Umpiring and refereeing can be a thankless task. When you have a good game very few even notice your existence, and praise is rarely forthcoming. Make one decision that people don’t like, whether it is right or wrong and you become the centre of attention.
It is strange how those playing the game will frequently make multiple errors in a game and they are soon forgotten by many, if not the coach.
Although that is not always the case. Some players mistakes are not forgotten and live on long after the event. Leeds United’s goalkeeper Gary Sprake was much maligned for a few memorable errors, yet he was at one stage a key component of the club’s success. Unfortunately footballer Jeff Astle is remembered by England fans for his miss against Brazil at the 1970 Mexico World Cup. England, were trailing 1-0 when, having come on as a substitute, a mistake in the Brazilian defence saw the ball fall to Astle. Felix, the Brazilian goalkeeper was out of position, but Astle unfortunately hooked his shot the wrong side of the post.
Astle passed away in 2002 and shortly after his death his wife Laraine told The Guardian. “He played for his country in the World Cup finals but all a lot of people remember is his miss against Brazil. We feel he was given a lot of unfair treatment and he seemed to be the scapegoat. You have to remember it was very hot out there and a lot of other players missed chances.” It is indeed sad that to many England fans that is what he is best remembered for.
There have been others who are remembered for that one moment that didn’t go as planned. Brighton striker Gordon Smith was immortalised with the title of his former club’s fanzine, “And Smith Must Score.” Words uttered by Peter Jones, the commentator in the 1983 FA Cup Final as Smith was free inside the penalty box with just the keeper to beat, but Gary Bailey made a crucial save to deny him. From that moment he has never been forgotten. Mike Gatting’s attempted reverse sweep off part time bowler Australian Captain Allan Border in the 1987 Cricket World Cup final is another moment.
English referee Graham Poll will know that his mistake in the 2006 FIFA World cup where he issued Croatia’s Josip Simunic three yellow cards in their group match against Australia, will overshadow all that he achieved in the game to get him to become a World Cup referee. Which is sad.
Both Poll and Roger Smith’s mistakes show the power of television, and the impact it can have. For example how many people knew that Poll’s error was a case of history repeating. Australia’s only previous World Cup appearance had been in Germany in 1974. They were back in Germany again when Poll made his mistake. What few knew was that 32 years to the very day Iran’s Jafar Namdar, who was only the second Asian referee to officiate at a World Cup, issued two yellow cards to Australia’s Ray Richards, but failed to send him off. He did eventually, when alerted to his error. With far less media coverage in 1974 compared to 2006, few are even aware of this piece of trivia.
The story is of course a very different one outside of professional sport, but the officials and players at the highest level by making these mistakes show that like the rest of us they are human.
There are few who have played sport below the professional level that have not at some stage come across an umpire or referee who is regrettably biased. This is extremely prevalent in junior sport where parents often take the responsibility of officiating. Sadly they think that they are doing their child a favour by being one-eyed, when in truth they are doing the opposite.
In cricket in the UK for many years it was an issue when each team was required to supply their own umpire. No doubt the administrators at the time thought this would solve a great deal of their headaches. While in the main most were exceptionally good umpires, there were some sides where you knew their umpire would make a few “home decisions.” If you were hit on the pads while he was standing at the bowler’s end you knew your innings was over. It was at times embarrassing, frustrating and downright annoying. Yet all teams continued to play these sides. In the main because they knew it was just one match where you would suffer, and all believed they could still win. At the end of the day we just wanted to play.
In many competitions now such practices have fallen by the wayside, which is a good thing. Sadly due to the behaviour today of players, coaches and parents there are many who are not prepared to put up their hand and become an official.
It has been interesting to see how many sports have conducted on-line coaching courses and issued coaching certification during lockdowns around the world, yet few have looked to recruit or train officials.
One reason given when the question was raised with one sport by NTFS was that officials ‘need practical experience to become qualified.’ Surely the same applies to coaching? Don’t those assessing coaches have to make sure that the coaches aspiring to gain certification can communicate, and actually plan and execute drills, and have the tactical awareness and knowledge to adapt? How can that be demonstrated in a Zoom session?
The shortage of top officials has been highlighted in the Hockey WA Premier Grade competition in recent weeks. For a number of years players from various clubs have put their hands up and umpired games, which is great to see and commendable. However with such a close competition in 2020 it has now highlighted that shortage of officials.
At the end of Round 10 there were seven teams vying for the realistically the last three spots in the Finals series for 2020; the top team was eight points ahead of this pack. There were six points separating the team placed second and the team in eighth position. One of those seven teams has since dropped out of that race due to results not going their way.
However in the 22 matches since that weekend, including this weekend’s fixtures nine matches involving teams vying for a top four place have involved umpires who play in the first team from clubs involved in that race for finals. On a number of occasions clubs have had both umpires officiating the game come from one of the clubs that is challenging them for a final berth! In the last four rounds of fixtures four of the six clubs challenging for those remaining three Finals berths have had players from other finals contenders officiate their games in this period on three occasions, the other on two occasions. While the sixth team in the same period has not had a single occasion in which they have had an official who is a player from another club challenging for one of those spots.
This is a strange state of affairs for such a high quality competition. When one looks at the top leagues in the UK not only the national competition, but those in each county the officials are neutral. In the Netherlands the situation is the same, those appointed are at all times independent and neutral. In Australia, a country that prides itself on leading the world in many sports this situation will no doubt surprise many
So is this situation due to a shortage of umpires? Should more thought be given to the appointment of officials?
While there have been no accusations of wrong-doing or bias against those who have been asked to officiate these games one feels that the players that are doubling up as officials are being put in an awkward position by being appointed to games involving teams they are trying to beat to a finals berth. They may not feel that there is any pressure, but it is not a healthy situation.
There has been a great deal of research done into the perceived bias of officials. That research has drilled down into bias based on a players ethnicity, on clubs, home and away sides and also the popularity of the teams. When it came to implicit bias very few researchers revealed a high level of incidents. However when it came to subconscious bias many reports have found that this is far more prevalent.
Cricket for a long time bucked the trend of appointing neutral umpires to officiate international matches. Research into this space by A. Nilesh Fernando and Siddharth George came to the following conclusion: “We document that introducing diversity into the two-man team of on-field umpires reduces bias against the away team by about 40%, and this impact is only seen in decisions that afford umpires significant discretion. The impact of diversity on bias is larger when the home and away teams are of different races, and is large enough to reduce the home team’s probability of winning by about 10 percentage points.”
This is a telling statement. Few would accuse any of the top international umpires in cricket of bias, but clearly circumstances have caused unconscious bias.
Earlier this year a study carried out in the highest level of football in Norway produced more examples of subconscious bias. Here they were looking at whether traditionally successful teams do in fact get decisions that favour them when they play less popular opposition.
Martin Kjeøen Erikstad from Nord University and Bjørn Tore Johansen from the University of Agder found that “Of the 43 potential penalty situations involving the successful teams, the match referee awarded 11 penalties to the successful teams (5 at home and 6 away) and 1 to their opponent (at home). The EP’s (Expert Panel) assessment of the same situations was that that the successful teams should have been awarded 10 penalties (range 8–12) and that their opponents should have been awarded 8 penalties (range 5–11). Over the course of an entire season, the two successful NPL (Norwegian Premier League) teams were thus awarded 110% (11 of 10) of the penalties identified by the EP, while their opponents were awarded 12.5% (1 of 8).” This would go some way to explaining why fans feel Manchester United always get decisions that go their way at Old Trafford.
One of the findings in the Norwegian study was that a home team bias is not “the only potential referee bias in professional football. Rather, a team’s success can be a potentially vital source of social impact on a referee.”
While fans will claim that some referees hate their club, it would appear that such biases are few and far between. That it is more to do with so many other factors, and nearly all of these are subconscious. In other words the officials themselves are unaware of these influences and are as always trying to be fair and totally unbiased.
However there are other factors that will affect the decisions made in a match. In the top leagues it has been found that crowd noise can have an influence on an official, some research has now claimed that social media is indeed beginning to have a much larger influence than before. Where a team comes from in terms of its social standing can also have a subconscious impact.
Sometimes it has nothing to do with the individuals in question, but a great deal to do with perception. This is why the appointment of officials in many sports is not a process to be rushed. Boxers frequently object to one judge who is perceived by them to have a leaning towards their opponent. Regretably on many occasions in that sport those fears become a reality.
In an ideal world the best officials would be in charge of the big games, but sometimes fate deals them an unfortunate card. They happen to be at the top of their game, when their national team is also at the top of theirs, so they cannot officiate the big games, because the country they hail from is playing. The reasoning is obvious. Ask players from both sides whether they would have objected to that official and most would say “no.’ However if there was a contentious moment it would put the sport and the official in an awkward position.
At the end of the day the game must come first, it must be above suspicion and accusations right or wrong of any impropriety. It’s integrity must be protected at all times. Therefore the officials who are already under enough pressure as it is should not be placed in a position where their personal integrity can be questioned.
