Wikipedia:WikiProject Referees/Referee criticism

Referees or umpires are the officials that oversee and control sports games. Like any biography that is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia they must conform to the neutral point of view policy and if necessary the policy for living persons. The aim when writing these articles should be to provide a comprehensive, but accurate representation of the referees career, not pick apart their decisions in individual games. Some of this also applies when writing articles that mention referees, such as those on games or tournaments.

Following are a few points to keep in mind when writing referee articles:


 * It is a biography
 * The focus should be on the referee's life. Mention notable appointments, but keep the descriptions of the games relevant and to the point. Blow by blow accounts of individual games, are seldom on topic unless they are discussing the referees role and better served at other articles.


 * The article is about the referees whole career
 * Most referees who are at the top of their game have been officiating for a while. The article should show this and not focus unduly on only a couple of games.


 * Use reliable sources
 * This is a given for any article, especially those about living people, but it is often overlooked when sourcing information for referees. The Daily Mail, Metro, Sun and other similar tabloids should almost never be used (if a better paper doesn't say it then it is probably not worth saying). Same with blogs and other self published sources.
 * Below are a few reliable sources that not even Brian Barlow can refute:
 * IFAB/FIFA's Laws of the Game (association football)
 * IFAF Rules (American football)
 * FIBA's Rules of the Game (basketball)
 * FIVB's Official Volleyball Rules (volleyball)
 * WBSC's Game Rules (baseball/softball)


 * Most sports journalism are opinions
 * A column by a sports writer on a game is showcasing their opinion. Wikipedia must therefore attribute that opinion to the journalist if it is seen as notable enough to include. Even reliable sources are usually not neutral when it comes to sports journalism. For example an English newspaper article is probably going to have a different view of refereeing decisions than one from the USA after the two teams play.


 * The article must positively present the referee
 * It is easy to find critical commentary on referees, but policy means we must not use this without the appropriate amount of positive comment. On the other hand, it is completely acceptable to purge all the "criticism" from a page as long as you can justify it.


 * Do not devote sections to criticism
 * There is almost never a need to devote a section to criticisms of a referee. Criticism sections are a magnet for trolls and can encourage editors to add undue, non-notable criticisms. Notable criticisms will form part of their career and can be included there. Occasionally a section may be devoted to a single controversy if it is very notable (for example Darrell Hair).


 * Controversial decision are often not controversial
 * Sports journalist love to label a decision they disagree with as controversial, but we should avoid using this label. It is the referees job to make tough calls under difficult circumstances and these seldom please everyone. Someone doing their job properly is not being controversial. If a decision needs to be presented it is better to describe the situation instead of using vague and contentious terms (as long as it is due).


 * Limit the use of quotes
 * After every game fans, players and managers have a lot to say about the refereeing, much of the content influenced by the final result. We should limit using competing quotes from different partisan sides in a biography. Quotes from the governing bodies and the referee themselves are usually more useful.


 * Keep perspective
 * Everyone makes mistakes and the referee is no exception. During a career they are likely to make thousands of decisions, so you would expect even the best ones to make the odd mistake. These can be notable and can effect the outcome of a match. However, in almost every case the referee has not cheated, hurt anyone or done anything illegal.


 * When should criticism be added?
 * The general rule should be when it has had an impact on their career. Were they stood down because of the incident or even sacked? Has the referees governing body made an official comment over the incident? Is their refereeing schedule now influenced? Have new rules been put in place due to the incident? Did the police or politicians get involved? Even if some or all of this happens the addition of criticism must still remain balanced if it is a biography of a living person.


 * The referee had a bad game and I want to add it to wikipedia?
 * Wikipedia is a big place and just about every game or tournament has an article. Most of the details of individual matches should be kept at that article. They are also a much better place for adding information on contentious decisions as these articles have a much narrower focus. This means different opinions on the decision can be added with more depth and context than would reasonably fit in the referees article. Also many decisions in sport now involve multiple referees working as a team and it can be inappropriate to signal one out. While the level of acceptable detail is higher here, the information must still conform to the neutral point of view and biography of living persons policies.

A workaround
Instead of adding the contents about blown calls to the referees' biographies, add such content to the articles about the competitions themselves, since those articles are not biographies and WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE do not apply to them. That said, always remember: In order to convince the fanboys that the referees have indeed blown the call, you have to understand the rulebooks better than they do. So don't hesitate to throw the rulebook at them and specify the exact article and section that you're quoting.