osomuerte

I like the idea of the merit system. I have always liked it. It would make travel tougher, but some schools have tough travel wherever they play (those are the teams that everyone else complains about traveling to once every two years). There is surely a way to mix the merit system with the regional system. Should Scott County really have to play CAK every year? I'm sure there are AAA teams that would love to play "down". It would also be nice if the teams having a sub-standard season had something to play for at the end of the season. Now the downside. There is money in the mix for a European team to stay in the top league. What incentive does a team have to fight to stay in the top league when they could drop into the lower league and be dominant? I can think of nothing but pride. So would a merit system work? I doubt it. It would be fun, but teams would settle out and a few would hop up and down season to season with only a rare team making a significant move. I really think a wild card slot at some level might appease some discomfort. If you're in the district with Farragut and Bearden or CAK and Catholic, it would be nice to think you had a chance to show what your team can do in a tournament situation even if you can't get "out of the district". I'm just thinking out loud. The current system definitely makes the best teams champions. That's supposed to be the point, isn't it?

TSSAA doesn't always make decisions I agree with. That being said, I have known too many players that decide a single game suspension might be worth it to beat down number whatever. What if a kid decides to try to injure a rival player going into preseason? If you only punish the kid that did the attacking, why not bring a three-hundred-pound enforcer in the game just long enough to beat the opponent's star down? A low-talent player might consider this a way to contribute to the team. Is this what happened here? I doubt it. But TSSAA needs to have the option of disciplining a team for these kinds of incidents. There are dirty coaches (not calling anyone out, just declaring they exist...out there somewhere). As for the 50% rule, I've always been on the fence. As long as the traveling team and school coaches are each independent of the other team, it isn't so bad. It does punish schools in areas that can't support multiple traveling teams. But there are ways around this, too. Bring in more players as ballast so the percentage drops. You can have twenty bench warmers, can't you? Is the punishment appropriate in THIS case? I don't have enough information to render an opinion. Is it appropriate for TSSAA to have that kind of power? I think so.

Yes, a ref has a responsibility to call a game as accurately as possible. But I don't care if the ref has dark glasses and a German Shepherd, no one should be cursing at the official in a high school event. Fans deserve more slack because they are not technically part of the team. Players are students at a school event. They should not swear in the classroom and should not swear on the field. I feel (most) refs give too much slack on that. Coaches are representatives of the school and I am certain that principals and school boards do not approve of foul language coming out of their mouths. I have been as frustrated as any other coach with calls but have only been dressed down over my comments by a ref once (no cursing, just shouting "offside" after the ref missed two or ten others before; I was staying with the next to last defender to verify my suspicions...and I should not have been there). It's a rotten and thankless job, refereeing. At the very least, give them the courtesy of not cussing them. You don't have to like their calls or even like them, just be appropriate.

pesky logic and reason

How fast were Catholic's first goals in these games? I've seen strong teams fall apart mentally by getting behind early. And was Stone's normal keeper there this time? Stone has the pieces for a good team. Maybe Catholic just had their number.

Stone 1 Anderson 0 There were 2 goals disallowed in the first half; one for running into the keeper (could have gone either way, keeper touched the ball with his hands but never grabbed it) and one for offside that I didn't really see. The Stone fans laid into the ref pretty badly. His calls may have come out a touch one-sided, but not until after the jeers began. It was a good game. Both keepers played extremely well and had a lot of touches.

I believe a yellow is the correct card for a collision with the keeper, as long as the collision was not deliberately violent. It definitely shouldn't be a no-call unless the keeper put himself into traffic (for instance, attacking a break away at the feet of an attacker -- the keeper will likely get run over, but for no fault of the attacker). Are the refs doing high school games not the same ones doing the club games? I know the pay's worse, but there aren't exactly club games going on in TN for the refs to do. (Are there?) I always thought there was a significant percentage of overlap. Or maybe I'm just getting old.

Are 3-man crews more expensive? Schools in this county usually get duals because the refs are coming from Knoxville, at least an hour drive. Most don't want to make that drive, especially with gas prices the way they are. I'd suggest requesting trios for district games to start, see if you can get them.

Yes and no. The ref must have deemed that the player in offside position was "involved in the play", be it because he was positioned for a rebound, close enough to distract the keeper, or whatever reason. It is the ref's decision. The ref does have the discretion to wave off the offside (since it wasn't a call yet) in favor of the PK, but that is getting very suspicious. The ref made the conservative call. The phrase "in the opinion of the referee" is very powerful and nearly irrefutable. However now the slide tackle (presumably dangerous or poorly-executed) creeps into the area of a dead ball penalty, ungentlemanly at the least. (I know it's not technically a dead ball until the whistle, but we don't want open season on strikers every time a flag snaps, do we?) Depending on the severity of the foul, I'd likely card the offending player. Not red as it wasn't technically a goal-scoring opportunity, but nasty. If it was something that might slide at midfield, I'd likely do what the ref did. This was a judgment call, so the ref won't be reprimanded from this description. He may, however, receive a medal. (Disclaimer: I saw nothing but the posts, so if it was a hard-core take down, I apologize.)

Ever watch American Idol? (Stay with me, there is a point.) You can usually tell who the judges' favorites are. Do they always win? No. Do they tend to do well? Yes, because the judges tend to pick the better singers as favorites. Still, if the favorite messes up, Simon lets them know it. Now the point. I think refs have favorite teams and teams they particularly dislike. Will this influence their calls? Some, sure. Will it decide the game? Not likely. The problem I've always seen comes from players (and coaches) not being able to deal with the (perceived) inequality. One or two "missed" calls put the team on the hunt for injustice. If you look for it, you can find it in any game. (Watch a game you don't care about on television and tell yourself the ref prefers the blue team; you'll find injustice.) Then everyone gets frustrated, the players start fouling more, the coach yells at the ref more, the fans cuss and call an optometrist, and now the ref can't help but make the calls and start pulling cards left and right. Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Maybe, but the slighted team certainly didn't do much to help matters, did they? The best advice is to keep calm. A team that is respectful to the ref (even when he has a bad game) will eventually become a ref favorite, if not for this ref then others to come. Which side of things would you rather be on?

TSSAA tried to even up the suspension policy for all sports, but they have done nothing to ensure that the *ejections* are equal. This is the problem. All it takes to eject a player from a soccer game is an angry ref. How often do referees use a red card to "get control of the game"? They say to themselves "The next cheap shot I see is getting a red card". Now they are looking for cheap shots, so they are going to find one. The problem does not only exist for the players. Will refs be less likely to use the red card? Some will, others won't. The punishments are built into the game. Hockey has a penalty box, football has fifteen yard penalties, soccer has red cards. There is no need to punish a player (even one with a bad temper) for enjoying a sport with easier ejections. To even things up, TSSAA needs to look at the *total* number of games suspended shared by *all* players of different sports (or by the average player). It's certainly not data I have, but if they provide me the numbers I'd be happy to crunch them.

Two items. First, the red card. Some red cards do deserve multiple-game suspensions. I have enforced these as a coach in the past. Some red cards do not. Players get ejected for defending smaller teammates in out-of-control games, saving a game-winning goal when the keeper is out of position, and slide tackles on bad fields. I feel that TSSAA does need to take a look at how frequently ejections occur in different sports before dropping the hammer. When's the last time you watched a football game on television and saw a player ejected? Or in basketball? How often do you see a soccer match on TV without an ejection? And why allow the substitution after a soft ejection? What does TSSAA have invested in randomly selecting the consequences of soccer's established penalty system? So a kid can get ejected every game for multiple cheap shots without a suspension or his team even finishing short-handed, but a kid who has one slide tackle the ref deems violent (maybe because of bad technique, sloppy fields, or attempts to defend himself) and he's out two games. Doesn't work for me and I don't think it accomplishes their goal. How about an extra game suspension for the second red card in the same season (soft or hard)? Anyway, I had another point. I think I've brought it up in previous seasons. Could TSSAA certify official linesmen that aren't full referees? I'd rather play with a mediocre trio than a good dual. It could ease the burden on the refs we have, provide more trios for the remote areas, and serve as a gateway for getting more referees. Heck, high school students could conceivably be allowed to line as long as they aren't playing for any school at the time. It's a thought.

While I am yet to succeed in getting a HS team to run a flat back, I think the key to success is to start young. Even if the varsity team is playing a sweeper, it doesn't mean JV can't play flatback. Middle school would be even better, but few HS coaches have any influence on that level. If you can get the younger players comfortable with the scheme, I'd expect it to stay with them when they become varsity. Plus it has been my experience that (most) JV players are more open to change and experimentation than varsity players. It's still a two to four year process, but it's something that can be done now. And if the adjustment period leads to a few losses while the defenders relearn their roles, most programs are unlikely to replace a coach for JV losses as long as the varsity team isn't losing ground. My 2 cents. One day I'll coach a team with a large enough JV program to try it.