From: archer@hsi.com (Garry Archer)
Subject: Re: rec.sport.soccer.referee
Organization: 3M Health Information Systems, Wallingford CT
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:11:37 GMT

In article <795@wookie.dbaccess.com> cjones@dbaccess.com (Carl Jones) writes:
<I have seen no discussion here.
<What discussion has been done,
<and that has mostly been YES!, YES!, YES!
<has been done in rec.sport.soccer
<which is where the people "are" who care
<about this group.
<I, too, am new at this newsgroup creation
<thing, and have not followed such discussions.
<So what are the issues, other than that
<enough people would like the forum created
<for their use?


Carl, firstly, you're doing an excellent job at trying to get
this thing going.  Don't get discouraged!

My opinions on splitting rec.sport.soccer (r.s.s) into various factions
have been heard before... but these were when folks wanted a "british"
subgroup when so much of the traffic is devoted to mainly discussions
regarding the English and Scottish teams and leagues.  I prefer not to
have that split.  Another argument has been to have a "results" subgroup,
but all r.s.s regulars would read that anyway, so why have a separate group?

However, there is a growing movement to have this "referee" subgroup.
I can see many r.s.s readers will not read this group so often, but
there are a good many referees who read r.s.s and their discussions
are sometimes lost in the blackhole of -- lets call it fanaticism --
that is dominating r.s.s these days.

Unfortunately "junk" postings are increasing in our beloved r.s.s.
"My team is better than yours" and "Your facts are all wrong, because
I know more than you" and worse still, "By that statement, it shows you
know _nothing_ about football".  Come on, who reading r.s.s knows
_nothing_ about football?  Finally there are those who prefer to respond
negatively to other folks' articles than have the guts to post original,
newsworthy items -- afraid to have _their_ facts checked?  Or perhaps there
are folks reading r.s.s who really don't know anything about football and
are just in it to wind up other followers of the game -- kind of like the
hooligan element at footy games; they aren't there to watch the game, just
to find a fight.

I digress and I apologise.  But this seems like as good a place as any
and as good a time as any to blow off steam.

I've been reading and contributing to r.s.s since its inception and posting
soccer articles in rec.sport.misc for many years before that and I've seen
many folks come and go and new posters joining r.s.s all the time.  The
quality of the postings has decreased significantly except for a small few
individuals who continue to post results, history and quality information.

So perhaps it is about time the referees split off into their own subgroup.
Hopefully there will be less "junk" postings for them to sift through.
Hopefully the charter will include requests for postings regarding all
aspects of the rules, "What if" scenarios and all news coming out of FIFA
(or other associations) regarding changes.  As I write this it occurs to me
that perhaps the proposed name is wrong?  Should it be rec.sport.soccer.rules?

I will vote "YES" either way.  But my only concern is the amount of traffic
in the referee/rules subgroup.


-- 
Garry Archer Esq.	archer@hsi.com
3M Health Information Systems,	Wallingford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"An Englishman never enjoys himself, except for a noble purpose." - A.P.Herbert
Newsgroups: news.groups