I'm not trying to sell you on anything. Someone mentioned anecdotal stories from coaches that the direction of play made a difference in fouls called, I mentioned a very limited study that had the same conclusion. Is that iron-clad proof? No. Is it something to think about? Only if you think about what you can do to become a better official.

Officials in the middle of the field constantly have their perspective changed. They have to officiate plays to their right, left and directly in front of them and each of these come in the verity of plays heading towards them and plays headed away from them. Wing officials on the other hand only have to deal with plays coming towards them and away from them.

I read and understood post #4; ajmc referenced the home team outside of the NBA, not I. I commented about his belief about deliberatism, which I disagreed with.

Anecdotes are not science. And I do not think it is something to think about.

Yes they do, but it does not mean I would call more fouls on my right than on my left. And that is not necessarily about bias that might involve likelihood or consistency. Bias suggests that an official in not willing or refuses to make certain calls based on factors.

And for the record I am not trying to convince you and others of anything. Just understand that for most social science studies to be validated, they have to go through a lot of scrutiny and the ability to repeat methodology that was used. That is why you see a medical study will say it is OK to drink coffee one day and the next day the there will be findings on another study that says you should not drink coffee at all. I am not even saying that none of this could be true, but at least use real officials to make a study.

Peace

You're talking about conscious bias. That is not what this study indicated. It indicated an unconscious bias with has nothing to do with willingness to make a call on perceived factors but rather with how we handle the factors that we do not consciously perceive.

If it exists, and I agree that this one study is not enough to say that it does, the question still remains whether our training and experience is enough to overcome it.

That still does not mean the premise is valid or accurate.

Again I did not read the information as the link was not working for me. But based on what I am reading here, there needs to be more information studied and a longer sample. And I would expect officials for example to call more things that are coming their way. I would not call that bias, I would call that reality.

Peace

By human nature definition, I don't think we can overcome it. Well come awfully close to overcoming it, but never quite reach that place.

People should just realize that officials seek truth. For those officials that don't, they will be weeded out by the system.

There may be multiple points being missed, chief among them that those expressing their evaluations of what is, or isn't, being called are in no way aware of what is, or is not being observed by those actually making these calls. These "observers" are both biased and emotionally involved in the action they are observing, so how valid can their observations be?

Recognition of these realities is responsible for Rules Makers deliberately and intentionally excluding such input from the decision making process.

Since training and experience are continually evolving and expanding factors, it would seem the ultimate objective of 100% accuracy will be an elusive target. Eliminating truly "unconscious bias" seems like an exercise in futiliy that defies accomplishment.

I recommend you register. Not enough officials participate there, and I think they'd appreciate more.

I am already a member of a fan boy site in my state and every time we have a discussion about rules I wonder why I am a member. I doubt seriously that they would give a darn as the fans know everything. Even when you show them the line and verse in rules or mechanics. Not something I would recommend anyone do unless you like banging your head against a wall for fun to see it bleed. ;)

Peace

Every post has an appended "(c) 2005 CoachHuey.com" to it.

This topic didn't get much discussion: just two posts - the originator and one reply.