Helsen, Gilis, and Weston (2006) do not err in questioning the optical error hypothesis as the only major account for explaining offside decision-making errors

Werner Helsen, Bart Gilis, Matthew Weston

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    10 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Oudejans, Bakker, and Beek (2007) recognize several relevant aspects of offside judgements in association football in the paper by Helsen, Gilis, and Weston (2006). We agree that the existing knowledge base on offside assessment needs to be expanded for two reasons. First, from a theoretical point of view it is important to examine how assistant referees can learn to deal with the limitations of the human visual information processing system. Second, from a practical point of view it is relevant to understand better refereeing performances and to identify potential explanations for incorrect offside decisions that could impact on the final outcome of the game. Oudejans et al. (2007) believe we both misinterpreted the optical error hypothesis and that our data set was unsuited to test it. Below, we react to these comments.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)991-994
    Number of pages4
    JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
    Volume25
    Issue number9
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2007

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Helsen, Gilis, and Weston (2006) do not err in questioning the optical error hypothesis as the only major account for explaining offside decision-making errors'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this