Opinion
Our archaic inclination to satisfy those in front of us, as well as to let ourselves be guided by their opinion and emotions, explain some actions
Last Saturday, Real Madrid might not open the scoring once morest Valencia until the referee whistled a debatable penalty. Outraged, the Ché club wrote on Twitter: “The robbery in Madrid is beginning to be somewhat repetitive.” The next day, it would be Betis that would be considered aggrieved in their match once morest Rayo Vallecano. In the 33rd minute, the referee expels Betic Álex Moreno: when trying to clear a ball, he hits Isi’s skull with his boot, lowering his head at the foot of the Betic defender. Subsequently, the referee leaves a clear hand in the rayista area unchecked in the VAR and shows himself home in other actions. “The repetition of errors,” complains the Betic club, “has no possible explanation.”
I understand the anger of the clubs and fans who feel disadvantaged, but not that what happened is incomprehensible. The usual and hackneyed explanation is that umpires are human and, as such, they are wrong. However, the errors also follow some patterns: the referee “is wrong” more once morest the visitor, as has happened in these and other games that have invariably angered the foreign parish in recent days.
An investigation of two decades ago already showed that the Spanish referees lengthened the injury time when the home team was losing and shortened it when they won. Unconsciously, as an archaic mechanism of adaptation to the group, the referee wants to please the local fans. Another study, published in 2017 in the International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, showed that in Spain the referees whistled more or less the same number of fouls for or once morest the local team. However, he discovered something disturbing: during the time that elapsed between the absence and the presentation of a card, the referee was very influenced by the environment.
Our inclination to satisfy those in front of us and to be guided by their opinion, as well as the impossibility of a cold analysis following an emotional impact, explain what happened in Vallecas. After the clash between Álex Moreno and Isi, the referee lets play continue. Suddenly, the audience realizes that blood is pouring from the Rayo player’s shaved head. It is only when the referee shares the impression of this image that they suddenly decide to show the red one in an irrational and impulsive act.
The referee is ready to whistle what he sees. But he succumbs to his own mind, which deceives him. If the blood had been hidden in a head with mane, the action would have gone unnoticed by the public and the referee. The rest of the errors are a consequence of the first one. Studies show that, faced with a huge mistake, we tend to lose concentration. The referee no longer hits. On the one hand, he wants to compensate for the failure, but, on the other, he struggles not to get carried away by that inclination. In the dilemma, nonsense accumulates. To give credibility to his performance, he does nothing more than draw cards from Betic players who do not stop protesting. It’s what you’ve learned: don’t question your decisions, maintain control and authority. It happens to all of us: as soon as we accept the error, we begin to realize the damage inflicted and we suffer. If, despite the evidence, we deny it, we avoid the feeling of guilt and move on.
A depressed mind interprets skewed. Before their match, Real Madrid showed their displeasure at the arbitration appointment and thus increased the pressure on the referee who unconsciously does not want, with their performance, to give legitimacy to Madrid’s resentments. The referee notices the contact between Casemiro and Alderete. In other circumstances, your mind can process that it is the Madrid player who hits the defender, who has won the position. But, under pressure, the referee’s mind is wanting to come to another conclusion: penalty.
Deciphering how the human brain works allows us to find some explanation for referee errors. But this does not console the fan of the injured team, who leaves pissed off. Science aims to unveil knowledge, not to appease spirits. That’s what the next game is for. Poor that referee, who will pay for the broken dishes of his colleagues. And once more, his mind, once more disturbed, will produce interpretations to alleviate the situation of anguish.
.
