Further observations from refereeing

Three years ago I decided to get a Grade 8 USSF referee badge. I did it partly because my short playing career came to crashing halt when on November 2, 2002 I jumped to head a ball in a men’s weekly pickup game and landed wrong. Really wrong. I completely tore the ACL and MCL in my left leg, partially tore the PCL, detached a hamstring, detached the muscles that connect to the top of the fibula and damaged the nerve to my left foot. Surgery required installing two cadaver ligaments, severing then reconnecting my quad and unavoidably cutting a nerve on the left side of my knee, leaving a permanently numb spot about the size of my hand. The excruciating rehab lasted seven months.

I miss playing tremendously; not just for the exercise and camaraderie but also for the insights I gained as a coach from being on the field under the pressure of facing live opponents. My solution was to turn to refereeing.

Being a referee gives me a different perspective because I can see the game from the player’s perspective while hearing their coach’s instructions and parent’s exhortations. It has been enlightening. Most of my games are recreational matches played in the town where I live and cover the whole spectrum from Division 4 U10 6v6 to high Division 2 U18 11v11. I have also officiated in MAPLE, MASC and District Select games.

Looking back over the three years several consistent themes stand out.

1. Parents think it is automatically a “hand ball” any time the ball touches the hand of a player. They don’t realize that the call is handling and involves deliberate intent.
2. Parents seem to be more intense at the younger ages, like U10. I hear much more (and louder) yelling at U10 games than, say, U14 or older.
3. Parents (and some coaches) ooh and aah when a player boots a long, lofted ball. It’s almost as though they’re admiring a long passing play in American football. The problem is: in the games I’ve seen these long kicks go to no one in particular so that players from both teams sprint to retrieve the ball. It becomes a 50-50 ball, the opposing goalkeeper picks up the ball to boom it the other way or the ball rolls harmlessly over the end line, giving the opposing team a goal kick.
4. “Send it!” is the most common instruction from parents and coaches. What they’re really saying is to boot the ball to no on in particular. I say this because when I hear “Send it!” no one is in the target area. So, as I said in point #3 above, the “send” becomes a 50-50 ball, a goalkeeper punt or a goal kick.
5. Parents appear to believe that the most vocal coaches are the best. I say this partly because of feedback I’ve received from parents on my club team who feel I need to yell more during the game. My approach is to give isolated, well-targeted advice especially to the players who are on the side closest to me as opposed to micro-managing the game by telling players where they should be all over the field.

Coaching The Coach Review

If a person starting out to coach youth soccer asked me to recommend a good introductory book I’d suggest Coaching The Coach: A complete guide how to coach soccer skills through drills by Richard Seedhouse. It’s a nice, concise, no frills, 115 page introduction to coaching fundamental soccer techniques. In particular I like how it covers some key technical points, especially on 1v1 attacking that is rarely spelled out in other books.

I recommend Seedhouse’s book not so much for the activities which are similar to those in many other books. Instead I like this book because of the technical detail along with his Socratic approach of asking questions of the coach.

If you’re looking for information on tactics, formations or strategy you’ll need to look elsewhere because this book doesn’t touch on these subjects. But that is its strength: a laser focus on one subject – technique.

Getting it wrong on player development

I’ve coached youth soccer for about 10 years. Started out as an assistant for the town team that my twin daughters were on when they were younger. Eventually I started educating myself, read books, bought tapes and DVDs, watched games on Fox Soccer Channel, took the D, E and F licensing courses, watched other experienced coaches, and even played in a men’s pickup game for a couple of years until a severe leg injury ended my career. (I now referee to get my soccer fix.) Eventually I moved to coaching in a club with teams in the Mass Premier League (MAPLE) and Mass Soccer Conference (MASC). As the years have passed I realized that our youth soccer programs do things backwards. We appoint or accept parents who might have never touched a soccer ball in their life and let them coach kids at their formative years when they need a good foundation in technique. The higher licensed coaches whom I have met typically are working with older club teams when the kids are already past their formative years in terms of technique. Occasionally I’ve run into a town coach who played as a kid and/or has a license of some kind. I felt that the kids on those teams were lucky to benefit from this coach’s technical foundation. (Note: I recognize that having a license doesn’t automatically makes you a good coach. But it is an indicator of some commitment to coaching education. Many of the coaches I’ve met in the license course have good technique.)

From what I understand the structure of youth soccer in some states like Virginia is vertically integrated so that the town programs automatically feed into their premier programs. Here in Massachusetts the towns and clubs are mostly independent of each other. As a result some towns resent the clubs who they perceive are stealing kids from their programs. Therefore the towns do not actively promote moving on to club soccer. I’m not saying this phenomenon is true for all town programs. From visiting the web sites for many of the towns in the Boston Area Youth Soccer league (BAYS) I’ve noticed that some have a Director of Coaching, insist on minimum licenses for coaches, run clinics for the coaches, have ties to a local club or are involved in teaching technique to the younger age kids. Their teams seem to do better overall than towns that do not.

Observations from Refereeing

On a Massachusetts soccer forum one poster asked why many games in Massachusetts Premier League (MAPLE) don’t have three officials. This spurred a number of posts by referees who shared their horror stories dealing with abusive parents and coaches. It is well known that there is a high turn over in referees. From talking to various people the biggest drop-off seems to be among the teenagers because of having to deal with adults who challenge them. For many teens this is intimating and even scary.

I got my Grade 8 referee license last spring and have done recreational games (Division 2 and 3) in my town, Massachusetts Soccer conference (MASC) games and even a MAPLE game recently. A week ago I worked the lines for a boys U14 MASC game in which one team was constantly pushing offside. Almost every time I flagged the team for it I could see a parent vigorously and vocally disagreeing with my calls. The center ref (who is much more experienced than me) agreed with me when we discussed my calls after the game. I can see why there is shortage of referees based on my experience.

So why are adults so vocal? Why do they feel they have the right to heap abuse on officials? Her are some ideas.

1. People (not just parents but coaches too) think it’s easy to referee. One coach said as much months ago in another thread on refereeing on the Touchline forum. In my opinion if you feel that way then you’re not doing it right and/or don’t understand the challenges of doing the job properly! I’m sure someone who has never actually stepped onto the pitch to referee (or play) look at the referee’s job as simply running around. They don’t appreciate that even under ideal conditions the referee has to make decisions quickly and on the fly. I’ve found that running the lines is even more challenging than being the center referee because you’ve got to stay in line with the last defender while keeping an eye on the ball and when it is played forward. In addition you’ve calling out-of-bounds, who takes the throw-in and looking for fouls.
2. Many parents don’t understand the laws of the game, particularly offside.
3. The focus on winning and losing regardless of the age or league. This is especially true in MAPLE where one goal can spell doom for a team’s future within MAPLE. So a perceived “missed” call by the parents, players or coach can escalate when so much is at stake. Yet we have also seen some outrageous behavior in MASC, even at the U10 level (!) where last year a parent was banned for the season because of extreme, continued harassment of the official even after the game.

As a coach of both town and premier girls’ teams from U12 through U18 my focus has been more on playing well and doing your best than on winning and losing. Why? Because you can’t control the outcome but you can control your effort. My message to my players is that as long as you play hard, play smart, play as a team and play fairly that you can walk off the field with pride even if you lose. Unfortunately some parents seem to live vicariously through their kids and feel winning at all costs is more important than the level of effort and thought.

But I think there is something else going on here. I think a collection of beliefs at work.

1. That a “bad” call “steals” success from their child.
2. Winning and preserving their kid’s success (the ends) justifies harassing the referee (the means).
3. Treating others without respect and as objects is OK as long as your ends are served.

The combination of these beliefs falls into the trap of believing that of blaming others for lack of success. There is even a whiff of the idea that parents and their kids are entitled to the results they want even if it might really not be deserved.

"Coaching the 'Do's'"

Below is a post from the And-Again soccer coaching forum. I like what the coach says. It’s similar to Tony DiCicco’s Catch Them Being Good: Everything You Need to Know to Successfully Coach Girls. DiCicco recommends that coaches emphasize what players do right with the idea that you reward someone for doing something right but also motivate the other players to emulate the same behavior. The traditional approach taught at least by the USSF is to stop play, correct what you saw wrong, have the player rehearse then restart play. I always had reservations about this approach because I felt it puts the player who is being corrected in a negative spotlight. If done too much the players will start playing conservatively, afraid to make a mistake. I saw this vividly a couple years ago when a coach who “helped” me with my U18 girls team stopped play almost once a minute to correct something he saw wrong. It didn’t take too long for me to see the girls dread every time he yelled “Freeze!” out of fear that they were going to be the one he singled out.

I’m not saying we have to coddle players or never correct mistakes. I think there are times to correct a player but to do it one-on-one or wait until you see a pattern of similar mistakes by several players then use this opportunity to show the entire team what to do better. But overall I like the approach of focusing more on the positives than on negatives.

Here is the link to the discussion followed by the text of the post from the coach.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/andagain/vpost?id=2586055

I am currently reading a book called "The Mind Gym". I think this is a must read for any coach...especially those of older teams that rely more on the mental part of the game to compete. One thing I took from the book is to concentrate on what you can do and not what you can't. For instance, before our game last night...which was against the top team in the league...undefeated throughout the winter and this would be our last game against them....I asked my team how they feel during a game if they are not playing well and we are losing. They said things like;

Ø Afraid of making mistakes

Ø Afraid of being subbed out / don't want to go back in

Ø Get mad at themselves

Ø Say negative things to their teammates

Ø Get tense and feel like they can't breath / feel tired

Then I asked them how they feel if they are playing great and no matter what they do everything goes perfectly and it feels like they can do no wrong. They said things like;

Ø Not afraid to try anything

Ø Feel like they can play forever....do not feel tired

Ø Everything is positive to all their teammates and themselves

Ø Don't mind being subbed out but are ready to go back in right away

Ø Feels effortless to play at maximum level

Ø Every thought is focused and clear and flows easily

So then I asked them what all those things listed above are. And they finally got it.....feelings. These are all feelings that every athlete / person carries within themselves. Their feelings can be controlled / channeled in a positive manner no matter what happens on the pitch. I ask them that when they made a mistake to just "flush it" and to pick each other up.

I had to correct my terminology and actions as well. Many times I will tell my defenders "not to lunge". Instead I said "get on proper technique and delay until they give up the ball". This is called coaching the "do's" instead of coaching the "don'ts" because the do's set a positive tone and re-inforces what they should be doing while coaching the dont's re-inforces a negative tone and sets in their mind what they should not be doing so the player might be saying to himself don't lunge, don't lunge, don't lunge so much that it sets that bad behavior into his mind. It's like when I play golf and I say don't slice the ball to myself. I always end up slicing it. Instead say to yourself what you should do and then practice it. Another example was when we'd miss the goal on a shot. This time instead of making a correction I applauded the effort and told them what a great job they did to create the opportunity and good try in taking the strike at goal

Throughout the game I had to bite my tongue. Breaking old habits is tough.

At half time we had a 1-0 lead. The feelings were positive and we did not talk about tactics. The kids were all smiling and positive. Some were already celebrating which I warned them about. I told them we had a long way to go and no matter what happened to keep being positive to each other. We had one bad lapse where our center mid did not mark up their center mid and he buried a beautiful 22 yard shot into the upper corner on a rope. About 4 minutes later a few kids were scrapping for the ball just inside our goal box and a quick toe poke found the back of our net and all of a sudden we were down 2-1 with 15 minutes left. I said nothing after either goal. The boys on our team were all shouting "2 minutes" to each other. It's a signal we use to ourselves to dig in and play harder for the next 2 minutes after a goal to get momentum back on our side. I was happy to hear them all say this. With 8 minutes left we tied the game after some beautiful footwork and intensity from our left midfielder to create some space for himself and his cross was perfectly to the head of our attacking mid who buried it. All I did was clap. The kids emotions were overflowing with positive energy. With 1 minute left we transitioned quickly out of our half and found our left striker 1v1 about 25 yards out from goal. He made a nice turn to the inside but the defender was on him and he cut it back outside and when the defender stepped he cut it back inside and had a step on the defender. From about 18 yards out he unleashed a shot toward the far post that hit the bottom of the crossbar and slid in to the goal. Clock showed 50 seconds left and the kids were all hugging and pumped. And again they said 2 minutes to each other. We won 3-2. Very big win for us psychologically and a very important lesson I learned. I coached in the "do's" and it made a huge difference. After the game one of my players who is ultra competitive and can get down on himself and his teammates at times said " that felt really good". And I have to agree that it did. Things don't always go like this...I fully realize that....but I feel it took my team to a new plateau and definitely taught me something about myself.

And by the way our keeper made some fantastic saves throughout the game and the kids mobbed him after the game.

So, how do you conduct yourself on the sideline? Are your words negative? Is your body language negative or uptight?

This is not going to be easy for my ultracompetitive personality but I am going to conscientously make an effort to hold myself to this standard. I have already had a few of my players email me this morning that they are still excited about the game last night. I think I may have set off something within them that will help them reach a new plateau in their development.

Running up the score or running down the competition? To What End?

This week the girls U12 club team that I co-coach easily won an indoor game against a local town team. When we jumped ahead by 4 goals we told the girls that they had to string at least 3 passes together before shooting on goal, that they had to use their moves and that shots had to be with their left foot (if their right foot is the dominant one). I have been involved in games where we were on the receiving end of mismatches. It's no fun for the losing team and I believe it doesn't teach the players on the winning team anything. Mercilessly running up the score also is poor sportsmanship, shows a lack of respect for the opponent and can let the girls slip into complacency so that they're caught off guard when they play a stronger team down the road. (I especially love the teams that celebrate every goal in a drub fest as if they just won the World Cup while their parents are ringing cowbells. Geesh! Get a life!)

Since the opposing team was not creating enough pressure on us (in other words, they were “ball watching”) we imposed conditions on the girls to make the game more challenging for them without disrespecting the other team. We explained to the parents in a team e-mail that we felt it was a good time for the girls to work on what we have been teaching them in practice: when you run into pressure you relieve this pressure by moving the ball elsewhere by a combination of back and square passes then moving into areas with less pressure before the defense can adjust. The natural tendency of players is to plow straight down the field until they run into the defense or run out of space then lose the ball (which is the approach you'll see in some other programs). Taking this “kick and run” approach creates ugly soccer with frequent turnovers and lost scoring chances. We would prefer the girls to possess the ball until they can penetrate the defense with through passes, wall passes or crosses. Playing this way also involves our keeper in the play as well. But, most important, this way of playing the game is more attractive to watch and is effective at all levels of competition.

I’ve heard coaches for the team that relish running up the score claim that they let their players do so because they don’t know what else to do, that it’s too hard to turn off the competitiveness, and that their players shouldn’t have to pull in their reins. While this might be true for professional sports where coaches and players are paid to win, I don’t accept this at the youth level. (Even in the premier league in Massachusetts the standings limit the goal differential of a win so that winning by more than 5 goals doesn’t help in the final standings.) I believe this rationale is an excuse that feeds the coach’s and player’s egos. In other words, it’s a rationalization for poor sportsmanship and for treating the opponents as objects, as something less than human. I feel the purpose of competition is to test and expand your limits. If the opposition can’t provide enough resistance to challenge you, I believe it’s better for everyone to impose conditions on yourself to make the game harder and therefore more rewarding.

There also is the issue of empathy for what your opponent experiences. Easily and gleefully crushing a team can demoralize the opponents. What is to be gained doing so? A false inflation of one’s self-worth at the expense of someone else? A person who has a strong self-image doesn’t rely on making others feel bad in order to improve how they feel about themselves.

Playing Time

Playing time pops up occassionally in the different coaching forums that I monitor. Over the years of coaching both in town and club (in MAPLE and MASC) I’ve tried to make sure everyone plays as evenly as possible. Everyone doesn’t necessarily play equal number of minutes primarily due to how many players I might have for each position. However, I don’t have players who are parked on the bench for long periods of time. While I don’t track playing time down to the minute I do have line ups and general sub patterns worked out before the game. My lineups are fairly flexible to account for injuries, last minute illnesses, etc. Maybe I’m wrong but my hunch is that many club coaches feel that giving equal playing time is “kumbaya” soccer. Over the years I’ve heard stories from parents whose daughters played in other clubs but left or quit entirely due to lack of playing time. Several years ago at a Virginia Beach tournament I talked to a coach from a large Massachusetts club who proudly told me that he had 11 starters who came off the field only if they were running out of gas, made a major mistake or were injured. The others rode the pine and maybe got a few minutes a game. He told his players that if they found themselves sitting on the bench it was their signal to look for another club.

I don’t happen to agree with this approach because I feel the best way to test and strengthen players is in the heat of competition. Several years ago I read Andy Barney’s “Training Soccer Legends" in which he explains the philosophy and training methods of the Kansas City Legends Club (which he founded). Barney (USSF “A” license) outlines a number of things he does in training that differs from the traditional approach to coaching (no bibs, players have to take on defenders on every possession, only 1v1 and 2v2 play at the younger ages) but he also does not dole out playing time just to his better players. Chapter 48 of his book is titled “Equal Time = High Self-Concept = Maximum Potential.” He gives all players equal time. Why? Here is a lengthy quote that explains.

It takes tremendous courage to commit to an equal playing time approach in every game. Yet this is the only way to ensure that both your better and weaker players learn the right lessons for life from their youth soccer career. The weaker players learn they are valued by you and will take greater risks with the ball in the knowledge that they won’t be punished with reduced minutes. Often the weaker players on your squad, (who may have dropped out of soccer because of reduced playing time on other teams), will become your stronger players as they mature because of your fairness and support for costly creative risks while they are learning. By playing all players evenly you let everyone know that you believe in them and care only for their development, not the wins and losses for the gratification of your own ego. The stronger players, (who would get more playing time on any other team), learn the more valuable lesson that every child is part of a team and makes a solid commitment, should be given equal opportunity to learn and develop. There’s plenty of time later in life for the ‘only the strong survive’ approach. In all youth educational environments equality of educational opportunity is a child’s right. Taking away a young person’s chance to learn and grow because that player is not as effective at that development stage sends the wrong message to both the better and the weaker players. The weaker players get the message that they’re not as valuable and, because they get less than fair playing time, the negative message and reduced minutes eventually guarantee their demise. Players receiving less time cannot feel as good as those receiving more. In the meantime the stronger players learn the cynical attitude that it’s OK to cheat a teammate just as long as the team wins.

[Picking up a few paragraphs later.] I am of the opinion that all kids deserve equal playing opportunity for education. … I would encourage the readers of this book to see the unequal playing time proponents for who they are. These people are individuals who regard the win as more important than the self-concept of the bench sitter or non-starter. If we are honest with ourselves an unequal playing time policy isn’t about development of the stronger player. It is about getting the statistical win on the board at the end of the game and the coach being able to walk away and beat his chest about the win.

Barney claims that he selects the most respected parent to do the subbing and to keep track of the rotation of starters between games.

It appears his approach works. Their web site lists the accomplishments of this club, which includes 257 state, 18 regional, and 3 national ODP players, plus 24 professional players while winning 48 state championships, etc. http://www.kclegendssoccer.com/content/accomplishments.cfm

I’m not saying one way of handling playing time is “right” and another way is “wrong.” It comes down which business model the club wants to follow and which approach fits the players and parents plans. It seems that there are two basic approaches: 1. build teams with the focus on winning even if it means some players see limited or no playing time, or 2. focus on developing players which could mean the team loses games due to the weaker players. As long as the club and coach explains to their paying customers the ground rules for playing time, the parents shouldn’t complain if they find their child not playing as much as they’d like. It appears that there are enough clubs representing both philosophies that parents and player can find a fit to their liking.

Anyway, food for thought.

Coaching education: A Do It Yourself Approach?

One of my favorite coaching forums is www.and-again.com. Recently it had a thread about the differences in approach of the USSF and the NSCAA and what other opportunities exist for coaches who want to improve their knowledge of the game. As one of the coach’s said in his post: "There's much more work required on behalf of the coaches themselves to continue their coaching education - and a lot of things can be done that do not involve taking coaching license courses." I eventually realized that the main purpose of the license courses seems to be certifying that I met the criteria of the course, not to teach me everything I needed to know. I recall at my D course during the wrap up the instructor said (with some disdain) how "thin" our knowledge of the game was as a group. At first I was put off by that comment because that's why I took the course, to "thicken" my knowledge. I did learn a lot during the course but not enough to feel I was fully versed in the topic of my practical: 1v1 attacking. They covered it briefly in the D but I still felt uncomfortable critiquing and correcting my coach/students. It became obvious to me that the instructors expected me (and the rest of the coaches) to know more about the subjects on which we were tested than was covered in the course.

Once I realized that the purpose of these license courses is more for certification I faced a quandary. Where do I go to get the experience and knowledge needed? My state association basically runs just the licensing courses. The situation as a coach is somewhat different than, say, getting a Professional Engineer's license in my field. I got most of what I needed to pass the PE exam by getting a degree in chemical engineering. The license test measured how much I retained.

Where is the equivalent to college for soccer coaches? I could be wrong but there doesn't seem to be "one stop shopping" for us. I think we get mixed messages when the licensing is combined with a course. I think many of the participants coming into the license course (myself included) think that the sole purpose of the test is to determine how much we learned during the course when it really is assessing the knowledge of the coach, both what was learned in the class as well as what the coach learned prior to the class.

As a result I've had to rely on books, tapes/DVDs (mostly from the NSCAA), watching Fox Soccer Channel, playing in a men's pick up game every week and most recently refereeing. In addition I'm fortunate to be working with my club's DOC on forming new U12 girls teams for the last two years then handing them off to other coaches in our club. Working closely with my DOC is similar to working as an apprentice in a trade.

It's a shame that after a certain point getting an education as a coach is pretty much a do-it-yourself project. In addition to my comments on the licensing courses, it seems that the higher courses (including the NSCAA) are geared for those who plan to coach full time. I say that because of the time and expense required to take them that make it impractical for anyone who works a non-soccer related full time job. It would be nice if there were courses that provide more advanced information coaches like me want regardless of whether a license comes with it. Personally, I don't ever expect to get an A, B or C license at my stage in life but still want to continue my education (which is one reason why I visit this forum daily).

I think the NSCAA comes closer to this idea than the USSF by not favoring non-players. Since I haven’t attended their higher level courses I can’t say if they cover what I’d like to see in a course. I did attend their Special Topics Diploma course on “Reading the Game.” I went in with high hopes thinking we were going to watch a Revs game (which we did) then have it broken down by their coaches to show what they picked up. Nope. We were assigned into three person groups. Each group was assigned a different topic. My group studied the movement of the Revs forwards. After the match we reassembled to share our observations with each other. Occasionally the instructor would throw in some brief comments but that was it. So you basically had the students teaching each other. ?? They did provide a handout but it was more an outline of suggesting what to look for when coaching a game.

As an example of what I’m talking about the NFL channel runs a segment called AFC (or NFC) Playbook where the commentators analyze parts of games to show what they’re talking about. They repeat the tapes in slow motion isolating on individual players and how they move. The closest I’ve seen to this is on the International Tactics tapes/DVDs by Jape Shattuck which I got in my D course (which is no longer provided as part of the course). On my local TV they have a segment with Patriots coach Bill Belichick using the “Belistrator” where he shows what makes certain players of their next opponent so dangerous. He does the same thing the NFL channel does: slow motion replays isolating on player movement. Between the NFL show and the Belichick segments I’ve learned more about American football than I ever did.

I wish there was something equivalent outside of the licensing courses for non-professional soccer coaches and fans.