Wacky Wrestling Theory 4.10.08: Referees are Obsolete

Posted by Jake Chambers on 04.10.2008

Where I argue that referees need to be eliminated from pro-wrestling in order to heighten the enjoyment of the show for the ever-evolving audience.

A strange phenomenon began at WWE No Way Out 2003. That night, every time the referee would count a near-fall the electric Montreal crowd loudly echoed his official verification of the word "two." Odd behavior, no doubt. What could have been a short-lived fad has become a staple of fan interaction at all pro-wrestling events. I believe that this interactive addition to the pro-wrestling experience is the first step towards the abolition of the referee character inside the wrestling ring.

At one time the referee was a respected figure of authority but with the inception of omniscient owner/general manager characters and the relaxation of rules in the past decade or so, referees have become nothing more than emasculated counting machines. As the pro-wrestling audience has seemingly evolved into participants who are ‘in' on the dramatics of the show, their reliance to the referee figure has become tenuous. Unlike how the UFC displays rules at the beginning of each event, the pro-wrestling audience already shares an ingrained understanding of the laws that govern a particular match. Certainly there is no necessity to explain, out loud, that one wrestler must pin down another wrestler's shoulders to the mat for a three count in order to win. Due to the recent culture of cheap near-falls, a never-ending reliance on outside interference and weapons, and a confusing soap-operatic backstage hierarchy of power, trust that a referee maintains any kind of integrity in enforcing these unspoken rules has eroded. With the enthusiasm in which the live audience participates in the "two" call back, I think more involved fan interaction would be conducive to repairing the authenticity of the perceived struggle in the ring. Therefore, in the place of referees I think it would be simple and effective to just use a clock and a bell.

First let me state that I want to examine the figure of the referee from the in-ring, narrative perspective and not of that as a participant in the ‘working' of a match. Whatever conduit the ref provides between wrestlers and/or the backstage producers is not wholly relevant to my argument. This theory is not an attempt to disrespect the actual profession of the referee but only make a hypothesis on the future of the art of pro-wrestling. On the other hand, I don't outright think that the job of the referee is untouchable or that it wouldn't be possible to adapt and create a pro-wrestling product without the presence of a ‘third man,' but that is not something I will focus on in this article.

The most important responsibility of the referee has been counting the shoulders of the loser against the mat. I may sound a bit wacky here, but I don't think that man in the striped shirt is really required to bring about this climax. During the three count, where does your eye go? Do you really focus on the shoulders of the wrestler and try to see if they match the referee's count? If you do, then you have probably been disappointed many times in the lazy way in which the wrestlers and referees exploit your acceptance of the near-fall. In fact, it doesn't matter how ‘close' the count is to being three, because unless that is the way the match is scripted to end then the match will continue. Fans have become so enlightened to the scripting of a match that they understand a near-fall is more symbolism than synchronicity. Is anyone under the impression that if the wrestler who is supposed to win doesn't kick out of a near-fall in time that somehow he/she will lose the match? Of course not. An understanding already should exist between the audience and the pro-wrestling producers about the predetermined ending to a match and thus the tricks performed by the referee to hide this can start to feel patronizing.

For example, a recent match between Takeshi Morishima and Claudio Castagnoli featured a very ‘close' three count that had many people in the audience of Death Before Dishonor V, Night 1, believing that they had just seen Claudio win the ROH World Title. The fans may have been fooled by a certain sharp convulsion in referee Todd Sinclair's body that caused the illusion of his hand hitting the mat for the three. I'm sure most felt cheated and had to quickly shelve their exhilaration when they recognized the simultaneous ‘kick-out' movement in the body of Morishima and the signaling from the referee to continue the match. In contrast, the ‘ref bump' style popularized by Earl Henber is used to push the act of the near-fall past the generally accepted limit. In these instances a referee misses numerous potentially match ending near-falls because he has been knocked out. Finally he is able to perform excruciatingly slow, groggy counts that somehow are supposed to be more dramatic when a wrestler kicks out, and more legitimate when deciding a winner, because of the referee's struggle for completion. Both cases are twists that may degrade the enjoyment of the pro-wrestling match because they break the trust the audience should have in the referee to be an impartial instrument of the abstract justice of pro-wrestling, and not a participant in the deception. I think the act of a pinning attempt accompanied by a stationary clock and the audience's participation would be a more reasonable way to conclude matches.

Why do we need a referee to signal a disqualification when all that is necessary to end the match is the sound of a bell? Have you ever been confused about the reason for a disqualification? Probably not, disqualifications are generally self-explanatory. Referees are supposed to enforce the rules pertaining to disqualification, but currently a fan would have to be very naive to believe that a referee shows much power in this area. When a wrestler uses a closed fist, or refuses to break an illegal hold on a five count, rarely will the referee disqualify them unless it conveniently serves the purpose of the storyline. If a champion wrestler is going to get intentionally disqualified, like the Great Khali for using a chair against Batista at SummerSlam ‘07, certainly the audience understands this visual and could accept a bell ring to signal the end of the match. I also believe that it must be insulting to the intelligence of the audience when they see a referee ‘distracted' while directly behind him a wrestler is being hit with a foreign object that not only makes a loud noise (like the crack of a folding chair on the skull) but also elicits a loud response from the crowd (like Hornswaggle interfering in Finlay matches). To make pro-wrestling more enjoyable and believable these instances should result in disqualifications by simply having an unbiased bell ring as soon as a rule is broken. Sure this would force the wrestlers and writers to create situations where ‘bad guys' have to devise more unique methods for getting away with rule-breaking, but the argument can be made that it's time for pro-wrestling to progress past the insulting contrivance of referee rule enforcement.

A referee is most useless when it comes to counting wrestlers out of the ring. A clock brandished somewhere in the arena should start the instant a wrestler falls through the ropes. Presently there seems to be no hard rules that apply to how a count-out should be administered and it becomes very easy to predict when a count-out ending is about to occur just because the referee is actually counting properly. Once the wrestlers go outside of the ring, when exactly is the referee supposed to begin counting? Is there any consistency in the cadence of a referee's count? As well, the ‘breaking of the count' rule is very subjective, and used in the lazy finish of having two wrestlers outside at the 8/9 point and then one wrestler beating the other into the ring before the ten second count-out, even though technically sliding in at the last moment should ‘break the count.' A hard count-out clock on the big screen would do the job of the referee more effectively, creating a consistent aura of drama around the struggle to return to the ring rather than the subjective and shifting narrative device currently in place that allows wrestlers to disregard the rules the referee is supposed to represent.

Recently, I think referees are very energized by their role in knock-out or ‘Last Man Standing' matches. The chorus of the count-along crowd is a good indicator of match interest, yet in most cases you may have noticed that the referee's inconsistent count accommodates the recovery of the wrestlers rather than providing the honest fulfillment of denouement the participation of the audience indicates should be required. The use of a clock would force urgency on the wrestlers to regain verticality rather than the groan inducing, last milli-second recovery that is recognized by the ever-lenient referee. In fact, the moment of final knock-out usually follows a big finish sequence (the brass knuckles shot from Mayweather on Big Show, the RKO on the announce table in the last year's Orton/HHH No Mercy match, or even the collapse of the structure onto Kane in his Last Man Standing match against Chris Jericho at Armageddon 2000), and the referee will then count quicker than he had earlier in the match since the downed wrestler is showing little sign of recovery. The obvious climatic symbolism of the big move/finish thus makes the referee's previous counts seem redundant in hindsight and could actually be hindering a level of fair fan participation that could heighten the live experience.

These kinds of inconsistencies in counting and enforcing the rules show how tedious the role of the referee has become, and how his presence breaks the illusion of realty more than actually helping to create a believable product. It may seem ridiculous to eliminate the referee from matches, but no more crazy than it must have seemed ten years ago for the whole audience to be yelling out "two" at the end of each near fall, or thirty years ago to think that today we'd determine the winner of important championships by literally climbing a ladder. The audience can recognize with its own judgment the fair conclusion of a match or when rules of fair play need to be adhered. So ask yourself honestly, does the eye of the modern pro-wrestling fan really require the referee in order to accept the reality of a pinning attempt or disqualification?

As pro-wrestling fans become more intelligent, it is time to confront some of the aging symbols associated with the art form. MMA is crossing over deeper into popular culture and potentially that may mean that the role of the referee can again gain prominence and authority in pro-wrestling, but that assumes pro-wrestling will gravitate towards a more realistic, MMA style of storytelling. I would argue that in order for pro-wrestling to survive and compete against the visually similar sensation of MMA, wrestling will need to become more stylistic, more interactive and more extravagant. The traditional role of the referee has been to symbolically bridge the science of professional fighting with the spectacle of scripted sports entertainment, but as the fans evolve and accept the growing distinction, the need for a referee, at least from a narrative perspective, becomes increasingly obsolete. But that's just one of my wacky theories.