ArticleRoyal Society open science2020
Is the perception of intent by association football officials influenced by video playback speed?
Article in Royal Society open science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research on motion perception indicates that when we view actions in slow-motion, the perceived degree of intent behind those actions can increase. Slow-motion replays are widely used in the checking and review of refereeing decisions by video assistant referees (VAR) in association football. To test whether the decisions of referees are subject to such a bias, 80 elite English professional football officials made decisions about 60 incidents recorded in professional European leagues (recorded as fouls, yellow-card offences or red-card offences by the on-field referee). Both real-time (1×) and slow-motion (0.25×) playback speeds were used. Participants had no prior knowledge of the incidents, playback speeds or disciplinary sanctions relating to each clip. Three judgements were made about each incident: extent of contact, degree of intent, and disciplinary sanction. Results showed an effect of playback speed on decision-making, but not a consistent bias due to slow-motion. Instead the distinction between yellow-card and red-card offences was clearer: Under slow-motion, yellow-card incidents were judged as less severe, and red-card incidents are judged as more severe, thus enhancing the distinction between these offences. These results are inconsistent with previous scientific reports that perceived intent is heightened by slow video playback speed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.