Home town advantage 'scientifically' proven

Discussion in 'Rugby Union Discussion' started by Hurricane, Jul 23, 2014.

  1. Weeman27bob BE Force

    Just from a quick search it doesn't look like he's done a lot of stuff that's been peer-reviewed, certainly not on this topic. Lots of popular scientific journalism type stuff though.
     
  2. HeathDavisSpeed HT Davis

    Hmmm. That's doesn't lend much weight to the paper then, really.
     
  3. Alex Mediocre MBE A Mediocre

    It's an argument for deaf refs. Added bonus, there's no point back-chatting a deaf ref.
     
  4. Weeman27bob BE Force

    4/10

    I was expecting something funnier from you.
     
  5. Alex Mediocre MBE A Mediocre

    4's still quite respectable for mocking the disabled.
     
  6. The Boy Brumby ZJ Brumby

    CBA to do the leg work, but it'd be interesting to see which in team sport "home advantage" is the most marked.

    Intuitively it'd be cricket, with it being uniquely beholden to play conditions, but I've no idea if it is.

    As an aside, one season The Arsenal were unbeaten away, but lost three times in front of home support. Might be 2002 from memory.
     
  7. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Man United this season were imperious away from home - best record in the league iirc - yet bottled it frequently at home. There the 72k fans just added pressure on their own team instead of the refs/opposition.

    As for biggest advantage, I think cricket is a good one. The pitch at Lords being a prime example even if we failed epicly to capitalise.
     
  8. Weeman27bob BE Force

    I'd be interested to see how much of an impact it has in the Davis cup.

    That's the only thing that I can think of where the conditions change as much as they do in cricket.
     
  9. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    Ice Hockey has a last change for the home team - so you can match up your players to whatever line the visiting team puts on the ice. Massive advantage.
    Also in faceoffs the visiting team has to put their stick on the ice first which allows the home team more flexibility to win the puck.

    NFL - Green Bay Packers - playing on a turf field in freezing conditions.
     
  10. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    There was a championship game in Green Bay a few years ago where it was colder than Moscow. Fuck playing in that!
     
  11. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    I would never dream of debating AFL with you or whatever sport you follow. So I don't know why anyone would debate a sport they don't follow, least of all call the maxims of that sport stupid. I will change the topic to rugby union which perhaps you might know something about.

    If a coach of a super XV side notices that his team is leading the league for discipline. He will probably not pat his team on the back and say well done. If he is worth his salt he will probably tell them to push the envelope more and play on the edge of the rules more to secure more turnovers at the highly litigated and contentious ruck and maul areas.
    You are right in the sense that he will never give a speech saying "take more penalties" - that would indeed be stupid. But he would say "Play on the edge more guys and do what it takes to secure the turnovers we need at crucial times".

    There is an optimum number of penalties for a rugby union game. If you take between 3-5 penalties that is ok and it means you are playing on the edge.
    If you go through a whole game with zero penalties it probably means you played the game like a bunch of pansies and without enough aggression.
    More than ten penalties in a game means you need to work on your discipline or encountered a very whistle happy ref.

    The All Blacks for example, have never, and will never set a target of zero penalties in a game of rugby.
     
  12. BoyBlunder BOY Blunder

    Ritchie McCaw is the prime example of that. Always plays just on the wrong side of the law
     
  13. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    Indeed. Good example. And he along with some of the other better 7s in the world will test out the referee by pushing the limits further and further in the game until the ref finally blows the whistle so they know where the line is for that match.
     
  14. Mousey AJ Son

    Earlier this year San Francisco played in Green Bay when the polar vortex was going and it was four Fahrenheit and -14 Fahrenheit with windchill, in 2008 New York played in Green Bay at -4F (-24F with wind chill) and in 1967 Dallas played in Green Bay for the NFL Championship Game (winner went on to the Superbowl, there were two leagues back then) in -13F (-48F wid chill). Fuck living in Green Bay.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2014
  15. Furball G Furball

    Home advantage is definitely a factor in football. IIRC it's worth half a goal on average, will dig out the figures later.
     
  16. Furball G Furball

    The optimum number of penalties to concede is zero.

    I understand the point you're making but that doesn't mean conceding 3-5 penalties is better than conceding 0 penalties.
     
  17. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    Then you only 90% understand my point.

    By pushing the rules extremely far in the game so that you pick up 3-5 penalties - you will probably execute an additional 10-15 "plays" (I am stealing that word from the NFL) in the game than you would if you played safe. Ritchie for example gets penalised once at least every game but by playing so close to the edge of the law he will execute 2-3 critical turnovers per game which often break up sequences that would have lead to a try.

    Remember that tries in Union are worth far more than 7 points. They send a message. And that message is "we own you because we crossed your try line" and the momentum you get from that message is huge.

    Which is why, and apologies to hard core NZ fans, the all blacks will commit professional fouls in the red zone on defence to give away 3 points instead of 7.

    Conclusion if you give up 9 points in penalty kicks you will probably stop at least one 7 point try and possibly create a 7 point try just by sailing so close to the wind.

    Now I could be talking out of my ass and I have no "proof" for that mathematics. It is just from my observations of the game.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2014
  18. Weeman27bob BE Force

    From a practical perspective it might be that conceding 3-5 penalties a game is good because it shows you're playing on the edge, but there's no way that conceding 0 penalties isn't the optimum number from a theoretical point of view.

    There's no reason you can't push the rules right to the edge without breaking them apart from that it's quite difficult to do.
     
  19. Hurricane JD Hurricane

    This is theoretically correct but your last words there are key "its quite difficult to do"
    The odds I would give you of not getting penalised are 100 to 1 if you are going to sail close to the wind. So it is theoretically possibly but for all intents and purposes impossible. And I don't want to get drawn into another debate where someone says if there is a 1 in 100 chance of something happening it is not impossible. Yes you are right which is why I said for all intents and purposes impossible.

    Sailing close to the wind by the way doesn't mean almost breaking the rules.. It is what Blunder said in my opinion. It means being slightly and ever so slightly on the wrong side of the law. And you will get caught with your hands in the cookie jar if you are going to push the envelope.

    What are some examples I can give:
    1) The coach says lets rush up on defence as quick as we can to shut them down. This means you run the risk of getting an offside penalty
    2) The coach says: Lets really smash them on defence. You run the risk of someone mistiming a tackle or being so jacked up that they go past 90 degrees and do a tipping tackle.
    3) The coach says lets own the breakdown at all costs: Someone like Ritchie will get caught executing this command.

    I would like to close my post by analysis on why we disagree.
    You are focusing on the mathematical issue of the optimum number of penalties in a game. But you are only including one variable in your calculations and that is points conceded from penalties.
    I am doing a multi variable analysis (admittedly in my mind) using additional tries scored, and additional tries saved in my calculations.
    When you use multiple variables it is possible to reach a optimum penalty points per game not equal to zero.

    I am sure that will just lead to a discussion of mathematics instead of rugby so maybe I shouldn't have gone there. But that is why you are disagreeing with me. You are not seeing the big picture of the whole game.
     
  20. Weeman27bob BE Force

    I'm only pointing it out from the mathematical perspective that the optimal amount of penalties to concede in a game is zero. It doesn't work in reality, but the optimum isn't rooted in reality.
     

Share This Page