Quote:


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.



I get that. If you actually look at what they were saying, though, they were NOT judging the quality of the referee by getting some calls right and some wrong. It was stated that those officials did a "consistently good job" regardless of disagreement with the calls--because they were consistent and fair. If missing calls was a criteria for making a judgment, then it would be hard to say they did a "consistently good job" while "getting some right and some wrong." Obviously getting all the calls "right" is not a criteria for doing a "consistently good job"--which seems to be consistent with your assessor training.

Quote:


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.



There ya go...throw that word "average" in there and I will agree with you.

Quote:


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.



There is truth in this. The offensive part is when someone makes blanket statements about the entire population of high school coaches and parents based on experiences with some of the worst situations. I agree that there is no valid excuse for poor conduct on the part of coaches, players, and fans. There should be accountability across the board for the conduct of players, coaches, parents, fans, and officials. As I have repeatedly told my players, parents, and students, in order to call someone else wrong, you have to make sure YOU are in the RIGHT. Yelling and screaming derogatory comments does not put people in the right...in my opinion that's entering the "two wrongs" category at best. Something else to remember, too, is that the people making the most noise are the ones who get noticed, but they are not always the majority. One or two individuals yelling expletives at an official will stick out more in the memory of a match than 100 others who simply cheered their teams and took the officiating as a matter of course--or even got up and moved a few seats away from the abusive few.

Quote:


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.



1. No argument there.

2. Also no argument. In any situation of limited resources (in this case, officials), adaptations have to be made to make the most within those limitations--while also taking into account other limitations like field availability. We could certainly look at using more non-Tuesday/Friday slots to alleviate pressure on the pool of officials on those days. Most coaches would prefer not to play on Mondays because they would rather not have a game coming directly off a weekend, and Wednesdays often conflict with track meets for schools that share facilities between those sports, but there are ways to make it work.

3. Agree with the first part, but the second part is what we need to work on in order to work together constructively--this assumption that associations and coaches would "blindly" give a referee a grade after a match. You seem to be stuck in this mentality that anyone who is not a certified official and/or assessor is incompetent to give any kind of constructive feedback. I think that is very short-sighted. Sure, coaches have a dog in the fight and are necessarily biased about the results of the match. That does not render them incapable of making a sound judgment about the fairness of the officials. Students who say "that teacher was really hard on me--my grades weren't great, but I learned a lot" or "I got an easy A in that class, but I don't feel like I learned anything" are giving valuable feedback that is not based on their scores. Coaches are capable of doing the same. If you get nothing but praise or griping based entirely on who wins or loses, that can be dismissed as bias. If a losing coach compliments the fairness and equity of officiating in a game, or if a coach wins by a comfortable margin but cites concerns about player safety and game control--to the point of saying some of his own players should have been cautioned--then I'd say it's worth a listen.

4. The SCHSL has very specific rules about unsportsmanlike conduct by coaches as well as players, including suspensions and substantial fines. Officials have the power and the responsibility to caution and/or eject coaches whose conduct is disrespectful and abusive. If three people burst into my classroom and start screaming while I'm trying to teach, I'm going to immediately make it clear to them that the conduct is unacceptable, ask them to desist, and explain the consequences if they do not. If they refuse to stop, I will write them up for referral to administration and if necessary have them removed immediately. If I allow that behavior to continue for 80 minutes without addressing it, that's my fault. I have watched both players and coaches having a go at officials...depending on the duration and severity, sometimes I admire the officials' patience, and other times I can't imagine for the life of me why they allow it to continue.

5. I've been on both ends of double-digit games--they are what you make of them. Some would prefer to cut it short and go home; others prefer to get the whole 80 on the field regardless of the score. I can see both sides.

6. Makes perfect logical sense to me. Players and coaches receive specialized training for specialized positions--why not officials?

7. First and foremost in any decision-making process should be what is best for the players and the integrity of the game.

We may not agree on every part of every point, but there's a lot of common ground here.

I've got good news and bad news...