WHAT GOES ON IN THE MIND OF A REFEREE?

ARE referees influenced (or intimidated) by the appeals of players, the rants of touchline managers or crowd reactions to their decisions?

Are their judgements swayed by  their own preconceptions about individual players - for instance that they are ‘divers’ or ‘aggressive hardmen’?

Do they have an inclination to favour their hosts - ie the home team?

Why do they so often come across as personally arrogant or vainglorious?

These  questions are among the many questions explored in a fascinating new book, Blowing The Whistle - The Psychology of Football Refereeing.

It has been written by Stuart Carrington, a lecturer in sports coaching and science at St Mary’s University in Twickenham, following hours of painstaking research - for instance, interviews with referees at all levels of the game and studies of voluminous amounts of written and screened material.

In a plug on the front cover, former top-flight referee Keith Hackett describes the book as “a must-have for all referees”, but this scarcely does it full justice.

It would be more accurately described as a "must-have" not just for the men (and women) in the middle, but  also for all players, coaches, managers, football journalists, administrators and fans - in fact, anyone involved with or interested in the so-called beautful game.

There are many thoughtful and refreshing insights.

Most top referees would probably stress the importance of preparing for a match.

It would make obvious sense, but Carrington highlights the downside.

For instance, by focusing too closely on the reputation of a particular player or on an unlawful - or unsporting - tactical ploy, does the referee risk overlooking other incidents, some of them more serious?

In identifying this hazard, the author uses as an example an incident during the 2015 Champions League semi-final, officiated by Mark Clattenburg, between Bayern Munich and Barcelona. 

Among a wealth of fascinating statistics, the author notes that, on average, an official makes 245 decisions per game.

Of these, 60 are routine, technical and generally matter-of-fact such as awarding goal-kicks or throw-ins when the ball goes out of play.

The other 185 are subjective when the referee has to make subjective interpretations on  fouls and on what sanctions, if any, should be taken.

Carrington also highlights data showing that yellow/red card are consistently shown more frequently to away than home players.

This would seem to indicate home bias, but is this necessarily so?

Could it not be that the away team generally spends more of a match defending and that is while defending, that most card offences are committed.

We have all heard home crowds, angry at a referee's decision chanting: "You don’t know what you’re doing!"

How might that influence a referee?

Would he try to assuage their outrage by favouring the home side with his next decision.

Or might the hostility goad him him into deliberately further antagonising his abusers with his subsequent decisions?

Or might such hostility not have the slightest effect either way?

The author quotes former Premier League referee Jeff Winter as likening the roar of a large crowd to "working with the radio on".

The text contains many case studies in many of which there is no obvious right or wrong.

For instance, there was much controversy in one match between Liverpool and Spurs in which two penalties were awarded.

In after-match comments, one former referee, Dermot Gallagher, endorsed both while his counterpart, Graham Poll, disapproved both.

Says the author: "This debate, involving two highly experienced referees, illustrates perfectly the subjective nature of officiating in football."

Carrington  makes reference to what Sunday-morning referees invariably reply when asked why they do it: "For the love of the game".

But what does "love of the game" mean - the chance to stay fit, to exert control, to create harmony where there is discord, to earn a match fee, to get away from the household chores or to test one's decision-making capabilities in a competitive and often abrasive environment?

Or a combination of some or all of these - and perhaps a few more?

There is no question, the author  has broken much new ground in this important book - some of the chapters are worthy of separate books in their own right.

Here's hoping that, in the future, he writes more books on refereeing, covering such subjects as why officials sometimes

'bottle' big moments, whether they seek to 'balance out' decisions as part of error-management strategy,  what makes some accept inducements and how they use  body language and signals to communicate with players and spectators.

Then there is also the not so small matter of the assistant referees - the two individuals running the lines - and what psychological or other influences might be prevailing in how they perform

It would  be interesting, too,  to know Carrington's take on what he thinks might have been going through the minds of the Swiss referee and the 'Russian' linesman (who was actually from Azerbaijan) during one of the great football controversies of all time - England’s third goal in the 1966 World Cup Final.

Notwithstanding, Carrington has lifted the lid on a fascinating subject - this is a long-overdue and excellent book.

OTHER TITLES WORTH READING

The Man in the Middle by Howard Webb
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01ERUO4YG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Added Time  by Mark Halsey 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00GAZSZOW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

The 'Russian' Linesman by Jim Wright
https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Linesman-Achtung-Bahramov-Azerbaijan-ebook/dp/B01IMF3U4M