- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Numerous scientific studies are unequivocal – referees are biased.
Subject to involuntary, subconscious opinions and feelings, as well as the influences of the local crowd and their own natural blind spots to bias, referees can’t help themselves.
Which begs the question, why does SANZAR think its referees are immune to very human failings?
Despite the research, SANZAR chief executive Greg Peters is on record as implying that SANZAR referees are somehow above the very real human frailties that dog us all:
“We’ve taken the view that it is more important to have the best referee rather than a neutral referee,” he said.
Further, to suggest that referees of any particular nationality – whether New Zealand, Australian or South African – can be relied on to be neutral when refereeing a contest featuring his countrymen, just doesn’t stack up. There is a mountain of evidence that proves bias is a natural human flaw that we are all subject to.
There’s research out there and almost all of it points to bias. A lot of the research is football related, but the main elements – a ball, a crowd and a subjective decision maker – are the same. Here are some of the points the research raised.
1. Referees use crowd noise as a cue or tool to help them make decisions
The study, Crowd noise as a cue in referee decisions contributes to the home advantage concluded that home crowd noise has a massive impact on officials who use the crowd’s response as a cue, or tool, in their decision making.
As a result, visiting teams mostly get the raw end of the deal:
“We propose that crowd noise correlates with the criteria referees have to judge. As crowd noise is a valid cue, referee decisions are strongly influenced by crowd noise. Yet, when audiences are not impartial, a home advantage arises.
“For example, Downward and Jones (2007) reported a similar trend for crowd size and number of yellow cards awarded against the away team. They analysed 857 games of the Football Association Cup in England and found that 1.71 first yellow cards were awarded toward away teams, whereas only 1.35 cards were awarded toward home teams; again, a highly significant difference.”
2. Nationalistic bias
Spiro Zavos cited similar research recently, in which researchers from Cambridge University’s Judge Business School and Heythrop College, University of London, Dr Lionel Page and Dr Katie Page did a study of 92 matches in the then Super 14, and also rugby league’s Super League series, between 2006 and 2009.
They concluded that referees are biased.
The researchers found that teams won just 38 per cent of matches “when the referee was from the nationality of the opposition, but 91 per cent of matches when the referee was the same nationality as the home team” – that’s all teams, all nationalities.
Where I disagree with Spiro is his intimation that only South African referees suffer from this malaise.
“It will be fascinating to see whether this Sharks style can create victories in New Zealand and Australia. Jake White’s Springboks were virtually unbeatable in South Africa (like the Sharks) but extremely vulnerable, except in France in Rugby World Cup 2007, outside of South Africa,” he wrote.
Well, that question has been answered to some extent. But either way, nationalistic bias is common to all nationalities.
What happens when the TMO has a conflict of nationality? We have already seen enough TMO blunders to know that technology isn’t the panacea we hoped it would be.
3. Bias blind spots
Emily Pronin, a social psychologist from Princeton University’s Department of Psychology, points to what she calls a bias blindspot.
“Displays of cognitive and motivational bias are inevitable products of the way we all see and understand the world. Perceptions and accusations of bias in others, coupled with denial of bias in self, are similarly inevitable,” says Dr Pronin.
This means that when we are trying to judge our own objectivity we have to rely on introspection, which is inaccurate and coloured by subconscious opinions and beliefs. When we judge the bias of others, we rely on their actions to reach a conclusion – a far more accurate measure.
This means that we, fans, Roarers and rugby writers, do not recognise our own bias. We cannot analyse or understand it – we are blind to our own bias.
Fans will always see the call going in favour of their team. We expect that our team will win. In short, “a ‘fan’ could be defined as someone with an expectation bias,” according to Blinds Spots and Biases, How Hidden Forces Shape Your Decisions.
How long can SANZAR ignore the science? The silence since Spiro’s article, and the one that inspired it – from the Australian‘s Wayne Smith – has been deafening.
But this is where I would go one further, and I can hear the howls of outrage already. We need completely neutral referees from countries outside of SANZAR – even from the UK if necessary.
In fact, why can we not have an academy where men and women from all nationalities go to be trained and turned out as professional referees, available to turn up where they are needed? Neutral, professional and without any baggage. Career men and women.
Sports academies are national institutions by necessity, they are there to turn out national sportsmen and women, but we don’t need to follow the same formula with referees.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.