When I was a kid playing backyard cricket or football (of any code), the inevitable disputes that arose between my brothers and any neighborhood kids was always solved by an interesting concept my Dad had called “Rule 9”. Put simply, “Rule 9” said that “The referee is always right”. Of course anyone who has played sport or been in an argument of any kind know that it not the point, we all like to argue for our point of view. But the important part of “Rule 9” was actually what came after “Rule 9”. “Rule 9:b” interestingly said, “When the referee is wrong, see rule 9”. This silly looped logic meant that Dad could quickly and easily handle 3 or 4 arguing 10 year old running up to the lounge room to argue their point of view and he could easily decide on the goal, the wicket or any other dispute. The “Rule 9” & “Rule9:b” logic was impassable for a 10 year old.
It may have been this early grounding in the importance of rules & officials that lead to my eventual career as an International referee of an Olympic Sport or simply a pinheaded desire for everyone to agree with my opinion on that all important sporting decision I will probably never know. However, it would seem that I am not alone in my desire for more accurate or correct application of rules and decisions in sport. So many of our most popular sports have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to reduced the human error aspects of their chosen sport. Sports key bodies have used a number of different methods to try to create the best contest including better referee training, increased referee numbers, technology, paying referees and altering the rules themselves. All of these have been used to varying success.
Increased Referee Training
Most sports now spend a fair amount of time training and developing all types of officials in their game. Some of the techniques used include written knowledge courses, practical sessions, mentoring with more experienced colleagues and strategic appointment to games to generate more experience. None of these techniques are unique to sports officials and are well grounded in most forms of professional development.
Increased referee numbers
Water Polo many years ago increased its referee numbers from one referee to two referees, one of each side of the pool. Rugby League recently followed this path way moving from a single referee to two on the field referees. Over the last few years, most rectangular field ball sports have increased the responsibility of their side line or assistant officials to be more involved in watching for foul play, legal passes and other infractions than simply being a linesman.
Technology
Like most areas of our life today, sport is not immune from the introduction of technology to assist in more accurate, speedier & fairer application of the rules. Leaders in sports officials technology are sports such as Horse & Motor Racing (video race, electronic timing & finish technology), Tennis (Hawkeye technology for legal shots), Cricket (ball in flight & stump cam technology), Rugby League, Rugby Union, NFL (replay technology), NRL (miked up umpires for more effective communication to spectators) are only a few examples of effective uses of technology.
FIFA has been reviewing for many years goal line technology for rule more accurately on goals. Many sports have kept away from electronic or digital due to costs. But many sports have simply kept away from digital technology to try to keep their games free-flowing and prevent getting bogged down in replays and technical reviews.
Paying Officials
One solution that is spoken about in almost every sport is the relative professionalism of referees. Some sports are able to support full-time professionals as officials who are dedicated to the sport. However, most officials are volunteers or are often barely reimbursed for their costs of officiating their chosen sport.
Altering the rules themselves
Most sports spend many hours each year with the best minds in their sport refining and reviewing their rules to suggest changes to make their game better. Typical targets are being more watchable, more fun for athletes, simpler rules, safer to play and many other targets. Some of these are successful and others are not.
Most of these areas have a positive outcome on sport, but are all predicated on a concept that most people seem to miss. Sport is a mirror of life. Life is not fair so too is sport not fair. It is not, and has never been, about 2 perfectly equal competitors battling to prove skill or ability in a particular contest. Sport is more often about 2 mismatched teams battling with real consequences, where really either team can win, even the smaller guy by using their particular strengths to their best advantage.
As a referee of a sport without any form of video assistance, I find it difficult to understand how referees in sports with extensive video replays and ample time to make decisions can still continue to get the decisions incorrect. In my observation this really comes down to a reliance on this technology to be able to make the correct decision and without a correct camera angle they find the right decision a challenge.
Do spectators & athletes really expect the 100% correct decision or just a consistent fair approach to the game so they can expect the referee or umpire to make the best “fair” decision given the context of the game? I think there is no technology available that has given us a better referee. The best referees are always good with or without the technology.
Daniel Bartels 