The following is the sixth installment 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 five articles (Nov. and Dec. ‘78, Jan., Feb. and Mar. ‘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, mannerisms used to help "sell" calls; tricks used to help increase credibility; the official relationship with coaches, players and fans; and the relationship between success and experience level.

Part six deals with the pros and cons of training procedures used by various associations. We hope you will enjoy it.
__Question: What are the training procedures for most organizations?
__Answer: There is considerable similarity in the methods used by most primary training organizations. All such groups place great emphasis upon learning the rules and mechanics for their particular sport. There are some suggestions as to what to expect in play and personal relations, and what has been the traditional or recommended practice for handling such conditions. Some on field or court practice is provided in simulated play or scrimmages and most organizations offer some films to aid instruction. However only at the professional level is there any serious effort to use films in a constructive way.
__The selection and assignment of officials at this level is based almost entirely upon the evaluations of a few veteran officials who volunteer to do such work. Further practice work and delayed assignment to an actual game are means by which particularly inexperienced or incompetent members may be dealt with. In sports where more than one official is required, new members are usually teamed with at least one experienced member. In sports that only use one official, it is often simply a "do the best you can" experience with very little, if any, supervision.
__Most organizations, whether primary or secondary, have a classification system which not only describes the proficiency of the official but dictates the level of competition he is allowed to work. New members are almost always considered probationary in status and are required to serve an apprenticeship period before the organization will take responsibility for assigning them to better games. The second stage of development may be called approved, or some other term appropriate for a transition status. At this time, the official will have an opportunity to work an occasional assignment which is looked upon as a truer test of his potential. If the official has not been involved in too many problems during this period and demonstrates some reliability, he is likely to be promoted to the status of certified, qualified, senior, or some other title indicating acceptance into the community of officials. The length of time it takes to go from one level to another may vary considerably. There are many reasons for this, one of which is the personal influence the official has with coaches and the commissioner. It may be that "cream will always rise to the top" as many like to believe, but apparently some cream rises faster than others. Good public relations seem to have an elevating quality.
__The advancement of officials in these groups corresponds to the stages of all initiation or "rites of passage" ceremonies. The first stage is one of separation (probationary official). At this stage the initiate is neither considered a full-fledged member nor an outsider. As an approved official, the individual is characterized as making the transition from another group orientation to the identification of officials as the principal reference group. It is interesting to note the evolution of an official outlook. In order to be promoted to the highest classification in an organization, it is necessary for the petitioner to demonstrate a conformity to the group’s ideals. Once accepted, he is less bound by these standards and begins to display his personal style and innovative mechanics and attitudes.
__Question: What would a secondary group be?
__Answer: Secondary groups are those which supply officials for junior college and college assignments. Such groups do very little in the way of training but rely upon primary groups to provide such services. Individuals who have successfully reached the approved, accredited, or qualified stage in a primary group may apply for consideration by a secondary organization. Some such groups, however, rely heavily upon the recommendations of coaches for recruitment of new members.
__If accepted by a secondary organization, the official will likely go through a sequence of classifications similar to those of a primary group. The principal difference is the means by which promotion is granted. There is less concern with testing in a secondary organization and more concern with maintaining the organization’s reputation for providing quality officials.
__Question: How are officials demoted and promoted?
__Answer: Officials are almost never demoted and it is rare for a primary organization to dismiss one of its officials. When an official is dismissed, it is usually the result of a lack of attendance at meetings, missing assignments, or unprofessional conduct at some event. Incompetence is not likely to produce dismissal but is dealt with by lesser and fewer assignments.
__Dismissal from secondary organizations may result from complaints by coaches or a failure to be promoted from one level to another within a given period of time. Many such groups have a policy of tolerating a given number of negative reports before an official is dropped. This practice is often irritating to officials because many believe that coaches are the least qualified persons to evaluate their work. Further, many argue that such blackballing power subordinates officials to coaches and encourages work which patronizes the coach.
__In the case of promotions, most organizations have developed rather elaborate evaluation systems, which, though seldom adhered to, give the impression of impartial judgment.
__As would be expected, arbitrary and subjective evaluation (even when a point system is followed) leads to a great deal of cronyism at virtually every level. One of the principal complaints of officials is the amount of politicking that takes place within their organization. To some extent this is not only unavoidable but desirable. Officiating, being basically the selling of an image, is not unlike other professions or avocations. A person is not only judged by his overt behavior while at work (working an assignment) but by the assumed hidden qualities of his personality. Consequently, officials are measured by the total contact they have with those who make these judgments, not simply by how well they execute mechanics or how well they dress. In this regard some politicking is unavoidable.
__The amount of influence peddling in any organization is probably somewhat exaggerated, but this in itself is the result of the value such charges have for those making them. Comments such as "He is the commissioner’s pet," "He is the right color," or "He kissed his way to that assignment" serve as something of a pacifier for those who are disappointed with their assignments or their lack of promotion.
__Question: But shouldn’t there be some system whereby an official would be promoted or given assignments simply on merit?
__Answer: This has been an ideal in many occupations. It sounds good, but it is not only impractical but it violates a basic value in the American concept of justice. Take the issue of seniority for example. Under such an "ideal" evaluating scheme, seniority would account for nothing. Yet, in our society it is believed that an individual’s rewards should be in some way proportionate to his investment. Officials who have invested considerable time and effort in improving their skills and subjected their egos to public evaluation do, and have a right to, expect some consideration. Any organization which disregards this precept will have a serious morale problem.
__Question: What are the strengths and weaknesses of most training programs?
__Answer: There is no simple answer to such a question, but one of the strengths of most training groups is that they provide an opportunity for a large number of prospective officials to communicate personal experiences and views among themselves. The greatest source of learning for new officials is the informal discussions and bull-sessions held at game sites, in car pools, and during breaks at formal meetings.
__Formal meetings are notoriously dull and uninformative in matters of practical importance. They tend to stress memorization of the rules, prescriptions for mechanics, and ideal standards of behavior. Informal conversations, however, are likely to focus on the more specific aspects of officiating, e.g., particular games, conditions and coaches. As a result of this informal communication, actual normative patterns are established, as opposed to the ideal behaviors suggested in formal training. As a result, most officials will give lip-service to the ideals of officiating when questioned (especially by outsiders) but are likely to work more along the lines of informal norms.
__One of the most obvious benefits derived from informal training is the unconscious identification of what is commonly referred to as "common sense." During formal training every organization advocates the use of common sense rulings and behavior whenever a situation arises which is not specifically covered by the rulebook. Yet, never during formal training is the new official informed of the nature or specific application of the group’s common sense. Common sense, like logic and philosophy, differs with each group. Yet, in spite of the frequency of the use of this expression no one ever bothers to ask for clarification of its use. It is only during informal communications that new members get a feel for what constitutes the common sense of the group in particular and officials in general.
__Question: What are some of the ways in which the training of officials could be improved?
__Answer: One area of training that is underdeveloped by organizations at every level is the acclimating of officials to game conditions. Most organizations provide a few scrimmages or exhibition games and let it go at that. So few encounters with the problems of working games do little good. Even veteran officials could benefit from more experiences which simulate game conditions.
__The conditions which cause great difficulty for officials are those which arouse tensions and anxieties to the panic or near-panic level. This state is similar to that of stage fright experienced by speakers and actors. The individual’s ability to concentrate upon the task at hand is interrupted and he becomes either other-directed or experiences a condition in which the mind and body seem to be responding independently. Under this panic or near-panic state an official often feels he is a spectator to his own physical responses rather than the initiator of them. Statements such as, "I saw safe but signaled out" and "I don’t know why I called it that way when I knew better" are typical of this high-tension state. Yet organizations have established no drills or formalized training procedures which will allow officials to experience such states frequently enough to enable them to cope with such conditions when they occur in actual games. Panic of any kind occurs because of one of two conditions: A lack of knowledge of alternative courses of action or lack of time to consider alternatives. In either case there are training drills which can be used to minimize or even eliminate such high tension states. Occupations such as police enforcement, firemen, pilots, and others which teach individuals to respond appropriately under what would otherwise be chaotic conditions all utilize some form of preparatory conditioning. There is no reason why training organizations for officials should not have similar drills.
__To aid in the preparation of new officials, some training should be required in the handling of verbal assaults and other forms of intimidation. This training should include not only the types of responses appropriate toward intimidators but the psychological strategies for maintaining confidence in one’s own decisions in the face of such challenges.
__The intention of these training devices would not only be to acquaint officials with alternative behaviors available but would complement the experience of working exhibition games and scrimmages in an inexpensive and convenient manner. As a result, new officials could develop a greater inner-directedness during periods of stress.
__Another valuable training tool would be the better utilization of films. Stop-action and multiple angle camera work could produce a set of films which could be synchronized with questions and time lapses. Not only would observers be asked to make rulings within a given time period but they would then have the opportunity to see how the completed action occurred and how the event appeared from a variety of angles. A training mechanism of this type would not only test the individual’s ability to make quick decisions but establish a proper rhythm for making calls, improve perception of event sequences, and facilitate the filling-in of the unseen sides of action.
__For organizations which have access to video-tape machines, the taping of an individual during an assignment can be invaluable. Most officials of primary and secondary organizations have no idea how they appear to others. Such officials are often perplexed at the responses of audiences at their actions. Many use mechanics, gestures, or mannerisms which are abrasive or provoking of an image totally unintended. When officials have the opportunity to view themselves, quite frequently they improve their presentation. Even without such machines, organizations should spend more time informing officials as to how their actions come across.
__More helpful than any other training procedures, however, would be a more practical understanding of what is involved in officiating. As long as officials do not recognize the human character and limitations of such work they will fail to improve in many areas in which improvement is possible and seek improvement in areas in which it is not.

__(Dr. Askins indicates that further studies are being conducted in areas relating to women officials. We will report on the results as soon as the information is available.)

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