This week I will devote the main part of the article to deal with the supporters, a necessary element during a game so as to make the same game more colourful and interesting but at the same time a possible sort of problem for referees.
I decided for this topic after watching a local popular waterpolo programme, ‘Man-Up’, and heard a lot of flak thrown at referees. I am surely not going into the merit of who was right but I am positively sure (as I have trust in fellow referees’ integrity) that the officials acted for the good of the game. Yet, some of the people in the panel who mentioned referees were sitting on the stands amongst the spectators and thus I will deal with the latter.
Once I read in a referee magazine that spectators at a game can use the referee as an esteem fortifier. This is done in two ways. In the first place, the supporters identify themselves with particular players and teams. As a result, the latter come to be something of (what one can learn in psychology classes) an alter ego.
As a consequence, any defeats and unfavourable decisions must be explained in order to maintain the respect associated with being a good player or a winning team. The general end result is that the referee as a scapegoat provides such an easy explanation.
Secondly, many referees believe that supporters at many sport contests use them as an object upon which to vent the accumulated tension, anger and hostilities accumulating in the day-to-day living.
Some months ago (I had mentioned this in an earlier article) I happened to be, by chance, present for an under 14 football game between two teams definitely not aiming for anything in particular. However I was astonished at the level of hatred and anger exhibited by the handful of persons watching the game, something which after all did not seem warranted by the importance of the game. Generally, referees of sports at any level are of the opinion that they are used as the whipping guy for many frustrations which are not related to their work on the field of play.
It is not the first time, and I think this has happened to many, that I overheard a discussion where one person mentioned that for him a good referee is one who is not noticed. At the beginning of my career I used to try to understand fully and try to live this philosophy, yet by time I decided to ponder deeply in the matter and came to some conclusions where this phrase, which is very general and definitely not binding in my opinion, might not necessarily hold true.
In certain sports, for example boxing, the phrase will certainly be true, yet anonymity by a referee during a football game, basketball game, waterpolo game or other similar sports can also indicate two things. It can be a sign of either the game was extremely well-played, clean and lacking any marginal incidents and events or else it can signify that the referee was incompetent and whistled only the ‘safe’ calls.
In the first instance mentioned above, good referees are surely not needed as almost any referee can work out the easy games. If a game is not clean (and most are surely not clean), then the anonymous referee fails to demonstrate any form of expertise of knowledge, perception or positioning.
Despite the clear and obvious desire by most referees to not to have to make game-determining decisions, there are many games that require such decisions to take place.
Referees, as is the case with other game participants, vary in their willingness to accept such responsibilities. Just as some players seem to wish to take an active part during the so-called ‘clutch’ situations while other players seem to disappear in the same moments, referees respond to such conditions with different degrees of enthusiasm.
Everybody understands if I say that almost all supporters have a natural bias. Therefore it is only to be expected that marginal incidents during any game should be seen differently. As a result a referee will quickly be noticed when he rules in a manner that results contrary to the views of these supporters.
A common phrase in referees’ discussions is that supporters “see with their hearts rather than their eyes.” Consequently they rarely recognise the poor play or infractions committed by the team they favour. This failure on the part of supporters to recognise the biased nature of their perceptions is a continuing source of frustration for referees, even though the latter generally understand it.
Referees, who generally do not care which team or individual wins a game or event, very often believe that their unbiased approach during the games is frequently unrecognised but then are wrongly accused many times of being biased.
An excellent quote I love to use many times an which can help me to conclude on this point is, “refereeing is like teaching. No matter how good you are, you cannot please everyone and every person around thinks he can do a better job.” These words came in my ears in a workshop during one of the first international clinics I attended and immediately struck me hard and I try to highlight them to those around me in the officiating business.
[email protected]