Referee Management

[Optimal Crime]

Some of you might find this interesting. I'll put it up in sections:

The purpose of this study was to examine the coping strategies of skilled basketball referees. Specifically, we attempted to ascertain the manner in which basketball referees (n=137) from the United States (n=75) and Australia (n=62) used problem focused (behavioral) and emotion-focused (cognitive) techniques in responding to each of 15 acute stressors. The referees completed a self-report survey, the Basketball Officials Sources of Stress Inventory (BOSSI), in which they indicated their behavioral and emotional coping responses. U.S. and Australian samples were compared using deductive content analysis. While these data revealed more similarities between American and Australian basketball referees than differences in their manner of coping with acute stressors, cultural differences were also apparent.

Subjects were 137 adult male basketball referees who volunteered to participate in this study. This included 75 officials from the southwestern United States (ages 19-45 yrs, Md age = 32.6 yrs), and 62 officials from New South Wales, Australia (ages 20-37 yrs, Md age = 29.8 yrs). Criteria for participation included age (18 yrs or older) and officiating experience in organized, competitive basketball (minimum of three years of officiating experience in high school in the U.S. sample, or Level A or B competition in Australia) for which the person received renumeration. The level of expertise was "intermediate" (Level 2) or "advanced" level (Level I) in their respective referee organizations. Seventy-five of 116 surveys (65%) mailed to U.S. subjects were returned. Sixty-two of the 110 Australian referees attending a basketball referees conference (56%) returned the distributed surveys.

The primary objective of the data analyses were to compare American and Australian basketball referees on their respective use of behavioral and cognitive coping strategies in response to each of 15 acute stressors usually experienced during the game. The assignment of coping strategies to behavioral and emotional categories was accomplished using an deductive content analysis in which subjects' responses were assigned to one of the two categories of coping strategies for each stressor. It is important to point out that the list of coping strategies do not reveal the extent to which these techniques are effective at reducing the referees' stress level or performance. Rather, they merely reflect the subjects' thoughts and actions after experiencing any of these stressors.

[the_referee]

Interesting what did the results show

[Optimal Crime]

Abuse by Coach

Coach abuse is among the most common and, according to Anshel and Weinberg (1995), the second most severe source of stress for basketball referees Two group differences were of particular interest. Specifically, far more Americans (39%) than Australians (13%) used the coping strategy of calmly speaking to the coach. This could be partly due to the Australians self-reported propensity to ignore or forget coach abuse (34%), an avoidance coping style, in contrast to the Americans (15%). In addition, more Australians (61%) than Americans (43%) coped by expressing anger.

Past anecdotal literature provides strong evidence that coaches are a frequent source of stress during the contest. This finding supports the 1984 Miller Brewing Company survey on 229 officials in which disruptive behaviors by coaches was the most common source of irritation (44%) with injured athletes (16%), disruptive fans (15%), and players arguing with officials (14%) also mentioned (cited by Burke, 1991b). This is supported by Holland (1979) who, using heart rate as an indicator of somatic stress, found that coach-official confrontations were associated with heart rate reaching 80% to 90% of maximum. In the present investigation, it was found that officials employed approach coping styles (e.g., expressing anger, issuing a technical foul) to cope with this intense stressor of coach abuse.

Smith (1982) proposes that dealing with arguing or abusive coaches may be a function of the situation regardless of the referee's reaction. He surmises that "the more fragile and tenuous the social structure, the less likely open negotiation and the more likely ritualistic performance" (p. 33). Part of this ritual is actually derived from the coach rather than from the official. Smith found that sometimes the coach's behavior "is not meant to be taken seriously by the referee. Its purpose is to arouse the team and perhaps the fans...the legitimacy of the call is seldom really in questions. What the coach wants is an opportunity to yell and then to be told to sit down or risk being thrown out" (pp. 39-40). This may explain the referees' frequent use of ignoring and discounting the coach's comments.

[Optimal Crime]

Abuse by Players

Giving a technical foul or warning, both behavioral strategies and reflecting an approach coping style, were the primary responses to player abuse. Calming or criticizing players was relatively rare, although Americans used these strategies more so than Australians. Both groups attributed this stressor to "part of the job" or ignored the player, reflecting the avoidance coping strategies of psychological distancing and discounting (Bramson, 1981). Referees appear resigned to the fact that the emotions that accompany competitive basketball often result in verbal expressions by players that are either unintentional or "normal" manifestations of the situation (Smith, 1982). Given the extent of such expression, Smith contends that referees often appraise stressful situations as relatively harmless by selectively ignoring most of these experiences as did 33% of the American and 26% of the Australian referees.

The referees in the present study did not find player abuse too stressful. Respondents of both groups gave a warning or technical foul (approach coping), or conversely, ignored the player's comments (avoidance coping). The extent to which players cause stress may be a function of the official's skill level. Specifically, the referee's appraisal of the stressful situation likely differs between experienced and inexperienced, and skilled and unskilled referees (Kaissidis & Anshel, 1993). Novices may encounter situations that are entirely new to them, such as dealing with an angry player or having to endure abuse from upset coaches or spectators. For example, when Smith (1982, p. 36) first began his career as a wrestling referee, he reported a willingness "to accept (abusive treatment) if I had made a decision which they thought was wrong ... (but) was not ... ready for the abusive form in which such criticism was expressed." He was also surprised that coaches, the most abusive sources of stress which he experienced, would often interact with him outside the sport context" as if nothing had happened. It appears, then, that the referee's and coach's respective appraisals of a stressful encounter during the contest may differ, thereby influencing the use of coping strategies.

[Optimal Crime]

Arguing With Coaches

Behavioral coping strategics differed between groups for this stressor. Specifically, Americans preferred to ignore the coach and remain on task (51% and 39% for U.S. and Australia, respectively), whereas Australians preferred to discuss the coach's feelings or answer his or her inquiries (24% and 52% for U.S. and Australia, respectively). Nevertheless, both groups felt anger or frustration to a similar degree (44% and 47%, respectively), a reflection of an approach coping style. As Anshel and Weinberg (1995) found, coach confrontation is a highly intense source of stress for basketball referees, and consequently elicits an approach coping style.

The referees' coping strategies differed between this stressor and the stressor "Abuse by Coach". Whereas referees tended to give a technical foul or warning in response to abusive actions, the officials were more likely to respond less aggressively to coach inquiries or concerns (also see Burke, 1991a). Cebulski (1987), reporting on the frequent use of this coping strategy, contends that "If a coach says something obscene, we're supposed to say something like, 'What did you say?' or "Are you talking to me?' Most of the time, the coach will say, 'I wasn't talking to you' " (p. 33). This technique allows the coach to rescind an emotionally-initiated, often regretted, remark without further incident. At the same time, the referee does not lose credibility and respect.

[Optimal Crime]

Arguing With Players.

Referees in both groups tended to react assertively to this stressor, feeling annoyed or upset and giving a warning to the player (approach, behavioral coping). However, Americans were more than twice as likely to give a technical foul than Australians (91% and 42%, respectively), and to argue with the player (59% and 26%, respectively). Conversely, more Australian referees (35%) than Americans (23%) coped by keeping calm and by answering politely (29% versus 5%, respectively).

Whereas abusive players tended to receive a technical foul or warning, referees treated arguing with players less aggressively. For example, issuing a warning (approach, behavioral coping) was far more common, as was ignoring the player (avoidance, behavioral coping).Not surprisingly, however, American referees were more than twice as likely than Australians to give a technical foul for arguing. Yhe players' request for information or clarification carries far more respect and credibility by the officials than the players' use of profanity and other berating remarks. Similar to other stressors, it appears that the official's appraisal of the player's actions explains the relatively low intensity of this stressor.