Has criticism of football referees crossed the line?

Another weekend, another chance for commentators and fans to vilify the country's football referees.

“The referee was a disgrace. How he failed to see the incident [which was patently obvious to me, having viewed it three or four times from a number of different camera angles] is beyond me.”

Comments such as this (minus the bit in parenthesis, of course!) increasingly dominate live commentaries of football matches and post-match phone-in programmes. Intoxicated by the heady mix of multiple camera angles, slow-motion replays and computer-generated virtual images, TV and radio pundits increasingly call for this same technology to be used to prevent the so-called ‘errors’ made by the game’s officials.

But this seemingly unquenchable thirst to get to the ‘truth’ of what actually happened is based on a false premise.  That is, that technology can prove whether or not a referee has made ‘the right decision’. It actually does no such thing.  The superficial gloss of apparent objectivity provided by technology’s ever more sophisticated bag of tricks is an illusion.

The controversial events that commentators and others strive so hard to analyze and reconstruct only exist at the instant that the referee rules on them.  The official has not made a mistake if he turns down a penalty appeal or disallows a goal, even if television replays appear to 'prove conclusively' that the ball hit a player’s hand or that a goalscorer was standing in an offside position. It is only an offence, a goal or whatever if, in the opinion of the referee, the relevant conditions have been met at that specific instant to deem it so.  Whether or not a ball has crossed the goal line is the only question that can be answered definitively by the use of technology. All other events are matters of interpretation. And the only person whose interpretation matters is the referee.

We don’t need technology to tell us ‘what really happened’.  We know straightaway from the decision that the referee makes.  Indeed, technology can’t tell us the answer. However sophisticated it might be, it cannot model the unique perception, interpretation and evaluation of the situation made by the man (or woman) who constructs the only view of reality that counts on these matters in the instant that they occur.

Arguing, in the intensity of the moment, about whether or not we would have called a decision the same way as the referee is the ‘stuff’ of spectatorship.  I do it all of the time from the comfort of my seat at Pride Park. To analyse an event to death, in an effort to ‘prove’ that an official was wrong, is quite another. It is futile and wrong-headed to argue that there is a valid ruling on events that somehow exists outside the head of the referee.  It is not even a matter of questioning his (or her) interpretation of incidents and events – as if these were somehow being enacted by other people (the players) independently of the referee’s involvement. His/her moment-by-moment participation in the game, including the rulings that he/she makes (and doesn't make), is an integral part of the enactment of those events.

Referees have not suddenly become less able or more fallible than their predecessors. In many respects, those at the top of their profession are better trained, more professional and fitter than they have ever been. It’s just that they are now forced to operate in the full glare of sport’s version of “Big Brother.”  In the now-distant past, the best referees were noted for their ability to ‘read the game’ and apply the letter of the law with a degree of discretion. When those today fail to do the same, they are often chastised for their inability to apply ‘common sense’. When they do, they’re accused by these same people of being inconsistent!

To my mind, this crusade to subordinate the in-the-moment judgement of a match official to the delayed, technology-driven assessment of a third party threatens the very essence of the sport. As does the ritualistic and increasingly orchestrated criticism of referees by high-profile media commentators and pundits.  The latter has already 'crossed the line' - and I don't need a television replay to tell me so!

 __________

Related post: The match turned on the penalty. Or was it the throw-in?

Comments

[Gochangenow]

Chris

I've just come across your post here and I agree with your fundamental points about the decision making process for referees being completely 'in the moment' and that post rationalisation of the decision making adds no value...expect to provide fuel for conversation and punditry.

However technology does have a potential role - as both an aid to the referees decision making (as employed in Rugby) and for reflection and learning.

As in my coaching practice, where I routinely use recordings of the conversation as material on which to reflect on my performance.

It seems that with a bit of re-framing the technological aids can be just that - aids, not hindrances.

This still won't deal with the pundits and conversations between fans...but just maybe they could also be encouraged to explore the thinking and feeling that led to the decision, rather than jumping immediately to criticism of it and of the individual referee's motives and skills.

As I write the above I'm beginning to see it as a metaphor for much management behaviour - the use of the available technology to question employee behaviour, to criticise and judge, to impugn motives and capabilities, to reward and punish.

Oh how it can work so much better!

[Chris Rodgers]

Thanks "Gochangenow" for your comments.

I agree that technology is used sensibly in Rugby Union, to aid the referee's decision-making. But, crucially, as I understand it, it is only used to provide guidance in 'dead-ball' situations, such as determining whether or not the ball was properly grounded for a try; or whether the ball passed between the posts at a penalty kick or conversion. In both cases, play has stopped before the video evidence is called into play, so the flow of the game is largely uninterrupted by the use of the camera evidence. Even then, I was watching a match recently when it took several minutes before a 'definitive'(?)call was made by the 'tv referee'.

The only equivalent situation to this in (association) football, as I suggested in the post, occurs when it is unclear whether or not the ball has crossed the goal line between the goalposts. All other situations are a matter of interpretation.

I agree very much with your suggestion that video replays could usefully be used after the event, to aid reflection and learning. This clearly applies to the officials themselves, as a way of gaining insights into their own decision-making and to support their development. But it might also be useful for the self-appointed judges and juries - the commentators and 'expert summarizers' - to reflect (as you say) on "the thinking and feeling that led to the decision, rather than jumping immediately to criticism of it and of the individual referee's motives and skills".

In situations such as this - as well as in the organizational world - I've argued for many years that scorekeepers and commentators should not be seen to be more important than the players. And, in the context of a football match, those who are 'playing the game' include the match officials!