umeweall
SILVER
Good points.One of the things which bothers me a lot about modern discourse (and not accusing anyone here of this per se, just a general observation) is people's use a straw-man fallacies, and/or arguing points based on extreme characterizations or examples. In general, I think it's much more productive (in terms of finding common ground) to focus on points of actual difference, while acknowledging the points of agreement.
To wit, I'm opposed to referee abuse in general. I don't support physical abuse or harassment, and I don't support irate individual parents or players berating an official, using slurs, or the like. I don't think anyone here supports that behavior. So let's set that aside as a point of consensus.
The points of debate are:
- Should US Soccer do anything about bad officiating, or only punish complaining about it?
- Should the criteria for "ref abuse" include complaining about individual calls and/or player safety on the field (as it does currently), or is that over-criminalizing criticisms which can serve a valid purpose in improving the quality of officiating?
- Should the penalties be so harsh as to (in some cases) be career ending for players, or should there be a more graduated ramp up (and thus allow for "cooling off", and/or improvement in behavior over time)?
- Should the leagues penalize the players and teams for the actions of parents?
- Should the onus be on the clubs and coaches to mitigate complaints from their parents, or should officials be directly punishing players and teams based on spectator behavior?
- Is only silencing dissent the appropriate policy for deterring ref abuse?
- Is there a place for questioning calls by officials in youth soccer?
As I see it, those are the points of concern and debate regarding these changes. Not that debate on this forum will change anything, of course... but want to be clear on the points which are contentious, vs the points (like the desire to deter ref abuse in general) which are not.
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'Careful; you're in danger of sharing my opinion on the matter. From the current SoCal League handbook, 2025/26 season:
"Verbal assault" isn't defined, except indirectly later in the context of "verbal abuse", which is inclusive of "foul... or insulting language". So at least in the letter of the policy, if you tell a ref he/she made a bad call, your kid could be gone for the rest of the season. That's the main part of the policy I have an issue with, for reference.
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.