« The Jean-Jacques of New Haven: Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother | Main | "The 'Left'" »

Monday, January 17, 2011

Home-field advantage and the umpire analogy

An article by Tobias Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim in the new Sports Illustrated (I cannot find it on-line for some reason) examines the cause of home-field advantage in sports. If the study is empirically sound (and I want to down with some empiricists to help me figure out if it is), the results are groundbreaking. Moskowitz and Wertheim argue that home-field advantage is mostly explained by official bias, influenced by a combination of the closeness of the game and the game situation; the home crowd (size, loudness, proximity, and intensity); and limited attention to, or accountabiltiy for, particular decisions. Read the whole thing if you can get it (or it eventually comes on-line).

Briefly, officials conform their calls to social pressure created by the home crowd. Officials use crowd noise  to help them resolve uncertainty in making a call, resulting in more calls going the way the home crowd wants them to go. Studies done for or discussed in the the story showed a range of calls in a range of sports that systematically favor home teams--extra time, fouls, and yellow and red cards in soccer; called (non-swinging) balls and strikes in baseball; close plays on the bases in baseball; traveling in basketball; and penalties and fumbles in football. The psychological effect is more pronounced in well-attended games (according to the story, in 2007, the Italian government ordered teams with deficient security to play games without spectators; 21 games were played in empty stadiums and a study by two economists found dramatic decreases in home-team benefits in fouls, yellow cards, and red cards).

The bias is revealed, in part, by the rise of technology, particularly in football. Visiting teams are more successful in overturning calls favoring the home team, especially where the home team is trailing. In other words officials make mistakes in the home teams' favor more often than they do in visiting teams' favor (although the difference is small). Replay thus has resulted in the narrowing or elimination of the home-team advantage, at least as to turnovers, because some of those erroneous calls are corrected (so maybe I need to rethink my opposition to replay in football). Technology also reveals  that officials get it right most of the time (about 85 % on balls and strikes). But the mistakes they make are not random--they tend to favor the home teams. And, of course, most mistakes are not discoverable or reversible--thus the home-field advantage continues.

I am not sure what to do with the story, which I find fascinating. For starters, I wonder what this tells us about the much-despised umpire analogy. One of my objections has been that the analogy, as used, misrepresents what umpires do. This study supports that thought. Umpires clearly do not just call balls and strikes as a simple, clear, robotic exercise--umpires (and other officials) are human and they and their decisions are subject to outside pressures and influences, such as, essentially, public opinion.

Similarly, critics of the umpire analogy have focused on the outside influences that (everyone who is being honest recognizes) affect judicial decisionmaking--life experience, ideology, politics, empathy, public opinion and pressure--just as outside influences affect umpires. But is there a still more-precise comparison between judicial decisionmaking and officiating, given what this new study shows? Is there a litigation "home team" that systematically gets the benefit of judicial decisions? Perhaps the government (especially in criminal cases) or any other repeat player in litigation? Are judges affected by the (unconscious) need/desire to make the populace happy, just as umpires are similarly affected, and does that affect decisions?

What else can this study tell us about judicial decisionmaking?

Posted by Howard Wasserman on January 17, 2011 at 09:07 AM in Culture, Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Home-field advantage and the umpire analogy:



Posted by: Jay Cole | Jan 19, 2011 1:38:59 PM

Actually, the article suggested the opposite--knowing they were being watched caused officials to bend over in the opposite direction, favoring the visiting team somewhat. The authors looked at games from the early days of QuesTec, when the system was in place in only some ballparks. They found that the same advantage remained in parks without the system, but disappeared in the parks that did have the system.

I don't agree that Roberts was not endorsing some version of the robot theory, but that is for another day.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jan 17, 2011 10:07:33 AM

Sorry to be semi-obsessed about this issue, but to me that study makes the metaphor all the more relevant and useful. Reffing and umping require considerable judgment and "situation sense," and all the good refs/umps have their own theory of interpreting the rules. (Remember: Roberts didn't endorse the "robot theory." He endorsed the "umps aren't there to win or lose" theory.) That they can be subject to bias is to be expected -- and studied.

I sometimes wonder if the advent of video replay in the NFL and NCAAF ranks has led to increased hometown bias. The subconscious logic would be that "it can be reviewed anyway, so why not go with the easy call." Do trial court judges sometimes face tough cases that require unpopular decisions, make the popular call, and leave it to the appellate judges in the replay booth to reverse?

Posted by: John Steele | Jan 17, 2011 10:00:27 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.