Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich
Two words:
Confirmation bias.
|
Hmm. Is there any of that in the reaction to this data in the posts here? Seems like there is just an assumption the data
must be wrong . . .
Mind you, I'm not at all arguing for the studies, I haven't looked at them closely enough. As refs, we certainly believe that we are fully independent and uninfluenced by yelling and crowds. But what, to me, is interesting about the 538 NFL analysis, is that it didn't look at the plays themselves and try to say whether or not they were good calls (itself subjective), it only looked at the location of the play and the fouls that were called -- an objective criteria.* I do think it is interesting that there was a measurable difference in the number of calls favoring a team in front of its own bench versus the other -- by very high level refs. Correlation is not causation, etc., etc. Similarly, the soccer referee noise level study is interesting -- I'd like to see more about the details, but I believe I heard a bit about this study somewhere else, and they used high level soccer referees for that study.
These studies do *suggest* (notice I didn't say prove) that even those of us who think we are immune are more affected by the noise and the coaches than we think we are. As a referee (I'm a soccer ref), I think it is something to think about and be aware of -- not to obsess over but be aware that there is some reason to think I might not be as unfazed as I think I am and to pay attention to the possibility.