The following is the fifth 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 400page report, from which this information has been obtained.
__The first four installments (Nov. and Dec. ‘78, Jan. and Feb. ‘79) covered such topics as: How and why officials make mistakes; crowd influences on objectivity; do officials have slumps; why people officiate; balancing calls; the effects of praise on an official’s calls; are certain personality types more suited to officiating than others; different styles exhibited by officials; mannerisms used to help "sell" calls; tricks officials use to help increase their credibility and the official’s relationship with coaches, players and fans.

Part five deals with some of the problems associated with the age and level of experience of the official. We hope you will find it enjoyable.
__Question: Does the enthusiasm of younger officials allow them to do a better job?
__Answer: There is a belief among many coaches and fans that the energetic approach of newer officials is somehow productive of good work. There seem to be two reasons for this assumption:
__1. Older officials are believed more cynical and blase about their work, and
__2. The imagination of audiences regarding the potential development of a "prospect" tends to exaggerate the competency ascribed to them. Generally speaking, the experience of older officials more than compensates for the enthusiasm of newer members — especially over the long run. New officials often have not developed the ability to see events properly, limiting their ability to cope with unexpected occurrences.
__Further, it is not at all unusual for the enthusiasm and idealism of newer officials to interfere with their performance. As athletes know, the differences between a novice and a capable performer are the ability to concentrate upon what is important, and the proper utilization of energies. For an official to scurry around and work up a sweat unnecessarily is often encouraged by the dictums of training organizations and may make an immediate impression upon audiences; but to older officials it indicates a lack of experience and an over concern with impression management, rather than good work. Most new officials simply attempt to do too much and to see too much.
__One of the important products of experience is the knowledge of when to focus upon the broader (global) horizon of events and when to direct attention to the more specific (analytic) field of happenings. Such things are never taught in training programs and are developed only with experience. New officials, in their effort to do a good job, will often become so attentive to the minor aspects of action that they fall to be prepared for the major parts of play. This gives their work the appearance of inconsistency. Examples of such improper attentiveness are the basketball official who calls what may be regarded as a ticky-tack foul one moment and fails to sanction a more flagrant violation at another, or the umpire who is so concerned with a fielder’s contact with a base that he fails to see the fielder drop the ball. The importance of when to see the forest and when to see the trees exists in virtually every sport, but probably more so in those sports which are judged-performances such as boxing, gymnastics, skating, diving, etc.
__Another product of experience is the ability to fill-in the blind side of events. With the advent of slow-motion and multiple camera replays on television, officials have become more aware than ever of the limitations of onetime, one-sided perception. Experience with similar events provides older officials with a means of completing the picture of an event without actually experiencing it in its totality. This ability is never totally perfected but it is considerably more advanced among experienced officials than it is with new members. Here again, unfortunately training organizations never provide any instruction in this skill.
__In some respects, television has made the job of officiating more difficult in ways not generally considered. Through the use of instant replays and slow motion, spectators are becoming more sophisticated in their ability to focus upon the important aspects of action and to anticipate a sequence of events better than ever before. Multiple angle shots train them in seeing whole events the first time by giving them a basis upon which to fill-in the backside. And, whenever spectators become more knowledgeable about a sport they become less willing to accept officials as unquestioned experts.
__Question: But aren’t a lot of officials just too old to do good work.
__Answer: Of course a lot depends upon the sport and the individual, but the career of an official is not unlike that of an athlete. That is, the first half is for learning and the second half is for performing. Most officials do their best work after thirty-five years of age, which Is somewhat later than an athlete’s peak years; but then officials usually have longer careers than athletes.
__Question: Could it be that those who continue as officials are the ones who were good to begin with?
__Answer: This comes close to suggesting what most officials believe. That is, that "good officials are born and not made." Such a philosophy benefits both the individual official and the training organizations. In the former, it satisfies a desire by officials to assume they possess some special trait or set of traits which distinguishes them from others; in the latter it provides a rationalization for the failure of training techniques. Such "kinds-of-people" theories in the case of officials seems unfounded. Though some psychologists have busied themselves with research, which seeks to uncover these golden qualities, their efforts only prove that if you look hard enough for something in humans, you will find it. In this case, common traits.
__Most such investigations attempt to delineate the traits of good officials from those of poor officials, and they distinguish these categories by the caliber of games worked. It is questionable that most officials (except those working the top games) would accept such an arbitrary classification system. Instead, most officials believe that what constitutes a good official is in the eyes of the commissioner rather than an inherent feature of their work. Few would admit to not being given the best assignments because of some character inadequacy on their part.
__Psychologists would do better to direct their research toward those who select and promote officials. Such individuals hold a stereotyped image of what a good prospect looks like and tend to fill their organizations and base promotions, on the criteria of those images. Most of the similarities psychologists produce are manifestations of the organizations studied and the predispositions of the researchers. We are only left to conjecture what the results of such research would be if the researchers set out to discover the differences between officials of a certain rating rather than the similarities.
__No; rather than being possessors of certain personality traits, officials are individuals performing similar tasks with different levels of skill. In all probability many of those who are now regarded as superior were at one time looked upon as hopeless, while some of those who were labeled prospects failed to succeed because of unfortunate early assignments or improper training.
__During the early part of an official’s career he is particularly sensitive to clues regarding the potential for success or failure of his future efforts. "A piece of cake" is often the only stimulus a new official needs to become committed to the work, while a particularly difficult assignment or embarrassing performance aborts many promising careers. As a result, the difference between those who continue and those who drop out of officiating is often a matter of chance.
__Since most organizations have more applicants than assignment schedules they take a sink or swim attitude toward new members. There is little effort to provide an early understanding of what can be expected in working at the particular level of the organization. As a result, many new officials approach their assignments with unrealistic expectations and none of the psychological strategies necessary for coping with the problems they encounter.
__Question: What is the-first mistake most new members make?
__Answer: One of the biggest mistakes new officials make is beginning with the belief that if they learn the rules, use proper mechanics, and be honest and objective, they will be appreciated by everyone. This failure to recognize the strength of each audience’s bias often produces a traumatic experience the first time a routine call is met with a coach’s charge that the official is a stupid, incompetent SOB. Others are disillusioned the first time they are told by a coach they have done "nice work" only to find out later that the coach "dinged" them in his report to the commissioner. A certain amount of cynicism is an important part of any official’s repertoire.
__Question: Is experience the only difference between a good official and a poor one?
__Answer: No such absolute statement can be made. There are obviously some good new officials and some lousy old ones. It must be remembered, however, that even a good official is not always good and a bad official is not always bad. There are many other factors which enter into any single performance. or any number of performances for that matter. As a general rule, however, there is some truth to the statement. The reason, as we have said, is that experienced officials actually observe a different world than do new officials. Not only are experienced officials accustomed to a wider range of playing skills and possess a better use of globalanalytic focus, but their experience often has prepare them for the occasional unusual event. It is difficult-for new officials to respond quickly and accurately to occurrences never before experienced or covered in training discussions.
__To give a more specific example of how new and old officials differ in their approach, it is safe to say that new basketball officials are infraction-oriented while the more experienced officials are more let-them-play oriented. Not totally, to be sure, but in relative terms. New officials often use their ability to see and sanction infractions as a status-claim while older officials often use good no-calls for the same purpose.
__An interesting psychological feature to the let-them-play attitude of experienced officials is that it not only indicates less concern over the game getting out of hand, but actually produces a situation which comes closer to that state than the over-policing of less experienced officials. New officials are in constant fear of a game getting away from them and tend to protect themselves by calling a tight game. Older officials, in a display of role-distance, often allow games to approach the point of becoming uncontrollable. This approach-avoidance behavior demonstrates to some extent the ability with which such officials can toy with situations avoided by those of less confidence. Of course when the game is of some importance or is a little threatening to the official. he is not likely to use such strategies and will resort to working a tight game. Such behavior explains why highly qualified officials often do not perform well at lower level games: i.e.. they play with such assignments.
__Another example of the difference between new and old officials in the criteria used for status claims is the importance ascribed to certain activities. New officials commonly participate in an informal game of one upmanship with regards to knotty problems. The purpose of the activity is to construct complex situations and resolve them according to the rules of the particular sport. Some individuals are so proficient at this game. they earn a reputation as "Mr. Rule Book." Older officials seldom engage in this activity (especially with newer members) and will even conceal the amount of time they spend learning the rules each season in order to present an image of having advanced beyond such mundane concerns.
__The career of an official has several stages of development, and each stage is characterized by what is taken to be important criteria for personal assessment. Officials evaluate themselves and others on the grounds of game rules, number of assignments, level of assignments, prestige of single assignments, (play-off games, All-Star games, tournaments, championships, etc.) and finally the number of years working prestigious assignments. Officials usually look upon their earlier outlook and behavior as naive. Experience does not simply make them quantitatively different but qualitatively different.
__There is one form of status-claim which exists at all levels of development, and that is the claim to having handled a difficult coach well. This is an activity participated in by new and old officials alike.
__Question: Are these the most important products of experience"
__Answer: There is another benefit of experience which we have not mentioned. As is the case with athletes, officials are susceptible to emotional highs and lows which can seriously interfere with their work. New officials are prone to great excitability over some assignments. events, or encounters, and as such, they are subject to the emotional responses associated with such states.
__Also, the human emotional system tends to exact a penalty for too great an enthusiasm or expectation. Just as coaches speak of their teams peaking too soon or being too high to sustain a quality effort, new officials often fail to maintain the proper emotional level which would allow them to work at maximum efficiency. As a result, they approach different assignments or encounters with greater emotional variation than do older officials. Older officials learn to inhibit their excitement or expectations and thereby present a more consistent response to different events. They also experience less emotional fluctuation as a result. The claim by many excellent officials that they approach every game with the same attitude is nonsense, but it is true that some are capable of approximating this condition better than others. (Originally it was our intention to deal with areas relating to Women of officials in this segment. However, we were informed that further studies are being conducted, the results of which will be reported at a later date.

__(The sixth article in this series will be featured in our April issue. It deals with officials’ associations and the membership.)

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