This is one sport where I’ve applied for tickets, for two reasons: I used to play regularly, and it was also the subject of my practical work when I took a Sports Vision Diploma about ten years ago.
For that diploma, I looked at the Sussex Under-13 badminton squad, of which my son was a member at the time. I conducted a series of visual tests and compared the results with the coaches’ estimation of the players’ abilities.
For nearly every test there was no correlation between vision and ability. There was one test, however, in which you have to read out some numbers that are close to you, and some that are further away, alternating from one to the other.
Actually, this test showed no correlation with ability either. But it occurred to me that this was a test of speed of vocalisation as well as vision. So I got the kids to read out the numbers from a page, and subtracted this time from the time it took to do the other test. And when I did that, I got a statistically significant correlation with the coaches’ player ratings.
The test is supposed to show the ability to focus clearly on different objects when moving the eyes between them. But it’s actually possible to do the test without moving your eyes, by taking in central and more peripheral information at the same time. Such a skill is clearly important in badminton, where you need to concentrate on the shuttle but be aware of your opponent’s position as well. And indeed this is a required skill in many sports.
One evening when I was playing, a coach was feeding shuttles to a young player, who was returning them with drop shots to the coach who stayed in the same position just the other side of the net. The problem with this is that it’s a form of “blocked” training, which doesn’t take into account the tactical side of the game that’s required in a match. Players can look good in training, but regularly under-perform on match day, or can’t progress their game beyond a certain level.
It would have been much better if the coach, having fed the shuttle from one position, moved to a different place to which the return had to be made. Or he could even have instructed the player to return the shuttle to where he wasn’t, which would have been even more realistic.
I guess the young man won’t be representing the UK next year.
David Donner
Monday, 6 June 2011
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Olympic Countdown - Archery
There are 26 different sports being played at the 2012 Olympics. Some clearly have a greater link with sports vision than others, but few would have a greater reliance on vision than archery. Or so you would think.
When aiming in archery, it’s better to keep both eyes open as this helps balance. It’s harder to balance on one leg, for instance, if you’ve got one eye closed rather than both open. However, this does present a problem: something must be double.
If you point your finger at a distant object and concentrate on that object, you’ll see two fingers, the one on the left being the one that’s aligned with the right eye. And if you focus on your finger, you’ll see two objects, and this time it’s the one on the right that’s aligned with the right eye.
The other problem is that if you focus on your finger, the object will be slightly out of focus, and vice versa. In archery, the “finger” is a sight on the front of the bow. It seems to promote accuracy by focusing on the target, and having a slightly out of focus bow sight. You also need to make sure that it’s the left hand sight that you’re aligning, assuming that you’re using the bow right-handed.
I said that you’d think that excellent vision would be essential for any level of archery, but in fact some partially sighted or even blind archers can be remarkably accurate. How do they achieve this?
Well, they have two aids. One is a foot locator, which is a wooden frame, and against which they place their feet. It is built to the archer’s stance, which ensures that their feet are in exactly the same position each time. The other is a tactile sight, which consists of a fully-adjustable spring-loaded bar which touches some part of the archer’s hand when the bow is fully drawn. They also have a “spotter” who tells the archer the result of the shot, and helps with adjustments of the tactile sight.
This makes me wonder how care fully sighted archers take to ensure that their body position is exactly the same each time. At an elite level, a side-on video camera could relay picture onto a screen, then you simply subtract one image from the previous one to see if there’s been any change in position. I bet it would be a pretty good guide to the accuracy of the shooting.
Visually impaired archery is not currently an Olympic sport, but it is hoped that it will be by the 2016 Games.
David Donner
When aiming in archery, it’s better to keep both eyes open as this helps balance. It’s harder to balance on one leg, for instance, if you’ve got one eye closed rather than both open. However, this does present a problem: something must be double.
If you point your finger at a distant object and concentrate on that object, you’ll see two fingers, the one on the left being the one that’s aligned with the right eye. And if you focus on your finger, you’ll see two objects, and this time it’s the one on the right that’s aligned with the right eye.
The other problem is that if you focus on your finger, the object will be slightly out of focus, and vice versa. In archery, the “finger” is a sight on the front of the bow. It seems to promote accuracy by focusing on the target, and having a slightly out of focus bow sight. You also need to make sure that it’s the left hand sight that you’re aligning, assuming that you’re using the bow right-handed.
I said that you’d think that excellent vision would be essential for any level of archery, but in fact some partially sighted or even blind archers can be remarkably accurate. How do they achieve this?
Well, they have two aids. One is a foot locator, which is a wooden frame, and against which they place their feet. It is built to the archer’s stance, which ensures that their feet are in exactly the same position each time. The other is a tactile sight, which consists of a fully-adjustable spring-loaded bar which touches some part of the archer’s hand when the bow is fully drawn. They also have a “spotter” who tells the archer the result of the shot, and helps with adjustments of the tactile sight.
This makes me wonder how care fully sighted archers take to ensure that their body position is exactly the same each time. At an elite level, a side-on video camera could relay picture onto a screen, then you simply subtract one image from the previous one to see if there’s been any change in position. I bet it would be a pretty good guide to the accuracy of the shooting.
Visually impaired archery is not currently an Olympic sport, but it is hoped that it will be by the 2016 Games.
David Donner
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Training To Win!
A coach was recently telling me how his Colts side prepared for a big match. Both sides were unbeaten all season, but the other team were quite strong favourites.
A couple of days before the match his colleagues advised him that some light training would be best, but he insisted on a full contact session. His team went on to win the match 10 -9. The opposition had a long period of play just a few metres from the line, but time and time again the tackles were made to prevent them crossing for a try.
Obviously a balance needs to be struck. You need to give the players a chance to recover from a previous match, and you don’t want them exhausted because they’ve over-trained. But as a general principle, practice should be in some respects at least as difficult, if not harder, than playing a match.
So if you’re wondering why England failed to win the Grand Slam in Dublin, and were completely outplayed and outfought by Ireland, then maybe you need to know just one thing: England had only light training all week.
David Donner
A couple of days before the match his colleagues advised him that some light training would be best, but he insisted on a full contact session. His team went on to win the match 10 -9. The opposition had a long period of play just a few metres from the line, but time and time again the tackles were made to prevent them crossing for a try.
Obviously a balance needs to be struck. You need to give the players a chance to recover from a previous match, and you don’t want them exhausted because they’ve over-trained. But as a general principle, practice should be in some respects at least as difficult, if not harder, than playing a match.
So if you’re wondering why England failed to win the Grand Slam in Dublin, and were completely outplayed and outfought by Ireland, then maybe you need to know just one thing: England had only light training all week.
David Donner
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Rugby Passing 2
Of course backs are also perfectly capable of dropping the ball. One of the most common causes is simply taking their eyes of the ball, being distracted by the opponent advancing towards them, or looking at the inviting try line ahead, for instance. This is particularly likely to happen if your passing drills are unopposed.
It could be that the weather is particularly bad on the day of the match and the ball is slippery. But why not practice this by making the ball deliberately wet or greasy? As well as preparing the players for quite a likely eventuality, it would also make them watch the ball into the hands more carefully.
There is another category of errors which comes from when the ball shouldn’t have been passed at all, because there was no one in position to take it. One of the things that set the top players apart is their decision making. They take the opportunities that come their way, but they don’t make rash decisions if the opportunity isn’t there.
A simple variation to touch rugby could introduce the concept of decision making from a young age. The attacking side forfeit the ball if they’re touched in possession of knock on as usual. But they would also have another option. If a player shouts “tackle” before they’re touched, they must stand still, but are allowed to pass the ball when a team-mate becomes available. The coach would decide how many times this “tackle” option would be allowed before the usual rules are back in play.
The key to making good decisions is using ones vision to analyse the situation as much in advance as possible. The players should therefore be told that they should expect that the ball is always going to come to them, and to think about what they’re going to do before the pass to them is made. But they also need to keep monitoring the position of their own and opposition players so they can change their mind at the last moment if necessary.
David Donner
It could be that the weather is particularly bad on the day of the match and the ball is slippery. But why not practice this by making the ball deliberately wet or greasy? As well as preparing the players for quite a likely eventuality, it would also make them watch the ball into the hands more carefully.
There is another category of errors which comes from when the ball shouldn’t have been passed at all, because there was no one in position to take it. One of the things that set the top players apart is their decision making. They take the opportunities that come their way, but they don’t make rash decisions if the opportunity isn’t there.
A simple variation to touch rugby could introduce the concept of decision making from a young age. The attacking side forfeit the ball if they’re touched in possession of knock on as usual. But they would also have another option. If a player shouts “tackle” before they’re touched, they must stand still, but are allowed to pass the ball when a team-mate becomes available. The coach would decide how many times this “tackle” option would be allowed before the usual rules are back in play.
The key to making good decisions is using ones vision to analyse the situation as much in advance as possible. The players should therefore be told that they should expect that the ball is always going to come to them, and to think about what they’re going to do before the pass to them is made. But they also need to keep monitoring the position of their own and opposition players so they can change their mind at the last moment if necessary.
David Donner
Passing In Rugby
The standard of passing in the Six Nations so far this season has been rather variable, from excellent to the frankly ridiculous. Sometimes the guy with the ball is so desperate to keep the ball alive, either to stop it going out of play and conceding a line out, or because having beaten two or three people he’s got carried away, that a totally inappropriate pass is given, which the receiver has no chance of catching, and may even be picked off by the opposition.
Sometimes, however, a perfectly acceptable pass is made, and then dropped. If it’s a forward who’s dropped the ball, there tends to be a collective “If only that had gone to a back” reaction. But how much time is spent on improving the handling skills of forwards?
The process of catching the ball starts long before the hands try to make contact with the ball. The fly half could probably recognise the type of pass (e.g. spin, pop pass or loop pass) from the scrum half well before the ball is actually released. But a forward is less likely to be less able to do this.
So one could start by getting the scrum half to demonstrate some different passes to the forwards who would be told to watch how the scrum half shapes to pass the ball, to watch the ball into the hands, and to pay particular attention to the feel of the ball in the hands when it’s caught. This is then repeated while taking the ball on the run. Some deliberately poor passes – too high or low – can be added as passes won’t always be perfect in a match.
The final stage would be to convert this drill into a more realistic match practice. For instance, three forwards have to score a try past two defenders. The move begins when the scrum half makes one of the previously demonstrated passes to one of the forwards of his choice as they’re running forward. The three then have to use passing and movement to ensure their numerical supremacy counts.
David Donner
Sometimes, however, a perfectly acceptable pass is made, and then dropped. If it’s a forward who’s dropped the ball, there tends to be a collective “If only that had gone to a back” reaction. But how much time is spent on improving the handling skills of forwards?
The process of catching the ball starts long before the hands try to make contact with the ball. The fly half could probably recognise the type of pass (e.g. spin, pop pass or loop pass) from the scrum half well before the ball is actually released. But a forward is less likely to be less able to do this.
So one could start by getting the scrum half to demonstrate some different passes to the forwards who would be told to watch how the scrum half shapes to pass the ball, to watch the ball into the hands, and to pay particular attention to the feel of the ball in the hands when it’s caught. This is then repeated while taking the ball on the run. Some deliberately poor passes – too high or low – can be added as passes won’t always be perfect in a match.
The final stage would be to convert this drill into a more realistic match practice. For instance, three forwards have to score a try past two defenders. The move begins when the scrum half makes one of the previously demonstrated passes to one of the forwards of his choice as they’re running forward. The three then have to use passing and movement to ensure their numerical supremacy counts.
David Donner
Friday, 4 February 2011
Peripheral Illusion
Have a look at this website:
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/wonderful-new-illusion
It’s a wonderful example of the differences between the central and peripheral parts of our vision. The central part is especially sensitive to detail and colour, whilst the periphery is more sensitive to movement and faint light.
The difference reflects the different light-receptor cells that are present in the retina – cones in the centre and rods more peripherally. It’s why in the days of navigating by starlight, sailors were told to look for faint stars out of the corner of their eye.
Most of our waking time is spent using our central vision, such as looking at a computer screen or TV, reading or talking one-to-one. If there’s something peripherally of interest we tend to turn our head to look at it.
In many sporting situations, however, it’s necessary to be able to assimilate a lot of information from the periphery, such as the movement of team mates, even if the main focus is on the opponent directly in front.
This can be learnt, with the right kind of coaching.
David Donner
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/wonderful-new-illusion
It’s a wonderful example of the differences between the central and peripheral parts of our vision. The central part is especially sensitive to detail and colour, whilst the periphery is more sensitive to movement and faint light.
The difference reflects the different light-receptor cells that are present in the retina – cones in the centre and rods more peripherally. It’s why in the days of navigating by starlight, sailors were told to look for faint stars out of the corner of their eye.
Most of our waking time is spent using our central vision, such as looking at a computer screen or TV, reading or talking one-to-one. If there’s something peripherally of interest we tend to turn our head to look at it.
In many sporting situations, however, it’s necessary to be able to assimilate a lot of information from the periphery, such as the movement of team mates, even if the main focus is on the opponent directly in front.
This can be learnt, with the right kind of coaching.
David Donner
Friday, 14 January 2011
The One Eyed Referee
All sports officials are meant to be objective and neutral in their decision making. In theory, therefore, two officials of the same standard should make more or less the same decisions in the same situations. In practice, however, decisions are often made in the context of personal style, the match situation, previous experiences, and (mostly) subconscious biases.
Some sports actually incorporate subjectivity into their laws. In rugby, for instance, the referee is the sole judge of whether or not advantage has been gained. In cricket, the umpire has to decide whether or not short-pitched bowling is unfairly intimidating, taking into account the batsman’s ability. Nevill et al (2002) showed 47 football situations on video to a set of referees. None of them received a unanimous verdict from the refs.
Personal style is undoubtedly a major factor in many decisions. For instance, in rugby, some referees may want to establish their authority early, whilst others may wish to allow the game to flow without being seen to be overly fussy. The referee might be influenced by previous incidents in the game, or even from a previous match between the same opponents. There may also be some benefit given to a side that’s losing heavily.
Trudel, Dionne and Bernard (1999), as well as Gilbert, Trudel & Bloom (1995), in assessing ice hockey penalties, concluded that referees, compared with players and coaches, attached greater importance to the context in which the infraction had occurred. Gilbert et al revealed that both the score and the time remaining in the game influenced decisions about whether or not to award penalties.
Diane Ste-Marie of the University of Ottawa has done a lot of research, especially in gymnastics, into how judgement can be affected by previous experience. She found that if judges were shown a performance on video with an error, they were more likely to see non-existent errors in the second tape. The effect lasted even if the second tape wasn’t seen until a week after the first one, so could affect an athlete performing in several rounds, or even if they’ve been seen in a warm-up. A similar effect has been found in figure skating.
Other assumptions made by officials can be just as erroneous. Damisch et al (2006) showed experienced judges two routines on the vault. If they were told that the two athletes belonged to the same national team, the two routines received similar scores. But when they were believed to be from different teams, the scores were less similar.
There’s also been concern that some judges might be influenced by the opinions of other judges, in so-called “conformity bias”. Boen et al (2008) found that gymnastics judges’ scores were more even when they had feedback about each other’s scores. The effect continued even after feedback was no longer being provided, suggesting that once the judges felt reassured that they had given a “correct” response, they were no longer worried about standing out from the crowd.
The decisions of referees and umpires can sometimes be influenced by prior knowledge of the teams or players (Plessner & Haar 2006). It has been shown that the previous reputation of players can influence the decisions of referees in basketball (Lehman & Reifman 1987), in baseball (Rainey et al 1989). In football, Jones et al (2002) found that players with an aggressive reputation were penalised more severely than players with no such reputation.
A major benefit for a football team playing at home comes from crowd support. It seems that part of this benefit is from the effect that it has on the referee. Dawson et al (2007) found that the home side was more likely to get favourable decisions in terms of fouls and red cards. The amount of extra time allowed is higher when the home team is behind than when it is in front (Dohman 2008, Garicano et al 2005, Sutter & Kocher 2004).
Studies suggest that this home team bias is because of the influence of the home crowd (Bokyo et al 2007, Page & Page 2009), although it seems to have more of an effect of some referees than on others. With some referees, the amount of home bias is directly proportional to the size of the crowd, whereas for others the effect is constant, regardless of crowd size (Page & Page 2009). If there’s a running track around the pitch, the influence of the crowd on referees’ decisions seems to diminish (Buraimo et al 2008).
It could be that referees are simply alerted to the presence of a foul by crowd noise. Nevill et al (2002) found that referees looking at video footage (Liverpool v Leicester City) were much less likely to give advantage to the home team when the sound was turned off compared with when it was on.
Favouring teams or individuals of the same nationality as the official has been found in numerous sports, especially those that are judged subjectively. Clear national favouritism has been found in figure skating (Seltzer & Glass 1991, Whissell et al 1993, Campbell & Galbraith 1996), gymnastics (Ansorge & Scheer 1998, Ste-Marie 1996), ski jumping (Zitzewitz 2006), rhythmic gymnastics (Popovic 2000), Thai kick-boxing (Myers et al 2006) and synchronised diving (Emerson et al 2009). In all these sports, referees have been shown systematically to be giving advantage to competitors from their own countries, and the effect is significant, because the result often determined by the referee’s decision.
Even in sports where the result is not so closely tied to the decision of the referee, there has still been evidence of a national or local bias. Mohr & Larsen (1998) found that referees in Australian football were more likely to favour teams from their own states in matches against teams from another state.
At a national level, football, rugby and cricket usually have neutral officials. Page & Page (2010) looked at two cases where referees were allowed to officiate in inter-club matches where the team from their nation played a team from another nation. These were in rugby league the European Super League 2006 – 9 (mostly British teams with one French team), and in rugby union the Super 14 2009 (5 South African, 5 New Zealand and 4 Australian teams).
In Super 14, a referee with the same nationality of a team increased the score of that team by on average 5 points relative to when there was a neutral referee. The home team won 71% of its matches when the referee was of its own nationality, compared with 50% when the referee was of the nationality of the away team.
In Super League, the French team received on average 9 points more in a match when the referee was not English. They won 67% of their matches when the referee was Australian or French, compared with only 41% when the referee was English. The effect varied according to whether or not the match was televised. When the referee was English, the French team was much more successful when the match was on TV (59%) than when it wasn’t (30%).
The effect of favouritism was most pronounced when the decisions were critical. When there was an English referee, the French team received twice as many cards as the English team, but when the referee wasn’t English they received roughly the same number.
Page & Page also studied the rugby league Championship, which had one French team and mostly English referees. They looked at decisions involving whether or not the ball had been grounded in scoring a try. French teams had a lower proportion of positive decisions (79% against 93%).
Favouritism was also particularly strong when the score was close, with English and French referees favouring the side of their own nationality when it mattered most. In the Championship, when the difference between the sides was 4 points or less, the French team had only a 59% chance of getting a try validated, compared with 82% for the English team.
Because so many of the decisions made by officials are a matter of opinion, such as LBW decisions in cricket, the individual can justify to themselves that they made the correct decision according to the laws of the game, and will genuinely not be aware of their own bias. There are many factors that go into making a split-second decision, including the attitude of the players, the crowd or spectators, the personality of the official, and even their mind-set on the day.
It’s important therefore that during their training, officials are made aware of these factors, and are given as much practice (e.g. videos with crowd noise) and feedback as possible to enable them to improve their consistency. Because one thing seems clear: in many sports, officials’ decisions have a large effect on the result of the game.
David Donner
Some sports actually incorporate subjectivity into their laws. In rugby, for instance, the referee is the sole judge of whether or not advantage has been gained. In cricket, the umpire has to decide whether or not short-pitched bowling is unfairly intimidating, taking into account the batsman’s ability. Nevill et al (2002) showed 47 football situations on video to a set of referees. None of them received a unanimous verdict from the refs.
Personal style is undoubtedly a major factor in many decisions. For instance, in rugby, some referees may want to establish their authority early, whilst others may wish to allow the game to flow without being seen to be overly fussy. The referee might be influenced by previous incidents in the game, or even from a previous match between the same opponents. There may also be some benefit given to a side that’s losing heavily.
Trudel, Dionne and Bernard (1999), as well as Gilbert, Trudel & Bloom (1995), in assessing ice hockey penalties, concluded that referees, compared with players and coaches, attached greater importance to the context in which the infraction had occurred. Gilbert et al revealed that both the score and the time remaining in the game influenced decisions about whether or not to award penalties.
Diane Ste-Marie of the University of Ottawa has done a lot of research, especially in gymnastics, into how judgement can be affected by previous experience. She found that if judges were shown a performance on video with an error, they were more likely to see non-existent errors in the second tape. The effect lasted even if the second tape wasn’t seen until a week after the first one, so could affect an athlete performing in several rounds, or even if they’ve been seen in a warm-up. A similar effect has been found in figure skating.
Other assumptions made by officials can be just as erroneous. Damisch et al (2006) showed experienced judges two routines on the vault. If they were told that the two athletes belonged to the same national team, the two routines received similar scores. But when they were believed to be from different teams, the scores were less similar.
There’s also been concern that some judges might be influenced by the opinions of other judges, in so-called “conformity bias”. Boen et al (2008) found that gymnastics judges’ scores were more even when they had feedback about each other’s scores. The effect continued even after feedback was no longer being provided, suggesting that once the judges felt reassured that they had given a “correct” response, they were no longer worried about standing out from the crowd.
The decisions of referees and umpires can sometimes be influenced by prior knowledge of the teams or players (Plessner & Haar 2006). It has been shown that the previous reputation of players can influence the decisions of referees in basketball (Lehman & Reifman 1987), in baseball (Rainey et al 1989). In football, Jones et al (2002) found that players with an aggressive reputation were penalised more severely than players with no such reputation.
A major benefit for a football team playing at home comes from crowd support. It seems that part of this benefit is from the effect that it has on the referee. Dawson et al (2007) found that the home side was more likely to get favourable decisions in terms of fouls and red cards. The amount of extra time allowed is higher when the home team is behind than when it is in front (Dohman 2008, Garicano et al 2005, Sutter & Kocher 2004).
Studies suggest that this home team bias is because of the influence of the home crowd (Bokyo et al 2007, Page & Page 2009), although it seems to have more of an effect of some referees than on others. With some referees, the amount of home bias is directly proportional to the size of the crowd, whereas for others the effect is constant, regardless of crowd size (Page & Page 2009). If there’s a running track around the pitch, the influence of the crowd on referees’ decisions seems to diminish (Buraimo et al 2008).
It could be that referees are simply alerted to the presence of a foul by crowd noise. Nevill et al (2002) found that referees looking at video footage (Liverpool v Leicester City) were much less likely to give advantage to the home team when the sound was turned off compared with when it was on.
Favouring teams or individuals of the same nationality as the official has been found in numerous sports, especially those that are judged subjectively. Clear national favouritism has been found in figure skating (Seltzer & Glass 1991, Whissell et al 1993, Campbell & Galbraith 1996), gymnastics (Ansorge & Scheer 1998, Ste-Marie 1996), ski jumping (Zitzewitz 2006), rhythmic gymnastics (Popovic 2000), Thai kick-boxing (Myers et al 2006) and synchronised diving (Emerson et al 2009). In all these sports, referees have been shown systematically to be giving advantage to competitors from their own countries, and the effect is significant, because the result often determined by the referee’s decision.
Even in sports where the result is not so closely tied to the decision of the referee, there has still been evidence of a national or local bias. Mohr & Larsen (1998) found that referees in Australian football were more likely to favour teams from their own states in matches against teams from another state.
At a national level, football, rugby and cricket usually have neutral officials. Page & Page (2010) looked at two cases where referees were allowed to officiate in inter-club matches where the team from their nation played a team from another nation. These were in rugby league the European Super League 2006 – 9 (mostly British teams with one French team), and in rugby union the Super 14 2009 (5 South African, 5 New Zealand and 4 Australian teams).
In Super 14, a referee with the same nationality of a team increased the score of that team by on average 5 points relative to when there was a neutral referee. The home team won 71% of its matches when the referee was of its own nationality, compared with 50% when the referee was of the nationality of the away team.
In Super League, the French team received on average 9 points more in a match when the referee was not English. They won 67% of their matches when the referee was Australian or French, compared with only 41% when the referee was English. The effect varied according to whether or not the match was televised. When the referee was English, the French team was much more successful when the match was on TV (59%) than when it wasn’t (30%).
The effect of favouritism was most pronounced when the decisions were critical. When there was an English referee, the French team received twice as many cards as the English team, but when the referee wasn’t English they received roughly the same number.
Page & Page also studied the rugby league Championship, which had one French team and mostly English referees. They looked at decisions involving whether or not the ball had been grounded in scoring a try. French teams had a lower proportion of positive decisions (79% against 93%).
Favouritism was also particularly strong when the score was close, with English and French referees favouring the side of their own nationality when it mattered most. In the Championship, when the difference between the sides was 4 points or less, the French team had only a 59% chance of getting a try validated, compared with 82% for the English team.
Because so many of the decisions made by officials are a matter of opinion, such as LBW decisions in cricket, the individual can justify to themselves that they made the correct decision according to the laws of the game, and will genuinely not be aware of their own bias. There are many factors that go into making a split-second decision, including the attitude of the players, the crowd or spectators, the personality of the official, and even their mind-set on the day.
It’s important therefore that during their training, officials are made aware of these factors, and are given as much practice (e.g. videos with crowd noise) and feedback as possible to enable them to improve their consistency. Because one thing seems clear: in many sports, officials’ decisions have a large effect on the result of the game.
David Donner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)