Simulation theory posits that individuals use internal motor simulations to anticipate others’ actions. Embodied officiating, aligning with this theory, suggests that referees use similar internal simulations to judge athletes’ actions. We tested whether basketball referees favor players of similar height in their foul decision making, as shared physical attributes might facilitate the simulation of their actions. Analyzing 8641 foul calls from 219 games in the 2020/21 Men's German Basketball-Bundesliga season, we found that mean height differences between referees and players modestly affected foul calls: Referees called more fouls as the height difference with the fouling players increased, and fewer as the height of fouled players increased. These findings suggest that physical attributes like height may subtly influence referees’ judgments and indicate complex interactions between referee and player height. Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms behind this effect.
MascarenhasDO’HareDPlessnerH. The psychological and performance demands of association football refereeing. Int J Sport Psychol2006; 37: 99–120.
2.
BrandRSchmidtGSchneelochY. Sequential effects in elite basketball referees’ foul decisions: an experimental study on the concept of game management. J Sport Exerc Psychol2006 Mar 1; 28: 93–99.
3.
PlessnerHHaarT. Sports performance judgments from a social cognitive perspective. Psychol Sport Exerc2006; 7: 555–575.
4.
HancockDJPizzeraA. The psychology of sport officiating. Psychol Sport Exerc2025 Sep 1; 80: 102899.
5.
NevillAHolderRGillJ, et al.A comparison of methods for analyzing competition performance in sports. J Sports Sci2002; 20: 231–243.
6.
SutterMKocherMG. Favoritism of agents–the case of referees’ home bias. J Econ Psychol2004; 25: 461–469.
7.
JonesMVPaullGCErskineJ. The impact of a team’s aggressive reputation on the decisions of association football referees. J Sports Sci2002; 20: 991–1000.
8.
MessnerCSchmidB. Über die Schwierigkeit, unparteiische Entscheidungen zu fällen. Z Für Sozialpsychol2007 Jan; 38: 105–110.
9.
LexHPizzeraAKurtesM,et al.Influence of players’ vocalisations on soccer referees’ decisions. Eur J Sport Sci2015 Jul 4; 15: 424–428.
10.
PlessnerHBetschT. Sequential effects in important referee decisions: the case of penalties in soccer. J Sport Exerc Psychol2001 Sep; 23: 254–259.
11.
UnkelbachCMemmertD. Game management, context effects, and calibration: the case of yellow cards in soccer. J Sport Exerc Psychol2008; 30: 95–109.
12.
FrankMGGilovichT. The dark side of self- and social perception: black uniforms and aggression in professional sports. J Pers Soc Psychol1988; 54: 74–85.
13.
TiryakiMS. Assessing whether black uniforms affect the decisions of Turkish soccer referees: is finding of Frank and Gilovich’s study valid for Turkish culture?Percept Mot Skills. 2005 Feb; 100: 51–57.
GiftPRodenbergRM. Napoleon complex: height bias among national basketball association referees. J Sports Econ2014 Oct 1; 15: 541–558.
16.
van QuaquebekeNGiessnerSR. How embodied cognitions affect judgments: height-related attribution bias in football foul calls. J Sport Exerc Psychol2010; 32: 3–22.
17.
FiskeST. Thinking is for doing: portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laserphoto. J Pers Soc Psychol1992; 63: 877–889.
18.
LakoffGJohnsonM. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cogn Sci1980; 4: 195–208.
19.
RaabM. Motor heuristics and embodied choices: how to choose and act. Curr Opin Psychol2017 Aug 1; 16: 34–37.
20.
PizzeraA. The role of embodied cognition in sports officiating. Mov Sport Sci-Sci Mot2015; 87: 53–61.
21.
GalleseV. Embodied simulation: from neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenol Cogn Sci2005 Jan; 4: 23–48.
22.
JeannerodM. Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage2001; 14: S103–S109.
Calvo-MerinoBGlaserDEGrèzesJ, et al.Action observation and acquired motor skills: an fMRI study with expert dancers. Cereb Cortex2005; 15: 1243–1249.
26.
AlbergoniABiggioMFaelliE, et al.Sensorimotor expertise influences perceptual weight judgments during observation of a sport-specific gesture. Front Sports Act Living2023; 5: 1148812.
27.
Calvo-MerinoBEhrenbergSLeungD,et al.Experts see it all: configural effects in action observation. Psychol Res2010; 74: 400–406.
28.
CasileAGieseMA. Nonvisual motor training influences biological motion perception. Curr Biol2006; 16: 69–74.
29.
LoulaFPrasadSHarberK,et al.Recognizing people from their movement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform2005; 31: 210–220.
30.
PizzeraA. Gymnastic judges benefit from their own motor experience as gymnasts. Res Q Exerc Sport2012 Dec; 83: 603–607.
31.
RendenPGKerstensSOudejansRR,et al.Foul or dive? Motor contributions to judging ambiguous foul situations in football. Eur J Sport Sci2014; 14: S221–S227.
32.
Luis Del CampoVMorenas MartínJPizzeraA. Effects of past and current motor experiences as soccer players in decision-making of amateur soccer referees. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2022 Jul 4; 20: 1102–1116.
33.
AllardPNaultMLHinseS, et al.Relationship between morphologic somatotypes and standing posture equilibrium. Ann Hum Biol2001 Jan 1; 28: 624–633.
34.
LeeAJYLinWH. The influence of gender and somatotype on single-leg upright standing postural stability in children. J Appl Biomech2007 Aug 1; 23: 173–179.
35.
AlonsoACLunaNMSMochizukiL, et al.The influence of anthropometric factors on postural balance: the relationship between body composition and posturographic measurements in young adults. Clinics2012 Jan 1; 67: 1433–1441.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2023, Available from: https://www.R-project.org.
DohmenTJ. The influence of social forces: evidence from the behavior of football referees. Econ Inq2008; 46: 411–424.
41.
GaricanoLPalacios-HuertaIPrendergastC. Favoritism under social pressure. Rev Econ Stat2005 May 1; 87: 208–216.
42.
GollwitzerPM. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am Psychol1999; 54: 493–503.
43.
LernerJSTetlockPE. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychol Bull1999; 125: 255–275.
44.
AxtJRLaiCK. Reducing discrimination: a bias versus noise perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol2019; 117: 26–49.
45.
GoldingJMFowlerSBLongDL,et al.Instructions to disregard potentially useful information: the effects of pragmatics on evaluative judgments and recall. J Mem Lang1990; 29: 212–227.
46.
SchulY. When warning succeeds: the effect of warning on success in ignoring invalid information. J Exp Soc Psychol1993; 29: 42–62.
