Copyright© 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 The AFA and London Society of Association Referees established 2006
Understanding and explaining referee decision making
Recovering from a knee injury and operation, I have been able to watch a lot of football
at club, league and County levels this season. And I have seen (what is in my opinion)
some very good refereeing and 'lining' performances, and some that have been not been
so good. We can all learn a lot by watching what other referees do well and do badly.
And I think I now have a little more sympathy for the way players and managers feel
about decisions which seem to them to be so obviously wrong.
Part of the problem is that players, managers and spectators often have no idea why a
particular decision is given or not given. Players some distance away from an incident,
and those watching on the sidelines can hear very little of the verbal communication
between referee and players. (It must also be very difficult for Assessors seated in a stand
to really judge how a referee is relating to the players.) You can't hear all the quiet words
(or the banter) that are so important to managing the game, and that distinguish the better
referees from the rest.
So perhaps we need to develop a referee sign language that will help explain our
decisions to a wider audience. (Stanley Lover wrote an interesting article on this subject
a few years ago.)
Watching has also reinforced for me the importance of recognising the critical
moment, 'the moment of truth', or 'the magic moment' when one decision can confirm
or destroy the referee's credibility with the players. It seems to happen in the first 30
minutes of the game, and getting that big decision right - whether it is awarding or not
awarding a goal, a yellow or red card, or responding to misconduct or events outside the
field of play, will determine how the rest of the game will go for the referee.
So what might compromise a referee's decisions?
We all probably take comfort from the cosy belief that we make our decisions rationally
on the incidents as they occur in the game. In fact, there is a body of research that
provides convincing evidence that there are many other factors that bias our refereeing
decisions.
Many of these factors are reviewed in a 2009 Bath University study* of inconsistency
and bias in decision making by referees in European domestic leagues.
(While these research studies are based on professional football, we grassroots referees
are subject to the same factors, if not to the same extremes of high profile pressure.)
Home Team bias In Spanish, German and Italian top leagues referees added more
time at the end of matches when the home team was trailing by one goal compared to
when the home team was leading, particularly when contests were close. (Now
popularly known in UK as "Fergie Time")
Spectators Another potential source of bias by referees is the influence of the crowd -
Recovering from a knee injury and operation, I have been able to watch a lot of football
at club, league and County levels this season. And I have seen (what is in my opinion)
some very good refereeing and 'lining' performances, and some that have been not been
so good. We can all learn a lot by watching what other referees do well and do badly.
And I think I now have a little more sympathy for the way players and managers feel
about decisions which seem to them to be so obviously wrong.
Part of the problem is that players, managers and spectators often have no idea why a
particular decision is given or not given. Players some distance away from an incident,
and those watching on the sidelines can hear very little of the verbal communication
between referee and players. (It must also be very difficult for Assessors seated in a stand
to really judge how a referee is relating to the players.) You can't hear all the quiet words
(or the banter) that are so important to managing the game, and that distinguish the better
referees from the rest.
So perhaps we need to develop a referee sign language that will help explain our
decisions to a wider audience. (Stanley Lover wrote an interesting article on this subject
a few years ago.)
Watching has also reinforced for me the importance of recognising the critical
moment, 'the moment of truth', or 'the magic moment' when one decision can confirm
or destroy the referee's credibility with the players. It seems to happen in the first 30
minutes of the game, and getting that big decision right -
field of play, will determine how the rest of the game will go for the referee.
So what might compromise a referee's decisions?
We all probably take comfort from the cosy belief that we make our decisions rationally
on the incidents as they occur in the game. In fact, there is a body of research that
provides convincing evidence that there are many other factors that bias our refereeing
decisions.
Many of these factors are reviewed in a 2009 Bath University study* of inconsistency
and bias in decision making by referees in European domestic leagues.
(While these research studies are based on professional football, we grassroots referees
are subject to the same factors, if not to the same extremes of high profile pressure.)
Home Team bias In Spanish, German and Italian top leagues referees added more
time at the end of matches when the home team was trailing by one goal compared to
when the home team was leading, particularly when contests were close. (Now
popularly known in UK as "Fergie Time")
Spectators Another potential source of bias by referees is the influence of the crowd -
absolute size, the attendance-to-capacity ratio (relative size) and the proximity of supporters to the pitch. Home teams are significantly more likely to be awarded a disputed penalty and there is more added time in close matches when the crowd is physically close to the field of play. In contrast, the presence of a running track increases the number of yellow and red cards awarded to the home team.
Crowd Noise In a laboratory style setting, Nevill et al. (2002) showed videotapes of
tackles to referees who, having been told the identities of the home and away teams,
were asked to classify the tackles as legal or illegal. One group of referees viewed the
tape with the soundtrack (including the crowd’s reaction) switched on, while a second
group viewed silently. The first group was more likely to rule in favour of the home team
(calling, on average, 15.5% fewer fouls). The first group’s decisions were also more in
line with those of the original match referee.
For the full article click here
tackles to referees who, having been told the identities of the home and away teams,
were asked to classify the tackles as legal or illegal. One group of referees viewed the
tape with the soundtrack (including the crowd’s reaction) switched on, while a second
group viewed silently. The first group was more likely to rule in favour of the home team
(calling, on average, 15.5% fewer fouls). The first group’s decisions were also more in
line with those of the original match referee.
For the full article click here
Whistleblower’s Opinion