over 45, however it was close for the referee as well.

Each referee received the same "favors" per the cited article and were each jailed for the intent to match fix ... so why the difference in punishment?

My opinion ... give them all lifetime and world wide bans for their conduct.

It is often said, and I agree, the referee crew is a team that sinks or swims collectively. An AR has no less culpability that a referee does when it comes to match control or comportment. Certainly an AR has an opportunity to influence a match as they are required to make critical match decisions. We have seen this in recent months at the howling of goal/no goal decisions and the sudden need for GLT.

Given this, why should the ARs suffer less of a fate as the referee? FIFA I believe has again missed an opportunity to say "If you match fix, you are banned for life." While clear for the referee, to not follow through for the ARs gives the impression that (a) ARs are less likely to fix matches, (b) ARs are "worth less" than referees to The Game, (c) there are options other than "life" for such an offense, or (d) some combination of these.

In this case the ARs received the same "spoils" for the attempted match fixing they were all in on. Let them all suffer for their affront to The Game.

FIFA, please take this seriously.

Mimeograph with a sense of humor

Too Much Dabbling?

Yesterday I reported on Jerome Chanpagne's candidacy for FIFA presidency, and also praised him for at least wading into the waters of trying to make a referee's life easier by creating an "orange card" that would have the effect of putting an offending a player in a "sin bin."

He has also suggested a variety of other changes that can be seen at the article.

In the face of all of these suggested changes, and that of MLB approving expanded replay in 2014 and the NFL tinkering with the thought of eliminating the point after touchdown (PAT), are leagues going too far to change the game they represent?

I think so. Instead of tackling the real issues in sport like PEDs, corruption, professional referees, the respective administrators of their sport want to tinker with silly elements that have been, or not been, part of the game for a long time.

If you want to look at a pioneer for changes to the game, look at Sir Ken Aston with the truly meaningful changes he made throughout his life.

Some changes are necessary with time, such as helmets for football players, and eventually as a result in 1956 penalties called "facemasks" were introduced.

Or maybe in gameplay itself as when icing was introduced in 1937 to speed up play and promote attacking hockey.

As I have stated here before I am not a fan of all the technology into the game to "assist" referees. Man has not evolved to the point that another man can't detect if they are cheating or not, as hard as they may try. Changes to the respective games today seem to be toward the introduction of these technological "advances" to "assist" referees.

While there is a case to be made for the technology assistance from some, fundamental changes to the game, such as how the game is scored should be left alone. Last time something like this was changed in the NFL was 1912 when a touchdown was increased from 5 points to 6. Now 100 years later we need to change this for some reason?

In this day and age, changes to the game are not made for the sake of the game itself I feel, but rather to appeal to the widest television market a sport can attain, or correctly said, allow for as many advertisers as possible. I suspect the NFLs motivation is more in this vein.

While an argument has been made that (in the case of the NFL) these PATs are "automatic"and one notable coach names these as "non-plays" and there should not be "non-plays" in the game, it has been part of the game for a long time, and one that still provide some drama, however rare. Currently the last PAT missed was back in December of 2012. In the current season the conversion is hovering around 99.97%.

Not all that long ago (1932) the conversion rate for PATs was around 67% and teams in needing these point developed specialists to nab the PAT. Why take it away? Why not take away the 2 point conversion as well then? Field goals? Forward passes?

Like any game, I want it to be exciting, and some trains of thought may see the PAT as a non-exciting element of the game today. I respectfully disagree. In fact it heightens the drama as you should want to be there for that moment a kicker misses, or a team produces a trick play and runs it in.

How about this for a change to make the PATs more exciting ... make a touchdown worth 4 points ... a filed goal 3 ... retain the 2 point conversion ... and a PAT worth 1.

Yes the scores will be lower, but that PAT will mean a whole lot more.

Clearly it is unlikely they  will change the point value for a touchdown. Why? Certainly tradition.
So they why change the PAT?

Getting back to soccer, a very nice synopsis of law changes can be found here, courtesy of FIFA. Trust me, FIFA has done some dumb things to the LOTG as well, and at times has used the MLS as its petri dish.

I can sum this up in a word (from the early days of MLS):

Rampage.

For those who don't know about it ... imagine a set of (5) kicks per team, a goalkeeper in their net, a player at the 35 yard line, and the rest of the team at midfield. Everybody is in place and waiting. The JAR drops their flag and 22 players run at the ball in an effort to score or defend a score.

It was so absurd and so short lived I can't even find any video evidence of it.

FIFA and MLS quickly got the point how stupid it was, and abandoned the practice.

Tinkering is fine, kick ins for example were actually a cool idea and made sense for the game played with the feet ... but goofing around with the fabric of the game is not.

Just leave it alone guys, please.

Champagne for President!!

For any who have not heard Jerome Champagne will challenge Sepp Blatter for the FIFA presidency in 2015. If he runs again, this would be a 5th term in office Sepp would seek, at age 78.

Mr. Champagne, aside from a fabulous name, has some very interesting ideas about where to take international football next. Many can be seen in this article from the BBC.

One that really caught my eye, was that of an "Orange Card."

Now, let me be clear, the first use of that term I ever heard (and to great effect) was from Herb Silva, the man behind the curtain at US Soccer literally, who has been incredibly influential and effective as making the professional leagues work.

His use, is stunningly different from that of Mr. Champagne, and is that in between card, when you give a yellow and just a bit more, but not quite send the player off. The term has reached such understanding that I have actually said (while holding up a yellow card) ... consider this orange. Trust me the particular player understood.

Now, the use Champagne has in mind is a bit different, but honestly, not bad. I have to give the man credit for actually considering referees in their approach in controlling matches in mind. It is the first time in a while, I have heard a FIFA bobble head actually give a referee some thought.

I look forward to Mr. Champagne's candidacy with great anticipation.

Your Superbowl Referee ... Terry McAulay

So right on the heels of (3) US Referees being names to the 2014 World Cup, we have the announcement of Terry McAulay named to head the refereeing crew for Super Bowl XXXIX. His crew for the upcoming Super Bowl will be Carl Paganelli (umpire), Jim Mello (head linesman), Tom Symonette (line judge), Scott Steenson (field judge), Dave Wyant (side judge) and Steve Freeman (back judge).

In researching Mr. McAulay you get the pretty standard stuff. Was a high school and college official, married, couple of kids, went to LSU, and has a computer science degree.

Where I really got interested is his involvement was the fact that he worked (2) previous Superbowls (LXIII and XLVIII) and in "bottlegate" on December 16th, 2001. A match between Cleveland and Jacksonville. From Wikipedia:

"The Browns were driving toward the east end zone for what would have been the winning score. Browns' wide receiver Quincy Morgan caught a pass for a first down on 4th and 1. After quarterback Tim Couch spiked the ball on the next play to stop the clock, McAulay announced that they were going to review Morgan's catch, saying that the replay official had buzzed him, indicating for a replay review, before Couch spiked the ball.[7] 

In reviewing the play, McAulay determined that Morgan never had control of the ball, thus the pass was incomplete, and the Jaguars were awarded the ball. However, fans in the "Dawg Pound" began throwing plastic beer bottles and other objects directed at and striking players and officials. McAulay then declared the game over and sent the teams to the locker rooms. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue called the game supervisor to override McAulay's decision, sending the players back onto the field after a thirty-minute delay, where the Jaguars ran out the last seconds under a hail of debris.[7]"

If you want to see some crazy behavior, take a looks at the You Tube clip from that incident below:

So honestly I'm not sure what's worse about this whole thing from the following choices:

1. The fan(atics) pathetic and frankly dangerous behavior.
2. TV announcers of this clip making asses of themselves by not only thinking, but actually saying that "... the ref should take control ... of the fans ... by explaining his decision." Soon after saying the referee should end the game, then after he does criticize him for it. I don't even know where to start with that one.
3. A stunningly stupid move by then commish Paul Tagliabue in ordering his refereeing crew back out into the field, in a hail of beer bottles (yeah but there're just plastic says the announcers), and directly into harms way, to play the last seconds.

I was stunned somewhat speechless by this. 

Not the fan(atics) ... I almost expect this type of behavior at times. Certainly not be the announcers as a rule they spot drivel. However in the commish's decision was really poor to put teams and referees in harms way.

Now very interestingly, I actually read the rule on this (here) and was really surprised at what I saw.

From the law:

Under no circumstances is the referee authorized to cancel, postpone, terminate, or declare forfeiture of a game unilaterally.

Yipes!!

A referee must contact the comissh office to get direction. A referee can not do it on their own.

I can almost, almost, see the point when it comes to weather, but fan disorder like this, and you have to call a guy x miles away watching on TV and he says "get back out there."

That seems a little crazy, and even worse, distrustful of the assessment of the refereeing team. After all, they trust them with an outcome of the game, but not a decision to continue it or not?

As referees, do we have this authority? If so, where in the LOTG does it lie?

Well for those who did not know, we do, and it can be found in Law 5 which states a referee has the power to:

Stop(s), suspends or abandons the match, at his discretion, for any infringements of the Laws.

This is true for all levels of the match and it happens at nearly all levels of the match. Just take a look.
I would think this one ended well before the military helicopter landed on the field.

How far would you tell the commish to pound sand if they said "get back out there" in this case?