The Rhetorical Style of a Soccer Referee
What has peaked my interest most about rhetoric is the finite detail of style behind its uses. Hermogenes wrote about the virtues of rhetorics style. There are seven constructions of rhetorical style: Clarity, grandeur, beauty, rapidity, character, and force. Each of these directly contribute to how a persons use of rhetoric is received. I didn’t want to break apart the style of the presidential candidates in the past election since we have covered that as best we could. Instead I wanted to go into the everyday uses of rhetoric, specifically how I have used it as a soccer referee. I never realized how much rhetoric is being used as a referee officiates a game. The referees knowledge of the game is only part of how he is judged as a good officiator. It is how confident and controlling he is of the game as well. What every referee is told when taking the classes necessary to become one is; when giving a call on the field, you must do it with great authority.
When I took the class back in 2004 there was a section on the test that gave you a hypothetical situation that has occurred on the field and you had to write out in great detail how you would respond to the situation. It wasn’t until now that I learned about how crucial your answers to those hypothetical scenarios dictated whether or not you passed the exam. The USSF members that gave the exam were looking for those who have a natural ability to officiate and those who knew the laws very well. They explain to us that the greatest authority of a referee is not the whistle he blows or the cards he gives, it is his confidence and knowledge of the laws that earn him respect on the field of play.
Now when I first heard this I thought it was a bit silly but from a rhetorical view this makes perfect sense. Though I still reserve the right to call it silly because being a part of that system allowed me to see the USSF officials come off as these high horse type of men and I find any high horse attitude in a game for amateurs hilarious. I mean come on, relax.
According to the FIFA Laws of the Game manual, it states that “each match is controlled by a referee who was full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match to which he has been appointed.” (Yes there is a bit of sexism in the manual) Like a political presentation the referee will utilize the laws/rhetoric, in connection with the match he is officiating. The style of how authority is perceived is very crucial in both instances as well.
I passed my exam and went through a few training sessions before being given my first match to officiate. I was a fourteen year old officiating a U-18, under eighteen, mens match on my first day as a referee. I was nervous and was trying to remember what I had been taught. When the whistle blew for the match to begin my damn heart was pounding so fast I could barely concentrate. Since it was a U-18 match the halves were split into 45 minutes. After the first half there is a fifteen minute break. I walked over to the area the refs and I were setup and I was greeted by a few angry parents yelling at me about the mistakes I had made. I didn’t know how to answer back or explain myself which lead the parents to question my ability to officiate and it had me thinking about my own ability. The center referee who I was sidelining for took me to the side and explained to me that I need to relax and not worry, I’m going to make mistakes, the best thing to do was to make the calls with authority. If the call was wrong or I wasn’t sure to just make the call firmly and appear as if I knew the call was right.
It didn’t really occur to me until this semester how making calls as a referee was a form of rhetoric. Specifically the style of the authority in rhetoric. The powers and duties of the referee state that the referee “enforces the Laws of the Game, controls the match in cooperation with the assistant referee, provides the appropriate authorities with a match report.” In order to properly carry out the duties as a referee I had to create a specific style of how I would officiate the games and how I felt I would adjust that style from game to game.
The clarity of my rhetoric came from knowing the rules in and out and when directing them, I spoke firm, confident, and short. I learned over the years that I will always have parents who judge my calls based off how I explain them to the coach. When I was about sixteen I had a coach come up to me at half time and ask me why I didn’t call an offside on the opposing player who scored a goal. I had made this call many times before and never had to explain it. The Laws of the Game state “a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent” so if the offensive player is ahead of the last defender and ball before the ball is passed to the attacking player than the offside is called and the ball goes to the other team. What occurred on the field was a tactic many players learn to utilize as they get older.
The attacking player waits for their teammate to pass the ball ahead of them as the player then runs to what is normally an offside position but because the ball was ahead of the player before moving into that position it is not an offside. The difficulty in judging this tactic is due to how closely the referee is watching the game. From the sideline vantage point it seems like an offside, I have seen it my self. Parents and coaches will get mad if they feel the call was wrong. When the coach approached me he was yelling at me about the call that I missed and how it could lead to his team losing, even though they were already down by four goals. In this instance my style of rhetoric had to come thru properly. I spoke to him with a clear voice, I addressed him as sir, and spoke with terms of soccer knowledge. The use and appearance of grandeur and beauty came with the precise knowledge of how I explained what happened on the field and how according to The Laws of the Game the opposing player was not in an offside position.
The coach listened and his tone changed and his volume went down. He apologized for the misunderstanding and shook my hand, then went back to his players. My style changed a bit on the fly, normally I use a bit more force in my language and tone but as I listened to the coach talk to me I thought it would benefit me more if I toned it down. ausing the addition of sincerity in my language helped me because he wasn’t the typical hot head coach and only wanted an explanation. Within the style I used Ciceros Roman Levels of Style to address this particular confrontation, Mesos (Middle Style), to please the coach with listening to him and explaining to him my decision and Ischnos (Low or Plain Style), to teach him an aspect of The Laws of the Game he didn’t know before.
As I got older I significantly improved how I interacted with coaches and players of various ages. I utilized Cisceros three areas that he felt contributed to rhetorical ability; Natural Ability or Talent ("natura" "ingenium"), Theory or Art ("doctrina" "ars"), and Practice ("exercitatio" "imitatio.") Cicero debates which of these three contribute more to rhetorical ability as well but I have found that all three are crucial in various ways. The natural ability and talent are the very two things that USSF officials look for when hiring a new referee. So both come in handy and directly influence a referees authority. I was comfortable in making authoritative decisions and dissecting a situation that could occur on the field. The talent I believe came from having actually playing soccer. I knew where to run when refereeing a match and how to anticipate a players actions and direction.
Theory and art apply to how a referee uses his discretion in judging the game as it happens. I would have a difficult finding a balance with this area. How a referee feels a foul and misconduct should be penalized has guidelines specified in The Laws of the Game (http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290868.html) but is ultimately at the referees discretion. Like any other soccer referee I have had difficulty in judging the severity of a foul. There are always the obvious hard fouls like a player striking another player, but the ones that are hard to catch call for quick and decisive judgement. For example if a player is pulling the jersey of the opposing player or if a handball is intentional. Within the use of theory the Virtues of Style make a significant presence and of course are seen in all rhetoric. In the case of judging the severity of a foul I have to look at the evidence on the field very quickly and relay that back to the player I am disciplining. When explaining the call to the player and his coaches the use of propriety is key, I can only use the specific definitions of the foul the player has committed such as “unsporting behavior” or “dissent by word or action” and it is followed by purity and clarity.
Purity in the sense that the quality of my explanation to the player about his foul is spoken from a literary authority that comes from me having the correct understanding of The Laws of the Game. The use of clarity comes from my proper use of terms and logic behind how I explain the reason for the players sanction to the player. The language I use towards the player must be intelligible so my authority is respected and taken as final. Without these applications of Virtues of Style then my authority would be challenged and I would lose control of the game and my knowledge of the game would be challenged by the players, coaches, and parents.
My practice of my rhetorical usage of The Laws of the Game are very crucial as Cicero has pointed out. I practice by reading The Laws of the Game as much as possible so I may better understand the laws and memorize the the terms and explanations so when I have to explain myself to a coach and/or player I am prepared to rebuttal. The practice directly influences what Hermogenes wrote about style in rhetoric. Specifically my grandeur, rapidity, force, and character. As I continued to referee more games all these applications of rhetoric got much better. I was refereeing a regional championship game for a U-18 mens match that would lead to the winning team going on to compete in the State Championships. I was instructed by my advisor to keep the game tight, allow the team to play but keep them in line, and keep my explanations shorter.
This was a game I felt more than adequately prepared for. I feel after years of practice my virtues of style that Hermogenes wrote about were well worked on. I was eighteen when this game was assigned to me and as I look back I see how well I utilized my style of rhetoric. The level of style I believe I used for this game was Adros (High Style or Grand Style) to move the game in the manner I felt was safe and under control. I had to address the coaches and their players as I do every game, but this time I took the opportunity to emphasize how I was expecting this game to be played. My clarity and sincerity worked well. I told the players I was not going to tolerate any hard physical play and that I would be calling the game tight.
As the game progressed my use of grandeur and rapidity came into play very well. I made calls quickly and didn’t let any fouls go until I felt I had a good and clean game going. I would quickly blow the whistle to direct the call. A few players would come up and ask what was the call and I would look at the and firmly give them two to five word answers like “you were pulling his jersey,” “hand ball,” “it ricochet off you.” I did my best to not seem as if I didn’t want to explain the call to them, I made sure to keep the sense of not trying to slow down the game. This game in particular I didn’t address parents who would ask anything when there was stoppage time, I would only address the coach and a few times had to warn both coaches that they needed to control their sidelines or they would be asked to leave. That is where my force came in, I tried to project a no-nonsense attitude about the game hoping teams would see I want the game to go as smoothly as possible.
My utilization of Adros (High Style) moved the game exactly how I wanted it. It extended to the coaches and parents as well. They all got the feeling that I was calling a fair and clean game for both the sake of the game and their players. This was evident when the coaches came up to me at half time to ask me about some calls but they did it in a calm manner, they only asked for explanations, they didn’t challenge them. I made sure to again use Correctness and Propriety when addressing the parents. The parents especially were concerned for their kids and expect I relay that same concern of the players to them. Speaking with the right grammar and syntax with references to The Laws of the Game to fit their subject matter put the parents at ease. A parent asked why I wasn’t blowing the whistle when the players would shove each other and it lead to them stumbling to the floor. I explained that if the players weren’t being “careless, reckless, or using excessive force” than the physical contact is allowed. They seemed a bit satisfied which made me utilize Sincerity and I told the parents “I will be watching the physical contact close to make sure it isn’t too rough” and they seemed a bit more at ease. At the end of the game I had players come up to thank me and shake my hand as well as the coaches. The proper and precise use of rhetorical style aided me in refereeing a great game and the teams both appreciated my efforts.
Looking at the rhetorical uses a soccer referee utilizes to officiate a game has been a great time. I feel the soccer referee is a great user of rhetorical knowledge. Unlike referees in other sports soccer remains the truest to rhetoric. Every other sport uses replay playback to change calls and has coaches who can directly challenge referees, thus taking away from their authority. The referees in other sports are completely at the mercy of what is being recorded. Soccer is very raw as a sport and in officiating. Like presidential debates or rhetoric of old it can’t be challenged right then and there. Authority and style rule for that moment in time to convince the present audience that whats is being said and assured is true and final. A soccer referee truly is a master of rhetoric in the field of officiating a game and managing its audience confidently through the use of precise rhetorical style that needs to be tailored at any moments notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment