A study has indicated that hurling teams are more likely to be awarded frees if they are behind on the scoreboard. The finding is the result of a comprehensive survey of three seasons of senior intercounty championship activity from 2016 to 2018.
Of the 1,183 frees awarded in 75 matches during that time, 11.4 per cent were when teams were level on the scoreboard, 39.4 per cent went to teams that were ahead and 49.2 per cent were awarded to teams losing at the time of the free.
This doesn’t come in as just a headline number, which could be explained away as random. Every way it is sliced, the same disparity emerges.
Each of the three years under review show the same trend consistently: 49-42, 48-40 and 50-37. Within the schedule of matches, there is the same disproportion. Of the 75 fixtures, 53 featured a greater number of frees awarded to the team trailing on the scoreboard as opposed to 18 vice versa and four where there was no difference.
‘The club is who we are’: Pure pride as Na Fianna look forward to first All-Ireland senior hurling final
Mayo fighting to keep the faith as old guard continue to bow out
Paul Casey and Derek Murray appointed joint managers of Dublin women’s team
Diarmuid O’Sullivan proud of Sarsfields’ progress as they look forward to final test
Thirteen of 14 referees gave more frees to the team behind and of the 13 teams involved, 10 were awarded a greater number of their frees when trailing.
“Compensating Tendencies in Free Shot Awards: The Case of Hurling” by John Considine (UCC), John Eakins (UCC), Peter Horgan (Croke Park) and Conor Weir (Croke Park), was presented by John Eakins on Thursday to the annual conference of the European Sports Economics Association, being held in Cork.
Dr Considine, of UCC’s Department of Economics and a former All-Ireland medallist with Cork, is careful to outline the parameters of the research. He is of the belief that the imbalance is because of referees and the way they reach decisions but emphasises this is purely interpretation.
“The data only shows frees awarded. This does not relate to fouls. We’re not saying that was a foul and should have been a free. It’s only frees and what we can say is that the data is correct in terms of the frees awarded.
“Interpretation will differ. Some people will say if you’re ahead you’re more likely to foul because you don’t want to be caught. We would argue on balance that it looks like the referee who is deciding, ‘I’m giving this to the team that’s behind’.
“It happens in cricket. When technology was introduced, they found it reduced bias because umpires used to give more decisions against the bowler because putting someone ‘out’ is so final and they were slower to send a player back to the pavilion.
“In Gaelic games, big fellas get flaked and get no frees but a smaller fellah will. That could be the interpretation. What we do know is the data is correct and interpretation after that is open. Sports scientists tend to focus on the players’ perspective but economists, maybe influenced by America, tend to look at the regulator.
“I should add that we also find that the team behind in the free count is statistically more likely to get the next free.”
There is equally interesting data in what doesn’t appear to influence decisions. No evidence was found to support a greater chance for the home side of getting frees nor for the “better” team being unfairly favoured.
The index for better teams comes from Virgin Media political correspondent Gavan O’Reilly’s Elo rating for GAA teams – named after its inventor, Arpad Elo, who devised it to rank chess players.
Considine was particularly surprised that the issuing of cards had no verifiable effect on whether teams were awarded subsequent frees.
“We checked cards, which interestingly, don’t show up. I would have nearly put the mortgage on the fact if teams got more cards, particularly red ones, the referee adjusts for that but there was no statistical evidence.”
He says the idea for the study has its origins in the Cork-Clare All-Ireland of 10 years ago and a book published the same year.
“That book, Scorecasting [The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won by Tobias J Moskowitz and L Jon Wertheim] came out in 2013 [among its focuses was influences on match officials].
“In that year’s hurling final, Cork led by a point with time up and people were giving out: ‘oh, time was up and they’re playing over’. It’s ‘Fergie time’ and all this, but you knew that the referee [Brian Gavin] would give Clare another chance and they took it.
“In 2017, I noticed the pattern about frees occurring so I said let’s widen it out. Take 2016 and then 2018 because it was the first year of the round robin. We went over everything, rechecked, rewatched to make sure the data was correct.”
Work is ongoing to expand the data base and this year’s championship is nearly complete although not part of this study. Considine came away from the research with an enhanced respect for referees and the amount they get right and doesn’t believe that the findings need to be addressed.
“There is material in America that shows match officials are ‘pro-league,’ which means biased towards keeping games interesting. There could be that but we’re saying it’s more about decision-making under uncertainty. Even from that point of view, the costs to the team behind are far greater so it makes perfect sense to give them the benefit of the doubt – within the zone of discretion, not invent things!
“We’re not saying anything has to change, either. If players were asked, do you want borderline calls to go to the team that’s losing, there’s a good chance that they’d agree.”
