Abstract
Plessner and Betsch’s (2001) investigation into officiating behavior may be representative of a shift from stress-orientated research (Anshel & Weinberg, 1995; Rainey & Winterich, 1995; Stewart & Ellery, 1996) to consideration of decisionmaking (Craven, 1998; Ford, Gallagher, Lacy, Bridwell & Goodwin, 1999; Oudejans, Verheijen, Bakker, Gerrits, Steinbuckner & Beek, 2000), the primary function of referees in any sport. Commendably, Plessner and Betsch have investigated the most important focus of referee performance, the application of the rules (Anshel, 1995). However, methodological weaknesses, together with a fundamental error in the attribution of causation to the findings, significantly dilute this paper’s contribution to extending knowledge in this important area.
Disciplines
Sports Sciences
Recommended Citation
Mascarenhas, D. R. D., Collins, D., & Mortimer, P. (2005)'The Art of Reason versus the Exactness of Science in Elite Refereeing: Comments on Plessner and Betsch (2001)'. Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology, 24, 328-333
Digital Commons Citation
Mascarenhas, Duncan R.; Collins, D; and Mortimer, P, "The Art of Reason versus the Exactness of Science in Elite Refereeing: Comments on Plessner and Betsch (2001)" (2002). Sport and Exercise Sciences. Paper 4.
http://epubs.glyndwr.ac.uk/ses/4
Download
Comments
This is an article that was first published in the Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology in 2002 by Human Kinetics. The journal website can be located at http://hk.humankinetics.com