- Ezekiel 18:20:
"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
umeweall
SILVER
Good points.
On 'verbal abuse', that is a wide area. I informed folks in our area about the 'SafeSport' law when it came out, and have done a lot of research on it. I warned folks that the new federal law applied to players AND referees. I pointed out that many things stated by parents and coaches, directed at youth referees would fall under 'emotional abuse'. 'Verbal abuse' is generally defined as "........ a type of psychological/mental abuse that involves the use of oral or written language directed to a victim. Verbal abuse can include the act of harassing, labeling, insulting, scolding, rebuking, or excessive yelling towards an individual. Wikipedia'
Wikipedia has a great spread, listing the aspects of what can be considered verbal abuse ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse ). Commentaries directed toward youth, which is belittling, critical, demeaning, etc., can cause emotional turmoil for the youth. It is a tricky road, commentary wise, and can be viewed as being overly restrictive in what can be stated toward a youth. A simple exclamation lie 'BOY!', on a referee's call, can be viewed as judgmental commentary on the accuracy of the youth's call. With 'freedom of speech', considerations, this may often conflict when the commentary enters a 'dissent' consideration. The same atmosphere that exists in professional sports, where people freely berate sports officials and consider that as part of the game, does not apply in youth sports officiating, primarily because they are youth. Their mental prowess in handling the dissent, emotionally, is radically different than an adult sports official.
This is one of the main inherent problems with the policy, imho. Subjectivity and vagueness will lead to wildly inconsistent enforcement, which is very ripe for abuse.
Tangential case in point: My son's team had an official around a year ago that was carding players for just swearing on the field (she seemed highly religious, as a possible explanation for the wildly divergent officiating). I have almost never seen that in any game, even with very overt and "worse" swearing (and even in her case, the enforcement was subjective, relative to the letter of the law). She was, in appearance, trying to impose her views on how the boys should behave via officiating during the game (ie: stopping the game, taking players aside, and lecturing them on manners). It was... surreal and stupid.
I'd like to see the rules be less subjective and ripe for abuse. I'd go as far as to say that I think a certain level of verbal dissent from the sidelines and/or players is fine, and does not harm the game (imho).
Aside: When I was officiating in my younger days, it was very common to have parents and coaches complaining about calls (as it is in literally every sport I've ever seen at every level). If/when the complaints became too much and/or personal, I'd card a coach, and that would be the end of it. I literally knew coaches who would complain until they got carded, on purpose, because they felt that was part of their role, and it wasn't personal. That seemed much better, imho, than the current 0-100 penalties for any dissent.
Technically, that official was following the rules and was being nice by handing out verbal warnings. If it's directed at her, it's dissent and a straight red if it involves "offensive, insulting or abusive language". If it's directed to another player it's unsportsman like conduct and also becomes a red if "offensive, insulting or abusive language". If it's said just under their breath because a player missed a goal and is directed at themselves it's entirely a different story, but it seems like this ref was likely just a literalist who was enforcing the rules as written and the problem is the kids have been allowed to get away with it by other referees.
Sometimes violence begets desired results.
For reference, this was players just swearing to themselves after missing a play, and getting a straight yellow card (first offense), and receiving a talking to by the official about how that is not "proper" behavior for young boys. Without the talking to, I could buy the literalist explanation, but this was not that; this was just some religious Karen cosplaying as a ref and going on a crusade against foul language (in my view).
... and the best part is, next year Karen gets to ruin budding soccer careers too, because it's "verbal abuse" if she has to hear swearing on the field. Yay. So glad my kid is not good or vested enough that I will need to put up with this (admittedly small fraction of cases but still very problematic) garbage much longer.
I'm unclear as to how the new policy is to be implemented by referees? Only by subsequent reporting, or does it also change the in-game treatment/punishment for infractions. If so, if the offender is a spectator, is the ref supposed to deal with the spectator directly or through the coach. I'm hoping directly with the coach, who then deals with the spectator. The last thing we want to do is encourage more direct contact between ref and spectator/parent. (Remember many refs are soccer parents, too.)
100% this, and why I believe that refs should only deal directly with coaches for spectator discipline.
Unfortunately, the guidance doesn't directly address this issue (or at least doesn't appear so.) Once again though US Soccer misses the mark by not mandating a simple measure that would cut down on spectator and referee conflict. That simple measure is coach and parents on same sideline, with opposing team coach and parents on other sideline across the pitch. This would give the coach greater contact with and thus greater potential control over the parents. The parents would be to the left of the centerline so they don't have arms length contact with the AR's. Also, when opposing spectators are on the respective sides of the centerline, but on same sideline, it encourages more chirping and conflict between spectator groups, it also is more likely to cause encroachment of parents, as compared to when parents are on opposite sides of the pitch.
I would have also liked to have seen stiffer penalties for abuse of minor aged refs.
SoCal League guidelines are very explicit that the card/penalty is issued directly to the spectator, not the coach, and the spectator (and perhaps also the associated player) is to be banned from matches and activities. They specify that it is the responsibility of the club to associate the spectator with the player for suspensions/bans. The policy is somewhat vague on the details (eg: how the referee identifies the spectator in the match report, how to directly address spectators who are not near the field, etc.). There's also a very high potential for innocent misunderstandings (eg: someone yelling something at their kid, which is misheard by the referee leading to a ban for a parent). All of these are just some of the problems with the policy, imho.
"Subjectivity and vagueness" is the problem, but what is the solution you propose? The best you can do is that "a certain level of verbal dissent" is allowed, but "too much" is where you draw the line. That's as vague as it gets. Stop pretending you know what you're talking about and complaining about everything. There's a reason why people like you are on this forum and not running organizations. And take a bit of advice next time you're on the touchline, shut up and let the ref call the game.
Sounds ill-conceived like most everything else US Soccer implements.
War is diplomacy by other means -- General von Clausewitz.