3 ms·

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

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
  Taking a penalty in hockey is not the same in football. In football, it’s an actual scoring play. In hockey, it’s a time out for the player while the team reshapes to play short handed. Lots of penalty killing units go on to score.
  - ratelimitsteve 1y ago
    wild how the exact same phrase means something entirely opposite depending on the sport. thanks for clearing that up, in that case I think we're in total agreement

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
Taking a penalty in hockey is not the same in football. In football, it’s an actual scoring play. In hockey, it’s a time out for the player while the team reshapes to play short handed. Lots of penalty killing units go on to score.
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  wild how the exact same phrase means something entirely opposite depending on the sport. thanks for clearing that up, in that case I think we're in total agreement