Referee vs Arbitrater

Recently, one of my High School soccer referee assignors sent out an email reminding everybody that "We get paid to ref, not to arbitrate, on the field."  He was trying to remind us to be careful when dealing out yellow cards, because since this was high school, there are harsh punishments for a coach/team if they accumulate too many yellows in a season.  While I understand the eventual point of his email, his line that "we get paid to ref, not to arbitrate..." struck a negative chord with me.

I am of the belief that soccer officials are in fact, arbiters.

First, a few key points.

1. In association football / soccer, the referee enforces the laws of the game, not the rules of the game.
2. The word for both referee and arbiter in French is arbitre (In Spanish it is árbitro)
3. The verb "to referee" is arbitrer.  The verb "to arbitrate" is also arbitrer

In French, the sporting definition of the word evolved from the official, legal version of the word.  My petit robert dictionary records the first use of arbitre 1213 and the first use of arbitrer in 1274.  The usage of these words in a sporting context started in 1933.

An arbitrator is defined as "a person chosen to decide a dispute or settle differences, especially one formally empowered to examine the facts and decide the issue."  Oftentimes, an arbitrator does this within a legal context.  Many of the people in civic society that we call 'judges' are in fact official arbitrators.  We see this a lot in small claims court.  Arbitrators in a civil capacity observe the situation (usually after the fact through testimonies), interpret the laws, and settle the dispute between two (or more) parties by applying those same laws.

Association football referees observe the situation, interpret the laws, and settle the dispute between the two or more players by applying those same laws.

The French understand that referee and arbitrator are one and the same thing, particularly in soccer.  The referee is more than a simple disciplinarian who administers the rules.  He or she is in fact a judge, interpreting all of the variables in one given situation, and then interpreting and applying a law (not a rule) to the situation.

I think what my assignor should have said was "We are not cops*, we are soccer referees"  We should judge the nuance and details of a situation, before handing out punishment.

I just wanted to get that rant off my chest.  Hopefully it made sense, and that you may have an opinion on the matter.




*No disrespect towards the police (one of my best friends is a police officer), but I wanted to find a job that is more clearly about enforcing laws (although they do interpret as well) and less about interpretation, which is the court's responsibility.

The origins of American legal culture.

I often think that American society places too much emphasis on lawyers in this country.  On a daily basis we think along the lines of "I should do this so I don't get sued" or, "If he hits my car I'm taking him to court."  Many of our elected officials were lawyers at some point, and the television guide is overflowing with legal-based shows.

I merely thought this was a trend of the 2nd half of the 1900s and beginning of the 21st, but I came across a bit today from one of my readings that I want to share.

This segment comes from a speech by Edmund Burke, a member of the House of Commons in 1775.  He gave a speech where he argues the need to ease tension with the American colonies, and avoid war.

About midway through he writes:

"In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to the congress were lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Commentaries in America as in England. General Gage marks out this disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or smatterers in law; and that in Boston they have been enabled, by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of your capital penal constitutions. The smartness of debate will say, that this knowledge ought to teach them more clearly the rights of legislature, their obligations to obedience, and the penalties of rebellion. All this is mighty well. But my honourable and learned friend on the floor, who condescends to mark what I say for animadversion, will disdain that ground. He has heard, as well as I, that when great honours and great emoluments do not win over this knowledge to the service of the state, it is a formidable adversary to government. If the spirit be not tamed and broken by these happy methods, it is stubborn and litigious. Abeunt studia in mores."

He argues that there are six capital sources from where the colonies derive their "fierce spirit of liberty."  Colonial understanding of the law is one of them.  I find it fascinating that the lawlerly culture that I thought was a sign of modern times, is very similar to part of the culture of the Revolution.

Like Burke says, Abeunt studia in mores.  Studies build one's character.


The full text of Burke's speech can be found here:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s2.html