Q: what does the referee say before mma fight? とはどういう意味ですか?
A: Alright guys follow the rules and protect yourself at all times.
Honestly, I understood that from memory and not from listening to what he said. It was very noisy and unclear.
Q: referee とはどういう意味ですか?
A: In sports, it's someone who makes sure the rules aren't broken.
Q: referee とはどういう意味ですか?
A: The judge of a sporting event


Q: when the referee whistle the whistle 3 times that means the game is over を使った例文を教えて下さい。
A: When the referee whistles the whistle 3 times means that the game is over.


Q: "If a referee has good cause to judge that a violation HAS occurred, he will penalize the offender." と "If a referee has good cause to judge that a violation occurred, he will penalize the offender." はどう違いますか?
A: 'Occurred' is the simple past tense of 'occur'. There is no sense of completion, which is why we can use the phrase 'as it occurred' (= during the occurrence). In the phrase 'has occurred' the word 'occurred' is used as a past participle. To illustrate the difference, let's use the verb 'speak': 1. "*While* the man *spoke*..." 2. "*After* the man had *spoken*..." In the first example, 'spoke' (simple past tense) tells us that the speaking had not finished, whereas in the second example, 'spoken' (perfect tense) indicates that the speaking had finished. In answer to your question, I think the use of just 'occurred' has the sense of, say, a foul *in progress*, whereas 'has occurred' would mean, say, *after* a foul.
Q: referee と umpire はどう違いますか?
A: the difference is in which sport they're employed to work.

in rugby and football/soccer, the person is called a referee. referees usually perform the task standing and have to walk around the playing area to be able to give instructions and warnings to the players.

in tennis, the job is called being an umpire. this person sits on a chair between the two players on a tennis court and checks that each player is playing according to the rules of the game.
Q: referee と umpire はどう違いますか?
A: Umpire is the person in baseball who stands behind the pitcher, the one hitting the ball. Referee watches players to make sure they follow the rules.
Q: referee と umpire? And in which sport does he appear はどう違いますか?
1) An ‘umpire’ is used in baseball, while football games have ‘referees’
2) The umpire settles disputes that mediators could not; a referee is the person players refer to for ensuring maintenance of quality
Q: referee と umpire と judge はどう違いますか?
A: I am not a sports person, so I could be wrong but:

1) Referee - general sports term for the person(s) who are in charge of enforcing the rules of the game.
2) Umpire - specific term in Baseball for the person who decides on when balls are good or not. A type of referee
3) Judge - Can be used in some sports to refer to the referee. Also of course refers to a person who decides legal cases.


Q: referee は 英語 (アメリカ) で何と言いますか?
Q: referee は 英語 (アメリカ) で何と言いますか?
A: QAの全文をご確認ください
Q: referee は 英語 (イギリス) で何と言いますか?
A: QAの全文をご確認ください
Q: referee は 英語 (イギリス) で何と言いますか?
A: QAの全文をご確認ください


Q: The referee was biased. I bet he received a bribe from the opponent. この表現は自然ですか?
A: This sentence is almost fully natural. What makes it not fully natural is the word “opponent”. The word “opponent” basically means “your enemy” or in the case of sports “the other team”. Since the subject is more about the referee and about the referee’s lack of good judgment, the referee doesn’t have an opponent because the referee is not trying to win; the referee’s job is to judge and punish players for not following the rules. When you say “opponent” and when the referee is the subject, it makes the sentence a bit confusing, which confusing makes it a little unnatural, meaning I don’t think a native should be speaking in a confusing way. However, the sentences are correct, and if you say it this way, I still would understand what you meant, in that the referee is biased and that the referee made a call so bad, that I would suspect the referee is receiving a bribe from one of the teams or is getting something valuable in exchange for giving one team an advantage over the other team. I could imagine saying these sentences this way if you are your friends were watching the same game at the same time, and both you and your friend favors one team out of the two teams, so you guys say those sentences and you both definitely know who’s the opponent. But this would be confusing if you said this to not your friend but to your rival that likes your opponent; the listener would slightly be confused and think, wait, which side are you on?” Otherwise, I would say, “The referee was bias. I bet he received a bribe from one of the teams.” or “I bet he received a bribe from the other team.” But this is really nitpicky; the sentences are pretty natural.
Q: What's the referee looking at? That's obviously a foul. この表現は自然ですか?
A: That’s obviously [a] foul. 😊
Q: A referee shown red card and send off player to the bench この表現は自然ですか?
A: The referee showed the red card and sent the player to the bench.
Q: The referee did lots of misjudgment to losing team. He must have received money from winning team
A: I would probably say 'The referee was very biased, he must have gotten money from the winning team'
Q: The referee was completely biased and I also think he was paid out to favor France. この表現は自然ですか?
A: Maybe "...he was bribed to favor France" or "...bribed by France."