|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
brace
|
brace
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 |
How about varsity DHs on Tuesday/Friday and junior varsity DHs on Monday/Thursday? (The girls and boys alternate early and late games.)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 171
Goal Kick
|
|
Goal Kick
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 171 |
Quote:
I agree with everyone, officiating, in general has been poor this season,
In who's opinion? Refs always get the wrath of coaches players and parents. but some times it is not justified. I was at Lex/Wando girls game and the home parents were as always complaining. Mike Shealy did a fine job. did he miss some, yes. but he made some great calls and more importantly, some play ons. Lets face it some times parents don't understand the rules at all. Another coach and I sat there and shaking our head.
And there is nothing worse than some parent calling off sides from the stands and the other end. Really? you can see that from the seat your in?
This is, however, just my opinion.
Score is Silver, Art is Gold!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 |
"Nothing worse"???
I'd say, FAR worse than a clearly biased parent making an emotional (and entirely predictable) comment from the stands, is an incompetent referee (and his assigner) in a state of arrogant denial over the official's impact on an outcome. And before anyone goes into a tizzy, I'm NOT talking about the referenced official.
The real question isn't whether officiating is better or worse than ever. The REAL question is whether or not tangible constructive steps are being taken to assure a steady stream of improvement.
I don't see it.
And if you're ANY kind of coach, you know that failure to improve in a presumed competitive arena is tantamount to taking a big step backwards. You expect your athletes to grow and improve. Is it too much to ask the same of officials?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 74
Throw In
|
|
Throw In
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 74 |
All season, there were three refs whom I thought did a consistently good job. I did not agree with all the calls and they missed some, but they were competent and called an even fair game. Parents opinion have no bearing on my opinion of the standard of officiating, trust me. Some refs physically cannot keep up with the play because of the "2 man" system. Others will keep cards in their pockets at all costs, to the detriment of the safety of the players. If you think that the ref system is good enough as it is, then I guess I will just agree to disagree
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
How about varsity DHs on Tuesday/Friday and junior varsity DHs on Monday/Thursday? (The girls and boys alternate early and late games.)
That has merit...it would spread out the games across more days of the week. The only drawbacks I can see are that varsity and JV wouldn't be able to travel together (creating a bit of a disconnect between the levels), members of the coaching staff would have games four nights a week in any cases where varsity/JV responsibilities overlap, and it would fill up more field time slots which might create problems scheduling makeups, rainouts, etc.
Every solution will have some drawbacks...just a matter of finding the cost/benefit balance.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 67
Throw In
|
|
Throw In
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 67 |
Not to divert the topic. But, reading the above posts from coaches about officials who have gotten some calls right and some wrong make me chuckle.
In addition to officiating I am also a USSF state assessor, which means I am qualified to judge the performance of other referees in an official capacity. I sat in weekend long classes being instructed on what to look for from referees.
The last thing a good assessor would ever consider is if they got some calls right or some wrong or missed some. The two major items are the moment of truth in the match which most referees must face, and consistency. Was the referee consistent with the calls. Next were cards used effectively and appropriately and physical presence. That does not mean "keeping up with play" I have seen many referees 20 or 30 yards from a play be more consistent and correct with their calls then ones 10 yards away.
As to the parent comments. If as a coach you are ignoring the loud comments and are not dealing with them in your match, you are as guilty as they are. We discussed this in another thread. Referees are independent contractors, depending on their assignors, they have some sway in what games they do. I know personally there are two schools, because of their fans and apathy from their coach, I will not do. One of those schools constantly is in the playoffs and even in contention for the state championship. I would rather go down the road and do the last place, never won a game school, that is grateful that someone is willing to show up and watch them get beat 15-0. I know other referees who feel the same way, and funny they never do those "good schools" either. Because you paid your entry fee does not mean you have license as an adult to go out in public and yell and scream at another adult. Until coaches and AD's understand this, very few people will come voulnteer their time to come out and deal with that nonsense.
I could, and do, make a lot more money doing my college matches and get a lot less grief from those people who have a lot more at stake to lose, and are a lot more knowledgeable about the game then coaches and parents in High School soccer in South Carolina.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Arrgy, You say a good assessor would not consider whether an official got some calls right or missed some. The major criteria, as you cite them, were consistency with the calls, whether cards were used effectively and appropriately, and physical presence. Boyerphil's comments looked past the "missed" calls and cited those officials who were "competent and called an even, fair game" as doing a "consistently good job." He cited as his major negatives for other officials lack of a physical presence (trust me, if an official is consistently making good calls from 20 or 30 yards away, nobody NOTICES that he's not within 10 yards--face it, nobody's watching the official to see where he is on the field unless/until something happens. It's the performance that calls attention to the proximity, not the other way around) and keeping the cards in the pockets to the detriment of player safety. Sounds to me like his assessment criteria are spot-on with the criteria you say you've been taught. Cav cites an official who, in his opinion, did a great job despite some "missed calls"--again, those weren't Cav's major criteria for a good job. So why the chuckle? Sounds like these guys might actually have some of the qualifications to be good assessors. Speaking of which, let's make the distinction, at this point, between "qualified" and "certified." "Certified" means you have gone through the steps to acquire a piece of paper that gives you permission to act in a certain capacity. "Qualified" means you actually possess the knowledge and skill set to do a job well. While these two concepts, in an ideal world, should be related, there is no guarantee of correlation. Absence of certification does not automatically mean a person does not possess the necessary qualities to perform a job well. Presence of certification does not necessarily mean that the certified person is actually more qualified than someone who doesn't hold the certificate, or that all equally certified people are also equally qualified. The NFHS certification stamp on a $20 ball means it has gone through the process of being licensed for play in a high school match, but it certainly doesn't make it a better QUALITY ball than the MLS or World Cup ball that hasn't been submitted for NFHS certification and doesn't bear the stamp. I hold a USSF coaching license, which simply means that I have taken at least the minimum steps to acquire permission (certification) to coach at my team's level. To what degree I am QUALIFIED to coach that team is always open to debate. It would be illogical and foolish to assume that I am automatically a better and more qualified coach than anyone and everyone who does not hold an equivalent or higher license. I find it equally illogical and foolish to dismiss out of hand the observations of anyone who does not hold certification as an official and/or assessor. Training and experience are huge factors, of course, but all training and experience does not necessarily come from certification courses. Observational skills, good judgment, and common sense existed long before the concept of certification, and I trust they continue to exist without the help of certification today. I agree that adults screaming at adults is an unacceptable situation at a high school athletic event. I also agree that it is the coach's and the athletic department's responsibility to convey expectations of behavior to parents and fans, and to take steps to enforce those expectations--to set the tone of settling those emotional responses down, rather than stirring them up. Still, following your pattern of being derogatory toward high school coaches and parents, you've fallen into another logical fallacy--an unsupported sweeping generalization. When you say that the folks at a college match are "a lot more knowledgeable about the game than coaches and parents in High School soccer in South Carolina," you fail to take into account that some of those coaches and parents--even some of the ones taking issue with the events on the field--are, in fact, former college players, coaches, and yes, even licensed, certified officials. My point is, the assumption that association with high school soccer in SC automatically indicates ignorance on the part of coaches and parents is a false premise, leading to the erroneous conclusion that in any case of a difference of opinion, the high school coaches and parents must as a matter of course be wrong. This doesn't mean that, in many cases, they (we) AREN'T wrong--just that you can't automatically assume that they (we) ARE. As I hold a certification to teach logic and logical fallacy at the college level, and I've been doing so for more than five years, I must be correct in those conclusions, right? 
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 6 |
Quote:
Not to divert the topic. But, reading the above posts from coaches about officials who have gotten some calls right and some wrong make me chuckle.
In addition to officiating I am also a USSF state assessor, which means I am qualified to judge the performance of other referees in an official capacity. I sat in weekend long classes being instructed on what to look for from referees.
The last thing a good assessor would ever consider is if they got some calls right or some wrong or missed some. The two major items are the moment of truth in the match which most referees must face, and consistency. Was the referee consistent with the calls. Next were cards used effectively and appropriately and physical presence. That does not mean "keeping up with play" I have seen many referees 20 or 30 yards from a play be more consistent and correct with their calls then ones 10 yards away.
As to the parent comments. If as a coach you are ignoring the loud comments and are not dealing with them in your match, you are as guilty as they are. We discussed this in another thread. Referees are independent contractors, depending on their assignors, they have some sway in what games they do. I know personally there are two schools, because of their fans and apathy from their coach, I will not do. One of those schools constantly is in the playoffs and even in contention for the state championship. I would rather go down the road and do the last place, never won a game school, that is grateful that someone is willing to show up and watch them get beat 15-0. I know other referees who feel the same way, and funny they never do those "good schools" either. Because you paid your entry fee does not mean you have license as an adult to go out in public and yell and scream at another adult. Until coaches and AD's understand this, very few people will come voulnteer their time to come out and deal with that nonsense.
I could, and do, make a lot more money doing my college matches and get a lot less grief from those people who have a lot more at stake to lose, and are a lot more knowledgeable about the game then coaches and parents in High School soccer in South Carolina.
This is my question why do the USSF and NISOA have an assessor program in place while the NFHS have apparently deemed this as unnecessary? The USSF and NISOA also require assigner certifications for anyone assigning games at all levels. There are a lot of discrepancies when it comes to HS on the referee level compared to other sanctioning bodies. Frankly, I would love to see some type of assessor program at the HS level....right now the only referees who get any training are those who like myself are also USSF and NISOA certified.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 67
Throw In
|
|
Throw In
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 67 |
Quote:
Arrgy,
You say a good assessor would not consider whether an official got some calls right or missed some. The major criteria, as you cite them, were consistency with the calls, whether cards were used effectively and appropriately, and physical presence.
Boyerphil's comments looked past the "missed" calls and cited those officials who were "competent and called an even, fair game" as doing a "consistently good job." He cited as his major negatives for other officials lack of a physical presence (trust me, if an official is consistently making good calls from 20 or 30 yards away, nobody NOTICES that he's not within 10 yards--face it, nobody's watching the official to see where he is on the field unless/until something happens. It's the performance that calls attention to the proximity, not the other way around) and keeping the cards in the pockets to the detriment of player safety.
Sounds to me like his assessment criteria are spot-on with the criteria you say you've been taught. Cav cites an official who, in his opinion, did a great job despite some "missed calls"--again, those weren't Cav's major criteria for a good job. So why the chuckle? Sounds like these guys might actually have some of the qualifications to be good assessors.
Speaking of which, let's make the distinction, at this point, between "qualified" and "certified." "Certified" means you have gone through the steps to acquire a piece of paper that gives you permission to act in a certain capacity. "Qualified" means you actually possess the knowledge and skill set to do a job well. While these two concepts, in an ideal world, should be related, there is no guarantee of correlation. Absence of certification does not automatically mean a person does not possess the necessary qualities to perform a job well. Presence of certification does not necessarily mean that the certified person is actually more qualified than someone who doesn't hold the certificate, or that all equally certified people are also equally qualified. The NFHS certification stamp on a $20 ball means it has gone through the process of being licensed for play in a high school match, but it certainly doesn't make it a better QUALITY ball than the MLS or World Cup ball that hasn't been submitted for NFHS certification and doesn't bear the stamp. I hold a USSF coaching license, which simply means that I have taken at least the minimum steps to acquire permission (certification) to coach at my team's level. To what degree I am QUALIFIED to coach that team is always open to debate. It would be illogical and foolish to assume that I am automatically a better and more qualified coach than anyone and everyone who does not hold an equivalent or higher license.
I find it equally illogical and foolish to dismiss out of hand the observations of anyone who does not hold certification as an official and/or assessor. Training and experience are huge factors, of course, but all training and experience does not necessarily come from certification courses. Observational skills, good judgment, and common sense existed long before the concept of certification, and I trust they continue to exist without the help of certification today.
I agree that adults screaming at adults is an unacceptable situation at a high school athletic event. I also agree that it is the coach's and the athletic department's responsibility to convey expectations of behavior to parents and fans, and to take steps to enforce those expectations--to set the tone of settling those emotional responses down, rather than stirring them up.
Still, following your pattern of being derogatory toward high school coaches and parents, you've fallen into another logical fallacy--an unsupported sweeping generalization. When you say that the folks at a college match are "a lot more knowledgeable about the game than coaches and parents in High School soccer in South Carolina," you fail to take into account that some of those coaches and parents--even some of the ones taking issue with the events on the field--are, in fact, former college players, coaches, and yes, even licensed, certified officials.
My point is, the assumption that association with high school soccer in SC automatically indicates ignorance on the part of coaches and parents is a false premise, leading to the erroneous conclusion that in any case of a difference of opinion, the high school coaches and parents must as a matter of course be wrong. This doesn't mean that, in many cases, they (we) AREN'T wrong--just that you can't automatically assume that they (we) ARE.
As I hold a certification to teach logic and logical fallacy at the college level, and I've been doing so for more than five years, I must be correct in those conclusions, right?
I'm not saying that coaches are wrong, I am saying that assessors are looking at different things then coaches do. I just found it funny that when discussing the quality of a referee they jump immediately to judging a referee by getting some calls right and some wrong. And from experience I can tell you that is not the quality of a good or bad official. I simply stated what assessors look for.
Assessors by the way must have been former referees and you can not advance as an assessor at higher level games unless you have already done them as referees. So your higher level assessors at the state and national level must have been state or national level referees. Most have 25+ years of experience as referees at all levels, and have experience in over 10,000+ games. They are not just guys who took a course and sat in a class and instantly became an assessor. They have done games at a level much higher then what you find in any high school soccer program. While not always right (believe me I have disagreed with many assessors) they know a lot more than your average high school, college, or even professional soccer coach.
As to the rest...I am just pointing out the culture of soccer that is in our state for High School, and explain the reason why more people do not come out and officiate. And whether you think it derogatory or not, it is true. Most games start fine, then devolve into yelling at and blaming the officials for losing. When you experience this night after night you wonder if your services aren't appreciated elsewhere. Most of your good officials that the OP wishes they had in high school soccer is turning their back and doing college games and other higher level games, or if they are doing high school games they are being selective of what games they do. The question is how do you get these better officials to do your higher level high school games?
1. Improve the culture of high school soccer in South Carolina. Do not tolerate the abuse of officials an opponents by fans.
2. Change the scheduling of matches so you can utilize your referee pool and lessen the amount of 2 man matches.
3. Impliment an assessment program with certified assessors who are trained to help improve referee performance, not by the associations or coaches would blindly give the referee a grade after a match.
4. Schools and AD's need to have a zero tolerance policy towards their coaches when it comes to abuse of officals. Coaches need to remember that the match is the extension of the classroom. Imagine teaching 22 students and having three people burst into your room yelling and screaming for 80 minutes straight.
5. Impliment a mercy rule. For the love of God, no one benifits when they lose 15-0.
6. Referee associations need to designate some of their officials as AR's only. Being an AR is not the same as a CR. Trust me, if you have certain officials that train exclusively as an AR on higher level matches you will have a lot less complaining.
7. Get rid of the good old boy network.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 |
The "good old boy network" is, I assume, those entrenched assigners, conveners, evaluators and officials who would do their level best to keep you from implementing the first 6 proposals.
1) Sounds good. Although all it really does is allow those officials who "refuse" to work certain venues to work at all venues. WHICH A PROFESSIONAL DOES ANYWAY.
2) Agree entirely. Maximize resources.
3) Agree somewhat. Your across-the-board dismissal of coaches' opinions may well reflect an attitude that fosters (as opposed to reduces) hard feeling.
4) Agree somewhat. Truth is, if you're not strong enough to control coaches on your own, you're probably not up to the overall task.
5) Agree. Though some folks will be upset that Little Johnny can't pad his stats.
6) Agree.
|
|
|
|
