Help me win an argument

I am having a semantic argument with a friend who claims there is no difference between an umpire and a referee. I am sure there is, but i have been unable to define the difference. Alas google isn't helping my quest for enlightenment. Obviously with any rule there are likely to be exceptions but hopefully the definition we come up with will apply to most sports

Really there isnt a difference other than what they are called. Both are there to make sure the game is played by the rules.

ref·e·ree [rèffə r]
noun (plural ref·e·rees)
1. official overseeing sport: an official who oversees the play in a sport or game, judges whether the rules are being followed, and penalizes fouls or infringements
2. arbitrator: somebody not directly involved in a matter who is called in to settle disputes, make decisions, or pass judgments concerning the matter



um·pire [úm pr]
noun (plural um·pires)
1. official enforcing sport's rules: an official who supervises play and enforces the rules of the game in some sports, e.g. baseball
2. somebody settling dispute: somebody called in to settle a dispute


Jimmy B

The only difference I found relates to the game of Cricket: Umpires have to undergo training whereas referees are generally ex-players with a good understanding of the game.

A technical point, to be sure, but a point nonetheless.

On a personal basis, I would say this:

Referee: High Court

Umpire: Supreme Court

What am I basing that on? Make a list of referee rulings that got overturned vs. a list of umpire rulings that got overturned.

- Joe U.

Easy. Umpires are for pastimes, while referees are for real sports :)