homer calls

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

In any social science which this would be based on, the only way to have the information validated you have to do more than just one study. Also if the one of the ideas is that officials call more things based on direction, what about the officials in the middle of the field that never change their perspective? For me to buy into what the findings were, I would need to see more studies done with similar methodology and over a longer period of time.

Peace

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think you are missing the point. The coaches are saying that they notice few holds on plays run towards their sidelines, not few holds against the home team.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Cute analogy and I agree re: the validity you mention surrounding this claim, but since the hammer doesn't have free will, and humans do, these off the cuff comments are not 100% ineffective
I think you are missing the point. The coaches are saying that they notice few holds on plays run towards their sidelines, not few holds against the home team.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot read the information that was linked as it makes me require a membership first.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

They have a prominent copyright notice

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

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

so I'll just write that in a thread about the risk of having discernible playcalling tendencies, one coach mentioned he'd heard from another that he called plays toward his own team's bench, because that way was far less likely to draw holding calls than the other sideline. Another coach said he'd noticed that too.

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