Getting The Call Right With Technology
As first seen at LiveScience.com
and Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
The loneliest men in sports have not been making any friends lately.
Both umpires and referees have been making news, despite their often repeated goal, stated by World Series rookie umpire Tom Hallion said after Game 3: “As an umpire, you never want to be involved in the outcome of the game.” He added: “We like to get every play right. We’re human beings, and sometimes we get them wrong.”
Hallion and his five partners at October's Fall Classic did not quite reach their goal. In Game 3, Hallion called Carl Crawford safe at first on a close play, but replays showed he was out. In Game 4, it was the Phillies who benefited after veteran umpire, Tim Welke, called Jimmy Rollins safe at third during a rundown, despite an obvious tag on his backside.
The men in stripes are not doing any better. Veteran NFL referee, Ed Hoculi (aka "Guns"), blew a call in Week 2's Broncos/Chargers game. Broncos' quarterback Jay Cutler let the ball slip out of his hand and the Chargers recovered. However, Hoculi ruled the play an incomplete pass. The video replay booth called it a fumble, but since Hoculi had blown his whistle, the call could not be reversed.
Not to be outdone by their American counterparts, two English soccer officials have set a new standard for head-scratching calls.
In a Sept. 22 game between Watford and Reading, referee Stuart Atwell and one of his linesmen, Nigel Bannister, combined to become the ultimate sales pitch for any type of goal-line replay technology. After a scramble in front of goal, the ball bounced across the end line, two yards wide of the nearest goalpost. As both teams headed up the field and Watford prepared for a goal kick, Bannister signaled to Atwell that he saw the ball cross the line between the goalposts and that Reading should be awarded a goal. To the astonishment of all 22 players on the field and the 14,761 fans, Atwell overruled his own eyes and gave the goal to Reading. The replay made it painfully obvious how wrong the call was:
So, assuming officials want some kind of automated technical assistance, what is available?
First, pure video instant replay gives officials a second, slower chance to see the play again and possibly adjust their live call. All four major sports leagues in the United States use replay at some level.
In addition to judging if a shot was taken before the buzzer, the NBA added replay this season to differentiate 2-point versus 3-point baskets. MLB commissioner Bud Selig has put a stop to the spread of replay beyond the home run/foul ball call for now, but public pressure may change that. The NHL’s use of replay focuses mainly on different goal scoring scenarios. The NFL is the most advanced user of replay to judge multiple situations.
Second, an emerging selection of decision-support tools can make the actual call for the officials using location-based technology. In tennis, the Hawk-Eye system is being used at such high-profile events as Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.
A
system of six high-speed cameras records a ball's movement, which is
useful when it bounces near one of the court lines. It feeds the
cameras' input to a central computer that analyzes the data from all
angles and then creates a motion graphic that simulates the ball's
location when it bounces on the court, either on the line or next to
the line, with a judgment of "in" or "out."
A
player can challenge a line umpire's original call, but Hawk-Eye's
ruling is then final. The interesting illusion that tennis fans have
accepted is watching this 3D simulation as if it is based on a single
camera’s footage of the ball. Actually, the sequence shown to viewers
is Hawk-Eye's best estimate as to what actually happened based on the
data it received from the cameras. There have been more than 550
challenges at the U.S. Open since 2006 when Hawk-Eye was installed.
Thirty percent of those challenges resulted in a call being reversed.
In soccer, Adidas and Cairos Technologies
have partnered to create an "intelligent" ball that includes a
microchip that transmits its location on the field to a computer.
The system also places a thin, underground electrical wire that surrounds each goal. If the ball's location is sensed to be completely inside the boundary of the goal, a signal is sent to a watch worn by the referee indicating that a goal has been scored.
This technology would have saved Atwell and Bannister from their embarrassment. However, after extensive testing at several FIFA tournaments, Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, announced in March that instead of technology, two additional human referee assistants would be used to judge whether a goal was scored. "Let it be as it is and let's leave it (soccer) with errors," Blatter said. "The television companies will have the right to say he (the referee) was right or wrong, but still the referee makes the decision — a man, not a machine." Interestingly, the English Premier League was also testing the use of Hawk-Eye as an alternative to Adidas' smart ball.
Even if the umps and refs don't want to use the technology, sports television producers still want to empower the fans.
In baseball, ESPN's "K-zone" and Fox Sports' "Fox Trax" show a virtual representation of pitches and the strike zone to let us judge the accuracy of the home-plate umpire's calls. Think that last called strike was a bit outside? Watch the computer generated replay that is accurate to within one-half inch.
Then, go ahead and yell at the ump. If only they could come up with a way to transmit our voices directly into the stadium.
The Big Mo' - Momentum In Sports
A
player can feel it during a game when they hit a match-winning goal
or when they miss a wide open net. A team can feel it when they come
back from a deficit late in the game or when their lead in the league vanishes. A fan can feel it as their team "catches fire" or goes "as
cold as ice". And, play-by-play announcers love to talk about it. We
know it as the "Big Mo", the "Hot Hand", and being "In The Zone" while
the psychologists call it Psychological Momentum. But, does it really
exist? Is it just a temporary shift in confidence and mood or does it
actually change the outcome of a game or a season? As expected, there
are lots of opinions available.
The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science defines psychological momentum as, "the
positive or negative change in cognition, affect, physiology, and
behavior caused by an event or series of events that affects either the
perceptions of the competitors or, perhaps, the quality of performance
and the outcome of the competition. Positive momentum is associated
with periods of competition, such as a winning streak, in which
everything seems to ‘go right’ for the competitors. In contrast,
negative momentum is associated with periods, such as a losing streak,
when everything seems to ‘go wrong’." The interesting phrase in
this definition is that Psychological Momentum (PM) "affects either the
perceptions of the competitors or, perhaps, the quality
of performance and the outcome of the competition." Most of the
analyses on PM focus on the quantitative side to try to prove or
disprove PM's affect on individual stats or team wins and losses.
Regarding PM in baseball, a Wall St. Journal article
looked at last year's MLB playoffs, only to conclude there was no
affect on postseason play coming from team momentum at the end of the
regular season. More recently, Another Cubs Blog
also looked at momentum into this year's playoffs including opinion
from baseball stats guru, Bill James, another PM buster. For
basketball, Thomas Gilovich's 1985 research
into streaky, "hot hand" NBA shooting is the foundation for most of
today's arguments against the existence of PM, or at least its affect
on outcomes.
This view that if we can't see it in the numbers, more than would be
expected, then PM does not exist may not capture the whole picture. Lee
Crust and Mark Nesti have recommended that researchers look at psychological momentum more from the qualitative side.
Maybe there are more subjective measures of athlete or team confidence
that contribute to success that don't show up in individual stats or
account for teams wins and losses. As Jeff Greenwald put it in his article, Riding the Wave of Momentum, "The
reason momentum is so powerful is because of the heightened sense of
confidence it gives us -- the most important aspect of peak
performance. There is a term in sport psychology known as
self-efficacy, which is simply a player's belief in his/her ability to
perform a specific task or shot. Typically, a player’s success depends
on this efficacy. During a momentum shift, self-efficacy is very high
and players have immediate proof their ability matches the challenge.
As stated earlier, they then experience subsequent increases in energy
and motivation, and gain a feeling of control. In addition, during a
positive momentum shift, a player’s self-image also changes. He/she
feels invincible and this takes the "performer self" to a higher level."
There would seem to be three distinct areas of focus for PM; an
individual's performance within a game, a team's performance within a
game and a team's performance across a series of games. So, what are
the relationships between these three scenarios? Does one player's
scoring streak or key play lift the team's PM, or does a close,
hard-fought team win rally the players' morale and confidence for the
next game? Seeing the need for a conceptual framework to cover all of
these bases, Jim Taylor and Andrew Demick created their Multidimensional Model of Momentum in Sports, which is still the most widely cited model for PM. Their definition of PM, "a
positive or negative change in cognition, affect, physiology, and
behavior caused by an event or series of events that will result in a
commensurate shift in performance and competitive outcome", leads to the six key elements to what they call the "momentum chain".
First, momentum shifts begin with a "precipitating event", like an
interception or fumble recovery in football or a dramatic 3-point shot
in basketball. The effect that this event has on each athlete varies
depending on their own perception of the game situation, their
self-confidence and level of self-efficacy to control the situation.
Second, this event leads to "changes in cognition, physiology, and
affect." Again, depending on the athlete, his or her base confidence
will determine how strongly they react to the events, to the point of
having physiological changes like tightness and panic in negative
situations or a feeling of renewed energy after positive events.
Third, a "change in behavior" would come from all of these internal
perceptions. Coaches and fans would be able to see real changes in the
style of play from the players as they react to the positive or
negative momentum chain.
Fourth, the next logical step after behavior changes is to notice a
"change in performance." Taylor and Demick note that momentum is the
exception not the norm during a game. Without the precipitating event,
there should not be noticeable momentum shifts.
Fifth, for sports with head to head competition, momentum is a two-way
street and needs a "contiguous and opposing change for the opponent."
So, if after a goal, the attacking team celebrates some increased PM,
but the defending team does not experience an equal negative PM, then
the immediate flow of the game should remain the same. Its only when
the balance of momentum shifts from one team to the other. Levels of
experience in athletes has been shown to mitigate the effects of
momentum, as veteran players can handle the ups and downs of a game
better than novices.
Finally, at the end of the chain, if momentum makes it that far, there
should be an immediate outcome change. When the pressure of a
precipitating event occurs against a team, the players may begin to get
out of their normal, confident flow and start to overanalyze their own
performance and skills. We saw this in Dr. Sian Beilock's research in
our article, Putt With Your Brain - Part 2.
As an athlete's skills improve they don't need to consciously focus on
them during a game. But pressure brought on by a negative event can
take them out of this "automatic" mode as they start to focus on their
mechanics to fix or reverse the problem. As Patrick Cohn, a sport psychologist, pointed out in a recent USA Today article on momentum,
"You stop playing the game you played to be in that position. And the
moment you switch to trying not to screw up, you go from a very
offensive mind-set to a very defensive mind-set. If you're focusing too
much on the outcome, it's difficult to play freely. And now they're
worried more about the consequences and what's going to happen than
what they need to do right now."
There is no doubt that we will continue to hear references to momentum swings during games. When you do, you can conduct your own mini experiment and watch the reactions of the players and the teams over the next section of the game to see if that "precipitating event" actually leads to a game-changing moment.
Jim Taylor, Andrew Demick (1994). A multidimensional model of momentum in sports Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6 (1), 51-70 DOI: 10.1080/10413209408406465
Putt With Your Brain - Part 2
From: Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
If there is a poster child sport for our favorite phrase, "Sports Are 80 Percent Mental", it must be golf. Maybe its the slow pace of play that gives us plenty of time to think between shots. Maybe its the "on stage" performance feeling we get when we step up to that first tee in front of our friends (or strangers!) Maybe its the "high" of an amazing approach shot that lands 3 feet from the cup followed by the "low" of missing the birdie putt.
From any angle, a golf course is the sport psychologist's laboratory to study the mix of emotions, confidence, skill execution and internal cognitive processes that are needed to avoid buying rounds at the 19th hole. Last time, we looked at some of the recent research on putting mechanics, but, as promised, we now turn to the mental side of putting.
Sian Beilock and her team at the University of Chicago's Human Performance Lab
recently released the latest of a string of research studies on sports
performance, or more specifically, how not to choke under pressure.
Lucky for us, they chose putting as their sport skill of choice. This
ties in with Dr. Beilock's theory of embodied cognition that we
featured in Watching Sports Is Good For Your Brain.
An underlying theme to this work is the concept of automaticity,
or the ability to carry out sport skills without consciously thinking
about them. Performing below expectations (i.e. choking) starts when we
allow our minds to step out of this automatic mode and start thinking
about the steps to our putting stroke and all of those "swing thoughts"
that come with it ("keep your elbows in", "head down", "straight
back").
Our brain over analyzes and second-guesses the motor skills we
have learned from hundreds of practice putts. Previously, we looked at automaticity in other sports.
Of course, a key distinction to the definition of choking is that you
are playing "well below expectations". If you normally shoot par, but
now start missing easy putts, then there may be distractions that are
taking you out of your normal flow. Choking implies a temporary and
abnormal event. Automaticity theory would claim that it is these
distractions from some perceived pressure to perform that are affecting
your game.
Most research into sport skill performance divides the world into two
groups, novices and experts. Most sports have their own measures of
where the dividing line is between these groups. Expertise would imply
performance results not just experience. So, a golfer who has been
hacking away for 20 years but still can't break 100 would still be put
in the "novice" category.
Sport scientists design experiments that
compare performance between the groups given some variables, and then
hypothesize on the reason for the observed differences. Beilock, et al
have looked at golf putting from several different angles over the
years. Their research builds on itself, so let's review in reverse
chronological order.
Back in 2001, they began by comparing the two competing theories
of choking, distraction theory vs. explicit monitoring theory, and
designed a putting experiment to find the better explanation.
Distraction theory explains choking by assuming that the task of putting requires your direct attention and that high pressure situations will cause you to perform dual tasks - focus on your putting but also think about the pressure. This theory assumes there is no automaticity in skill learning and that we have to focus our attention on the skill every time.
Explicit monitoring theory claims that over
time, as we practice a skill to the point of becoming an "expert", we
proceduralize the task so that it becomes "automatic". Then, during a
high pressure situation, our brain becomes so concerned about
performance that it takes us out of automatic mode and tries to focus
on each step of the task. The research supported the explicit
monitoring theory as it was shown that the golf putting task was
affected by distractions and pressure for the experts but not the
novice putters.
So, how do we block out the pressure, so that our automaticity can kick in? Another 2001 study by Beilock
looked at mental imagery during putting. Using the same explicit
monitoring theory, should we try to think positive thoughts, like "this
ball is going in the hole" or "I have made this putt many times"? Also,
what happens if a stray negative thought, "don't miss this one!" enters
our brain? Should we try to suppress it and replace it with happy
self-talk?
She set up four groups, one receiving positive comments, one receiving negative comments, one receiving negative comments followed by positive comments and one receiving none as a control group. As expected, the happy people did improve their putting over the course of the trials, while the negative imagery hurt performance.
But, the
negative replaced with positive thought group did not show any more
improvement over the control group. So, when faced with a high
pressure, stressful situation ripe with the possibilities of choking,
try to repeat positive thoughts, but don't worry too much if the
occasional doubt creeps in.
Our strategy towards putting should also vary depending on our current
skill level. While learning the intricacies of putting, novices should
use different methods than experts, according to a 2004 study by Beilock, et al.
Novice golfers need to pay attention to the step by step components of
their swing, and they perform better when they do focus on the
declarative knowledge required.
Expert golfers, however, have practiced
their swing or putt so often that it has become "second nature" to the
point that if they are told to focus on the individual components of
their swing, they perform poorly. The experiment asked both novices and
expert golfers to first focus on their actual putting stroke by saying
the word "straight" when hitting the ball and to notice the alignment
of the putter face with the ball.
Next, they were asked to putt while also listening for a certain tone played in the background. When they heard the tone they were to call it out while putting. The first scenario, known as "skill-focused", caused the novices to putt more accurately but the experts to struggle. The second scenario, called "dual-task", distracted the novices enough to affect their putts, while the experts were not bothered and their putting accuracy was better.
Beilock showed that novices need the task focus to succeed while they
are learning to putt, while experts have internalized the putting
stroke so that even when asked to do two things, the putting stroke can
be put on "auto-pilot".
Finally, in 2008, Beilock's team added one more twist
to this debate. Does a stress factor even affect a golfer's performance
in their mind before they putt? This time, golfers, divided into the
usual novice and expert groups, were asked to first imagine or "image
execute" themselves making a putt followed by an actual putt. The
stress factor was to perform one trial under a normal, "take all the
time you need" time scenario and then another under a speeded or
time-limited scenario.
The novices performed better under the
non-hurried scenario in imagining the putt first followed by the actual
putt. The experts, however, actually did better in the hurried scenario
and worse in the relaxed setting. Again, the automaticity factor
explains the differences between the groups.
The bottom line throughout all of these studies is that if you're
learning to play golf, which includes putting, you should focus on your
swing/stroke but beware of the distractions which will take away your
concentration. That seems pretty logical, but for those that normally
putt very well, if you feel stress to sink that birdie putt, don't try
to focus in on the mechanics of your stroke. Trust the years of
experience that has taught your brain the combination of sensorimotor
skills of putting.
Just remember the Chevy Chase/Ty Webb philosophy;
"I'm going to give you a little advice. There's a force in the universe
that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with
it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball.... Nah-na-na-na,
Ma-na-na-na...."
Sian L. Beilock, Thomas H. Carr (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130 (4), 701-725 DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.701
Sian
L. Beilock; James A. Afremow; Amy L. Rabe; Thomas H. Carr (2001).
"Don't Miss!" The Debilitating Effects of Suppressive Imagery on Golf
Putting Performance Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23 (3)
Beilock
S.L.; Bertenthal B.I.; McCoy A.M.; Carr T.H. (2004). Haste does not
always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus
accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11 (2), 373-379
Sian
Beilock, Sara Gonso (2008). Putting in the mind versus putting on the
green: Expertise, performance time, and the linking of imagery and
action The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61 (6), 920-932 DOI: 10.1080/17470210701625626
Putt With Your Brain - Part 1
From: Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
If Mark Twain thinks golf is "a good walk spoiled", then putting must be a brief pause to make you reconsider ever walking again. With about 50% of our score being determined on the green, we are constantly in search of the "secret" to getting the little white ball to disappear into the cup.
Lucky for us, there is no shortage of really smart people also
looking for the answer. The first 8 months of 2008 have been no
exception, with a golf cart full of research papers on just the topic
of putting.
Is the secret in the mechanics of the putt stroke or maybe
the cognitive set-up to the putt or even the golfer's psyche when
stepping up to the ball? This first post will focus on the mechanical
side and then we'll follow-up next time with a look inside the golfer's
mind.
Let's start with a tip that most golf instructors would give, "Keep
your head still when you putt". Jack Nicklaus said it in 1974, "the
premier technical cause of missed putts is head movement" (from "Golf My Way") and Tiger Woods said it in 2001, "Every good putter keeps the head absolutely still from start to finish" (from "How I Play Golf").
Who would argue with the two greatest golfers of all time? His name is Professor Timothy Lee,
from McMaster University, and he wanted to test that observation. So,
he gathered two groups of golfers, amateurs with handicaps of 12-40,
and professionals with scratch handicaps. Using an infrared tracking
system, his team tracked the motion of the putter head and the golfer's
head during sixty putts.
As predicted, the amateurs' head moved back in unison with their putter
head, something Lee calls an "allocentric" movement, which agrees with
the advice that novice golfers move their head. However, the expert
golfers did not keep their head still, but rather moved their heads
slightly in the opposite direction of the putter head.
On the
backswing, the golfer's head moved slightly forward; on the forward
stroke, the head moved slightly backward. This "egocentric" movement
may be the more natural response to maintain a centered, balanced
stance throughout the stroke. "The exact reasons for the opposite
coordination patterns are not entirely clear," explains Lee. "However,
we suspect that the duffers tend to just sway their body with the
motions of the putter.
In contrast, the good golfers probably are
trying to maintain a stable, central body position by counteracting the
destabilization caused by the putter backswing with a forward motion of
the head. The direction of head motion is then reversed when the putter
moves forward to strike the ball." Does that mean that pro golfers like
Tiger are not keeping their heads still? No, just that you may not have to keep your head perfectly still to putt effectively.
So, what if you do have the bad habit of moving your head? Just teach
yourself to change your putting motion and you will be cutting strokes
off of your score, right? Well, not so fast. Simon Jenkins of Leeds Metropolitan University tested 15
members of the PGA European Tour to see if they could break old
physical habits during putting. His team found that players who usually
use shoulder movement in their putting action were not able to change
their ways even when instructed to use a different motion. Old habits
die hard.
Let's say you do keep your head still (nice job!), but you still 3-putt
most greens? What's the next step on the road to birdie putts? Of the
three main components of a putt, (angle of the face of the putter head
on contact, putting stroke path and the impact point on the putter),
which has the greatest effect on success?
Back in February, Jon Karlsen of the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences
in Oslo, asked 71 elite golfers (mean handicap of 1.8) to make a total
of 1301 putts (why not just 1300?) from about 12 feet to find out. His
results showed that face angle was the most important (80%), followed
by putter path (17%) and impact point (3%).
OK, forget the moving head thing and work on your putter blade angle at
contact and you will be taking honors at every tee. Wait, Jon Karlsen
came back in July with an update.
This time he compared green reading, putting technique and green
surface inconsistencies to see which of those variables we should
discuss with our golf pro. Forty-three expert golfers putted 50 times
from varying distances. Results showed that green reading (60%) was the
most dominant factor for success with technique (34%) and green
inconsistency (6%) trailing significantly.
So, after reading all of this, all you really need is something like the BreakMaster,
which will help you read the breaks and the slope to the hole! Then,
keep the putter blade square to the ball and don't move your head, at
least not in an allocentric way, that is if you can break your bad
habit of doing it. No problem, right? Well, next time we'll talk about
your brain's attitude towards putting and all the ways your putt could
go wrong before you even hit it!
Timothy
D. Lee, Tadao Ishikura, Stefan Kegel, Dave Gonzalez, Steven Passmore
(2008). Head–Putter Coordination Patterns in Expert and Less Skilled
Golfers Journal of Motor Behavior, 40 (4), 267-272 DOI: 10.3200/JMBR.40.4.267-272
Jenkins, Simon (2008). Can Elite Tournament Professional Golfers Prevent Habitual Actions in Their Putting Actions? International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3 (1), 117-127
Jon Karlsen, Gerald Smith, Johnny Nilsson (2007). The stroke has only a minor influence on direction consistency in golf putting among elite players Journal of Sports Sciences, 26 (3), 243-250 DOI: 10.1080/02640410701530902
