Coping with acute stress among American and Australian basketball referees.

Anshel, Mark H. ; Weinberg, Robert S.

Psychological stress typically occurs when the environment is appraised by an individual as taxing or exceeding personal resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Whereas chronic stress consists of experiences that are perceived as threatening, harmful, or challenging over an extended time period, acute stress refers to the sudden exposure to stimuli that elicit similar perceptions. Examples of acute stressors In sport including making a mental or physical error, experiencing pain or injury, an opponent's successful performance and receiving a "bad" call from an official. Acute stressors can negatively affect numerous cognitive and psychophysiological processes such as concentration, attentional focus, effort and arousal, and lead to impaired motor performance (Anshel, 1990; Jones & Hardy, 1989). Central to success in sport is the ability to enact cognitive and/or behavioral strategies to cope with acute stress.

Coping consists of psychological and behavioral efforts to master, reduce, or tolerate demands (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). These efforts consist of learned behavioral and emotional responses that reduce the importance of a dangerous or unpleasant condition. Researchers are in uniform agreement that the ability to cope effectively with stress is a significant factor in determining good health, well-being, and sport performance (Gauron, 1986; Smith, 1986). Coping with acute stress in sport is a function of the competitor's perception, or appraisal, of a situation, that is, "...the extent to which a person believes that he or she can shape or influence a particular stressful person-environment relationship" (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 69).

There is evidence in the counseling psychology literature that different stressors require various types of coping strategies (e.g., Endler & Parker, 1990; Terry, 1991). The most common categorizations of coping strategies are referred to as problem-focused (behavior) and emotion-focused (cognitive) coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Problem-focused coping is the use of one or more activities implemented to achieve a task objective. For example, an athlete may cope with unpleasant comments from others by placing themselves at a distant physical proximity from the person or, conversely, by performing more aggressively. A basketball referee may cope with the stress of a coach's verbal abuse by giving a technical foul or warning to the individual, or by simply walking away from the stress source. Conversely, emotion-focused coping consists of using thoughts or emotions to feel better about performing the task. Hence, if a referee feels upset after making a wrong call during the contest, appropriate emotional coping strategies may include positive self-talk (e.g., "Keep at it; stay calm" or "Stay ready; concentrate"), or discounting in which the event's importance is minimized or at least temporarily forgotten.

Another conceptual framework for studying the coping process has been to examine a person's disposition, or tendency, to use particular categories of strategies called approach and avoidance coping styles (Krohne, 1993; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Approach coping reflects the individual's preference to examine or obtain more information about the source of stress. Avoidance coping, on the other hand, indicates a preference to reduce the importance, or attention, toward the stressor. For example, Krohne and Hindel (1988) found that skilled table tennis players tend to use avoidance coping in response to performance errors during the match. This would appear to reflect the player's need to maintain attentional control on task, and to either discount or ignore most stressors which may interfere with performance demands.

In a recent study, Gould, Eklund, and Jackson (1993) examined the coping strategies of the 1988 U.S. Olympic Wrestling Team. The wrestlers' primary coping strategies, used by 80% of them, were categorized as thought-control (e.g., blocking distractions, perspective taking, positive thinking, coping thoughts, and prayer). Less used coping techniques included task-focused (e.g., narrow, more immediate focus, concentrating on goals), emotional-control (e.g., arousal control, visualization), and behavioral strategies (e.g., changing or controlling the environment; following a set routine). The authors concluded that "coping strategies are most effective if linked to the domain in which stress is being experienced" (p. 91). Thus, behavioral (problem-focused) coping strategies are more likely to succeed under conditions of relatively high self-control or in rapidly changing situations such as in open-skill, team sports, whereas cognitive (emotion-focused) coping strategies may be more effective under conditions of low self-control and slowly changing situations, most evident in closed-skill, individual sports. Arguably, the most fundamental issue in coping with acute stress is self-control. As Smith and Nye (1989) conclude, "...learning to control such emotionality will facilitate generalization of coping skills across stressful situations" (p. 18). In addition to being situationally determined, the use of selected coping techniques are also a function of personal (dispositional) factors.

Although there has been some research investigating the use of coping strategies employed by athletes, there is a dearth of literature focusing on the use of coping strategies to deal with acute stressors by sport officials. Along these lines, in their review of literature, Weinberg and Richardson (1990) acknowledge that sport officials experience an extensive amount of acute stress, much of which directly influences their performance quality. Examples of acute stressors for officials, common in the anecdotal literature (see Weinberg & Richardson, 1990, for a review) include making a "wrong" call, verbal abuse and threats of physical abuse from coaches, players and spectators, pain from an injury, criticism in the media, and evaluation by a supervisor, among others. Effective sport officiating consists of meeting situational demands in response to an array of acute stressors experienced during the contest, thereby maintaining optimal performance. For example, Taylor, Daniel, Leith and Burke (1990) found that burnout among sports officials was most related to stress from interpersonal conflicts, role culture conflict, fear of failure and other evaluative aspects of officiating. Taken together, it appears that burnout and premature retirement may partially reflect the failure to cope effectively with acute stress. In essence, when perceived role demands are inconsistent with an official's abilities, goals, values or beliefs, chronic stress, burnout and dropout from further participation may result (Dale & Weinberg, 1990). Clearly, the ability to cope effectively with acute stress involved in officiating is critical, not only to effective officiating, but also as a buffer against burnout.

Besides the fact that there is little known about the coping strategies employed by sport officials, there is even less known about any potential cross cultural differences in the use of coping strategies. Duda and Allison (1990) have recognized the importance of examining cultural differences to understand better the psychological factors that influence thoughts, emotions, and behavior, with each culture influencing the types of experiences and perceptions of those sport experiences. They argue that if cultural variations in sport activities are not considered, then the evolving theoretical perspective may be misleading. In the only study examining cross-cultural comparisons among sport officials, Anshel and Weinberg (1995) found that selected sources of stress differed markedly between basketball referees from Australia and the United States. Specifically, the stressors, "Making a Wrong Call. "Verbal Abuse By Players", "Verbal Abuse By Spectators", and "Arguing With Players", significantly discriminated between American and Australian basketball referees. As an extension of this study, the purpose of the present investigation was to cross-culturally examine the coping responses of basketball referees to selected acute stressors. It was hypothesized that some coping techniques (problem-focused/behavioral vs. emotion-focused/cognitive) and coping styles (approach and avoidance) would be used more than others for a given stressor, and that American and Australian referees would differ in the use of coping strategies.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 137 adult male basketball referees who volunteered to participate in this study. This included 75 officials from the southwestern United States (ages 19-45 yrs, Md age = 32.6 yrs), and 62 officials from New South Wales, Australia (ages 20-37 yrs, Md age = 29.8 yrs). Criteria for participation included age (18 yrs or older) and officiating experience in organized, competitive basketball (minimum of three years of officiating experience in high school in the U.S. sample, or Level A or B competition in Australia) for which the person received renumeration. The level of expertise was "intermediate" (Level 2) or "advanced" level (Level I) in their respective referee organizations. Seventy-five of 116 surveys (65%) mailed to U.S. subjects were returned. Sixty-two of the 110 Australian referees attending a basketball referees conference (56%) returned the distributed surveys.

Generation of the Survey

According to Duda and Allison (1990), cross-cultural research may include self-report methods using standard questionnaires provided that the scales are valid and conceptually equivalent in the cultural context. Consequently, the Basketball Official's Sources of Stress Inventory (BOSSI) was developed for this study to ascertain the extent to which the subjects used various cognitive and behavioral strategies for coping with each of 15 sources of acute stress. The BOSSI was used by Anshel and Weinberg (1995) to determine the level of intensity of each acute stressor. In the present study, subjects were asked to write their cognitive and behavioral coping responses for each stressor when experienced at its highest intensity. A copy of the BOSSI, appears in Appendix A. (see Anshel and Weinberg, 1995, for a description in generating the BOSSI, including content and construct validation procedures).

Results and Discussion

The primary objective of the data analyses were to compare American and Australian basketball referees on their respective use of behavioral and cognitive coping strategies in response to each of 15 acute stressors usually experienced during the game.

Frequency Analysis on Coping Strategies

The order of presenting these data reflect the sequence presented in the survey. Frequency data consisting of the number of subjects using various problem-focused (behavioral) and emotional-focused (cognitive) coping strategies for U.S. and Australian subjects were compiled. The assignment of coping strategies to behavioral and emotional categories was accomplished using an deductive content analysis in which subjects' responses were assigned to one of the two categories of coping strategies for each stressor (Patton, 1990).

Two researchers independently categorized the subjects' responses which consisted of examples of coping with the stressors. Consensus validation was completed by the mutual agreement between analysts on the category assignment for each strategy. One task of the researchers was to determine if the coping categories were discrete. For example, the referees reported that the stressor "Verbal Abuse From Coaches" referred to name-calling or remarks of a personal nature, but was distinct from the stressor "Making Physical Threats." Similar to the technique used by Scanlan et al. (1989), validation occurred after the analysts independently identified and grouped the responses. High inter-rater reliability (r=.87) indicated strong agreement between the researchers in this process. Table 1 lists the different types of coping strategies used by both groups. It is important to point out that the list of coping strategies do not reveal the extent to which these techniques are effective at reducing the referees' stress level or performance. Rather, they merely reflect the subjects' thoughts and actions after experiencing any of these stressors. Due to the uneven sample size between groups and differences in the use of coping strategies, results are discussed in terms of the percentage of using each coping strategy.

Abuse by Coach

Coach abuse is among the most common and, according to Anshel and Weinberg (1995), the second most severe source of stress for basketball referees Two group differences were of particular interest. Specifically, far more Americans (39%) than Australians (13%) used the coping strategy of calmly speaking to the coach. This could be partly due to the Australians self-reported propensity to ignore or forget coach abuse (34%), an avoidance coping style, in contrast to the Americans (15%). In addition, more Australians (61%) than Americans (43%) coped by expressing anger.

Abuse by Players

Giving a technical foul or warning, both behavioral strategies and reflecting an approach coping style, were the primary responses to player abuse. Calming or criticizing players was relatively rare, although Americans used these strategies more so than Australians. Both groups attributed this stressor to "part of the job" or ignored the player, reflecting the avoidance coping strategies of psychological distancing and discounting (Bramson, 1981). Referees appear resigned to the fact that the emotions that accompany competitive basketball often result in verbal expressions by players that are either unintentional or "normal" manifestations of the situation (Smith, 1982). Given the extent of such expression, Smith contends that referees often appraise stressful situations as relatively harmless by selectively ignoring most of these experiences as did 33% of the American and 26% of the Australian referees.

Arguing With Coaches

Behavioral coping strategics differed between groups for this stressor. Specifically, Americans preferred to ignore the coach and remain on task (51% and 39% for U.S. and Australia, respectively), whereas Australians preferred to discuss the coach's feelings or answer his or her inquiries (24% and 52% for U.S. and Australia, respectively). Nevertheless, both groups felt anger or frustration to a similar degree (44% and 47%, respectively), a reflection of an approach coping style. As Anshel and Weinberg (1995) found, coach confrontation is a highly intense source of stress for basketball referees, and consequently elicits an approach coping style.

Table 1

Percentage and number of Subjects Using Selected Coping Strategies
For Each Stressor(1)

STRESSORS

1. Abuse by Coach (e.g., insults/harassment, disputed calls,
accusations, threats)

Behavioral Coping US (72)(2) AUS
(61)(2)
 No.(3) %(4) No.(3) %(4)
express anger 31 43 27 61
tech. foul/warning 37 51 29 47
continue play 34 47 31 36
calmly speak to coach 28 39 8 13
stop game 14 20 17 29
ignore/forget 11 15 21 34

Emotional Coping US (70)(2) AUS
(58)(2)
 No.(3) %(4) No.(3) %(4)

criticize coach (self-talk) 44 63 11 19
take a deep breath/calm down 44 63 11 19
review actions/self-doubt 16 23 22 38
discount 12 17 7 12
review actions/self-doubt 16 23 22 38

2. Abuse by Players (e.g., overcalling, 5th foul, player attitude,
swearing)

Behavioral Coping US (75) AUS (62)

tech. foul/warning 56 74 52 84
calm player 11 15 7 11
criticize player behavior 8 11 3 5
ignore/continued play 25 33 16 26

Emotional Coping US (75) AUS (62)

part of job 24 32 14 23
withdraw 5 7 4 6
feel tension/upset/anger 12 16 27 44
review the call 9 12 1 1

3. Arguing With Coaches (e.g., about calls, rules, coache's
behavior)

Behavioral Coping US (75) AUS (62)

answer politely/discuss 18 24 32 52
concentrate on game 25 33 14 23
review actions 9 12 6 10
argue/tech. foul/warning 14 19 3 5
calm coach 6 8 2 3

Emotional Coping US (75) AUS (62)

feel annoyed/frustrated 33 44 29 47
stay clam/deep breaths 5 7 10 16
ignore/move on 38 51 24 39

4. Arguing With Players (e.g., about calls, player behavior, fouls)

Behavioral Coping US (22) AUS (43)

answer politely/give reasons 1 5 12 29
avoid arguing/walk away 8 37 6 14
tech. foul 20 91 18 42
warning 18 82 36 84
argue 13 59 11 26
review actions 4 2 2 4

Emotional Coping US (4) AUS (8)

feel annoyed/upset 17 77 27 63
concentrate 2 11 9 21
keep calm 5 23 15 35

5. Threats of Physical Abuse (e.g., threatened by spectators,
intimidated by coach, meet outside)

Behavioral Coping US (4) AUS (8)

tech. foul/stop game 4 100 2 25
eject person from facility 2 50 6 75
criticize behavior/argued 1 25 2 25
calm person 0 0 4 50
leave area quickly 1 25 1 12
physically challenge person 1 25 3 37
call for security/police 3 75 6 75
express anger/upset 3 75 6 75

Emotional Coping US (4) AUS (8)

keep calm/deep breath 2 50 3 37
fear for safety 2 50 8 100
dislike referee 1 25 4 50

6. Abuse By Spectators (e.g., comments, abuse, bias, overcalls)

Behavioral Coping US (67) AUS (38)

ignore/do not hear 50 74 21 55
laugh 9 13 3 8
concentration on game 59 88 33 87
focus attention elsewhere 19 28 23 60
confront person(s) 2 3 2 5
express anger 15 22 2 5

Emotional Coping US (67) AUS (38)

part of game 48 72 26 68
spectator ignorance 30 45 36 92
feel upset/humiliation 39 58 4 11

7. Working With Partner (e.g., inexperienced/uncooperative, bad
call, positioning, "tough" game)

Behavioral Coping US (5) AUS (15)

support/cover extra ground 3 60 12 80
talk with partner 1 20 2 13
get on with my job 3 60 11 73
scold partner 1 20 2 13

Emotional Coping US (5) AUS (15)

worry/feel embarrassed 1 20 5 33
unhappy 2 40 8 53
empathetic 1 20 8 53
concentrate harder 4 80 12 80
unconcerned/don't care 1 20 2 13

8. Making A Wrong Call (e.g., no foul called, costs points/game,
block vs. charge, possession)

Behavioral Coping US (13) AUS (11)

carry on/"sell" "call" 2 17 4 34
worried/tense/nervous 2 18 3 24
review actions 2 13 2 18
try to forget 1 11 9 8

Emotional Coping US (13) AUS (11)

concentrate harder 10 77 10 91
feel annoyed 1 8 6 55
refs allowed to make mistakes 5 38 2 18
lose concentration/self-blame 0 0 1 9

9. Controversial Call (e.g., hostile arguing by coach or players,
uncertainty)

Behavioral Coping US (61) AUS (49)

"sell" the call 33 54 27 55
continue the game 12 20 19 39
review actions with others 10 17 17 34
confront coach/player 16 26 18 37

Emotional Coping US (61) AUS (49)

concentration affected 13 21 15 31
think about call 5 8 12 24
nervous/hesitant 2 3 2 4
discount argument 6 10 19 39

10. Mistake in Mechanics (e.g., wrong position, incorrect
possession, violation/foul error)

Behavioral Coping US (10) AUS (9)

make correction quickly 9 90 9 100
defend actions 3 30 4 44
get on with the game 10 100 9 100
apologize 1 10 0 0

Emotional Coping US (10) AUS (9)

get it right next time 8 80 3 33
concentrate harder 4 40 3 3
feel embarrassed 1 10 0 0
feel upset with self 5 50 4 44

11. Wrong Location (e.g., "blind", too far away, anticipating play
wrong, fast break)

Behavioral Coping US (4) AUS (8)

sell call 4 100 6 75
made correction 4 100 8 100
consulted partner 1 33 3 37

Emotional Coping US (4) AUS (8)

felt annoyed/upset 4 100 7 87
try harder/get it next time 4 100 8 100
low confidence/bad call 0 0 1 13

12. Presence of Supervisor (e.g., being evaluated, hoping I perform
well, promotion)

Behavioral Coping US (7) AUS (48)

more assertive 3 43 26 54
calls more conservative 2 29 8 17
ignore/performed as usual 4 57 17 35

Emotional Coping US (5) AUS (48)

feel confident 5 100 23 48
feel intimidated 1 20 28 58
relax/have fun 2 40 4 8

13. Presence of Media (e.g., worry correct interpretation,
interviews, unfair criticism or referee)

Behavioral Coping US (3) AUS (3)

ignore presence 3 100 3 100
interview before/after game 1 33 0 0
concentrate on game 2 66 3 100

Emotional Coping US (3) AUS (3)

positive self-talk 3 100 0 0
fell intimidated/concerned 2 66 1 33

14. Experiencing an injury (e.g., experiencing pain, worry about
further injury or ability to continue)

Behavioral Coping US (36) AUS (20)

applied first aid 25 69 8 40
ignored/kept moving 18 50 15 75
removed self from game 4 11 1 5
changed positions 3 8 2 7
with partner

Emotional Coping US (36) AUS (20)

positive self-talk 19 53 13 65
felt upset/angry 31 86 10 50
relaxed 4 11 1 5
found it humorous 0 0 8 40

15. Calling a Technical Foul (e.g., abused by coach or player,
doubting corrections of my actions)

Behavioral Coping US (8) AUS (5)

became assertive 8 100 5 100
explained reason 5 63 2 40
ignored complaints 3 38 4 80
threatened with expulsions 6 75 5 100
continued with game 7 88 5 100

Emotional Coping US (8) AUS (5)

self-confident in call 8 100 5 100
felt anger 4 50 1 20
calmed down/deep breath 0 0 4 80

1 Subjects were invited to indicate more than one coping strategy
or
none at all. This explains more strategies than the number of
subjects responding to the stressor.

2 All subjects in each group that identify this source of stress.

3 Subjects that indicate use of this particular coping technique.

4 Consists of the number of subjects using this technique divided
by
the number of subjects identifying this source.

Arguing With Players

Referees in both groups tended to react assertively to this stressor, feeling annoyed or upset and giving a warning to the player (approach, behavioral coping). However, Americans were more than twice as likely to give a technical foul than Australians (91% and 42%, respectively), and to argue with the player (59% and 26%, respectively). Conversely, more Australian referees (35%) than Americans (23%) coped by keeping calm and by answering politely (29% versus 5%, respectively).

Threats of Physical Abuse

Relatively few referees in our study experienced this stressor. However, those who did were understandably assertive in their coping responses. Both groups (75%) called for security or police protection and felt angry or upset (75%), clearly behavioral, approach coping categories. This coping response reflects the importance of remaining in control of such an unpleasant situation. An additional finding was that all American respondents (100%) stopped the game and/or gave a technical foul, whereas only 25% of Australians coped in this manner. Instead, more Australians (75%) than Americans (50%) ejected the person from the facility. Twice as many Australians (100%) than Americans (50%) feared for their safety. While this latter finding may appear surprising, given the markedly higher incidence of violent crime in the U.S. as opposed to Australia, it is possible that this contrast in societies leads to different appraisals of experiencing a stressor that threatens a person's physical well-being. American referees may feel less intimidated than their Australian counterparts based on their respective exposure to expressions of such behavior in society. As Smith (1982), an American wrestling referee, asserts, "rules of sociability and consideration in society that govern civilized behavior are often discarded or forgotten during sport competition" (p. 36).

Abuse By Spectators

Most respondents reacted to this stressor by concentrating on the game and ignoring spectator abuse. Confrontation with spectators was a very rare source of stress in this study. Most referees used an emotionally-focused, avoidance, coping strategy called rationalization (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), or discounting (Bramson, 1981), by feeling that fan abuse is a part of the game. This strategy was likely facilitated by the referees' perceptions that fans are relatively ignorant of the facts that underlie the referee's decisions (45% and 92% for American and Australian referees, respectively). Thus, to many referees, spectator abuse is an integral, albeit unfortunate component of competitive sport, and whose comments lack credit.

Working With a Partner

The primary coping strategy with this stressor was providing mutual support, while meeting other task demands to maintain quality performance. Problem-focused, approach coping, consisting primarily of heightened concentration and focused attention on relevant environment cues, was a common reaction to partner-induced stress. Slightly more Australians (33%) than Americans (20%) felt worried or embarrassed about their partner, while more Australians than Americans felt empathy (53% and 20%, respectively). It was apparent that referees attempted to maintain high controllability in situations in which their partner was not performing adequately.

Making a Wrong Call

Responses to this stressor consisted of continuing the game or "selling" the call, which was done twice as often by Australians (34%) as Americans (17%). Emotion-focused, approach coping with this stressor consisted of enhanced concentration. Far more Australians (55%) than Americans (8%) felt annoyed at making a wrong call. This cultural difference could be partially explained by the tendency of American respondents to rationalize their errors, with approximately twice as many Americans (38%) than Australians (18%) concluding that "referees are allowed to make mistakes."

Controversial Call

Similar to making a wrong call, both groups coped with "controversial" calls by "selling the call." This is a phrase often used among referees meaning an attempt to explain or justify their call to the complainer (coach or athlete, but not to spectators). Many more Australians (34%) than Americans (17%) reviewed their actions with others and thought about the call (24% and 8%, respectively). Perhaps due to their attempt at self-analysis, more Australians (31%) than Americans (21%) struggled with their concentration after the call and, in attempting to remain on task, discounted others' arguments (39% and 10%, respectively).

Mistake in Mechanics

This was a relatively rare stressor in this study, perhaps not surprising given the subjects' high referee skills. Both groups were highly similar in their coping responses, engaging in the behavioral, approach coping strategy of continuing the game or quickly making necessary corrections (100% in both groups). However, more U.S. (80%) than Australian (33%) subjects used the emotion-focused, avoidance coping strategy of focusing on future performance (e.g., "getting it right next time").

Wrong Location

This stressor, also relatively rare, was similar to making a mistake in that the referees in both groups coped by immediately correcting their actions and focusing on proper subsequent performance (100% for each group). However, fewer Australians (75%) than Americans (100%) felt compelled to "sell the call" after experiencing this stressor. To a lesser extent, partners were consulted to ensure the mistake did not reoccur (33% and 37% for Americans and Australians, respectively).

Presence of Supervisor

Cultural differences were salient in responding to this stressor. Specifically, the U.S. sample tended to ignore their supervisor (behavioral-avoidance coping) more so than their Australian counterparts (57% and 35%, respectively). Similarly, Americans reacted to the presence of their supervisor by feeling more confident (100%) and relaxed (40%) in contrast to Australians (48% and 8%, respectively). Conversely, Australians were far more intimidated by this stressor (58%) than Americans were (20%). As indicated earlier, this could be due to the different evaluation techniques of the respective countries. Both groups experience both written and observation assessments, however, Australians rely more on the latter than do Americans for purposes of promotion and continued employment (J. Martin, Personal Communication, October 16, 1992).

Presence of Media

This was another relatively rare source of stress for these subjects (N=3). Both groups (100%) coped by ignoring the media during the contest, and instead, concentrated on the game (66% and 100%, for U.S. and Australians, respectively). Positive self-talk was used by all Americans experiencing this stressor (100%) and by no Australians (0%). A likely reason for this difference was that more Americans (66%) than Australians (33%) felt intimidated by the media's presence.

Experiencing an Injury

Behavioral coping entailed immediate application of first aid, although this was more common for Americans (69%) than Australians (40%). By contrast, more Australians (75%) than Americans (50%) preferred to ignore the injury and keep moving. Groups differed markedly on their emotional coping techniques. Specifically, Americans, using behavioral-approach coping tendencies, were more upset or angry (86%), and did not find the stress humorous (0%). Conversely, Australians coped with an injury using humor (40%), and reacted with less anger than Americans (50%). Positive self-talk was another common emotional coping technique for both groups (53% and 65% for U.S. and Australian's respectively). According to Heil (1993), self-talk in sport is used to improve confidence, focus attention, or "to stop or modify thoughts that are detrimental to performance" (p. 152). These aforementioned strategies have been shown in various studies to effectively manage pain in the non-sport literature (see Jensen, Tumer, Romano, & Karoly, 1991, for a review ).

Calling a Technical Foul

Surprisingly few referees in this study (8 Americans and 5 Australians) indicated use of a coping strategy following this stressor. This may be because skilled basketball referees actually used calling a technical foul as a coping strategy itself. Thus, rather than a source of stress, calling a technical foul may be used as a coping strategy following acute stressors (e.g., verbal abuse by coaches or players). This explanation is supported by the finding that referees' behavioral coping strategies consisted primarily of being assertive followed by game continuation. In addition, explaining the reason for the technical was employed more by American (63%) than Australian respondents (40%). However, more Australians (80%) than Americans (38%) used the avoidance coping style of ignoring complaints. Emotionally, all referees (100%) reported confidence in their call, with far more Australians (80%) than Americans (0%) coping taking deep breaths.

General Discussion

In our review of literature, two hypotheses were put forward. Specifically, it was predicted that coping strategies (behavioral and emotional) and coping styles (approach and avoidance) would differ among different sources of acute stress. It was also hypothesized that the application of coping would be influenced by cultural differences between American and Australian referees. The results of the present investigation generally confirmed both hypotheses.

General Coping Strategies

The importance of coping skills in dealing with acute stressors, as well as preventing chronic stress and burnout, has been detailed in previous theoretical and empirical work (e.g., Smith, 1986; Taylor et al., 1990). In the present investigation, coping skills provided referees with the necessary resources to withstand the high role demands placed on them. In this regard, a particularly important finding was that referees differed in the use of behavioral (problem-focused) and cognitive (emotion-focused) coping strategies as a function of the stressor. In addition, coping with the acute stressors in basketball officiating consisted primarily of approach and avoidance coping styles (Endler & Parker, 1990; Krohne, 1993; Roth and Cohen, 1986). Behavioral strategies entailed using the approach coping styles of covertly criticizing the coach and giving a warning or technical foul. Cognitive strategies consisted of becoming angry or upset (approach coping) or taking a deep breath and calming down (avoidance coping).

Abuse By Coach

Past anecdotal literature provides strong evidence that coaches are a frequent source of stress during the contest. This finding supports the 1984 Miller Brewing Company survey on 229 officials in which disruptive behaviors by coaches was the most common source of irritation (44%) with injured athletes (16%), disruptive fans (15%), and players arguing with officials (14%) also mentioned (cited by Burke, 1991b). This is supported by Holland (1979) who, using heart rate as an indicator of somatic stress, found that coach-official confrontations were associated with heart rate reaching 80% to 90% of maximum. In the present investigation, it was found that officials employed approach coping styles (e.g., expressing anger, issuing a technical foul) to cope with this intense stressor of coach abuse.

Smith (1982) proposes that dealing with arguing or abusive coaches may be a function of the situation regardless of the referee's reaction. He surmises that "the more fragile and tenuous the social structure, the less likely open negotiation and the more likely ritualistic performance" (p. 33). Part of this ritual is actually derived from the coach rather than from the official. Smith found that sometimes the coach's behavior "is not meant to be taken seriously by the referee. Its purpose is to arouse the team and perhaps the fans...the legitimacy of the call is seldom really in questions. What the coach wants is an opportunity to yell and then to be told to sit down or risk being thrown out" (pp. 39-40). This may explain the referees' frequent use of ignoring and discounting the coach's comments.

Abuse By Players

The referees in the present study did not find player abuse too stressful. Respondents of both groups gave a warning or technical foul (approach coping), or conversely, ignored the player's comments (avoidance coping). The extent to which players cause stress may be a function of the official's skill level. Specifically, the referee's appraisal of the stressful situation likely differs between experienced and inexperienced, and skilled and unskilled referees (Kaissidis & Anshel, 1993). Novices may encounter situations that are entirely new to them, such as dealing with an angry player or having to endure abuse from upset coaches or spectators. For example, when Smith (1982, p. 36) first began his career as a wrestling referee, he reported a willingness "to accept (abusive treatment) if l had made a decision which they thought was wrong ... (but) was not ... ready for the abusive form in which such criticism was expressed." He was also surprised that coaches, the most abusive sources of stress which he experienced, would often interact with him outside the sport context" as if nothing had happened. It appears, then, that the referee's and coach's respective appraisals of a stressful encounter during the contest may differ, thereby influencing the use of coping strategies.

Arguing With Coaches

The referees' coping strategies differed between this stressor and the stressor "Abuse by Coach". Whereas referees tended to give a technical foul or warning in response to abusive actions, the officials were more likely to respond less aggressively to coach inquiries or concerns (also see Burke, 1991a). Cebulski (1987), reporting on the frequent use of this coping strategy, contends that "If a coach says something obscene, we're supposed to say something like, 'What did you say?' or "Are you talking to me?' Most of the time, the coach will say, 'I wasn't talking to you' "(p. 33). This technique allows the coach to rescind an emotionally-initiated, often regretted, remark without further incident. At the same time, the referee does not lose credibility and respect.

Arguing With Players

Whereas abusive players tended to receive a technical foul or warning, referees treated arguing with players less aggressively. For example, issuing a warning (approach, behavioral coping) was far more common, as was ignoring the player (avoidance, behavioral coping). Not surprisingly, however, American referees were more than twice as likely than Australians to give a technical foul for arguing. The players' request for information or clarification carries far more respect and credibility by the officials than the players' use of profanity and other berating remarks. Similar to other stressors, it appears that the official's appraisal of the player's actions explains the relatively low intensity of this stressor.

Threats of Physical Abuse

It was apparent that this stressor was of highly unpleasant, finishing first among Australians. Results indicated that both stopping the game and giving a technical foul formed the primary behavioral coping strategies. These reactions are compatible with the anecdotal literature. For example, Tapp (1987) contends that the best way to combat stress is to "be fearless." In particular, he suggests that being impervious to the emotions of others, not losing control, and remaining self-confident under adverse conditions are key elements for success sports officiating. Stoddart (1986) suggests that Australian sports fans are usually somewhat less restrained than spectators in many other countries. This may explain why Australian referees more likely feared for their safety than their American counterparts, and moved quickly to obtain assistance. Still, behavioral, approach coping was the consistent strategy applied by both groups.

Abuse By Spectators

Understandably, by far the most common coping response to spectator abuse was to ignore the spectators or perceive their behavior as irrelevant. However, Anshel and Weinberg (1995) found that relatively few Australian referees were upset about these experiences (ranked 14th) in contrast to their American counterparts (ranked 3rd). This result may at least partially explain the manner in which each group copes with spectator's remarks. Specifically, Australians perceive spectators as relatively uninformed about the game (e.g., "abusive fans are ignorant"), in general, and about the situation, in particular (Stoddart, 1986). Consequently, because Australian referees generally do not perceive spectators as capable of making proper judgments about the official's decisions, they are more likely to use avoidance coping techniques, such as discounting, ignoring, and psychological distancing (Bramson, 1981). Almost three times as many American referees became upset with or humiliated by abusive fans. Thus, perhaps one may surmise that perceived stress among basketball referees is at least partly a function of perceived audience characteristics. This conclusion is supported by Purdy and Snyder (1986) who found that 56% of 689 U.S. high school basketball officials perceived their role as unpopular among spectators, "that they can never be completely correct in their decisions...and that they are often blamed for a team's defeat" (pp. 61-69).

Working With A Partner

Results indicated that referees coped with partner-related stress by continuing to do their own job while simultaneously supporting or covering for their partner. The sense of altruism among officials is not forced, since establishing a trusting relationship with your partner is an integral part of game preparation (Mano, 1980). Before the contest, he suggests that game officials establish a personal relationship and exchange general (e.g., informally revealing interests and previous experiences) and game-related information (e.g., coverage, roles, team tendencies). In addition, he strongly supports offering each other praise and assistance during the contest.

Making a Wrong Call

According to Strom (1990), a former professional basketball referee in the National Basketball League in the United States, officials who perceive that they made an error should change the call. Strom feels that "If you (make a wrong call), you just have to swallow it, or change it if you discover your mistake right away...you'll get a lot more respect if you admit you blew one than if you try to even things out by (purposely making a wrong penalty call against the other team)" (p. 130). However, in a 1984 survey (see Burke, 1991b), 40% of 229 officials indicated they "almost never" condone compensating a team by "making an intentional offsetting judgment" (p. 7). Strom's views are not supported by the results of this study. Specifically, no respondent indicated that he changed the call, and instead, either rationalized or justified (i.e., "selling") the call to the coach or player, or continued with the game. Thus, either Strom's view is not widely held by others, or there may be a discrepancy between the referees' beliefs and their actual coping strategies during the contest.

Controversial Call

Calling penalty in response to an infraction may not always be the appropriate call in every situation. For example, in response to a loose ball, Strom might "call someone for a foul, then realize it really isn't the best call because of other things that happened simultaneously" (p. 130). Instead, the foul will be dismissed, and instead, call for a "jump ball." This view is supported by a study of 689 high school basketball referees by Snyder and Purdy (1987). The authors' focus was determining the most important areas of competence in basketball officiating as perceived by the officials themselves, with particular attention to the application of "unwritten" rules and norms. The first area of competence was the officials' control of the game (social control) (e.g., when someone commits an indisputable violation). The second area was supplementation of rules (i.e., the officials' subjective decision-making which, although possibly violating the rules themselves, are in the best interests of the game. One-third of their sample regularly overlooked infractions depending on the game situation. Thus, "unwritten rules," where appropriate, helps officials cope with various stressful situations.

Snyder and Purdy also found that 73% of basketball referees viewed consistency as and the best indicant of skilled referee performance - even more important than following the rules to the letter. According to Weinberg and Richardson (1990), consistency is the ability to make the same decisions "in identical or similar circumstances," and "apply the rules equally to both opponents" (p. 6). They indicate that consistency, among other characteristics (e.g., rapport, decisiveness, poise, integrity, judgment, and confidence), is a relevant feature of top sports officials.

Mistake in Mechanics

Anshel and Weinberg (1995) found that making mechanical errors was a stress source of relative low intensity. Thus, it is not surprising that avoidance coping strategies (e.g., making corrections quickly and getting on with the game) were implemented by virtually 100% of all respondents who experienced this stressor. After initially feeling upset, most referees coped emotionally by "promising to get it right next time." These findings support Krohne and Hindel (1988) who contend that "successful (participants) are characterized by few interfering ... reactions..., little vigilant (approach) coping, and an extended use of cognitively avoidant self-regulatory techniques" (p. 225). In a rapidly performed sport environment such as basketball, a mistake in mechanics must be quickly put in the past to minimize subsequent attentional demands, coping strategies inherent in Anshel's (1990) COPE model.

Wrong Location

Coping with this stressor also followed Anshel's (1990) COPE model. In sequence, the referees first perceived the problem, appraised it in need of immediate attention (often manifested by annoyance or feeling upset), immediately corrected their actions, and used self-reinforcing statements such as "get it right next time," a strategy called positive reinterpretation, or reappraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and planning (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989).

Presence of Supervisor

The coping reactions to this stressor were clearly a function of the group's reliance on observational assessments by their supervisor for examining competence. As indicated earlier, although both groups combined written examinations with personal observations for performance evaluation, the Australian system is far more dependent on supervisor presence then the U.S. system (J. Martin, Personal Communication, October 16, 1992). Their respective coping strategies reflected these differences, with more Australians than Americans feeling intimidated and increasingly assertive when the supervisor was present. In addition, far more Americans than Australians reported feeling relaxed and having fun during this period. Although unexplored in this study, it is possible that coping strategies reflected differences in the groups' appraisals of their respective supervisors, especially if the supervisor's presence was appraised as challenging rather than threatening (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). For example, Bouffard, and Crocker (1992), in their study of disabled athletes, found that "perceived challenge was characterized by high levels of problem-focused coping...and positive affective states" (p. 415). The authors contend that behavioral coping strategies help individuals manage events that may be perceived as personally beneficial or valuable and allow that person to actively manage the situation.

Presence of Media

This area was a virtually nonexistence source of stress. Hence, coping by ignoring the media and concentrating on the game is understandable. One likely explanation of this reaction comes may be derived from a 1984 Miller Brewing Company survey, discussed earlier, indicating that 50% of American officials do not "think most print and broadcast media understand the roles of officials and referees." This reaction reflects the use of a benign appraisal (in contrast to stress or challenge appraisals), and reflects a discounting (avoidance) coping strategy (Bramson, 1981; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This suggests the significant role of appraisal in the coping process, and strong link to the subsequent use of coping strategies and (approach and avoidance) coping styles.

Experiencing an Injury

Researchers have found a significant link between stress and injury for athletes low in both coping skills and social support (Smith et al., 1990). Their results indicated that highly stressed athletes with poor coping skills and low social support are less able to participate in sport for more days than individuals with relatively better coping skills and higher social support. Although research in this area with referees is lacking, our data did not indicate evidence for social support as a coping strategy. Perhaps, unlike the longer time period for recovery from injury, experiencing an injury during the game may preclude the importance, or practicality, of social support strategies among officials. Instead, the subjects in this study tended to use "on-task" coping strategies. These included external focusing (maintaining on-task performance, avoidance coping) and anger, a cognitive (self-talk) strategy to overcome discomfort by psyching up.

Calling a Technical Foul

In a study of 110 Division I American basketball officials, Brennan (reported by Smith, 1988) found that "officials knew when coaches were trying to get technical fouls or were 'working' officials...75 percent of the officials viewed the verbal communication as a 'natural course' of the game" (p. 68). This may partially explain why many subjects in this study reported using emotion-focused coping in feeling more self-confidence in their call, coupled with relatively low anger. Behavioral coping consisted of being assertive, threatening the coach or player with expulsion, and quickly continuing the game after the call. It is likely that referees feel relatively little stress after calling a technical foul because of their perception that the coach or player deserves. Based on other data in this study, is also apparent that calling a technical foul is itself a behavioral-approach coping technique in response to other stressors.

Cross-Cultural-Comparisons

Comparisons between American and Australian basketball referees on the use of coping strategies indicated more similarities than differences. This general finding is similar to Weinberg, Grove, and Jackson (1992) who reported far more similarities than differences between Australian and American tennis coaches' in their use of different strategies to build self-effacacy among their athletes.

Group differences in the present study were apparent for the self-reported use of behavioral and emotional coping strategies. For instance, in response to an abusive coach, both groups were similarly punitive. However, Americans were more likely to speak calmly to the coach than were Australians. There is an absence of empirical research explaining these differences.

Cultural differences of the referees' responses to verbal abuse from players was contrary to their responses to verbal abuse from coaches. The primary coping strategy of both groups was to give a technical foul. Further, similar to the American referees' response to abusive coaches, Australian officials perceived player comments as "part of the job," and consequently, "moved on to the next play" or tried to reason with them. Officials in both groups had relatively little tolerance for argumentive player comments. However, Americans were more likely to give a technical foul (91%) to give a technical foul (91%) than Australians (42%), while both groups tended to warn the players (84% and 82% for U.S. and Australia, respectively).

Thus, Duda and Allison's (1990) call for recognizing cultural variation in style and meaning of participating in sport and physical activity was still supported by our results. Culture influences perceptions and affective responses. This was noted in the present investigation in terms of the referees' appraisals of acute stress during the contest. At least some of the differences between American and Australian referees may reflect cultural background and experiences which, in turn, have direct implications for the content in effective stress management training programs in different societies.

Conclusions

The present findings indicate that selected coping strategies used by both groups, as categorized by problem (behavior)-focused and emotion (cognitive)-focused (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and approach and avoidance coping styles (Krohne, 1989, 1993; Roth & Cohen, 1986), were identified as a function of two factors, the type of stressor and cultural differences. Similar to Gould et al. (1993), in their study of-U.S. Olympic wrestlers, it appears that an array of behavioral and cognitive strategies are employed by referees in response to situational demands. The researchers concluded that "the process of coping is a dynamic complex process involving any number of strategies, often in combination" (p. 91). This certainly applies to the current sample of referees.

Many of the coping strategies for basketball referees appear to lean more toward behavioral-focused than emotion-focused categories. The official's position mandates observed control of the environment and change in the behaviors of selected athletes. Whether coping strategies are selected as a function of the individual's personal coping style, as proposed by some researchers (Endler & Parker, 1990; Krohne, 1993; Roth & Cohen, 1986), is situationally dependent (Gould et al., 1993), or is a combination of both personal and situational factors, reflecting the transactional coping model (Terry, 1991), awaits additional research. However, results of the present study suggest the latter. Finally, although selected differences between U.S. and Australian coping responses were found, our data did not indicate consistent cross-cultural differences in the preferred use any particular coping style (i.e., approach or avoidance, behavior and emotion-focused). Rather, it appears that effective basketball officiating consists of appropriate coping techniques in order to minimize stress and to optimize concentration and performance. This conclusion is consistent with a relatively early study of the psychological and behavioral tendencies of effective basketball officials (Alker, Straub, & Leary, 1973). As Jones and Hardy (1989) note, successful coping in sport requires regaining composure, establishing the proper mental set (i.e., the psychological readiness to respond to subsequent stimuli), and maintaining optimal arousal and concentration.

Along these lines, Burke and Miller (1990) argue that almost all of the training involved for sports officiating is restricted to the technical aspect of their performance with relatively little psychological training typically available in coping with stress. Given the extent to which sports officials are exposed to acute stress, and the potential deleterious effects of stress on the performance and retention of officials in sport, it is essential for researchers to study the coping process in sports officiating and to test the effectiveness of stress management programs.

References

Alleer, H.A., Straub, W.F., & Leary, J. (1973). Achieving consistency: A study of basketball officiating. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 335-343.

Anshel, M.H. (1990). Toward validation of a model for coping with acute stress in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 58-83.

Anshel, M.H., & Weinberg, R.S. (1995). Sources of acute stress in American and Australian basketball referees. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 11-22.

Bouffard, M., & Crocker, P. (1992). Coping by individuals with physical disabilities with perceived challenge in physical activity: Are people consistent? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 410-417.

Bramson, R.M. (1981). Coping with difficult people. New York: Doubleday.

Burke, K. (September-October, 1991a). Dealing with sport officials. Soccer Journal, 36, pp. 45-48.

Burke, K.L. (May-June, 1991b). Dealing with sport officials. Sport Psychology Training Bulletin, 2, 1-6.

Burke, K., & Miller, M. (September, 1990). Sports officials: The neglected participants. Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology annual conference, San Antonio, Texas.

Carver, C.S, Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56, 267-283.

Cebulski, M. (January, 1987). A panel of experts offers guidance on how to keep your head when those about you are losing theirs. Referee, 12, pp. 29-31.

Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1990). Burnout in sport: A review and critique. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 67-83.

Duda, J.L., & Allison, J.T. (1990). Cross-cultural analysis in exercise and sport psychology: Avoid in the field. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 114-131.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three states of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.

Gauron, E.F. (1986). The art of cognitive self-regulation. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 5, 95-101.

Gould, D., Eklund, R.C., & Jackson, S.A. (1993). Coping strategies used by U.S. Olympic wrestlers. Research Quarterly For Exercise and Sport, 64, 83-93.

Heil, J. (1993). Mental training in injury management. In J. Heil (Ed.), Psychology of sport injury (pp. 151-174). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Holland, J.C. (1.979). Heart rate responses of high school basketball officials. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 7, 78-87.

Jensen, P.J, Turner, J.A, Romano, J.M., & Karoly, P. (1991). Coping with chronic pain: A critical review of the literature. Pain, 47. 249-283.

Jones, J.G., & Hardy, L. (1989). Stress and cognitive functioning in sport. Journal of Sport Science. 7, 41-60.

Kaissidis, A., & Anshel, M.H. (1993). Sources of and responses to acute stress between adult and adolescent Australian basketball referees. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 26, 22-32.

Krohne, H.W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In H.W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance (pp. 51-69). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Krohne, H. W. (1989). The concept of coping modes: Relating cognitive person variables to actual coping behavior. Special Issue: The role of individual differences in stress and stress management. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 11, 235-248.

Krohne, H. W., & Hindel, C. (1988). Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and coping behavior as predictors of athletic performance. Anxiety Research, 1, 225-234.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping New York: Springer.

Lehman, D.R., & Reifman, A. (1988). Spectator influence on basketball officiating. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 673-675.

Mano, B. (October, 1980). The art of being an official. Referee, 5, 14-15.

Quain, R.J., & Purdy, D.A. (1988). Sport officials: Who are these people? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 60-74.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Purdy, D.A., & Snyder, E.E. (1986). A social profile of high school basketball officials. Journal of Sport Behavior, 8, 54-65.

Rotella, R., McGuire, R., & Gansneder, B. (1985). Stress and basketball officials: Impact on health, performance, and retention. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, Charlottsville.

Roth, S, & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813-819.

Scanlan, T.K., Stein, G.L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 65-83.

Smith, A. (1988, April). Special report: The Brennan study. Referee, 13, 68.

Smith, C. W. (1982). Performance and negotiations: A case study of a wrestling referee. Qualitative Sociology, 5, 33-46.

Smith, R. E. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.

Smith, R. E., & Nye, S. L. (1989). Comparison of induced affect and covert rehearsal in the acquisition of stress management coping skills. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 17-23.

Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Ptacek, J.T. (1990). Conjunctive moderator variables in vulnerability and resiliency research: Life stress, social support and coping skills, and adolescent sport injuries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 360-370.

Snyder, E.E., & Purdy, D.A. (1987). Social control in sport: An analysis of basketball officiating. Sociology of Sport Journal, 4, 394-402.

Stoddart, B. (1986). Political football: The politics of Australian sport. In B. Jones (Ed.), Saturday afternoon fever (pp. 56-82). Sydney, Australia: Angus & Robertson.

Strom, E. (November 1990). How to call 'em like a pro. Sports Illustrated, 7, 125-196; 129-132; 135.

Tapp, J. (May, 1987). The only thing you have to fear is fear itself: Common fears and what officials have done to cope with them. Referee, 12, pp. 28; 30-32; 34.

Taylor, A.H., Daniel, J.V., Leith, L., & Burke, R.J. (1990). Perceived stress, psychological burnout and paths to turnover intentions among sport officials. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 84-97.

Terry, D. J. (1991). Coping resources and situational appraisals as predictors of coping behavior. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1031-1047.

Weinberg, R.S., Grove, R., & Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in tennis players: A comparative analysis of Australia and American coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 3-13.

Weinberg, R.S., & Richardson, (1990). Psychology of officiating. Champaign, IL: Leisure.

Zoller, S. (1985, May). Learning how to live with stress. Referee, 10, 48-49, 51.