Referee: whose side is he on? |
THE VISITORS never stood a chance. The home team’s biological memory had kicked in, secreting high levels of testosterone to make them more assertive in defence of their territory. Not only that, but the referee, without being aware of it, was allowing the intense psychological pressure from the home fans to sway his decisions.
Home games, as everyone knows, are much easier to win teams in the English Premier League, for example, win almost twice as often at home as they do away. But where does the advantage come from? Traditional theories point to the unsettling effect of travelling, or the advantage for the home players of their superior knowledge of the ground. The home crowd is also assumed to have a direct effect on the players’ self-belief.
Research reported in New Scientist (May 8 2002) casts doubt on this received wisdom. New studies by sports scientists suggest that home games may be influenced in ways that are both more subtle, and more basic, than the traditional theories allow.
Sports psychologist Sandy Wolfson, of the University of Northumbria, has found that footballers are more pumped up with testosterone before a home match than they are at an away game, and that this, rather than conscious environmental factors, may account for the greater confidence in their play.
Wolfson carried out studies of a football team, playing at home, away, and at training sessions. The players filled in a self-report on their mood, and had their testosterone levels measured for the hour before each match. While the players reported that their mood was unaffected by the venue, their hormone levels revealed a surge in testosterone only before home games this was even more marked when the team was playing rivals.
Animal studies have shown strong links between testosterone and displays of assertiveness and dominance (see It’s only his hormones, HERO Research archive). The hormone emboldens pack animals to protect their home territory, and the dominant male to show who’s boss defeated rivals suffer falls in testosterone levels, to encourage meek acceptance of their inferior status. If, as Wolfson speculates, this evolved effect recurs among human animals on the football field, it may explain why teams’ confidence levels fluctuate so widely it’s just biology interpreting their current situation.
Alan Nevill of Wolverhampton University has identified another factor that may work to the home team’s advantage. Nevill and his team showed video footage of 47 tackles from a Premier League match to a group of qualified referees, and asked them to judge whether each one was a foul or not.
The 40 referees were split into two groups, with one group played the sound of the crowd’s reactions, while the other watched silent footage. Neither group saw the match referee’s decision. Nevill found that the referees who could hear the crowd were markedly more reluctant to penalise the home team. They judged 15 per cent fewer of the home players’ tackles as illegal. Interestingly, the decisions made by referees who could hear the crowd were more in line with those made by the original match official.
The study found that even experienced referees were swayed by the crowd. “Everyone got conned the same way,” Nevill said. He is convinced that referee bias is the main explanation for home advantage. He points out that in other sports, such as golf, players show no advantage when competing on their own turf.
Nevill argues that match officials are intimidated by the noise made by the home crowd: “To get the crowd off their back they wave play on.” Wolfson is unconvinced that referees feel threatened, but suspects they may be swayed by the crowd when making a close call. She said: “Referees tend to be very robust and confident. But when 40,000 voices shout, `Handball!’ this just might turn a 50:50 decision.” |
