Hardwick not just a study in whingeingSimon White
August 9, 2011 Richmond coach Damien Hardwick might be accused of whingeing for suggesting a pro-West Coast crowd influenced umpires on Sunday – but all he did was sub-consciously reference established research from all over the world.
Hardwick's reaction to a 30-14 free-kick count in the Eagles' favour during West Coast's 57-point win was to say the 38,000-strong crowd made "a big noise at certain stages of the game" and wielded a significant influence over "the people out there."
In doing so he trumpeted a 2000 University of Wolverhampton study which found that soccer crowd noise resulted in referees identifying 15 per cent less fouls against home teams.
Harvard University studies have also shown away soccer teams concede more penalties than home teams, data researchers say it alludes to the susceptibility of referees to crowd influence.
Professor David Rowe, a sociologist from the University of Western Sydney's centre for cultural research, told WAtoday.com.au it was common sense that umpires would be swayed by large and loud parochial home crowds.
More to the point, Professor Rowe said a home crowd – whether it consciously realises so or not – makes a concerted attempt to "talk" the umpire into a favourable decision.
"Why do fans make so much noise? When you think about it, consciously or unconsciously they are trying to get umpires to make a particular decision," Professor Rowe said.
"How many times do you hear a crowd scream in unison "holding the ball?" Or "handball" or "penalty" or "foul?"
"And the key thing is that they yell it out before the whistle has blown, which suggests they are trying to influence the umpire or referee."
Whether the lop-sided free-kick count on Sunday was anything out of the ordinary remains open to debate.
The Eagles were the better of the two teams and had more of the football – and it's normally easier to give away a free kick when you don't have possession than when the ball is in your hands.
West Coast is also a "good free kick" team, whether home or away.
Since losing the free kick count 18-30 to North Melbourne in round one, the Eagles are 179 free kicks for and 142 against in home games at Patersons Stadium (a differential of more than 20 per cent)
But the Eagles are also 194-for and 170-against in away games (a difference of more than 12 per cent) and even won the free-kicks 19-18 in their biggest loss of the season to Collingwood in late May at the MCG.
Professor Rowe, however, believes sheer empirical data is less telling than the potential relationship between crowd influence and situational statistics.
One of Hardwick's obvious frustrations on Sunday was that he believed West Coast had nine shots at goal as a direct result of free kicks.
"When you are talking about crowd influence and umpiring decisions, I suspect it's not so much the number of decisions as the really key ones," Professor Rowe said.
"In the AFL for instance, it might not be so important if a free kick is paid in the middle of the ground. But a decision at either end of the ground, where it might alter the result of the match can be very important.
"Another factor may be the experience of the umpires. It takes a great deal of concentration to make the correct decision with all that crowd noise.
"Sometimes you can't hear yourself think and it will probably be a more difficult task for a less experienced umpire."
Given Professor Rowe's observation on experience, it may be pertinent that the umpires on Sunday were Luke Farmer, Shane Stewart and Jeff Dalgleish.
Farmer started this season with 56 games under his belt, while Stewart had 40 and Dalgleish had only 17.
The ability for a crowd to influence officials is one element of "home ground advantage" that Professor Rowe subscribes to.
But he also expects the phenomenon can work the other way and that some more experienced umpires might consciously try to buck the trend.
"I suspect there are some umpires and referees who might revel in the controversy," Professor Rowe said.
"As much as a partisan crowd might yell at them to make one decision, they might quite enjoy making another.
"It's unlikely to be an inexperienced umpire who would do that as they would not wish to attract controversy and potentially risk their position."
Subconsciously or not, Professor Rowe's description would seem to fit larger-than-life whistle-blower Ray "Razor" Chamberlain, who was last month reminded by umpires boss Jeff Gieschen of the need to keep his theatrical side in check.
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/hardwick-not-just-a-study-in-whingeing-20110808-1iiz8.html#ixzz1UWWHKvuH
