In the past years I have personally proved to myself, through experience, that good refereeing is in fact much more than just merely knowing the rules (not that I had that impression at the outset but sometimes one hears people talking in a way as to indicate that all it takes to referee is to grab a whistle and know the rules of the particular game). Rules are necessary and a definite must and that is a fact, yet a referee should strive as much as possible to develop a good sense of judgement in his work on the respective field of play.
Obviously if a referee has played the game before at a certain level it should be an advantage for him to nurture the type of judgement needed to referee games. Yet I do not want to sound pessimistic about those who are aiming to referee some sport which they never experienced before or else experienced but just at a low level of competition.
Some of the crucial decisions where the referee has to judge intensively (yet quickly) are those (especially in fast contact team sports like football and basketball) that involve the principle of advantage or disadvantage, a principle that is always becoming more accepted.
In all honesty, looking at different games (from any sport) I could judge the competence level of any referee by just analyzing how he goes about in applying advantage/disadvantage during a game.
Certain refereeing literature defines this principle as, 'the ability to apply a certain rule based on the circumstances of each particular situation.'
Since I referee basketball it is easier for me to give examples from this sport (however I think it is quite easy for colleagues from other sports to adapt themselves and think of examples from their own game). A shot by team X hits the ring, player B5 (Team B) grabs the defensive rebound. Whilst attempting to pass to B7, X8 contacts his passing hand. However the ball still arrives at B7 with no delay. B7 now drives all down the court and is contacted from behind by X9 but B7 keeps his momentum, balance, ball possession and speed and finds himself alone under the basket and scores with a lay-up.
In this play situation there were two contacts that technically (if one had to referee literally according to the rules) should be whistled. However these contact situations did not affect the play and did not put the team in possession of the ball at a disadvantage.
A good referee will apply the advantage/disadvantage principle and allow the game to continue even though the players themselves might ask for a whistle apart from the coaches and the spectators.
Having said this I want to make it clear also (so as not to confuse some beginner referees) that there are many fouls and violations that have to be sort of automatic sanctioned and do not fall under the category of advantage/disadvantage, such as for example stepping out-of-bounds or any unsporting conduct.
To conclude on this matter, I want to state that I believe that the application of advantage/disadvantage can only be learned through experience and good observation of good refereeing work by other referees. A beginner referee should devote his initial energy on learning and applying well (There is a sharp difference between knowing and "understanding the intent" of the rules. Yes, it is very important to know the exact wording of every rule, but that does not guarantee that you will succeed as a referee) the rules of his particular sport. It is only through time and due to an open mind that the advantage/disadvantage principle will be learned along the way.
Once I am discussing the referee's behaviour, I would like to hammer in another important principle. Along the years, and through research, one can easily notice that many refereeing careers have been ruined because of arrogant and snobbish behaviour.
While there are surely situations that will demand a tough stance, most will require only a diplomatic approach. Additionally it is acceptable to smile warmly from time-to-time. Having said this, it is important to repeat that regardless of the situation, referees must always give the appearance that they are in control of the game.
One of the toughest emotional battles for any young referee is to appear comfortable during any tough game situation. Competent veterans (those who have really moved up the ladder due to proving themselves on the job and not just because of age and lack of referees), on the other hand, are generally calm and collected even though they might not have the same physical capabilities as their younger colleagues.
Top instructors strive to teach that it is best to counter an emotional situation with a calm and professional approach. Emotion is part of the game (referees who have played the game can easily understand this whereas others, who have not experienced the game, might find it difficult to understand what a player actually feels). We must give players and coaches the opportunity to react to a situation but this must be controlled very easily.
The referee must strive to be consistent in the way players are disciplined, and this is a crucial factor in certain matches. To cite a simple example, if the referee cautions a player from one team for delay of the game, the same referee should do the same to a player of the other side who may delay the game later in the same game.
Since the creation of referees, consistency has always been mentioned as a factor which must be sought by all those who control matches of any kind. It has also been the source of great criticism from the outside environment towards referees.
Consistency demands a high level of preparation as well as a high level of personal logic and common sense from the part of a referee.
In the past days I have received some e-mails asking me to comment on the corruption scandal case going on in German football.
This incident might be, allowing some time to see how the case will move on, one of the main topics of this column in the coming weeks.
[email protected]