Perceptions of
Sports Officials
What the New Zealand Public Thinks
2008
A research project conducted by
Massey University for the University of Canterbury
and Sport and Recreation New Zealand
Perceptions of
Sports Officials
What the New Zealand Public Thinks
2008
This research forms part of a larger University of Canterbury project funded by
Sport and Recreation New Zealand investigating general public perceptions and media
portrayal of sports officials and the influence on officials’ performance and role satisfaction.
The lead researcher for the general public component of the research was
Jan Charbonneau, Department of Communication, Journalism & Marketing, Massey University.
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................2
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................6
KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................9
Background .......................................................................................................................................8
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................10
Questionnaire Development ..............................................................................................10
Sample...................................................................................................................................10
Survey Procedure................................................................................................................10
Response Rate .....................................................................................................................11
Analysis .................................................................................................................................11
Limitations.............................................................................................................................11
Profile of Respondents ............................................................................................................................ 12
RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................................13
Favourite Sport ...............................................................................................................................13
Level of Interest in Favourite Sport ..................................................................................13
Level of Involvement in Favourite Sport ..........................................................................14
Overall Opinion of Sports Officials ..............................................................................................15
Characteristics of Effective Officiating.......................................................................................17
Impartial Decisions .............................................................................................................18
Clear Rulings ........................................................................................................................18
Accurate Decisions.............................................................................................................19
Rules of the Game ...............................................................................................................19
Consistent Application of Rules ........................................................................................20
Maintaining Control.............................................................................................................20
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 3 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Evaluation of Officiating Performance........................................................................................21
Performance – Impartial Decisions..................................................................................22
Performance – Clear Rulings.............................................................................................22
Performance – Accurate Decisions.................................................................................24
Performance – Understanding Rules...............................................................................25
Performance – Consistent Application............................................................................26
Performance – Maintaining Control.................................................................................28
Influence of Sports Officials.........................................................................................................29
Influence over Outcome of Game.....................................................................................29
Accountability of Sports Officials .....................................................................................31
Officials and the Media ......................................................................................................33
Sources of Sports Information.....................................................................................................35
Notice Taken of Selected Sources...................................................................................35
Trustworthiness of Selected Sources .............................................................................38
Media as Sources of Sports Information ........................................................................41
Abuse of Officials ...........................................................................................................................44
Abuse of Officials over Time..............................................................................................44
Acceptability of Varying Levels of Abuse........................................................................46
Impact of Abuse on Spectators’ Enjoyment of the Game.............................................54
Previous Officiating Experience ..................................................................................................57
General Comments.........................................................................................................................58
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................58
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................59
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 4 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
List of Figures
Figure 1: Respondents’ Favourite Sport .................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2: Level of Interest in Favourite Sport ......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Interest in Favourite Sport by Gender ..................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Overall Opinion of Sports Officials ........................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5: Overall Opinion by Level of Involvement ................................................................................................ 16
Figure 6: Officials’ Overall Opinion of Sports Officials .......................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: Opinion of Sports Officials by Level of Interest ..................................................................................... 17
Figure 8: Effective Officiating – Impartial Decisions ............................................................................................. 18
Figure 9: Effective Officiating – Clear Rulings........................................................................................................ 18
Figure 10: Effective Officiating – Accurate Decisions .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 11: Effective Officiating – Rules of the Game............................................................................................. 19
Figure 12: Effective Officiating – Consistent Application ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 13: Effective Officiating – Maintaining Control .......................................................................................... 20
Figure 14: Performance of Main Official – Impartial Decisions .......................................................................... 22
Figure 15: Performance of Main Official – Clear Rulings ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 16: Main Official in Rugby – Clear Rulings.................................................................................................. 23
Figure 17: Main Official in Cricket – Clear Rulings ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 18: Performance of Main Official – Accurate Decisions ......................................................................... 24
Figure 19: Main Official in Rugby – Accurate Decisions...................................................................................... 24
Figure 20: Main Official in Soccer – Accurate Decisions .................................................................................... 25
Figure 21: Performance of Main Official – Understanding Rules ....................................................................... 25
Figure 22: Performance of Main Official – Consistent Application .................................................................... 26
Figure 23: Main Official in Cricket – Application of Rules.................................................................................... 27
Figure 24: Main Official in Rugby – Application of Rules ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 25: Performance of Main Official – Maintaining Control ......................................................................... 28
Figure 26: Influence of Official on Outcome ........................................................................................................... 29
Figure 27: Influence of Official by Level of Interest............................................................................................... 30
Figure 28: Influence of Official by Level of Involvement....................................................................................... 30
Figure 29: Accountability of Professional Officials ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 30: Accountability of Amateur Officials ...................................................................................................... 32
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 5 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 31: Professional Officials and Media Questioning .................................................................................... 31
Figure 32: International Officials and Media Questioning.................................................................................... 33
Figure 33: Amateur Officials and Media Questioning ........................................................................................... 34
Figure 34: Notice Taken of Players .......................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 35: Notice Taken of Match Commentators................................................................................................. 36
Figure 36: Notice Taken of Coaches ........................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 37: Notice Taken of Friends and Associates.............................................................................................. 37
Figure 38: Notice Taken of Journalists.................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 39: Notice Taken of TV Sports Shows......................................................................................................... 37
Figure 40: Notice Taken of Online Social Networks ............................................................................................. 38
Figure 41: Trustworthiness of Coaches................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 42: Trustworthiness of Players ..................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 43: Trustworthiness of Match Commentators ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 44: Trustworthiness of Friends and Associates ........................................................................................ 39
Figure 45: Trustworthiness of Journalists .............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 46: Trustworthiness of TV Sports Shows.................................................................................................... 40
Figure 47: Trustworthiness of Online Social Networks ........................................................................................ 40
Figure 48: TV as Source of Sports Information ...................................................................................................... 42
Figure 49: Magazines as Source of Sports Information ....................................................................................... 42
Figure 50: Newspapers as Source of Sports Information.................................................................................... 43
Figure 51: Radio as Source of Sports Information ................................................................................................. 43
Figure 52: The Internet as Source of Sports Information..................................................................................... 44
Figure 53: Abuse of Officials over Last Five Years ................................................................................................ 45
Figure 54: Abuse of Officials by Gender .................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 55: Loudly Disagreeing with Officials .......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 56: Loudly Disagreeing by Gender ............................................................................................................... 47
Figure 57: Players Answering Back ......................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 58: Smart or Funny Comments ...................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 59: Smart or Funny Comments by Gender .................................................................................................. 49
Figure 60: Commentators Questioning Officials’ Decisions ................................................................................. 49
Figure 61: Throwing Objects at Officials ................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 62: Nasty or Derogatory Comments ............................................................................................................. 51
Figure 63: Verbal Abuse ............................................................................................................................................. 52
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 6 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 64: Journalists Undermining Officials ......................................................................................................... 53
Figure 65: Journalists Undermining Officials by Gender...................................................................................... 53
Figure 66: Effect of Verbal Abuse of Officials on Enjoyment ............................................................................... 54
Figure 67: Effect of Verbal Abuse on Enjoyment by Gender ................................................................................ 55
Figure 68: Effect of Players’ Verbal Abuse on Enjoyment .................................................................................... 55
Figure 69: Effect of Commentators on Enjoyment .................................................................................................. 56
Figure 70: Effect of Commentators on Enjoyment by Gender .............................................................................. 56
Figure 71: Previous Officiating Experience............................................................................................................. 57
List of Tables
Table 1: Profile of Respondents ................................................................................................................................ 12
Table 2: Level of Involvement in Favourite Sport................................................................................................... 15
Table 3: Overall Opinion by Favourite Sport ........................................................................................................... 17
Table 4: Effective Officiating by Involvement......................................................................................................... 21
Table 5: Performance of Main Official by Overall Opinion of Officials .............................................................. 28
Table 6: Influence of Officials by Favourite Sport ................................................................................................. 29
Table 7: Who should Professional Officials be Accountable to?........................................................................ 31
Table 8: Who should Amateur Officials be Accountable to?............................................................................... 32
Table 9: Questioning of Professional Officials by Experience............................................................................. 34
Table 10: Questioning of International Officials by Experience .......................................................................... 35
Table 11: Questioning of Amateur Officials by Experience.................................................................................. 35
Table 12: Trustworthiness of Coaches by Favourite Sport .................................................................................. 41
Table 13: Abuse of Officials by Officiating Experience......................................................................................... 46
Table 14: Abuse of Officials by Involvement in Sport ........................................................................................... 46
Table 15: Throwing Objects at Officials by Favourite Sport................................................................................. 50
Table 16: Nasty or Derogatory Comments by Favourite Sport ............................................................................ 51
Table 17: Verbal Abuse by Favourite Sport ............................................................................................................ 52
Table 18: Players’ Verbal Abuse by Favourite Sport ............................................................................................. 55
Table 19: Reasons for no longer being a Sports Official ...................................................................................... 57
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 7 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Key Findings
Without independent and unbiased officials and officiating, any sport would fall into disarray. While the
crucial role played by sports officials is widely acknowledged, there has been little research other than
anecdotal about how sports officials are perceived by the general public.
A mail survey was sent to a random sample of 1800 New Zealanders drawn from the Electoral Roll to
determine their overall opinion of sports officials, their performance on the field, the influence they have over
the outcome of the game, and whether they should be held accountable for their decisions. Respondents
were also asked the sources they used to obtain their sports information and the level of abuse faced by
sports officials.
A total of 692 valid questionnaires were processed for an effective response rate of 40%. Not surprisingly,
respondents indicated Rugby, Netball, Cricket and Soccer as the Top Four Favourite Sports.
Overall Opinion of Sports Officials
Overall, two-thirds of respondents expressed positive opinions of sports officials, most notably for fans of
Cricket. The more passionate the individual was about their favourite sport, the more positive their opinion
of sports officials.
Performance on the Field
Respondents felt officials’ understanding of the rules of the game and their consistent application were
more important to effective officiating than other characteristics such as maintaining control over both the
game and players.
When asked to rate the performance of the main official in a recent game of their favourite sport, respondents
gave overall high ratings. The more positive respondents’ opinion of officials was generally, the higher the
rating. However, the main official in Rugby was rated substantially lower than their counterpart in Cricket
when it came to understanding and application of the rules of the game.
Influence and Accountability
Almost one third of respondents felt that sports officials exerted too much influence over the outcome of
the game. Direct involvement in sport as a player, administrator or official served to amplify the belief that
officials may be exerting more influence than acceptable.
The general public expected Professional sports officials to be more accountable for their decisions than
their Amateur counterparts. Respondents believe both Professional and Amateur officials, if to be held
accountable, should primarily be accountable to those directly involved in the sport (players and coaches)
rather than spectators and the media.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 8 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Sources of Sports Information
Respondents took more notice of information sources closely involved in the on-field action (players, coaches
and match commentators) and also judged these sources to be the most trustworthy. Rugby coaches were
considered significantly more trustworthy than their Cricket, Netball or Soccer counterparts. Little notice
was taken of TV sports shows and online social networks and this was also reflected in the lower degree
of trust in these sources.
Respondents relied more on traditional channels for their sports information (television, newspaper and
radio), with television being the predominant source.
Abuse faced by Sports Officials
Two thirds of respondents felt that abuse of sports officials had increased over the last five years, a view
held more strongly by females.
The vast majority of respondents judged a range of abusive behaviours towards officials as unacceptable.
Respondents expressed the strongest opinion about the unacceptability of abusive behaviour towards
sports officials when that behaviour was directly aimed at the sports official, namely, throwing of objects at
officials and verbal abuse of officials. Females and Rugby fans had substantially lower levels of tolerance
towards abuse directed at sports officials. Abuse directed at sports officials had a significantly negative
effect on respondents’ enjoyment of the game – especially so for females.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 9 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Introduction
BACKGROUND
Sports officials such as referees, umpires and judges are one part of a triangular relationship that is vital
to sports. Players, coaches/administrators and officials interact in an environment of continual tension.
Without independent and unbiased officials and officiating, any sport would fall into disarray. Despite this
central role, officials often get little positive recognition from players, sports management, supporters or the
media. Media attention tends to focus on questioning of decisions and scrutiny of performance.
Sports officials make their decisions in a public forum. Not only is there a stadium audience often of many
thousands but a television audience for international events of potentially many millions. Both audiences
have the advantage of ‘instant replays’ of every call officials make. While some sports such as Rugby
allow the officiating team to use video replays to check on marginal calls, most do not, forcing officials to
make and stand behind split-second judgments. Many sports allow athletes or coaches to question referees
directly and to challenge calls. Whether a sincere question or staged tantrum designed to intimidate, these
interactions add further on-field pressure to officials. The perceptions of sports officials developed by all
constituent groups (players, management, supporters and media) are heavily influenced by whether their
calls are in favour or against particular players or teams. In any sporting competition, given that there are
winners and losers, officials are invariably in a ‘no-win’ situation.
Sports officials are aware that they are under the spotlight during matches they officiate. In the New Zealand
2003 Survey of High Performance Sports Officials (SPARC, 2003), officials identified the following key issues
and demands:
• pressure to perform (e.g. officiating examiner)
• dealing with behaviours of external parties (e.g. coaches)
• challenge of meeting increasing standards, responsibilities/expectations
(e.g. risk management)
These key issues and demands were also reflected by National Sports Organisations who felt that their
officials faced high expectations to ‘get it right’ and felt pressure from media attention. McGill (2006) suggested
that increasing levels of expectations and demands on sport officials has the potential to influence the way
in which these officials conduct matches.
While the crucial role played by officials is widely acknowledged, there has been little research, especially
in New Zealand, about the general public perceptions and media portrayal of sports officials and its impact
on their performance and role satisfaction. Research is needed into how New Zealand sporting officials,
both elite and grassroots, are perceived with respect to key officiating criteria such as integrity, judgment,
decisiveness, consistency and confidence by the general public (Weinberg & Richardson, 1990; Howat &
Murray, 2003).
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 10 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Of interest is the influence of mainstream and sporting media in terms of structuring these perceptions.
The media does more than just present the facts about how a match is played and the final outcome.
Commentators often spend significant time analysing and critiquing the decisions made by match officials,
and making judgments as to the effect of these decisions on the final outcome.
As sport continues to develop and ‘professionalise’ within New Zealand, the demands on sports officials will
continue to increase. The public are generally more aware of the rules of the game, television programmes
highlight and analyse critical decisions, and the media puts officials under intense scrutiny. While anecdotally
it would appear that officials often get harsh treatment both in the media and on the field of play and are
the topic of many Monday morning office conversations, little is known about actual public perceptions of
officials and the impact this may have on their recruitment, performance and role satisfaction.
METHODOLOGY
The aim of this research was to examine the New Zealand general public’s perceptions of New Zealand
sports officials. A mail survey was judged to be the most appropriate method to elicit the broadest range of
respondent input.
Questionnaire Development
Academic and practitioner sources were reviewed to determine whether a survey of general public
perceptions of sports officials had been conducted elsewhere, allowing for replication in New Zealand. As
such a survey had not previously been attempted, published studies investigating officiating performance,
effectiveness and stressors were reviewed to identify key themes. Questions were then developed based
on the key themes with input from a range of New Zealand sports officials.
Survey questions focused on respondents’ overall opinion of officials, effectiveness characteristics and
competency, influence over sports outcomes and accountability, acceptability of abuse of officials, and
sources of sport information. The completed 8 page questionnaire was field tested with representatives of
the general public and a range of New Zealand sports officials and administrators.
Sample
A sample of 1800 New Zealand residents was randomly selected from the 2008 New Zealand electoral roll
of all eligible voters over the age of eighteen. Those over the age of 75 or residents in retirement homes,
hospitals or prisons were identified, excluded and replaced in the sample.
Survey Procedure
The mail survey was conducted in compliance with Massey University Ethics guidelines and followed
accepted research protocols for confidentiality in general public mail surveys.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 11 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
The questionnaire package included a cover letter, questionnaire and reply paid envelope. The cover
letter was produced on Massey University letterhead, contained the required Massey University Ethics
statement, explained how respondents were selected and emphasised that all responses were confidential.
The cover letter explained that the research was only about sports that have sports officials (referees,
umpires or judges) such as rugby, netball or cricket. This was further emphasised at the beginning of the
questionnaire.
The questionnaire package was mailed to respondents on March 26, 2008. One reminder was sent on April
14, 2008 along with a replacement questionnaire and reply paid envelope. The survey was closed on May
15, 2008.
Response Rate
A total of 83 questionnaires were returned undeliverable (gone, no address) or were ineligible (deceased).
A total of 692 valid questionnaires were processed for an effective response rate of 40%, a respectable
response rate for a special interest research study conducted in a public forum. Interestingly, 40 surveys
were returned with respondents indicating they had no interest at all in sport.
Analysis
Data was analysed for the sample as a whole, by demographic characteristics, respondent’s stated ‘favourite
sport’, level of interest in their favourite sport, and level of involvement in sport.
Please note that only key findings are reported and comments made where notable differences were found.
All differences presented are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. All findings however
should be treated as indicative rather than conclusive.
Limitations
The main limitation of this research is that it is based on a self-completion survey. Consequently, it is
dependent on respondents answering the questions as intended.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 12 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
Respondents were asked a suite of standard demographic questions. Table 1 details the profile of the survey
respondents.
Table 1: Profile of Respondents
Gender:
47% male; 53% female
Age:
22% aged 18 – 35; 45% aged 36 – 55; 33% aged 56+
Education:
54% secondary school; 46% polytechnic or university
58% employed full or part time; 17% retired;
Employment:
15% self-employed; 10% unemployed or student
Ethnicity:
79% NZ European; 10% Maori
25% earned under $40,000; 35% $41 – 80,000
Income:
40% $81,000+
Household size:
47% one or two persons; 38% three or four; 15% five+
Children at home:
61% no children under 18; 29% one or two; 10% three+
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 13 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Results
FAVOURITE SPORT
Respondents were asked to indicate which sport from those that have sports officals was their #1 favourite
sport. They were also asked to indicate their level of interest and level of involvement in their favourite
sport.
As can be seen in Figure 1, not surprisingly, Rugby dominated as the favourite sport, followed by Netball,
Cricket and Soccer. These top four sports of Rugby, Netball, Cricket and Soccer were used for subsequent
cross-analysis.
Figure 1: Respondents’ Favourite Sport
37%
Rugby
17%
Netball
9%
Cricket
8%
Soccer
5%
Rugby League
Tennis
4%
Hockey
2%
Basketball
2%
14%
Other Sports
Level of Interest in Favourite Sport
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in their favourite sport from having little or just
a passing interest to being an avid and passionate fan. As can be seen in Figure 2, 70% of respondents
declared themselves to be fans. This is to be expected as those with little or no interest in a declared
favourite sport or sports in general would be more likely to opt out of completing the questionnaire.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 14 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 2: Level of Interest in Favourite Sport
70%
30%
Little or passing interest
Fan
Interest in Favourite Sport
As can be seen by Figure 3, males were noticeably more interested in their favourite sport than females,
with 79% declaring themselves to be fans compared to 63% for females.
Figure 3: Interest in Favourite Sport by Gender
Respondent
gender
Male
Female
79%
63%
37%
21%
Little or passing interest
Fan
Interest in Favourite Sport
Level of Involvement in Favourite Sport
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were currently involved in their favourite sport as a
player, administrator, official or spectators.
As can be seen in Table 2, 15% indicated they were involved in their favourite sport as a player (athlete or
competitor), 8% indicated they were involved in administration (coach, manager or administrator) and 5%
indicated they were currently sports officials. Respondents were allowed to give multiple responses so it is
possible that those who indicated they were currently sports officials may also have been involved in their
favourite sport in its administration or as a player and spectator. For subsequent analysis and comments, the
term ‘player’ is used to denote player, athlete or competitor and ‘administrator’ to denote coach, manager
or administrator.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 15 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Table 2: Level of Involvement in Favourite Sport
Note: Multiple responses allowed
OVERALL OPINION OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
Respondents were asked their overall opinion of sports officials in their favourite sport. As can be seen by
Figure 4, the majority of respondents indicated a positive overall opinion about these officials. Interestingly,
29% expressed a neutral overall opinion with only 6% declaring a negative overall opinion.
Figure 4: Overall Opinion of Sports Officials
66%
29%
6%
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Opinion of Sports Officials
Results were analysed based on respondents’ level of involvement. As illustrated in Figure 5, respondents
with experience as a player, administrator or official expressed more positive opinions than those without
that experience, with 74% indicating a positive or extremely positive opinion about officials in their favourite
sport. Neutral opinions were noticeably lower for those with direct sporting experience but interestingly
negative opinions were comparable to respondents without this direct involvement.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 16 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 5: Overall Opinion by Level of Involvement
74%
Experienced as
either a player,
CMA, or official in
sport
No
Yes
57%
37%
21%
6%
Positive
Neutral
5%
Negative
Opinion of Sports Officials
As can be seen in Figure 6, 75% of respondents with experience as a sports official expressed positive overall
opinions of officials in their favourite sport, compared to 61% for those without officiating experience. While
those expressing neutral opinions were noticeably lower for sports officials, negative overall opinions were
comparable to those without officiating experience.
Figure 6: Officials’ Overall Opinion of Sports Officials
75%
Currently or has
previously been a
sports official
No
Yes
61%
33%
19%
6%
Positive
Neutral
5%
Negative
Opinion of Sports Officials
Overall opinions were analysed based on the Top 4 Favourite Sports. As can be seen in Table 3, 70% of those
who indicated Cricket as their favourite sport expressed positive or extremely positive attitudes toward
Cricket officials. This compares with 66% for Rugby, 63% for Netball and 48% for Soccer. Those indicating
Soccer as their favourite sport expressed much higher neutral opinions, especially compared to Cricket
fans. Interestingly, negative opinions were comparable across sports with all being quite low.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 17 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Table 3: Overall Opinion by Favourite Sport
Results were analysed based on interest in favourite sport. As can be seen in Figure 7, those respondents
declaring themselves as fans had a much higher opinion of sports officials, with 72% declaring a positive
opinion compared to 48% for those declaring only little or passing interest in their favourite sport. A marked
difference can be seen in terms of neutral opinions (22% for fans compared with 46% for those with little or
passing interest) but once again, little difference was found relative to negative opinions.
Figure 7: Opinion of Sports Officials by Level of Interest
Interest in
favourite sport
Little or
passing
interest
Fan
72%
48%
46%
22%
6%
Positive
Neutral
5%
Negative
Opinion of Sports Officials
CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE OFFICIATING
effective officiating was obtained. Respondents were asked to rank the importance of each of the following
characteristics for officials in their favourite sport:
• makes impartial decisions
• makes clear rulings
• makes accurate decisions
• understands the rules of the game
• applies the rules consistently
• maintains control of the game & players
As would be expected the majority of respondents felt that all of the characteristics of effective officiating
were judged to be important.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 18 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Impartial Decisions
As shown in Figure 8, 88% of respondents felt that making impartial decisions was an important characteristic
for effective officiating.
Figure 8: Effective Officiating – Impartial Decisions
72%
16%
9%
2%
Not Important
2%
Not very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Quite
Important
Extremely
Important
An effective Official in my favourite sport makes impartial
decisions
Clear Rulings
In terms of making clear rulings, 96% of respondents judged this characteristic as important for effective
officiating.
Figure 9: Effective Officiating – Clear Rulings
71%
25%
0%
Not Important
1%
Not very
Important
3%
Somewhat
Important
Quite
Important
Extremely
Important
An effective Official in my favourite sport makes clear rulings
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 19 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Accurate Decisions
As can be seen in Figure 10, 95% of respondents judged accurate decisions as an important characteristic.
Figure 10: Effective Officiating – Accurate Decisions
71%
24%
0%
Not Important
1%
Not very
Important
4%
Somewhat
Important
Quite
Important
Extremely
Important
An effective Official in my favourite sport makes accurate
decisions
Rules of the Game
In terms of understanding the rules of the game, 97% of respondents felt that this characteristic was
important for effective officiating.
Figure 11: Effective Officiating – Rules of the Game
88%
9%
0%
Not Important
1%
Not very
Important
2%
Somewhat
Important
Quite
Important
Extremely
Important
An effective Official in my favourite sport understands the
rules of the game
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 20 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Consistent Application of Rules
As illustrated in Figure 12, 97% judged the consistent application of rules to be an important characteristic
of effective officiating.
Figure 12: Effective Officiating – Consistent Application
81%
16%
0%
Not Important
1%
Not very
Important
2%
Somewhat
Important
Quite
Important
Extremely
Important
An effective Official in my favourite sport applies the rules
consistently
Maintaining Control
In terms of maintaining control of both the game and players, 93% of respondents judged this to be an
important characteristic.
Figure 13: Effective Officiating – Maintaining Control
69%
24%
5%
1%
1%
Not Important
Not very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Quite
Important
Extremely
Important
An effective Official in my favourite sport maintains control of
the game and players
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 21 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Implications
Clearly, respondents were concerned with officials’ understanding and consistent application of the rules
of the game with 88% and 81% respectively judging these characteristics to be extremely important. As one
respondent commented:
‘Constantly changing rules of the game contributes to a level of misunderstanding of the
spectator public. More should be done to publicise changes of rules in advance.’
Results for the remaining four characteristics were comparable, with 69 – 72% of respondents judging them
to be extremely important.
Results were analysed based on officiating experience. Respondents with current or previous officiating
experience not surprisingly rated the average importance of each characteristic slightly higher than those
without officiating experience as can be seen in Table 4. The difference was consistent indicating officials
place more importance on all of the selected characteristics.
Table 4: Effective Officiating by Involvement
Characteristics
Officials
Non-Officials
Impartial Decisions
4.7
4.5
Clear Rulings
4.8
4.6
Accurate Decisions
4.7
4.6
Understanding of Rules
4.9
4.8
Consistent Application
4.9
4.7
Maintains Control
4.7
4.5
EVALUATION OF OFFICIATING PERFORMANCE
Respondents were asked to assess the effectiveness of the main official (referee, umpire or judge) in a
recent game of their favourite sport using the same suite of characteristics. Results were analysed for the
sample as a whole as well as the Top 4 Favourite Sports with comments made when substantive differences
were noted.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 22 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Performance – Impartial Decisions
Two-thirds of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the main official in a recent game of their
favourite sport had made impartial decisions (Figure 14). No discernible differences were found in terms of
Top 4 Favourite Sports.
Figure 14: Performance of Main Official – Impartial Decisions
51%
20%
15%
10%
3%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in my favourite sport made impartial decisions
Performance – Clear Rulings
Overall, 71% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the main official made clear rulings (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Performance of Main Official – Clear Rulings
52%
19%
18%
8%
2%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in my favourite sport made clear rulings
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 23 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Differences by Favourite Sport
When analysed by favourite sport, the performance of the main official in Rugby contrasted strongly with
the main official in Cricket. As shown in Figure 16, 69% of Rugby fans indicated they agreed that the official
made clear rulings while 14% disagreed. This contrasts with Cricket where 85% believed the official made
clear rulings, with no respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing (Figure 17).
Figure 16: Main Official in Rugby – Clear Rulings
52%
17%
17%
13%
1%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in Rugby made clear rulings
Figure 17: Main Official in Cricket – Clear Rulings
60%
25%
15%
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Main Official in Cricket made clear rulings
This difference suggests that the rulings for Cricket are possibly clearer than the rulings for Rugby – this is
a common complaint against Rugby in the media and anecdotally. As one respondent who was a Rugby fan
commented:
‘Referees in my favourite sport interpret the rules – this is bad. Rules should not need
justification during a game. Rules should not need justification during a game. Rules should
be clear to players, refs & spectators so the ref just runs the game by the rules that everyone
understands.’
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 24 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Performance – Accurate Decisions
Overall, 56% agreed or strongly agreed that the official in their favourite sport made accurate decisions.
Figure 18: Performance of Main Official – Accurate Decisions
41%
24%
17%
15%
3%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in my favourite sport made accurate decisions
Differences by Favourite Sport
However, it would appear that Rugby’s main official was judged more harshly in terms of accuracy with 26%
indicating they disagree or strongly disagree (Figure 19). By comparison, 11% of Soccer fans disagreed or
strongly disagreed that Soccer’s main official made accurate decisions (Figure 20).
Figure 19: Main Official in Rugby – Accurate Decisions
40%
23%
22%
12%
3%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in Rugby made accurate decisions
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 25 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 20: Main Official in Soccer – Accurate Decisions
52%
28%
9%
9%
2%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in Soccer made accurate decisions
Performance – Understanding Rules
As illustrated in Figure 21, 79% agreed or strongly agreed, with only 6% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
Results were consistent across the Top 4 Favourite Sports for understanding the rules of the game.
Figure 21: Performance of Main Official – Understanding Rules
47%
32%
15%
4%
2%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in my favourite sport understood the rules of the
game
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 26 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Performance – Consistent Application
Overall, 60% agreed that the main official in their favourite sport consistently applied the rules.
Figure 22: Performance of Main Official – Consistent Application
40%
17%
20%
19%
3%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official applied the rules consistently
Differences by Favourite Sport
When results were analysed based on Top 4 Favourite Sports, substantive differences were found between
Rugby and Cricket. As can be seen in Figure 23, 72% of Cricket fans agreed or strongly agreed that the
main official consistently applied the rules, with 14% expressing disagreement. This compares with 54%
agreement and 28% disagreement for Rugby fans (Figure 24). This is consistent with earlier findings where
Rugby fans gave lower ratings to their main official’s ability to make clear rulings. In contrast to the long
standing rules of Cricket, Rugby rules have undergone a number of high profile rule changes over the last
few years. The findings here may reflect the difficulty respondents are experiencing following the rulings of
Rugby’s main official. As noted by a respondent who was a Rugby fan:
‘A sport like rugby that regularly changes the rules to ‘improve’ the game are, in my opinion,
on a ‘slippery slide’.’
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 27 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 23: Main Official in Cricket – Application of Rules
47%
25%
15%
6%
Strongly
Disagree
8%
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in Cricket applied the rules consistently
Figure 24: Main Official in Rugby – Application of Rules
37%
27%
18%
17%
1%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in Rugby applied the rules consistently
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 28 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Performance – Maintaining Control
As indicated in Figure 25, 73% agreed or strongly agreed with only 9% indicating that the official did not
maintain control of the game. Results were consistent across the Top 4 Favourite Sports for maintaining
control of the game.
Figure 25: Performance of Main Official – Maintaining Control
51%
22%
18%
7%
2%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Main Official in my favourite sport maintained control of the
game and players
Implications
Results were analysed based on respondents’ overall opinion of officials. As shown in Table 5, the more
positive the opinion of officials as a whole, the higher the rating of the main official’s performance.
Table 5: Performance of Main Official by Overall Opinion of Officials
Characteristics
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Impartial Decisions
3.9
3.4
2.5
Clear Rulings
4.0
3.5
2.7
Accurate Decisions
3.7
3.2
2.1
Understanding of Rules
4.3
3.7
3.2
Consistent Application
3.8
3.2
2.1
Maintains Control
4.0
3.6
2.9
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 29 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
INFLUENCE OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
Anecdotally, there is growing concern that officials may have a disproportionate influence over the outcome
of the game and are not held accountable or called upon to explain their decisions in a public forum.
Respondents were asked their opinion as to the amount of influence officials exert over the outcome of
the game. They were also asked whether officials should be accountable for their decisions and, if so, to
whom.
Influence over Outcome of Game
As illustrated in Figure 26, the majority of respondents judged the influence of officials on the outcome of the
game as ‘about right’. Interestingly, only 1% believed officials have ‘too little’ influence but just under a third
of respondents believed officials have ‘too much’ influence over the outcome of the game.
Figure 26: Influence of Official on Outcome
69%
30%
1%
Too much
About right
Too little
Influence of Official
Differences by Favourite Sport, Level of Interest & Level of Involvement
Differences were found when results were analysed by the Top 4 Favourite Sports. As can be seen in Table
6, 40% of Rugby fans felt officials had ‘too much’ influence. By comparison, three-quarters of Cricket fans
felt their officials exerted the right amount of influence.
Table 6: Influence of Officials by Favourite Sport
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 30 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
As shown in Figure 27, 32% of fans felt officials had ‘too much’ influence, compared to 24% for those
respondents with little or passing interest. Three-quarters of those with little or passing interest felt the
amount of influence was ‘about right’, compared to 67% for fans.
Figure 27: Influence of Official by Level of Interest
74%
67%
Interest in their
favourite sport
Little or
passing
interest
Fan
32%
24%
2%
Too much
About right
1%
Too little
Influence of Official
As can be seen by Figure 28, 32% of respondents with direct experience in sport believed officials have ‘too
much’ influence, comparable to 28% for those with no direct sports experience.
Figure 28: Influence of Official by Level of Involvement
71%
67%
Experienced as
either a player,
CMA, or official
No
Yes
32%
28%
1%
Too much
About right
1%
Too little
Influence of Official
Implications
The majority of respondents believed the amount of influence officials have over the outcome the game was
‘about right’. However almost one-third believed the influence was ‘too much’. Direct involvement in sport
at some level served to amplify the sense that officials may be exerting more influence than acceptable.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 31 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Accountability of Sports Officials
Respondents were asked whether they believed professional or amateur officials should be required to
explain or justify their decisions and if so, to whom. Respondents were given guidance as to what constitutes
professional sports officials e.g. Super 14 referees and amateur sports officials e.g. local club referees.
Professional Officials
More than three-quarters of respondents believed professional sports officials should be required to explain
their decisions (Figure 29). The results for respondents with officiating experience were identical to those
without this experience.
Figure 29: Accountability of Professional Officials
77%
23%
No
Yes
Should Professional Officials be required to explain their
decisions?
As can be seen in Table 7, over one third of those who believed professional sports officials should be
accountable felt they should be accountable to players and coaches. In comparison, support for accountability
to supporters and the media was low.
Table 7: Who should Professional Officials be Accountable to?
Note: Multiple responses allowed
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 32 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Amateur Officials
Support for accountability of amateur officials was lower at 64% compared to professional officials (Figure
30). As illustrated in Table 8, again support was higher for explaining decisions to players and coaches with
respondents believing amateur officials should not be accountable to supporters or the media.
Figure 30: Accountability of Amateur Officials
64%
36%
No
Yes
Should Amateur Officials be required to explain their
decisions?
Table 8: Who should Amateur Officials be Accountable to?
Note: Multiple responses allowed
No differences were found relative to favourite sport, level of interest or involvement.
Implications
These results indicate that amateur officials are not held to the same standard of accountability as
professional officials. However, respondents believe both amateur and professional officials should primarily
be accountable for those directly involved in the sport (players and coaches).
As one respondent commented:
‘Officials should be required to justify their decisions to their governing bodies but not the
media.’
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 33 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Officials and the Media
Respondents were asked whether professional, international and amateur sports officials should be
available for questioning by the media after games. Respondents were given guidance as to what constitutes
international sports officials e.g. Olympic judges.
Professional and International Officials
As can be seen in Figure 31, 61% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that professional officials should
be called upon to explain their decisions to the media. The figure rose to 63% for international officials
(Figure 32).
Figure 31: Professional Officials and Media Questioning
41%
20%
18%
13%
9%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Should Professional Officials be available for questioning by
the Media after the game?
Figure 32: International Officials and Media Questioning
40%
23%
16%
12%
9%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Should International Officials be available for questioning by
the Media after the game?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 34 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Amateur Officials
One-third of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that amateur officials should be available for questioning
after the game, contrasting strongly with the findings relative to professional and international officials
(Figure 33).
Figure 33: Amateur Officials and Media Questioning
34%
26%
21%
13%
6%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Should Amateur Officials be available for questioning by the
Media after the game?
Implications
The expectations of the general public that amateur officials should justify their decisions to the media are
substantially lower than those for paid professional and internationally ranked officials. There appears to be
alignment between expectation and level of officiating.
Results for respondents with current or past officiating experience were analysed. Not surprisingly,
respondents with officiating experience disagreed or strongly disagreed with officials being available for
questioning: 25% for professional officials (Table 9), 25% for international officials (Table 10) and 41% for
amateur officials (Table 11).
Table 9: Questioning of Professional Officials by Experience
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 35 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Table 10: Questioning of International Officials by Experience
Table 11: Questioning of Amateur Officials by Experience
SOURCES OF SPORTS INFORMATION
Many things can influence opinions about the performance of sports officials besides an individual’s
personal experience with the sport. Respondents were asked the amount of notice they paid to a range of
sources of sports information (commentary or discussion) and how trustworthy they believed the sources to
be. Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of hours per week they spend watching, reading
or listening to sports coverage.
Notice Taken of Selected Sources
Respondents were asked to indicate the amount of notice taken of the selected sources of sports information:
match commentators, players, coaches, journalists, friends or associates, online social networks (e.g. blogs)
and TV sports shows.
Overall, respondents indicated they took the most notice of players and match commentators. Three-quarters
of respondents took some or a lot of notice of players and match commentators (Figures 34 and 35). As can
be seen in Figure 36, two-thirds of respondents took some or a lot of notice of coaches, with a slightly lower
percentage (63%) paying attention to friends and associates (Figure 37). Over 50% of respondents took some
or a lot of notice of journalists (Figure 38), one-third attended to TV sports shows (Figure 39) with only 13%
taking notice of online social networks (Figure 40).
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 36 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 34: Notice Taken of Players
49%
27%
18%
5%
No Notice
Little Notice
Some Notice
Lots of Notice
Notice taken of Players
Figure 35: Notice Taken of Match Commentators
56%
19%
16%
9%
No Notice
Little Notice
Some Notice
Lots of Notice
Notice taken of Match Commentators
Figure 36: Notice Taken of Coaches
47%
25%
19%
10%
No Notice
Little Notice
Some Notice
Lots of Notice
Notice taken of Coaches
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 37 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 37: Notice Taken of Friends and Associates
54%
28%
9%
9%
No Notice
Little Notice
Some Notice
Lots of Notice
Notice taken of Friends and Associates
Figure 38: Notice Taken of Journalists
44%
33%
14%
9%
No Notice
Little Notice
Some Notice
Lots of Notice
Notice taken of Journalists
Figure 39: Notice Taken of TV Sports Shows
35%
29%
28%
7%
No Notice
Little Notice
Some Notice
Lots of Notice
Notice taken of TV Sports Shows
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 38 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 40: Notice Taken of Online Social Networks
63%
24%
12%
1%
No Notice
Little Notice
Some Notice
Lots of Notice
Notice taken of Online Social Networks
Implications
These results suggest that respondents take more notice of sources closest to the action at the time of play
– players, coaches and match commentators. As such, match commentators in particular have potential to
influence perceptions of officiating performance for the viewing public.
Trustworthiness of Selected Sources
Respondents were asked their opinions as to the trustworthiness of a range of sources of sports information.
Trustworthiness was defined as knowledgeable, accurate, and impartial. Coaches and players were rated
as the most trustworthy with 62% and 60% respectively rating them as quite or very trustworthy (Figures 41
and 42). 56% rated match commentators as quite or very trustworthy (Figure 43), while friends and journalists
came in at 36% and 35% respectively (Figures 44 and 45). Not surprisingly, TV sports shows and online social
networks were judged the least trustworthy (Figures 46 and 47).
Figure 41: Trustworthiness of Coaches
53%
35%
9%
3%
Not at all
trustworthy
Somewhat
Trustworthy
Quite
Trustworthy
Very
Trustworthy
How trustworthy are Coaches?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 39 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 42: Trustworthiness of Players
52%
35%
8%
5%
Not at all
trustworthy
Somewhat
Trustworthy
Quite
Trustworthy
Very
Trustworthy
How trustworthy are Players?
Figure 43: Trustworthiness of Match Commentators
49%
39%
7%
5%
Not at all
trustworthy
Somewhat
Trustworthy
Quite
Trustworthy
Very
Trustworthy
How trustworthy are Match Commentators?
Figure 44: Trustworthiness of Friends and Associates
55%
33%
9%
3%
Not at all
trustworthy
Somewhat
Trustworthy
Quite
Trustworthy
Very
Trustworthy
How trustworthy are Friends and Associates?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 40 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 45: Trustworthiness of Journalists
51%
33%
14%
2%
Not at all
trustworthy
Somewhat
Trustworthy
Quite
Trustworthy
Very
Trustworthy
How trustworthy are Journalists?
Figure 46: Trustworthiness of TV Sports Shows
48%
28%
21%
3%
Not at all
trustworthy
Somewhat
Trustworthy
Quite
Trustworthy
Very
Trustworthy
How trustworthy are TV Sports Shows?
Figure 47: Trustworthiness of Online Social Networks
48%
42%
9%
1%
Not at all
trustworthy
Somewhat
Trustworthy
Quite
Trustworthy
Very
Trustworthy
How trustworthy are Online Social Networks?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 41 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Implications
The findings suggest that respondents feel that sources closest to the action at the time of play are more
trustworthy – players, coaches and match commentators. This is significant as respondents take more
notice of these same sources. What is also interesting is the low proportion of respondents who believe
any of the sources of sports information are ‘very trustworthy’ and both the limited amount of notice and
trustworthiness assigned to online sources and television shows.
When analysed by the Top 4 Favourite Sports, the only difference found was relative to the trustworthiness
of coaches (Table 12). Rugby fans considered coaches notably more trustworthy than Netball, Cricket or
Soccer fans – 72% felt coaches quite or very trustworthy compared to 57% for Netball, 56% for Cricket and
50% for Soccer.
Table 12: Trustworthiness of Coaches by Favourite Sport
Media as Sources of Sports Information
Respondents were asked to indicate, on average, how many hours per week they spend watching, reading
or listening to sports coverage on each of the following media: television, magazines, newspapers, radio
and the Internet. Respondents were categorised into non-users (not at all), light users (overall up to 3 hours),
moderate users (overall up to 10 hours) and heavy users (more than 10 hours).
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 42 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Television
As can be seen in Figure 48, 60% of respondents were light users of television as their source of sporting
information, 27% moderate users and 5% heavy users.
Figure 48: TV as Source of Sports Information
31%
29%
20%
8%
7%
5%
Not at all
1 hour or
less
Up to 3
hours
Up to 5
hours
Up to 10
hours
More than
10 hours
On average, hour many hours per week do you spend watching
Sport on TV?
Magazines
As reflected in Figure 49, 54% of respondents indicated they did not use magazines as a source of sports
information and 44% presented as light users.
Figure 49: Magazines as Source of Sports Information
54%
38%
6%
Not at all
1 hour or
less
Up to 3
hours
1%
0%
1%
Up to 5
hours
Up to 10
hours
More than
10 hours
On average, hour many hours per week do you spend reading
about Sport in Magazines?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 43 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Newspapers
As Figure 50 illustrates, 23% of respondents indicated they did not consult newspapers while 71% presented
as light users.
Figure 50: Newspapers as Source of Sports Information
57%
23%
14%
4%
Not at all
1 hour or
less
Up to 3
hours
Up to 5
hours
1%
1%
Up to 10
hours
More than
10 hours
On average, hour many hours per week do you spend reading
about Sport in Newspapers?
Radio
Over one-third of respondents indicated they did not use radio for sports information with 53% presenting
as light users (Figure 51).
Figure 51: Radio as Source of Sports Information
40%
35%
13%
5%
Not at all
1 hour or
less
Up to 3
hours
Up to 5
hours
3%
3%
Up to 10
hours
More than
10 hours
On average, hour many hours per week do you spend listening
to Sport on the Radio?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 44 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
The Internet
The Internet proved to be the least used source with 65% of respondents making not use of it and only 31%
presenting as light users – see Figure 52.
Figure 52: The Internet as Source of Sports Information
65%
22%
9%
2%
Not at all
1 hour or
less
Up to 3
hours
Up to 5
hours
1%
1%
Up to 10
hours
More than
10 hours
On average, hour many hours per week do you spend
watching/reading/listening to sport on the Internet?
Implications
Newspapers, television and radio appear to be the preferred source of sports information overall, however
the majority of respondents are light users of these media. Television is the main overall source of sports
information.
ABUSE OF OFFICIALS
Abuse has been identified in previous studies as a source of stress and burnout for officials and one of
the reasons why individuals cease officiating. Respondents were asked whether they believed the level
of abuse of sports officials has increased or decreased over the past 5 years. They were asked about the
acceptability of varying levels of abuse and the impact of abuse on their own enjoyment of the game.
Abuse of Officials over Time
Respondents were asked to consider whether abuse of officials had increased, decreased or stayed the
same over the past five years. As evidenced by Figure 53, two-thirds of respondents believed that abuse
had increased with just under a third believing it has stayed about the same. Only 5% of respondents felt
that abuse had decreased.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 45 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 53: Abuse of Officials over Last Five Years
65%
30%
5%
Increased
Decreased
Stayed about the same
Do you think that, in general, over the last 5 years the abuse of
Officials has ...?
As one respondent noted:
‘These days I have noticed that officials have to deal with a lot of abuse from players,
coaches and spectators. End of the day sport is supposed to be fun.’
When the sample was analysed based on demographic characteristics, gender differences emerged, with
a greater proportion of females believing that abuse of sports officials has increased.
Figure 54: Abuse of Officials by Gender
Respondent
gender
Male
Female
70%
59%
35%
26%
6%
Increased
4%
Decreased
Stayed about the same
Do you think that, in general, over the last 5 years the
abuse of Sports Officials has ...?
A slightly higher proportion (67% versus 64% for non-officials) of respondents who had experience as a
sports official themselves felt that the abuse of officials had increased over the last five years.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 46 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Table 13: Abuse of Officials by Officiating Experience
This result was more pronounced for those with direct sporting experience as evidenced by Table 14.
Table 14: Abuse of Officials by Involvement in Sport
Acceptability of Varying Levels of Abuse
What constitutes abuse towards sports officials will vary depending on the individual observing the abuse,
the particular abusive behaviour, setting, and parties involved. Respondents were asked to indicate
acceptance of different types of abuse identified in previous studies.
The following abusive behaviours were posed in the positive indicating that the abusive behaviour IS
acceptable to the respondent: loudly disagreeing with officials, players answering back, making smart
or funny comments, and commentators questioning officials. Agreement with the statement indicates
respondents find that particular abusive behaviour ACCEPTABLE; disagreement with the statement indicates
respondents find that particular abusive behaviour UNACCEPTABLE.
Loudly Disagreeing with Officials
The majority of respondents (68%) agreed that loudly disagreeing with officials was not acceptable (disagree/
strongly disagree with statement). Only 15% found this behaviour to be acceptable (agree/strongly agree
with statement).
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 47 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 55: Loudly Disagreeing with Officials
37%
31%
18%
13%
2%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Is loudly disagreeing with Officials' decisions acceptable?
There were no differences found when the sample was analysed based on the Top 4 Favourite Sports.
Interestingly however, females found this practice slightly more unacceptable than males at 71% versus
63% respectively (Figure 56).
Figure 56: Loudly Disagreeing by Gender
Respondent
gender
Male
Female
71%
63%
16%
19%
20%
11%
Disagree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Agree
Is loudly disagreeing with Officials' decisions acceptable?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 48 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Players Answering Back
As can be seen in Figure 57, 86% of respondents felt this behaviour was unacceptable (disagree/strongly
disagree with statement). Further analysis revealed no differences in terms of favourite sport, sport or
officiating experience, or level of interest in sport.
Figure 57: Players Answering Back
44%
42%
9%
5%
1%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Is players answering back to Officials acceptable?
Making Smart or Funny Comments
As Figure 58 shows, more than three quarters of respondents indicated that this behaviour was unacceptable
(disagree/strongly disagree with statement). No differences were found when the sample was analysed in
terms of favourite sport, sport or officiating experience, or level of interest in sport.
Figure 58: Smart or Funny Comments
41%
38%
13%
7%
2%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Is making smart or funny comments about Officials
acceptable?
However, when analysed relative to gender, females found making smart or funny comments about officials
less acceptable than males (Figure 59).
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 49 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 59: Smart or Funny Comments by Gender
Respondent
gender
Male
Female
83%
74%
14%
Disagree
11%
11%
6%
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Agree
Is making smart or funny comments about Officials
acceptable?
Questioning by Commentators
decisions, however 38% found this behaviour unacceptable (disagree/strongly disagreed with statement).
No differences were found when the sample was analysed in terms of favourite sport, sport or officiating
experience, or level of interest in sport.
Figure 60: Commentators Questioning Officials’ Decisions
35%
24%
22%
16%
4%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Is commentators questioning Officials' decisions acceptable?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 50 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
The following abusive behaviours were posed in the negative indicating that the abusive behaviour IS NOT
acceptable: throwing objects, nasty or derogatory comments, verbal abuse, and journalists writing articles
undermining officials. Agreement with the statement indicates respondents find that particular abusive
behaviour UNACCEPTABLE; disagreement with the statement indicates respondents find that particular
abusive behaviour ACCEPTABLE.
Throwing Objects
Throwing objects near or at officials was deemed unacceptable by 86% of the respondents. While this
is deemed an unacceptable behaviour towards sports officials by the vast majority of the respondents,
11% of respondents judged this behaviour as acceptable (disagree/strongly disagree that behaviour not
acceptable).
Figure 61: Throwing Objects at Officials
73%
13%
10%
1%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
2%
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Is throwing objects near or at Officials "not" acceptable?
Rugby fans were more inclined to find throwing objects at officials not acceptable compared to Soccer,
Cricket or Netball fans whereas 17% of Netball fans found this type of abuse to be acceptable (Table 15).
Table 15: Throwing Objects at Officials by Favourite Sport
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 51 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Nasty or Derogatory Comments
As can be seen in Figure 62, 85% of respondents believed that making nasty or derogatory comments about
specific officials was unacceptable.
Figure 62: Nasty or Derogatory Comments
67%
18%
10%
Strongly
Disagree
2%
3%
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Is making nasty or derogatory comments about Officials "not"
acceptable?
Rugby fans found this abusive behaviour less acceptable than fans of the other Top 4 Favourite Sports
(Table 16). Once again, Netball fans found this behaviour more acceptable than the other Top 4 Favourite
Sports.
Table 16: Nasty or Derogatory Comments by Favourite Sport
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 52 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Verbal Abuse
The vast majority of respondents (86%) agreed that verbally abusing officials to their face was not acceptable
(Figure 63).
Figure 63: Verbal Abuse
65%
21%
10%
Strongly
Disagree
2%
2%
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Is verbally abusing Officials to their face "not" acceptable?
Rugby fans once again expressed stronger opinions as to the unacceptability of abusive behaviour than
fans of Soccer, Netball or Cricket (Table 17).
Table 17: Verbal Abuse by Favourite Sport
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 53 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Journalists Undermining Officials
Respondents were asked about the acceptability of journalists writing articles undermining officials. Well
over half of the respondents found this practice to be unacceptable (Figure 64).
Figure 64: Journalists Undermining Officials
30%
29%
21%
13%
7%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree
or Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Is Journalists writing articles undermining officials "not"
acceptable?
No differences were found when the sample was analysed in terms of favourite sport, sport or officiating
experience, or level of interest in sport. However, once again, females tended to find this practice less
acceptable than males (Figure 65).
Figure 65: Journalists Undermining Officials by Gender
Respondent
gender
Male
Female
61%
56%
25%
17%
Disagree
20%
22%
Neither Disagree or
Agree
Agree
Is Journalists writing articles undermining officials "not"
acceptable?
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 54 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Implications
Overall, respondents felt the varying levels of abuse presented were unacceptable. Respondents expressed
the strongest opinions about the unacceptability of throwing objects, making derogatory or nasty comments,
verbally abusing officials or players answering back. Interestingly, while 38% of respondents felt it was not
acceptable for commentators to question officials’ decisions, 39% felt this was acceptable behaviour.
Rugby fans had a lower tolerance of specific abusive behaviours (throwing objects, making nasty or
derogatory comments, or verbal abuse) than Netball, Cricket or Soccer fans.
There is also an indication that females find certain abusive behaviours less acceptable than males – namely,
making smart or funny comments, loudly disagreeing, and journalists undermining officials.
Impact of Abuse on Spectators’ Enjoyment of the Game
Respondents were asked about the impact of three different types of abuse on their overall enjoyment of
the game.
Verbal Abuse by Spectators
The majority of respondents agreed that spectators verbally abusing officials decreased their enjoyment of
the game (Figure 66).
Figure 66: Effect of Verbal Abuse of Officials on Enjoyment
85%
15%
Agree
Disagree
Spectators verbally abusing Officials "decreases" my
enjoyment of the game
Females had a tendency to find this practice had more impact on their enjoyment than males (Figure 67).
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 55 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Figure 67: Effect of Verbal Abuse on Enjoyment by Gender
Respondent
gender
Male
Female
90%
79%
21%
10%
Agree
Disagree
Spectators verbally abusing Officials decreases my
enjoyment of the game
Verbal Abuse by Players
As illustrated in Figure 68, 85% of respondents indicated that players verbally abusing officials decreased
their enjoyment of the game.
Figure 68: Effect of Players’ Verbal Abuse on Enjoyment
85%
15%
Agree
Disagree
Players verbally abusing officials "increases" my
enjoyment of the game
This was especially so for Netball fans. In comparison, 27% of Cricket fans indicated that players verbally
abusing officials actually increased their enjoyment of the game (Table 18).
Table 18: Players’ Verbal Abuse by Favourite Sport
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 56 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Questioning by Commentators
The effect of commentators constantly questioning officials’ decisions was noticeably less than the other
two behaviours tested, however 70% still indicated the practice reduced their enjoyment of the game
(Figure 69).
Figure 69: Effect of Commentators on Enjoyment
70%
30%
Agree
Disagree
Constant questioning of Officials decisions by
Commentators and Journalists "decreases" my enjoyment
of the game
Females again had a tendency to find this practice reduced their enjoyment more than their male counterparts
(Figure 70).
Figure 70: Effect of Commentators on Enjoyment by Gender
74%
Respondent
gender
Male
Female
66%
34%
26%
Agree
Disagree
Constant questioning of Officials decisions by
Commentators and Journalists "decreases" my enjoyment
of the game
Implications
Undoubtedly various forms of abuse towards officials have an impact on spectators’ enjoyment of the
game. For females, previous intolerance of abusive behaviours has a notable negative effect on their overall
enjoyment of the game.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 57 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
PREVIOUS OFFICIATING EXPERIENCE
Respondents who had previous officiating experience were asked their reasons for no longer being involved.
As shown in Figure 71, 27% of respondents reported that they had previously been a sports official but were
no longer involved.
Figure 71: Previous Officiating Experience
73%
27%
No
Yes
Previously an Official but no longer involved?
Respondents were provided with a list of reasons identified in previous studies as the main reasons why
officials cease officiating. Respondents were allowed to provide multiple responses.
As can be seen in Table 19, changes in family or personal interests and family or work commitments were
cited most frequently. Notably abuse from fans was one of the least likely reasons for ceasing officiating,
despite officials indicating they believed abuse had been increasing.
Table 19: Reasons for no longer being a Sports Official
Note: Multiple responses allowed
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 58 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
GENERAL COMMENTS
Respondents were given the opportunity to make further comment. Comments were received concerning
officials, the level of abuse and accountability. The following are indicative:
‘Referees interpret the rules … rules should not need justification during a game. Rules
should be clear to players, refs and spectators.’
‘At some point every sports official is going to make the wrong call. I feel especially in
professional sport it is vital to have a secondary system in place to help keep their integrity
intact.’
‘These days officials have to deal with a lot of abuse from players, coaches and spectators.
End of the day, sport is supposed to be fun.’
‘Now that many sports have become more professional, the accountability of referees has
increased dramatically.’
Many positive comments were received concerning officials indicating respondents’ appreciation for the
work done by officials. The following are indicative:
‘Sports officials have an unenviable job and too much criticism is made by people who have
no idea what goes on behind the scene.’
‘I am thankful to the amateur sports officials who give of themselves so much time and
unpaid support to keep the sports fun.’
‘I take my hat off to all sports officials and would never criticise unless I have what I felt was
a better idea or method.’
‘Sports officials have a very thankless job. There is no way to please everyone.’
‘Without officials, especially the volunteers who put hundreds of hours into the sport,
players and athletes would not be able to participate.’
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Terry Macpherson of Massey University for statistical analysis, graphics and assistance with questionnaire
development and report writing.
Andrew Hercus of the University of Canterbury and Ron Garland of the University of Waikato for assistance
with questionnaire development and field testing.
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 59 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
References
Anshel, M. (1995) Development of a Rating Scale for Determining Competence in Basketball Referees:
Implications for Sport Psychology, Sport Psychologist v9(1).
Anshel, M. (1996) Coping with acute stress among American and Australian basketball referees, Journal of
Sport Behaviourr v19 (3).
Balch, M. & Scott, D. (2007) Contrary to popular belief, refs are people too! Personality and perceptions of
officials, Journal of Sport Behaviour v30 (1).
Balmer, N., Nevill, A., Lane, A., Ward, P., Williams, M. & Fairclough, H. (2007), Influence of Crowd Noise on
Soccer Refereeing Consistency in Soccer, Journal of Sport Behaviour v30 (2).
Boyko, R., Joyner, B., Pim, A. & Czech, D. (2007) Referee bias contributes to home advantage in English
premiership football, Journal of Sports Sciencess v25 (11).
Burke, K. (2000) An exploratory investigation of the perceptions of anxiety among basketball officials
before, during and after the contest, Journal of Sport Behaviourr v23 (1).
Carr, T. (2002) Conflict of interest, Refereee v27 (4).
Dickson, S. (2002) How good are elite Soccer referees? Just ask the players and coaches. In Spink (ed)
Science and Football IV,
V London, Routledge.
Evans, R. (1994) A psychological profile of top Australian Soccer referees, Sports Coach
h v17 (2).
Howat, H. & Murray, E. (2004) Identifying the Underlying Personality Characteristics Important for Effective
Rugby Referees, Sport Marketing Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference,
Melbourne, Australia.
Kellett, P. & Shilbury, D. (2007) Umpire Participation: Is Abuse Really the Issue?, Sport Management
Review
w v10.
Mascarenhas, D. (2006) The psychological and performance demands of association football referencing,
International Journal of Sport Psychologyy v37 (2-3).
Mascarenhas, D., Collins, D. & Mortimer, P. (2005) Elite Refereeing Performance: Developing a Model for
Sport Science Support, The Sport Psychologistt v19.
McGill, G. (2006) Welcome to the Best Seat in the House Where the Athlete Determines the Result,
Presentation to Sport Canterbury, March.
Mellick, M. (2005) Identifying best practice for referee decision communication in association and Rugby
union football, Football Studiess v8 (1).
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 60 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008
Rainey, D. & Hardy, L. (1999) Assaults on Rugby union referees: a three union survey, Journal of Sport
Behaviour v22 (1).
Rainey, D. (1999) Sources of stress, burnout and intention to terminate among Basketball referees, Journal
of Sports Behaviour v22 (4).
Rainey, D. & Hardy, L. (1999) Sources of stress, burnout and intention to terminate among Rugby union
referees, Journal of Sports Sciences v17 (10).
Rainey, D. (1995) Stress, burnout and intention to terminate among umpires, Journal of Sport Behaviour
v18 (4).
Rainey, D. (1995) Sources of stress among baseball and softball umpires, Journal of Applied Sport
Psychologyy v7 (1).
Rainey, D. (1990) Fan’s evaluations of major league baseball umpires’ performances and perceptions of
appropriate behaviour towards umpires, Journal of Sport Behaviourr v13 (2).
Sabaini, D. (2001) Successful Officiating 2001: How to Get and Keep Officials, National Association of
Sports Officials, USA.
Sabaini, D. (2002) Sports Officiating 2002: Evaluating Officiating Performance, National Association of
Sports Officials, USA.
Sloan, T. (2004) For the fourth time, that’s enough!, Refereee v29 (8).
Sport and Recreation New Zealand (2003) New Zealand’s High Performance Sports Officials.
VanYperen, N. (1998), Predicting stay/leave behaviour among volleyball referees,
Sport Psychologist v12 (4).
Wineberg, R. & Richardson, P. (1990) The Psychology of Officiating, Leisure Press, Illinois.
Winograd, R. (2002) Retaining officials: stay in the game, Refereee v27 (5).
Wolfson, S. & Neave, N. (2007) Coping under Pressure: Cognitive Strategies for Maintaining Confidence
among Soccer Referees, Journal of Sport Behaviour v30 (2).
PERCEPTIONS OF SPORTS OFFICIALS
[ 61 ]
What the New Zealand Public Thinks 2008