I was having a discussion with an assessor this weekend and he had some interesting observations about what makes a well refereed match. I am curious about people's opinions, referees, fans and coaches alike. What are the main things that you look for to determine if a referee did well in a match?
Both teams win Every time my kid gets touched, it's a foul Every time my kid wins a ball, it's not a foul Never a PK against my team Every time my team fails to get off a clean shot in the PA, it's a PK for us
I have been all three of the people you are asking about. Currently, still refereeing. Here is my take: From a coach's view, I always hoped the referee was first and foremost about player safety. I also wanted him/her to look the part and give it his best. Meaning, positioning and attitude. I wanted the AR's to be attentive. I got all of that MOST of the time. I rarely had problems with referees and likewise them with me. As a parent, I was very worried about player safety. Especially in the older age groups, it is very important that referees recognize fouls and aggressiveness BEFORE it leads to injury. If the referee recognized fouls and dealt with them early and often (depending on temperature of the match) I would be happy. Since I knew the rules, I was always leery of the inventive ref. Very worrisome. I always thought as a coach or parent that they guy making up his decisions and not following the LOTG would also be bad at judging fouls and aggressive play. Decisions relating to penalties or ball in/out or OS, I never argued. As I told an arguing coach yesterday at a tournament, "You are not calling fouls from 70 yards away." As a referee, I am sometimes overly critical of my own performances. Is there something I missed that I could have done better on? Yesterday, I made an elbowing call on an attacker because that's what I saw. Was his shirt being held on the side away from me? Maybe. But I didn't see that, and by the way because your shirt is being held is no reason to throw the elbow. I am going to stress player safety again. It is our number one job. Yesterday, I handed out several yellows in u-12 and u-13 matches for tackles just to tone the match down, and make the players realize that their over-aggressiveness was being watched and duly noted. Failure to act when the evidence is clear is the first sign of a poor referee. I can still remember a match a number of years ago in my first year where I should have thrown a coach out but didn't because I was too nice. It was a nightmare match. I think I have established a style that allows me to switch gears when doing all ages and girls or boys. Be polite to the coaches, players and supporters, but also be the one who is in charge. Yesterday, I had a championship match at a tournament where the kids where chirping on every single call. Finally, I announced at the set-up of a free kick that I would tolerate no more complaining from either team. 20 seconds later, someone complained and out came the card. Be fair, be firm and remember it's for the kids.
The answer won't be the same at every level of play.A well refereed match played between teams of children - say, 8-10 years old, will be one in which the referee shows up on time, looks the part, moves around the field in some plausibly rational manner, signals properly, ensures the safety of the players, knows how long the game is supposed to last, and is able to deal with irresponsible behavior by team officials.As the game increases in importance, you add layers of competence, until you are at the very highest level of play, where misconduct can come from anywhere and at any time, the art and science of positioning is much more finely honed, excellent teamwork with 3-5 other officials, advantage, a deep knowledge of the laws and competition rules, and basically an ability to manage all aspects of an event funded by spectator and advertising revenues.
At state cup this year, I encountered several refs who thought U14 matches were 40 minutes long. I had one CR come up to me as AR right before the match kicked off to check, otherwise we would have played long.
Well I can almost sympathize with that just a little. The toughest adjustment for me seems to be coming off a U16+ match and having to do a U13, sometimes even a U14. U11-12 is fine, because it's small field 8v8, so it immediately feels different enough that it's easy to snap into U-littler mode. But at U13-14 I often find myself, at least early in the match, not calling nearly as much as they (coaches and parents, and therefore players) want called. I think also I like U13 the least - and to a lesser extent U14 - because the coaches and especially the parents tend to be such PITA's at that level.
Bubba is correct. We had a game yesterday at a tournament that was u-13 girls and the level of contact was beyond the scope of the spectators. One mother was raging as the game ended. I was the ar2, and I hadn't noticed a thing the whole match out of the ordinary.
It really depends on the age, skill and culture of the players. A well officiated match takes into account all of those things. Context is everything in life, business and officiating. If both teams come away thinking the referee generally did a good job and was fair, the match is a success. For me in men's amateur level matches if I get a lot of thank you's and good job, I know I did a good job and the match was viewed by both teams as having been well officiated. Mostly, I think if you are experienced you know if you did a good job or not.
That is my opinion also. I feel the game is for the players and if they feel it was fair, safe and an enjoyable experience for them, the referee pretty much did his job. A top division ethnic men's match which ends with both teams congratulating the referee on a job well done falls in that category for me. Oftentimes though, I think we as referees sometimes get caught up in following the book and try to put our stamp on the match and asserting our authority and unnecessarily call a game that the teams and spectators do not want. I think that is where refereeing goes from a science to an art. A good referee should be able to be (within the LOTG) a dictator, a buddy and somewhere in between depending on the game in front of them that day.
This question came up in a discussion which I had about five years ago. Someone who really desired to be successful as a referee sought my advice because I have a rather good reputation in my area and have been very fortunate to be selected for some of the areas more notable assignments. I had to give my response some thought as he was after a simple formula to assess himself, so it had to be complete enough to provide meaningful feedback and room for personal growth, but also distill the task of a soccer referee down to the essentials. I came up with the following and have used it in several talks since. What I decided is that people involved in a match really only care if the referee crew got three things right. Outside of these three items, not much else matters, so if the crew can leave the field and say that they nailed these, then they did well. 1. Goals = the crew got the plays right when a goal was scored. Good goals were not offside, nor the result of a foul by the attacking team, or the result of unfair play or a referee screw up of some kind, and nullified goals were justly wiped out for valid reasons. 2. PKs = the crew got the decisions correct that resulted in awarded PKs as well as those which were not given. 3. Red cards = the crew didn't fail to see any red card offenses and justly issued those which were deserved. This item would also encompass properly administering player safety. If the referee crew is willing to issue reds when needed and the players know and respect this, then the play will be properly controlled. So that is my short list. Honestly what else really matters?
Having a bunch of happy players is not how you know the game was well refereed. It mostly means fortune did not conspire to create any difficult or impossible decisions for the officials.
The answer is quite simple. Was the game officiated in the proper amount of time allotted to be played, under the rules that were to be enforced, and with the game having "flow"? The second part is where all the business happens: Keeping players safe, enforcing fouls, cards, awarding goals, player management, etc. It shouldn't be black and white, for refereeing is an art. Can you get a throw-in at mid-field wrong, and still have a good game? Sure. Can you miss a PK and still have a good game? Well, not so likely.
This kinda gets to the heart of what I'm trying to get opinions on. I hear different people argue both sides of this issue; one side believes that not refereeing by the book and ending up with happy players is merely a byproduct of luck or good fortune and the other camp will argue that the art of refereeing is getting through a game with happy satisfied safe players despite risks being taken that might not be "traditional". I don't think anyone is saying having happy players = well refereed game. However, I think that it is an indicator, along with player safety and enjoyment, administration and application of the LOTG etc. I think that is part of what makes a good referee; the ability to referee in such a manner that despite difficult decisions having to be made, the players respect and enjoy the game and the referee. I keep coming across referees who believe that the game is not about the players and their enjoyment and that baffles me.
However, the inherent bias that players and fans have will impact their enjoyment, even if a neutral observer thinks the game is called perfectly. Players will rage against perceived injustices (e.g. offside call, ITOOTR foul call) even when the call was 100% correct. Often a call is obvious, but the player/coach/fan is missing info (wasn't in line with the 2LD, screened from the obvious hold) and won't accept that the referee could, just possibly, be right! I think very, very few referees ever go into a game with the idea to "make it about themselves". But a good referee asserts himself when needed. Unfortunately, this is sometimes seen as "putting our stamp on the match"... usually by those same people who can't believe the ref can get a call right in the first place. For those folks, the only "well officiated" match is one where no decisions go against their side.
I agree with most everything posted in response to the OP, but would like to add the following as a general framework for all of it: It is rare to see an "everyday" local league match officiated correctly. Rules of Competition are ignored, substitutions are performed without regard to Law 3, pregames are non-existent due to time constraints, etc. On top of that, referees often react to poor behavior rather than influencing and reinforcing good behavior. I firmly believe that referee teams can successfully follow all procedures, make difficult decisions, etc. without any drama. It's all down to projecting the proper combination of empathy and authority, to getting everyone on the same page of competing hard but with grace. The different skill and sophistication levels we face are simply part of the challenge, and require adjustments. Bottom line? A rock solid knowledge of the LOTG, interpretations, papers, directives and RoC combined with strong people management and communication skills, and the ability to understand the context of everything we are asked to evaluate.
There is a subtle difference between what makes a well officiated match and what makes a good referee. A very good referee will generally leave behind mostly happy players. If they are unhappy after one game in particular, it is possible the referee messed it up as a one-off bad game, but there is also a good chance there was some decision to make that was bound to leave people very unhappy, even if the unhappiness is unfair or irrational. For one game in particular - not so much. If play that day happens not to result in tricky PK decisions, and the players helpfully refrain from clearing balls off the goal line, etc., there won't be much to piss people off. Of course the referee could be poor enough that he makes everyone mad anyway. It's not like player happiness is completely independent of referee quality. I reject the notion that the game is about the players and their enjoyment, as a matter of principle. I don't see this is a useful philosophy, and I think it actually can lead to poor decisions in important circumstances. The Game belongs to all of the following: players, spectators (who might only be the parents), game officials, team officials, administrators (including field owners), and the media (at some levels) and you can't let any one group go without enjoyment for too long without problems. That isn't to say you should ignore the wishes of the players - it's just they are only one piece of the puzzle.
I have no quarrel with the above statement in general, especially pertaining to youth soccer. I am also certainly not implying that the player's enjoyment is the sole reason why we are out there. What I am saying is that, especially in adult matches, player satisfaction is generally an indication that a referee did a good job. That does not mean that player dissatisfaction means a referee did not do an outstanding job. Those two are not mutually exclusive.
The very answer to your rhetorical question has been answered already, and quite well, I think, in the now-removed International Football Association Board Decsion 8, which is now assumed to be "common sense" and something that "everyone knows." "The Laws Of The Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players, and spoils the pleasure of spectators." It's always nice to trot this out and dust it off, so we don't forget this "common sense" advice and indeed, take it to heart in every match we officiate. Cheers
A) The Referee created the correct atmosphere and tone for the match while he/she consistently applied the same criteria throughout the match and took appropriate risks to alow for a flowing game. B) Game critical decisions are 100% accurate including penalty kicks, send-offs, and goals.
I agree with the above 100%. I had two games this past Friday at a high-level tournament. In the first game, very well officiated but we had one coach complaining at the end. His complaint was because of an offsides call I made in ET which prevented his team from scoring. Like I said, well officiated game but once contentious call. Second game, I'm in the center, 16 girls. About 65' I send off a white team player for DOGSO-F. Game was 1-1 at time and blue made it 2-1 after the ensuing PK. Still a tight game with both teams fighting. Then, in 75' two girls go in for a challange on the ball, both sliding with blue in first and white a bit later. My AR instantly puts his flag up for a foul. Blue is injured (later learned she had a serious knee injury) and while she is tended to I discuss with my AR. We both agree misconduct occured and when we walk over to the injured player see stud marks on her knee. I proceeded to send off the white player for SFP. Needless to say, the white coach went ballistic. It had been a heated game but one call just caused the ire of the white team. I had to deal with every touch now being a "foul" in their eyes. End of story time. Like Lemma said, one call can cause a "bad performance" in the team or coaches eyes. I've always believed that a well called game is one in which the referee is open to the players, follows corect procedure, and stands up for his officials and the LOTG. As to a good referee, he or she is someone that, regardless of how difficult or easy a game was, is able to find five things they did wrong and improve on them the next game.
When the losing coach comes up to you and compliments you on officiating a good game. Also when you go unnoticed during a game.
