The State of Soccer in Eastern Ontario
Here we go, here we go, here we go: The Antipathy Campaign:

Relevant email:

These foolish things I, These foolish things II, These foolish things III, These foolish things IV, These foolish things V, Appeal to OSA, Response from OSA, EODSA want a favour!

2000 Jan 22: Appeal Hearing. Feb 11: Receipt of Denial.

Old Timers 4th Division; Who refs the OT?;  Ottawa Cup Final

Now, didn't you realise you could add your verifiable, additional, scurrilous, whistle blowing diatribes to this page?

Oh, to rid the world of humbug.

 email10.gif (9486 bytes)


What's the call on Colin Hendry's tackle? But now, April 26th., 2001, given six game punishment, for a swing at the neck of San Marino's Nicola Albini. He it was, who was seen holding Hendry's shirt, and then punching him in the kidneys, and was subsequently swung at to allow freedom. Utter pillock: SFA should definitely appeal. But, did not.


Grievous bodily harm: THE REFEREE, bless him and all who sail in(to) him.


03/05/2000 posted TRANSCRIPTION:

Proof of corruption:

Largely verbatim transcription from tape made at the beginning of hearing at EODSA on 5th October, 1999.

This report will clarify statements made, in the presence of Appeal Committee of the OSA, by "President" Steven Troy that he had not denied me the right to tape the meeting.

I will gladly provide the tape for verification to a bona fide third party.

The tape starts:

Troy: Are you asking?

Dickins: Well, I'm demanding the right to record.

Troy: You don't have the right to record.

Dickins: Well, I can, because unless you do give me the right to record answers it will be over very quickly.

Troy: You don't have the right to record.

Dickins: Why not? Why? Because you're not going to promise to put the right stuff down on paper?

Troy: No . . . au contraire, and that's exactly the point of the process. The records at the end of it are available, erm, ah, and there's nothing secret about the process. There's nothing secret about what is going to be said. I have concerns that if you wish to use the tape recorder and take something and walk out of here, I have no idea what in fact that's going to happen to the tape. So, I'd put it back the other way. Aah, I would suggest to you that in fact if you're concerned about the honesty in the record and whatnot we should go with that particular point of view.

Dickins: Fair enough! I'll stop it and we'll go on from there.

1. No report of the hearing was made available to me. I'm glad I stayed at the hearing to bear witness to how misrepresentation and bureaucracy pervades their, the EODSA's, work.
2. Misrepresentation of the facts was included in their decision to suspend me. In particular, neither of the linesmen were contacted, no verification of Wittenberg's assertions was undertaken. I was slandered repeatedly by one member of the committee, both at the hearing and at the appeal. In fact, I was suspended by someone without the requisite authority.
3. In the appeal, Troy was the spokesperson. However, the other three members are culpable in equal part since none of them proffered a contradiction to Troy's assertion that he had not denied me the right to tape.
4. My request for a copy, in whatever form, of the Appeal hearing has not been honoured.
5. There is a basic statement in Troy's final sentence that I am dishonest. That is slander.

Finally, the lovers of soccer who helped me pay for the appeal can feel justification that I can prove malfeasance by the President of the EODSA. I could not, because I have only obtained work at the start of January, pay for an appeal of the appeal at a cost of $500 (no wonder people don't try) to the OSA. Needless to say, I will repay my debt as soon as I can feasibly do so. Thanks to you all.

Do not doubt that I will not stop my attempts at cleaning the rotten core out of Ottawa soccer. However, it may take time, given what happened to me late in 2000.

02/12/2000 Oh, well.

As expected, a gathering of ranks, and appeal denied. The decision arrived by email, which the OCSL and EODSA will not accept, and I could only view the attached file (the decision) through a programme I downloaded. And, naturally, no tape transcript. Whatever, never give in is my motto. There is no doubt that the EODSA is corrupt and blinkered. A great gathering of the Peter Principle.

What they haven't realised is that their constant ineptitude can easily be revealed in these pages. Not only that, nothing that will or has appeared here is false. Therefore, if they try and call me to account, the rabbit will pop out of the bag. So, given that I will be 58 in a few weeks, what care I if I can't referee in this shoddily run environment; a place where bending the truth and falsifying the facts is endemic. Great, from now on I'm free to follow my crusade. Not that I have yet decided if I should appeal the OSA decision, that option is still available. Would be nice to play that tape with "President" Troy's comments for all to hear.

01/27/2000 Reflections:

What I forgot to remark about is that the appeal chairman made a comment that, in retrospect, I should have challenged. He wondered why the President of the OCSL suspended me by phone when, in fact, it was the EODSA that should have. Given that they never did, what does it tell you about their purported competence? Logically, the whole thing is based on a farce. And, I like that word purported, since it was used by the so-called chair of the EODSA gang of four to refer to my standing as a referee and as an assessor. I think I might very well put up the assessments that I performed last summer on a few of my comrades in black. And, I think that, during Summer 2000, there will be quite a few assessments appearing on soccerINK. Not all bad, but, with such a poor educational system, there won't be many in the plus side of the scales. Now, I emailed the OSA about tapes. Not heard back yet, but I wonder if they will take the bait.

What Now? Saturday, January 22nd, 2000

If you had been a fly on the wall at the appeal hearing at the Metcalfe building you would be laughing hysterically. I think that the game is going to become very interesting. One, at least, of my protagonists has obviously forgotten that, primarily, I don't lie. That means that my statements about the visit of the boys in blue was true. Secondly, one particular protagonist has forgotten that my tape machine was actually running at the beginning of my original hearing. Oh, joy, I have proof now that this EODSA committee had no brief to determine the truth, but to merely protect itself against outside interests. When I receive the decision of the Appeal Committee, that was there for several other actions on the day, I hope they include a transcript of the meeting. It was taped. Thereby hangs a tale. Stay tuned.

Notice of meeting:

It is now the year 2000 and today, the 10th of January, I received an email from the OSA disciplinary committee informing me of an appeal hearing to take place on the 22nd at Metcalfe Street. Not that I could read the attachments. Well, it would seem, given that an appeal hearing is to take place, that there is substance in my complaints about procedure. For information, read the relevant email accessible next to the photo above. I had thought that I would have to appear in Toronto. What conclusions might be drawn for the hearing to take place in Ottawa? I can think of several, not all in my favour, but, we will see, won't we?  (They weren't there just because of me, thank goodness.)

Cleansing the OCSL/EODSA

An attempt to purge the Ottawa area of incompetents and corruption; to speed up procedures in the short summer season so that justice is seen to be done; to implement a programme of proper asssessment and education of game officials based on aptitude, experience and fitness, not on mere demand.

I am in the process of cataloguing all events of recent times that concern injustices or malpractices delivered to the unsuspecting club, player or spectator by the local soccer authorities. That was the main reason for the pea-shooter episode re Internationals II and the subsequent Referee disciplinary committee brouhaha.. That's not finished yet, by any means, especially if you've actually read the foolish things pages, which were taken from emails I sent. These emails, and I have the originals, were also transmitted to other people, primarily for their enjoyment and also to prove that transmission through the ether did occur.

I must repeat here that it was such a fillip to me when the police who visited me agreed that what I was doing was for the good of the game. It didn't take long after I regaled them with some of the hilarious activities of certain illustrious whistlers. I was given the card of one of the officers to use if I needed to contact him for help, especially because he has a young son who plays soccer. Having watched some of these pathetic misfits blowing the whistle, I hope that changes are possible. And so does he.

Consequently, if you have pertinent, verifiable information or case history, please transmit it to me. I have a growing arsenal, so please keep it coming. We need to purge the OCSL\EODSA of the petty bureaucrats harming the game we so love.

Royals OT4 1999

Question. In which game do you think that the referee told a player knocked down by our opposition that he was running too fast? Answer: The same game where the opposition punched one of our guys in the chest in the penalty area. The decision re the punch? A caution for our guy, and smiles for the puncher, whereas the correct action was a red card, for violent conduct, and a penalty kick; even if a caution for the Royals' player was justified.

Actually, if you were playing for our team, you would realise that the knock down event has happened twice to the same player, admittedly in different games "controlled" by two equally incompetent personages. Is Gramps really greased lightning?

Funny, but after that we have had a variety of referees. Two or three have been excellent. One, who has lined for me, reffed the Int D game. Oh, dear, what a disaster he was. It was as if we were being honoured by his presence. So many indifferent calls, so much smiling at his own largesse. Another, who has also lined for me, was fine, allowing an opponent to badmouth the referee enough to cause his ejection. Justly so. The game was better without the miscreant.


The Carry On Korean White Caps Phantasmagoria

A red card by a Royal playing against the KWCs? But, if it was, why was the game restarted with a drop ball? When the whistle had, after all, been blown with the ball in play. If the referee saw the incident, as his report stated, what restart is required after an ejection for violent conduct? In which direction was the game official actually facing when the opposition started yelling and clapping their guiltridden hands? Of course, he was watching Nigel or George in a different part of the field.

And, if Doug Green could not remove the goalie's arm that was locked around Graham's neck, what sanction was justified there, especially when one considers where the White Cap's goal was and where Gramps was standing? Yet again, a red card was due.

CORRESPONDENCE: email from Seaho Song, #5, in response to our KWC Game Report (see above); my polite response; then an email from Graham Cathcart, following a week of procedural farce at the OCSL, which is appended to my disgusted email to the KWCs; then came the ELBOW email from KWC #5; zut alors,


sheep.jpg (27571 bytes)

Now, stop that, who said that this is a picture of OCSL directors leaving a meeting? Baaa, humbug!

Who wants to Referee the OT Divisions?

Note that the OCSL has difficulty finding referees for the OT1 thru 5 divisions. Apparently, referees keep saying that "anything but those guys". Think about this for a moment. A good referee can officiate anywhere for anyone. Lines or middles, who cares. If, however, as an official, one is incompetent, one is sadly likely to encounter abuse from players of our grandiloquent kind. I would rather the incompetents stayed away. Also, when one wields authority at work, like more than a few on our team, one hates to be controlled by a right twit out, and getting paid, on the field. Actually, we have had some good referees. And we tell them so. But, the others, well . . . . .see what messes they can create. What happened to Gramps is a prime example. You can blame a lot of this on the refs. They have not been doing their job. The KWCs must, in their previous games, have been just like they were when they played us. Who do you blame? Let us know, and we'll put the best ideas on the website.


Membership Lists fracas

In BC and almost all Canadian Provinces each referee is provided with a list (name, address, phone, email, referee classification, etc) of his peers and of the executive members of his particular area. These listings are updated regularly. In BC this list is also provided to all the affiliated Leagues: other queries of the database are available as in, for example, a listing of trades held by members. In the great Province of Ontario, or at least that area in the purview of the EODSA, a membership list is not available. The reason given? Some of the referees are players! What an excuse. Now, nowhere in Canada is there a body of referees whose members do not include soccer players, or, for that matter members of other dubious bodies, such as tiddlywink clubs, solicitors, the police, truck drivers, nurses, government, car dealers, usw. A referee is subject to a Code of Ethics. This is the primary tool available to a Referee Association for policing itself. Therefore, please explain to me why the Registered Referee corpus is the only public entity I know of anywhere in Canada that is denied knowledge of its own membership. This is a sad indictment, n'est-ce pas? Or, have I missed something blindingly obvious?

Yes, it is blindingly obvious, because the two bodies concerned got their knickers in a twist. What happened is that by the Referee executive asking the OCSL not to pass out the list, the latter thought that everybody included everybody and therefore included the referees themselves. Apparently, this list dissemination problem has recently been of the "Oh, dear, did we, etc., etc." form and will shortly be remedied.


Referees who cheat the game

At the post season tournament at Kanata the OT4 Royals surpassed themselves. They won all their matches, only to foul out at 4 minutes of the final. That's another story. But, the point of this paragraph relates to the referee of our game against the Internationals who also started the final. He admitted to me that the penalty he called against us with one minute remaining in the Royals v Internationals game was invalid. He merely wished to enliven the proceedings.

Another referee in the Ottawa region consistently awards red cards, simply to remove someone from the field. He then, if nothing more sinister occurs, changes the red to a yellow in the game report. What can this persistent degrading of the rules result in other than a reduction in the authority of refereeing in the Ottawa-Carleton region?


Ottawa Cup Final: October 14th., 1999: Rockers v Royals

Well,  there we were, in the cool of the evening, at Terry Fox, watching the poorly advertised top event of the season, the Ottawa Cup Final. And, to add some spice, there were the gaggle of unfit referees at the top of the seating. While, in the middle, was another mistake by the referee selection committee. This referee was guilty of several gross errors of judgement as I stood there watching the game. At one time, on a clear run through to goal by a Royal, the Rocker central defender obviously realised that he was beaten if the ball passed him. He clawed it out of the air, and was given a caution. Last man back, etc., which deserved an ejection. Not only that, the kick was spotted in the wrong place and a Royal who protested was cautioned. Three major errors for one event. Apart from his poor positioning, he was also guilty of too much second-guessing. Not an imposing sight, unfortunately. And, this was the final, so where were the Class I referees? Well, there are only two in Ottawa-Carleton now that one has been suspended.

Now, here is the best part about this referee's selection. He was in clear conflict of interest, because about two weeks prior, he had actually played in the Cup round for the Portuguese team against the Royals. So, why was he chosen? And, if this was known, on what basis was his selection approved?


 Why I act as a whistle blower, or perform acts that are tantamount to self-mutilation, reflects on my hatred of injustice, wherever it can be found. And, if it is compounded by incompetence, then look out. Sometimes I wonder if it is really worth it, but I love it, really! Suits my big black dog.