The Strategery of Our Sport

             In a country where popular sports don’t end in ties (recall the controversy over the baseball game that did so several years back), soccer has never quite caught on.  Could it be because Americans thrive on the orgasmic aspect of sports?
            Think about football. The season leads to the be-all and the end-all: The Super Bowl.  After that, it’s the off season.  Sure there’s the Arena Football League, but it’s almost an entirely different sport.

            Soccer, by contrast goes on forever.  There’s a season in the fall, the spring, and the penultimate summer. Then it starts up again in the fall.  It never really seems to end.       
            Also, it’s very common for games to end in draws (ties).  In the upper echelon of soccer, a score of 4-2 is a high scoring game.  Scores of 1-0 or 2-1 are far more common.  Maybe this is why Americans loose fascination with soccer and turn to other sports where somebody always wins.

            As a spectator at a high school soccer game asked me the other night: Who won?  My reply: It was a 2-2 tie. The rebuttal: Yeah, but for what team?  Maybe this is why soccer hasn’t caught on.

Hey Pal! Break a leg.

            Injuries are part of sports.  If athletes sat on the couch all day, they wouldn’t get hurt. But, then they wouldn’t be athletes either. 

            Soccer in this country is often seen as a tame sport.  Compared to football, that assessment may be somewhat accurate.

            Although, many injuries still occur in soccer and the shadow of doubt is often cast upon the referee for not controlling the game tightly enough to prevent them.

            Case in point: a few seasons ago during an adult game, two players came sliding in for the ball rather sloppily and one ended up breaking a leg.  This didn’t necessarily mean he had been fouled, though.

            Consider the chicken-and-egg conundrum. Which came first?  Was the action of the player with the now-broken leg responsible for causing the injury or was the opponent’s action the one at fault?

            As the referee, I had to make a split-second decision.  I determined that the first player, by recklessly challenging for the ball, had placed himself in a position where it was feasible his leg might be broken.

            Most of the players weren’t too riled by this decision until the first-responders arrived from the Emergency Medical Services.  As they were carting the player off the field on a gurney, one remarked something along the lines of, the guy who did this deserves a red card.

            I’m sure one can imagine the response from the players that came next.

Apparently, feigning unconsciousness is a new delaying tactic?

While taking the written rules test, which each person wishing to officiate high school soccer must do, I ran across this nifty redundancy:

If a player is deemed by the referee to be unconscious, or apparently unconscious, he or she may only return to the match with written authorization from a physician.
A.) True
B.) False

Hmm.  I'm not sure as to the reason why a player would want to appear unconscious without actually being so, but regardless, he or she will need a doctor's approval before rejoining the game. A.) True.

The Need for Mercy Rules

            On Friday night, I was the referee of an adult match in Ocala, Fla.  The outcome of the match was decided very quickly as one team managed to score ten goals in the first half while allowing none to be scored against them.  The game ended with a score of 15-1.

            This sort of thing happens occasionally and always revives the issue of whether or not leagues should institute a mercy rule.  I have no doubt the two teenagers who had come from soccer practice to work as assistant referees and were exhausted after game one would have loved to leave game two early.  I mean, why work for 80 minutes and get paid $25 when you could work for 40 minutes for the same pay.

            In any case, adult leagues typically don’t have mercy rules because of the pay-to-play aspect.  High school soccer requires a match be terminated at any point after one-half of play is completed and the score reaches an eight-goal differential (one team is ahead by eight).

            Adult leagues need to learn from this and do the same.  If the teams want to continue playing after the match has been declared over, then fine. But, the officials need to remove themselves from the equation.

            Competition is a funny thing. It elevates the level of play, but also typically leads to increased anger.  People playing soccer in a scrimmage type setting for the intrinsic fun of doing so don’t conjure the same emotions against opponents as those in an organized game with an end goal (to win). 

            When one team is pummeling the other, as was the case Friday, players on the loosing team tend to get frustrated.  Unable to compete fairly against the opponent, they resort to unfair means such as reckless play and using excessive force. Both of these can lead to injuries, which can lead to higher insurance rates for the league, loss of players (both from injuries and for the fear of them) and lots of other consequences.  There needs to be a clear rule on when a game is over.

            To the league in Ocala’s credit, they did try to implement a mercy rule this year, but it was a grossly misguided attempt. For seasonal standings, teams are credited with zero points for loosing, one point for tying and three points for winning a game.  This mercy rule stated that teams winning by more than a seven goal differential would only be credited with 2 points. This lead to one team scoring seven goals and the losing team scoring an “own-goal” to make the differential more than seven – thus earning the moral victory of taking one point away from the winning team’s season-standing credit for the win.  It was subsequently repealed. Go figure.

Scholastic Soccer is Behind the Times.

            According to the Florida High School Athletic Association, denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling the ball results in the offending player receiving a blue card and being dismissed from the match.  The team of this player doesn’t have to play short. The offending player doesn’t get suspended from any other games. He’s simply disqualified from the match in which he committed the offense.

            Receiving a second yellow card in one game doesn’t result in a red card either; although it does disqualify the player from that particular match.

            So for you soccer fans out there scratching your head as to why the FHSAA would extrapolate from the generally accepted rules, let me further add to your confusion.  Assistant referees don’t use flags; they use whistles. 

            So, it should come as no surprise that the ranking system for officials is rather arcane.  In fact, to become a rank-one official (the highest), all one must do is be registered for 10 years, attend a field clinic, and score above a 90 percent on a test that marking A for every answer would score around a 75. Surprised?

            During post-season play is about the only time game assignments strictly reflect the ranking system, but these are the best games. They deserve the best officials. 

            The United States Soccer Federation requires any official above grade eight (entry level) to receive a game assessment and pass a fitness test each year.  High school officials do neither. 

            This would be unacceptable in amateur, college or professional games, and so should it be in high school.

            

Why Leagues Should Avoid Mandating Cautions.

This past weekend, I was the referee of a very lopsided game at the Gainesville Regional Soccer League.  A player on the loosing team decided to voice his disapproval of the way I was dealing with certain fouls by saying that he knew better and could guarantee he’d been refereeing longer than I had (in slightly more heated terminology not fit for the blog).

            Rather than immediately cautioning the player by issuing him a yellow card, as is the leagues mandated protocol, I reminded him very loudly that I didn’t care if he’d been refereeing longer than I had because I was the referee of this particular match and that he’d better respect that.  I could see heads turn to watch the spectacle on other fields and members of this player’s own team scolded him for talking back to the ref.

            At the conclusion of the match, a player from the winning team inquired as to why I didn’t follow the league rules on cautioning for dissent by giving that player a yellow card.

            Which brings me to this: Why is the league now mandating cautions?  I’ve been doing this for eight years and I know when to come down hard on players to limit dissent and when to give somebody a break.

            The problem is that as referees wish to advance their careers, they need to travel to cities with more prominent leagues – leaving Gainesville with a dearth of referees.  Let me be clear, I’m not criticizing the inexperience of these people; I use to be in their shoes.  But, I am saying that many of them should not yet be in charge of adult matches.  They simply don’t have the skills developed by experience to succeed. 

            The league decided dissent is a problem because referees aren’t sanctioning players for it when necessary and issued an ultimatum: immediately issue yellow cards for any form of dissent. 

            Generally, this might be appropriate.  But there are times when it’s not, such as the game I had Sunday.  By making blanket statements based on the performance of inexperienced referees, the league is discounting the experience of senior officials.

            

Moving Right Along

     The format of this blog is changing from First Amendment issues and controversies to soccer issues and controversies from the perspective of an official.  It will cover the local (somewhat) scene of amateur (including collegiate) soccer in Gainesville, Fla.

Nitwit

            On Monday, Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach prohibited players from using the social media site, Twitter.

            His reasoning: It’s a stupid distraction.

            This right after one of his players tweeted about Leach being late to a team meeting after a big loss. 

            But, the bigger underlying issue is not a coach trying to keep players focused and motivated.  It’s a coach infringing upon the First-Amendment rights of his players.

            Even Texas coach Mack Brown agrees.

            According to Brown, what players do while under the direct supervision of the coach (i.e. during practice) is controllable. But, once players leave that environment, they’re free to engage in anything legal – though certain things are discouraged.

            Bottom line: Mike Leach, you’re out of line.  Don’t try to shift focus from you to your players after a big loss by blaming Twitter. 

            Also, John Heisman wants a Tim Tebow trophy. Go Gators!

The Not-So-Golden Rule

The Equal Time Rule violates the First Amendment. 

            Commercial speech hasn’t always been afforded First Amendment protection like hard news (See post "Left, Right, Left").  Conversely, editorial content is what serves up an audience for advertisement, and advertisement supplements the First Amendment. 

            Good journalists will show both sides of the story for hard news.  But choosing which stories to editorialize is an issue that involves the organization’s medium (radio, print, web), its targeted audience and which issues are important to it, as well as issues of taste and sensibility. 

            It’s no secret that conservatives have a stronghold on the editorial content of radio broadcasts.  Just listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Likewise, liberals have a firm grasp on any station incorporating NBC into its name (MSNBC, CNBC, etc…).  Just listen to Keith Olbermann. And the list goes on. 

            The point is, forcing radio stations to broadcast opposing editorial shows is wrong.  Should it make sense to do so, the market for advertising will be there and allow it to happen. Just look at NPR; it’s not your typical talk-show station.  But, if the market is not there, the government should not force a radio station to supplement shows with opposing views or slash the airtime already afforded current shows to conform to some editorial equality standard.        

            Good editorial content and open debate are necessary and the First Amendment protects this.  The government needs to stop trying to circumvent it.

Captions!

DISCLAIMER: The photographs below were taken by Warren Tillery during the spring of 2009 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Photojournalism.  The captions posted are not those that originally accompanied the photographs, though certain factual information contained in them was referenced from the originals.  The new captions, together with the photographs, combine to satisfy a caption-writing assignment for Ron Rodgers’ Editing Lab, fall 2009.  These are in no way meant to portray actual news events, but merely as a way to practice the elements of writing information-dense captions for news-style photographs.  Permission to use portfolio photographs, rather than new ones, for this assignment granted to Tillery by Rodgers on Sept. 21, 2009.

SOCCER SKILLS – Players compete for the ball during Sunday’s match between Real Alachua and C60 at Forest Park.  The teams play in the A division of the Gainesville Regional Soccer League.  Games are played weekly with teams split into divisions based on skill level with A being the top. (Photo by Warren Tillery)

WALKING TO CLASS – Students walk toward the Reitz Union between classes Thursday.  Without adequate parking, many students are forced to walk long distances in short amounts of time to avoid tardiness to classes. (Photo by Warren Tillery)

PUDDLE JUMPING – Cliff Phillips flies through the air while wakeboarding Saturday on Lake Swan in Melrose, Fla.  Phillips was practicing for an upcoming wakeboarding competition. He’s been wakeboarding for five years. (Photo by Warren Tillery)

"F-R-E-E-D-O-M," said William Wallace.

            The First Amendment is sacrosanct to journalists because it ensures the right of the press to be free and independent of the government.  But, the First Amendment also ensures individuals the right to freedom of religion.

            While we don’t have an official religion, the United States is predominately a Christian country. However, in attempting to be sensitive toward practitioners of other religions, we’ve inversely become insensitive to the rights of the majority.

            Recently, Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freeman gained national media attention showcasing the issue in point.

            At a luncheon to dedicate a new field house at the school, Lay asked Freeman to lead a prayer prior to the meal.  Somebody screamed foul and the ACLU got involved - claiming the two, acting in their official capacity, had broken federal law by violating the establishment clause.

            Luckily, a federal judge had the good sense to rule that the two men hadn’t for they faced severe punishment if they had.

            What gets overlooked is the issue of free exercise.  As principal, Lay can’t use his position to promote religion.  He, along with all other Santa Rosa County School District employees, signed an agreement as such.  But, this agreement doesn’t restrict his right to practice religion; he just can’t force others to practice with him.

            If an attendee at the luncheon didn’t wish to take part in the pre-meal blessing, then fine, they weren’t forced to.

             But, if the majority of attendees did wish to partake in prayer, the free exercise clause protects their rights to do so.

            Besides, banning prayer in school is a bad idea. For most of us, it’s the only way we make it through.

First, Do No Harm.

          According to FirstAmendmentCenter.org, a bill making its way through committee in the Senate would enhance protection for journalists when it comes to naming sources or releasing confidential information in court.
          It’s about time this happened. According to the article, a similar bill was also passed in the House of Representatives earlier this year.
          Lawyers can already claim attorney-client privilege and refuse to divulge confidential information. Why not journalists?
          Look at the situation surrounding the Valerie Plame affair. Judith Miller, a journalist for The New York Times, was jailed after she refused to release information.
          As she said, keeping a source’s confidence is vital to journalism and the exercise of the First Amendment.
          This bill must make it out of committee and be presented to the full Senate.

Left, Right, Left.

            This week, The Gainesville Sun ran an ad reading, “Barack Obama and the Democrats did not inherit the bad economy; they caused it and made it worse.” 

            Now I’m not debating the accuracy of the ad, merely advocating its right to be placed.  The U.S. Citizens Association paid for it, and it doesn’t violate any legal bounds as public officials can rarely by libeled.    

            Yet, angry readers sounded off.  Some went so far as to take an action as original as saying “yo mama” for a comeback and canceled their subscriptions.  Yeah, that ought to show them.  Never mind the part about subscriptions barely covering the delivery cost of the paper. 

            All of this because The Gainesville Sun published something certain readers believed to be false.  That’s the point of the First Amendment: to guarantee freedom of speech.

            What they should do is think about how great it is to live in a country where someone can place an ad critical of the president and not be executed.

            The Gainesville Sun made no attempt to pass this off as news; they even placed “advertisement” at the top of it.  Without ads, media outlets would go out of business.  The Gainesville Sun is simply doing what’s necessary to continue bringing its readers the news.  I’m sure the economy the ad-in-question mentions has caused ad revenue to diminish and led many news organizations to adopt policies of “if it’s legal, run it.”

            As I write this, I’m looking through Tuesday’s edition of The Alligator.  I see all kinds of ads claiming various things.  Nobody seems to be mistaking ads for male-enhancement products for hard news (no pun intended).  

Another One (infringement) Bites The Dust

This week’s infringement comes in the form of censorship in athletics. No, it’s not 2008, and no, this is not Beijing. This is Southeastern Conference athletics – most notably football. According to an AP article this week, the SEC has placed a slate of restrictions on various forms of online media usage for game coverage. Banning the use of social networking sites – like Facebook and Twitter – for in-game updates seems bizarre when radio announcers are allowed to announce play-by-play details in real time. Okay, with a seven-second delay, but I digress. My guess is that those in charge don’t fully understand the internet’s role in the media today. This was probably a preemptive maneuver allowing for future censoring should a star athlete drag a fan out of the stands for a little end-zone pummeling. Should this happen, radio, television and fan tweets (fans are still allowed to use social networking sites during games) would spread the news very efficiently. So, I don’t see the reason behind added restrictions for online content other than ignorance on the part of the SEC. Luckily, the SEC relented and compromised upon receiving letters from the lawyers of four major-media groups. Without the combined power of these groups, things may have turned out differently. Just think about what might have happened if each outlet had to file its grievance independently.

So What's The Point?

Freedom of the press ensures that citizens have the ability to be well informed. Whether they are or not, we’ll leave for another discussion. In China, where they don’t have this freedom, government censors control the flow of news and editorial content. Luckily in the U.S., the First Amendment guarantees this freedom. But, citizens should not rest on their haunches, believing the amendment guarantee of this power is absolute. It is constantly under attack. Individual cases may not seem like a huge deal at the time. They may seem small or trivial, but can soon escalate. Therefore, it is the goal of this blog to inform citizens of infringements on this most-basic right in the hope that it won’t become systematically marginalized. Please feel free as good citizen journalists to e-mail me with infringements you find along the way.


Thanks,

Warren