You would obviously have to use conference games only. Using OOC games would include weak teams.
Carino on Fouls: "Staggering"
- Thread starter SirScarlet
- Start date
You would obviously have to use conference games only. Using OOC games would include weak teams.
You might have to adjust .5 to 1 extra foul to the visiting for a losing team in a close game fouling to get back in the game
I want to see a fan base say they routinely get good calls!
I am not going to conclude that it is 50/50. Refs are human and better players may get more calls, HOF coaches may get better calls, and unlikeable coaches could miss calls.
Yes there has been some questionable calls. Yes we have played some close games.
I just don't see it that lopsided. I also am biased in that I hate people complaining about refs.
I am not going to conclude that it is 50/50. Refs are human and better players may get more calls, HOF coaches may get better calls, and unlikeable coaches could miss calls.
Yes there has been some questionable calls. Yes we have played some close games.
I just don't see it that lopsided. I also am biased in that I hate people complaining about refs.
I think looking at refs critically, though, is just as valid as looking at anyone else on the court critically. A point guard not being able to drive to the left, a big man who can't keep his arms straight up, a coach that misuses timeouts, and a ref that struggles with consistency on block/charge calls. If people can breakdown why a coach or a player or a team made errors, there shouldn't be any prohibition about doing it for referees.
I'll wait until the regular season is over and then take a look at conference games. As I said in another post, it's still a fairly small sample size with just 9 home/9 away games... but it'll at least be something to look at.
Why should issue be Rutgers home vs Rutgers away?
Shouldn't it be Rutgers vs. Michigan state
Izzo vs Pikiell
Nigel Hayes vs Eugene omoruyi
Shouldn't it be Rutgers vs. Michigan state
Izzo vs Pikiell
Nigel Hayes vs Eugene omoruyi
To me the issue would be ref specific. The refs are against us is sour grapes. If Carino had evidence that said, as an example, Gene Steratore officiated 4 Rutgers games this year and called 22 fouls on RU and 6 on the other team you would have a scoop.
There always will be comments pro and con regarding referees.My opinion is that in the close games Rutgers failed to hold leads because they couldn't make shots including at the foul line.Lets not forget that this basketball program has won a grand total of 5 league games in 3 years and I have heard complaints about the referees during that time and years before.
Bottom line focus should be directed on the lack of talent for the past 25 years as compared to the league competition .Blaming the referees is just a lame excuse to defer attention from the real reasons the basketball program has so many consecutive losing seasons.Teams that continually lose have far more problems to overcome then constant focus on referees as the cause for losing games.
Bottom line focus should be directed on the lack of talent for the past 25 years as compared to the league competition .Blaming the referees is just a lame excuse to defer attention from the real reasons the basketball program has so many consecutive losing seasons.Teams that continually lose have far more problems to overcome then constant focus on referees as the cause for losing games.
There can be all kinds of factors - but one more macro view is whether we get less of a favorable whistle overall at home than we do on the road, when compared to how well other conference teams fare on the home vs. on the road.
It could be that the RAC fans are less intimidating, or refs at the RAC are less afraid of getting reamed by the coach, or whatever. The fivethirtyeight article made a connection that NFL referees are less likely to make a call that angers the coach on the sideline they are standing on - the implication being that there is some level of conflict avoidance. That same impulse might hold true in certain arenas or with certain coaches.
Whether or not it decided any games, or whether there were other factors, officiating can have impact on games. Bad calls and injuries are part of the game, to be sure - but that doesn't mean they don't hurt. A shore business that's struggling and has razor thin margins is going to feel an inclement weekend a lot more keenly than an established business with wider margins... and just because the weather didn't have it in for them, doesn't mean they weren't hurt disproportionately by the weather.
Refs are people - there are good ones and bad ones, and ones that cave to fan/coach pressure and ones that resist it (and surely some biases for/against specific teams, players, styles of play, etc). And catching a bad ref (or a good ref on a bad day) is felt more keenly by programs with no margin for error than it is by programs with more of a talent cushion.
Or just noting that it is very late in the season and he and everyone else talked about every other topic ad nauseum. Like a broadcaster in the 8th inning of a 14-2 game.
Carino's statistical evidence is weak. That is inarguable, as he does nothing to "control" for systemic errors. Maybe there are perfectly good reasons why NE and PSU have better foul disparities in their home games, that have more to do with opponents or style of play or any number of other factors. Or maybe there truly is bias for those teams and against RU for some reason we don't know - but if there is, his comparison far from "proves" that point.
Having said all that, there has been some good statistical research into the "home team bias" exhibited by referees in a number of sports (the bias is real) and it has been theoreized that this is due to "influence conformity" as refs aren't immune from 70,000 howling fans - and given how quiet the RAC has been, maybe there is something to this at our home games vs. other teams (would be interesting to compare attendance or more importantly, noise levels vs. those teams).
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/apr/28/referees-home-team-sean-ingle
I will say this - I generally don't get into the blaming the refs game, as I just don't see what I think is that much bias, but once in awhile there are some really obvious mistakes that are hard to overlook, like the phantom foul on Sanders the other night - no way that should ever be called, especially with 1 second left on the shot clock and under a minute left in a game where touch fouls were not being called. We still might've lost, but that call really hurt.
Having said all that, there has been some good statistical research into the "home team bias" exhibited by referees in a number of sports (the bias is real) and it has been theoreized that this is due to "influence conformity" as refs aren't immune from 70,000 howling fans - and given how quiet the RAC has been, maybe there is something to this at our home games vs. other teams (would be interesting to compare attendance or more importantly, noise levels vs. those teams).
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/apr/28/referees-home-team-sean-ingle
I will say this - I generally don't get into the blaming the refs game, as I just don't see what I think is that much bias, but once in awhile there are some really obvious mistakes that are hard to overlook, like the phantom foul on Sanders the other night - no way that should ever be called, especially with 1 second left on the shot clock and under a minute left in a game where touch fouls were not being called. We still might've lost, but that call really hurt.
Or that it's almost March and -- again -- he has nothing better to write about covering Rutgers.
Exactly. This is why a school like Duke is so hated. They always get the benefit of the doubt with calls.
As to Carino's article: yes one can take away from his article that because we don't have the "rep" as a good team, we don't get the calls. I find it eye popping to see that Nebraska and PSU got 19 and 25 fewer calls against them. There is no doubt, that when we start winning on a regular basis, our home court will become a refuge and we will start getting the calls and the RAC will once again become the nightmare for all visiting teams.
We have no margin for error and if anyone doesn't believe that we received the short end of the stick this year from the refs then you just weren't objective or were not watching the game. It has been a factor like it or not.
I'll trade all this for reversal of two horrible calls that may very well have cost us wins..Gettys' and the Sanders BS vs. UM at home late game.
All the evidence I need that we do NOT get the benefit. Doesn't mean they are trying to cost us the game..just not helping.
All the evidence I need that we do NOT get the benefit. Doesn't mean they are trying to cost us the game..just not helping.
We see how well we play defense. We do go to the rim more than teams with a similar record. Yet, we are not officiated the same. Not sure why Bac, FIG, etc are taking their hard stance here. Using the same data across all teams it's strange that there is so much disparity knowing what we know. 19 and 25 compared to 2 fewer. That's too big a separation.
Unfortunately it's not just foul calls. Maybe its because we don't have the "star" players, but we definitely do not get the benefit of the doubt on travelling calls, 50-50 out of bounds calls, etc. In the Michigan game their center was doing the "Icky shuffle" every time he handled the ball at the top of the key. I think he was called for travelling once.
Okay, so looked at the conference stats, and there doesn't seem to be anything there from a statistical bias perspective (that's not to say that there weren't bad calls, or even a badly called game... just that over the course of the season, it doesn't look like Big Ten officials 'had it in' for Rutgers). All numbers come from sports-reference.com
Total Foul Delta between Team and Opponent (Home Games)
Rutgers was whistled for 7 more fouls than our opponents were at home... which ranks 10th in the conference. MSU got whistled for 18 more fouls than their opponents (14th place), while Purdue got whistled for a whopping 39 fewer fouls than their opponents (1st). There were just 5 teams that were whistled more often than their opponents at home (MSU 18, Northwestern 14, Indiana 13, Rutgers 7, Illinois 6).
Total Foul Delta between Team and Opponent (Away Games)
Rutgers was whistled for just 3 more fouls than our opponents were on the road... which ranks 7th in the conference. Indiana got whistled for 47 more fouls than their opponents (14th), while Minnesota got whistled for 15 fewer fouls than their opponents (1st). There were only 4 teams that were whistled for fewer fouls than their opponents on the road (Minnesota 15, Purdue 11, Wisconsin 1, Illinois 1)
Team Fouls per game, Home vs. Away
Rutgers was whistled for 2.0 more fouls per game on the road than we were at home... which ranks 9th in the conference. Nebraska got whistled for 4.3 more per game on the road (14th), while Minnesota got whistled for 0.4 fewer fouls on the road than at home (1st - and only team to get a friendlier whistle on the road than at home).
Total Foul Delta between Team and Opponent (Home Games)
Rutgers was whistled for 7 more fouls than our opponents were at home... which ranks 10th in the conference. MSU got whistled for 18 more fouls than their opponents (14th place), while Purdue got whistled for a whopping 39 fewer fouls than their opponents (1st). There were just 5 teams that were whistled more often than their opponents at home (MSU 18, Northwestern 14, Indiana 13, Rutgers 7, Illinois 6).
Total Foul Delta between Team and Opponent (Away Games)
Rutgers was whistled for just 3 more fouls than our opponents were on the road... which ranks 7th in the conference. Indiana got whistled for 47 more fouls than their opponents (14th), while Minnesota got whistled for 15 fewer fouls than their opponents (1st). There were only 4 teams that were whistled for fewer fouls than their opponents on the road (Minnesota 15, Purdue 11, Wisconsin 1, Illinois 1)
Team Fouls per game, Home vs. Away
Rutgers was whistled for 2.0 more fouls per game on the road than we were at home... which ranks 9th in the conference. Nebraska got whistled for 4.3 more per game on the road (14th), while Minnesota got whistled for 0.4 fewer fouls on the road than at home (1st - and only team to get a friendlier whistle on the road than at home).
Looking at the pure numbers does a real disservice to RU and takes the ref quality way out of context. Make up calls, calls not made, judgment calls, calls in garbage time, etc.
We received a very serious short end of the ref stick this year.
We received a very serious short end of the ref stick this year.
Does anybody realize in the quarter century time frame of Rutgers not being in the NCAA tournament that a whole generation of referees has come and gone? I would have to think with that amount of change in that variable that poor play is the most obvious constant over the years. You have a natural progression of turnover in refs and players which becomes like a business where there is a constant turnover of employees, yet the company cannot turn a profit. Time to look at headquarters and not the workforce.
Similar threads
