Q&A with the SA Editors: Feb. 6, 1998

Lance Williams

Greeley, Colo.

Carlos Queiroz was recently named technical director — what do you think his role truly will be? I can’t remember the U.S. ever having one, so the title seems vague at best and watching Sampson’s back, ominous. If there is one thing anyone involved with high level U.S. players agrees on, it is that our current player development system has outgrown it’s mom and pop roots. If Queiroz was to do something positive for the long term, could it be spending some Nike cash to implement a player development system that really will make 2010 a goal rather than a fantasy?

Duncan Irving: Queiroz was hired as a consultant for Project 2010, not a director, and he has a seven-month contract. You’re asking rather a lot of somebody to fix everything in seven months, even though there are fewer people in the world who are more knowledgeable about age-specific soccer than Queiroz. (I think Karl Heinz Heddergott had a similar role in the early 80s, but was stonewalled by some of the coaches in the USSF at the time.) Player development hasn’t outgrown it’s mom-and-pop roots, and it won’t. To have a really successful youth team, you need players — and most come from ODP and/or select teams. It takes a lot of money to put your kids through that. In seven months, Queiroz can’t set up, say, an inner-city development program, but he can look at the situation and make recommendations. He’s wise that he took an advisory role and that it’s only for seven months. It’s one thing to make suggestions, but quite another to actually implement them. As for Sampson, I doubt he’s worried; he has other things to be concerned with. (However, it’s interesting to note that the seven-month deal that Queiroz signed will conclude right about the time the World Cup ends.)

Upland, CA

We flew from Southern California up to Oakland to see the Trinidad vs. Honduras / USA vs. Cuba doubleheader and were impressed with the Coliseum as a soccer venue. The access from air and road was great. The stadium was well-renovated with great sight lines and more-than-adequate amenities. The pitch seemed in wonderful condition. The stadium carried the crowd noise well. We have seen USA games at all the usual California venues (Rose Bowl, Stanford, Jack Murphy San Diego, Angels Stadium Anaheim). All things considered, this struck us as the best. Is this venue well regarded by the USSF? If not, why not?

Ridge Mahoney: Clash GM Peter Bridgwater, who promotes most of the international games in Northern California, says the Coliseum is probably the best venue in terms of access, facilities, amenities, weather, and size. Mexico played two friendlies in the Coliseum during the winter of 1994 to prepare for the World Cup, and also played Ecuador there in October, 1996. The crowds were in the range of 18,000 to 23,000. The 11,000 or so who saw the U.S. doubleheader Feb. 1 was disappointing; pre-sales were slow, and the lousy weather dampened the walk-up contingent. The Coliseum had been under consideration by U.S. Soccer as a site for U.S. Cup ’97 games, but the federation instead decided to go to Southern California. Keep in mind the stadium is used by both the A’s and Raiders. It’s very hard to lay grass on infield dirt, so the stadium really can’t be used for soccer between late March and late September — which knocked it out of consideration for the 1999 Women’s World Cup — and by the time baseball finishes, the Raiders come in, and Al Davis runs the show until late December. He’s not a big soccer fan. The Coliseum management has been receptive to staging matches there. El Nino notwithstanding, however, January and February are the wettest months of the year, which makes regrowing, reseeding, and field maintenance tricky if games are being played. Stanford has the World Cup and Olympic tradition, and when Spartan Stadium is widened, it will be large enough for internationals, although the concession and restroom facilities are substandard. Jeb, I agree the Coliseum is a good venue, but its window of availability is narrow. And since I can drive there in 15 minutes from my residence, I’d like to see a lot more U.S. matches in Oaktown, too.

Vancouver, B.C.

Why have Canadian soccer players like Niall Thompson, Carmen D’Onofrio and Sipho Sibiya been denied work visas by the U.S. State Dept. (all three tried to sign with the Seattle Sounders this past season) when there are literally thousands of Canadian hockey players on U.S. major and minor league teams?

Paul Kennedy: I don’t know the specifics of their cases. The State Department will award special skill visas based on the type of industry. The A-League gets a certain number of visas that, I believe, the clubs share. It’s only going to be a fraction of the number that the various minor hockey leagues get.

Plymouth, Minn.

I know in past years, prominent figures in soccer, like Pele, have proposed new rules for the sport. Many of these rules are concerned with increasing the amount of goals scored per game, creating more fan interest, and thus ensuring the longevity of the sport. What are some of the interesting rule changes being proposed recently? Do any of them deserve serious merit?

Duncan Irving/Pete Bailey: While in Hong Kong, Alan Rothenberg recently said that there should be rule changes to make soccer more attractive. He talked of using MLS to test them, but he wisely declined to name them. There have been rumors of a shot clock, sin bins and additional points for scoring goals from farther out (but we’re not all Roberto Carlos, are we?). The idea of using an extra referee has been tossed about — although one wonders why anyone would rely on one ref and not the other. The use of replay has been a hot topic of late, but FIFA is anxious not to use anything that would draw upon the fallibility of the referee. It has warned the German Soccer Federation not to overturn results because of replay evidence. As far as making rule changes to increase the number of goals, we feel that a high-scoring game is not necessarily a good one. The entertainment value of a game depends on the quality of play and the attitude of the teams. San Jose beat New England 6-1 in the August of the first MLS season, but that was one of the most dreadful games of the entire season.

Fayetteville, Ga.

As a young referee, I’m having difficulty with many different interpretations of the pass-back rule. My understanding is that it is a time wasting rule, with an indirect free kick awarded where the keeper handles the ball. But what if the pass-back is part of dynamic play? A lot of action inside the box, and a defender kicks the ball to the keeper, who then picks it up. Am I correct in letting play go on? It’s not time wasting, but a logical play. I get a lot of abuse from players, coaches and parents for allowing play to continue. Is there a decision of the board concerning this?.

Mike Woitalla: Whenever a goalkeeper handles a deliberate back pass — as opposed to accidental (e.g. an obvious miskick) — off the foot, the rules say it must be punished with an indirect free kick.