4 ms·

Any time someone is talking about the ref's influence on sports I get to plug one of my favorite books, Scorecasting by Moskowitz and Wertheim. The premise of t

Any time someone is talking about the ref's influence on sports I get to plug one of my favorite books, Scorecasting by Moskowitz and Wertheim. The premise of the book is simple: using statistical analysis, can you prove or disprove various beliefs about sports? Several chapters are dedicated to various ways that officials influence the games that they're calling. The book does make a compelling case that they do, but in the least expected and to my mind genuinely most noble way: it seems that when officials do bend the rules, it's usually to avoid doing anything at all. In baseball, strike zones shrink on an 0-2 count because a called third strike feels like the official deciding the outcome but a swing and miss, or contact in-play, feels like the two teams playing the game and deciding the winner. In Association Foot-the-Ball, the tendency in big matches, in close matches and later on in matches isn't to call more penalties on any one team than the others, it's to penalize less overall. In matches that aren't that close or important the tendency is that the underdog will receive fewer penalties, or in blowouts the team in the lead tends to take more penalties than the team that's behind. What's really fun is that because human behavior is feedback loops that accept feedback loops as input even the appearance of bias can sometimes introduce bias. When they studied hockey they went with the assumption that, all other things being normalized for, each team should be equally likely to be the next to take a penalty. Some individual teams might be more likely than others to take a penalty, but across dozens of teams and dozens of seasons it should more or less shake out square. But it turns out that similar patterns apply: in close games, or during the playoffs fewer penalties overall but also the first strong evidence of something that hockey folk have always suspected: make-up calls. You're right, sometimes it's really close and sometimes the officials just get it wrong, and this book demonstrates statistically that after close or incorrect calls, or calls that seemed to have an inordinate effect on the game, the team that was put at a disadvantage is much more likely to be the next put at an advantage. So yeah, officials do influence play and frankly I think it's a good and healthy thing for the sport overall when they do. In the case of balls and strikes I support automated calls because that's very simple (the ball is either in the box or not, and we can hem and haw about how we define the box during the off-season) and the infra to do it is already in-place. But in difficult, judgment-call situations (to take american football as an example, what's the actual, objectively-defined line between a corner getting handsy and defensive pass interference?) I not only think humans are necessary despite their biases but because of them. Obv bias in favor of any one team or style of play needs to be rooted out but the way that officials actually call games, even when it varies from the rules, seems to actually benefit the sport, the athletes and the fans in a lot of unexpected ways.

dylan604 1y ago
In weekend tournament situations where there are a lot of games to play, amateur not professional, having a game end in a draw requiring extra time or shots put a lot of pressure on keeping things on schedule. Referees are often reminded "we need winners". The obvious take away from that is to be generous with penalties. If there's something you might normally let slide, call it and avoid making the match last longer than necessary. There's no direct instruction on what to do, but as a ref that has a game ending in a draw, it might not be received well by the tournament organizers and/or the referee assigner. You might just not get another game. For other situations of officials influencing the game, the big one is how often they use their whistle to stop play. If they are calling ticky tacky fouls, the game slows down to nothing but restarts and there's no real flow. In youth matches, parents love it when the ref protects their precious little angel. Players HATE it. A ref that players like are the ones that let the game play. If two players are both strong in their fight for the ball with some possible pulling/holding equally from both sides, let it go. Let the stronger player win. If one player obviously is using the dark arts to gain unfair advantage, sure stop the play. As far as blow out games with the stronger team getting more penalties, it could be a much more simple explanation as the ball just spends more time in the area which raises the likelihood of a penalty occurring. A game with back and forth will see less penalties. A game where one team is putting constant pressure on the goal is much more likely for a defender to make a mistake. Just like the awarding of an own goal. They only happen because the attacking team was putting pressure where an own goal could even be possible.
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  >As far as blow out games with the stronger team getting more penalties, it could be a much more simple explanation as the ball just spends more time in the area which raises the likelihood of a penalty occurring This may be specific to hockey but that's the game I care and know most about: as a rule if there's a blowout it's usually the defenders taking penalties. Whether it's a blowout because defenders are taking penalties, leading to a lot more time at a disadvantage or defenders are taking penalties because its a blowout, they're getting dominated and they can't defend without breaking the rules is difficult to tease out objectively but anecdotally it's the latter. Nobody's faster than you if you grab them by the jersey. No one is stronger than you if you trip them with your stick. You try doing it legally at first but if that doesn't work then you try getting away with doing it illegally. Whereas if you're just absolutely imposing your will on a team anyway why bother grabbing a stick that isn't lifting yours up anyway, or holding onto the jersey of someone who's already behind you? But the data reveal the opposite: the team in the lead tends to be more likely to take a penalty and the theory is that the refs just assume they can afford it and it won't affect the outcome or create an appearance of impropriety. But a tickytack holding call against a team that's already down by 3 feels like piling on at best and intentionally influencing the game at worst, and that's why officials tend to avoid it.

dylan604 1y ago

In weekend tournament situations where there are a lot of games to play, amateur not professional, having a game end in a draw requiring extra time or shots put a lot of pressure on keeping things on schedule. Referees are often reminded "we need winners". The obvious take away from that is to be generous with penalties. If there's something you might normally let slide, call it and avoid making the match last longer than necessary. There's no direct instruction on what to do, but as a ref that has a game ending in a draw, it might not be received well by the tournament organizers and/or the referee assigner. You might just not get another game. For other situations of officials influencing the game, the big one is how often they use their whistle to stop play. If they are calling ticky tacky fouls, the game slows down to nothing but restarts and there's no real flow. In youth matches, parents love it when the ref protects their precious little angel. Players HATE it. A ref that players like are the ones that let the game play. If two players are both strong in their fight for the ball with some possible pulling/holding equally from both sides, let it go. Let the stronger player win. If one player obviously is using the dark arts to gain unfair advantage, sure stop the play. As far as blow out games with the stronger team getting more penalties, it could be a much more simple explanation as the ball just spends more time in the area which raises the likelihood of a penalty occurring. A game with back and forth will see less penalties. A game where one team is putting constant pressure on the goal is much more likely for a defender to make a mistake. Just like the awarding of an own goal. They only happen because the attacking team was putting pressure where an own goal could even be possible.

ratelimitsteve 1y ago
>As far as blow out games with the stronger team getting more penalties, it could be a much more simple explanation as the ball just spends more time in the area which raises the likelihood of a penalty occurring This may be specific to hockey but that's the game I care and know most about: as a rule if there's a blowout it's usually the defenders taking penalties. Whether it's a blowout because defenders are taking penalties, leading to a lot more time at a disadvantage or defenders are taking penalties because its a blowout, they're getting dominated and they can't defend without breaking the rules is difficult to tease out objectively but anecdotally it's the latter. Nobody's faster than you if you grab them by the jersey. No one is stronger than you if you trip them with your stick. You try doing it legally at first but if that doesn't work then you try getting away with doing it illegally. Whereas if you're just absolutely imposing your will on a team anyway why bother grabbing a stick that isn't lifting yours up anyway, or holding onto the jersey of someone who's already behind you? But the data reveal the opposite: the team in the lead tends to be more likely to take a penalty and the theory is that the refs just assume they can afford it and it won't affect the outcome or create an appearance of impropriety. But a tickytack holding call against a team that's already down by 3 feels like piling on at best and intentionally influencing the game at worst, and that's why officials tend to avoid it.