Study sees racial bias in calling fouls

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
I applaud those who actually took the time to read the report. As I said in the original post, my initial reaction was skepticism too: it just doesn't seem likely that the study could have taken into account all the myriad factors. But the more you read, the more you realize how many factors were actually considered.

Having said that, I'm not ready to conclude the study is valid or invalid. I just think it's ridiculous to dismiss the findings outright, as so many (here and in the media) are doing, without actually bothering to read the damn thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly, most people would take an entire day to read through the paper and even gain a basic grasp of what is going on in the paper


i don't want to come off as condescending, but it's above their current skill set.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there is a bias. I certainly wouldn't be overly surprised by it, but I don't see any way to prove it. The rate at which fouls are called in no way proves bias. Even if someone watched every second of every game to make some kind of judgement on every single foul, the study is still open to bias by the people performing the study who obviously went in hoping they could show racism.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is ridiculously wrong

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if this "study" was performed in a way that made sense, why is it not possible that black players just commit fouls at a higher rate?

[/ QUOTE ]

the study and its methods control for such a factor

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
pretty cool take on the study:

http://www.basketbloom.net/2007/05/w...-is-bogus.html

[/ QUOTE ]

this critique is awful

first,
yes, it's MEANINGFUL. Does he know what p-value is? These numbers show that the differences are statistically significant from 0. The P-value shows that it isn't within reasonable margin of error. Does he understand statistics, or the specific equation and coeffecients used?
The argument about the free throw shooting and potential makes is misleading. The critic has no theoretical reason and no statistical basis to conclude that the fouls within the different samples (ref combos by player types) are of a different quality. He isn't showing why a foul called with 1 white ref and 2 black refs on a white player is different from a foul called on a black player with 3 white refs. He makes no argument as to why the proportion of shooting fouls and non-shooting fouls are different in the situations.

the second criticism is equally unsound. The paper has shown there is a relationship. It can be from the officiating, it can be the players' response, and it can be bits of both. In a dynamic system, I fully expect it to be a combo of both. However, the officials are the 'law-makers.' The players are responding. It seems that Bloom is searching for ways to disqualify the paper at this point.

The third point on calls and non-calls is ridiculous. It doesn't invalidate that the calls are going one way (the author's findings). Even if we found non-calls going completely the opposite direction in the same magnitude, that would also be very interesting. There is no argument given for why the judgment/decision-making skills of officials would apply differently from situations with fouls called to situations with non-calls. In addition, the whole concept of 'non-calls' is quite difficult. How does one define a non-call? How does one find a data set of 'non-calls?' 'Non-calls' would bring up so many hassles that they are not worth it.


This critique is downright awful. I'm not sure he understood the paper's results or methodology.

[Hoya]

[ QUOTE ]
pretty cool take on the study:

http://www.basketbloom.net/2007/05/w...-is-bogus.html

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was pretty much horrible. Why exactly would missed calls matter, unless players were committing more "true" fouls with white refs than black, or vice versa?

In addition, the numerical example he tries to give at the end totally fail to prove his point.

[kidcolin]

it's more about people's take on the study. Officiating isn't just blowing a whistle, it's knowing when not to, too.

I'm not saying the study is right or wrong, but I thought the critique brought up a few interesting points.

mt2r,

What about the basic point about the controls of the study? I'm admittedly naive and haven't read the dang thing.

[teamdonkey]

kidcolin, that link from basketbloom looks for the most part pretty bad. The funniest thing about this whole issue is how otherwise smart people keep showing a lack of understanding how statistics work, or how to interpret parts of the study. Even Hollinger falls prey to this in his article. It's like everyone directly involved with Basketball saw the title, was instantly offended, and starting digging for reasons to discredit it.

[ QUOTE ]
What about the basic point about the controls of the study? I'm admittedly naive and haven't read the dang thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean by controls?

[kidcolin]

sorry.. poor wording (actually, flat wrong wording). I'm talking about causality. Could it be player bias? Could it be anything else?

I'm not trying to stretch here.. just curious. I guess I should just read the damn thing. I'd expect some racial bias both ways. I agree with your statement.

[SmileyEH]

Everyone just read what MT2R posted. Ultimate criticism/confirmation of this study is not going to come from an interview on sportscenter, but through the academic peer review process, or a recreation of the study by another team.

[kidcolin]

wasn't that a big beef people had when it came out, that it wasn't peer reviewed? Has it been thoroughly other than mt2r?