Advocacy for the professional

Whether in companies, show business, or even in niche areas like high-altitude mountaineering - those who truly want to be successful and permanently compete at the top of their field must fully concentrate on their activities.

They must be focused, as it is often said today. For me, this is exactly what professionalism is all about. At the same time, one of the biggest inconsistencies in modern professional sports, in my opinion, is that there are no professional referees at work in professional football. Why is that? I suspect it's because it's quite convenient for many people in influential positions to have an "amateur" ready to blame when it comes to assigning a scapegoat. Clearly, in case of a "messy game", "the result", or other side effects of a football match, the referee is then often blamed. Of course, I am familiar with the standard argument of the associations when it comes to professional referees. It goes: Would professional referees actually be better than the referees we have today? The question always comes up, and it reminds me of a discussion that took place in Switzerland in the seventies. Back then, there was a debate about whether professional footballers were truly better than amateur footballers. Everyone now knows the answer. Professionals are experienced experts in their field, and logically, professional referees would also be better. They would still make mistakes, but most likely fewer and probably less serious ones.

Professionalization at all levels

Professionalization, which we will probably have to wait for even longer in the case of football referees, also includes the professionalization of the environment, and at least there is some progress. For example, with the introduction of goal-line technology in the Bundesliga. I have always welcomed this technical tool because in some cases, the decision of goal or no goal is not clearly determinable by the referee. However, with the help of technology, it works without a doubt. And above all: it significantly relieves the referee when, in this case, he has the same information as millions of viewers watching on television, where such scenes are immediately replayed in super slow motion. It cannot be that the audience can clearly see whether the ball was in the goal or not - only the referee, who has to decide on it, has to rely on an assumption or a feeling. I am convinced that in the future, more technical aids will be used to improve the quality of referee decisions. Because the way obvious wrong decisions are currently dealt with and discussed for weeks, it mainly harms the referees. Football at the highest level is for me no longer just top-level sport but also part of the entertainment industry. When 75,000 spectators come to the stadium and pay for it, they want to be entertained. But they certainly don't want to go home with a strange feeling because they don't know exactly what happened just before. Yet, that is currently the case: those watching at home on television often have a more precise idea of what happened than those present live in the stadium. Actually, it should be the other way around.

Confident handling of technical aids

That this would be possible is shown by looking at other comparable sports. During the 2015 Rugby World Cup quarterfinal between France and New Zealand in Cardiff, there was an unclear touchdown situation. Referee Nigel Owens reacted confidently. He interrupted the game and asked the video referee two questions. "I need to know, was that a forward pass? And was the touchdown in the field and therefore correct?" The whole stadium listened in because the communication, if the referee wants it, is broadcast over the loudspeakers. The video referee quickly searched for the images of the scenes and played them on the stadium monitor. First scene, the pass. The video referee said: "In my opinion, the pass was not forward, so it was correct." And the referee said, "I agree." Second scene, the touchdown. You can see the ball touching the ground in the field, so it's clear. "Touchdown in the field," said referee Owens, and everyone knew and had seen it for themselves. The game continued. "What a confident handling of a contentious situation," I thought. And the question of whether a video referee undermines the authority of the referee was also answered: No, on the contrary. His authority increases because he has made a correct decision that is understandable to everyone. Imagine if there were also a video referee in football, as in rugby. Because on almost every matchday in the Bundesliga, there are scenes that the referee and the assistants cannot clearly recognize - but are clear on the TV images. If these images were available to the referee, it would reduce the error rate, prevent the often extensive discussions from arising, and above all, strengthen the authority of the referee. To maintain the flow of the game and not to consult the video images with every second whistle, it might be necessary to allow each team twice per game the opportunity to review a scene and have it evaluated based on the images. How exactly to handle and regulate this would need to be clarified. However, I fundamentally consider video review for contentious decisions to be useful. It would empower the referee. And it would be another step towards professionalization. Which would be good because there can never be enough true professionals in their respective fields. This text is an excerpt from the book "Mein Leben auf Ballhöhe" by Urs Meier, published in April 2016 by Delius Klasing Verglag. About Urs Meier: https://www.speakers-excellence.de/redner/urs-meier-entscheidung-treffen.html