This study examined teamwork among National Basketball Association (NBA) referees, focusing on three-person officiating (3PO) mechanics and the association between accuracy and secondary coverage area decisions. We relied on four seasons of Last Two Minute (L2M) reports to sample 498 correct and 513 erroneous calls. Each correct and erroneous call was then classified to either originating from within the referee's primary coverage area or originating from his secondary coverage area as prescribed by NBA regulations. We also analyzed the distribution of calls among the three officiating roles on the court: Lead, Trail, and Slot (Center). The results indicate a significant association between accuracy and teamwork: in correct calls, secondary coverage areas decisions occurred in 16.9% of cases, whereas in erroneous calls this rate increased to 25.0% (p < 0.01). Further, the findings underscore the importance of coordination between referees, particularly adherence to prescribed coverage areas. Future studies should examine how variations in referees’ positioning and viewing angles within and between coverage areas may influence teamwork dynamics and decision accuracy.
Bar-EliMKrumerAMorgulevE. Ask not what economics can do for sports: ask what sports can do for economics. J Behav Exp Econ2020; 89: 101597.
2.
JohnsonJG. Decision making in sports. Psychol Sport Exerc2025; 80: 102919.
3.
PlessnerHSchweizerGBrandR, et al.A multiple-cue learning approach as the basis for understanding and improving soccer referees’ decision making. Prog Brain Res2009; 174: 151–158.
4.
RaabMBar-EliMPlessnerH, et al.The past, present and future of research on judgment and decision making in sports. Psychol Sport Exerc2019; 42: 25–32.
5.
AndersonKJPierceDA. Officiating bias: the effect of foul differential on foul calls in NCAA basketball. J Sports Sci2009; 27: 687–694.
GoldschmiedNFurleyPBushR. Critical review of uniform color effects in sports. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol2023; 16: 311–336.
8.
LovellGPNewellRParkerJK. Referees’ decision-making behavior and the sport home advantage phenomenon. Res Psychol Behav Sci2014; 2: 1–5.
9.
PelechrinisK. Quantifying implicit biases in refereeing using NBA referees as a testbed. Sci Rep2023; 13: 4664.
10.
BrandRSchmidtGSchneelochY. Sequential effects in elite basketball referees’ foul decisions: an experimental study on the concept of game management. J Sport Exerc Psychol2006; 28: 93–99.
11.
SchwarzW. Compensating tendencies in penalty kick decisions of referees in professional football: evidence from the German Bundesliga 1963–2006. J Sports Sci2011; 29: 441–447.
12.
SorsFTomé LouridoDParisiV, et al.Pressing crowd noise impairs the ability of anxious basketball referees to discriminate fouls. Front Psychol2019; 10: 2380.
13.
DeutscherC. No referee bias in the NBA: new evidence with leagues’ assessment data. J Sports Anal2015; 1: 91–96.
WebbTDicksMThelwellR, et al.The impact of referee training: reflections on the reduction of home advantage in association football. Soccer Soc2018; 19: 1024–1037.
16.
DufnerALSchützLMHillY. The introduction of the video assistant referee supports the fairness of the game: an analysis of the home advantage in the German Bundesliga. Psychol Sport Exerc2023; 66: 102386.
17.
SpitzJWagemansJMemmertD, et al.Video assistant referees (VAR): the impact of technology on decision making in association football referees. J Sports Sci2021; 39: 147–153.
18.
BramsSZivGLevinO, et al.The relationship between gaze behavior, expertise, and performance: a systematic review. Psychol Bull2019; 145: 980–998.
19.
RuizAJAlbaladejo-GarcíaCReinaR, et al.Perceptual-cognitive skills of basketball referees: on-the-court visual search behavior. Percept Mot Skills2024; 131: 1873–1893.
20.
De OliveiraMCOrbetelliRNetoTLDB. Call accuracy and distance from the play: a study with Brazilian soccer referees. Int J Exerc Sci2011; 4: 30–38.
21.
HossnerEJSchnyderUSchmidJ, et al.The role of viewing distance and viewing angle on referees’ decision-making performance during the FIFA World Cup 2014. J Sports Sci2019; 37: 1481–1489.
22.
OudejansRRVerheijenRBakkerFC, et al.Errors in judging ‘offside’ in football. Nat2000; 404: 33.
23.
PlessnerHSchalliesE. Judging the cross on rings: a matter of achieving shape constancy. Appl Cogn Psychol2005; 19: 1145–1156.
24.
HrusaPHrusovaD. Dependence of objectivity in basketball game officiating on the number of referees. J Hum Sport Exerc2021; 16: 601–609.
25.
MalloJFrutosPGJuárezD, et al.Effect of positioning on the accuracy of decision making of association football top-class referees and assistant referees during competitive matches. J Sports Sci2012; 30: 1437–1445.
26.
HancockDJPizzeraA. The psychology of sport officiating. Psychol Sport Exerc2025; 80: 102899.
27.
EldadiOTenenbaumG. Team cognition in sport: foundations, development, and performance implications. Psychol Sport Exerc2025; 80: 102927.
28.
BourboussonJPoizatGSauryJ, et al.Team coordination in basketball: description of the cognitive connections among teammates. J Appl Sport Psychol2010; 22: 150–166.
29.
SamuelRDTenenbaumGGalilyY. An integrated conceptual framework of decision-making in soccer refereeing. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2021; 19: 738–760.
30.
SmidP. Analysis of teamwork in officiating in basketball. J Hum Sport Exerc2015; 10: 330–339.
31.
SabagELidorRArnonM, et al.Teamwork and decision making among basketball referees: the 3PO principle, refereeing level, and experience. J Hum Kinet2023; 89: 313.
ThonhauserG. Being a team player: approaching team coordination in sports in dialog with ecological and praxeological approaches. Front Psychol2022; 13: 1026859.
34.
WebbTHancockDJWestonM, et al.The future for sport officiating research: an expert statement. Manag Sport Leis2025: 1–10.
