Study on referee bias

[MagicMan]

There were 3 close calls with DET @ SEA last week and all 3 went against DET....in Seattle

I saw the same thing Week 17 with ARI @ SEA ....they won 3 or 4 straight challenges....just one or two can change the whole game

That's why they like to call their home field the 12th man......we thought it was the fans, but its actually the refs. They do seem to get favorable calls at the Link. Their record on the road is average to below average.

 

[CCBoy]

Thanks for some thought provocation, Theo...always a good snap shot to see how rules bend.

 

[Jake]

This article gives some pretty damning evidence of one type of referee bias. While I guess the evidence presented here should be expected to some extent, the degree to which the bias is obvious as presented is alarming.

So just remember this next time you think someone is being a crazy conspiracy theorist when complaining about the refs after a game.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ecause-it-freakin-works/?ex_cid=story-twitter

Correlation does not prove causation. Remember that the next time you think someone is being unfairly criticized for being a conspiracy theorist.

 

[theogt]

Correlation does not prove causation. Remember that the next time you think someone is being unfairly criticized for being a conspiracy theorist.

Do you have a better explanation for the results?

 

[Hoofbite]

Not all that surprising and more of a product of people being susceptible to intimidation than some inherent bias.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I've never felt that 'ref bias' was completely out of the realm of possibility. While it's a different sport, the Tim Donaghy situation showed how professional referees can dictate the outcomes on a game based on their bias. The FBI found that Donaghy did NOT fix games. He even ejected players on the teams he bet on.

What Donaghy did was he simply talked to his fellow refs prior to each game and could easily gauge what team was going to win based on a refs grudge against a team or a certain player. And Donaghy won roughly 75% of his bets.

And I don't know what is to say that referees in the NFL can't be betting on games themselves or what's to stop a team like the Patriots from paying off a ref. They've tried to cheat the entire time in the Belichick era and have largely gotten away with it scott free, what's to stop them from doing this?

This is one of the great parts of big data, it can determine biases and outstanding probabilities to make for better refereeing and to snuff out people doing illegal acts.




YR

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I saw the same thing Week 17 with ARI @ SEA ....they won 3 or 4 straight challenges....just one or two can change the whole game

And?

What matters is if those 3-4 calls were called correctly. If they all happen to benefit one team that's inconsequential to whether the right call was being made.

 

[theogt]

Not all that surprising and more of a product of people being susceptible to intimidation than some inherent bias.

Being systemically susceptible to an outside influence that alters a decision is by definiton a bias.

 

[JoeKing]

Good read, thanks for posting.

 

[haleyrules]

The officiating in the NFL has been dreadful for as long as l have watched football...going back to the 60's. Biased...doubtful..poor and terrible...absolutely. go on any team site and the fans will say the same thing. The refs screwed us!!

 

[Hoofbite]

Being systemically susceptible to an outside influence that alters a decision is by definiton a bias.

By definition it may be a bias (as there are many), but being susceptible to influence wouldn't be the bias, or even the type of bias, anyone would be talking about if they were involved in a discussion on officiating bias. Certainly wouldn't find any person that others might call a conspiracy theorists talking about officiating bias in this manner.

This type of bias lacks the trademark aspect of conscious and directed impartiality that all discussions of officiating bias are built around. Usage of the word bias in the context of widespread, subconscious, susceptibility to outside influence seems a bit odd.

Not wrong by definition, but a bit out of place given the setting, IMO.

 

[theogt]

By definition it may be a bias (as there are many), but being susceptible to influence wouldn't be the bias, or even the type of bias, anyone would be talking about if they were involved in a discussion on officiating bias. Certainly wouldn't find any person that others might call a conspiracy theorists talking about officiating bias in this manner.

This type of bias lacks the trademark aspect of conscious and directed impartiality that all discussions of officiating bias are built around. Usage of the word bias in the context of widespread, subconscious, susceptibility to outside influence seems a bit odd.

Not wrong by definition, but a bit out of place given the setting, IMO.

Notice in the OP, I used the phrase "type of bias." That was intentional. The point was that referee calls are influenced -- quite obviously -- from a preference of the referee. Here the preference is to not miss a call that others think is obvious (I think the root issue here is the ref questions his own judgment of the facts when a large group of others all seem to be in agreement as to the facts). With the impact of this referee preference so obvious, it isn't a huge logical leap that other preferences similarly impact referee decisions.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Why doesn't the NFL make you list the teams you love and those you hate and just not let you ref those games?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Why doesn't the NFL make you list the teams you love and those you hate and just not let you ref those games?

I don't think it would do much good.

The better approach would be to use data analysis like this one and handle it accordingly thru better training, etc.




YR

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Notice in the OP, I used the phrase "type of bias." That was intentional. The point was that referee calls are influenced -- quite obviously -- from a preference of the referee. Here the preference is to not miss a call that others think is obvious (I think the root issue here is the ref questions his own judgment of the facts when a large group of others all seem to be in agreement as to the facts). With the impact of this referee preference so obvious, it isn't a huge logical leap that other preferences similarly impact referee decisions.

It is a huge logical leap to go from an individual being subconsciously influenced by external cues to someone purposely operating without objectivity, allowing their personal agenda-driven motives to dictate how a game is called, which is the direction I think you're trying to build a path for. Those are two entirely different modes of thought. The notion gets even more fanciful when folks start theorizing of a league-wide collaborative conspiracy effort.

 

[willia451]

This is absolutely a solvable problem.

1. The refs could use active noise cancellation headgear to cancel out crowd noise and people screaming at them. There are many products available today right off the shelf that could do that.

2. Even better than # 1 above, the refs could use headgear which incorporates passive noise cancellation and the ability to network and communicate with one another through a microphone. This would eliminate both noise and help get more calls correct as they confer in real time about a specific penalty or lack thereof.

3. And in the future, the NFL could partner with Google to create a version of the Google Glass optical mounted display that could allow the refs to scroll through live action replays to see what we see from "the couch" as the OP article states. Completely eliminating the need for challenges or lengthy official time outs to stick their heads in a box to see what we already saw 5 minutes ago. It would also eliminate the need for any communications with NFL officials in New York.

Technology can solve all of these problems.

But what it can't do is stop the whining. People are going to do that. Regardless. LOL!!!

 

[Broges74]

The Cowboys are polarizing. People argueing that we get no bias are not living in reality.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

The Cowboys are polarizing. People argueing that we get no bias are not living in reality.

Not living in reality is thinking just saying something makes it so.

 

[HeavyBarrel]

9-11-2011....in NYC . The Jets "had" to win that game, no penalties called against them despite averaging about 6 penalties a game the season before and the 2011 season after that.....it wasn't because the refs hated Dallas, it was because NY "had" to win and the officiating reflected that

 

[theogt]

It is a huge logical leap to go from an individual being subconsciously influenced by external cues to someone purposely operating without objectivity, allowing their personal agenda-driven motives to dictate how a game is called, which is the direction I think you're trying to build a path for. Those are two entirely different modes of thought. The notion gets even more fanciful when folks start theorizing of a league-wide collaborative conspiracy effort.

Not really. They're both just expressions of personal preferences. But I wasn't talking about conscious choice in any event, so that's not really here nor there.