External and Internal Load Response to Different Refereeing Techniques and to Sex of Players in Basketball Games

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

---------------------General comments

-The aim of this study is to analyze the workload of 35 group-1 referees during a U-18 Spanish championship, examining the effects of refereeing technique (two vs. three officials) and competition sex (male vs. female) across game quarters. This study presents the same issue as most current studies involving workload, namely, a lack of innovation. Two possibilities may explain this issue. Either the authors consciously neglect various studies on this topic (some examples of DOIs: 10.3390/ijerph16183421; 10.3390/jfmk7040111; 10.3390/app14031177—the last of which was published in this very journal) or they are genuinely unaware of the relevant literature, which I find unlikely. The fact is that the main innovation of this study was not clearly presented. Notably, the text is also redundant and tiring to follow.

 

---------------------Specific comments

 

-------Introduction

-This section is excessively long. The paragraphs are not well anchored and do not guide the reader toward the actual research problem. The impression is that the authors attempt to include a large amount of information without properly aligning their ideas.

 

-------Methods

-It is unclear what criterion for “experience” the authors adopted for the sample (lines 124–126).

-The number of matches analyzed per referee is not specified. What do the authors mean by “unique cases”? (line 141). These descriptions are extremely vague.

-Lines 147–148 – redundant.

-Lines 149–150 – The meaning of "technique" is unclear.

 

-------Results

-This section blends discussion with results, requiring refinement. I could not clearly find the sample characterization.

 

-------Discussion

-Line 472 – I did not understand this sentence. How did the authors fail to consider the competitive level and importance of the matches? Do they believe referees covered more distance (for instance) in a playoff game compared to the regular season? This does not seem logical, at least not without a plausible explanation.

-Lines 479–482 – Frankly, I see that the authors are reluctant to acknowledge that this is purely a descriptive study and instead attempt to infer implications for referee training. Let’s be realistic: referee positioning follows a standard pattern, whether with two or three officials. I find it hard to accept that a study of this nature would drastically change referee performance. The crucial aspect in this context—which, unfortunately, was not tested (at least in this study)—is how workload affects decision-making. However, if we assume that referees make few errors (as they should), this premise is difficult to analyze during a match. My suggestion is to subject experienced and inexperienced referees to a protocol of physical and mental exhaustion and then expose them to a validated decision-making task—preferably one specific to basketball.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See my general comments. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting to Applied Science.

Interesting topic and results. Overall, well written, but I would ask for a little more editing on the organization.

- The title should include basketball. And is the number of referees important? Is technique important? If referee technique is important, was there an experiment related to it?

- Please double-check the reference style. Many references have only a start page and no end page.

- Lines 17-24 can be deleted (Featured Application). If necessary, write them before explaining the limitations of the study in the Discussion.

 

Abstract

Lines 25-27: Remove “officiating configurations” from this sentence and put it in the sentence below. And who does 'they' refer to? These pronouns can easily confuse readers. Furthermore, pronouns are not recommended because the purpose of the study is to clarify the content.

Lines 27-29: This part needs to be restructured with the words “officiating configurations” as the purpose of the study.

Methods: It is too short. What physical and physiological needs do you want to write about in the results of the Abstract? That should be specifically introduced in the methods. And lines 27-29 mix up the purpose and methods. “35 group-1 referees during a U-18 Spanish championship” This would be better fit in the methods.

Changing the Abstract to two-referee teams (2Refs) and three-referee teams (3Refs) would help the sentences be written and readers understand them better. This applies to the entire document.

 

Results: Present statistically provable results. Include statistics. Conclusion: Give a clear message based on the results rather than ‘suggest’ and ‘emphasis’. My guess is that “These findings~~” is the conclusion. Start with “In conclusion, ~~~”

 

 

Introduction

Relatively well-written, but not well organized.

-Importance of workload in basketball

-Introduction of factors affecting workload in basketball

-Influence of referees among factors and reasons (role of referees)

-Introduction of physical and psychological state of players due to referee role, related studies, literature, theory, etc.

-Limitations of previous research

Please organize it according to the purpose of this study.

 

In the introduction, it is recommended to use abbreviations after writing full words. two-referee teams (2Refs), three-referee teams (3Refs). This is a way to increase the reader's understanding.

Some parts from line 96 onwards are repeating the previous content. Delete the redundant content and change the structure of the paragraph to present a clear purpose. In particular, line 93 uses “no studies have.” After this, the purpose of the study should be clearly stated. However, the current document again contains an explanation related to referees. Move this content to the beginning and delete the redundancy.

Line 109~~: Do not divide i) ii) iii) into one sentence. i) This is not the purpose of the study.

 

Line 109~: Move the specific details of the purpose of this part of the study to the research method. (For example, U-18 Spanish championship, Q1 vs. Q2 vs. Q3 vs. Q4), male vs. female)

 

 

Research Methods

It is relatively well written and specific, but I would like to request some changes in the structure.

 

2.1: Describe the overall outline of the study. I think the contents of ‘2.3 sample’ can be appropriately distributed to 2.1 and 2.2.

 

 

Results

Excessive use of numbers in figures. Putting numbers in figures and p values ​​in figures is easier for authors to understand. There are too many numbers in the results. For example, it is too difficult to find the value of a bar graph in Figure 1 for a number written in a sentence. This is not taking full advantage of figures. The purpose of using figures is to make them easier to understand than sentences. Therefore, it is good to provide various information in figures and to include the main explanation in sentences. This reduces the overall result sentences and makes them understandable in figures.

 

There is a lot of results. Too much information can easily confuse readers. If information is absolutely necessary, it should be well organized.

 

Change Figure 1 to Figure 2. (Use vertical bar graphs, not horizontal bars.)

 

- Summarize the results and briefly explain the main results. Half of what you have now is sufficient. If possible, do not repeat all the numbers in the table or figure. It is important to focus on explaining what is important and what is not important.

 

Discussion

It is a discussion, but the content of the results is repeated to the point of confusion. Please remove the numbers already shown in the results or figures (e.g. (4521.86 ± 360 594.02 m vs. 3402.54 ± 482.31 m). The results are too repetitive. This comment applies to the entire discussion. The discussion should compare and cite other studies that provide reasons, background, and possible estimates for the authors' findings.

Additional comment: The authors' study was not analyzed for psychological content. However, it is mentioned in the introduction and several references are cited in the references.

Do you think that the load increases or decreases due to psychological reasons?

If so, it should be addressed in the discussion. Previous studies on the effect of psychological reasons on physical fitness should be cited, and a psychophysiological interpretation should be added. This is the right thing to do.

 

Conclusion

It should be more concise than it is now, and should be written using the main results that you want to emphasize. It would be better to shorten it by half. Such a long conclusion makes it difficult for readers to understand the author's thoughts. There are many results, but among them, the author's conclusion is a condensed content that he wants to emphasize. Please present it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper Mancha-Triguero and co. analyzed the physical and physiological workload of basketball referees during a U-18 Spanish championship, comparing the effects of refereeing system (two vs. three referees) and competition sex (male vs. female) across game quarters using inertial devices and heart rate monitors.

While the study provides useful data on referee workload, it lacks significant novelty and depth in theoretical discussion. It primarily confirms existing knowledge rather than advancing the field with new perspectives or methodologies. Addressing these limitations,such as incorporating decision-making analysis, a broader theoretical framework, or season-long workload tracking,could improve the scientific impact of the study.

The study primarily builds on existing research regarding referee workload but does not introduce a groundbreaking methodology, concept, or analysis. Several similar studies have already examined external and internal load in basketball referees using inertial devices and heart rate monitors.

The authors state that officiating female competitions imposes greater physical demands but does not deeply analyze why this is the case.

Does the style of play (e.g., pace, ball movement, defensive intensity) differ significantly between male and female games?

Do referees position themselves differently when officiating men’s vs. women’s matches?

The study acknowledges that refereeing technique (two vs. three referees) affects workload but does not discuss how referees compensate tactically or positionally to adapt to these changes.

While the authors emphasize the need for referee-specific conditioning programs, it does not propose concrete training adaptations.

There is little discussion on how governing bodies (e.g., FIBA, national basketball leagues) should alter referee selection, fitness testing, or scheduling policies based on these findings.

The study does not explore how increased workload in two-referee teams might affect decision-making accuracy, which is a crucial aspect of officiating. It also does not account for the competitive level or importance of the games (e.g., group stage vs. knockout rounds), which may influence referee workload. Factors such as game intensity, team playing styles, or tournament scheduling (e.g., consecutive matches) are not discussed as potential confounders.

The authors only analyze a single tournament, making it difficult to assess whether these workload patterns persist over an entire season. Long-term effects of workload on referee fatigue, injury risk, or decision-making consistency are not explored.

The conclusion suggests training adaptations for referees but does not provide concrete examples of conditioning programs or workload management strategies. There is little discussion on how sports organizations or governing bodies should implement changes based on the study’s findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Spelling, grammar, style, and syntax require improvement to enhance readability and professionalism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' responses are insufficient, as are the revisions made to the manuscript. The study still lacks innovation.

Author Response

Attached document with response letter for the Editor.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thank you for revision.

Author Response

Attached document with response letter for the Editor

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have only partially and superficially revised the manuscript. While they addressed some of the previously raised concerns in the cover letter, their responses were brief and not adequately integrated into the revised manuscript. As a result, key clarifications and improvements are missing from the actual text, which limits the reader’s ability to fully understand the information presented.

I recommend that the authors undertake a more comprehensive revision of the manuscript. This should include incorporating their responses and explanations directly into the text to ensure clarity, coherence, and that the manuscript meets the scientific standards required for publication in this journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I would recommend that it undergo a final review by a native English speaker to ensure linguistic precision and clarity, thereby enhancing its overall quality.

Author Response

Attached document with response letter for the Editor

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf