Fewer fouls called on home team

[jesus_hurley]

Article on ESPN about refs favoring the home team.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4682821

Refs favor the home team, the academics say. They're big on "make-up" calls. They make more calls against teams in the lead, and the discrepancy grows if the game is on national TV.

One interesting (and logical) thing is that they only used the first halves of the games to avoid the end of game fouls.

Double the advantage when in the Nose Dome

[airowe]

In other news,

[RoyalBlue08]

Yes, while everything in this article is obvious to even the most casual fan, I do like having a scientific study with real numbers. Maybe the NCAA could use this to try and educate refs and help to curb the "make up" call...which I personally can't stand!

[mapei]

Why is there a screen shot of Tiger Woods in this thead????

[feldspar]

As long as you have humans doing the officiating, there will always be human error. Nothing new here.

[Taco]

Why is there a screen shot of Tiger Woods in this thead????

Calm down & read the caption. It's funny.

[darthur]

I read the article and thought the research (as explained in the article) was pretty weak. The implication is refs are influenced by home crowds, which is probably true to some extent, but do they account for the following?

1. It is widely accepted that better teams draw more fouls.
2. It is widely accepted that teams play a little better at home than away.
3. It is factually true that the home team is a better team on average than the road team (because of unbalanced out of conference play).

I saw no accounting for these things in the article, which makes me suspicious.

The only piece of evidence I saw in the article that suggested unequivocally imperfect reffing to me was the fact that the winning team was more likely to have a foul called on them than the losing team in the first half. (The second half was ignored due to end-of-game fouling.)

[Spam Filter]

Yes, team tend to do better at home, but why?

Could it be that part of the reason home teams do better is because of the favorable officiating?

I am not saying the study is in any way conclusive. But your dismissal of it lacks solid reasoning.

[Grey Devil]

...how does this play out with Duke?

Duke is on national TV more than any other team and they win more games than most teams so the refs should be making more calls against them? Or is it that they play a lot of home games on TV so the refs favor them? Or, Duke "gets all the calls" so the refs are more willing to whistle "make up" calls for the other team?

That must be why Duke gets all the calls.

My head is spinnng...

Grey Devil

[mkirsh]

Calm down & read the caption. It's funny.

It's even more funny since the screenshot is from this year's Open where he missed the cut.

[gus]

This article makes it seem like the study assumes fouls are discrete random events like coin flips.

For example:

"When the home team had five or more fouls than the visiting team, there was a 69 percent chance the visiting team would be whistled for the next foul."

if the home team has five or more fouls, it's very likely that they are in the bonus and that a player in foul trouble is now on the bench. I would think this decreases the likelihood of another foul.

[darthur]

Could it be that part of the reason home teams do better is because of the favorable officiating?

It's possible yes. But unless the study explicitly accounts for the fact that teams are generally believed to play better at home than away, then the reffing stats are pretty much worthless. We are just left guessing what the causes are, which is exactly where we were before the study happened.

if the home team has five or more fouls, it's very likely that they are in the bonus and that a player in foul trouble is now on the bench. I would think this decreases the likelihood of another foul.

Yep.

[jesus_hurley]

This article makes it seem like the study assumes fouls are discrete random events like coin flips.

For example:

"When the home team had five or more fouls than the visiting team, there was a 69 percent chance the visiting team would be whistled for the next foul."

What the article/study is trying to point out in this situation is that when the home team has 5 or more fouls then the visiting team then odds are the next foul called will be on the visiting team. More in a 'make-up' call kind of way, with fouls on the home team potentially being overlooked to even out the fouls on each team. It's pointing out the human element in trying to even things out.

if the home team has five or more fouls, it's very likely that they are in the bonus and that a player in foul trouble is now on the bench. I would think this decreases the likelihood of another foul.

On that player, sure. But if one player is in foul trouble and on the bench, I would hope the team brings in another player to take his place - in fact I think this happens pretty often. And just because a team has more fouls doesn't mean they change their style of play or commit fewer fouls from that point.

[CEF1959]

Y'all are posting as though it's obvious that refs engage in disparate behavior based on circumstances. But it's not so simple. It's at least equally plausible players behave differently (i.e. change their "fouling" behavior) in different circumstances.

What evidence is there that the refs are acting differently rather than the players?

[darthur]

On that player, sure. But if one player is in foul trouble and on the bench, I would hope the team brings in another player to take his place - in fact I think this happens pretty often. And just because a team has more fouls doesn't mean they change their style of play or commit fewer fouls from that point.

If you have a lot of fouls:

- At least one or two people are likely to be playing with enough fouls that they cannot afford to commit more.
- The opponent will be in the bonus or double bonus, which makes fouls very bad independent of people sitting out.

There is absolutely without a doubt correlation between having a lot of fouls and having to play more cautiously. If the study fails to acknowledge this (like the article suggests), that is pretty much an unforgivable flaw.