Soccer
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.
Sideline Raging Soccer Moms (and Dads!)
From: Sideline Raging Soccer Moms (and Dads!)
Sports Are 80 Percent MentalVisit any youth soccer field, baseball diamond, basketball court or football field and you will likely see them: parents behaving badly. Take a look at this Good Morning America report:
These
are the extremes, but at most games, you can find at least one adult
making comments at the referee, shouting at their child, or having a
verbal exchange with another parent. Thankfully, these parents
represent only a small percentage of those attending the game. Does
that mean the others don't become upset at something during the game?
Usually not, as there are lots of opportunities to dispute a bad call
or observe rough play or react to one of these loud parents. The
difference is in our basic personality psyche, according to Jay Goldstein, a kinesiology doctoral student at the University of Maryland School of Public Health. His thesis, recently published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology
(see reference below), hypothesized that a parent with
"control-oriented" personality would react to events at a game more
than a parent with an "autonomy-oriented" personality.
According to Goldstein, defending our ego
is what usually gets us in trouble when we feel insulted or take
something personally. At youth sports games, we transfer this pride to
our kids, so if someone threatens their success on the field, we often
take it personally. The control-oriented parent is more likely to
react with a verbal or sometimes physical response, while an
autonomy-oriented parent is better able to internalize and maintain
their emotions. This "control" vs. "autonomy" comparison has also been
seen in research on "road rage", when drivers react violently to
another driver's actions.
Goldstein and his team focused their
research on suburban Washington soccer parents back in 2004. They
designed a survey for parents to fill out prior to watching a youth
soccer game that would help categorize them as control or
autonomy-oriented. Immediately after the game ended, another survey
was given to the parents that asked about any incidents during the game
that made them angry on a scale of 1, slightly angry, to 7, furious.
They were also asked what action they took when they were angry.
Choices included "did nothing" to more aggressive acts like walking
towards the field and/or yelling or confronting either the referee,
their own child, or another player/parent. 53% of the 340 parents
surveyed reported getting angry at something during the game, while
about 40% reported doing something about their anger.
There was a direct and significant
correlation between control-oriented parents, as identified in the
pre-game survey, and the level of angry actions they took during the
game. Autonomy-oriented parents still got mad, but reported less
aggressive reactions. As Goldstein notes, “Regardless of their
personality type, all parents were susceptible to becoming more
aggressive as a result of viewing actions on the field as affronts to
them or their kids. However, that being said, it took
autonomy-oriented parents longer to get there as compared to the
control-oriented parents.”
So, now that we know the rather obvious
conclusion that parents who yell at other motorists are also likely to
yell at referees, what can we do about it? Goldstein sees this study
as a first step. He hopes to study a wider cross-section of sports and
socio-economic populations. Many youth sports organizations require
parents to sign a pre-season "reminder" code of conduct, but those are
often forgotten in the heat of the battle on the field. Maybe by
offering the same type of personality survey prior to the season, the
"control-oriented" parents can be offered resources to help them manage
their tempers and reactions during a game. Since referees were the
number one source of frustration reported by parents, two solutions are
being explored by many organizations; more thorough referee training
and quality control while also better training of parents on the rules
of the game which often cause the confusion.
Sports contests will always be emotional, from kids' games all the way up to professionals. Keeping the games in perspective and our reactions positive are tough things to do but when it comes to our kids, it is required.
Goldstein, J.D., Iso-Ahola, S.E. (2008). Determinants of Parents' Sideline-Rage Emotions and Behaviors at Youth Soccer Games. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1442-1462. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00355.x
Stats Vs. Hunches - The Moneyball Era In Sports
From: Stats Vs. Hunches - The Moneyball Era In Sports
Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
Most baseball general managers live in obscurity most of their careers. Its
their first hire, the manager, that usually gets the red hot spotlight,
after every win and loss, second-guessed by reporters with recorders
and then later by fans. The GM puts the players on the field and lets
the manager and his coaches take it from there. Billy Beane
, Oakland A's general manager, could have also been an unknown, albeit
interesting, name to the baseball audience if it were not for author
Michael Lewis' 2003 book, Moneyball
. Moneyball was a runaway hit (even today, 5 years later, it is #19 on
Amazon's list of baseball books). It has morphed into a full-fledged
catchphrase philosophy used by everyone from Wall Street (where Beane
borrowed the concept) to business consulting. The general theme is to
find undervalued assets (ballplayers) by focusing on statistics that
your competition is ignoring. Of course, you have to believe in your
metrics and their predictive value for success (why has everyone else
ignored these stats?) The source of most of Beane's buried treasure of
stats was Bill James and his Sabrmetrics. Like picking undervalued
stocks of soon to explode companies, Beane looked for the diamond in
the dust (pun intended) and sign the player while no one was looking.
Constrained by his "small-market" team revenues, or maybe by his
owners' crowbar-proof wallets, he needed to make the most from every
dollar.
The combination of a GM's shrewd
player selection and a manager who can develop that talent should
reward the owner with the best of both worlds: an inexpensive team that
wins. This salary vs. performance metric is captured perfectly in this
"real-time" graphic at BenFry.com
. It connects the updated win-loss record for each MLB team with its
payroll to show the "bang for the buck" that the GMs/managers are
getting from their players. Compare the steep negative relationship
for the Mets, Yankees, Tigers and Mariners with the amazing results of
the Rays, Twins and Beane's own A's. While the critics of Moneyball
tactics would rightly point to the A's lack of a World Series win or
even appearance, the "wins to wages" ratio has not only kept Beane in a
job but given him part ownership in the A's and now the newly
resurrected San Jose Earthquakes of soccer's MLS. Beane believes the
same search for meaningful and undiscovered metrics in soccer can give
the Quakes the same arbitrage advantage. In fact, there are rumours
that he will focus full-time on conquering soccer as he knows there are
much bigger opportunities worldwide if he can prove his methods within
MLS.
In baseball, Beane relied on the
uber-stat guru, Bill James, for creative and more relevant statistical
slices of the game. In soccer, he is working with some top clubs
including his new favorite, Tottenham-Hotspur,
of the English Premier League. While he respects the history and
tradition of the game, he is confident that his search for a
competitive advantage will uncover hidden talents. Analytical tools
from companies such as Opta in Europe and Match Analysis
in the U.S. have combined video with detailed stat breakdowns of every
touch of the ball for every player in each game. Finding the right
pattern and determinant of success has become the key, according to
Match Analysis president Mark Brunkhart as quoted earlier this year,
"You
don't need statistics to spot the real great players or the really bad
ones. The trick is to take the players between those two extremes and
identify which are the best ones. If all you do is buy the players
that everyone else wants to buy then you will end up paying top dollar.
But if you take Beane's approach - to use a disciplined statistical
process to influence the selection of players who will bring the most
value - then you are giving yourself the best chance of success. Who
would not want to do that?"
Not to feel left out (or safe from scrutiny), the NBA now has its own sport-specific zealots. The Association for Professional Basketball Research (APBR)
devotes its members time and research to finding the same type of
meaningful stats that have been ignored by players, coaches and fans.
They, too, have their own Moneyball-bible, "The Wages of Wins " by David Berri, Martin Schmidt, and Stacey Brook. David Berri's WoW journal/blog
regularly posts updates and stories related to the current NBA season
and some very intriguing analysis of its players and the value of their
contributions. None other than Malcolm Gladwell, of Tipping Point and
Blink fame, provided the review of Wages of Wins for the New Yorker.
One of the main stats used is something called a player's "Win Score"
which attempts to measure the complete player, not just points,
rebounds and assists.
Win Score (WS) = PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST – FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF. (Points, Rebounds, Steals, Blocked Shots, Assists, Field Goal Attempts, Free Throw Attempts, Turnovers, Personal Fouls)
WS is then adjusted for minutes played with the stat, WS48. Of course,
different player positions will have different responsibilities, so to
compare players of different positions the Position Adjusted Win Score
per 48 minutes or PAWS48 is calculated as: WS48 – Average WS48 at
primary position played. This allows an apples to apples comparison
between players at a position, and a reasonable comparison of players
value across positions. Berri's latest article looks at the fascination with Michael Beasley and some early comparisons in the Orlando Summer League.
Will
these statistics-based approaches to player evaluation be accepted by
the "establishment"? Judging by the growing number of young,
MBA-educated GMs in sports, there is a movement towards more efficient
and objective selection criteria. Just as we saw in previous evidence-based coaching articles , the evidence-based general manager is here to stay.
