It is probably a fair statement to claim that probably the worst sports official you will ever come up against in all your years of playing will be the parent of one of your opponents. Regrettably these parents feel that making decisions that favour their child’s team is in the interests of the team and their club, but ultimately it has the opposite effect.
As you get older you will discover that the majority of sports officials do their utmost to be fair. Sometimes you will come across an official supplied by a club who is as one-eyed as can be; but those days are thankfully becoming less. In the past when you came up against such an official, you learned how best to navigate the treacherous waters your found yourself in. Many a cricket umpire was nicknamed ‘trigger,’ for the minute the home team appealed his finger would fire the opposing batsman out.
In one instant, in a game of football the home team brought the game to a close fifteen minutes early, once courtesy of a dubious penalty the referee had ensured that his team had drawn level! Pleasingly on appeal the result was overturned by the tribunal and three points awarded to the away team.
When one considers that in the 1800’s many team sports played with no officials, and the opposing captains were left to determine decisions of foul play, it tells you how competitive sport has become and how society has changed. Frequently the match official becomes the focus of attention for a player’s and a team’s shortcomings.
As the business of sport has become more professional many sports looked to make their officials professional, and for years the pay was a pittance. Manycontinued to have a full time job and carried out their duties more for the love of the game and being involved than for the money; in some sports that is still the case.
Despite the dawn of the full time official in many sports, there were still accusations of some favouring the home side. In cricket especially there was a strong push for neutral umpires, two of the countries now with their hand on the tiller of World cricket were at the time against such a move.
A report was compiled on the test cricket series played in Australia from 1977 to 1994. It was found that, of the seven teams which played against Australia over that period, three had significantly higher rates of leg before wicket (lbw) decisions given against them than were given against Australia. Hence the push for the neutrality of umpires.
In 1992/93 the International Cricket Council introduced one neutral umpire. Interestingly in April 1993, in a match between West Indies and Pakistan played at Queen’s Park Oval in Trinidad, a remarkable record occurred. The match produced 17 lbw dismissals, a record at the time. This stood for 18 years until once again the West Indies played Pakistan in May 2011, this time in Guyana and there were 20 lbw decisions! The two umpires in the 1993 match were two highly respected umpires, Steve Bucknor and neutral umpire Harold “Dickie” Bird. By 2002 both umpires in cricket would come from neutral countries.
A study carried out by a trio of economists, Dr Abhinav Sacheti and Professor David Paton from Nottingham University Business School and Dr Ian Gregory-Smith from the University of Sheffield, looked into the impact of both umpires being neutral. They studied 1,000 Test matches played between 1986 and 2012. They deduced that showed that with two home umpires the visiting team suffered 16% more lbws than their opponents. When one neutral official became involved that dropped to 10%; and with two neutral officials the differential disappeared completely.
In their report they found that the bias was found to be strongest in Australia, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Cricket historians will remember the 1970-71 Ashes tour of Australia where England won the series, however their bowlers did not receive a single lbw decision in the six Tests played.
Cricket believes that the turn around was due to the introduction of the neutral umpire. Yet others feel that much of the shift was due to the remuneration of the Umpires and the creation of the Elite Panel back in 2002. A year ago it was revealed that the annual fee of an ICC Elite panel umpire ranges between USD35,000 (AUD49,500 approx) and USD45,000 (AUD63,500 approx). In addition, the ICC umpires receive a match fee of USD3,000 (AUD4200) per Test match, USD1000 (AUD1400) every T20I and USD2200 (AUD3100) for a One Day International.
That argument carries some weight when you look at now refereeing was improved in many of the former Eastern Bloc countries during the 1990’s. At the time amongst revelations of match-fixing there was also said to have been a refereeing-mafia. One official was quoted as saying the only way that you could ensure a fair game was for both teams to pay the referee the same amount. Interestingly, once the referees were paid what was deemed to be a fair wage, said to have been five times what they were receiving previously, there was shift in their thought processes. Now it was a job to take pride in, a job to hold onto. As a result the majority of referees stopped taking “inducements.”
While it is good to see officials being deservedly remunerated what has been sad is that with the dawn of professionalism in many sports the officials are no longer part of the match day set up, as they were in days of old. Often in rugby when a post match dinner was held the officials would be part of that event. Now they no longer are. Often the reasons given are that there needs to be a distance kept between them and the players so that they remain above accusations of bias. This is of course absolute piffle.
These are professionals. They take great pride in their work, and most know that if their standards drop so too will their opportunities. In fact most will tell you that getting to know the players will make officiating that much easier.
The current Covid Pandemic has seen the officiating appointments come full circle. In the opening Bledisloe Cup rugby Test match between New Zealand and Australia, New Zealand referee Paul Williams became the first local referee to officiate such a match in 40 years. The following week Australian Angus Gardner was in charge. Were there any complaints from the players or the coaches?
“We don’t have an issue with it,” Wallabies coach Dave Rennie was reported as saying. He went on to add, “We just want the best person out there, so if Paul’s the best man, that’s fine and it’s his job to referee what he sees. He’s a quality ref. We certainly have no issues with him.”
In the FIH Pro League matches played this week the Netherlands played host to Great Britain and Dutchman Coen van Bunge was given the task of officiating the men’s match. While in the Women’s match another Dutch umpire Jonas van ‘t Hek was given the task of being one of the officials. Once again were there any complaints from any one?
These are experienced and respected officials, and most players and coaches will tell you as Dave Rennie said, that all they want are the best out there, irrespective of their nationality.
It is the same when it comes to broadcasting the games. Martin Tyler is regarded as one of the best football commentators in the world. Yes, he has been accused of having a slight bias to Manchester United, but that is possibly only picked up by those looking to hear such a thing. To most he is the consummate professional and remains neutral. He was once asked would he be able to remain neutral if England won the World Cup. HIs response reflected his class, he stated that they have never been in that position when he has been commentating so until that time he didn’t know.
Why raise such an issue when talking about officials? Simple, some commentary which is clearly biased, looks for reasons why that country’s side is not performing or losing, and just like the mum’s and dads at the park on a Sunday morning the easiest target is the official. The viewers then tap into those comments and unfortunately in some cases the mud sticks.
If you ask most athletes and coaches they will tell you that they want the best officials officiating their games. They want officials that they have faith in. So is there really a legitimate reason why we could not see an official from the same country as one of the teams playing in a World Cup Final blowing the whistle in that game?
There have been many top officials in many sports in the past 40 years who have been deprived of that opportunity simply because their nation happens to be playing in the Gold medal match. Think of German, Spanish, and Italian referees in football, New Zealand, South African and English referees in Rugby. In hockey the same has been true for some Dutch, and Australian officials.
It is the highest compliment to those who have been selected to officiate their home nation, as it shows that their World bodies and the two teams have complete faith in them as officials, and respect them as being truly professional in carrying out their role. So they have every right to be proud and feel honoured.
What everyone needs to remember is if they were deemed to have been biased, or to have favoured the home side then that would most likely be the end of their career. The trust and respect that they have spent years garnering would immediately be eroded. Yes, we all understand that by having neutral umpires and referees the sports avoid accusations of bias, but surely like the athletes themselves the best officials should be rewarded with officiating the big matches?
Congratulations to all who have been trusted to officiate such games, it is a compliment to you all as individuals. Hopefully you will have restored the faith in the powers that be that they can with confidence give you such games knowing that you will have the strength of character and confidence to make the right decisions. That in turn may inspire those who feel the pressure of officiating their home nation to also stand firm and give them the confidence to commit to neutrality.
