homer calls
 

...where "home" is a sideline. See replies 6 & 7 here.

Can you post the stuff here - we have to login and register to read this... and I don't wanna.

What ^ said.

They have a prominent copyright notice, 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.

There have been studies at the NBA level showing that the home team benefits from calls - both fouls and violations.

I can see the argument that there are less holding calls when plays are towards that team's bench.

What a bunch of Huey...excuse me, hooey.

Don't know about the NBA, or the so-called validity of the "studies" you reference, but to suggest there is some sort of preference given to the "home team" in any sport requires that there be a deliberate attempt, on the part of game officials, to favor one team over another.

That would also suggest that there be some level of expectation, and associated pressure exerted by each "home team" to receive some level of preferential treatment, as well as an acceptance of such behavior by, whatever league or conference, was managing the contest.

Those, with actual officiating experience, understand that responding to game situations under game conditions is largely an instinctive reaction to what is observed based on repetitive training that to a large degree blanks out sounds and circumstances aside from the focus of attention. Other than mentally confirming what has been seen, or not seen, there is not a lot of analysis of which team, other than differentiating between offense and defense, is doing what.

Off the cuff comments by sideline observers, who have a distinct interest on decisions that are made during a contest, have the same level of validity as comments directed at a hammer, made by a carpenter who has just smashed his finger afixing a nail.

Once we start the game, and actually before the game when everyone is warming up and we are meeting the coaches, game management staff, etc. I have no problem being objective.

Home and visitor mean nothing. Coaches on both sides are going to try and push their views on a play, penalty, or perceived penalty, etc. It's there or it's not, and I don't care what side of the field or bench we are in front of.

Some of these "objective" tests try to identify tendencies for teams, and officials, cheerleaders, parents, mascots, you name it. Do they have any validity? I doubt it.

I read a study that examined the effect of direction of play, that is play proceeding to the official's right as opposed to play proceeding to the official's left, on the official's perception of fouls. While I have some concerns about how the study was conducted (the subjects were college students as opposed to licensed officials), what they did was take pictures of soccer challenges and presented them to the subjects. They also included mirror images of the pictures to make it appear that play was moving in the opposite direction.

What the study found was that we tend to penalize plays moving to the right more often than we penalize the same play moving to the left.

What the coaches may be noticing is our subconscious bias to not penalize plays moving toward that sideline. Since it has to do with movement in a particular direction, both teams can take advantage of it.

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

I have always understood when you do these kinds of studies you have to first understand what you are studying. Many times when there are these studies about officiating, it seems clear that there is a complete lack of understanding of officiating. They are looking for some magic bullet to find bias in something that does not inherently have bias.

Peace

That's a definite danger, and like I said the thing that bothers me is they used students and not referees in the study (although they did require they pass a rules test). But it is instructive to know that humans in general have a directional bias. Do we, as officials have enough training and experience to overcome that bias? I think we'd all like to answer yes but it can be hard to tell for sure.

Well that is worse. If you are using students and not people that do this on a regular basis, that cannot be a very good study if you are trying to show how this relates to officiating across the board.

Peace

Wrong. No, it doesn't require a deliberate attempt of any of that you suggest. People are humans, and as such are suspect subconscious actions.

Wrong. I bet every coach that I know well enough to initiate this conversation with would say without a doubt that they DO NOT WANT preferential treatment.

I will agree that more experienced officials will not be affected by teams. In other words, I do agree that part of the growing process an official goes through is to be consistent and that it's plausible that some officials will lean towards not throwing a flag against a team when on that sideline.

Off the cuff comments by sideline observers, who have a distinct interest on decisions that are made during a contest, have the same level of validity as comments directed at a hammer, made by a carpenter who has just smashed his finger afixing a nail.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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.