BLUF!!!: I am a referee in the US and Canada (soccer! 
), so my opinion on refereeing culture in the UK, EU, ANZAC, etc is uneducated, just as a forewarn.
TLDR: I firmly believe that there is a serious epidemic of what I like to call "referee coddling", in which far too much emphasis is placed on reassuring new and inexperienced refs on things like self-confidence and referee abuse, rather than practical skills and application of the laws.
Though this sounds good in theory, it has come at a cost that these emotional factors are now being taught to new refs at a greater emphasis than the actual LoAF, to a point where that newer referee knowledge is hindered due to the already limited time, funding, and resources being pushed to stopping a phenomenon that cannot be stopped, rather than minimizing it's occurrences it in the first place through consistent LoAF learning and practical application.
Allow me to explain my opinion more coherently: a ref taught only about their authority will consistently underperform, and as a result, incur far more abuse than a referee actually taught the laws AND how to practically apply them. It harkens to the popular quote that "referees must be confidently wrong", which I think is a fallacy. What actually happens is that newer grassroots referees end up being unconfidently unsure of their decisions instead. Neither confidently wrong or right! Unsure of what they actually called being right or wrong! And this is what spectators and coaches pick up on: weakness from ignorance.
Now it should go without saying that referee abuse is obviously a problem, there is no argument there. But the hugs and cuddles approach just simply isn't working (and hasn't been working for many years) at the grassroots because, simply put, people want to win, no matter how miniscule the stakes. If more time was spent hammering real practical knowledge of the game into referees heads, confidence will automatically be instilled and follow, and newer referees would have less mind games and pressure in their heads when they know they've made a correct call, OR resolved to themselves:
"Yeah, I gave the wrong call, but I know what the right call should've been (or it was an impossible call for me to make no matter what I did), and I'll tempo the game accordingly because I am confident in my knowledge of the laws and limits of refereeing. I'm not unsure or second-guessing because I'm getting abuse from the stands—I know the laws and my limitations and as a result I am still in control of the field."
It takes a special kind of crazy for people to become career referees anyways (especially the ones who mumble/talk to themselves to follow the game!
), so maybe more focus on the game (which is sorely lacking in my area...) and less about the anti-bullying campaigns is warranted.
There's so much I haven't covered so please share your experiences on how your FAs take an approach to protecting (or not protecting...) their referees, I am eager to learn.
), so my opinion on refereeing culture in the UK, EU, ANZAC, etc is uneducated, just as a forewarn.TLDR: I firmly believe that there is a serious epidemic of what I like to call "referee coddling", in which far too much emphasis is placed on reassuring new and inexperienced refs on things like self-confidence and referee abuse, rather than practical skills and application of the laws.
Though this sounds good in theory, it has come at a cost that these emotional factors are now being taught to new refs at a greater emphasis than the actual LoAF, to a point where that newer referee knowledge is hindered due to the already limited time, funding, and resources being pushed to stopping a phenomenon that cannot be stopped, rather than minimizing it's occurrences it in the first place through consistent LoAF learning and practical application.
Allow me to explain my opinion more coherently: a ref taught only about their authority will consistently underperform, and as a result, incur far more abuse than a referee actually taught the laws AND how to practically apply them. It harkens to the popular quote that "referees must be confidently wrong", which I think is a fallacy. What actually happens is that newer grassroots referees end up being unconfidently unsure of their decisions instead. Neither confidently wrong or right! Unsure of what they actually called being right or wrong! And this is what spectators and coaches pick up on: weakness from ignorance.
Now it should go without saying that referee abuse is obviously a problem, there is no argument there. But the hugs and cuddles approach just simply isn't working (and hasn't been working for many years) at the grassroots because, simply put, people want to win, no matter how miniscule the stakes. If more time was spent hammering real practical knowledge of the game into referees heads, confidence will automatically be instilled and follow, and newer referees would have less mind games and pressure in their heads when they know they've made a correct call, OR resolved to themselves:
"Yeah, I gave the wrong call, but I know what the right call should've been (or it was an impossible call for me to make no matter what I did), and I'll tempo the game accordingly because I am confident in my knowledge of the laws and limits of refereeing. I'm not unsure or second-guessing because I'm getting abuse from the stands—I know the laws and my limitations and as a result I am still in control of the field."
It takes a special kind of crazy for people to become career referees anyways (especially the ones who mumble/talk to themselves to follow the game!
), so maybe more focus on the game (which is sorely lacking in my area...) and less about the anti-bullying campaigns is warranted.There's so much I haven't covered so please share your experiences on how your FAs take an approach to protecting (or not protecting...) their referees, I am eager to learn.
Last edited:
