Do professional referees keep a mental note of owing a team a call?

[Clothahump]

@TriPolar

I wonder if subconsciously they may be evening things up by trying to be more consistent after complaints. If the ump calls a strike that seems kind of low will they keep consistently calling strikes that low or actually narrow the strike zone and end up calling more strikes?

As a former umpire, I will say no. We strive for consistency. It’s pounded into us in umpire training. You call low pitches strikes in the first inning, you better be calling them strikes in the ninth inning.

[Pixel_Dent]

There are numerous statistical studies showing a slight bias in almost all sports in favor of a team that is behind in a game, behind in a series, a batter or pitcher who is behind in a count, or a team that has recently been penalized.

It’s almost always small but statistically significant.

[Lance_Turbo]

538 looked at this a couple of years ago. The whole article is worth a read but the graph alone is pretty convincing. Here’s a couple sentences from the concluding paragraph, “Call it a biased impartiality. Referees want to appear impartial, which drives them to make partial decisions.”

@RickJay

1. Well… is is true that doesn’t happen? It just happened yesterday, actually. In both games, in fact. And it happened the day before… twice.

I don’t think anyone was saying it never happens, just that it doesn’t happen as much as it should. Certain egregious penalties are going to get called no matter what. Also things like delay of game and too many men just have to be called most of the time with no room for evening things out.

I think the two games you are referring to in your post as happening “yesterday” are Senators at Bruins and Caps at Leafs. It’s true that three penalties in a row were called on Boston at the start of the game, but all three were delay of games. There’s no way to look the other way on those or call a phantom one on the other team.

There were five penalties total in Caps Leafs. It went Caps, Leafs, Leafs, simultaneous roughing on both. I guess you could argue that technically that counts as three in a row against the Leafs, but since the Caps did not get three consecutive power plays I don’t think it really counts for purposes of this discussion.

A quick glance the day before shows me that it only happened once against the Oilers. The third of the three in a row was too many men on the ice.

[Enright3]

@ricepad

I used to be a professional referee in that I got paid to officiate, but not at the professional sport level. There is a strong desire among referees to “even up” missed calls in the interest of ‘fairness’, but the problem with that is it’s patently unfair either to overlook an infraction or impose a penalty where no actual infraction exists. In other words, two wrongs (by the referee) don’t make a right. The governing body of my particular sport regularly monitored referee performance, and strongly advised referees to call each game, each play, and each incident as they saw it and on it’s own particular merits. The hope, of course, is that the missed calls would even themselves out over the course of the game.

The best result is that no matter what the outcome of the game, both teams feel like the referee called it evenly. Almost as good in the referee’s mind, however, is where both teams equally feel they got shafted by the referee.

@Pixel_Dent

There are numerous statistical studies showing a slight bias in almost all sports in favor of a team that is behind in a game, behind in a series, a batter or pitcher who is behind in a count, or a team that has recently been penalized.

It’s almost always small but statistically significant.

Where are these numerous statistical studies? I don’t necessarily doubt you; but my only confirmation is personal experience.

@jtur88

As a former umpire, No. Every call is made on its own merits, in a vacuum. However, it would be human nature if, instead of “the tie goes to the runner”, award a tie to a team against which I had previously blown a call. And believe me, you DO remember, vividly, every blown call.

However, baseballl has the unique property of an absence of “no calls”, and most of what would be “balancing” in any other sport would be a call versus a no-call. I would expect a stronger inclination there to try to balance borderline calls.

That’s what makes baseball the perfect game. When the ball is pitched or batted, the ump can’t just turn his back and say he didn’t see it so it didn’t happen.

@Clothahump

As a former umpire, I will say no. We strive for consistency. It’s pounded into us in umpire training. You call low pitches strikes in the first inning, you better be calling them strikes in the ninth inning.

I too am a former NCAA umpire. You don’t do make up calls. As was stated above; you get pounded in umpire training; be consistent. The coaches expect it. If you happen to have a wide strike zone that day you have to live with it and try to be consistent. That doesn’t mean if you call one low strike on accident; then you now have to lower your strike zone. It just means that you just let one slip through. A lot of the rules of baseball and softball support the idea of you fix a problem when it exists and then move on. i.e. In the middle of an inning you discover a base or the pitching rubber is at an incorrect distance. You fix it then and there and move on. The game is played as is, from there.