The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Bundesliga referee Patrick Ittrich: "As a player I was bad"

2020-08-21T04:40:59.591Z


Usually prominent referees write a book only after retirement. Bundesliga referee Patrick Ittrich, on the other hand, is already there. The 41-year-old, actually a police officer, talks about similarities between his jobs and how to deal with mistakes.


Icon: enlarge

Patrick Ittrich and the video evidence - here at the game between VfB Stuttgart and Bayern Munich in 2017

Photo: Marijan Murat / dpa

SPIEGEL: The subtitle of your book is: "Why I love being a referee". What makes this job so appealing to you? 

Ittrich: I really enjoy communicating with people, leading them and taking responsibility. I also want to help make a game good, I've always remained a footballer. By the way, refereeing also helps a lot in developing your own personality. In addition, as a referee you have the urge to get every game off the stage as flawlessly as possible. The sense of justice certainly also plays a role. As a player, I was bad, often complained to the referee and thought: I could do better. So I decided to give it a try myself.

SPIEGEL: How would referee Patrick Ittrich deal with the unruly player Patrick Ittrich today? 

Ittrich: As a referee, communication is as important to me as it was as a player. That's why I try to regulate things in a communicative way as much as possible. If I can get a dissatisfied player to my side with words without breaking the rules, then I'll do it. The type I was as a player can also be found in the Bundesliga. And I can understand him well. At the same time, as a referee, I have to use the appropriate means to set clear boundaries for him - but vice versa, I also accepted that as a player. 

SPIEGEL: "There is probably hardly a job that suits a referee as well as that of a police officer," you write. What are the parallels? And what are the differences? 

Ittrich: The referee has more discretion. As a police officer, one often has to deal with administrative offenses and criminal offenses that cannot be left unpunished. Nevertheless, I can solve a lot of things in this job with communication, experience and the right approach. As a police officer, I often have to arbitrate, de-escalate and act as a balancing act - and that is similar as a referee. However, as a police officer, I don't have to make a decision within a split second in a full sprint and also don't have to run ten kilometers before I arrest someone. (laughs)

Ittrich shows Dortmund's Emre Mor the red card

Photo: PATRIK STOLLARZ / AFP

SPIEGEL: Isn't that something you have in common as well as the power that you have as a police officer and as a referee?  

Ittrich: The word "power" has such a negative touch. Often police officers and referees are accused of only doing the job so that they have something to say. I thought that was too simple, and it doesn't apply to me either. I am a decision maker in both offices and am always faced with the task of acting quickly and correctly. But I can never and never want to use my power. It has been given to me and I must handle it carefully and conscientiously. The proportionality and the traceability of measures are most important in both activities. 

SPIEGEL: Your book takes up a lot of comments on the discretion of the referee. Others would speak of "instinct", but you reject that term. 

Ittrich: A sure instinct is always required when it is supposedly missing, for example with yellow-red cards. Often, however, the call for instinct is nothing more than an invitation to break the rules. The margin of discretion, on the other hand, is something that the rules themselves provide, that is, something that is consistent with them. For example when judging a duel, evaluating hand games or personal punishments. There are many 50/50 situations where not just one decision is possible. But if something is clear, I have to be consistent, even if a team or the public doesn't like it. 

SPIEGEL: Isn't the large margin of discretion in the rules also a problem? Many complain that the referees lack a clear line overall. What criteria does one whistle generously and the other petty? 

Ittrich: That depends on how the referee imagines a good game management. With generous management, younger referees in particular run the risk of losing control of the game. With more experience, this risk is lower, also because the acceptance increases. If one is more petty, it is often interpreted negatively, according to the motto: He whistled the game to pieces. The discretion is a very valuable asset. But sometimes you just can't and shouldn't be too generous, especially in an emotional atmosphere or a game with lots of hidden fouls. Often, as a referee, you just don't have a choice. 

SPIEGEL: To what extent do the television images, with their numerous camera angles and super slow motion, influence the public perception of the referees' decisions?  

Ittrich: The television pictures show our mistakes, but they can also distort facts. This is especially true for slow motion, which makes some processes, such as hand and foul games, appear much more conscious and deliberate than they actually are. They also often do not adequately reflect the dynamics of an action. On the field, I often have a good feel for the connection between impulse and effect in duels or for the question of whether contact was the cause of a player's fall. Some things can be seen and felt better on the lawn than a camera can depict. The television images seem objective, but often cannot show at all whether a player really had to fall or what he was up to. I can assess that much better up close on the pitch, but TV viewers are not always aware of that. 

SPIEGEL: After three years of experience with the video assistant: If the video assistant steps in and the decision is ultimately changed, does that increase acceptance among the teams because a mistake has been corrected? Or does it reduce it because a mistake has to be admitted? 

Ittrich: If I only have to use the video assistant every few games, it increases acceptance in the event of a correction. But if I go out to the monitor three times in a game, it looks different. It also depends on the reason for a review. In a situation that I couldn't see at all and that no one else noticed, there is no problem. But if many have already noticed the mistake before my attention is drawn to it, it can scratch my authority. Basically, I would say that the VAR does not harm acceptance as an arbitrator. He filters out the mistakes that make the game, and that helps me as a referee. 

Icon: enlarge

In conversation with Stuttgart's Mario Gomez

Photo: Uwe Anspach / dpa

SPIEGEL: How do you as a referee deal with criticism, how do you process it, especially after games where everyone is attacking you?

Ittrich: If you want to get ahead as a referee, you basically have to see criticism as something that helps you to get better and develop yourself further. However, a distinction must be made between this and criticism that only seeks to harm. I won't let them get to me. To distinguish one from the other is not always easy and a learning process. Above all, the professional criticism of the observer and the coach is important. 

SPIEGEL: You write: "I would never apologize publicly for a mistake. I never understood why parts of the fans and the media had this expectation." Isn't it understandable that fans at least want to hear that a referee is sorry for a game-changing mistake? 

Ittrich: I don't make a mistake on purpose, that's the crucial point. It's also about football and not about much more important things in life. For example, if I hit someone in my car and injure them as a result, it has a different quality and more serious consequences. Of course I apologize for that. But if in a soccer game I make a decision that is wrong within a tenth of a second to the best of my knowledge and belief, why is there the expectation that I will cringe for it? I like to explain why I decided one way and not another, but that has to be a good thing. 

SPIEGEL: Since the second half of last season, the referees have been supposed to punish unsporting behavior more severely. Many thought that was good, but there was also excitement, for example about the yellow-red card against Alassane Pléa. You yourself write: "The players are now pulling themselves together more. They have no other choice. We're talking about a cultural change here." Is it really like that? 

Ittrich: Basically, I see clear signs that something has changed. The players have understood that we referees are now punishing unsportsmanlike conduct more consistently, are increasingly adjusting to it and accepting it. In the best case scenario, it will automate itself. However, Corona has changed the framework conditions. When the game started again, everyone was preoccupied with themselves. The players therefore largely left us alone on the first two match days. Then everyone involved got used to the changed circumstances and it got a little louder on the square. We now have to weigh up: do we just go ahead and do this despite the special situation? Or do we leave a little more leeway? It's a fine line to walk. 

Icon: The mirror

Source: spiegel

All sports articles on 2020-08-21

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-16T19:16:03.180Z

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.