The following article is the second in a series based on a two-year, non-participant observation study of more than 20 officials’ organizations in basketball and baseball. The work is theoretical and abstract and resulted in a 400-page report, from which this information has been obtained
__The first installment (Nov ‘78) covered such topics as: How and why officials make mistakes; crowd influences on objectivity; do officials have slumps; why people officiate, balancing calls; and the effects of praise on an official’s calls.

Part two deals with personality types and styles. We hope you will enjoy it.
__Question: Are some personality types more suited to officiating than others?
__Answer: This is possibly the most frequently asked question regarding officiating. It is quite apparent from the frequency with which this question is asked that most people believe the answer to be yes. However, as the expression personality type is commonly used, i.e., introvert-extrovert, inner directed-other directed, dominant-subordinate, etc., the correct reply is no. Both competent and incompetent officials come in all types. The basic personality types of either lay persons or psychologists do not seem to be of particular significance in determining the acceptance or credibility of an official to the various audiences. Just as charisma does not seem limited to a particular personality category neither does social competence. And, after all, that is what officiating is all about.
__What seems to be of greater importance than personality types is the consistency of image created by the over-all style of the official on a given assignment. Any sudden or unexpected change in an official’s presentation is usually detrimental to his/her effectiveness.
__Further, it does not seem to be the particular style adopted by an official that is important in his success or failure, but how well the audiences come to believe the style adopted is a legitimate stance for that official. Any indication that the style adopted is incompatible with the true character of the official or his qualifications leads to a conclusion by audiences that the official is acting defensively, pretentiously inappropriately along other lines. This destroys the official’s credibility in all areas.
__It may be that certain game conditions, e.g., championship games, games between last place teams, exhibition games, etc., are more conducive to the success of certain styles but at this time it is difficult to spell out completely what these conditions are.
__Question: What are some of these styles?
__Answer: There are many, but four of the more obvious are the "textbook" official, the hardnose, the bored, and the hot dog. (It should be understood that these labels are subjective and arbitrary at best and could very easily be technician, strong, detached, and colorful respectively.)
__The textbook official is easily identified by the rather formal presentation of signals and concern for the more authorized mechanics. The businesslike appearance of this style makes it the safest and most inconspicuous an official can adopt. It is generally well received by all audiences except that of other officials. Such regimented displays are often associated with the stilted movements of novices by veteran officials. Invariably older officials display some idiosyncratic behaviors to demonstrate they have control of the situation without being bound by the security of formal mechanics.
__There are times when this style becomes threatening to players and coaches because of the impersonal and detached air in the official’s demeanor. On the other hand, these very qualities are frequently associated with consistency and unbiasedness.
__One disadvantage to this approach, which many officials find more than enough reason to discard its use, is the social distance it creates between the official and audiences. Such distance allows audiences to respond to the official as an object rather than a person as the mechanical nature of the work seems more a manifestation of the rulebook and the manual of mechanics than of a vulnerable human being.
__Nevertheless, there are many officials who successfully bring-off an assignment using this style and it is the one recommended (if not expected) by all organizations.
__A second style used by officials is the "hard-nosed-no-nonsense, I’m-in -charge" approach. This official is characterized by the punitive nature of his decisions, and what appears to be an attempt at role reversal. In this case the official becomes the intimidator rather than the target of intimidation. Most commonly exhibited by crusty old veterans and defensive newcomers, this style provokes the greatest amount of hostility from spectators and participants alike. There seem to be three reasons for this. First, the stance makes no attempt to grant even the slightest recognition to other observers and this angers them from the very outset. Second, the unbending and punitive nature of the behavior provides biased audiences with the opportunity to impute devious and/or conspiratorial motives to the official’s decisions. And finally, if the official appears immune to intimidation audiences are less likely to restrain their anger.
__It is one of the interesting features of human relations that those who appear to be the strongest in character or ability are likely to be the recipients of the severest challenge. This is probably the result of a general assumption about what constitutes fair play. An official who has lost control of a game or himself is likely to be viewed as an object of pity and embarrassment and will receive less direct hostility than the official who is seen to be able to take care of himself. In our society there seems to be a common acceptance of the norm not to "kick someone when they are down."
__We have stated that the "hard nose" official is generally punitive in approach and this is readily seen by the frequency with which they administer certain penalties. In baseball they are known for their quick ejection of players, in football the severity of penalties for marginal events, and in basketball they are called "Tmen" because of the abundance of technical fouls assigned.
__This is not to suggest that such a style is unsuccessful or unappreciated. This is not the case. Many such officials, are among the most sought after by coaches in any organization. John Wooden, former basketball coach at UCLA, once commented on such an official, "I like him because you always know where you stand and what you can expect." There seems to be the assumption on the part of most audiences (though often incorrect) that such officials are strong in character and self-sufficiency.
__One of the reasons for adopting this style seems to be the ease with which it is performed. Greater consistency can be maintained because it is a stereotypical role. There is no presumption of flexibility, humanness, or personal involvement in the outcome of the contest. Also, being a style of intimidation it is its own defense mechanism.
__A third style of work is that which presents the official as being — bored" with the assignment or on-going activities. The apparent indifference displayed by officials using this style communicates to audiences that the work being performed is either routine or beneath the level of interest of the official because of the mundane nature of the assignment. The mechanics are relaxed and there is an attentiveness to extra-game activities normally avoided by officials more engrossed in their duties. Such actions as making direct eye contact with noisy fans, coaches, or players is used to transmit the idea of affective indifference. To look down an antagonist is to subordinate him and inhibit his attempts at intimidation.
__The bored official appears to be successful when his reputation for competency is known or when he has some physical attributes, e.g., age, which support the image being projected. If, however, the official does not seem to possess the necessary credentials for assuming such a style he is likely to be seen as pretentious or not exhibiting the emotional involvement the contest warrants.
__A fourth style used by officials is the hot dog. This individual seems to be perpetually on stage as his entire demeanor is predicated upon the assumption that he is the center of attention - if not the star attraction. Such officials are often very successful and are likely to be in great demand by coaches and spectators who see them as colorful. (It may be that such officials are more easily remembered when assignment requests and evaluation sheets are completed.)
__While other audiences may see such officials as having a flair, within the community of officials this style is often belittled. But even within so-called sophisticated organizations, officials who frequently display this style are likely to receive some of the better assignments. For example, there is one basketball official in the NCAA, who is widely known among officials as a "hot dog" and a "five-minute" man and yet he receives the most prestigious games.
__There are other styles we could mention, such as the "super-cool," the "soft," and the "good-guy" officials but these are enough to illustrate the variety of styles used.
__The important point to be recognized by the distinction between basic personality (whatever that is) and adopted style is that officials are not limited to one style. Nor does the style used necessarily reflect any permanent traits of that official. It is not unusual for an official to use several styles over the course of a season and this quite often reflects what the official deems appropriate for a particular occasion. Even when an official continues to use a single style it does not necessarily coincide with his off-site behavior. It is likely to be the result of trial-and-error experience, which leads the official to believe that that is the style with which he is most successful.
__Question: What do you mean five-minute-man?
__Answer: When officials describe other officials they rarely speak in terms of general styles but are more likely to make some reference to some character attribute displayed while performing as an official. Since the most important behavioral attribute to officials is how they perform under pressure most descriptions include some reference to an individual’s response to it. Comments such as homer, choker, makes only safe calls, has a short fuse, and rabbit ears are common.
__To refer to someone as a five-minute man suggests that the official is quite competent until the last few minutes, innings or events in a contest and then will make no decision against the home or favored team. It is a term suggesting the unwillingness of an official to risk an overall negative evaluation even though earlier decisions might be grounds for criticism of specific situations. Even here, however, criticism of earlier decisions is often used by such officials to support their claim of not being a "homer."
__Question: Do officials really talk about each other that way?
__Answer: Yes, but it should not be assumed that such negative characterizations necessarily reflect a dislike or disrespect for the denigrated official. It is simply a form of gossip, which most social psychologists recognize as a means of providing mutual respect for those present at the expense of those who are absent. By identifying weaknesses in other official’s guard against the development of gaps of worthiness between themselves and others. Since every official is the recipient of considerable criticism from spectators, coaches, and players he must develop strategies for maintaining some semblance of esteem among colleagues. One such strategy is gossip about other officials which in effect declares that none of us is perfect.
__Question: Then what do you consider the most important personality characteristics for an official to have?
__Answer: Probably a more appropriate phrase would be psychological characteristics.
__There are many. Two of which, often overlooked, are the ability to anticipate the sequence of events as they are likely to occur and the development of normalizing tactics.
__One of the first proscriptions taught officials of any sport is to not anticipate events before they occur. The assumption behind this rule is that anticipation leads to interference with what may actually happen. Without exception officials everywhere condemn such a practice. And yet, it is absolutely necessary for the accomplishment of a well-worked game or event that officials have in mind what to expect at each state of that game or event. Officials who try to divorce themselves of anticipation easily become confused and slow in responding to important developments.
__What is suggested here is not that officials presume a particular event will occur but that the official be cognizant of the range of events that may occur at any point in time. In psychology this is called the "narrowing of one’s horizon" — in the parlance of officials it is called experience.
__There is probably no better example of the need for proper anticipation than to observe an official working a game at a level to which he is not accustomed. Each level of competition has its own range of possible events. One NBA official reported that his first game was a catastrophe because he approached the game with the same expectations he had when he worked a college game. The players simply did different things and in different ways and his assumptions about their abilities and limitations were inappropriate.
__It is a common mistake among officials of lower-level contests that simply because they do an adequate job at one level they believe they are capable of performing well at any level. This is not the case. An official must learn to see at each new level and seeing is the result of anticipation.
__By normalizing tactics we mean those actions officials use to make their decisions appear normal and proper. These behaviors are at times extremely subtle and not always within the realm of consciousness to the official himself. Many, however, are carefully calculated and rehearsed. These are the finer aspects of the more general behavior we have called style. These include body movements, facial expressions, sounds and so forth, which go into the selling of a decision.
__Since we have already determined that most events in a sports contest are social in nature, the final determination as to what has occurred is somewhat negotiable. Thus, the success of an official often depends not upon how accurately he reports the event but how well he convinces others of the appropriateness of his decision. Officials usually refer to these tactics as mechanics: both authorized and unauthorized.

__(Part three will be featured in the January issue. It will spotlight the dramatics and mechanics displayed by officials.)

Observations (Referee 11/78-6/79): 11/78, 12/78, 1/79, 2/79, 3/79, 4/79, 6/79