Still want to blog the 3rd part of the Top football Referees, as well as the case for the trend to moving towards professional football referees, but will keep it after the New Year as I have a national referee workshop soon and want to take time off now from the most hectic referee schedule since I came onto the PSL referee panel. I’m off to the Mosselbay Yacht Club for a much needed holiday with the familia.

I wish everyone a beautiful festive season and outstanding prospects for the year 2010. World Cup 2010 is almost upon us. My best wishes and good luck go to South African Fifa referees Jerome Damon and Enock Molefe, both are still short listed for the 2010 World Cup on our shores. Do us proud gentlemen!

Fifa referee Jerome Damon (RSA)

Fifa assistant referee Enock Molefe

The following abandoned matches have been ordered to be replayed by the Football Conference….
Lewes v St Albans City (28th October 2009) due to referee’s decision in relation to fog.

Chester City v Eastbourne Borough (28th November 2009) due to advice by police after pitch incursion.

A report from the match referee is currently subject of investigation by the Football Association and therefore it would be inappropriate for the Football Conference to make further comment.

Arrangements will now be made by the Football Conference and the clubs involved to set the dates for these matches to be replayed and the clubs themselves will confirm those new dates in due course.

More and more, when I watch college football, it seems that the refs just can’t win. Don’t get me wrong, I see them miss calls. But it seems that there is getting to be so much focus on showing missed calls on tv and for fans to abuse the refs.

Look at the recent suspension of one SEC officiating crew after calls during the UGA-LSU game and the Florida-Arkansas game. Fans from Georgia and Arkansas not only sent hate emails, but called the home phones of officials with unbelievable messages accusing the refs of all sorts of things. From being on the take, to having gambling problems, even to deliberately attempting to affect the score.

And it’s the first time that I can recall a crew being suspended although I have seen equally bad or missed calls each and every week from the refs. Why this particular crew in this particular situation?

I heard recently that ESPN had something like 25 cameras at a game for a recent Monday Night NFL football game. I mean with that type of scrutiny, the officials don’t really have a chance. They are not perfect and there will always be missed calls. But now it is like the media and the fans are trying to highlight any missed call and screaming bloody murder.

If you have never officiated a sporting event at least at the high school level, you need to think twice before you accuse an official of deliberate wrong doing. It is an extremely demanding job. Now I am not condoning accepting bad officiating. I think that the conferences in college football do need to monitor, critique, and hold the refs accountable. But what I have seen recently is inconsistency and reacting to media and fans on the part of the conferences. Not a logical and consistent policy to improve officiating.

And I have also seen increased ugliness from football fans. Now if you paid your money for a ticket and want to yell at or boo the refs, I think that is your right. But to hunt them down after the game and send hate emails and voice mails is going way over the line in my humble opinion. In what scenario is this behavior that we should condone?

I’ve done a little coaching myself and have had many conversations with refs on the sidelines where they would admit that they missed one or didn’t see the call as they should have. And I have seen some really bad officiating at times. But at the high school and lower levels, I always wondered what we adults thought we were teaching the kids by some of the bad behavior towards refs that I saw.

Now let me wrap up by saying again, that I don’t think that bad officiating should just be tolerated without attempting to fix the problem. I think that those responsible should consistently and fairly monitor and regulate officials. And, rather than just putting in a suspension in reaction to media attention, put in policies for consistent punishment with published criteria.

And I think that fans should give refs a break and consider all the correct calls that they make in split second decisions during the many, many games that they call. And let’s remember, it is just a game.

About the Author

David Stargel loves writing about sports and football. He is the owner of several sports related web sites. He is also known as The Football Nut. For great articles about college football at his web site at: http://www.the-football-nut.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Stargel
http://EzineArticles.com/?Give-the-Football-Refs-a-Break&id=3393643

It’s just before a basketball game.  The floor of the basketball court has been moved aside to expose the swimming pool that’s underneath it (much like the pool in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”).  Two people are in the pool they appear to be dressed in regular clothes as if they just jumped into the pool for the fun of it.  A referee is in the pool underwater with them trying to get them out…not so much for their safety but so they don’t see what’s at the bottom of the pool.

Once the couple is out of the pool the referee goes down to the bottom of the pool to grab a doll that’s floating down there and tethered to the bottom of the pool.  The referee is rather creepy looking and has a weird expression on his face.  He releases the doll which looks like a referee doll.  He comes to the surface, kisses the doll and sneaks it into a cubbyhole type space in the side of the pool as if it is his mascot or pet that’s is there for him during the game.

I feel like I’m watching the beginning of a horror movie and we’re being set up with knowing who the bad guy is going to be.

In Conclusion

Creepy dream! While short, this dream appears to be quite significant and loaded with symbolism.

Items of interest:

• the underfloor pool [emotions? subconscious?]
• the referee [monitor of emotions? subconscious?]
• the referee doll
• kissing the doll
• sense of forthcoming danger/horror
• the innocent couple playing in the pool

I’ll be back.

We lost and I still don’t know why.

We bossed the game, created the most chances, everyone played well, they had just one good player.

There should have been a penalty when the goalkeeper handled outside the box, but there wasn’t.

I don’t want to blame the referee, however he at fault for at least two of their goals and was an idiot.

All of the Kings, including debutants Ben Wall and Andy, put in a good shift although PJ missed a Luke Tinklin class sitter.

We did get one goal and it was (of course) special.

Jorge Campos Tinklin in goal chipped a defender and, resisting the urge to blast the ball over the bar in a desperate attempt to score, played in Ben.

The lanky Northerner found PJ who, uncharacteristically, couldn’t miss.

Despite the (unjust) defeat we stay in fourth and because we play each team twice have an opportunity to get revenge later in the season.

Next up is league leaders Rosie FC in a 5.00pm kick-off. No problem.

Here is who played: Luke, Mark, PJ, Phil, Frank, Andy, Ben.

Irish rugby referee, Alan Lewis looks like a young’ish England cricket captain, David Gower.

Other Parallels

• Like Gower, Lewis represented his country at cricket
• Both played more than 100 times for their countries
• Both captained their country
• Both men made their international debuts against West Indies teams
• Neither did well in their first innings, Lewis scoring 0 and Gower 10
• Both played rugby – Gower played for the first XV at King School Canterbury

Crooked NBA Referees: Ref Admits He Cheated (Calling Fouls On Allen Iverson On Every Play & Cheated For Kobe Bryant To Win)

en castellano

here is 1, and another

Add Mike Fried to the list of blogging number theorists.  In his first post, he asks whether our current math publishing system is broken.

FIFA has decided it will not add extra referees to monitor possible controversial goals as in the case of France and Ireland’s qualifying match. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction for FIFA who rightfully is taking a lot of flak for how that match ended. They need to ensure the integrity of the game is preserved by ensuring that cheating during the game doesn’t occur.

The next ruling they’ll have to decide on is the use of instant replay. I feel they have to have this as an available option for referees to use in case of a critical call in a game. It may be limited to only cases of deciding if a play was a goal or not, but some is better than none at all. If FIFA decides that they don’t want to add instant replay, I feel that they would effectively be ignoring that three referees cannot cover every inch of field and events such as Henry’s handball. I think the comparison is justified that all major sporting events have adopted some level of instant replay to help the officials review close and controversial calls. I hope FIFA does the right thing and goes in favor of that decision to use it.

Who Reads Your Papers?: Achievement vs Success, Part I

By Michael D. Fried

Andy Magid reviewed his career as AMS editor by recounting  large editorial changes in the Notices, starting with the January 1995 issue [3].

Magid’s recounting – contrary to what one might have expected, for the changes were strikingly positive – shows almost all of today’s format was in place in that first issue. He also reminds readers that the Notices has always welcomed submissions from readers. My articles [1] were examples.

Another AMS change

Hugo Rossi spearheaded these changes. Magid didn’t mention that Rossi also championed, relevant to our theme, discontinuing the Research Announcements portion of the Bulletin. Roger Howe, its chief editor, instituted changes in the years proceeding. There was something lost and something gained in discontinuing it.

Lost (to the community) was a direct and successful approach to timely refereeing on technical, but promising, papers.

Gained (by the AMS) was no longer having to account for what appeared in the Research Announcements. Especially that it was unclear if the Announcements constituted an authoritative reference: it didn’t demand complete proofs.

Howe’s method was to encourage the editorial staff to do the brunt of the refereeing. This never precluded using specialists in a particular paper’s area. Still, that was to be corroborating evidence. Each paper was assigned two editors, known – I think – only to Howe.

Refereeing is usually a hidden process, theoretically to protect opinions from coercion. Yet, it also protects poor refereeing.

Among a collection of changes

I recall these two AMS changes as pieces of three overwhelming university pressures that started in the late ’70s.

1. Universities raised their standards on what they considered adequate/exemplar publication rates. Deans more stringently oversaw the evaluation process to enforce these.

2. Libraries archived – out of sight – large portions of previous research publications. Schools felt pressure to drop publications used only rarely.

3. Departments saved staff money by dropping faculty typing services. The TeX revolution influenced every publication aspect between 1988 and 1995.

These changes continue. Steven Krantz, see below, was early to speak on items #2 and #3, with concern.

How those institutional changes affected individuals

Many of my age group – my PhD was in 1967 – exhibited certain characteristics in responding to these changes.

While many from an older generation did type, most from my generation did not in our early careers. Advisers’ grants or personal funds paid the typists of our theses. It was painful to correct papers by hand, and then wait for ages to get back our changes, often with new mistakes.

Even my early electronic publications (from 1988) – first in Microsoft Word, then in now unacceptable TeX formats –  don’t generate an acceptable pdf file. A  considerably cited first paper is not on JStor. Even if it was, that is not the accessibility of the arxiv.

My earliest regenerable papers from extant typing appeared in 1991. Like some, I’ve taken seriously putting pdf scanned versions of our work on-line at my website. Papers between 1968 and 1991 (half my volume) are otherwise realistically unavailable.

Does it matter? After all, it is old work!

Doris Lessing, an acknowledged public intellectual, lamented in the 1970s:

“One shame of the 20th century will be all the unused research remaining on the shelves.”

Are results lost in long, difficult papers? That doesn’t explain how little the community shares knowledge of work. Funding panels often know an author’s reputation disproportionately better than their work. This is even after they have been charged with reading reports: another referee problem.

Even comments on paper shortcomings – when relevant – ought to be acknowledged. They can’t be as worthless as the silence they receive suggests. For one, there is how often new papers attempt to reprove what it turns out are old results.

Economic ideas gained force during the transition time we are discussing. Legislatures told universities to be more like businesses. So, the university also told us faculty. That increased research competition;  even the lip-service of our shared burden to the (mathematical, I presume) community vanished.

The repository problem

Yet, it is not the community health that concerns me. Rather, it is the health of the papers – each a claim to achievement – once they are accepted in print.

Nothing makes for healthy – successful – papers than that they are read. Maybe not in entirety, but read significantly in parts. We should all care that there is a repository, beyond the author, of – at least – partial knowledge of most papers in print.

Such a repository would start with referees, reviewers, adherents of the areas, and extend amorphously to those who have heard the results at colloquiums and seminars. Do Math Reviews and the promise of Google suffice? Check them yourself, they don’t yet.

Most authors work excruciatingly hard to get their papers in print. Yes, those papers may manifest varying breadth, depth, problem standards, and originality in technique and aspiration.

Some of these correlate to authorial mental and physical energy, and some  correlates to luck. One piece of luck is getting a good referee; someone who contributes momentum to the endeavor.

The theme of [1] is that a good referee is hard to find. Is this in question? I hear it from editor after editor. I also see that editors are hardly demanding about the quality of refereeing.

As in [1], my experience is that there are gaping errors, or failures to properly document, in about half the papers I have refereed. Many correctable to lesser results, but … Often the results are already in print, maybe unknown to the author, but … A nontrivial portion seem so easy that they could be rediscovered by anyone forced to address the issue.

Also, many times it takes an astute referee to figure that some authors aren’t quoting their references significantly. Many times they aren’t quoting them at all, but rather using them to prime the editors for referee sources.

This list doesn’t hit all places that could use a disinterested referee. As a referee I’ve started a fix to many difficulties, just by pointing to them.

Journal changes

The AMS wasn’t the only organization to institute striking journal changes in the early ’90s. First, journals proliferated, as did AMS publications. The proliferation may directly result from authors able to do their own typing.

The work of creating each separate paper is simplified, though instituting technical changes in formats adds work and calls for developing new talents.

Another journal development, though, leaves me puzzled. That is the growing list of editors on many journals. One driver must be the need for faculty to accrue accolades; one is being an editor.

The problem, however, is that the harder task is refereeing: that remains inglorious.

[1] suggestions that exacting technical expertise is rarely a necessity, nor even the key, to good refereeing. Still, desiring to be a good referee, one who can get into work outside one’s own exact papers, is. It is a neat attribute. It should be encouraged.

One encouragement would be to make it a part of the editor’s job, as I mentioned about for the now defunct Research Announcements.

That was an experiment, and it worked. It shortened a backlog, and it broadened the papers represented in that section. Running such an editorial staff requires an active Chief Editor. Yet it calls for less running after referees. As I said in [1], there is something askew with huge editorial staffs that do little editing.

Elaine Kehoe [2] introduces our new Notices editor. Since Steven Krantz is quoted more broadly, I use his concluding sentences from [2].

“I think that one of the keys to success in life – not just in academics … – is to find the means to periodically reinvent yourself. If you don’t, then you atrophy, you want for ideas, and your creativity dries up.”

To me that says one must continue throughout a career to take risks, going outside your present comforts. Even if few would/or should take great risks, most err on a side so conservative that Krantz’s prophecy seems manifest.

There are precedents in a heightened referee role. Promising new directions start from inspirations gained from being a serious referee.

Many claim that serious refereeing is a task for those who can’t do research. That is, anyone can do it. It would be consistent if the same people believe that actually reading, and using substantially, papers well is a similarly easy task. (It is after all, akin to refereeing.)

Part II of this topic will counter this in support of Krantz’s statement. I won’t plead to all mathematicians to referee better. Rather, I will suggest changes through journal policies to encourage entrepreneurship.

References

[1] Michael D. Fried, Should Journals compensate Referees?, May 2007 Notices of the AMS, Vol. 54 (2007), No. 6, p.585.  Also, The Uneasy Relation Between Referees and Editors, October 2007 Notices of the AMS, Vol. 54 (2007), No. 10.

[2] Elaine Kehoe, Steven G. Krantz Appointed Notices Editor, December 2009, Notices of the AMS, p. 1445.

[3] Andy Magid, Anniversaries, December 2009, Notices of the AMS, p. 1407.

Did Santino Marella – my favourite Italian wrestler from Toronto possibly named after former WWF referee Joey Marella who was the son, I believe, of former WWF legend Gorilla Monsoon – call Shaemus, “Lame Ass”.

The Lucky Charms comment was great… They are magically delicious…

But that dude, the “Celtic Warrior” needs something to keep his thighs from rubbing and some sunlight.  Seriously.

So the saying goes… “get a clue ref!”. People say this when they are mad at the ref for making an “uninformed call” and they are politely reminding the ref that he is an ignoramus. My question about this is, if the ref is truly clueless, shouldn’t we be telling him to get the whole picture? I mean if he’s just getting a clue, there’s still more figuring out to be done on the part of the ref. Think about that next time ya yell at the official!