basketball-schiedsrichter.de - Schiedsrichter

	Anforderungen
	Quelle: Aus Referee Online 05/2002 / Autor: Van Oler / Deutsche Bearbeitung: Axel Beckmann
	Charakter zählt
	Man braucht Charakter, um die schwierigen Pfiffe zu nehmen und Charakter ist der entscheidende Wesenszug, den der Moralphilosoph Michael Josephson im Sport wieder sehen möchte. Auf der nationalen Versammlung der amerikanischen NASO (National Association of Sports Officials) im August des Jahres 2001 hat Josephson einige faszinierende Fragen über Sport, Ethik und die Rolle der Schiedsrichter zur Diskussion gestellt. Es gab eine Zeit, da wurden die Begriffe "Charakter" und "Sport" genauso oft im gleichen Atemzug genannt wie heutzutage "Geld" und "Sport". Ob der Sport den Charakter eines Athleten stärkt oder negativ beeinflusst ist sicherlich diskussionswürdig, aber unzweifelhaft sicher ist, dass Schiedsrichter ein starkes Paket an ethischen Werten mitbringen müssen, um mit Spielern und Trainern umgehen zu können, die möglicherweise nichts davon haben. Das hat sich nicht geändert, insbesondere wenn man an die zunehmende Zahl der Ehrungen denkt, die zusammen mit Siegen oder verrückten individuellen Statistiken erfunden wurden. Schiedsrichter sind weiterhin die Schutzwälle der ethischen Entscheidungsfindung in den Stadien und Hallen, wo die meisten der esentiellen Charakteristika des Sports (Teamwork, Respekt vor den Gegner, den Trainern und den Schiedsrichtern, Beherrschung im Angesicht der Niederlage usw.) fast verschwunden sind unter dem unglaublichen Druck, um jeden Preis den Sieg oder individuellen Ruhm erringen zu müssen. Auf diesen Kriegsschauplatz kommt ein Mann mit Visionen von Sport als einem Platz der Ehre und Einheit. Die gute Neuigkeit: er ist ein sich gut artikulierender und geborener Redner für seine Sache. Die schlechte Neuigkeit: er ist ein früherer Anwalt und Jura-Professor aus Kalifornien. "Wenn Ihr hört, dass ich aus der Rechtswissenschaft komme und ein Anwalt bin, leidet darunter meine Vertrauenswürdigkeit?" scherzt Michael Josphson, Gründer des Josephso Institute of Ethics. "Klar," setzt er trocken fort, "wenn Du über Ethik oder Charakter sprechen möchtest, hol einen kalifornischen Anwalt." Josephson ist keine einsame Stimme, die durch das Dickicht des modernen Sports auf der Suche nach dem guten Menschen ist, sondern er möchte die Menschen zum Nachdenken über die moralische Seite des Sports anregen. Heutzutage ist Sport überfüllt von Intrigen, Programmen (verdeckten und anderen), Regelverzerrungen, altmodischen Betrügereien und anderen Dingen wie Trash Talk und irreführendem Spiel. Dies scheint manchmal zu genügen, damit die Leute, denen Ethik wichtig ist, die Hände heben und sich ergeben. Josephson's Spezialgebiet ist Ethik, nicht so sehr der Sport. Allerdings hat er eine zweite Karriere gestartet, indem er die Diskussion über Moral in Bereiche gebracht hat, die ihr eher feindlich gegenüber stehen: Politik und Wirtschaft. Sein Karriere in der Rechtswissenschaft hat ihm eine wertvolle Erfahrung in einem Umfeld gebracht, wo Moral häufig eher als Plage denn als unverletzliches Prinzip angesehen wurde. Einige Diskussionen über ethisches Pfeifen fanden auf dem NASO Convention 2000 in Colorado Springs statt, wo Josephson moderierte. Teilnehmer der Diskussionsrunde ware Dave Yeast, NCAA Koordinator für Baseball-Schiedsrichter; Julie Ilacqua, NASO Vorsitzende; Tom Crawford, früherer US Direktor für das Trainerwesen beim olympischen Kommittee der USA; Bryan Lewis, früher NHL Director für das Schiedsrichterwesen; Bob Ottewill, Colorado High School Activities Association Commissioner; BArry Mano, NASO Präsident und Pat Rosenow, High School und FIBA-Basketball-Schiedsrichter sowie Chef Richter bei der US Air Force. Die kontroverseste Fallstudie wurde in Bezug auf "Balls", "Strikes" und Spielmanagement besprochen Eine heftige Diskussion zwischen Yeast und Josephson zog die Aufmerksamkeit aller auf sich. Yeast's Argument bezog sich auf das Spielmanagement. Wenn ein Umpire (Baseball-Schiedsrichter) sich zuviel von einem Pitcher oder Catcher über die Größe der Strike Zone anhören muss, kann es passieren, dass er, obwohl der Ball ein kleines bischen außerhalb der der Zone war, trotzdem "Ball" ruft (den Ball also gut wertet), nur um die Nachricht mitzuteilen, dass Pitchers werfen, Catchers fangen und Umpires entscheiden. Erfahrene Schiedsrichter in allen Sportarten würden das als legitimes Spielmanagement ansehen. Josephson's gegensätzliche Perspektive forderte ein interessantes Gesrpräch heraus. "In jeder Sportart machen die Schiedsrichter Dinge, um die Kontrolle über ein Baseball oder Basketball oder Football Spiel zu behalten", meinte Yeast. "Im Baseball sind wir gezwungen, die Kontrolle über den Wettbewerb zu behalten." "Also kannst Du einen "Ball" als "Strike" geben, wenn Du damit Deine Ziele erreichst?" fragte Josephson. "Manchmal ja." antwortete Yeast. "So wie ich das she mache ich meinen Job richtig." Der frühere Rechtsanwalt und Jura Professor kannte bereits die Fragen, die er stellen wollte. "Du sagst als, dass Du das Recht hast zu lügen, damit Du ein übergeordnetes Ziel erreichen kannst? Kannst Du dann auch (einen Spieler) treten, wenn das hilft?" Das Publikum kicherte, aber Yeast antwortete, dass ein falsche Entscheidung von 400 im Spiel ein legitimes Mittel für die Übermittlung einer Nachricht sei, während Treten offensichtlich inazeptabel wäre. Josephson machte daraufhin eine schnelle Umfrage unter dem Publikum und es stellte sich heraus, dass die meisten von ihnen der gleichen Meinung wie der NCAA-Koordinator der Baseball-Schiedsrichter waren. "Was kannst Du noch tun?" setzte Josephson nach. "Kannst Du auch einen 'safe' Spieler auf 'out' setzen? Du glaubst nicht an das Prinzip des Pfeifens von Tatsachen oder des Pfeifens von Sachen, die Du siehst. Du glaubst daran, dass Du so pfeifen musst, wie Du gerne möchtest, dass sich das Spiel fortentwickelt." "Natürlich nicht", entgegnete Yeast. "Ich pfeife ja das gesamte Spiel. Wenn ich an der 'plate' in einem Division I Baseball Spiel arbeite, muss ich 350 bis 400 Pfiffe machen. Keiner der beiden Seiten kam je zu einem wirklichen gemeinsamen Standpunkt, aber jedem war die Fragestellung klar: Wie weit kannst Du mit dem Spielmanagement gehen, bevor es einen tatsächlichen Einfluß auf das Ergbnis hat? Ethical Officiating: the Rules Rule The very existence of officiating postulates two things that are contrary to a purely ethical competitive environment: first, in the absence of an authority figure athletes and coaches will break rules to gain an advantage; second, athletic competition includes vague and ambiguous situations that must be arbitrated by an impartial observer (the "gray area" situations that are resolved by the officials) because players will not self-report infractions and opponents will not agree on a call that puts one of them at a disadvantage. Of course, if people always did the right thing, nobody would need officials. Since the rules define the boundaries of acceptable (and presumably ethical) behavior as well as the nature of the competition, Josephson believes officials must do more than know and enforce a game’s rules: they must revere them. "Officials are responsible for the integrity of the game," declared Josephson. "The integrity of the game is defined fundamentally by the rules. The rules, as written, must be enforced without regard to whether or not it will please or displease the fans or any particular person. To do otherwise is to be intimidated from doing your job." That statement seems simple and logical enough, but officials know it’s not always that easy. Constitutional scholars would describe Josephson’s approach as constructionalist — a literal and essentially non-negotiable reading of the black ink on the white paper of the rulebook. The strike zone extends from here to there, for example, or a hockey player cannot use his stick to impede the progress of another player — no questions asked. The reflexive response from officials to Josephson’s ideal: Anyone who has been an official for more than 24 hours knows that rote enforcement of written rules is only part of the job. Any official who relies solely on that skill courts complete disaster. A literal reverence for the rules seems to be in conflict with the concept of game management, an indispensable skill for officials who wish to succeed at their current level or advance to the next one. The art and science of game management means applying rules and making decisions that advance competition that is safe and fair for all participants. Basketball is supposedly a non-contact sport, but officials routinely ignore that designation. Rather than wearing out their whistles trying to eliminate contact, officials use their authority to regulate it. Josephson’s goal is not to eliminate judgment, but to increase awareness of the sanctity of the rules that do exist. This, he believes, leads to more consistent decisions from one official to another. "You don’t want two judges to look at the exact same facts and come to different decisions based on personality rather than the rules," he explains. "The whole reason we have rules rather than just kings who get to say who wins and loses is to say that if we agree on what the facts are and line up 10 referees, all 10 refs ought to call it the same way. To make that happen we may have to train them and we may have to define the rule." Josephson notes that one way to prod the powers that be to define a rule (essentially, to update a rule so that it reflects contemporary reality) is to call it precisely as written. That’s also an excellent way for an official to get him or herself removed from the scheduler’s speed dial. An official who whistles 100 personal fouls in a basketball game or calls a knees-to-chest strike zone stands a better chance of being out of work than of being celebrated and named to chair a rule-change committee. "My point is not to say that you should be a strict-blind-eyed-never-look-at-the-consequences rule enforcer," Josephson clarifies. "When you decide to interpret a rule, the reason ought to be because you think it’s advancing the purposes of the rule and the game, not in order to advance the entertainment or to protect your job or to affect anybody else." "There are two kinds of ethical problems," he continues. "One we call a problem of discernment. You’re not sure what the right thing to do is. Did a player do something intentionally or not? If you’re not sure, you have to be more careful. The second kind of ethical issues we face are problems of willpower. It’s very clear what we should do, but we may not want to pay the cost." Games People Play As the panel discussion evolved, participants reached an understanding of definitions and a consensus on some concepts. For example, when you make a call primarily to placate a bile-spewing coach you’re dealing with a question of willpower rather than discernment. Perhaps officials, as a group, can nudge the rule-makers toward a more comprehensive and realistic set of rules. One panel member pointed out that as an interim measure, officials can make sure that coaches in a particular league or conference know the officiating philosophy prior to the season instead of discussing it passionately during a contest. "Interestingly enough, if coaches know what the expectations are at the beginning of the season, they’ll work within the rules," noted Rosenow. "If coaches and the officials meet meaningfully at the beginning of the season and understand how it’s going to work during the season, they (the coaches) will figure out a way to win within that framework." Even given exceptional rapport between coaches and officials, there will be plenty of gray areas for players and coaches to probe. If ethical behavior is of paramount concern, how do you deal with the trickery and deception that are part and parcel of your chosen sports? Should the rules require that the catcher tell the batter what pitch is coming? Is a successful head fake an ethical violation? "The fundamental question I want to start with is what is our ethical obligation and what is the nature of sport?" Josephson responds. "The game can include trickery and deception. But I think if we look at our traditional games, the rules weren’t designed to encourage deception for the most part. You can steal a base. You can hide your signal. But, for instance, to doctor a baseball is clearly wrong." Much of the gray area mischief in sports falls under the heading of "gamesmanship," the art of taking every physical and psychological advantage available in the pursuit of victory. By labeling it "gamesmanship," says Josephson, the sports hierarchy has given it a veneer of legitimacy by implying that such efforts are, in fact, part of the game. Josephson acknowledges that gamesmanship is interwoven with the rules and traditions of various sports, but urges officials to analyze situations through the filter of ethical behavior. The television-inspired growth of trash talking and taunting provides a useful case study. "I talked to a lot of coaches who think taunting is part of the game," says Josephson. "Okay, then let’s define it if it’s part of the game — because if it’s part of the game, I want to teach it to its highest level of proficiency. It’s not enough to say, ‘Is your mother still seeing the postman?’ Let’s teach them right. Catchers from time immemorial might be saying something to a batter to throw him off. If taunting is truly a part of the game, we ought to teach kids to taunt more effectively. Do some research. "In fact, here’s an example that happened at a game last year where a young man’s father had been killed three nights before, and he was at the free throw line. One of the opposing players said quietly, ‘How’s your father?’ "Most sports people would say that’s gone beyond what the game is supposed to be about. We could change it if we wanted to put a higher premium on cleverness, on rudeness, on abrasiveness or intimidation. If we want to make that part of the game we can define it so, but for the most part we want skill. When we look at the skills that we like to admire in basketball, for instance, it isn’t the ability to say nasty things and upset your opponent." Gamesmanship is one thing, but what about cheating? How does Josephson apply his ethical framework to athletes who intentionally violate rules to gain an advantage with the hope that they will not be penalized? Officials expect athletes to bend and break rules. "Policemen expect some people to be burglars and thieves, but that doesn’t make it right," he answers. "To expect something means you can predict or anticipate it as being something that people do. The question of ethics is what one should do. It would be naïve for a referee not to expect that no matter what the rules are, a certain percentage of people playing a game will try to get an advantage." Discussion eventually turned to the Women’s World Cup championship game last summer in which U.S. goaltender Brianna Scurry intentionally broke from her position early to block a penalty kick. Scurry subsequently claimed that she had tested the referee earlier and discovered that an early break would not draw a penalty. "Scurry said the second time (on the second penalty kick by the opposition) she got a good two and a half or three steps out," recounted Josephson. "She was then asked about that by the Los Angeles Times and her reply was that it’s only cheating if you get caught. Was that acceptable to the principles of U.S. soccer? Tony DiCicco (head coach of the U.S. Womens’ Team) says that’s not cheating because it’s the referee’s job to catch that. Maybe he’s right, and if he is, then let’s teach it to our athletes. Shouldn’t the leadership of sports be taking positions as to what is and what is not part of the game?" The Battle Rages On Josephson is aware that officials alone cannot change the ethical culture of sports. "In fairness, we can’t start solving the problem at the referee level," he says. "The referee doesn’t have enough leverage within the system to be the primary source of reform." He also knows that officials see themselves as undervalued by the sports they serve, sometimes caught between the tug of doing the right thing and doing the thing that may lead to recognition and advancement. "I understand that you have no resources," he says. "You’re in an NCAA final or whatever, we know how much money is at stake, and you’re getting paid pocket change. It shows that the sport doesn’t respect you enough. There’s no question about that. The sport does not respect the role of officiating. And that means you have to function in that context, knowing that you’re underpaid, under-appreciated, and if you do things right, they might dump you. "But," Josephson paused and scanned the audience before finishing, "why do you want to be in this if you’re not willing to do it right?" Van Oler Is a freelance writer and hockey official from Batavia, Ohio.