It's not the referees that lack consistency...

I've decided to get in early this year. Listening to an interview with Ricky Ponting where he wanted to bemoan umpiring decisions during the 2nd Ashes Test at Lord's but didn't, it occurred to me that football seems to have adopted the wrong mindset when it comes to the perception of referees.

There is a perception that referees 'need to be consistent', presumably with regards to decision making in order to create an expectation that can be attained on a regular basis. This view it would seem is supported not just by fans, commentators and managers, but by referees themselves. I happen to have a few issues with this theory though!

First up it's probably important to define what is currently accepted as a definition of a referee. As usual Wikipedia has it's own view:

A referee presides over a game of association football. The referee has "full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match to which he has been appointed" (Law 5), and the referee's decisions regarding facts connected with play are final, so far as the result of the game is concerned.

This I think covers the 'text book' definition and I would suspect is contested by few. There is probably another angle to explore, that being the common perception of what a referee is. Although there isn't really anything to cite to backup my theory, I suspect a referee is perceived by many as being a person to ensure fair play is achieved. Whilst not a ridiculous suggestion, I think most people connected to Football expect the success rate of this to be 100%. This is where I believe the problem lies!

The expectation of a referee is probably the same as a quiz host or a mortgage broker. In these instances you feed facts into a system and the host or broker delivers a verdict. The interpretation of these facts is automated so there is no subjective judgement to be passed by a human. In reality however, they should probably be closer to a Doctor or a Judge in terms of expectation: recognised to get most decisions correct but accepted that they can not achieve 100% as they are human!

To explore this point further, taking a scientific look at referees can explain the concept. When looking at even the basic of scientific experiments, the focus is on identifying variables from a group of constants in order to evaluate performance. The same can be found in problem solving. In order to diagnose what is wrong, we often find out what has changed first and then work from there. For example when a car breaks down because of a puncture, the puncture is the only variable that changed from when the car was working fine. With a referee, often the only constant when evaluating their job, decisions, performance etc. is the referee himself. Everything else is a variable.

Using a simple example to compare two 'similar' decisions, firstly look for the variables: if we look at two decisions over two games then these will include the date, time, location, probably both teams, maybe a different competition. These are just some of the more obvious variables. Then there are more obscure ones that a based on human behaviour: history between two teams, between teams and referee, previous incidents in press/media, recent criticisms of other referees etc. All of these will have a bearing on how the referee feels, thinks and ultimately acts. A late clip by the full back on the winger early in the game may go unpunished in the first game, receiving just a cautionary word from the referee, yet may be punished with a yellow card in the next game. Why? Unfortunately a variety of reasons! The referee may have been criticised for his decision in the previous game, he may be trying to assert his authority early on in the second game, the referee may perceive the full back deliberately clipped the winger in the second game but not the first.

There are two points that are important from the example above: referees are human and as such can not guarantee that subjective thinking will not come into their decision making and secondly, that only the referee has all the information available to him when making a decision. Commentators and managers can disagree but the only person who has all the information to make a decision is the referee.

So based on the theory and examples above, is it right to lay such expectations on referees? Would the same be made in other professions? There are a few similarities between referees and professions such as judges. Both make decisions that include an element of subjective thought. Both have a recognised appeal process to accommodate human error and mistakes being made, yet judges in general are not a vilified breed.

As an argument against referees, there will undoubtedly be incidents that referees should be expected to make correct decisions on. Black and White issues that take little subjective interpretation. In these instances it is probably fair to ask for a level of consistency and by their own admission, a lot of referees do acknowledge obvious mistakes. But if we are not to expect them to be able to interpret every situation correctly and make the appropriate decision, then what expectation should we have for referees?

Consistency should be found with our approach to how we view referees. More account should be given to the fact that a referee can not always produce consistent decision making due to the wide range of variables involved from one decision to the next. If this primary notion was accepted across the sport it would make a huge difference in the way referees are treated and accounted for. To cite Ricky Ponting, it is acceptable for players/managers and fans to disagree with the decisions taken by referees but they must be accepted as part of the game. Accepted in the same way that a player being injured during the match or sent off for an incident on which all agree was warranted are accepted by all parties as justified in altering the course of the game.

In addition to this there is also merit in the old adage that the decisions even themselves out across a season. Although I do not have any statistics to prove the theory, my hypothesis would be that contested decisions for and against a team even out during the course of the season.

Again to Ricky Ponting and rather than find excuses from questionable umpiring he chose to acknowledge the weaknesses of his side's play as reasons for their failure to win the match. Similarities could also be found in football. How many times has a manager blamed a referee for not awarding a penalty as justification for his side's inability to win the game, yet neglected to acknowledge the abundance of chances his strikers missed in open play? If a player is sent off then again the referee is blamed. Who questions why the player got themselves into that situation in the first place?

To summarise, consistency ought to be sort in the way everyone associated with football approaches the role of a referee in football. They should not be expected to find a level of consistency that exceeds the subjective capacity of their decision making. They should be expected to deliver the best decisions they can, and that erroneous decisions will even themselves out over the longer duration.

A referee is an easy scape goat for those who do not have the ability to question themselves when it comes to failure. A change in mind set to accept the limitations of a referee when evaluating the outcome of a game will go along way to improving the perception of referees and the quality of the decisions they give.