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.