Faster, more accurate, more confident? An exploratory experiment on soccer referees' yellow card decision-making.

This study aimed to examine how soccer referees make decisions about issuing yellow cards for fouls. The research involved 60 male participants, divided into expert (=30) and novice (=30) groups based on their experience and qualifications as referees. They took part in a 2×2×2 mixed-design experiment. The study looked at Decision-Making Style (DMS: Analytical Decision-Making [ADM] vs. Intuitive Decision-Making [IDM]), Video Type (yellow card foul vs. non-yellow card foul), and Referee Level (expert vs. novice) as independent variables. The dependent variables were accuracy rate (ACC), discrimination index (D), self-confidence index (C), and overconfidence index (OC). The findings showed that Analytical Decision-Making (ADM) led to higher accuracy compared to Intuitive Decision-Making (IDM). Expert referees demonstrated better accuracy than novice referees. There was also an interaction between Decision-Making Style and Referee Level, showing differences in the effectiveness of ADM and IDM between expert and novice referees. Additionally, the study revealed that both expert and novice referees showed overconfidence, with experts demonstrating significantly higher overconfidence, particularly during IDM. In conclusion, the research highlighted the complexity of referees' decision-making in high-pressure situations and emphasized the potential benefits of employing Analytical Decision-Making strategies. The study contributed to understanding cognitive biases in sports officiating and suggested the need for targeted training programs to help referees improve their performance and reduce overconfidence in challenging situations.