Developing sport officials: What can we learn from our knowledge on coach development?

Abstract

Officials are a key stakeholder in the sporting ecosystem, similar to coaches and athletes. However, the development of officials has been significantly under-explored in the literature. The aim of this paper is to outline coach learning within development literature to identify concepts most relevant to officiating development, with a particular focus on formal, non-formal, and informal modes of learning. Drawing on the literature on coach development, we identify current knowledge on these developmental approaches in officiating, highlighting key gaps and future research directions in this area. In the context of coaching and officiating, formal approaches refer commonly to accreditation, whereas non-formal commonly refers to workshops/seminars, which are a broad term that can focus on specific topics of need. Informal learning represents a range of other learning approaches, where this paper focuses specifically on learning in context, observation, mentoring, and communities of practice. While this does not present an exhaustive list of informal approaches, these activities are relevant to the officiating role and have been explored in research. It is anticipated that this paper will facilitate a growth in research and evidence-informed practice in officiating, specifically on learning within development, which is an area that has often been under-resourced and under-developed. It is anticipated that this will provide a path forward for researchers and practitioners to understand the nuances of these approaches across different sports, countries and cultures.

Introduction

Coaches and officials play vital, yet distinct roles in the sport ecosystem. A coach's role and demands are varied, far beyond the common notion they simply direct and instruct their athlete(s)/participants to effective performance. ¹ A contemporary view of coaching leans into the premise that the role of a coach is more about facilitating and creating opportunities for athletes/participants to explore and discover solutions to contextual problems which may appear within competition.^2–4 This extends beyond sport-specific development as well, with coaches often playing a role in an individual's personal development.^5–7 With this broader role comes additional demands placed onto the coach. In particular, requiring and continually advancing their expertise and knowledge specific to the sport they coach, but also the advancement of other professional knowledge (e.g., nutrition, biomechanics) as well as interpersonal (e.g., communication skills, building relationships) and intrapersonal (e.g., self-awareness, managing stress) knowledge. ⁸

The role and demands of the official are also varied, including, but not limited to applying the rules of the competition, strong interpersonal management and communication skills, psychological skills such as emotional regulation, and not only decision making, but also contextual judgement.^9–11 These skills enable the official to apply the laws of the sport, to ensure that the competition is played in a fair and safe manner. It is important to note that although these skills may present themselves in different ways in different sports (e.g., different laws, movement demands), these are similar underlying skills between sports, with nuances of sport-specific laws/rules. Officials also have been identified as educators, ¹² and can help foster development of the participant/athlete as a vital stakeholder in sport similar to coaches. Despite this key role, officials often feel like an ‘outgroup’ somewhat segregated from ‘ingroups’ such as players and coaches that share similar objectives such as winning, which can often lead to negative feelings often presented in the form of abuse towards the outgroup. ¹³ While the previous example is in soccer, this is consistent with negative experiences as an outgroup in officiating other sports such as Australian football, ¹⁴ rugby league, ¹⁵ and hockey. ¹⁶ In addition, coaches and officials both share similar psychological dangers such as anxiety, pressure, and self-esteem.^17,18

Historically, there has been limited emphasis on officials in sport in comparison to athletes and coaches, and this has led to less emphasis on their development from governing bodies. ¹⁹ Many officials come to the role through involvement as an athlete, gaining transferable skills and knowledge, and continuing to develop leadership and management capabilities to manage stakeholders such as parents or spectators. ²⁰ Officiating training environments are generally centred on rule knowledge and physical fitness, ²¹ often with an absence of the intentional learning design that is often found within coaching training domains. Additionally, the structured practice hours available to officials differ significantly from the extensive contact hours coaches have with athletes. This can lead officiating in competition being a learning environment, rather than a performance environment, ²² due our limited knowledge of how to best create learning environments for sport officials. Very few officials are available to train full-time, with many ‘elite’ officials also holding full-time positions outside of officiating. Indeed, to progress, or for critical periods of engagement such as for World Cup Tournaments or Olympic Games, dual-career officials may make changes to weight officiating (e.g., go part-time in the primary career) to allow more time for officiating training and performance. However, it is important to note that much of the officiating research has been skewed towards the professional level of officials, ²³ and there is a need to develop officials at any level, not just at the professional/elite stages. This is due to multiple factors, such as officials being regarded as ‘practice poor’, ²⁴ lacking organisational support, ²⁵ and the high attrition rates of officials early in their careers.^26,27

Here, we discuss contemporary coach learning approaches for their development and how they can relate to officiating, to create a strong foundation to grow the work on officiating development. In the coach development literature, terminology such as formal, non-formal and informal learning approaches is used. ²⁸ However, these approaches are not discussed in the officiating literature, with as little as 1% of studies in soccer refereeing exploring development models. ²⁹ While this review only explored soccer, ²⁹ it may present an indicative sample of the broader literature, as soccer refereeing research accounts for approximately 50% of all officiating literature. ²³ However, it is important to note that there are many other sports that people officiate other than soccer, and therefore, research needs to consider and be applied in these other sports to understand sport-based nuances. To bring the coach learning lens to officiating, we discuss formal, non-formal, and informal learning approaches, with this conceptual framework outlined at the beginning of the next section. This allows an understanding of what these approaches are and their application to officiating development, for further research and application. Further, a greater understanding of these factors for officiating developers may also lead to stronger retention of officials, as it has been previously reported a lack of support is a key reason for attrition of officials.^25,30 While the inherent relationship between retention and development has been highlighted previously,^31–33 we currently know relatively little about different learning approaches to develop officials.

This paper is presented in three broad sections. Firstly, we outline coach development literature, focusing on formal, non-formal, and informal practices commonly adopted. Secondly, we link this with what we know in the coach development literature to officiating development, highlighting key areas that need to be addressed. Finally, the paper outlines how officiating development can progress from a literature and practice standpoint, to using coaching literature and research as a foundation.

Aims

The aims of this paper are to:

Provide a snapshot of the coach development literature to identify concepts most relevant to officiating development, with a specific focus on formal, non-formal and informal learning approaches.

Provide a snapshot of the officiating development literature to identify the key gaps in knowledge, also with a specific focus on formal, non-formal and informal learning approaches.

Propose a new research agenda related to the development of officials, specifically focused on learning approaches, applying relevant concepts from the coach development literature.

A brief snapshot of coach learning, education and development

The importance of coach development, sometimes referred to as coach development programs,^34,35 cannot be understated given its role in advancing the growth of coaches.^35–37 For context, coach development is described as “learning activities applied systematically through education, social interaction, and/or personal reflection with the goal of changing… coach behaviours”. ³⁸ While this definition includes the term ‘systematically’, it is important to note that development can be unstructured. ²⁸ The key purpose of coach development is to provide opportunities for coaches to develop skills and knowledge on various facets of coaching (e.g., sport-specific technical knowledge, creation and maintenance of supportive relationships, communication skills) with the intention of ultimately having an effective and positive influence on those individuals they coach. The impact a coach has on the experiences and engagement with sport has been widely reported,^39–41 further highlighting the need for effective coach development opportunities. While there have been different ways terminology has been used, such as coach learning, education, or development (see Nelson et al. for an overview), ²⁸ this paper focuses on the learning aspect within the definition of development provided above. Formal, non-formal, and informal education was conceptualised by Coombs and Ahmed ⁴² and La Belle, ⁴³ however, learning may be a more appropriate term as education may be conceptually restricting, particularly targeting formal approaches. ²⁸ Learning refers to the process of behaviour change from acquisition of knowledge, skills, and attitudes.^28,44

Globally, coach development has evolved in a variety of ways and over varying time periods. ⁴⁵ Early adoption of coach development programs (or similar) began around the 1960–1970s in many cases, with the intention of improving the standards of coaching. ⁴⁵ Although each country adopted their own approach to coach development, and associated framework, most were underpinned by a systemic approach, often led by a governing body (e.g., New Zealand Association of National Sport Coaches, Coaching Association of Canada) or research group (as in China and Japan). ⁴⁵ Further, these early initiatives and schemes were often centred on sport science or the ‘science of coaching’, not necessarily focused on the betterment of a coach's ability to coach or direction on how to support those responsible for developing coaches. ⁴⁵ Jumping forward, an increasing global demand to improve the standards of coach development programs has led to the creation of coach development frameworks. While these may offer guidelines to support design, benchmark and refine coach education programs, these have recently had a focus on how coaches learn and develop, and importantly, recognising the differences in how development can be approached. ⁴⁶

This need for improvement in the standards of coaches has resulted in the empirical knowledge on coach development growing in recent years.^45,47 Those responsible for coach development now have numerous options available when considering what opportunities and approaches might be best for their coaches. Approaches to coach learning can be split broadly into formal, non-formal, and informal approaches.^28,48,49 Formal refers to learning through formal programs/institutions (e.g., online or in person accreditation courses), non-formal refers to education in nonformal settings (e.g., attendance and engagement at workshops and conferences), whereas informal refers to an array of other learning approaches and experiences (e.g., personal reflection or peer coach observation). While a deeper examination of approaches to coach development is beyond the scope of this paper, the next section will delve into each approach specifically, to outline the insights and developments in this space and explore a potential blueprint for officials’ development.

Formal learning in coaching

Traditionally, coach development has focused on formal learning approaches. Research has highlighted the overwhelming disparity between formal learning and other approaches, pointing out that many organisations rely on the formal learning approach when it comes to coach development. ³⁵ Formal learning often takes the form of large-scale coach certification or accreditation programs (e.g., Governing body accreditation online course, tertiary education degree) with the intention of developing an individual's capabilities and providing a foundation-level of knowledge at a large scale, reaching as many people as possible with standardised information.^28,50 Such large-scale education programs are common across cultural contexts from the Asia Pacific to mainland Europe and the Americas, ⁵¹ with shared limitations in time (delivery of content, use of content beyond education session) and resources (participant numbers, facilitators, curriculum provision). As such, contextual constraints such as workforce capacity, capability and geographical location necessitate adaptations to large-scale formal learning programs.

However, formal learning has often been criticised for providing a one-size-fits-all approach with limited consideration of an individual's needs and context, where coaches are more indoctrinated to adopt a specific approach to coaching, rather than being educated.^28,52 Despite regular engagement and the above-mentioned reliance of this approach to learning, there is strong evidence that formal learning activities have a relatively low impact on coach learning compared to informal learning activities. ²⁸ Despite its limitations, the use of formal learning continues to be used by those responsible for coach development due to (for example) the ability to convey standardised and evidenced information across a wide reach and formalised assessment procedures. ⁴⁸ That being the case, it is in the best interests of coach developers to create formal learning environments and experiences which are engaging and interactive, as well as combining these with other learning approaches. ⁵³

Non-formal learning in coaching

Coombs and Ahmed ⁴² define non-formal learning as “any organised, systematic, educational activity carried on outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to particular subgroups in the population”. As noted by Nelson, Cushion and Potrac ²⁸ and Johnson and Majewska ⁵⁴ non-formal learning shares characteristics with formal learning, for example, it is often systematically planned and structured around specific learning objectives. Unlike formal learning though, non-formal learning is often presented to specific groups within the coaching population in the form of workshops, seminars, and conferences. ²⁸ One of the key advantages of this approach though, is the wide breadth of specialised topics that learners (can) have access to, suggesting a greater level of autonomy in the direction of the learning experience. ⁵⁴ Due to the nature of the way non-formal learning is often delivered (i.e., facilitated activities or events on specialised topics), learners also tend to have access to more practical and social learning opportunities (e.g., communities of practice, mentoring, experiential learning), something highly regarded within the coaching community. ⁵⁵ The emergence of online learning environments (due to advancements in technology) ⁵⁶ supports this even further, with coaches having greater access and flexibility to these non-formal learning opportunities. ⁵⁷ Not only are coaches gaining information provided by an expert(s) on a specific topic, but these non-formal learning approaches also allow coaches to interact and learn from peers who bring a variety of expertise and knowledge, from locations/environments which they may not have had access to previously. Building on this, it has been reported that coaches view the experience and quality of the personnel leading non-formal workshops (whether technologically assisted or otherwise) to be key. ⁵⁵ As a result, non-formal learning can provide targeted and practical learning opportunities that more closely align to the contextual demands and practical dilemmas that coaches are experiencing in their personal coaching context. This alignment in context can support coach behaviour change, as the behaviours developed during the non-formal learning opportunities are more responsive to the live(d) experience of coaching.

Informal learning in coaching

Research indicates coach development is characterised (mostly) by formal learning. ⁵⁸ However, coaches often prefer and frequently use informal learning approaches.^59,60 In comparison to formal and non-formal learning, informal learning includes a more self-directed approach, through various avenues outside of formalised settings and events, often driven by a need to resolve current practical dilemmas. Common ways coaches learn informally are reflecting-in and reflecting-on coaching practice, ⁶¹ interacting with others through informal networks or emergent communities of practice, mentoring, and observing others. ⁶² Notably, many of these informal learning activities can be situated in a real-world context and encourage legitimate peripheral participation, ⁶³ where mentors can provide guidance and support with real-time feedback to immediately refine performance in the moment. ⁶⁴ Walker, Thomas and Driska ⁴⁹ conducted a systematic review exploring non-formal and informal learning approaches in coaches, highlighting that most of the research is done in professional sport settings, and this type of learning represents the majority of learning experiences for coaches.

Informal learning opportunities have recently explored through situated approaches to coach development, ⁶⁵ where coaches, coach education, coach development managers and administrators preferred that learning be grounded in ‘real-world’ coaching contexts, alongside the guidance of mentors. As formal learning often removes a participant from their live(d) experiences of coaching, informal learning can help coaches delve deeper into the practical dilemmas of their own world, to know their context and needs better and complement the standardised information of large-scale formal learning programs. Building emergent communities of practice within sporting clubs, where the club environment becomes the primary locus of ongoing coach development, is not without its own challenges: systemic institutional and cultural barriers such as a perceived lack of value on coach education, ‘closed off’ cultures in the coaching community and governance issues can make informal learning opportunities difficult to sustain. ⁶⁵ Specifically, a coaches’ experience in the moment may not be enough to promote their own development, where video and systematic observation can support the exploration of their own practice.^66,67 Additionally, an experienced other (mentor, coach developer, guide) can play an important role to help navigate the unpredictability and uncertainty in the coaching landscape. ⁴³

The evolution of coach development in recent decades has seen an emphasis on centring the learner's experience, a closer alignment to advances in athlete development, and a trajectory that officials’ development may follow. To leverage each learning approach for development, it is less important to distinguish which approach should be used as a blanket decision, and more influential to accept all and explore when each will be most impactful. Moreover, there are elements of human learning and development that may be consistent across the domains of coaching and officiating that can be leveraged. There are also lessons from understanding the relatively poorer practice in coach learning that can be avoided for officiating, such as a one-size-fits-all approach in deeply rigid formal learning systems. Nevertheless, although coach development may provide a roadmap, official development should not follow these roads blindly, as they are highly dependent on the context. Cushion and colleagues discuss different perspectives of coaching development, ⁶⁸ specifically models for coaching, and models of coaching. They advocate that models for coaching may neglect context, but conceptualise key aspects of the coaching role, which may oversimplify the coaching role. Models of coaching, on the other hand, analyse coach practice particularly through qualitative methodologies, to understand coaching practice in-context. Similarly, in officiating, it is important to understand where learning may fit in models for officiating (as discussed in the next section), and where models of officiating can help inform learning that is context-specific.

What we know about officials’ development

Concepts and approaches to officials’ development

While the coach development literature has often focused on the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal learning approaches, the officiating literature rarely uses these terms. Few studies have explored different approaches to development in officials, with most focusing on isolated training interventions to enhance physical fitness or perceptual-cognitive skills that support decision making.^69,70 Other studies have retrospectively explored the training histories and deliberate practice activities of expert officials, often in soccer.^21,71 While these studies have provided an understanding of what contributes to expertise, modelling of officiating development has mainly focused on career trajectories and expertise acquisition.^20,72 A career development perspective has been applied to sport officials to recognise officiating as a long-term, staged process that involves not only skill progression but also personal identity, motivation, and role adaptation. Remuneration may also play a role in transitions between performance levels (also acknowledging that traditionally there are more opportunities for males as semi-professionals and professionals in most sports). ⁷³ Applying these models can also reveal structural gaps, such as insufficient support or resources, at critical career transition points and developmental milestones in expertise development (such as the FTEM-O [Foundation, Talent, Elite, Mastery applied to Officiating] applied to Australian Rules football umpiring development). This approach provides much-needed structure to often fragmented pathways, helping address issues such as retention, transition support, and the alignment of learning opportunities with an official's developmental stage. Despite this, there is a general failure to acknowledge the diverse development activities officials can engage in, and a need to continue to better understand the developmental histories of expert and non-expert officials, including specialisation age into the officiating role, the importance of psycho-social skills and considering the varied development pathways and trajectories of officials (short term volunteer, former athlete). ⁷²

There are several models which are relevant to officiating development. The FTEM-O presents a stage-based approach to officiating development, including Foundation, Talent, Elite and Mastery levels, with sub-stages within these. ²⁰ While these present a linear overview of an official's development trajectory, they do not outline factors influencing development. The 3DOD model provides a more holistic overview of factors influencing development, rather than a linear overview, highlighting environmental factors (e.g., officiating developers/coaches, training environments, peers/mentors) and system factors (e.g., policies, organisational philosophy, evaluation structures) that may influence development. While learning is not explicitly outlined in this model, different learning approaches relate to the environmental and system factors highlighted above. ²⁰ A relevant model to the FTEM-O and 3DOD is the hierarchical and holistic perspective of interactor officials, specifically targeted towards soccer and basketball referees. ⁷² This presents three tiers relevant to development, with motives for officiating as the base, followed by career development which focuses on training/practice and transitions, influenced by factors such as organisational and psychological support systems and work-life balance. The pinnacle of this model focuses on performance skills such as decision-making and game management, influenced by factors such as match preparation, personal characteristics and performance evaluation. While this presents a strong overview of factors related to development, learning environments and how they relate to development are absent, highlighting the need for more evidence-informed knowledge of learning to facilitate officiating development in relation to key officiating development models outlined here. These learning approaches would be integrated into primarily the career development stage, as a factor that would influence career development.

One model that does account for learning is the constraints-led approach, ⁷⁴ which has recently been applied to officiating. ³¹ This outlines the interaction of three broad constraints; individual, task, and environmental. Individual constraints can be structural (e.g., age, sex of the official), whereas functional individual constraints (e.g., perceptual-cognitive skills, experience, psychological skills) are more adaptable. Task constraints provide understanding of the nuances between and within sports, where unique officiating roles vary (e.g., central official and assistant/line official, or skill level of the athletes), which influence the demands (e.g., application of the laws, communication styles). Environmental constraints are outside the demands of the task, such as organisational resources, or sociocultural norms related to the sport and/or geographical location. This model suggests that these three constraints influence the retention, development, performance, and importantly learning of the official, and can be used to understand the nuances of learning approaches between and within sport officiating groups. Developing an understanding of learning approaches and how they can be applied to officiating would complement these models and a consolidated approach to implementation, ²⁰ such as supporting the creation of developmentally appropriate benchmarks and learning outcomes, providing clarity for organisations and individuals around what is expected at different points in the officiating pathway. When implemented by sporting organisations, such frameworks offer the potential to align learning opportunities, support mechanisms, and evaluation practices with an official's stage of development.

When a sporting organisation uses tools and models such as the frameworks above, there may be clearer expectations that help align the learning goals and activities. However, the analysis might also highlight a lack of sufficient resources at key moments, particularly at non-elite levels where officials are often under-resourced. During such times, the evaluation process may be initiated by the official, involving self-review through video analysis, personal reflection, journaling, group discussions, or feedback using tools like a basic checklist from an assessor or a more in-depth, ongoing evaluation method.

Beyond descriptive accounts of officiating development and the distinction between formal, non-formal, and informal learning, there is a growing need for integrating development frameworks to overarch and conceptualise sports official support and training. Research has indicated the early stages of officiating are often defined by formal learning accompanied by in-competition officiating, highlighting an absence of non-formal and other informal learning approaches (e.g., mentorship, reflection on practice, peer observation). ²⁷ While many sports may provide clarity on defining different levels of performance and stages, what is often less clearly defined are the key skills and training activities needed to make transitions. Building on the coach development literature discussed in the previous section and existing coach development frameworks, ⁴⁶ it is important for officiating development takes a more participant-centred approach, on how the official may learn and develop.

Formal learning in officiating

Compared to coaching, officiating communities can lack clearly defined accreditation and advancement systems, ⁷⁵ however, this often depends on the sport and performance level in that sport, where more professional pathways may have a clearer structure, particularly the key skills and activities to successfully transition to higher levels. Nevertheless, like coaching, the early stages of officiating development are typically characterised by formal learning environments. These environments are predominantly structured around theory-based accreditation courses, delivered through educator-led curricula focussed on the rules and their interpretations. ⁷⁶ Consequently, many formal programs promote a linear and standardised approach to learning, where knowledge and expertise are presumed to develop through increased exposure and participation within the domain, ⁷⁷ and as such may restrict the capacity to foster individual exploration, reasoning, or the development of strategic thinking. ⁷⁶ In addition to this, formal learning in officiating may not include adequate informal learning about career development or psychological support beyond skill development. ⁷⁸

However, unlike coaching, where accreditation is often scaffolded, newly accredited officials are frequently expected to officiate competitive matches immediately upon course completion. This can create a “sink or swim” environment, potentially overwhelming individuals who may not yet possess the necessary knowledge, confidence, or support to succeed. ²⁷ Such experiences can contribute to high attrition rates among novice officials,^26,27 often exacerbated by interconnected factors such as abuse, ⁷⁹ mental health challenges, ¹⁸ and limited perceived organisational support. ²⁵ Therefore, while formal learning environments may provide the foundational theoretical knowledge required to officiate, they often lack sufficient learning in context opportunities critical for supporting individuals during these formative stages of development. Formal learning in officiating often relies on limited assessment methods, such as written or rule-based tests, which may not capture the applied, in-context decision-making and interpersonal skills needed on the field. This is context-specific to sports which can be informed by research and practice, and there is a growing body of research exploring in-context decision-making and interpersonal skills that can inform this formal learning. For example, there are several factors that influence the decision-making process of cricket umpires, ⁸⁰ such as game format, player intentions, environmental information (e.g., the pitch), and heuristics, leading to the ultimate decision of out or not out. As coach learning research has suggested that the importance of skilled observations and practical experiences are influential for formal learning, ⁸¹ formal learning in officiating (cricket umpiring, in this example) could be enhanced by understanding the management of these decision-making processes through observing a skilled umpire and their thought processes live, and an opportunity to practice this skill live with feedback.

This highlights the interconnected nature of learning approaches discussed in this paper, where informal modes of learning (e.g., observation, learning-in-context) can be integrated into existing formal learning structures. While emerging technologies like video analysis and simulation are beginning to evolve different modes of learning, which can be used for assessment/feedback and to provide knowledge sharing opportunities across different nations, ⁸² their use varies widely across sports and cultural contexts. To be effective, formal learning should be integrated within broader developmental models that also account for ongoing experiential and informal learning throughout an official's career.

Non-formal learning in officiating

Similar to formal learning, there is little research exploring non-formal learning in officiating development. Some examples of formal and non-formal learning have been implemented in the modernisation of the umpire development pathway in Netball New Zealand. ⁸³ This research identified that non-formal approaches through structured and intentional learning activities outside of formal learning, such as additional workshops, were seen as valuable modes of learning for umpires, yet the implementation of these workshops has been restricted by the need to focus on refining the formal accreditation first, limiting the understanding of how it can best be used as a learning opportunity. For example, Carrington, North and Brady ¹⁰ recommends the benefit of cognitive-behavioural workshops utilising Rational-Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT), a technique previously applied in officiating contexts to reduce performance anxiety and improve decision consistency. ⁸⁴ This has also been applied at an amateur level. Recent case study research with one soccer referee participant indicates that an online REBT intervention can lead to a decrease in irrational beliefs and anxiety. ⁸⁵ Such non-formal approaches were seen as more comfortable for officials and their coaches, where there may be some perceived negative effects of accreditation/formal learning. ⁸³ Given there may be geographical and/or logistical challenges in officials coming together to train as a group, and these challenges are seen worldwide, ⁷⁵ technology can play a key role in how these are delivered. ⁸² As such, online delivery of these workshops can better facilitate accessibility to officials from a range of groups, and governing bodies provide a key role in doing so. While these studies provide some initial findings on non-formal learning in officiating, more research needs to be done to best optimise these approaches.

Informal learning in officiating

Similar to coaches, it appears that a large proportion of training for officials is self-led, based on recent findings in football referees. ²¹ However, there is limited research on this topic in officiating, particularly in other sports, and more work needs to be done to understand training practices. While it has been acknowledged that coaches prefer informal approaches such as learning in context, these opportunities can be limited for sport officials. ⁸⁶ For example, Giske, Haugen and Johansen ⁸⁷ report most officials (even those at elite level) rarely or never officiate at training and use the term ‘unmediated practice’ to describe the range of self-driven, unguided skill practice on which high-performing officials rely. Despite the focus on more traditional approaches in officiating such as activities focused on rule knowledge solely, it has been highlighted that officials gain more development from actually officiating competition than reading the rule book. ²⁷ Much of officials’ development is said to occur during competition (i.e., ‘on the job’), which is also when they need to optimally perform. ²² Therefore, there is a need to not only explore how officials can learn in a safe and effective manner in their learning in context but also explore other ways officials can develop outside of competition.

Mentoring in officiating is also common practice, ⁸⁸ yet remains an area with limited empirical exploration for the purpose of learning as it has often focused on retention. ⁸⁸ Mellick, Fleming ⁸⁹ describe a ‘hidden curriculum’ in which officials develop through a combination of learning in context, skill transfer, and informal guidance from peers and mentors. While mentoring is widely acknowledged as important, officials often report limited time and access to such support. ⁹⁰ Beyond enhancing skill development, mentoring has also been linked to improved retention of officials. ⁹¹ It is also important to note different gendered experiences can influence the quality of mentoring in both officials ⁹¹ and coaches alike. ⁹² It is important to consider this when matching mentors, given the challenges female officials can often face in their broader officiating environment,^93,94 particularly given the limited research on female officials. ²³

Observational learning has been used in coaching,^95,96 but is underexplored in officiating. Observation in officiating can be watching themselves (e.g., reflecting via video) or other officials (e.g., live at competition, watching on television), providing a way to develop outside of competition. Hancock and Rymal ⁹⁷ explored how officials use observation, often for their own skill development of key performance characteristics such as knowledge and application of the laws, game management, and positioning.^98,99 Observation could be integrated as a way to observe high level officials’ communication and game management skills. Past research has reported officials’ coaches describe these skills as an ‘X-factor’, ⁹⁰ that is difficult to describe. Observing these skills could be a way for officials to understand them. Interestingly, another study explored both coaches’ and officials’ use of observational learning, highlighting coaches emphasise self-reflection, whereas officials focus on self-presentation. ⁹⁵ This is one of the few studies that has connected development of coaches and officials, highlighting a clear link between these skills, but also a need to understand how coach development principles can best be applied to officiating.

Informal learning for officials extends beyond learning in context and observational methods to include peer learning within communities of practice. Through interactions with fellow officials in social and professional networks, individuals share insights, discuss challenges, and collectively problem-solve, thereby enriching their development. Reflection on performance, whether through informal self-assessment or video review, further supports the internalisation of learning and may enhance decision-making capabilities. ²⁴ Additionally, digital technologies such as video analysis platforms and online forums have become valuable tools enabling officials to learn and receive feedback outside of competition or formal mentoring. ⁸² Beyond technical skills, informal learning also plays a critical role in developing emotional resilience and confidence, helping officials manage the psychological demands of officiating. This may be due to the social aspect common in informal learning, ⁴⁹ and social support is a key aspect of officials’ retention. ¹⁰⁰ However, organisational and systemic barriers, including limited access to mentors, time constraints, and lack of formal recognition of informal learning may restrict the potential of these learning modes. An example of these different learning approaches is the Israeli Excellence Program for soccer referees, ⁷⁸ incorporating formal (through a structured program), non-formal (workshops targeting sport psychology topics related to refereeing), and informal learning (mentoring, social networks, learning-in-context through competition simulations). This highlights the interconnected nature of these different learning approaches, and that they should not be viewed in isolation.

Table 1 provides visual examples of how different formal, non-formal and informal learning can be applied to support different officiating roles. The purpose of this illustration is not to provide a prescriptive or exhaustive overview of these different approaches, but more to present how formal, non-formal and informal learning approaches can be applied to support the development, and they may complement each other.

Table 1.

Overview of different examples of formal, non-formal, and informal learning approaches to three different officiating populations.

	Formal approach	Non-formal approach	Informal approach
Gymnastics judge	Accreditation course to practice judging a variety of movement patterns to ensure consistency between judges and alignment to scoring criteria.	Workshop from a psychology expert about how to manage mental fatigue across a tournament day(s).	Observation where a judge is evaluating performances and reviewing alignment with the scores of competition judges.
Cricket umpire	Accreditation course to understand Laws of Cricket and playing conditions across different competition formats.	Webinar on effective matchday preparation by an experienced umpire (e.g., self-presentation, equipment, hydration etc.).	Learning in context by umpiring actively within a low-risk environment (e.g., 5–10-year-olds in Cricket Blasta).
Australian football umpire	Accreditation course to understand Laws of Australian Rules Football and how they can be adapted for different levels and ages.	Peer-led session on pathways for talented umpires, focusing on specific groups (e.g., female umpires).	Mentoring where an umpire is in a two-umpire system with a senior umpire to receive individualised feedback during breaks of play.

Note: These examples are not exhaustive but indicate examples of where and how these different types of learning approaches can be used in practice and explored more in research.

a

A national program run by Cricket Australia introducing primary school-aged children to cricket through modified, game-based activities.

Lessons learned: Towards a new research agenda

Frameworks and models of development like the FTEM-O and the 3DOD provide a macro level approach to the development of sports officials. ²⁰ They help to consider all levels of officials from the foundational/recreational, up to the elite level, as well as the breadth of influences from the individual (e.g., sporting history, ethnicity), to the environment-context (e.g., organisational support available), and the system (e.g., remuneration, pathways for advancement). This reinforces the importance of the constraints-led approach to officiating, ³¹ which helps to provide an understand of these individual, environmental, and task factors that influence how learning approaches are applied between and within sports. Acknowledging these broader levels of analysis and influence, we now delve into the meso level of understanding specific categories of activities in formal, non-formal, and informal learning, applying these concepts from the coach development literature. One important consideration is that the majority of coach development has focused on the elite level, ⁴⁹ and it is important that officiating research does not follow a similar trend, but explores development at all different performance levels from grassroots to elite. ¹⁰¹ Table 2 presents an overview of strengths and limitations of formal, non-formal, informal approaches discussed in the previous sections, with some avenues for future research that will be discussed in this section. This table is informed by evidence in officiating, with example relevant studies provided for the strengths and limitations. As highlighted previously, although these learning approaches are presented in isolation for clarity, they can be used simultaneously and/or in a complementary way.

Table 2.

Overview of strengths, limitations, and opportunities for future research of formal, non-formal, and informal learning approaches for officials.

	Formal learning	Non-formal learning	Informal learning
	Accreditation	Workshops, seminars	Learning in context	Observation	Mentoring
Strengths	Enable consistent understanding of law knowledge and benchmarking competencies 102 Promotes credibility and legitimacy for governing sport bodies that can be aligned across regions to evaluate progress 103	Provides targeted skill development programs with specific feedback and assessments 78 Enable social connection for officials, particularly in online delivery 75 Can be easily adapted to suit needs of officiating group, and targeted across stages of season 78	Realistic, context-rich learning 76 Enable reflection-in-action and learning reflexivity 24 Builds skill (e.g., decision-making, communication) confidence under pressure 27	Easily accessible for any official 97 Exposure to diverse practice styles and approaches 66 Encourages self-directed learning 76	Allows for a more individualised, context-specific approach 104 Shared experience of the stressors related to officiating 105 Encourages networking and relationship-building between officials 106
Limitations	May be a one-size-fits-all approach or repetitive 102 Can lack practical applicability 27 Can exclude contextual learning and tacit knowledge 76	Technology based sessions may limit engagement and transfer of skill to context 82 Attendance and engagement may be mixed without award of formal learning 107 High time cost, especially if other pressing areas to address 82	Officials may be placed in a ‘sink or swim’ scenario (i.e., an unsafe environment with abuse) 27 High cognitive load for new officials 27	Officials require adequate knowledge of what to look for 97 Passive learning risk without active reflection or guidance 87 Potentially limited access to high-quality live observation (e.g., grassroots, remote/rural locations) 108	Potential for poor fit with mentor 25 Resourcing, training, and distribution of available mentors 73 Lack of consistency in mentor experiences 90
Opportunities for future exploration in research and practice	Implementation of more practical experiences within existing formal learning and evaluating impacts on performance Effectiveness of face-to-face, blended, or online delivery approaches Design and delivery of engaging accreditation to enhance both retention and development	Understanding of the impact of such engagement with performance-based outcomes Determine the impact of technology-based learning on developmental outcomes Co-designing workshops with participants to suit context-specific needs	Develop more low- and medium-risk representative training opportunities outside of competition Incorporate officials into athlete training sessions to practice Incorporate experimental officiating in development contexts	Understand how officials can effectively use observation as a training tool Create peer observation groups or communities of practice How officials use observation at different performance levels	More structured mentoring programs at all levels of performance Development of pathways from officiating to coaching roles Implementation of more gender-conscious mentoring opportunities (e.g., female mentors with female officials) The role of informal peer networks on officials' retention

Examples of future formal and non-formal learning research in officiating

While formal accreditation programs for sports officials are increasingly common, there remains limited empirical understanding of how these programs are perceived by officials themselves, and whether the knowledge gained supports development and retention. Drawing from the coach development research, where formal learning is often perceived as overly theoretical and less impactful than informal, situated learning, ¹⁰⁹ similar critiques may be applicable to the officiating context. In particular, current officiating courses tend to focus on the development of declarative knowledge, such as the rules and their interpretations, ²² often at the expense of more contextualised or strategic learning. This raises the question about the alignment between what is taught in formal accreditation and the complex, dynamic demands of sports officiating. Building on this, there is little empirical knowledge on how females/women and males/men may have different experiences along different certification pathways, ⁹³ warranting further investigation.

Emerging research suggests essential skills such as decision-making (through active application beyond rule knowledge), game management, and interpersonal communication are often underemphasised, despite their significance to officiating performance.^90,98,99 Consequently, there is a need to evaluate whether current formal courses adequately develop these cognitive and soft skills, and how alternative pedagogical approaches, such as scenario-based training, simulations, or mentorship, might support their acquisition. Example approaches could be to qualitatively understand officials’ perspectives of these programs, measure changes of in-game performance (overall or of specific skills/competencies), or track officials’ development longitudinally according to existing frameworks such as the FTEM-O. ²⁰ As Table 2 shows, there is a place for formal accreditation, but there are also opportunities to maximise its positive impact. A common issue in the developmental officiating pathway is that newly accredited officials are frequently thrust into competitive environments immediately following course completion, without sufficient opportunities for guided learning in context. This “sink or swim” scenario may contribute to high attrition rates among novice officials.^26,27 Future research may explore the lived experiences of newly qualified officials during these early career stages, alongside evaluating the effectiveness of existing accreditation programs in preparing officials for the cognitive, emotional, and social demands of real-world officiating. Additionally, a content analysis of current officiating curricula could provide valuable insight into the competencies prioritised within accreditation courses, and where gaps remain, particularly in relation to developing adaptive decision making, strategic thinking, communication, and game management strategies.

There is a significant scope for future research exploring non-formal approaches in officiating, particularly given the lack of research in this area. For example, non-formal approaches such as targeted workshops can be delivered past research, ⁸³ to overcome the geographical challenges commonly seen within officiating, such as limited training opportunities, ⁸⁶ and limited perceived organisational support. ²⁵ More research is required to understand how these challenges may impact learning and development, and particularly whether these challenges are consistent across sports. In addition, these workshops can be tailored to meet the context-specific needs of the participants. For example, given the challenges that can be uniquely experienced by female officials,^93,94,110 these workshops can provide a safe space for development, promoting retention. Finally, given non-formal approaches can be more flexible with less rigid requirements as formal learning, these can be adapted to suit the needs of performance outcomes. For instance, a workshop could explore the adjustment of skills such as decision-making and communication between officiating junior or senior competitions, or how to manage performance anxiety for talent-level officiating moving through key pathways.

Ultimately, while formal and non-formal learning will likely continue to play a central role in officiating development, particularly at entry levels, it should not be viewed in isolation. Instead, integrating informal learning in context opportunities, such as mentorship, peer observation, and reflection, could help ensure that formal education is more holistic, contextually relevant, and supportive of long-term development pathways for officials. This is evident by the examples within Table 2, where these different learning approaches can be implemented in a complementary manner.

Examples of future informal learning research in officiating

As formal training structures can struggle to meet the evolving demands of officiating at various levels, informal learning offers a complementary and context-sensitive avenue for skill acquisition, decision-making refinement, and psychosocial support worthy of future research. Investigating the role of such activities could provide insight into how informal learning approaches contribute to performance enhancement and long-term retention. While mentoring is often cited as a key developmental tool, its application in officiating remains inconsistent and poorly understood. Recently, Flint, Tingle and Klotz ⁸⁸ proposed a framework for designing and evaluating mentoring models, offering a valuable entry point for understanding how implementation affects various referee and organisational outcomes. This could involve tracking changes in learning, retention, and indicators of psychosocial development and well-being among sports officials, based on exposure to different mentoring approaches such as formal vs. informal, peer vs. senior, and group vs. one-to-one models. ⁸⁸ Expanding the use of observational learning through video technology, virtual and augmented reality, and peer shadowing can provide new pathways for skill development through informal learning. Using video technologies can complement live observation by seeing, through a third-person perspective, how others officiate, but can also go beyond third-person observation, by integrating observation through a first-person perspective, such as through a body-mounted camera. An example of this is a recent study in rugby referees, which highlighted that such an approach can be used for not only reflecting on one's own performance, but also viewing through the perspective of another official. ⁶⁶ Officiating-specific tools for observational learning and use offer a means to investigate how different types and frequencies of observation relate to officials’ characteristics and performance strengths. ⁹⁷

Mobile learning applications, artificial intelligence-based feedback systems, and gamified educational modules offer scalable, personalised learning options for time-constrained officials. Pearson and colleagues explored netball umpires’ perceptions across different countries on the use of technology as a learning tool, and highlighted that although it could have benefits of making training less time-demanding for officials, there are significant cost and time-effort considerations for organisations in the development of this technology. ⁸² Future research should explore how these tools support informal learning, how officials engage with them, and what trust, usability, and efficacy issues arise. ⁷² Recent research in soccer refereeing has indicated factors for consideration in implementing mobile learning such as video, including the number of viewings (three appears to be an optimal number), using slow-motion clips, and third-person perspectives to avoid making learning scenarios too complex. ¹¹¹ While this provides an understanding of the implementation of this technology in soccer, more research is required to support this and in other sports. Understanding the integration of digital tools into daily routines is crucial for advancing continuous learning. Online social media platforms have the capability to host dynamic communities where officials share match experiences, seek advice, and reflect informally. These spaces offer peer validation, emotional support, and technical knowledge exchange, however their effects on learning quality, misinformation propagation, and emotional regulation require empirical investigation. ¹³ Structured reflection practices such as journaling, guided debriefs, and self-talk are central tools for informal learning but underutilised in officiating. Research should explore tools and strategies to enhance reflective capacity and self-regulation after both routine and high-stakes matches. ¹⁰⁷ Embedding reflection into post-match routines and monitoring of its use and benefits needs further rigorous data concerning effectiveness and efficacy.

Finally, the broader psychosocial context in which informal learning occurs must be considered. Factors such as psychological safety, trust, mentorship quality, and organisational culture significantly influence whether learning is embraced or resisted. A culture of blame, for example, may discourage openness and self-analysis after mistakes. Research should investigate how learning climates can be cultivated to support constructive feedback, especially in emotionally charged environments such as officiating. ²⁷ Contrasting with deliberate practice, deliberate play is a form of informal learning characterised by low-pressure and intrinsically motivating activities that foster exploration and creativity. In officiating, this may involve modified game scenarios, playful simulations, or improvisational drills designed to stretch communication, adaptability, and real-time decision-making but little research characterises what deliberate play looks like in sports officiating. ⁸⁶ After all, a key motivating factor for officials to take up this role is their love of the game ¹¹² ; learning and development opportunities should foster this through safe and enjoyable environments.

Future research should also consider how informal learning varies across the officiating career span, with different strategies and support systems likely required for novice, developing, and elite officials. ²⁰ Comparative work is needed to explore how sociocultural factors such as gender, ethnicity, and organisational norms shape access to and engagement with informal learning opportunities. Similarly, examining how informal learning occurs within officiating teams could yield insights into shared reflection, peer correction, and real-time adaptation. ⁹⁷ Despite growing interest in enablers of informal learning, there is limited understanding of the structural and psychological barriers that constrain engagement, including time pressures, lack of mentorship, or a culture of fear and judgment. Research should investigate how formal training environments can be intentionally designed to promote spillover into informal learning networks. ²⁸ Finally, the development of robust, context-sensitive methods for capturing and evaluating informal learning processes, such as experience sampling, reflective diaries, and longitudinal qualitative approaches remains a critical methodological priority.

Impact of a new research agenda for officiating

Since officiating development is a fundamental component of any sport system, a deeper understanding of how to address it is essential to guide evidence-informed implementation practices for organisations. Training and development has also been recommended as a key future research direction in a recent expert statement on officiating research, particularly as it is a significantly under-researched area. ¹⁰¹ As outlined in the above two sections, we have a significant (and growing) knowledge base on coach development, but the research on officiating development is comparatively lacking. As governing bodies begin to align development of coaches and officials to increase efficiencies, it is recommended that research and practice in officials follows suit, particularly as coach and officiating development become more aligned. In addition, it will be interesting to see research and practice evolve where there is co-creation of formal and non-formal learning between coaches and officials to foster mutual understanding and respect for rules. This could cover key skills for the officiating role such as rule interpretation, game management, conflict resolution, and how both parties can promote fair play.^98,99 Importantly, this could help bridge the gap between coaches and officials, but also players. This could not only enable knowledge sharing between these populations but also may lead to officials being less of an out-group than they have been previously and develop more trust and rapport between the groups.

In this paper, we presented three types of informal learning which can be applied from coaching knowledge to officiating, specifically learning in context, observation, and mentoring. While these are anecdotally important for officials and there has been some coverage in the officiating literature recently,^88,97 there is limited empirical evidence addressing why and how these approaches can be best applied in officiating. For example, the link between formal learning and learning in context needs further exploration in officials. ²⁷ To avoid the sink or swim element of officiating and to combat early attrition rates of officials while accelerating the development of skill and confidence, more research should consider the potential impact of learning in context in the early stages of an official's career. We should specifically consider how to create safe environments that apply knowledge and rapidly upskill officials. Furthermore, building on the initial stage of development, researchers could consider the impact of other informal learning approaches such as observation and mentoring. In-situ learning such as this has been acknowledged as the best type of learning for officials, ⁹⁷ but there has been limited empirical work exploring its use and application. A key consideration in this paper is not only the identification of the different types of learning activities in formal, non-formal, and informal learning, but also that these different types of learning activities can be combined for the best effect and not used in isolation. A program of development, framed by an overarching pathway model, will help those in officiating development to combine approaches fit to the particular level and needs of officials, in the context of the support providers, resources, and mechanisms available. Thus, the knowledge gained from this commentary will enable officiating populations to learn and adapt, and to collaborate with researchers to evaluate, track, and assess the impact of particular development activities and approaches.

Conclusion

While coach development has benefitted from decades of research, systemic support, and the existence of pedagogical frameworks, the development of sports officials, particularly learning approaches, remains comparatively underexplored and under-resourced. The historical reliance on formal learning environments and activities, typically in the form of rule-based accreditation courses, has provided a theoretical foundation for both coaches and officials. However, these environments often fail to support the experiential and contextual learning necessary for the complex realities of sport officiating. Rather, many officials are left to their own self-directed learning. As the coach development literature shows, learning is most impactful when it combines formal structures with informal and nonformal approaches that support individualised, situated learning. Drawing on these insights, there is a need to understand and potentially reconceptualise the development programs for sports officials beyond singular, linear accreditation models. This can be achieved by adopting more holistic, experiential, and socially supported learning frameworks, similar to those increasingly seen in coaching. We particularly draw a distinction between formal, non-formal and informal learning activities, as a key starting place for officiating development to consider. Introducing an awareness and consideration of different types of activities, and the power of combining them within a development program has the potential to advance the knowledge and practice in this area. As such, there is potential for these strategies to better support the retention, confidence, and long-term growth of officials in their early developmental stages and beyond, making sport a better place for all.