You need not hear what orders he is giving
to know if someone has authority,
you have only to watch his mouth:
when a besieging general sees
a city wall breached by his troops,
when a bacteriologist
realizes in a flash what was wrong
with his hypothesis, when,
from a glance at the jury, the prosecutor
knows the defendant will hang,
their lips and the lines around them
relax, assuming an expression
not of simple pleasure at getting
their own sweet way but of satisfaction
at being right, an incarnation
of Fortitudo, Justicia, Nous.
— W. H. Auden, from “Sext”
I first came to understand the passions that soccer could arouse when I was about twelve years old, though at the time I had never seen a match. I may have noticed some people kicking a ball around, though I doubt it; I expect that I had been exposed to a few grainy highlights on ABC’s Wide World of Sports. No, I learned about soccer obsessives the way I learned most other things I knew, or believed I knew, when I was twelve: through reading science fiction.
My instructor was Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote a story about a World Cup final held in a South American stadium on a hot sunny day. The 100,000 fans had been given commemorative programs printed on shiny silver paper, and when the match’s referee made a dreadful call against the home team they all tilted the sheets to catch and reflect the sunlight, focused a hundred thousand beams of light on the ref, and flash-fried him to a blackened lump. (Cool, I thought, and Would that work?)
Thesis: No referee lives, or has ever lived, or ever will live, whom someone will not think deserving of Death by the Ray of Archimedes. The standard deviation of fans’ judgments about referees is staggeringly high; opinions about players are comparatively almost unanimous. Nobody thinks Cristiano Ronaldo is a lousy player. Nobody thinks Titus Bramble is the best defender in Europe. Yes, there are fans who think that Gareth Bale was dramatically overrated after just a couple of impressive performances against Inter, but no one — no one at all — is saying that Bale has barely the quality needed to ride the bench for Scunthorpe. Yet there are plenty of people who say, and probably even whole-heartedly believe, that Howard Webb lacks what it takes to ref League Two matches.
My own view of Webb is that he’s the Tony Romo of referees: he goes on for a good while like a champion, a master of his domain — and then suddenly, at a moment of high tension and great consequence, he makes a completely ludicrous decision. And then, another day, he does it again. And then again. Eventually operant conditioning kicks in, and then every time his name is mentioned the thought that springs instantly and unbidden to mind is What the hell was he thinking? Probably not fair, but there it is. Pavlov and Skinner understood these things. But operant conditioning makes rational assessment difficult.
The sine qua non of refereeing excellence is the Hemingwayesque “grace under pressure.” Yes, of course, a ref needs to know the rules, to be in excellent physical condition — you tell ’em, Sir Alex! — , to be divinely impartial, and all that. But the most important gift of all is to have clear sight and a calm mind when all hell is breaking loose on the pitch.
Or perhaps that’s not right. Perhaps the greatest gift of all is to convince others that one has that unshakeable inner calm. Webb can’t seem to generate that confidence, at least not consistently; and (long before he inadvertently aroused the hatred of some deeply twisted Chelsea supporters) Anders Frisk had the same problem. There was just something about the dramatic way he moved about the pitch, and especially the d’Artagnan-like flourish with which he produced yellow cards, that made players think he was a guy who simply couldn’t be relied on when the chips were down. Which meant that for many fans all of his key calls, or non-calls, were deemed wrong until proven right; and no debatable call is ever proven right.
In my time as a soccer fan, no referee has come closer to achieving this rare and distinct form of charisma than Pierluigi Collina, and I’m writing this post primarily because I’ve been thinking about him lately and missing his presence in big matches. It was actually fun to watch him on the pitch, because he seemed to be always aware of the emotional dynamics among the players; he knew whom to talk to, and when, and how — sometimes holding his hands out, palms towards the grass, gently pressing down the anger, and sometimes lasering threat at an offender with those terrifying protuberant eyes. He seemed to radiate the calmness of assured authority — which of course doesn’t mean that he was always right; but it’s telling that when the Real-Barça rivalry was spiraling out of control last year UEFA called Collina in as an observer. Not that that did much good — but (I wonder) how would he have handled things if he had refereed one of those slugfests? And when I think of the last World Cup final, I always ask myself whether he would have sent off Nigel de Jong for putting his foot through Xabi Alonso’s chest.
These are pointless speculations, but I can’t resist them. And I suspect that for those who don’t despise Collina — those who do despise him will show up in the comments here pretty soon — his reputation will probably be burnished by time. Certainly he remains an imposing figure in Italian soccer, though in ways that are sometimes hard to construe by an outsider like me. What, for instance, to make of the bizarre protest Napoli supporters staged last year, when they expressed disapproval of calls going against their club by holding aloft pictures of Collina? Was this their way of blaming Collina for the unfairness, as the New York Times claimed? Or was it, as I prefer to think, an invocation of a Lost Father, of a deus absconditus, the great and wise one who has departed but — Attenzione, arbitro! — is still watching? Yes, he is watching.
It certainly can’t hurt Collina’s reputation that the former director of Juventus, Luciano Moggi, whom police wiretaps once caught denouncing Collina for being “too objective,” has just been sentenced to five years in prison for match-fixing.
Read More: Refereeing
by Alan Jacobs · November 10, 2011
They used to say referees are like commentators: if they have a good game you shouldn’t notice them. I completely agree with what you say about Collina. Have you read his autobiography? I actually enjoyed a chance meeting with him and Roberto Rosetti (before calciopoli) a few years ago at Coverciano. Nice guy.
@James C. Taylor Maybe Rosetti is a nice guy, but according to Moggi he’s the other ref who’s “too objective.” Being a nice guy doesn’t make upf or that.
Honestly I didn’t speak to Rosetti at length. But Collina was very appreciative when I told him I’d enjoyed his book.
“The standard deviation of fans’ judgments about referees is staggeringly high; opinions about players are comparatively almost unanimous.”
Suggestion: Maybe it’s because 95% of the fans have played a bit of soccer at one level or another, but probably only 5% or so have ever refereed it. Of course the vast majority of fans can’t make consistent judgments on refs–they don’t have much of an idea what the job is like. They may believe that being in the stands or watching on TV lets them see all the same things that the referee does–and therefore gives them the power to judge his performance–but I don’t think it’s that simple.
Another suggestion: everyone can see and appreciate physical brilliance (players), but most people may not recognize a job well done if that job is heavily dependent on mental prowess (referees). I’m not suggesting some strict dichotomy–players=physical and refs=mental–because I know there are mental and physical requirements to both jobs. But it’s a thought.
@Chris Burke Both of these suggestions make a lot of sense to me.
you’d have to think Collina would have sent off De Jong. in fact, any barely competent referee would have sent off De Jong. the tension and importance of the game might lead to gray areas for certain calls, but that was about as obvious and clear a red card as you will ever see. there was no room for judgment, and Howard Webb simply had brain freeze. i was rooting for Holland, but that was a ridiculous moment.
Collina kept good control, but my only issue with him was that he was very literal and petty regarding penalties. At Euro 2000 he gave Holland a scandalous win against Czech Rep, then gave Spain two penalties in one match in their quarter-final against France for two rather blatant simulations. Thank God Raul handed the gift right back.
Take, for example, Horacio Elizondo in Italy-France final in 2006. There was a foul against Malouda at 1-1 in the second half, but he knew that simply giving one team two goals via pens is just not done, you can’t just screw one team over like that.
@M.G. i don’t really understand what you are saying. how is being literal screwing a team over? a penalty is a foul in the box; it is a literal rule, not a special treat that the referee should be able to give or withhold as he likes. i know that the referees do in fact vary (as you pointed out) in deciding whether or not to give a pen, but i don’t think that is right. the referee’s job is to enforce the rules, and i think it would make a lot more sense for them to be literal and consistent. if a team commits two fouls in the box, then they deserve to give up two penalties; they’re not being screwed over, it was their own fault. if something is a simulation that’s different, as the ref has been tricked … but if it’s actually a foul, i feel that it’s the ref’s job to follow the rule.
@dojothecat I see what you’re saying, but my worthless opinion is that penalties are such a terrible rule in general (a trip fifteen metres away in a packed penalty box deserves an automatic goal? Gimme a break) that some discretion is warranted in this singular case.
If soccer was a 5-4 or 8-6 type of sport, fine; but don’t wave pens around when one goal is worth so much.
This is a well-written article. I think he gets to the point that soccer is a subjective sport, so different referee’s will make different calls on the same play….this is OK. However, the same referee may make a different call on the same type of play; showing inconsistency…That is NOT OK!
@M.G. I can see your point as it is a bit unfair to foul 15 meters away and then the referee gives a penalty…however, I am fine with this because it can help the game to have more goals scored. Also, it should be that way since the goalkeeper can use his hands in that whole area, you need to give the offense something good in that area as well.
Did you put dojothecat and M.G. up to this? They are proving your point. Neither one is wrong, which is what makes referring so difficult and the opinions on referees so divergent.
@M.G. “penalties are such a terrible rule in general (a trip fifteen metres away in a packed penalty box deserves an automatic goal? Gimme a break)”
A penalty does not equal an automatic goal: somebody has to take the kick, remember. Without the risk of conceding a penalty defenders wouldn’t hesitate to trip players blatantly as soon as they got into a goalscoring position. That would hardly be an improvement to the game’s spectacle.
It serves to support your point that there is no agreed view of a referee when you ask an Everton fan about Collina. Everton got one crack at the Champions League and lost out due to an awful performance from Collina – he wrongly disallowed a goal, gave Villareal a non-penalty, and lost control of the match. Truly woeful performance.
However, his reputation was so high that the immediate and, to many Everton fans, lasting assumption is that he deliberately orchestrated a poor performance to allow the Spanish team through at the expense of the English team, as Everton were one of five English teams to enter the competition that year. The basis for this is that Collina was semi-retired and rumours abound that he was paid an above-average fee by UEFA.
Given the unusually high-profile nature of what was just a qualifier, UEFA must have deliberately chosen a high-quality referee, and I’m sure the rumours about fees are rubbish. It is fascinating though that for any other referee, such as Webb, the fans would have assumed he had a bad game, and blamed both him and fate for the outcome. However, because it was the magisterial Collina, the conspiracy theory persists.
@Sheedy That’s fascinating — I like the idea that Collina was too good to be incompetent, so therefore must have been dishonest.
@Matt
I’d say that M.G. is wrong though. The idea that the referee somehow has to ‘protect’ the game by shirking tough calls is nonsense. Rules are rules, whatever the game.
Besides, who is to say whether a red card automatically spoils a game anyway? As an England fan, two examples spring to my mind straight away: England/Argentina at France ’98 and England/Portugal at Germany ’06. Beckham and Rooney sent off respectively, both promising, exciting young players (and thus exactly the sort of player that should be ‘protected’ to enhance the spectacle of the match, no?), and yet both matches (Argentina particularly) were great fun to watch.
By contrast, Spain/Holland was far from being a classic, despite De Jong’s reprieve. Would the game have been any more enjoyable had he been sent off? I don’t know, just like any referee in any given match can’t possibly know. Follow the rules and let the players (who people pay/tune in to watch) dictate what happens. As has been touched upon elsewhere, good referees are the ones that can go unnoticed, and Webb’s act of trying to enhance a World Cup final by keeping it 11 vs. 11 can be interpreted just as easily as his own attempt at claiming the limelight (‘Don’t worry, no red card here! I’m saving this match because I make football better! You’re welcome, you guys!’).
The difficulty in objectively assessing a referee’s performance is precisely why I started RefRefs. The outcome of a game has such a strong influence on a fan’s rating of the referee that it’s almost impossible to tell whether a ref really did poorly or you’re just talking to a sore loser.
To confound things further, the available statistics don’t lend themselves to easy determination of a referee’s effectiveness and style. There are so few discrete incidents in a game (goals, cards, even fouls) that it’s nearly impossible to separate the ref’s performance from that of the players.
Was this a dirty game, or was the ref just card-happy? Was that a clean game, or did the ref just swallow his whistle and let both sides kick lumps out of each other? From looking at a stat sheet, you wouldn’t be able to tell.
So what I wound up doing is combining the subjective, fan-based assessments and the objective, stats-based approach. Ratings are weighted based on the reviewer’s allegiances and the outcome of the game in question (for example, [this guy](http://refrefs.com/profile/AdAstraSKC) tends not be too biased by a win or loss in his assessments, while [this guy](http://refrefs.com/profile/MonoDelDiablo) lets emotion get the better of reason). As more people submit ratings for a given game, this game’s deviations from the ref’s average (and the teams’ respective averages) are combined with the weighted average fan review to try to discern how well the ref did.
Of course, I could just be over-thinking this whole thing…
@Brian Davis That’s awesome, thanks. And no, it’s not possible to over-think these things. They’re more important than anything else in the cosmos.
@Ruud Gullit Sitting On A Shed Opinions are opinions, but you’re kidding me about Argentina-England 1998 and the red to Becks not killing the match. Before half time it had been a dynamic game in which England had produced one of their better attacking spells of the last two decades. After Becks they were utterly finished as an attacking force and the game finished as a spectacle, unless you like watching a kitty grimly clinging on to a clothesline. Don’t point to Campbell’s disallowed goal as that was an isolated attack, possibly their only sight at goal of those last 75 minutes. The second half/extra time was tense but monotonous.
England Portugal 2006 was a nothing event, tense but featureless after the fact.
What is it that handball knows that football doesnt when it comes to reffing?
I watched the world cup this year and noticed a few things about refereeing.
there is ZERO talkback to a referee. any foul, pk, or penalty box foul was NOT debated. nothing.
it was simply amazing to see. the highest pressure games of the year and no one uttered a peep on ANY call. you bitch, you go to the penalty box…. it seems to work.
players hear a whistle, they put the ball on the floor and run away from it like it was a bomb. they dont hold it another two seconds so they can run back in position, they dont nudge it out of the way to stop a counter attack or stay above it and stop the opponent from playing it quickly.
no. if you have the ball and the referee whistles against your team, players are trained to freeze, put the ball on the floor asap and move away. counterattacks are plenty in handball because of it.
I think that eventually football might have to add a time based penalty to compensate between yellow card and red cards of death which change a whole game.
But I think, we have to make the constant intimidation of football refs a thing of the past. Handball players have learned how to do this, I dont see why football players cant.
demeaned and forced to labour on farms and in factories, all in the name of ‘shaping’ their North Face Winter Jacketsyoung charges. In fact, these young people were nothing more than slaves.
I tend to aggree with @M.G. on penalties. I don’t think a penalty is only a “foul in the box”: a penalty is almost a goal. And, football scores being relatively small, an almost-goal may decide the match. When considering a penalty, refs should have this in mind.
It comes down to probabilities: if a play is probably a foul (I mean, if there is more than a 50% chance of the play being a foul), it should be given, as long as it’s outside the box. But penalties need more than “probably”; I’d say the ref should only give penalties if the play was “definitely” a foul, and that should be something like an 80-85% probability. The call will mean more to the result of the match, so the threshold should be higher.
I recognize that this post comes long after the conversation has come to an end. But I just want to say that I’ve read this article, I think, at least once a month since it first came about. I just started refereeing for AYSO last October and I read this article as a way to stay focused on what the point of being a referee is: to control the game, to keep it as safe and fair as possible.
Toward the end of the regular season my AYSO region asked me to join the board and take the place of Regional Assistant Referee Administrator. Basically, I get to hear the complaints about how the referees did from the spectators and coaches; and I get to hear from the referees how unsportsmanlike the spectators and coaches were.
I often frame this article in mind when I consider my responses to them. And I’ve come to realize that it isn’t just about the fact that sometimes referees get it wrong, but it is also about three things:
1) Soccer refereeing is very similar to home plate umpires in baseball, in that every referee calls the game differently. Like the umpire who may have either a very tight strike zone or a very loose one, I have found that some referees call tight or loose games (based on their interpretations of the laws). But what the more experienced of the referees all have in common is exactly what this article states: grace under pressure and an ability to control the game.
2) Spectators and coaches are, 90% of the time, bias toward the call. Intentionally so or not, they are bias. They look for any affront to their team’s chance of wining, and so they see their player go down and immediately they were terribly fouled. Or they see their defender “accidentally” catch a piece of the ball with their arm, but it surely was unintentional.
3) Calling the game from the sideline, without pressure is easy. But when you are on the field and in a split second have to decide if that arm coming up was instinctively protecting the person from the ball or intentionally trying to control the ball … well it isn’t always so clear cut. Set aside what others have said about most fans not knowing how to referee or even knowing all the nuances of the Laws; it simply looks different from the sideline when the pressure isn’t on you to make the right call quickly and decisively.
Anyway. Sorry to rant. I suppose it was rather unnecessary as I really was just confirming everything your article said. But it really has been a helpful influence on my growth as a referee over this first year, and hopefully over many more in the future.
@Jer What a gracious comment! Thanks!
There are so much things that I really need to learn how to do.cheap northface jackets that is really good thanks for sharing this information.Thank you for posting the great content
Please check out my blog and comment. Its a uni project http://bit.ly/H4caRb
@Lucas Right, that’ll clear it up…
Anyway, going on this season’s conversion rates, I’d say a penalty has about a 50% chance of being scored!
It’s an impossible job -even with additional assistants, referees get it wrong 30% of the time. Three or five people just isn’t enough! We need video refereeing to stop this problem… fans are right to be critical of referees.
(The 30% statistic is from Calcio by John Foot)