High School Refereeing

I had my first high school game to ref last night. It was just a practice game. Three of us showed up and there were two games to do. Burroughs (the local high school) was playing Apple Valley at the varsity and junior varsity levels. Jim did the JV game solo and Randy and I did the varsity game via the dual system.

This was my first game using the dual system of control. I'm not a fan. I understand that I still have to learn how to really execute the system, but I don't agree with it on principle. The only refereeing system in FIFA's Laws of the Game is the diagonal system of control. This is what you see on TV. A referee, the only one on the field and with a whistle, and two assistant referees on the touchlines.


In the dual system, you have two referees, each with a whistle, and each having the same authority.


The referee in front of the ball (in relation to the direction of the ball), is the lead, the ref behind is the trail. Lead and trail are just terms used to explain to refs the responsibilities they have at any particular time. Who is lead and who is trail changes often and with the direction of attack.

The main principle I do not agree with is that both referees are on equal footing. Neither ref can overrule the other. This makes it harder for the referees to control the game. It can also make calls within the game even less consistent than just having one central ref.

If the refs have differing views on how to control the game (i.e. let the game get physical or clamp down on everything resembling a foul), action on one half of the pitch could be seen as fair contact by that ref and then called a foul in the second half by the other ref who now has more control over those players (e.g. Team A attacks Ref A's side and he sees contact as fair, then in the second half, when the teams have switched sides, Team A's attackers play the same, but Ref B now calls them for fouls).

The above situation happened a little last night. I know part of it is not knowing the system, but most of it is that I think there should be one central authority so there's no confusion during the game as to who is in charge and what is and is not a foul. Games can get inconsistent enough with just one referee; having two makes it difficult on the players and the refs.

In doing some research, it seems a lot of refs agree with my position. In particular the refs at asktheref.com feel this way. The refs at www.askasoccerreferee.com have similar opinions, but they are officially affiliated with USSF which is a FIFA member and they are required to share that opinion to be members of FIFA. They have the same objections, but the ones at asktheref.com make me feel like I'm definitely not on my own in these opinions because they are unaffiliated with any governing body.

Proposition 8

The reason I voted for Proposition 8 (and why I am glad it passed):
Proposition 8 is not about hate as many would like to believe. It is about separation of Church and State. Marriage, like it or not, is a religious institution. It is recognized by the State, but it was established by God. Whether or not it should be recognized by the State is another matter. Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples opens the possibility to the State forcing the Church to perform marriage ceremonies between homosexual couples under the guise of "equal protection". If, on the other hand, the State defines another, separate, union for homosexual couples, and allows the Church to choose whether it performs either or both types of ceremony, then the Church is protected from the State's interference. This last point was brought up by Abby and is really the crux of the argument. I am not sure whether I agree with civil unions, but that is another matter.

The point is that, no matter what society would like, marriage is a religious matter, and its definition has, and always will, define that a marriage is between a man and a woman. The State cannot redefine marriage and force the Church to abide by that redefinition anymore than the Church can force the State to make the Church's beliefs the official beliefs of the State. Either action is unconstitutional.

Update: Hand balls and penalties galore (recount of the last final)

The last final started at 1245. I did have a break this time since the previous final ended on-time at 1200. I wanted Subway, but didn't want to scarf down all that food right before I needed to run again (and I had no refrigerated place to store leftovers) so I just got a sugar-laden smoothie at Baskin-Robbins. It was better than nothing, but I wish I had been able to make it down to the Jamba Juice-wannabe place because I had some slight cramping in my calves near the end of the game. I was able to stretch them out in between ball-possession changes. The game itself was fairly uneventful aside from some parents complaining about throw-in calls as in previous games.

One team was quite overmatched. I found out later that they were one of the worst teams, but had done well in the playoffs. The players on that team got pretty frustrated. They were tired from having played a semi-final earlier in the day and they ended up getting beat 5-0. One kid complained about "the ref cheating for the other team" after the third or fourth goal. I overheard and explained to him that I was being as neutral as I could and that I understood that, from his perspective, seeing his teammates fall down or trip might look like a foul, but that wasn't always the case. He apologized immediately and I told him I understood that he was just tired and frustrated at losing, but that he still shouldn't talk that way.

The coach of the losing team came up to me after the game while we were cleaning up. He apologized for getting on my case in the semi-final and final games. He said it was heat-of-the-moment comments and thanked me for reffing. We talked about how I tried to be as impartial as I could and that, from his viewpoint, kids falling down or tripping might look like fouls even if they weren't. I told him I understood that and that I understand that I do miss calls. It was a very productive conversation.

He's a nice guy, I think originally from England. He's got an English accent, I couldn't place it, but I'm getting better at differentiating accents listening to all my football podcasts. He usually wears a Manchester United warm-up top while coaching. His kid was probably the most skilled in the division if not the league.

We talked more about referee abuse and I explained about the one kid's comments during the game. He apologized for rubbing off on the kids and I told him I knew the kids were just tired and discouraged. I also explained that I can handle all kinds of abuse from the coaches and parents, but that I would take very little from the players. He recognized that and agreed.

I appreciated him talking to me, but, honestly, he was one of the mildest coaches I encountered this season. It's still nice to have that communication and respect going both ways.

On the other side of the coach abuse spectrum, the coach I had a problem with also talked to me after his game. Our conversation went much like above. It was nice that he recognized he was out of line. I had been warned about him before the season so I was ready for it and it really doesn't bother me. I have a feeling he won't change as much as the other coach, but it's still nice to have a coach realize that his perspective is skewed and that we referees do know that we miss calls.

Now I'm finishing reading up on the High School rules. Some of them are pretty dumb changes from FIFA. I really don't understand why other organizations think they need to try and one-up FIFA. They usually just screw it up, but that's a post for another time. It's lunchtime now.

Hand balls and penalties galore (aka I referee for five hours)

The city soccer league ended last weekend. Most of the other referees were unavailable so I did two semi-finals and both finals Saturday. I probably would have just done the finals if there had been other referees.

As it was, it was just Alan, the guy who heads up the high school refereeing, and I for the first set of semi-finals at 0830. My game went well. I believe it was boys U12. I had a little trouble from one of the coaches who thought that every time any of his players was touched, it was a foul. He stepped on the field twice. Both times I warned him not to step on the field. He didn't know it, but if he had done it again I would've yellow carded him.

Note: The "U" numbering system works as follows: U12 means all the kids playing were under 12 years of age according to league rules about birthday cutoffs. In this league I think pretty much all the kids in that division were 10-11 years old.

I missed one call that game, it looked like the kid tripped over the ball, so I didn't call anything. The ball went out of play soon after and I asked the kid about it. He said that he had been tripped by the other player. I told him I thought that might have been the case, but I wasn't sure and that, to me, it looked like he had tripped over the ball. He understood, which is always helpful.

I gave two penalties that game. One to each team. The first was to the team who ended up winning. It was given when the boy dribbling the ball was knocked over. The problem coach jawed for a bit because his man "got the ball". Yeah, coach, your player got the ball because the kid who previously had it was knocked over by your player and obviously couldn't keep possession while tumbling to the ground. The second was given when the player with the ball was tripped from behind by an opposing player. It looked clear-cut to me (which is the only time a ref should give a penalty, when they're sure), but my assistant ref on that side said later that it looked like to him the attacker slowed up a bit and that's why the defender (who was chasing the attacker down from behind) ran into the attacker. My assistant had a side view and I had a view from behind. Still, even if the attacker "drew" the foul, the defender still ran him over from behind.

That highlights probably the biggest problem with the city league; the lack of training for the refs. Many assistants didn't know the basic signals for anything beyond offside and throw-in. There was only one assistant I thought who really knew what he was doing. The other main center referees knew, but I didn't ever have them as assistants until I got one for the last final.

The weather went from about 45°F at the beginning of the first game, to probably 70°F at halftime, to around 80°F by the end of the game. I had to take off all my layers, including my long-sleeved silk undershirt, except for one short-sleeved t-shirt.

Alan and I did the second set of semi-finals at 0930. My game was another boys U12 game I think. Both of our games went to penalty kicks. To speed things along, if the game was a tie at the end of regular time, we went straight into penalty kicks. The goalkeeper for one team was quite good and made one great diving save and two other relatively easy saves.

In both of those games I had a few parents get quite irate over a few throw-in calls. A couple times, a player on one team would kick the ball out and it would slightly deflect off a player on the other team. How these parents didn't see it I have no idea, the ball generally changed direction at least a little and the spin always changed. And they called me blind...

Ted, probably the best high schooler who refs, and I did the first of the finals. Mine was co-ed U14. I was scheduled to have a break from 1030 to 1100 (end of the 0930 game to the beginning of the 1100 game), but since the 0930 game went to penalties, it ended after 1100 so I had to go straight on. One of the coaches was the coach from the first game that I had a problem with. He was a little better in this game.

I blew one call that game. I should have given a penalty for a hand ball. A girl raised her arms in the air as she was trying to kick the ball and it came off someone else and bounced up and hit her arm. I didn't give it because she didn't move her arm to play the ball and it only slightly deflected off of her arm. So I rationalized that the ball played her instead of the other way 'round. Really though, the ball can only play the man if the arm is in a "natural" position and the player doesn't move their arm to play the ball. An arm over the head isn't considered to be in a "natural position" and so I should have given a penalty regardless of whether the ball played her or not. I had already given a penalty earlier for hand ball against that girl's team and I'm still not sure why I didn't give that one.

The only other controversial call was a goal I gave in which a player on the attacking team was in an offside position. Offside is an odd law. Its definition now (it has changed over the years) says that being in an offside position is not an offense itself. The player has to be involved in the play or has to gain an advantage by being in that position. The attacker shot the ball between the near post and the goalkeeper. The player who was in an offside position was near the far post and wasn't involved in the play nor did he distract the goalkeeper or draw a defender or otherwise gain an advantage by being there. My assistant (happened to be the one I trust) didn't flag for offside and indicated he thought it was a good goal. That didn't stop the coach whose team was scored on from yelling over and over and over that a player was offside. She finally stopped when I told her that player wasn't involved in the play and therefore was not offside.

I'll write about the last final later.
To be continued...

Bailout Bill Email to my Representative

UPDATE: I wasn't ever able to get this to go through using the House's email your rep function because they limited the number of simultaneous submissions so as to not overload their servers. I'm happy that Rep. McCarthy voted "no" again even though the bill still passed. At least my representative is actually representing me.

Rep. McCarthy:
I strongly urge you to oppose the latest "bailout bill" just passed in the Senate on Wednesday (1 OCT 2008) when it comes up for vote in the House. I believe it is wrong for a lawmaker to support a bill because of some tacked on pork or tax cuts if the main idea of the bill is contrary to their ideals.

Some of your Republican colleagues are already speaking as if they have fallen into this trap and say they will support the bill now that FDIC limits have increased and there is "a $150.5 billion package of unrelated personal and corporate tax cuts" tacked on. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122286874792094117.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us)

Bailing out the companies and investors who, along with the Carter and Clinton Administrations, caused this mess, is not fiscally or morally sound. Neither will raising FDIC limits help "bolster consumer confidence in the banking system." The general public causes bank runs because they don't understand the FDIC in the first place. Raising the limits will only reward those who took a risk and ignored the limits in the first place. The extra insurance will be paid for through inflation.

I do not support my government devaluing my hard earned money to help the people that caused our current predicament. If this bill passes the House and becomes law, the American public and investors will not learn their lesson. They will, instead, learn that they can make risky investments, and, if they go badly, the government will bail them out.

Please vote "no" when this or any other bailout bill comes up in the House and encourage your colleagues to do the same.

Thank you,
Travis Gilbert

Nancy Pelosi is a moron

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/27/video-pelosi-calls-house-gop-unpatriotic/

Also, the Democrats set this economic crisis in motion long ago, Clinton made it worse, and Bush tried to fix it, but was rebuffed by Democrats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

More on reffing and home improvement projects later. That's all for now.

Refereeing

Last Friday, I had my first game back refereeing since spring. It went well. I ran the line in a U12 coed game and didn't really have anything to call, but it was fun. I am at least 10 years older than all the other referees which is a bit odd, but they don't seem to care and I don't care so it works. I also reffed a game Saturday morning. I watched a co-worker's son's game (5 & 6 year olds) and then reffed a 5 & 6 year old game. At that age you're part coach and part ref since you're constantly telling the kids what to do when there's a goal kick, corner kick, throw-in, or really any other call. It's quite fun. I'm listening to a podcast in which Graham Poll, the former English ref who spurred my interest in getting back into refereeing, participates and I've been reflecting on my choice to not referee until now. I enjoy reffing the little kids games and watching them just have fun, but it would be nice to referee at a higher level. I think I'll get to this high school season as last season there were apparently only three refs to do all of the high school games here. For those that don't know you need at least three refs at every high school game, one center and two assistants (formerly known as linesmen). You can have a fourth official to deal with coaches and subs or to just serve as an alternate.

New Layout, Softball, & friends

So I gave in to Abby's critique of my layout. She thought it was too dark. I liked it, but I finally agree that it probably was too dark to make reading comfortable.

Also, a new slow pitch softball season is starting up. I was on the fence as to whether I would play, but I'm now managing a team. Go figure. It should be fun though. Most of the guys from the fast pitch team are playing and we mostly picked up the better players from the previous slow pitch team. So we should be more competitive this season. The fast pitch league and this coming slow pitch season will be a good transition for me I think. The previous teams had been Calvary Chapel teams and the fast pitch team wasn't since we really needed more experienced guys. Since we're going to Immanuel Baptist now, this gives me an easy transition to break off that tie. Though I never got called by the guys on the team to do anything unless it had to do with softball anyways, which was the whole problem. I understand it with the older guys, I don't expect them to call me to hang out, but I had hoped playing softball would open that up more. I know I could have done more too, but, eh, it's past now.

It's the first season for these particular Rec Center guys to do the on-base softball league so we'll see how it goes. One of the guys I know from the indoor/outdoor soccer league we had that played on the outdoor roller hockey rink. He headed up the league and was very receptive to rule changes as he had not ever played indoor (or soccer in general I think). He was the same way tonight at the coaches meeting so I think it'll be fine. I just hope the umps show up this time around. We had trouble with that last season. We'd have an ump at one field and the other ump wouldn't show up to the second field.

I'm calling Parks & Rec back to see if they need help with refereeing the kids soccer league. Those games would be on Saturdays Fridays or Saturdays. Just talked with the guy heading up the refereeing. I'm going to go by the games on Friday night and talk with him. It sounds like they mostly have high school kids doing the younger games so we'll see what he needs me to do. I threw my name out there to be a coach, but they didn't call so I assume they got enough parents.

Abby and I went over to Eli and Erin's Sunday night for dinner. We had a lot of fun. I work with Eli on my current project and they go to Immanuel as well so we see them in Sunday school. We get along quite well with both of them which is nice, it's not that awkward couple thing where we like one but not the other or one of us doesn't get along with one of the others. We stayed over for about six hours. Erin made gnocchi and it was great. I had never had it before so that was fun. She also made a lemon/raspberry cake which was quite delicious. Eli brought some in to work today so we all got a treat.

Now we're off to watch Grey's Anatomy. It's a good show. There's some discussion about sex and sleeping around, but the characters are pretty interesting I think. We're only just starting season two though so it could change.

Cavity searches and the Constitution

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/08/23/BAQP12H067.DTL

The Ninth Circuit here in California ruled that a city policy of visual cavity searches for inmates scheduled to be transferred was unconstitutional.

I think I agree with the dissenting judge, Judge Richard Tallman. I don't see it as a 4th Amendment issue, though it's not clear that's what the judges used to rule against the searches. It's already been decided that these inmates have given up certain of their rights by being placed in a jail. A visual cavity search seems to me to be quite reasonable to keep the guards safe and the inmates from more easily attacking each other. Tallman even pointed out that the other judges seemed to be "ignoring jail officials' evidence of smuggling by inmates arrested for minor crimes".

California judges have a warped view of the Constitution. They take away our 2nd Amendment rights, but give 4th Amendment rights to people who have broken the law and essentially given up that right while they're in jail. These aren't daily cavity searches, they're searches that are only done before the inmates are transferred.

The only problem I have is that they mention that these inmates are newly arrested. That seems to imply that they haven't yet been convicted of anything. I'd like to read up on the actual case itself to see how this policy was applied. For convicted criminals, I don't have a problem with this, but if it's someone who hasn't yet been convicted I think that's overstepping the prison's authority.

Update: The insanity!

Surprise, surprise, it wasn't a flop. Abby fixed baked chicken and tomatoes with nice fresh basil. Who needs recipes?

The insanity!

Abby is currently "winging" our dinner. She's not using any recipes! She looked some up, but doesn't have everything for them so she's improvising! Oh the horror! Oh the humanity!

I always love improvisation in cooking, but Abby religiously follows recipes. I teased her about this when she told me she wasn't using a recipe tonight and she basically dared me to blog about it. Here you go babe! I hope dinner isn't a disaster and we have to order pizza ;)

Na-na-na-na-na Batman!

I got a $50 gift card from Amazon as consolation for buying an HD DVD player mere months before Toshiba called it quits. So, I ordered Abby a nice case for her camera and some Batman comics that I'd never seen because I was too young for them when they came out. I got The Dark Knight Returns and Year One (both by Frank Miller) and The Killing Joke. I'll update you on how I like them. I'm also reading Atlas Shrugged which might take awhile. It's got tiny, tiny type and is over 1k pages! I can't remember the last time I read a book that long. I think it was probably one of the Musketeer books by Dumas and that was over a decade ago.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars

Abby and I saw Star Wars: The Clone Wars (the movie) last night. I would not recommend this movie even as a rental. I was pretty excited about the movie when I first heard about it because we both loved Star Wars: Clone Wars (the series). The reason the latter was so good was that the animation and styling were excellent, the writing was good, and the story was strong, but, most of all, it seemed like the crazy George Lucas had restrained himself and gone back to the original trilogy feel of things. Either that or he really wasn't involved much even though he's listed as a writer and executive producer for the series.

When I initially heard about the movie, I heard it was supposed to be a 3D version of the series with a new story leading into the upcoming animated series. In retrospect, I wish I had compared the writers from the series to the writers from the movie. It seems that Lucas had his writers run the script past his children every step of the way. I understand many people were upset at the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi as pandering to kids. I loved them 'cause I was a kid then, but, watching as an adult now, the story itself was very strong and the Ewoks didn't speak some weird Rasta-style language like He Who Shall Not Be Named.

The problem isn't that there are kid-friendly characters in the Clone Wars Movie, it's that the writers seem intent on beating you over the head with themes and ideas obviously pandering to kids. For example, Anakin gets a very young Padawan, Ahsoka, who is constantly trying to prove herself to the adults who, in a stereotypical way, underestimate her because she's young. Everyone gets cute nicknames too, Anakin is "Sky Guy", R2 is "Artooie", and the baby Hutt they're trying to rescue is "Stinky" (Get it? He's a Hutt and we all know they smell bad!). According to her wikipedia entry she's supposed to be 14, but she acts more like an 8-10 year old.

My biggest gripe though, is that the story is weak and predicatable. It's a decent enough plot idea, but, in execution, it never drew me in. The plot was at times transparent and I never cared enough about the characters to be excited to see what would happen next. The neat thing about the Clone Wars Series was that, even though you knew certain characters would survive, they introduced other, interesting characters you weren't sure about. The story in the series also fleshed out the already established characters. In the movie, the only character really developed beyond what you already know is Anakin, and that's just his stereotypical adult-looks-down-on-child-but-learns-to-respect-child-after-she-proves-herself interaction with Ahsoka. Jabba is thrown in, but he's the same slimeball gangster except he loves his son. My! what intricate and novel character development! Ahsoka is really the only new character that's developed, and I've already covered her unoriginal role. We do get to meet Jabba's uncle. He's probably the most interesting character, but they kind of overshot the wrong way on him. He is, and I am not making this up, a cross-dressing, Cajun-accented Hutt with glow-in-the-dark tattoos. I have nothing more to say than to put my complaints in a summarizing list.

Reasons you should not see Star Wars: The Clone Wars (movie)

1. Writing geared towards kids with no attempt to include adults
   
2. Poor, almost non-existent character development
3. Mediocre story
4. Ziro, the cross-dressing, Cajun-accented Hutt with glow-in-the-dark tattoos