Part of the reason why “life on the road” is so difficult is due to how ridiculously biased officiating is for home teams. It drives me crazy, and yes I know Iowa has benefitted at home. Yet I feel it’s cost them some winnable road games.
Home Cooking In The B1G
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
well they certainly forget to bring the chef to carver some games......
good thing msu is on the road, because you know the chef will have the day off for that one
Home venue advantage is true in almost every team sport. The home court subconsciously affects the officials. Been psych studies on it.
Home court officiating doesn't explain things like Nebraska literally playing half an entire game (the middle 20 minutes) with on one foul in a game where they were very overmatched. That's dishonest officiating, probably more associated with the spread than the venue.
Home court officiating doesn't explain things like Nebraska literally playing half an entire game (the middle 20 minutes) with on one foul in a game where they were very overmatched. That's dishonest officiating, probably more associated with the spread than the venue.
I truly believe teams don't play significantly worse on the road than they do at home. Most college athletes have played countless games in front of opposing fanbases, they don't get that rattled all the time.
I believe refs, on the otherhand, get plenty rattled. Whenever they make a bad call against the home team it seems that there is always ALWAYS a makeup call on the other end. That really screws the away team.
And, like you said, the refs definitely weren't hurting Iowa at home friday night.
did you think we had more "no calls" than michigan had though?
or more "favorable calls" than they had?
after the howard technical, it seemed like they allowed "street ball" for a couple minutes before tightening it back up.
I get what the OP is saying, but Iowa didn't benefit Friday night. Michigan shot 34 three point attempts!!! Iowa was attacking in the paint with Garza. Heck, Michigan should have had more fouls. They were all over Luka down there and still couldn't stop him.
Last edited:
I think home court in basketball is a way bigger advantage than football or alot of other sports. Yes, fan noise csn impact any sport. But the nuances of shooting the ball can really be interesting arena to arena. You get used to the background, lighing, the give of the court, even the softness of the rim in your home area. Players in other sports don't interact with the actual physical components of the playing environment as intricately has basketball players have to.
I don't get the OP at all. Are you insinuating we benefitted during the Michigan game? They were mauling Garza all night. If anything, they called too few fouls.
It's hard to blame officiating in our losses. Nebraska was lost because we only made 4 threes. Penn State was lost because we couldn't hit a shot down the stretch.
It's hard to blame officiating in our losses. Nebraska was lost because we only made 4 threes. Penn State was lost because we couldn't hit a shot down the stretch.
Are there stats somewhere that list the average fouls called on the home team vs. the visitors for the whole B1G? That should tell the whole story.
Garza has great footwork, moves, strength and patience and thus draws lots of contact. He also creates it at times, and as I watched the Michigan game, there were a couple of instances where I thought he created the contact when out of position and was bailed out on the call (there were likely times he didn't get it too, but the camera often doesn't show the battle in the block as it follows the ball too much). One I remember specifically when Garza made a move to the baseline and got a bit too deep under the basket. Teske had pretty good position with his body with his hands seemingly straight up and Garza jumped backwards awkwardly to get an angle to shoot and created the contact. That looked like good D to me and a no call seemed more appropriate as I felt Garza entered Teske cylinder, thus not illegal contact.
Basketball is so different than football in that for everytime the ref blows the whistle, there is likely ten times they could have and chose not to. I say that as I reffed HS ball 15 years, and the game is bigger, faster stronger at the D1 level.
There are places to get that data. You could compile it yourself by using box scores-very time intensive. But remember, total calls are only a part of the officiating. The no calls, the timing of calls and the objectively wrong calls do not appear in box scores.
I was a debate coach. Before the internet some of my teams ran a case to improve sports officiating (topic was something about education). Got to read some interesting studies by some very clearly obsessed academics-cuz they dig sports too.
As I recall, and this was decades ago, the best sources were psych publication/professional journals and PhD dissertations. They aggregated years of box scores from like The Sporting News. The major conclusions that I recall were the difference home/road is the simultaneous reaction of the crowd and the official to the same event. The crowd is reacting in the same microsecond that an official's brain is making the call; kind of a natural confirmation bias for lack of a better description. Good/experienced officials can minimize the impact but it is hard wired and cannot be eliminated. Like players throwing to phantoms or hearing wrong; just a part of human competition.
Where the no calls/bad calls are well beyond the norm of road officiating demonstrate the difference between normal officiating and dishonest officiating. At Michigan the officiating didn't matter, Hawks were outplayed. Don't even remember the officiating.
Iowa had a normal road experience at Penn St. The Lion got away with some stuff, especially late in the game but nothing outlandish about the big calls or the volume of calls. Life on the road.
The Nebraska game was far beyond the outer limits of the home court officiating, particularly in seeing no fouls by Nebraska over a very long continuous section of the game-roughly half. Probably a dozen clear no calls on Garza alone. Real obvious fouls that all three officials didn't just miss.
Last edited:
Serious question. In evaluating an official's performance is there a standard that kind of leaves almost everything with the game to the given officials discretion or are there fixed duties to call everything you see?
No one wants to watch every bit of contact get called. I assume the guys that evaluate you guys know that too. I'm sure not too many officials (there's always some little Napoleons in every group) are crazy about trivial or mutual contact. So if you don't call all contact-which I repeat I don't think anyone wants to see or do, how do they evaluate you?
That would be helpful information for our collective information.
Last edited:
I believe the conference wants games called in favor of the home team. It creates a sense of ownership within the fans and teams sell more tickets.
well, it’s not just the big ten. They are just worse than others.
I can’t possibly believe that refs are unintentionally that biased towards the home teams.
The foul I have the hardest time agreeing with is when the offensive man is driving down the court and jumps into the defensive player in the lane. It's about an automatic foul called on the defensive man who in my opinion doesn't foul. JMO
and of course the 4 for 33 3pt shooting had nothing to do with getting beat by nebbie but by all means keep babbling . lol
we try and call contact that gives someone an unfair advantage .
Yep, that's the main difference between college refs & NBA. College refs error on the side of a blown whistle, while NBA refs are the opposite. College refs blow the whistle all too often because they except a foul to happen.
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
I agree. It's not how many fouls were called on each team, it's how many SHOULD have been called, and I mean clear-cut situations. I'm not taking about maybes. Michigan did, in fact, maul Garza on numerous occasions when no foul was called. You can check the video. And, historically, I've always felt Iowa--whether in the Field House or Carver--has generally enjoyed far less of a home-court advantage than, for example, the likes of Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, and Ohio State. But that could just be me....
And I could be wrong, but I believe the FT differential in Ann Arbor was about the same--maybe bigger--than it was in Iowa City. I believe Michigan shot something like 34 free throws to Iowa's five in Ann Arbor. It was something like that. Of course, Coach Howard didn't find anything wrong with those numbers at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, I was going to add that earlier, that Howards boys had just as big a dicrepency at home from the free throw line, but as usual that was not the message he was trying to convey......I agree. It's not how many fouls were called on each team, it's how many SHOULD have been called, and I mean clear-cut situations. I'm not taking about maybes. Michigan did, in fact, maul Garza on numerous occasions when no foul was called. You can check the video. And, historically, I've always felt Iowa--whether in the Field House or Carver--has generally enjoyed far less of a home-court advantage than, for example, the likes of Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, and Ohio State. But that could just be me....
And I could be wrong, but I believe the FT differential in Ann Arbor was about the same--maybe bigger--than it was in Iowa City. I believe Michigan shot something like 34 free throws to Iowa's five in Ann Arbor. It was something like that. Of course, Coach Howard didn't find anything wrong with those numbers at all.
Of course the poor shooting contributed to the loss. Every Iowa mistake contributed to the loss.
Not the point. With all of those mistakes the game was still very close. So what one factor kind of jumps off the page?
Twenty ****ing minutes of no calls on a team that was fouling on almost every defensive possession because they were so overmatched, particularly by Luka.
Do you understand the concept of causation? If so, are you aware there are three levels of causation: absolute; conditional and contributory causation. Every Iowa mistake provided contributory causation. The terrible 3 point shooting was a conditional causation, for Iowa to lose the shooting had to be about that bad. The officiating differential was the absolute causation. Without the grossly one sided officiating Iowa would have shot around 25 or more free throws and won the game at the line.
As for who babbles, I submit to the will of the voters. My posts to like ratio is over 100% and yours is about 38%. The babbling award goes to...………..
How is that evaluated. Its an easy concept to state but when watching the film how is the line actually drawn? I understand the whole "know it when I see it" concept. Is there anything more objective than mere opinion?
Like you're sitting with whoever supervises and you're watching film. Do they ask questions like "what did you see there". Where the video shows an official looking directly at a play and either not making a call at all or making the wrong call-as shown by the video replay.
I agree. It's not how many fouls were called on each team, it's how many SHOULD have been called, and I mean clear-cut situations. I'm not taking about maybes. Michigan did, in fact, maul Garza on numerous occasions when no foul was called. You can check the video. And, historically, I've always felt Iowa--whether in the Field House or Carver--has generally enjoyed far less of a home-court advantage than, for example, the likes of Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, and Ohio State. But that could just be me....
And I could be wrong, but I believe the FT differential in Ann Arbor was about the same--maybe bigger--than it was in Iowa City. I believe Michigan shot something like 34 free throws to Iowa's five in Ann Arbor. It was something like that. Of course, Coach Howard didn't find anything wrong with those numbers at all.
SPOT ON Comrade!
Having seen quite a bit of now aged research on it I have found the effect of the loud crowd sound, usually reacting positively to the exact event simultaneously with the official's mental reaction to be the most plausible explanation for a phenomenon that really crosses all sports.
Now, there are some other officiating phenomena in which the B!G management surely find conveniently lucrative.
So much for home cooking. Can’t even get a foul called when we are intentionally fouling. Good grief this crew is horrible.
You can withhold your complaints now... They got the memo and you know it
Finally calling the game correctly. Fran woke their asses up.
Imagine if they had been calling fouls correctly from the outset.
Missed the intentional foul at end of half giving RU two free points. Then T’d up Fran when he took exception to their eff up. Giving RU two free shots. Called a foul on Frederick(?) with 1 min to play when they collided and neither had the ball then RU player jumped out of bounds then later called a what? a retroactive foul giving RU two more free shots.
In summary, get ****ed.
Similar threads
