Search

This study aimed to examine how soccer referees make decisions about issuing yellow cards for fouls. The research involved 60 male participants, divided into expert (n=30) and novice (n=30) groups based on their experience and qualifications as referees. They took part in a 2x2x2 mixed-design experiment. The study looked at Decision-Making Style (DMS: Analytical Decision-Making [ADM] vs. Intuitive Decision-Making [IDM]), Video Type (yellow card foul vs. nonyellow card foul), and Referee Level (expert vs. novice) as independent variables. The dependent variables were accuracy rate (ACC), discrimination index (D), self-confidence index (C), and overconfidence index (OC). The findings showed that Analytical Decision-Making (ADM) led to higher accuracy compared to Intuitive Decision-Making (IDM). Expert referees demonstrated better accuracy than novice referees. There was also an interaction between Decision-Making Style and Referee Level, showing differences in the effectiveness of ADM and IDM between expert and novice referees. Additionally, the study revealed that both expert and novice referees showed overconfidence, with experts demonstrating significantly higher overconfidence, particularly during IDM. In conclusion, the research highlighted the complexity of referees' decisionmaking in high-pressure situations and emphasized the potential benefits of employing Analytical Decision-Making strategies. The study contributed to understanding cognitive biases in sports officiating and suggested the need for targeted training programs to help referees improve their performance and reduce overconfidence in challenging situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present paper, we tested the ability of individuals to judge correctly whether athletes are lying or telling the truth. For this purpose, we first generated 28 videos as stimulus material: in half of the videos, soccer players were telling the truth, while in the other half, the same soccer players were lying. Next, we tested the validity of these video clips by asking N = 65 individuals in a laboratory experiment (Study 1a) and N = 52 individuals in an online experiment (Study 1b) to rate the level of veracity of each video clip. Results suggest that participants can distinguish between true and false statements, but only for some clips and not for others, indicating that some players were better at deceiving than others. In Study 2, participants again had to make veracity estimations, but we manipulated the level of information given, as participants (N = 145) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (regular video clips, mute video clips, and only the audio stream of each statement). The results revealed that participants from the mute condition were less accurate in their veracity ratings. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

In the present paper, we tested the ability of individuals to judge correctly whether athletes are lying or telling the truth. For this purpose, we first generated 28 videos as stimulus material: in half of the videos, soccer players were telling the truth, while in the other half, the same soccer players were lying. Next, we tested the validity of these video clips by asking N = 65 individuals in a laboratory experiment (Study 1a) and N = 52 individuals in an online experiment (Study 1b) to rate the level of veracity of each video clip. Results suggest that participants can distinguish between true and false statements, but only for some clips and not for others, indicating that some players were better at deceiving than others. In Study 2, participants again had to make veracity estimations, but we manipulated the level of information given, as participants (N = 145) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions (regular video clips, mute video clips, and only the audio stream of each statement). The results revealed that participants from the mute condition were less accurate in their veracity ratings. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When judging ambiguous foul situations in football (soccer), referees must attune to the kinematic characteristics inherent in genuine fouls to ensure that they can (i) recognize when a foul has taken place, and (ii) discriminate the presence of deceptive intent on the part of the tackled player. The aim of this study was to determine whether perceptual training that removes superficial visual information would improve the decision-making performance of football referees. Two groups of skilled referees judged ambiguous foul situations on video before and after a training intervention that involved adjudicating foul situations. During the training phase, participants in a blurred-footage training group watched digitally altered, blurred videos that removed superficial visual information, whilst participants in a normal-footage control group viewed the same videos without blur (i.e., with the superficial information present). We hypothesized that blurred-training would train referees to ignore superficial visual information and instead focus on the basic kinematic movements that would better reveal the true nature of the inter-personal interaction. Consistent with this idea, training with blurred footage resulted in a positive change in response accuracy from pre to post-test when compared with normal-footage training. This improvement could not be explained on the basis of changes in response time or bias, but instead reflected a change in the sensitivity to genuine fouls. These findings provide a promising indication of the potential efficacy of blurred-footage training for referees to attune to the kinematic information that characterizes a foul. Blurred training might offer an innovative means of enhancing the decision-making performance of football referees via perceptual training.