Study - Refs Even Things Out

[tarheelcoach]

The article.

# The probability of a foul being called on the visiting team was 7 percent higher than on the home team.
# When the home team is leading, the probability of the next foul being called on them is about 6.3 percentage points higher than when the home team is trailing.
# The larger the foul differential between two teams, the greater the likelihood that the next call will be made against the team with fewer fouls. For example, when a home team has three or more fouls than the visiting team, the probability that the next foul call is made against the visiting team is more than 60 percent. When the foul differential is as high as five, then that probability rises to 69 percent. The researchers also observed this trend when they looked at neutral-court games.

VERY interesting info on the human aspect of officiating. But what can we take from this? I guess being aware of these trends can help us mitigate them, but beyond that I don't know what else to take from it.

[zebraman]

I don't have any opinion on your first two points.

As far as your third point, I would say that referees at higher levels often make "50/50" calls to lessen the foul discrepancy..... especially if both teams are playing the same style (if one team is pressing and the other team is in a zone, it's pretty easy to understand a big discrepancy).

When there is marginal contact that may or may not be a foul, officials will quite often factor in a large foul discrepancy or even a huge point differential in decisions.

[rsl]

Maybe guys just stop fouling when they get in foul trouble...

But I can't deny I've been taught at a clinic to look for fouls when the foul count is too uneven. I had an evaluator praise my partner for calling a ticky-tack foul on one and not on the other because the count was 8-1.

[Back In The Saddle]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

"Both have ties to the game -- Anderson played collegiately at Division III's Knox College and Pierce has done some local officiating."
For this study to really be authoritative they needed to include a radio or television sports personality.

"To avoid the effect of trailing teams intentionally fouling at the ends of games, only foul calls in the first half were included."
From my observations, a lopsided foul count in the first half is just as likely as not to be come a lopsided foul count -- the other direction -- in the second half. Too bad the esteemed professors weren't willing to extend their research to see how things happen in the second half.

"Anderson does not believe that this phenomenon is caused by any changes in coaching strategy or aggressive play by players."
Really? So the same aggressive play that explains my team's being up by 10 has zero bearing on the fact that the losing team is more likely to foul? That the defense is having to "play harder" to defend the more aggressive team is in no way likely to lead to committing more fouls? Interesting. And from what objective measure does Anderson draw his conclusions about coaching strategy or aggressive play?

"There's clearly a score effect on both sides. The team that is leading is more likely to get a foul call."
I would certainly think so. Not only is the losing team having to "play harder" on defense, but the winning team has a few points to give and thus does not have to be so aggressive on defense. If you're up by five, and your guy beats you, the smart play is to let him go and allow your teammates to help.

'"Unless the NCAA can come up with some way to address this, there's always going to be an advantage to the more aggressive team," he added.'Can you name me a single sport, a real honest-to-goodness sport where competitors go head to head, where aggressiveness is not a common trait among the victors?

"Our broader, bigger picture point is anytime you're making a subjective judgment under uncertainty, you're likely to take into account the past decisions that you've made,"
What was that big word I had to learn in my freshman English class....starts with a 'c'...cookie, cooperation, CONSISTENCY! Isn't that pretty much the definition of consistency?

"The professors believe their results match up well with the observed behavior of basketball teams over the last 25 years, when play became increasingly aggressive."
At last, the bias of the authors of the study. "The game is too aggressive now, not like it was back when we played. Back then you had to have skills and footwork and be able to shoot a set shot and we like totally had jump ball plays and everything."

The basis of this study is flawed. What did they expect? That at any point in any game there would be an exact 50% probability of a foul being called on either team? That could only be expected if each team played with exactly a 50% chance of being the next team to commit a foul. And that just ain't ever likely to happen.

But hey, it sounds like a great way to get published for sitting around with a buddy watching a boatload of old games on ESPN Classic. Where do I sign up?

[Mark Padgett]

Great analysis BITS!

[jkumpire]

Is this guy a professor of business, or education? Looks like the same kind of garbage ed profs put out all the time.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by tarheelcoach

The article.

# The probability of a foul being called on the visiting team was 7 percent higher than on the home team.
# When the home team is leading, the probability of the next foul being called on them is about 6.3 percentage points higher than when the home team is trailing.
# The larger the foul differential between two teams, the greater the likelihood that the next call will be made against the team with fewer fouls. For example, when a home team has three or more fouls than the visiting team, the probability that the next foul call is made against the visiting team is more than 60 percent. When the foul differential is as high as five, then that probability rises to 69 percent. The researchers also observed this trend when they looked at neutral-court games.

VERY interesting info on the human aspect of officiating. But what can we take from this? I guess being aware of these trends can help us mitigate them, but beyond that I don't know what else to take from it.

Don't believe everything you read, coach. You can make numbers/statistics say anything you want. For example, many schools I go to don't even have team fouls posted. We don't even know what the foul count is. How are we expected to call a certain percentage of fouls when we don't even know there's a 3 foul differential or whatever? It's stupid.

I make calls based on what I see, not where I'm or whose winning the game.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Don't believe everything you read, coach. You can make numbers/statistics say anything you want. For example, many schools I go to don't even have team fouls posted. We don't even know what the foul count is. How are we expected to call a certain percentage of fouls when we don't even know there's a 3 foul differential or whatever? It's stupid.

I make calls based on what I see, not where I'm or whose winning the game.

In this area, it seems college ball officials use the rule of thumb shown in the article as part of the half-time discussions.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Don't believe everything you read, coach. You can make numbers/statistics say anything you want. For example, many schools I go to don't even have team fouls posted. We don't even know what the foul count is. How are we expected to call a certain percentage of fouls when we don't even know there's a 3 foul differential or whatever? It's stupid.

I make calls based on what I see, not where I'm or whose winning the game.

Just askin' How do you handle bonus situations? Wait for table to buzz?

God help me if I had to keep my own count.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Just askin' How do you handle bonus situations? Wait for table to buzz?

Nope. Glenda, the Good Witch of the North floats down in her bubble and.....

[Amesman]

Does Elphaba the Wicked Witch of the West show for technicals?

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

"Both have ties to the game -- Anderson played collegiately at Division III's Knox College and Pierce has done some local officiating."
For this study to really be authoritative they needed to include a radio or television sports personality.

"To avoid the effect of trailing teams intentionally fouling at the ends of games, only foul calls in the first half were included."
From my observations, a lopsided foul count in the first half is just as likely as not to be come a lopsided foul count -- the other direction -- in the second half. Too bad the esteemed professors weren't willing to extend their research to see how things happen in the second half.

"Anderson does not believe that this phenomenon is caused by any changes in coaching strategy or aggressive play by players."
Really? So the same aggressive play that explains my team's being up by 10 has zero bearing on the fact that the losing team is more likely to foul? That the defense is having to "play harder" to defend the more aggressive team is in no way likely to lead to committing more fouls? Interesting. And from what objective measure does Anderson draw his conclusions about coaching strategy or aggressive play?

"There's clearly a score effect on both sides. The team that is leading is more likely to get a foul call."
I would certainly think so. Not only is the losing team having to "play harder" on defense, but the winning team has a few points to give and thus does not have to be so aggressive on defense. If you're up by five, and your guy beats you, the smart play is to let him go and allow your teammates to help.

'"Unless the NCAA can come up with some way to address this, there's always going to be an advantage to the more aggressive team," he added.'Can you name me a single sport, a real honest-to-goodness sport where competitors go head to head, where aggressiveness is not a common trait among the victors?

"Our broader, bigger picture point is anytime you're making a subjective judgment under uncertainty, you're likely to take into account the past decisions that you've made,"
What was that big word I had to learn in my freshman English class....starts with a 'c'...cookie, cooperation, CONSISTENCY! Isn't that pretty much the definition of consistency?

"The professors believe their results match up well with the observed behavior of basketball teams over the last 25 years, when play became increasingly aggressive."
At last, the bias of the authors of the study. "The game is too aggressive now, not like it was back when we played. Back then you had to have skills and footwork and be able to shoot a set shot and we like totally had jump ball plays and everything."

The basis of this study is flawed. What did they expect? That at any point in any game there would be an exact 50% probability of a foul being called on either team? That could only be expected if each team played with exactly a 50% chance of being the next team to commit a foul. And that just ain't ever likely to happen.

But hey, it sounds like a great way to get published for sitting around with a buddy watching a boatload of old games on ESPN Classic. Where do I sign up?

Wow, BITS, good thinking. Examine the underlying assumptions of the statisticians. And lo and behold, the assumptions are just plain bizarre!!

They've given the classic example of Twain's saying!