Always been curious to know how high on the referees training curriculum bias training is. It has to be there right?
I know in my career, I've asked myself in so many situations (interviews, meetings etc) whether I'm applying bias. That's what the training is all about. It's not that you are biased, it's that it's unconscious so by challenging yourself you're more likely to make it conscious, remove it and make better decisions.
I think most people accept that unconscious bias exists, and there is no doubt that the PGMOL are fully aware and have steps in place to counter it:
The Select Group Referees meet twice per month for training sessions and analysis of match videos and data.
The PGMOL have their own sports scientists, sports psychologists, physiotherapists, sprint coaches, podiatrists and vision scientists which mirror football clubs to help improve referee performance.
Every PGMOL referee is evaluated by a former senior referee to measure their technical performance, along with fellow players and managers (match delegates) who assess accuracy and consistency of their decision making and management of their game.
Frankly I can't see what more they could do, of course there is anecdotal evidence of more difficulties because of culture i.e.
Referees' calls biased by direction of play
European football referees are more likely to award fouls when an attack is moving from right to left across the field because of the way they are taught to read.
Referees' calls biased by direction of play
A study of referees' decisions found that they have a subconscious bias that leads them to award more fouls when play was moving leftward than towards the right.
The findings raise the possibility that a referee watching the same incident from two different positions may not make the same call each time.
Scientists have previously suggested that people who read languages which are read from left to right are more inclined to be biased against things which move in the opposite direction.
Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania asked 12 members of the University's soccer teams – all of whom were native English speakers – to view a series of on-field incidents and decide whether a foul should be awarded.
They found that participants were more likely to give a foul when the play was moving from right to left, even though the left-to-right images were identical, "flipped" copies of the same incidents.
Alexander Kranjec, of the Neurology Department of the University of Pennsylvania, said: "If the spatial biases we observed in this population of soccer players have similar effects on referees in real matches, they may influence particular officials differently.
"Referees on the field will more frequently be in positions that lower their threshold for calling fouls during an attack, compared to assistant referees working the lines."
Referees are taught to traverse the pitch in diagonal lines, while their linesmen work up and down the sidelines.
The researchers said a referee using a left diagonal line would favour the attacking team, while the defending side would gain an advantage if a right diagonal line was used.
Dr Kranjec said: "There could be an unfair advantage if one team goes into half time with a lead and the referees switch to a right diagonal system in the second half, favouring both defences.
"However, because referees viewing leftward action may be more likely to see a foul when no foul was actually committed, as seemed to be the case when the referee disallowed what should have been the US team's third goal against Slovenia, the bias could work against the offence sometimes."
The study was published in PLoS ONE, the online journal by the Public Library of Science.
