TOPIC:

This is one from left field which I would be interested in others views on. There is a lot of discussion in the employment/recruitment area at the moment about Unconcious bias when selecting for a job, that is where a person on a selection panel might make a decision based on deep seated preconceived ideas about a group but may not be aware they are making that judgement. An example of this is the statistic that nearly 40% of CEO's of major companies are guys over 6 foot 3 and yet less than 10% of the US population are over that mark. Does this mean you have to be a tall guy to be a good CEO? Or are selection panels subconsciously associating height with power and competence?

What is the relevance of this concept to footy you might say? Well it has been quite interesting that in the past couple of games, Hawthorn have had the benefit of some very generous umpiring decisions that have pretty much won them games against St Kilda and Adelaide. With St Kilda it was an umpires inconsistent interpretation of what is a 15 metre kick and last night it was a soft free kick which the even the beneficiary (Puopolo) admitted he was lucky to get. Interestingly one of the umpires in the St Kilda game was discovered to have a raft of Hawthorn pictures all over his twitter account.

Nobody realistically could expect umpires to not support a team and no umpire is deliberately biased in a game IMO, but my question is in the heat of the moment when a tough decision has to be made would an umpire's unconscious bias come out in favour of the team they support? In which case do you think it would improve the standard of umpiring for them to declare if they have a conflict of interest if they have grown up supporting a particular team and this would then disqualify them from umpiring that particular team ?

What is definitely a problem is the inconsistency that occurs in a match between umpires and where the free kicks are awarded to the team. For example, in today's game how can a West Perth player be tackled and after two complete revolutions a free kick is not given to Swans, yet Matty Rogers can be tackled virtually as soon as he gets the ball and within 45 degrees he is pinged for holding the ball?

One thing that I think should be eliminated is the Umpires' Advisors/coaches talking to the umpires at each quarter break. Quite often this results in four entirely different interpretations in a match.

Or perhaps an even greater mystery why would a Swans' player, in the first quarter, take a mark after a point was scored by West Perth about 48 metres out on the boundary line kick back to our defensive goal square and do it so badly that it rolls through for a point for West Perth.

anchorman wrote: It might be ahrd to disallow certain umpires to umpire certain clubs Mike.Maybe there are a large number who support say Carlton, or Collingwood etc.What if the panel of how even many, is dominated by followers of a certain club.How does that get worked out.
I find that the top sides seem to get preferential treatment when the 50/50 decisions are to be made.
I watched the great game on Friday night,and though not saying the umpires made the difference in the game, I did find the umps seemed to give the tiggy touch wood decisions a certain way.In the last 18 seconds of the game the Hawks player Isaac Smith took possession of the ball,stood, made no attempt to dispose of the ball, he was tackled and the ball fell free.It was called play on.Had the same incident happened at the ten minute mark of the second quarter, then there would have been an incorrect disposal decision made.
There are certain umpire who I think all clubs hate to have umpiring their games.I know I do have a loathing for some umpires that we seem to get.

A/man I would suspect from a Freo perspective it would indeed be a long list that could include most of the umpires that started in WA. Chamberlain would be another that comes readily to mind.

anchorman wrote: It might be ahrd to disallow certain umpires to umpire certain clubs Mike.Maybe there are a large number who support say Carlton, or Collingwood etc.What if the panel of how even many, is dominated by followers of a certain club.How does that get worked out.
I find that the top sides seem to get preferential treatment when the 50/50 decisions are to be made.
I watched the great game on Friday night,and though not saying the umpires made the difference in the game, I did find the umps seemed to give the tiggy touch wood decisions a certain way.In the last 18 seconds of the game the Hawks player Isaac Smith took possession of the ball,stood, made no attempt to dispose of the ball, he was tackled and the ball fell free.It was called play on.Had the same incident happened at the ten minute mark of the second quarter, then there would have been an incorrect disposal decision made.
There are certain umpire who I think all clubs hate to have umpiring their games.I know I do have a loathing for some umpires that we seem to get.

Well A/M, I saw that one TV friday night (SMITH) & agree with you. Blatant illegal disposal. Also last night when Hawkins go rolled over & the Port player was holding the ball to him whilst Hawkins hands were no where near the ball. Also a few 10m kicks & marks..

Similar theory to a discussion I raised on a previous thread regarding clubs colour schemes and do they effect umpires decision making. Do umpires have an unconscious bias which goes back to subconscious warning signs towards different colours developed over thousands of years of human evolution dealing with danger in nature? One for the scientists but I believe there is more than likely something in it. Why does an angry man wearing all black clothing seem more scary than one dressed in pale pink???

The bias thing has sort of come across my mind with several umpires through the years

Back in the two-umpire regime - that bloody thing Ron Buckey was an absolute swine to us , I used to check to see who the Umpies were before the game just to get myself ready for it on the way there

Couple of others I can't recall names of too

I definitely believe umps have teams they scrutinise deeper than others it's fact

anchorman wrote: I believe that there are certain umpires who like to make it hard for the teams here in WA.And I am sure they do the same for teams out side of Melbourne.
Do they do it on purpose!!!! or is it sub conscious!!
Do the umpires who learned their trade here in WA make an effort not to favour the WA sides?Do they sometimes go over board.What about umpires from say SA, do they make a conscious effort not to give the WA sides the 50/50 decisions?
A debate that will never be finalised.

Check the frees for and against WCE at home over the last 4 years, see how that stacks up eh??

Anchorman. What are you on? Seriously? Look at the stats that clearly indicate that the Eagles are the most favored team for many years. Harry high pants gives you everything.

Every 50/50 at Subiaco will go the way of the Eagles.