- Home
- Sports and Activities
- Coaching and Officiating
- Successful Sports Officiating
Successful Sports Officiating will help prepare aspiring and inexperienced officials for the rigors of the job. Written by leading experts in the officiating field—boasting experience at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels—this second edition has been completely revised and updated and includes new chapters on the current state of officiating, officiating as a career, and mental training. Enlightening discussions on developing an officiating philosophy and the psychology of officiating help you understand what it takes to be a successful official beyond just knowing the rules and mechanics.
Chapters on developing skills in the areas of communication, decision making, and conflict management will assist you in managing contests and working with coaches, players, and parents. Discussions on personal fitness and injury prevention, time management, legal rights and responsibilities, and career development will help you manage the off-the-field aspects of being an official.
Endorsed by Referee Enterprises, Inc., publishers of Referee magazine, Successful Sports Officiating, Second Edition, is the most comprehensive and authoritative text on the subject of officiating available today. Written and edited by a team of expert practitioners on the art and science of officiating, Successful Sports Officiating, Second Edition, is the reflection of decades of experience, and its practical approach will serve you well in your quest to understand and apply the principles of successful officiating.
Part I: Building Your Sports Officiating Career
Chapter 1: Current State of Officiating (Jerry Grunska)
Chapter 2: Officiating as a Lifetime Career (Jerry Grunska)
Part II: Developing Your Officiating Skills
Chapter 3: Officiating Style (Jerry Grunska)
Chapter 4: Goal Setting (Bob Weinberg)
Chapter 5: Communication Skills (Kay Roof-Steffen)
Chapter 6: Decision-Making Skills (Jerry Grunska)
Chapter 7: Mental Training Strategies (Bob Weinberg)
Chapter 8: Conflict Management (Jon Bible)
Part III: Getting Fit to Officiate
Chapter 9: Fitness Principles for Officials (Jon Poole and Kathleen Poole)
Chapter 10: An Officiating Personal Fitness Plan (Jon Poole and Kathleen Poole)
Part IV: Managing Professional Responsibilities
Chapter 11: Legal Responsibilities (Paul Anderson)
Chapter 12: Legal Rights and Business Responsibilities (Paul Anderson)
Chapter 13: Time Management (Jerry Grunska)
The American Sport Education Program (ASEP), a division of Human Kinetics, is the leading provider of youth, high school, and elite-level sport education programs in the United States. Rooted in the philosophy of “Athletes first, winning second,” ASEP has educated more than 1.5 million coaches, officials, sport administrators, parents, and athletes. For 30 years, local, state, and national sport organizations have partnered with ASEP to lead the way in making sport a safe, successful, and enjoyable experience for all involved. For more information on ASEP sport education courses and resources, call 800-747-5698, e-mail ASEP@hkusa.com, or visit www.ASEP.com.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Officiating Style
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees.
This chapter addresses the following:
- The four styles of officiating, with reasons for their application
- How game context affects officiating style
- How style communicates your purposes to participants
- The personal characteristics and performance principles that lead to success
- The importance of image
In sports officiating, there are preferred ways of operating that tend to lead to success, although there are no guarantees. The ways you choose to operate are revealed in the style you adopt. The four styles described in this chapter are not mutually exclusive, though. You may find yourself justifiably adopting a particular style to fit the occasion. A good official adapts to the age of participants, their skill level, their maturity, their grasp of the game's protocols, the complexity of their strategy, and the overall context of game situations. A preteen, early-season contest may feature participants who are just learning the rudiments of the sport. On the other hand, a late-season game between skilled competitors and a substantial (and partisan) audience poses another set of challenges. Your style should fit the circumstances of the competition. This chapter also contains suggestions for beneficial personal behavior—ways of responding that are shaped by your attitude, performance principles, and the 10 commandments of style. This chapter should help you react positively to game situations.
Four Styles of Officiating
The officiating styles discussed in this section are somewhat arbitrary, in that no official operates entirely in one mode all the time. In fact, the key to successful officiating is flexibility in adapting your style to the situation. Officiating is very much governed by context, which means that you must adapt your approach to the type of game being played. Styles can change, even during a single game. By knowing how to change your style, you can adapt to fit the circumstances.
Rule Book Style
Some officials say, “You can always hide behind the rule.” If a player's action is borderline, you have the option of applying the most stringent interpretation of a rule and thereby have a bona fide excuse for ruling against the player. A stringent interpretation of the rules, however, may not always be the fairest way to judge the action.
Consider the slide in baseball or softball. The rule states that a runner must slide into home plate if a fielder is in position to make a play there. The runner is not permitted to come in standing up, because the catcher is in a stationary, vulnerable position and a collision may result. Therefore, the runner can be called out for failing to slide. Let's say that a runner is trying to score on a hit to the outfield, but the throw toward home plate forces the catcher to move up the third-base line. The ball and the runner arrive in the vicinity of the catcher—who is several feet up the line—at nearly the same time. To avoid the catcher, the runner deftly pirouettes around the fielder and steps on the plate without being tagged. The umpire could call the runner out for not sliding. However, if the runner slides and causes the catcher to topple over, then a player could be hurt. In effect, the runner is in a no-win situation.
A dozen scenarios about collisions or near collisions on plays at home plate could be described. The rules cannot cover all these situations succinctly. They can only describe parameters. If you take those parameters and apply them to the letter, you, in effect, penalize players unfairly. Applied in an overly rigid manner, rules of play can actually be used to sabotage their intent.
Some officials operate in this stringent way. They believe that by applying rules in a punitive manner, they are fulfilling their role as the game's guardian. But the rules of any sport are subject to wide interpretation simply because there are so many variations in game circumstances.
Rules governing blocking in football also allow considerable latitude in interpretation. Blocking used to be done with the shoulder pads. Players kept using their hands to push, however, and finally the rule makers made pushing legal. But the shoving had to be done within the frame of the body of the player being blocked. What is within the frame? An official who wants to apply the definition precisely can call “illegal use of hands” a lot, even if the contact has no bearing on the result of a play. In other words, a rule-book-style official could interrupt play almost at will, and some officials do just that, believing themselves to be conscientious. Players, coaches, and fans often find their overly strict judgment annoying, even counterproductive.
Some rules, however, do not permit any deviance. The clearest examples are the rules regarding the boundary lines that confine a sport and define its critical areas. When a ball possessed by a runner crosses the plane of the goal line in football, it is a touchdown, with no room for equivocation. When a batted ball hits a base in softball or baseball, it is a fair ball. When a basketball bounces on a sideline, it is out of bounds. Accurate judgement (which is not always easy) is the determining factor in these cases.
Another area in which you must follow the letter of rules consistently is in the matter of safety. Certain acts in contact sports can maim an opponent. A body slam in the back, below the waist, in football (clipping) is one example. Furthermore, special protective padding under players' uniforms is stipulated, with exact definitions for some sports (field hockey, ice hockey, wrestling, football), and officials are obliged to carry out a careful inspection to determine compliance before contests.
Although a strict official may be short on discriminating judgment, some coaches like officials who operate by the book, as long as they are evenhanded and equally stringent with both teams. In games that flow rapidly, such as soccer, hockey, and basketball, an official who calls a tight game can hamper teams that play aggressive defense. Consequently, an official who administers hard justice will find a favorable reception in some quarters, particularly with teams having difficulty dealing with a tough defense.
Preventive Style
It is almost always acceptable to talk to players during games. For example, complimenting an athlete on good play can be a positive way to interact, and such a compliment will be even stronger if the player's act was a sporting gesture. Often, the best time to speak to a player may be during a break in the action, such as between innings in softball or baseball.
Sometimes, too, players do not know when a behavior might be close to a foul or violation. The rules forbid a softball pitcher from jumping off the rubber while delivering a pitch for example. An umpire will usually remind the pitcher of that if she is lifting her push-off foot slightly, Also, in football, a quarterback under center and about to receive a snap must keep his head quite still, because a quick jerk of the head can easily draw an opponent into the neutral zone. The quarterback is permitted to bob his head slightly, because it is almost impossible to keep a frozen head when barking signals. Judgments in these types of situations demand refined thinking on the part of officials. Warning players about negative results of their actions is usually a sensible path to take.
Preventive officiating takes two forms. One is helping players avoid technical violations. A basketball official, for instance, will withhold the ball from a player on a throw-in if that player's foot is on the boundary line. A baseball or softball umpire may notify a pitcher who is close to delivering an illegal pitch—say, with improper footwork on the rubber. A football wing official will often put one foot out in an effort to guide a split end, showing the limit of the so-called neutral zone.
The second preventive technique is notifying a player not to commit a foul. Sometimes fouls are the result of inadvertent player behavior. Charging into the snapper on punts is one such action in football. Rules protect the snapper, who is in a vulnerable position after he has put the ball in play. Sometimes a fielder will absentmindedly stand in a base runner's path in softball or baseball, and an umpire can advise against it. A basketball player can be told to avoid excessive hand guarding or to avoid elbowing on rebounds. In this way, officials act to prevent player-to-player contact that could result in fouls.
Any warnings to players about potential violations should be issued during dead ball intervals, although it is sometimes possible to call to players during live action, as when telling football players to stay off a runner whose progress has already been determined.
Save
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Goal-Setting Principles
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning.
Goal setting is not a foolproof process that can be easily implemented without some careful thought and planning. Research has shown that a myriad of personal and task factors influence the effectiveness of any goal-setting program. Although research can illuminate the science of setting goals, the art of setting goals (i.e., when and for whom goals should be set) can only be determined on an individual basis. Specifically, it would be misleading to think that all types of goals are equally effective in achieving particular ends.
Before implementing a goal-setting program, you need to have a firm understanding of the goal-setting process. The key is to structure a program so that it is consistent with the basic principles derived from the organizational and sport psychology literatures as well as from the professional practice knowledge of sport and exercise psychologists working in field settings. However, the effectiveness of any motivational technique depends on the interaction of the individuals and the situations in which the individuals are placed. In essence, you need an understanding of your individual situations (e.g., type of sport, support systems, travel) as well as your personal characteristics (e.g., personality, background, experience) to implement an effective goal-setting program. Following are some recommendations and principles for setting up a goal-setting program.
Identify Your Goals
When first getting started, you must determine exactly what you want to achieve. One way to identify your goals is to ask yourself a series of questions about your skills and attitudes toward officiating. Consider the following questions:
- What are my greatest strengths and weaknesses as an official?
- Am I well versed in the rules and regulations?
- Am I in good physical condition?
- Do I prepare myself mentally for each game?
- What aspects of officiating are most enjoyable to me?
- Do I communicate well with other officials, players, and coaches?
- Are my mechanics and positioning sound?
- Do I keep my confidence up despite being booed by spectators and harassed by coaches?
- Do I stay calm in pressure situations?
You may notice that answering these questions is not necessarily a simple or straightforward process. But just thinking about these things should help clarify what you want to accomplish through your officiating as well as help you target specific areas for improvement.
Set Moderately Difficult and Challenging Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the research literature is that goals should be challenging and difficult, yet attainable (Locke and Latham, 1990). Surveys and interviews have indicated that people prefer moderately difficult goals to very difficult or moderate goals. In essence, effective goals are difficult enough to be challenging, yet realistic enough to be achieved. Setting goals that are too difficult and unrealistic often results in failure. This can lead to frustration, lowered self-confidence and motivation, and decreased performance.
Being an official is a difficult job, and expecting that you will officiate a perfect game is unrealistic, as is expecting a basketball player to make every shot on a given night. Conversely, goals that are too easy do not present a challenge, leading to less than maximum effort and often achieving under your capabilities. This, in turn, might result in being satisfied with a mediocre performance instead of extending yourself to reach your potential. For example, if your goal is simply to be chosen for a particular assignment, then you might be satisfied just to be there instead of focusing on doing a good job as an official. Thus, the secret is to find a balance between setting yourself up for failure and pushing yourself to strive for success. In this middle ground reside challenging, realistic, attainable goals.
Set Specific Goals
One of the most consistent findings from the goal-setting literature is that specific goals produce higher levels of task performance than no goals or general ones. We often hear people tell participants simply, “Go out and do your best.” Although this type of instruction can be motivating, it is not as powerful for enhancing motivation and performance as asking participants to go out and achieve specific goals. Furthermore, when giving performers specific goals, it is important that they be measurable and in behavioral terms. For example, having a goal to do your best when refereeing a game between two teams who have a history of a hotly contested rivalry and bad blood would not be as helpful as having a goal to take a deep breath and count to three before speaking to a player or coach who uses bad language or talks to you in a loud, aggressive manner. Following are some examples of vague goals and how to make them more specific:
Vague: I want to become better acquainted with all the rules of the game.
Specific: I will read and understand one section of the rules every night.
Vague: I want to improve my fitness level.
Specific: I will run three times per week for 30 minutes and will ride a stationary bicycle two times per week for 20 minutes.
Vague: I want to improve my self-control.
Specific: When a coach starts to yell and shout at me, I'll count to myself for five seconds before responding, making sure to keep my voice subdued.
Vague: I want to improve my teamwork skills with other officials refereeing the same game.
Specific: I will spend three hours per week observing other officials' styles and their positioning.
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Conflict management skills essential for effective officiating
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable.
This chapter addresses the following:
- How conflict can result from misperceptions about officials
- The signs of potential conflict from game participants
- The importance of having a conflict management plan
- How to implement a management plan
“Please don't shoot the umpire: He is doing the best he can.” A Kansas City baseball park posted that inscription on a sign in 1880 because of the proliferation of abusive baseball fans. We've come a long way since then because we don't talk about shooting game officials (except perhaps in South American soccer venues). But the fact is that officials continue to be regularly subjected to verbal and, at times, physical abuse and blamed when things don't work out the way players, coaches, and fans want. This chapter discusses the kinds of conflicts you will encounter as an official, some of the reasons they occur, and ways to manage them.
Conflict Is Inevitable
To manage conflict effectively, you must first understand that it is inevitable. Some commonplaces about conflict should be acknowledged right from the start. When two teams compete in a sporting event, conflict is already present. It may be mild, it may be subdued, and it may even be masked by the appearance of harmony, but the potential for aggrieved feelings is always lurking. An event in the game may trigger an eruption, a series of difficulties may cause frustration to build, and sometimes your decisions or nondecisions will make you the focal point of anger.
As an official, you must approach any contest with the notion that a central part of the job requirement is handling conflict successfully. Although you cannot gauge your success with a scoreboard, when you manage conflict well, you can take a measure of satisfaction in your role.
Today, moreover, the higher up on the officiating ladder you are, the more likely it is that your success in defusing and handling situations and in communicating well with players and coaches will be among the criteria by which your overall effectiveness is judged. In the professional and collegiate ranks, and increasingly in state and local high school officials' organizations, supervisors spend a great deal of time working with officials on these issues. Handling situations is a hot topic in the officiating camps and clinics that have proliferated in recent years. In sum, the old days in which officials took care of business by simply barking at complainers are long gone.
A favorite slogan among officials is, “You've got to love it when they boo,” because it is a fact that onlookers sometimes direct catcalls and sarcastic comments to officials. Coaches, players, and game administrators often show politeness, even deference, before a game begins, but once the contest starts, participants' and their followers' behavior can become snide, if not downright ugly.
As an objective participant who must make calls that affect either team, you won't be able to please people consistently. Therefore, your goal should not be to please people. You are there to arbitrate competition, and the most you can hope for is respect. Officiating is not a popularity contest.
The reasons spectators and participants vent their anger at officials are complex and numerous. Exploring this issue reveals that the problem does not always lie with the official. Understanding that may make the anger easier to forgive. We live in a society that insists on placing blame. Often blame is placed on officials unfairly. Keep that in mind as we explore ways to deal with conflicts.
Conflicts With Players' Parents
Officials are sometimes blamed for other people's inadequacies. Parents may want to shift the blame for a player's lack of talent, a coaching strategy that misfires, or players' or coaches' inadequate play. Other factors can be identified, too: perceptions that are clouded by the desire for a favorable judgment in a close play, a general lack of respect for authority figures, and a warped sense of tradition that says it's all right to take frustrations out on the officials.
Consider a Little League father who barks at an umpire. Does he do this to save face with neighbors after his daughter struck out? To diminish the pressure on his daughter? In frustration with perceived inadequacies of the youngster? Out of impatience with his own lack of success in athletics? To displace his anger at a coach for failing to teach the daughter properly, or his own shame because he himself did not teach his daughter properly? Out of fury at the girl's mother, who forced the daughter into the sport? Frustration can be compounded by contextual factors, too, such as whether this was the girl's first at-bat of the season, whether her team was ahead or behind 26 to 0, or whether the game was close with the bases loaded in the last inning. The reasons for parents' frustrations when their children don't succeed are innumerable, and blaming officials is sometimes a convenient outlet.
Conflicts With Players
Players, too, sometimes react to officials negatively. Responsible players play the game and adjust to officials' styles, personalities, and abilities without complaining. They genuinely respect authority. However, some players—even professionals—blame officials (and teammates and coaches) for their own inadequacies. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings have a convenient excuse for failing. It is certainly easier on the psyche to make someone else the scapegoat than it is to accept responsibility for one's own actions.
Some high school players view sports officials the way they view police officers or school authority figures. Rebellion is often a part of a child's growth process, especially in the formative teen years. Rebellious kids like to break rules. Referees enforce rules. Conflict results.
Some players, as well as parents, coaches, fans, and the media, believe that opposing players are getting breaks from officials. The perception that their opponents are not judged according to the same criteria as their own team can make an official an easy target for criticism. Officials are only human, too, and officials' honest mistakes can be perceived as biases.
Conflicts With Coaches
Coaches can also be antagonistic. “A coach spends his entire life thinking he's fighting off alligators. A referee is just another alligator,” said Jack Pardee, former Houston Oilers football coach (Referee magazine, March 1999, p. 28).
Coaches and officials can have an adversarial relationship because of one major factor: Coaches care who wins and officials don't. Because coaches are pulling for their teams, devising offensive and defensive strategies, and keeping a keen eye on their players, they see the game with a built-in bias. They want things to go their way. As a consequence, they are sometimes quick to view officials' decisions as unfair. They may sometimes believe that they have to fight the officials as well as their opponents.
Newer officials in particular also need to understand that officials can catch flak from coaches for reasons having little to do with the call they made (seasoned officials have figured this out). Some coaches, for example, even view their role as a contriver or antagonist in relation to officials. Even if they don't think an official missed a call, they may howl, whine, and plead in an effort to gain a presumed edge from officials. They believe that if they get on the officials about this call, maybe the next one will go in their favor. This attitude can come from assistant coaches who have worked out a system with the head coach in which they are the designated “attack dog” who will accept an unsporting conduct penalty as the price of “working the officials” in the hope of intimidating them to favor the coach's team. In this way, the head coach does not have to get his hands dirty. In addition, when they think their teams are too lethargic, some coaches yell at the officials to fire the team up.
Coaches can also get frustrated because they believe (mistakenly, in most instances, as has been discussed) that officials aren't accountable. This is especially true at the subcollegiate levels. A typical lament is, “If I foul up, I could lose my job. If an official goofs, the league says they're sorry, and the official keeps the job. Sanctions and reprimands should result from bad calls.” In fact, such penalties are increasingly being imposed, and officials can be dropped from leagues as a result of their shortcomings. Many coaches, however, don't know this, just as they are unaware of the in-depth training programs and assessment processes that are more and more a feature of officiating life these days.
Save
Save
Learn more about Successful Sports Officiating.
Related Books
