Questions from an Outsider

[Robert Goodman]

This sort of division of responsibility is common in other sports too. It arises partly from its being easier to learn a specialized job, so more people are available for the lesser officials' positions, and there are actual distinctions between their qualif'ns.

Take the history of rugby officiating. The earliest method of officiating on record had an umpire representing each team to claim fouls. Later the referee was introduced to resolve disputes between the umpires. Then the referee took on general responsibility for the game and the umpires were replaced by touch judges whose only function was to judge their team's sideline and near goalpost.

However, the touch judges were still partisans of the teams until recently, so they weren't trusted with any further responsibility, and of course the referee could overrule them even on their calls. And rugby didn't follow the trend in American football of adding more field officials to assist the referee. But fairly recently, as (and where) more qualified officials became available, the touch judges have been staffed from the same ranks as referees and have been given progressively more authority to call violations, starting with the most serious ones, although the referee still has overall responsibility and the sole responsibility on many calls.

In boxing the timekeeper, judges, and referee have different responsibilities, although I understand in some types of boxing the referee is an additional judge.