There’s a concept called Verbal Judo that comes from the law enforcement world. Dr. George Thompson, a former English professor, developed it and trained police officers to use words to defuse conflict instead of escalating it. One of my friends, a former deputy sheriff, used these principles regularly when dealing with people who were upset, emotional, or outright combative.
At its core, Verbal Judo uses communication to maintain control without force. It’s not about winning arguments. It’s not about giving in. It’s not about debating facts or trying to convince someone they’re wrong. It’s about keeping the situation from getting worse while guiding behavior in the direction you need it to go.
As football officials, we operate in a very similar space. We have authority that is not negotiable, but coaches and players who may not agree with us still have to accept it in the moment. That creates tension, and how we handle that tension often determines whether the game stays under control or starts to slip.
There are some strong parallels between a deputy sheriff managing an agitated person and an official dealing with an upset coach. In both roles, you don’t argue; you manage behavior. You acknowledge what’s being said without necessarily agreeing. You stay calm while the other person is not. You give direction rather than invite discussion. And you try to protect the other person’s dignity, allowing them a small window to vent without putting them in a position where they feel embarrassed or backed into a corner.
But this is where the comparison takes an important turn.
A deputy sheriff may negotiate. They may adjust their approach based on how much the other person cooperates. In some situations, they need the other person to buy in so the situation can be resolved.
That is not the case for a football official.
We do not negotiate outcomes. We do not compromise rulings. We do not need agreement; we need compliance. That distinction matters more than most officials realize.
When people hear words like negotiation or compromise, they can be subtly led down a dangerous path. It can sound like, “Maybe I’ll pick up this flag to calm things down,” or “I’ll give him this one,” or even, “We missed one earlier, so this evens it out.” That’s not communication. That’s a breakdown in game management.
The rules are the rules. That’s the black and white. Judgment is the gray area we operate in. But neither one is negotiable in the moment, no matter how loud the sideline gets.
So if we’re not negotiating, what are we doing? We are practicing controlled communication under authority. Or said more simply: we don’t negotiate decisions; we manage reactions.
Let’s take a common situation. A coach is upset about a missed holding call. From a law enforcement perspective, the approach might involve acknowledging the concern, de-escalating, and possibly adjusting the interaction depending on how the person responds. There may be some back-and-forth.
On the football field, it’s different. You might acknowledge him briefly: “I hear you, Coach.” You might give a short answer: “I did not observe any demonstrated restriction.” And then you close it: “I believe I’ve clearly communicated my judgment; we’re moving on.” If he continues, you set a firmer boundary. If it crosses the line, you enforce.
There is no debate. No prolonged explanation. No compromise.
This is where Verbal Judo becomes incredibly valuable for officials, not in making decisions, but in how we communicate them. It helps with tone control, which is often more important than the actual words we use. It sharpens our ability to choose words under pressure. It reminds us not to take things personally when a coach is venting. It teaches us how to deflect instead of engage, and how to end conversations cleanly before they turn into arguments.
What it does not do is help you decide whether something is a foul. It does not mean you owe a coach a detailed rules clinic in the middle of a drive. And it certainly doesn’t equip you to “win” an argument on the sideline.
In fact, one of the biggest mindset shifts for officials is this: many believe their job is to explain the call so the coach understands it. That sounds reasonable, but it’s not the priority.
The real objective is to communicate in a way that keeps the game under control. Understanding is optional. Control is not.
If a coach understands and stays composed, that’s great. If he doesn’t understand but still moves on, that’s also a success. But if we get pulled into prolonged explanations, emotional exchanges, or back-and-forth arguments, we’ve lost focus on what actually matters.
A simple framework that can help is this: acknowledge, answer, close. Acknowledge the emotion. Answer briefly if needed. Then close the conversation. There is no fourth step.
When you step back and look at it, Verbal Judo is about how we communicate. Officiating is about the authority we apply. Negotiation is not part of our role on the field.
We’re not there to reach agreement. We’re there to apply the rules, exercise sound judgment, and keep the game under control. The challenge, and the craft, is doing that in a way that doesn’t pour gasoline on the fire.
Quiz
Read the quiz stem and then choose the best answer.
4/G from the B-4. A11 rolls right and throws a pass toward A88 in the end zone. B22 intercepts the pass in the end zone. While B22 is still in the end zone, B66 is flagged for a blindside block at the B-4. B22 then exits the end zone and is tackled at the B-18.
- Safety
- 1/10 for Team B from the B-2
- 1/10 for Team B from the B-9
Review Rules 9-4-3n, 10-1-5, 10-2-2, 10-3-2, 10-4-4c