Teamwork and Decision Making among Basketball Referees: The 3PO Principle, Refereeing Level, and Experience

Abstract

In this study, the three-person officiating (3PO) principle was employed as an innovative method to examine decision-making (DM) processes among basketball referees. We aimed at exploring whether the ranking, experience, and teamwork among 25 basketball referees could predict accuracy of DM in ambiguous situations taken from basketball games. An analysis of 283 officiating cases taken from 100 filmed games was conducted. The events were then classified by nine experts according to whether the officiating decision was accurate, and which referee (Lead, Center or Trail) was standing in the main coverage area, as per the 3PO principle, when the decision was made. Our findings indicate that the teamwork (coordination) component was associated with the quality of DM. Of the 283 events, 60 decisions (21%) were not made from the recommended position according to the 3PO principle; 49 of those decisions were incorrect. The findings are discussed from both developmental and instructional perspectives.

Full text

Journal of Human Kinetics volume 89/2023, x–x DOI: 10.5114/jhk/169439 1
Section IV – Psychological and Sociological Aspects of Sport and Exercise
1 Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Levinsky-Wingate Academic College, Netanya, Israel.
2 Department of Physical Education, Kaye Academic College of Education, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
3 Department of Business Administration, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
* Correspondence: sabageran@gmail.com
Accepted for publishing in the Journal of Human Kinetics vol. 89/2023 in October 2023.
Teamwork and Decision Making among Basketball Referees:
The 3PO Principle, Refereeing Level, and Experience
by
Eran Sabag 1,2,*, Ronnie Lidor 1, Michal Arnon 1, Elia Morgulev 1,2,
Michael Bar-Eli 1,3
In this study, the three-person officiating (3PO) principle was employed as an innovative method to examine
decision-making (DM) processes among basketball referees. We aimed at exploring whether the ranking, experience, and
teamwork among 25 basketball referees could predict accuracy of DM in ambiguous situations taken from basketball
games. An analysis of 283 officiating cases taken from 100 filmed games was conducted. The events were then classified
by nine experts according to whether the officiating decision was accurate, and which referee (Lead, Centre or Trail) was
standing in the main coverage area, as per the 3PO principle, when the decision was made. Our findings indicate that
the teamwork (coordination) component was associated with the quality of DM. Of the 283 events, 60 decisions (21%)
were not made from the recommended position according to the 3PO principle; 49 of those decisions were incorrect. The
findings are discussed from both developmental and instructional perspectives.
Keywords: positioning; coordination; three-person officiating; accuracy of decisions
Introduction
Referees are key stakeholders in both
individual and team sports. Their primary
responsibility is the maintenance of safety and
competitive fairness through enforcement of the
rules (Bar-Eli et al., 2011; Hancock et al., 2021).
Single refereeing decisions can have major impact
on the outcome (Dosseville et al., 2013; Hossner et
al., 2019; Raab et al., 2019), and accurate decision-
making (DM) performance is considered to be one
of the most important characteristics that a referee
should possess (Bar-Eli et al., 2011; Nabli et al.,
2019). Ample research has been conducted to
identify sources of referees' bias, and to reveal how
accuracy of officiating can be improved (Dohmen
and Sauermann, 2016; Morgulev et al., 2018;
Schweizer et al., 2013; Spencer et al., 2020).
Contributing factors that have been found to assist
referees in their DM processes include physical
fitness (Helsen and Bultynck, 2004; Leicht, 2008),
perceptual ability (Helsen and Bultynck, 2004;
Kittel et al., 2019), mental ability (Anshel et al.,
2014; Castillo et al., 2017), visual attention
(Pietraszewski et al., 2014; Spitz et al., 2018), rules
knowledge, and game management (Mascarenhas
et al., 2002).
One factor that seems to be particularly
relevant to referees' DM quality is their level of
expertise (MacMahon et al., 2007; Souchon et al.,
2013). Expertise is the individual's ability to
effectively perform in domain-specific tasks
(Chassy and Gobet, 2010), and refers to the
characteristics, skills, and knowledge that
distinguish experts from novices or less
experienced individuals (Ericsson et al., 2018;
Ericsson and Pool, 2016). In sport, the referees'
level of expertise is typically reflected by the level
at which they officiate (e.g., regional, national or
international levels) (Avugos et al., 2021).

2 Decision-making and teamwork in referees
Journal of Human Kinetics, volume 89/2023 http://www.johk.pl
DM of expert referees is superior to that of
novice referees (Larkin et al., 2011; Put et al., 2013).
For example, Gilis and colleagues (2008) found that
international-level assistant referees were more
accurate in recalling the spatial positions of soccer
players in complex offside situations, compared to
their national-level counterparts. Page and Page
(2010) examined the influence of the home
advantage on officiating, based on an extensive
sample of games from various English soccer
games. Those authors concluded that on average,
referees with a greater level of expertise were less
responsive to social pressure than those with less
experience and training.
In another ball game, i.e., basketball, Hack
et al. (2009) demonstrated that compared to non-
professionals, professional referees exhibited
superior domain-specific attention mechanisms.
This was evident through them ascribing greater
importance to officiating tasks and using long-time
experience to assess effectively game situations.
Overall, previous findings suggest that officiating
expertise is associated with an improved ability to
select and process relevant, useful situational
information (Ghasemi et al., 2009; Hancock and
Ste-Marie, 2013; Pizzera et al., 2018).
Another factor that distinguishes between
novice and expert referees is related to their
teamwork, that is, coordination and positioning in
relation to the event and to each other (Avugos et
al., 2021; Samuel et al., 2020). For example, Mallo
and colleagues (2012) showed that DM accuracy of
referees and assistant referees in soccer was
affected by either the distance or the angle from
which they observed the game. When examining
key factors that contribute to expert officiating
performance in the National Rugby League, Morris
and O'Connor (2017) found positioning and
teamwork to be among the leading attributes in
officiating excellence. De Oliveira et al. (2011),
however, did not find significant associations
between the referee's distance from a foul play and
the accuracy of the call in Brazilian soccer. Hossner
et al. (2019) analyzed viewing angles and distances
in relation to error rates in whistled and non-
whistled events in the International Federation of
Association Football (FIFA) World Cup 2014. They
also found no significant correlations between the
variables, yet they stated that although there
seemed to be no "ideal distance" for making
accurate decisions in soccer, elite-level referees
were able to effectively position themselves in
relation to an anticipated event.
Indeed, referees' DM has been examined
under a variety of conditions, including different
officiating ranks, court locations, and distances
from the given game situation. Yet referees' on-
court coordination and collaborations during
games, as well as their impact on the referees'
shared DM in practice, have been largely neglected
in sports refereeing literature. In other words,
despite referees' DM requiring teamwork and
cooperation, especially in ball games such as
basketball, in-depth research on this topic is greatly
lacking (Pina et al., 2021). Moreover, since the
introduction of the three-person officiating (3PO)
principle in basketball in the beginning of the
2000s, only few studies have examined the
practical application of the referees' teamwork,
regarding cases where referees changed positions
during the actual game.
The 3PO Principle
In any professional game of basketball,
three referees simultaneously function on the
court, working together as a single unit by what is
termed the 3PO principle. According to this notion,
the referees alternate their zone of responsibility,
as the location of the ball and the players changes
in real time [for more details, see the International
Basketball Association (FIBA) Three-Person
Officiating Manual:
https://www.clubdelarbitro.com/documentos/FIB
A_3PO_Advanced_v1_1_Dec2020_en.pdf
(accessed on 1 July 2022)]. Each referee fills one of
three basic positions: Lead, Centre or Trail. Each
position is responsible for a primary coverage area
(Figure 1, lefthand panel). In some cases, due to
functional coverage areas (Figure 1, righthand
panel), some overlapping does occur between the
three referees.
Addressing the 3PO Principle for Increasing
Validity of DM Studies on Basketball Officiating
The literature is abundant in studies on
referee positioning in soccer (Avugos et al., 2021;
Kittel et al., 2019), yet much less attention has been
given to positioning and coordination among the
triad of referees that is unique to the game of
basketball (for a recent systematic review on
basketball referees, see García-Santos et al., 2020).
In a preliminary descriptive study, Smid (2015)

by Eran Sabag et al. 3
Articles published in the Journal of Human Kinetics are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0
license.
attempted to characterize the positions and zones
of responsibility among the three referees on the
court (Lead, Centre, and Trail). It was found that
over three basketball seasons, the Lead position
was dominant compared to the Centre and Trail
positions. Moreover, changes to the team's shared
DM indicated a diffusion of power between the
team members. Overall, the Lead position
outperformed the other two positions, yet no effect
of the officiating referees' DM on accuracy was
found. The current study is novel as it focuses on
the teamwork component of DM in basketball
referees.
For educational purposes, Pecev et al.
(2016) applied neural network techniques to
simulate the visual field and identify the optimal
relative positioning for each of the three referees in
various game situations. Finally, Hrusa and
Hrusova (2021) used expert observers to assess the
accuracy of referees in court decisions. Comparing
between 30 games that were officiated by two
referees and 30 games that were attended by three
referees (all from the same league), those authors
concluded that the average number of officiating
mistakes decreased significantly with the
transition from a two- to a three-referee system.
In the current study, we applied a unique
methodological approach to research on basketball
officiating, by incorporating the quality of the
referees' DM, their officiating level, years of
experience, and the novel additional component of
the 3PO principle. By adding this principle as a
real-game variable, we strove to increase the
ecological validity of how DM processes in
basketball referees were assessed from a teamwork
perspective.
We hypothesized that the manner in
which referees in basketball coordinated their
actions during an actual game – namely, how they
applied the 3PO principle – would influence the
quality of their DM as follows: (a) maintaining or
not maintaining the designated area of
responsibility of each referee would influence the
quality of his officiating calls that he made
throughout the game; (b) the amount of
overlapping during the game between the
designated coverages of the referees would
influence the accuracy of the referees' calls; and (c)
the distance of each referee in his designated area
from the actual officiating event would influence
the quality of DM. In addition, we examined
referees' expertise from two perspectives, namely,
(a) were they national or international?, and (b)
how many years of experience did they have?
Methods
Participants
Nine Israeli elite-level basketball referees
served as expert observers in this study. They were
all males, aged 36–52 years (mean = 43.9), with an
average of 26.3 years of experience. The expert
observers were recruited from the Israeli
Basketball Referees Association and were active
members of FIBA. All nine observers held an
international refereeing license and had experience
in officiating international games, such as in the
EuroLeague and the European Championships for
national teams.
In line with protocols used in previous
studies on referees in sport (Brand et al., 2006;
Morgulev et al., 2014; Plessner and Betsch, 2001;
Sabag et al., 2018), expert observers were asked to
provide their professional opinion on a sample of
real-game situations, while assessing the quality of
the referees' DM in each situation. The study was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the authors'
affiliated academic institution and by the Ethical
Committee of the Israeli Basketball Referees
Association.
Database
WSC Sports Technologies software
[https://wsc-sports.com (accessed on 1 January
2019)], was used to download 100 games from the
Israeli Super League from the 2016–17 season. We
scanned these games and chose 321 events that
seemed to be the most ambiguous, with the
potential to elicit officiating errors. All selected
events constituted a complex situation in which
players, fans, broadcasters, and/or coaches were
dissatisfied with the referees' calls or no-call
decisions.
The events were selected by the first
author of this article, a 42-year-old basketball coach
with 20 years of coaching experience, including
working at the highest level of competitive
basketball in Israel (The Israeli Super League). The
Israeli Super League is the highest competitive
basketball division (i.e., Division 1) in Israel. This
league is comprised of 12 professional clubs.
Players practice on a daily basis and play between
one and two games per week. Some clubs also

4 Decision-making and teamwork in referees
Journal of Human Kinetics, volume 89/2023 http://www.johk.pl
participate in the European leagues (e.g., the
Euroleague)]. To validate the selection of these
events, one experienced professional coach (male;
40 years old with 19 years of coaching experience)
and one experienced professional referee (male; 37
years old with 13 years of officiating experience)
reassessed the selected events. They were asked to
confirm that each event constituted an ambiguous
on-court situation, with the potential to elicit
officiating errors. In all events, the referees and
their calls were edited (by the first author) out of
the video recordings. As such, the expert observers
did not know whether the referee had made a call
or had ignored the situation. The events were then
grouped into videoclips of 20 events each.
Procedures
For each selected event, the first author
documented the location of the event on the court,
the position of the three referees (Lead, Centre, and
Trail) on the court, the referee who made the call,
and his decision. In events where the referees did
not blow their whistle, the officiating decision was
classified as "no-call".
Each event was independently examined
by two expert observers. After comparing their
input, a third expert observer was required in cases
where a lack of agreement was seen between the
first two experts. Each expert observer sat in front
of a computer screen in a quiet room. The session
began with a brief introduction and a short training
session, in which three trial events were viewed
and discussed, to ensure the expert observer had
understood the requirements of the observational
task.
Each officiating event was presented to the
experts in the following sequence: (a) an
introductory slide presenting the number of the
event, with arrows pointing to players involved in
the event; (b) a videoclip of the event itself, without
the referees' decision; (c) two slow-motion replays
of the event; and (d) a final slide requesting the
classification of the event. For each officiating
event, expert observers were asked to identify: (a)
the referee that should have taken responsibility
for the call when an event occurred within his
primary coverage area; and (b) the correct
officiating decision that should have been made.
Each expert observer assessed 80–100 events.
For 38 of the 321 selected events (about
12%), a consensus was not reached between the
three expert observers regarding the correct
officiating decision and the referee who should
have been responsible for the given event. These 38
unidentified cases were therefore excluded from
the data analysis. Of the remaining 283 officiating
events, agreement was not reached between the
first two observers for only six cases (about 2%),
which required the involvement of a third expert
observer.
Referees' Age and Years of Experience
A total of 25 referees were involved in the
283 cases that were included in this study. Seven
were licensed international-level referees. Their
age and years of officiating experience are
presented in Table 1. A t-test indicated that
international-level referees were older (t = 1.96; p <
0.05, Cohen's d = 0.87) and more experienced (t =
3.22; p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 1.44) than their national-
level counterparts.
Statistical Analyses
Chi-square tests were performed to
examine correlations between the referees' level of
officiating, teamwork, and quality of decisions. A
two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine
whether the distance from the event was related to
the referees' level, teamwork, and quality of
decisions. To examine robustness, we employed a
binomial logistic regression in which quality of
decisions and teamwork served as the dependent
variables. Cramér's V, partial eta-squared, and
Cohen's d were used as effect sizes to match the
relevant statistical test. Alpha was set at 0.05 for all
statistical analyses. SPSS version 26 was used for
data analyses.
Results
Comparison of Decisions Made by Real-Time
Referees vs. Expert Observers
Distribution of referees' and expert
observers' decisions in the 283 officiating events is
presented in Table 2 (cross-tabulation).
Overall, expert observers only reached the
same decision as referees in 109 of the 283 events
(38.5%), confirming that the selected officiating
situations were indeed challenging. The highest
agreement rates were found in decisions regarding
flagrant fouls (4 out of 7; 57.1%) and on the no-calls
(61 out of 114; 53.5%). On the other hand, only 12
of the 68 calls of a shooting foul (17.6%) were

by Eran Sabag et al. 5
Articles published in the Journal of Human Kinetics are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0
license.
confirmed by experts.
Referees' Level, Teamwork, and Distance between
the Referee and the Actual Event
The number and the percentage of
incorrect/correct calls made by referees are
presented in Table 3 according to their officiating
level (national/international). These results show
that referees at the international level did not
exhibit better DM than their national level
counterparts (χ2 (1) = 0.18, p > 0.05, Rc = 0.25).
We also examined cases where the referee
who should have made the call (as the event
occurred within his primary coverage area) was
indeed the one who did take responsibility for DM.
Our findings show that these cases were less
erroneous than cases where the wrong referee
made the call (i.e., when the event was outside his
primary coverage area). The number and the
percentage of incorrect/correct calls made by
referees in incorrect/correct positions are presented
in Table 4.
As seen in Table 4, referees made more
errors (81.7%) when they made decisions
regarding events that were outside their primary
coverage area (χ2 (1) = 13.09, p < 0.01, Rc = 0.22). This
finding is also true when examining each group of
referees discretely: national level referees (χ2 (1) =
10.01, p < 0.001, Rc = 0.23) and international level
referees (χ2 (1) = 3.68, p < 0.05, Rc = 0.20). Evidently,
correct positioning among the three referees (i.e.,
teamwork) is an important officiating factor. We
therefore also examined whether international
level referees outperformed their national level
colleagues in this regard. The number and the
percentage of incorrect/correct positions by
national/international level referees are presented
in Table 5.
Results in Table 5 show that no evidence
was observed for associations between the level of
referees and the quality of teamwork (χ2 (1) = 1.85, p
> 0.05, Rc = 0.08). We therefore performed a two-
way ANOVA to determine whether teamwork and
the referee's level were associated with the distance
between the referee and the event. In cases with
correct teamwork, the referee was found to be
situated closer to the event, compared to cases with
erroneous teamwork (5.88 m and 7.27 m,
respectively) [F(1, 279) = 32.72, p < 0.01,

2 = 0.11].
Moreover, international level referees were found
to be located further away from the event,
compared to their national level counterparts (6.96
m and 6.19 m, respectively) [F(1, 279) = 10.08, p < 0.01,

2 = 0.04].
In light of the significant interaction
between teamwork and the referees' level [F(1) =
7.08, p < 0.01,

2 = 0.03], we examined cases with
correct/erroneous teamwork separately. Our
findings reveal that in cases with correct
teamwork, international and national level referees
were found to be standing at a similar distance
from the event (5.94 m and 5.81 m, respectively)
[F(1, 221) = 0.34 , p > 0.05,

2 = 0.002]. However, in cases
where teamwork was erroneous, referees at the
international level were found to be standing
further away from the event compared to their
national level colleagues (7.98 m and 6.56 m,
respectively) [F(1, 58) = 7.06, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.11]. This
finding indicates that when international level
referees were involved, their erroneous teamwork
was related to their tendency to take responsibility
for events that took place further away from them.
Analysis of accuracy rates of referees by
the national/international level, and in relation to
their distance from the given event, revealed that
national level referees were at a similar distance
from the event in both erroneous and correct
decisions (6.09 m and 5.74 m, respectively) [F(1, 184) =
2.00, p > 0.05,

2 = 0.01]. International level referees
were also found to be at a similar distance in both
correct and erroneous decisions (6.72 m and 6.30 m,
respectively) [F(1, 95) = 1.22, p > 0.05,

2 = 0.01].
Overall, international level referees made decisions
from further away than their national level
counterparts (6.47 m and 5.96 m, respectively) [F(1,
281) = 5.6, p < 0.01,

2 = 0.02], as seen in Figure 2.
However, taking responsibility for events that
occurred further away had no detrimental effect on
their rate of accuracy. National level referees, on
the other hand, needed to be closer to the event in
order to make a correct decision.
Robustness Check
To conduct a robustness check, a binomial
logistic regression analysis was performed to
assess the findings of this study. This was done
through two models. Model 1 (Table 6) was used
to assess the explanatory power of: (a) correct
teamwork; (b) the referee's level; (c) referee's
experience; and (d) the referee's distance from the
event. Model 2 (Table 7) was used to assess the
explanatory power of: (a) the referee's level; (b)

6 Decision-making and teamwork in referees
Journal of Human Kinetics, volume 89/2023 http://www.johk.pl
referee's experience; and (c) the referee's distance
from the event.
Model 1 was found to be significant [

2 (4,
N = 283) = 15.44, p < 0.001], explaining 7.2%
(Nagelkerke R2) of the variance of the correct
decisions and correctly classifying 60.8% of all
observed situations. Model 2 was also found to be
significant [

2 (3, N = 283) = 27.01, p < 0.001],
explaining 14.1% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance of
the correct positions and correctly classifying
80.9% of the observed cases. As such, teamwork
was the only significant predictor of accurate
officiating (i.e., correct DM). Model 2 indicates that
referees who made decisions from further away
often hindered such events rather than contributed
to correct DM, as these were outside their primary
coverage area.
The results of binomial logistic regression
analyses strengthened the findings of ANOVA
analysis. Overall, findings indicate that national
level referees needed to remain within the
predefined boundaries of the 3PO principle, while
higher degrees of freedom could be permitted
among international level referees.
Discussion
In this study, we examined the DM quality
of basketball referees at the national and
international level in ambiguous officiating
situations, using an authentic real-game
methodology, i.e., the 3PO principle. By
innovatively applying this principle as a research
variable, we attempted to explore relationships
between the accuracy of the referees' officiating
decisions, their officiating level, and their
teamwork (based on the 3PO principle). Basketball
situations that were examined in this study were
derived from the Israeli Super League, i.e., the
highest competitive basketball division in Israel.
Previous studies on basketball officiating
found that employing the 3PO principle was better
than employing the previous two-person
officiating (2PO) principle in terms of the quality of
referees' decisions (Hrusa and Hrusova, 2021).
However, those earlier studies did not examine
basketball referees' DM accuracy with reference to
the designated position of each active referee
according to the 3PO principle. In the present
study, in order to assess DM accuracy, referees'
decisions were compared to officiating decisions of
the same situations made by expert observers in
hindsight. We adopted this protocol in order to
determine whether the referees who made the
decisions were indeed standing in the position
recommended by the 3PO principle, and whether
their positions were associated with
inaccurate/accurate calls. We hypothesized that
maintaining the correct position in line with the
3PO principle would improve the referees'
teamwork, and in turn, help them make more
accurate on-court decisions.
Two main findings emerged from the
current study. First, no associations were observed
between the referees' ranking
(national/international level), officiating
experience, and DM accuracy. These findings
differ from those of previous studies (Nevill et al.,
2002; Pizzera and Raab, 2012; Spitz et al., 2021),
where DM quality among referees from higher
ranks and with more officiating experience was
typically better than among their counterparts
from lower level leagues and with less experience.
The data collected in our study indicated that the
quality of calls made by international level referees
was not better than that of national level referees.
Table 1. Referees' age and years of experience by the national/international level.
Referees' level (N)
Mean age (SD)
(years)
Mean years of experience in
Division 1 (SD)
National (n = 18)
38.6 (5.7)
6.7 (5.1)
International (n = 7)
43.4 (4.7)
14.3 (5.9)
Total = 25
40.0 (5.8)
8.8 (6.2)

by Eran Sabag et al. 3
Articles published in the Journal of Human Kinetics are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0
license.
Table 2. Cross-tabulation of the decisions made by the referees and expert observers.
Referees
Expert Observers
Foul
Shooting
Foul
Offensive
Foul
Travelling
No
Call
Flagrant
Out
Total
Foul
16
3
5
0
8
1
1
34
Shooting
Foul
1
12
2
1
13
1
0
30
Offensive
Foul
6
6
12
0
17
0
0
41
Travelling
0
0
0
4
12
0
0
16
No Call
25
46
14
3
61
1
0
151
Flagrant
3
1
0
0
2
4
0
10
Goaltending
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Flop
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Total
51
68
34
8
114
7
1
283
Note: The officiating decisions in Table 2 were identified by either referees or expert observers, and
categorized as follows:
Foul (referees and experts): Illegal personal contact with a player in offense not in the act of shooting;
Shooting foul (referees and experts): Illegal personal contact with a player in offense in the act of
shooting;
Offensive foul (referees and experts): Illegal personal contact with a player in defence;
Travelling (referees and experts): A player's illegal movement while holding a live ball;
No call (referees and experts): Ignored the situation/no refereeing decision was required;
Flagrant (referees and experts): An unsportsmanlike foul, contact with an opponent, illegitimately
attempting to directly play the ball within the spirit and intent of the rules;
Out (referees): A player with the ball is out-of-bounds/causes the ball to go out-of-bounds;
Goaltending (experts): Situation during a shot when a player touches the ball while it is completely
above the level of the ring on its downward flight to the basket or after it has touched the backboard;
Flop (experts): Deceptive behaviour of a player who intentionally falls after little or no physical
contact by an opposing player in order to receive a foul.
Table 3. The number and the percentage of incorrect/correct calls made by referees
according to their officiating level (national/international).
Incorrect
%
Correct
%
Total
National
116
62.40%
70
37.60%
186
International
58
59.80%
39
40.20%
97
Total
174
61.50%
109
38.50%
283

4 Decision-making and teamwork in referees
Journal of Human Kinetics, volume 89/2023 http://www.johk.pl
Table 4. The number and the percentage of incorrect/correct calls made by referees in
incorrect/correct positions.
Incorrect
%
Correct
%
Total
Incorrect teamwork
49
81.70%
11
18.30%
60
Correct teamwork
125
56.10%
98
43.90%
223
Total
174
61.50%
109
38.50%
283
Table 5. The number and the percentage of incorrect/correct positions (teamwork)
by national-/international level referees.
Incorrect
teamwork
%
Correct
teamwork
%
Total
National
35
18.80%
151
81.20%
186
International
25
25.80%
72
74.20%
97
Total
60
21.20%
223
78.80%
283
Table 6. Binomial Logistic Regression Analysis, Model 1.
95% for
C.I EXP(B)
B
SE
Wald
Df
Sig.
Exp(B)
Lower
Upper
Teamwork
−1.35
0.38
12.76
1
0.00
0.25
0.12
0.54
Referee level
−0.21
0.31
0.45
1
0.50
0.81
0.43
1.49
Referee experience
−0.006
0.02
0.04
1
0.82
0.99
0.94
1.04
Referee distance
0.06
0.07
0.63
1
0.42
1.06
0.91
1.24
Table 7. Binomial Logistic Regression Analysis, Model 2.
95% for
C.I EXP(B)
B
SE
Wald
Df
Sig.
Exp(B)
Lower
Upper
Referee level
−0.20
0.37
0.30
1
0.58
0.81
0.38
1.70
Referee experience
0.002
0.03
0.004
1
0.95
1.00
0.94
1.06
Referee distance
−0.44
0.09
21.85
1
0.001
0.64
0.53
0.77

by Eran Sabag et al. 5
Articles published in the Journal of Human Kinetics are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0
license.
Figure 1. Lefthand panel: Theoretical 3PO coverage, Lead (Blue), Centre (Red), and Trail
(Green); Righthand panel: Real-time, functional court coverage, Lead (Blue), Centre (Red),
and Trail (Green).
Figure 2. Distance between national and international level referees and the actual event in
incorrect/correct decisions.
To explain these findings, we speculated
that as both the national and the international level
referees officiated at the same competitive level
(i.e., the Israeli Super League, Division 1), rather
than at different levels of competitive
divisions/leagues, this minimized the gap between
the two groups of referees. As such, we assumed
that international level referees in each game
assisted national level referees in their officiating
performance, serving as on-court tutors, and
providing the latter with on-court officiating
support. In other words, the mix of referees from
both the national and the international level
upgraded officiating performances of national

20 Decision-making and teamwork in referees
Journal of Human Kinetics, volume 89/2023 http://www.johk.pl
level referees.
The second main finding of our study was
related to the implementation of the 3PO principle.
The results revealed a significant association
between the outcome of referees' DM and their
positioning in the officiating situation: of the 283
analysed situations, expert observers identified 174
calls as incorrect (61.5%), of which 49 (28%) were
associated with referees' incorrect teamwork as
defined by the 3PO principle. No additional
associations were found between any of the other
DM variables examined and remaining incorrect
officiating decisions (125; about 72%). In fact, 60 of
the 283 officiating decisions (21%) were not made
from the position recommended by the 3PO
principle. As only 11 of them were correct (18%),
the position within the 3PO principle of the referee
seems to be a major factor determining DM
success, regardless of the referees' ranking
(national/international levels).
Referees in basketball are required to
coordinate their DM, while making accurate
decisions in fast-paced game situations applying
anticipation and immediate dynamic adjustments
(Hossner et al., 2019; MacMahon et al., 2015). In this
respect, the use of shared mental models which
refer to the knowledge structures that team
members possess, could help referees to predict
subsequent situations and coordinate their actions
accordingly. When different team members
perceive a game situation in a similar manner,
these knowledge structures could help them
improve their DM processes (Cannon‐Bowers and
Salas, 2001).
Team trust is another important officiating
variable that characterizes effectively the
functioning of shared mental models. This is true
especially in game situations where referees are
required to coordinate their actions, with no time
to communicate or ability to control their
environment (Raue et al., 2021; Rico et al., 2008).
Shared mental models and team trust greatly
depend on the team's collective experiences (i.e.,
the longevity of the team), that enable them to
develop team-related knowledge. Such knowledge
may refer to abilities, behavioural tendencies,
roles, and skills (Blickensderfer et al., 2010). We
therefore propose that shared team experiences
and their effect on performance should be the focus
of future studies on referees' DM in dynamic team
sports such as basketball.
As for the distance between the position of
the referee and the actual officiating situation, our
results revealed that national level referees were
standing at a similar distance from the officiating
situation when the decision was right or wrong.
The same is true for the international level referees;
however, they tended to be positioned further
away from the event than their national level
counterparts. This finding is in line with De
Oliveira et al. (2011), who did not find a significant
association between referees' distance from a foul
play and the accuracy of their DM. In other words,
distance was not found to be the most important
factor in officiating accuracy.
It is evident that when applying the 3PO
principle in basketball, all three referees oversee
the game. However, only one of the three has
primary coverage (namely, the responsibility area)
at any given point in the game. It seems that
maintaining a position outside the primary
coverage area had the potential to hinder the
referee's DM accuracy. In a previous study, Wang
and Hsieh (2016) analysed performances of
basketball referee teams and found that teamwork
(or as they labelled it – teamwork capability), was
associated with the referees' game performance, so
that when the referees worked together well,
officiating performances were better. Therefore,
when applying the 3PO principle, the instructional
challenge seems to be to find the most appropriate
preparation/training program aimed at improving
teamwork among the three referees.
Indeed, observing the actual positions of
the referees and their distance from the given
officiating situation in comparison to their position
derived from the 3PO principle, could assist in
evaluating DM accuracy among basketball
referees. However, additional studies are required
to examine why some officiating decisions are
made when standing outside their area of
responsibility. It is particularly interesting to
investigate why the more experienced, top-level
referees make calls when they are standing far
away from the officiating situation – actually, in an
incorrect position (according to the 3PO principle).
Limitations and Future Research
This study is exploratory. As such, the
results should be further validated in other
basketball settings such as in highly professional
contests (e.g., the NBA and EuroLeague). In order

by Eran Sabag et al. 21
Articles published in the Journal of Human Kinetics are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0
license.
to strengthen the use of the present methodology
in studies on basketball officiating, additional
variables should be addressed, such as the referees'
gaze behaviour (e.g., Brams et al., 2019). Measuring
gaze behaviour in sport settings could increase our
understanding of how performers relate to
relevant environmental cues. In a recent review on
gaze behaviour in sports' referees, data were
discussed from soccer, softball, ice hockey, rugby,
and team handball, yet not basketball (Ziv et al.,
2022). Therefore, basketball laboratory-simulated
conditions should be developed in order to enable
the researcher not only to collect gaze data, but also
to analyse verbal reports provided by the referees.
Such collected reports could lead to better
understanding of why referees make calls in game
situations without precisely following the 3PO
Principle.
Practical Implications for Preparation/Training
Programs for Referees in Basketball
A number of practical implications can be
derived from our findings. First, teams of
basketball referees may benefit from the
composition of referees from both the national and
the international level, as the latter could upgrade
DM of the former. Moreover, preparation/training
programs for referees in basketball should place an
emphasis on improving the internal hierarchy and
team coordination among the three referees in line
with the structure of the 3PO principle. A focus
should be put on preventing an overlap between
the three referees, as well as on enabling each
referee to make decisions within his responsibility
area. Therefore, referees should be aware of their
making calls from (in)correct positions while
adopting the 3PO principle, which should of
course improve their DM accuracy. Referees
should be encouraged not to respond when they
are outside their responsibility area, thereby
adopting a more cautious approach which allows
their colleague/s to make the call when needed.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: E.S., R.L. and M.B.-E.; methodology: E.S., R.L. and M.B.-E.;
software: E.S. and M.A.; validation: M.A. and E.M.; formal analysis: M.A. and E.M.; investigation: E.S.;
resources: R.L. and E.S.; data curation: M.A. and E.M.; writing—original draft preparation: E.S. and E.M.;
writing—review & editing: R.L. and E.M.; visualization: M.A. and E.M.; supervision: M.B.-E.; project
administration: R.L.; funding acquisition: N/A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding Information: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted following the principles of the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Committee for Ethical Considerations in Human Experimentation of the
Faculty of Education, the University of Haifa, Israel (approval date: 3 October, 2018).
Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Israeli Basketball Association, and the Israeli Basketball
Referees' Association, for their help in carrying out the research.
Received: 18 March 2023
Accepted: 05 June 2023
Published:

20 Decision-making and teamwork in referees
Journal of Human Kinetics, volume 89/2023 http://www.johk.pl
References
Anshel, M. H., Sutarso, T., Ekmekci, R., & Saraswati, I. W. (2014). A model linking sources of stress to approach
and avoidance coping styles of Turkish basketball referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(2), 116–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.816762
Avugos, S., MacMahon, C., Bar-Eli, M., & Raab, M. (2021). Inter-individual differences in sport refereeing: A
review of theory and practice. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 55, 101926.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101926
Bar-Eli, M., Plessner, H., & Raab, M. (2011). Judgment, decision making and success in sport. Wiley-Blackwell.
Blickensderfer, E. L., Reynolds, R., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2010). Shared expectations and implicit
coordination in tennis doubles teams. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(4), 486–499.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.507497
Brams, S., Ziv, G., Levin, O., Spitz, J., Wagemans, J., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2019). The relationship
between gaze behavior, expertise, and performance: A systematic review. Psychological Bulletin, 145,
980–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000207
Brand, R., Schmidt, G., & Schneeloch, Y. (2006). Sequential effects in elite basketball referees’ foul decisions:
An experimental study on the concept of game management. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
28(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.28.1.93
Castillo, D., Weston, M., McLaren, S. J., Cámara, j., & Yanci, J. (2017). Relationships between internal and
external match-load indicators in soccer match officials. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 12(7), 922–927. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2016-0392
Cannon‐Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.82
Chassy, P., & Gobet, F. (2010). Speed of expertise acquisition depends upon inherited factors. Talent
Development and Excellence, 2(1), 17–27.
De Oliveira, M. C., Orbetelli, R., & Neto, T. L. D. B. (2011). Call accuracy and distance from the play: A study
with Brazilian soccer referees. International Journal of Exercise Science, 4(1), 30–38.
Dohmen, T., & Sauermann, J. (2016). Referees bias. Journal of Economic Surveys, 30(4), 679–695.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12106
Dosseville, F., Laborde, S., & Garncarzyk, C. (2013). Current research in sports officiating and decision-making.
In C. Mohiyeddini (Ed.). Contemporary topics and trends in the psychology of sports. New York, NY: Nova.
(pp. 13–38).
Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., & Williams, A. M. (Eds). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of expertise
and expert performance. Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
García-Santos, D., Gómez-Ruano, M. A., Vaquera, A., & Ibáñez, S. J. (2020). Systematic review of basketball
referees’ performances. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 20, 495–533.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2020.1758437
Ghasemi, A., Momeni, M., Rezaee, M., & Gholami, A. (2009). The difference in visual skills between expert
versus novice soccer referees. Journal of Human Kinetics, 22, 15–20. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-009-
0018-1
Gilis, B., Helsen, W., Catteeuw, P., & Wagemans, J. (2008). Offside decisions by expert assistant referees in
association football: Perception and recall of spatial positions in complex dynamic events. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.14.1.21
Hack, J., Rupp, A., & Memmert, D. (2009). Attentional mechanisms in sports via brain-electrical event-related
potentials. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(4), 727–738. DOI:
10.1080/02701367.2009.10599614
Hancock, D. J., Bennett, S., Roaten, H., Chapman, K., & Stanley, C. (2021). An analysis of literature on sport
officiating research. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 92(4), 607–617.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2020.1756198

by Eran Sabag et al. 21
Articles published in the Journal of Human Kinetics are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0
license.
Hancock, D. J., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2013). Gaze behaviors and decision making accuracy of higher-and lower-
level ice hockey referees. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(1), 66–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.08.002
Helsen, W., & Bultynck, J. B. (2004). Physical and perceptual-cognitive demands of top-class refereeing in
association football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(2), 179–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410310001641502
Hossner, E. J., Schnyder, U., Schmid, J., & Kredel, R. (2019). The role of viewing distance and viewing angle
on referees' decision-making performance during the FIFA World Cup 2014. Journal of Sports Sciences,
37(13), 1481–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1570898
Hrusa, P., & Hrusova, D. (2021). Dependence of objectivity in basketball game officiating on the number of
referees. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 16, 601–609. DOI:10.14198/jhse.2021.16.Proc2.45
Kittel, A., Larkin, P., Elsworthy, N., & Spittle, M. (2019). Video-based testing in sporting officials: A systematic
review. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 43, 261–270.
Larkin, P., Berry, J., Dawson, B., & Lay, B. (2011). Perceptual and decision-making skills of Australian football
umpires. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 11(3), 427–437.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2011.11868562
Leicht, A. S. (2008). Physiological demands of basketball refereeing during international competition. Journal
of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11(3), 357–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2007.05.006
MacMahon, C., Helsen, W. F., Starkes, J. L., & Weston, M. (2007). Decision-making skills and deliberate practice
in elite association football referees. Journal of Sport Sciences, 25(1), 65–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410600718640
MacMahon, C., Mascarenhas, D., Plessner, H., Pizzera, A., Oudejans, R., & Raab, M. (2015). Sports officials and
officiating: Science and practice. Routledge.
Mallo, J., Frutos, P. G., Juárez, D., & Navarro, E. (2012). Effect of positioning on the accuracy of decision making
of association football top-class referees and assistant referees during competitive matches. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 30(13), 1437–1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.711485
Mascarenhas, D. R., Collins, D., & Mortimer, P. (2002). The art of reason versus the exactness of science in elite
refereeing: Comments on Plessner and Betsch (2001). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(3), 328–
333.
Morgulev, E., Azar, O. H., Lidor, R., Sabag, E., & Bar-Eli, M. (2014). Deception and decision making in
professional basketball: Is it beneficial to flop? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 102, 108–
118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.03.022
Morgulev, E., Azar, O. H., Lidor, R., Sabag, E., & Bar-Eli, M. (2018). Searching for judgment biases among elite
basketball referees. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2637. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02637
Morris, G., & O’Connor, D. (2017). Key attributes of expert NRL referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(9), 852–
857. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1194524
Nabli, M. A., Ben Abdelkrim, N., Fessi, M. S., DeLang, M. D., Moalla, W., & Chamari, K. (2019). Sport science
applied to basketball refereeing: A narrative review. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 47, 365–374.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2019.1599588
Nevill, A. M., Balmer, N. J., & Williams, A. M. (2002). The influence of crowd noise and experience upon
refereeing decisions in football. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3(4), 261–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00033-4
Page, K., & Page, L. (2010). Alone against the crowd: Individual differences in referees’ ability to cope under
pressure. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(2), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.08.007
Pecev, P., Racković, M., & Ivković, M. (2016). A system for deductive prediction and analysis of movement of
basketball referees. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75, 16389–16416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-
015-2938-1
Pietraszewski, P., Roczniok, R., Maszczyk, A., Grycmann, P., Roleder, T., Stanula, A., Fidos-Czuba, O. &
Ponczek, M. (2014). The elements of executive attention in top soccer referees and assistant referees.
Journal of Human Kinetics, 40, 235–243. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2014-0025

22 Decision-making and teamwork in referees
Journal of Human Kinetics, volume 89/2023 http://www.johk.pl
Pina, J. A., Passos, A. M., Maynard, M. T., & Sinval, J. (2021). Self-efficacy, mental models and team adaptation:
A first approach on football and futsal refereeing. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 52, 101787.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101787
Pizzera, A., Möller, C., & Plessner, H. (2018). Gaze behavior of gymnastics judges: Where do experienced
judges and gymnasts look while judging? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 89(1), 112–119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2017.1412392
Pizzera, A., & Raab, M. (2012). Perceptual judgments of sports officials are influenced by their motor and visual
experience. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24(1), 59–72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2011.608412
Plessner, H., & Betsch, T. (2001). Sequential effects in important referee decisions: The case of penalties in
soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23(3), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.23.3.254
Put, K., Baldo, M. V., Cravo, A. M., Wagemans, J., & Helsen, W. F. (2013). Experts in offside decision making
learn to compensate for their illusory perceptions. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(6), 576–
584. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.6.576
Raab, M., Bar-Eli, M., Plessner, H., & Araújo, D. (2019). The past, present and future of research on judgment
and decision making in sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 25–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.10.004
Raue, C., Dreiskämper, D., Pauly, H., & Strauss, B. (2021). Team Trust in Sport Teams: Methodological
Implications to Advance this Field. In Trust and Communication (pp. 241–252). Springer, Cham.
Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team
knowledge–based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 163–184.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27751276
Sabag, E., Lidor, R., Morgulev, E., Arnon, M., Azar, O. H., & Bar-Eli, M. (2018). To dive or not to dive in the
penalty area, the questionable art of deception in soccer. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 18(3), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2018.1462100
Samuel, R. D., Galily, Y., Filho, E., & Tenenbaum, G. (2020). Implementation of the video assistant referee
(VAR) as a career change-event: The Israeli premier league case study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–
16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564855
Schweizer, G., Plessner, H., & Brand, R. (2013). Establishing standards for basketball elite referees' de cisions.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25(3), 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.741090
Smid, P. (2015). Analysis of teamwork in officiating in basketball. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 10(1),
330–339. https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2015.10.Proc1.22
Souchon, N., Livingstone, A. G., & Maio, G. R. (2013). The influence of referees’ expertise, gender, motivation,
and time constraints on decisional bias against women. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(6),
585–599. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.6.585
Spencer, C., McErlain-Naylor, S. A., Paget, N., & Kilding, A. (2020). Activity profiles of elite netball umpires:
A review. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 15(4), 816–825. https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2020.154.09
Spitz J., Put, K., Wagemans, J., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2018). The role of domain-generic and domain-
specific perceptual-cognitive skills in association football referees. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 34,
47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.09.010
Spitz, J., Wagemans, j., Memmert, D., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2021). Video assistant referees (VAR):
The impact of technology on decision making in association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences,
39(2), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1809163
Wang, S. W., & Hsieh, W. W. (2016). Performance analysis of basketball referees by machine learning
techniques. Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of Sport Science Research and Technology Support
(pp. 165–170). doi: 10.5220/0006031501650170
Ziv, G., Lidor, R., Zach, S., Brams, S., & Helsen, W. F. (2020). Gaze behavior of referees in sport – A review.
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.572891