Week in Review #28 (June 7, 2024)

This week, the topic is “Hmmmm, interesting.” I would also like to apologize now that this is going to be text heavy. But this is really important.

First of all, our perspective remains the same in terms of when to check for accuracy of decisions. We covered it in our Jan 7 weekly review (link). Particularly, take a look at the table at the bottom. I will paste it below too.

Back in September last year, you watched a USL-W playoff game which involved this incident. In the con-ed session, we agreed that a PK was missed (incorrectly not given PK). I have also mentioned that I was the match-day ref coach and I had the decision as correct at the field. I had it wrong on the field. But based on the table above, I thought the referee had a correct decision. Even though I had access to video, I did not review the incident. I marked it as correct. I should have at least questioned based on the fact that DF slides in a risky way. I should have said to myself, “maybe correct, but maybe wrong.” I shoud have been on the “Unsure” row of the table above, but I was not. This continues to be our approach to evaluations.

We have talked a lot about our priority areas. For the referee, it is MC and IP. For the ARs, it is OS and IA. But MC, IP, OS, and IA are nothing more than GP. We have CMIs and CREs that are more important than GP. A good evaluation recognizes these priorities. A good evaluation is only possible when we observe a match with these priorities in mind. Ask yourself. Are you sometimes paying a lot of attention to PS and MV and miss a possible CMI? Are you sometimes worried about alignment of an AR and end up missing if the AR gave a signal for a caution (incorrectly prioritizing PS over IA)? It is not going to be good if you are too concenred about if you had pink salt or boring white salt while you accidentally cook with cat litter sand instead of ground black pepper.

When we evaluate officials, we are evaluating them (I know it is redundant but I wanted to reiterate this point). We want to develop them for sure. But we must remember we are not just observing them to give them tips and advice. It is very different from mentoring at State Cup or doing a casual RI assignment. We are there to translate an official’s performance to a 10-point scale. That is our primary reason at the game whose match ID ends with RC.

When we are there to score an official, we must always pay attention to matters that affect the score. After all, we are there to evaluate. Think of a few scenarios.

• The referee is having a good game. You’re thinking 8.4, at least 8.3. You continue to take copious notes about good foul recognition in the midfield, good sprints, etc. Lots of time stamps! But you know what can change everything dramatically? A CMI. Do you remember saying to yourself “DOGSO, DOGSO, DOGSO” as you chased a counterattack when you were officiating? Do the same.
• You suspect the AR’s alignment is off. You keep looking at where the offside line is and where the AR is. As a result, you miss the kick point of a long ball and cannot tell if the onside/offside decision on a CMI situation was correct.
• The referee’s foul calls have been inconsistent. You’re busy writing down all the questionable foul decisions. When you were looking down to put another time stamp on your notebook, a PAI happens. You don’t need 10 time stamps to show inconsistency. But you need to catch the PAI.

It’s about priorities. Don’t lose sight of what really matters. We are not trying to give 10 different pieces of advice to each official. One or two is enough. A bunch of questionable GP offside decisions make us curious. But it should not make us curious enough to lose sight of IA on a referee CMI decision.

I cannot emphasize the importance of “hmmmm interesting” enough. I should have thought, “hmmmm interesting” with the USL-W clip above. But I did not. That was my mistake. Even those of you who were regional assessors before, we are all dealing with something new. Today, one incident can bring an 8.4 to a 7.9. In addition, we are being tested in the age of streaming. Just like referees are, we are also tested. Referee used to get away with incorrect decisions all the time because there was no evidence. Similarly, assessors failed referees without any video evidence. “From where I was, it should have been a PK” is all it took. Not any more. I do not expect any of us (myself included) to determine the accuracy of CMIs and CREs live all the time. But I expect us to be able to say, “Well, that will be a CMI if it was incorrect” or “this is a CMI even if this was correct.” Think of the following.

• An attacker and a defender come together and the attacker goes down. The referee does not give a PK. We know it will be a CMI if the decision is incorrect. Unless it is very clear it was a fair challenge, “hmmmm, interesting.”
• A tight offside flag-up decision that negated a 1v1 with a GK. We teach ARs to keep the flag down when in doubt. It looked tight. It stopped 1v1. This is not what we teach. “Hmmmm, interesting.”
• Well organized defenders all raise their hand for offside when an attacker scores a goal. A misaligned AR had onside. Worthy of checking? “Hmmmm, interesting.”
• A player in the air makes contact with an opponent and their back makes an arch. Unless they were trying to practice yoga while playing soccer, “hmmm, interesting.”

You don’t need the final answer right away. You’re not refereeing any more. You have time to think. You can check out streaming. We have said it many times. You don’t have to close a debrief that evening. You can wait till the day after. Don’t tie your hands by making a definitive statement. Let the officials know their GP level: good, satisfactory, or below expectation. But no need at all to discuss the final score. Gather information at the debrief. Schedule an additional call for later.

Now I want to have a look at some incidents from this spring.

Incident #1: If you can definitively say at live speed that this was incorrect, great. If there is on video, that is what will stand. But based on the fact that the play was headed away from the goal, you should go “hmmmm, interesting.”

Incident #2: Did you say, “Yep, that was off”? Or did you say, “that was close”? When it is close, we expect the flag to be down. So does that make you say, “hmmmm, interesting”?

Incident #3: Two players come together. The attacker goes down. The restart is a goal kick. That means the DF didn’t play the ball? And the DF made contact with the attacker? Hmmmm, interesting. You tell the referee in the debrief, “I need to check if the DF got the ball at all. If he did, it will be a correct no PK. But if he did not, this will be marked as a CMI error. Are you free to chat on Tuesday around 7pm?”

Incident #4: It may not be a foul. But it can be a foul. Don’t you want to check it just in case? Hmmmm, interesting, isn’t it? And after the game, the referee says, “the attacker actually held the DF’s arm first and dragged him down. And then the falling momentum made the DF fall over the attacker.” It sounds reasonable. We move on. The base ideas of “supporting the referee unless there is clear evidence they were wrong” and “Is it clear?” have not changed at all.

Incident #5: Live, the collision is clear. The GK initiates contact. The GK does not get to the ball. All of these should be clear live. It then sounds like a PK, doesn’t it. The referee doesn’t call it though. Hmmmm, interesting.

Incident #6: From behind. Speed. To the back. It looks bad. The referee only gives a caution. You want a red card, don’t you? For what, though? SFP, right? SFP has three parts: endangering the safety, brutality, or excessive force. The player’s neck snaps back. There is excessive force but the safety was also endangered. Have you noticed FIFA/USSoccer’s increased attention to player safety recently? We don’t care if a goal is about to be scored. If there is a suspected head injury, stop the game. Safety is paramount. When you put this incident to that context, hmmmm, interesting.

Incident #7: The approach is high. Studs are exposed. Live, you can probably see this much. You may even see that the POC was above the ankle. Only a caution was given. Hmmmm, interesting. But the player who got fouled didn’t complain. Interesting for sure. In the debrief, you can ask, “That challenge at the 55th min did not look good. What did you have there?” Once you get the info, you can say, “Thank you. I will have to check the video at home because I don’t want to mark you correct or incorrect without doing my own due diligence.” On Tuesday, you will call the referee and say, “You were absolutely correct. A caution was the correct decision. Great job.”

Again, if we can get to the final decision right away, that is great. But we do not need to rush. If you have had to make a phone call to say, “I’m sorry. I know what I said an hour ago. But I was wrong. You did not meet the minimum requirement,” you know it is not a fun experience at all. I have had to do it, too. If you have not, you will one day have to. It just happens. I have had to email officials to say, “I know I told you I supported your PK. But I am sorry. I cannot any more with additional evidence and information.” It is a horrible feeling. So do yourself a favor and take your time.

One last request. And this is where I admit another mistake of mine. I should have been more careful with the perceived impact of my title/role. There are some referees whose performance is closely monitored for development. It is no secret that Ryan, Justin, Rob, and Marcus are trying to upgrade. I watch every single game of theirs and review their performance. We have another group of officials trying to be in the first group. Their performance is also monitored by others. What this means that there may be times when I notice things that you did not. Just because you were at the field, I may ask what you saw, which only makes you aware you didn’t see something. If something like this happens, please stick to your own observation at the field. In other words, if you missed a CMI situation, it should not go to the report just because I mentioned it. If you did, the evaluation process is no longer independent.

Please keep your independence as the match-day referee coach. Have a look at this. The referee gives a red card for DOGSO – No attempt / No challenge. On the match day, if you had this as correct, you mark it as correct. I might ask you how things looked at the field and in that conversation, you might realize a caution and a PK was the correct decision. But you need to mark this as correct on the report because that was what you had. You will have a separate conversation with the referee so they can learn. But the paperwork will reflect your independent evaluation.

If you send me the above and ask for my input because you went “hmmmm, interesting,” I will say this is an incorrect CMI. Or you may ask Carlos or Nicki or Josh or to the WhatsApp group. That is fine. We are here to help. At the same time, two days later, let’s say you submit your report labeling this decision as a correctly given red card. I will ask you, “You labeled it as correct. Are you ok with that?” I ask to make sure. But if you say yes, it is not for me to kick it back to you. I have absolutely no authority over your paperwork on that particular incident. You’re an independent evaluator. I only kick it back when there is a score missing or when no advice was given.

This was a long post. A few bullet points as summary.

• Review the table at the top of this entry so you are not looking for errors using video
• Thinking “hmmmm interesting” is what triggers video check
• Let the officials know if their GP was good, satisfactory, or below expectation. Use the debrief to gather information. Schedule a follow-up on a later date so you can discuss the final score.
• Your independent evaluation matters. If you had a decision correct (i.e. you didn’t question it at all), then please mark it as correct even if you hear differently from someone else, including myself.