Officiating as play? A personal reflection

The “formal characteristics of play” are nicely summed up in Johan Huizinga’s Homo Ludens, with fairly rigid criteria (13). The intramural flag football games that I participate in at night are a prime example of such play. My role in these games, however, despite the usual six hours a week I devote to them, belongs to a grey area of play. I am a paid referee for these games, someone who officiates and interprets the rules of the game to ensure safety and enjoyable play.

My position is loosely analogous to Geoffrey Chaucer’s Host character in The Canterbury Tales, the person who facilitates the game and creates the play environ. My fellow officials and I set up the field before every game, unlock all the doors to the field, and assign equipment and field positions to the teams. The scoring, the timing, and penalties are all enforced and carried out by either my fellow officials or me. My involvement in the game is crucial to the game and the players’ play. As often times when observing the scrimmages that occur after a forfeited game, which I am barred from officiating, the play reality of the football game deteriorates into real life verbal arguments about ball positions and score attempts. Was that a touch down? Didn’t the quarterback fumble the ball on the snap? Both are questions that have been asked of me, players pleading arbitration, despite the fact that I had already stated that I was not required to offer my opinion. A fluid play-space or reality is hard to come by without the proper referees, especially when it comes to flag football. Perspectives and the angle of views necessary to properly enforce the rules are impossible to standardize without a third objective party.

Referees are crucial to the play of players, crucial to the creation of the play environment of the football game. Is the act of officiating itself necessarily play though? It certainly is confined in the same physical space and reality as the players of the game are. The referee’s powers also only function within the play-reality; I have yet to successfully use my yellow flag to eject a student from a lecture hall for snoring near me during a lecture. There is no doubt that the officials must also follow the same rules of the game, despite a certain authority of interpretation, a referee cannot go against the rules written out in the rule book. I also regard officiating to be a free activity. Yes there is a paycheck every month, but with at most six working hours a week, officiating is hardly a source of disposable income to depend on. The money is more of a compensation for spending the time, not participating in the game in a more exciting and exhilarating role. With the issue of material gain partially put to rest, can officiating now be regarded as play? Asking a fellow referee for his opinion, he stated that money definitely was not an issue for him; he was doing it strictly “for fun”, to be able to “throw some flags and call some penalties”. Such an attitude indeed can be identified as play, as it takes my own thoughts to the next level, ignoring monetary compensation completely. However, even if it can be identified as play, can it be regarded as officiating anymore? Indeed, upon asking other referees who had worked with him, they said he was a bit too “flag-happy” and made the games unnecessarily long. This reduces the amount of playtime the players may play, despite completely being within the rules governing officiating. Another instance of such an overbalance of play-attitude is when officials, myself included, opt to officiate games that we know to be more exciting and spectacular. Such actions though, are always preceded by a caveat from the supervisor to not “watch the game” but instead “officiate the game”. Here there is a clear distinction between play as a spectator, watching the game, and watching for rule infractions and ball positions.

Certainly, there can be a play element in officiating, but then again, any activity can be turned to play. It is just a matter of whether or not the activity remains the activity upon adulterating it with a play attitude. In order to achieve the purest form of officiating, I believe all traces of play must be eliminated from the actions of the official. But as it is impossible for the human mind to do so when engaged in an activity with so many lures of play, a pure official is not possible. Thus theoretically officiating should not be play if done properly, but in reality officiating will always have the play elements and will always be to a degree, play for the official. It is now simply a matter of deciding which to set as the definition and answer, the theoretically possible but realistically impossible or the true reality of the matter. Of course, play must be separate from reality, and therein lies the paradox.