Hockey Refs Are Out To Get You (If They Already Got The Other Guy)

[sworkhard]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...the-other-guy/

Somebody bothered to collect the data and demonstrate the effect of even up calls...

In playoff games, the referees’ balancing effect grows even stronger. Our hypothesis: referees are trying to even out playoff games, where the pressure is on for the officials to avoid becoming a storyline. When the home team is owed a penalty in the playoffs, the frequency of calls on the visiting team is significantly higher than it is during the regular season. (If the away team is owed a penalty or penalties, the effect is about the same as it is during the regular season.)

Overtime produces the most dramatic results, with the second penalty call of the extra period about three times as likely to be whistled on the team that received the first power play.

[mrkajz44]

Interesting read, but what I'd be more interested in is how the score affects penalty calling, especially in the playoffs. Seems like the team that is losing tends to get more powerplays, while virtually nothing is called in a tie game to avoid "giving one team the advantage". Not sure if that is just optics, or there are actually stats to back that up.

EDIT: I see later in the article that they say score doesn't change the curve in their graph, so maybe I'm way off? Sure doesn't seem that way.

[AcGold]

The dumbest thing ever. In an attempt to make officiating a non story they use subjectivity and situational reffing in effect making it a story. Call every game the same; preseason, regular season or Stanley Cup game 7 overtime.

It's exasperating watching a game with subjective rule enforcement, a slash is a slash, a charge is a charge, a headshot is a headshot. Do your damn job you freaking morons. Do they allow players to jump on the kicker and pin him down in football because it's the playoffs and the other team was already penalized? No, it's beyond stupid.

[fuffalo]

The problem with this article is the same problem most articles centered around statistics have. It shows a statistical probability based on historical data and then generates an argument around a cause with no statistical evidence whatsoever.

[DoubleK]

This isn't news.

[#-3]

A Ref's #1 mandate is to keep control of a safe game.
2nd Mandate is to enforce the rules.

This may sound wrong but making every single call, or giving a team 4 or 5 power plays in a row is a good was to loss control. Basically if you are about to give a team a 3rd or 4th straight penalty especially in the same period, it sure as hell better be a good one. Where calling a bit of a softy on a team that is well in the lead or has consistently been on the power play is less likely to make emotions boil over.

[Phaneuf_Rules]

The biggest problems with most statistics is we assume the cause of them with no proof.

For instance, isn't it just as likely that a team that has taken more penalties will try to start playing safer to avoid the box? Hence the team more likely to take the next penalty is the other team?

Truth is, we have no idea why it is the way it is.

The only thing these stats truly tell you, is if you have taken less penalties than the other team, chances are you will take the next one. So take it for whatever its worth.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf_Rules

The biggest problems with most statistics is they can be used to argue points that aren't well understood.

For instance, isn't it just as likely that a team that has taken more penalties will try to start playing safer to avoid the box? Hence the team more likely to take the next penalty is the other team?

Sure, I think that's possible. There's also things like momentum to take into account.

However, the correlation still exists and the slope got steeper in the playoffs, which is what I found interesting.

Any ideas why this affect gets worse in the playoffs? The stakes are higher obviously, and the game is faster, which may have some affect, but I wonder if penalties become more about game management and less about the infractions in the post season.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This isn't news.

Good point. Fixed.

[Huntingwhale]

This was news back in the 20s.

[GirlySports]

I've been saying this all the time.

If you score the first goal, you will be penalized for scoring it. If you're down by 2 or 3 goals you literally have to kill someone to get a penalty.

The NHL is super scared of ratings so they want close games.
The NY Rangers for example have played 13 consecutive 1-goal games in the playoffs.

[darthma]

I found the stats article they reference posted on one of the original author's home pages -
http://www.rob-mcculloch.org/exec_da...ing/penpap.pdf

Interestingly, in the news article, they state that the shape does not change based on the score. However, this other journal article says differently.

[goal differential] and [time between penalties] are important variables with intuitive effects. If the last penalized team was behind, you don’t want to call them again. The longer it has been since the last penalty, the smaller the tendency to reverse call

A few other interesting bits out of this. Keep in mind what they call 'reverse call' is making the call on the team that was NOT penalized last.

The results confirm that various game situations (score, time, time since last penalty, etc) and characteristics (home team, one versus two referees, etc) have extremely significant effects on the reverse-call probability.

The reverse call percentages under the one-referee system are higher overall as well as more disperse. ... suggest that referee behavior was changed by the addition of a partner. There are several possible explanations. One possibility is that with a partner, the psychological stress is diminished and so is the tendency to reverse call. Another possibility
is that two referees are able to more accurately detect actual offenses and, therefore, fewer reverse calls are needed in the name of fairness.

Our basic hypothesis is that the speed and physical nature of the NHL game, combined with the expectation that many infractions will go uncalled, put the referee in a very difficult situation. Since penalty calling can be largely subjective, it is easy for teams, coaches, and fans to view referees’ calls as unfair to their side. In order to keep control of the game and avoid being blamed for the outcome of the game by the loser, it would seem logical that referees would adopt the following strategies:
• make fewer calls later in the third period when the game is on the line
• avoid making repeated calls on the same team
• avoid penalizing the team that is behind
• avoid penalizing the home team
• avoid calls on the same team in quick succession
The empirical findings of this paper are consistent with each of these strategies.

And finally... well... duhhhh... OBVIOUSLY.

[united]

It happens in all sports. Heck, the Seahawks even admitted they won a Superbowl, and made another, using a strategy of committing penalties on every play knowing the officials would just stop calling penalties on them out of fear of optics. It works brilliantly. They cheated every play knowing they would get away with it much of the time, especially in the fourth quarter, because the officials are humans. Sure they had a lopsided penalty differential (which, of course they whined about), but if the officials called the game without emotion they would have had many more penalties and probably wouldn't have won the Superbowl or made the other. Sure it hurts them at the start of games...but when your team gets flagged for 12 penalties of the 30 you commit while your opponent gets flagged for 10 of the 15 they commit, you have the advantage.

As soon as Perry went down, you knew the next time a Flames player even grazed a Ducks player they were getting a penalty. Sure enough, Backlund gives a Ducks player a love tap that happens tens of times every minute in the NHL and off he goes to the box.

[2ArmBands]

As people have said above... It's all about game management.

From personal experience as an official game management is so critical. I know the second I hammer a team with a couple consecutive penalties I will be praying for the other team to give me something. It's the same when I make a bad call or miss something... I have my fingers crossed again that someone will make my job easy and give me something.

Score is a big factor as well. If team A is up by 5 goals and it's starting to turn hostile you can be guaranteed team B is getting some benefit of the doubt just to keep the game flowing.

All of this is not really anything new. Obviously I can't speak from an NHL officials perspective but a lot of their actions seem to align with this type of thinking.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

As people have said above... It's all about game management.



From personal experience as an official game management is so critical. I know the second I hammer a team with a couple consecutive penalties I will be praying for the other team to give me something. It's the same when I make a bad call or miss something... I have my fingers crossed again that someone will make my job easy and give me something.



Score is a big factor as well. If team A is up by 5 goals and it's starting to turn hostile you can be guaranteed team B is getting some benefit of the doubt just to keep the game flowing.



All of this is not really anything new. Obviously I can't speak from an NHL officials perspective but a lot of their actions seem to align with this type of thinking.

I hate this Game management stuff. Call the game by the book. If it's a penalty... Call it. If it's not... Don't call it. The score should have nothing to do with it. If a team is up by five goals an official shouldn't be looking for pity calls to help the losing team. It's the same frustration I have with games being reffed differently in the playoffs. A penalty in October should still be a penalty in May.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[2ArmBands]

Originally Posted by stemit14

I hate this Game management stuff. Call the game by the book. If it's a penalty... Call it. If it's not... Don't call it. The score should have nothing to do with it. If a team is up by five goals an official shouldn't be looking for pity calls to help the losing team. It's the same frustration I have with games being riffed differently in the playoffs. A penalty in October should still be a penalty in May.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wish it was this easy but there is a reason why it isn't. If every game got called this way there would be so many games that swirl out of control. Managing the game becomes pretty important in these cases. It's a fine line for the official to walk... Attempt to keep the game under control while at the same time having as little impact on the score as possible.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by stemit14

I hate this Game management stuff. Call the game by the book. If it's a penalty... Call it. If it's not... Don't call it. The score should have nothing to do with it. If a team is up by five goals an official shouldn't be looking for pity calls to help the losing team. It's the same frustration I have with games being reffed differently in the playoffs. A penalty in October should still be a penalty in May.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's not really about trying to control the outcome or flow of the game.

More-so it is about trying to keep the game safe and stay out of the flow.

Sometimes you are out there and you just think to yourself this team just is not getting a fair shake I need to find something, in that mind set you are watching for things you are ready to call things at a moments notice.

Sometimes you are out there and teams are playing a good hard clean game and you are in the find set that you just want to keep up with the flow of the game, when that's happening you are allot more likely to miss small things or let them slid, if they don't really have an impact.

Safety is most important, and most are probably more worried about Fairness/Neutrality than the Letter of the law. That said I don't think any officials think handing out an even number of penalties implies fairness, they just don't want either team to feel like everything is going against them because it often creates an unsafe situation.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

I wish it was this easy but there is a reason why it isn't. If every game got called this way there would be so many games that swirl out of control. Managing the game becomes pretty important in these cases. It's a fine line for the official to walk... Attempt to keep the game under control while at the same time having as little impact on the score as possible.

I don't see how a game would swirl out of control. We've all watched games where it was called consistently and by the book... What it results in is a game where the reffing is not the deciding factor in a game. Lack of discipline by players may decide a game but not the refs.

I just want a consistently called game. I don't want to see a slash ignored all game long on both sides only to see a very weak slashing call all of a sudden "because it's their turn to have a penalty."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GirlySports]

There you go. Hawks down 2-1 get consecutive PPs to start the 3rd. Hawks will have to kill someone to get a penalty.

Ridiculous. The IIHF reffing is better.

[vilzeh]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There you go. Hawks down 2-1 get consecutive PPs to start the 3rd. Hawks will have to kill someone to get a penalty.

Ridiculous. The IIHF reffing is better.

Lets not get carried away now.