Discussion:
Meaning of "home cooking" in an ice hockey context.
Add Reply
Paul
2019-11-05 20:05:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I was stumped by this from the latest New Yorker:
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team (squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench. The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a penalty. Home cooking?"

What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
The full piece is here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/11/my-year-of-concussions

Thanks,

Paul
Mark Brader
2019-11-05 22:23:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team
(squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench.
The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a
penalty. Home cooking?"
What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
I had no idea until I looked at the context you didn't include. It says:

Home cooking? The visitors always think so.

Clearly this is suggesting that "we" were the visiting team and the
referee was favoring the home team -- which fans of the visiting team
always think is happening.
--
Mark Brader | "Some societies define themselves by being open to new
Toronto | influences, others define their identity by resisting.
***@vex.net | In either case, they take the consequences."
--Donna Richoux
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-05 23:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Paul
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team
(squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench.
The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a
penalty. Home cooking?"
What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
Home cooking? The visitors always think so.
Clearly this is suggesting that "we" were the visiting team and the
referee was favoring the home team -- which fans of the visiting team
always think is happening.
And they're right a significant number of times, according to

http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/

You can find a lot of other examples with a search for

"home cooking" sports advantage
--
Jerry Friedman
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-06 01:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Paul
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team
(squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench.
The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a
penalty. Home cooking?"
What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
Home cooking? The visitors always think so.
Clearly this is suggesting that "we" were the visiting team and the
referee was favoring the home team -- which fans of the visiting team
always think is happening.
And they're right a significant number of times, according to
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/
You can find a lot of other examples with a search for
"home cooking" sports advantage
That seems to be talking about professional sports where the officials
are professional and (relatively) impartial.

In the original article the game mentioned was between 10 year old boys.
In a game like that I assume the referee would be 'supplied' by the home
team.
In such a game, the home field advantage can be quite a bit stronger.
--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Cooper
2019-11-06 04:20:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Paul
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team
(squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench.
The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a
penalty. Home cooking?"
What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
Home cooking? The visitors always think so.
Clearly this is suggesting that "we" were the visiting team and the
referee was favoring the home team -- which fans of the visiting team
always think is happening.
And they're right a significant number of times, according to
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/
You can find a lot of other examples with a search for
"home cooking" sports advantage
That seems to be talking about professional sports where the officials
are professional and (relatively) impartial.
In the original article the game mentioned was between 10 year old boys.
In a game like that I assume the referee would be 'supplied' by the home
team.
In such a game, the home field advantage can be quite a bit stronger.
My grandsons have been playing baseball at a county park since t-ball
days (5 years-old). They have Babe Ruth leagues for several age
groups, and the grandsons have moved up through all of them. (They
are now playing high school baseball)

The umpires have always been paid by the league. The cost is included
in the registration each season. I've talked to several of the
umpires over the years. They work games in this league, some other
leagues in the area, and some of the high schools. Umpiring is a
part-time job for them. They have a central registry that the league
calls, and the registry assigns the umpire. The league doesn't know
which umpires will be sent for any game.

It's very impartial. There is no home field advantage
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-06 14:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Jerry Friedman
"home cooking" sports advantage
That seems to be talking about professional sports where the officials
are professional and (relatively) impartial.
In the original article the game mentioned was between 10 year old boys.
In a game like that I assume the referee would be 'supplied' by the home
team.
In such a game, the home field advantage can be quite a bit stronger.
My grandsons have been playing baseball at a county park since t-ball
days (5 years-old). They have Babe Ruth leagues for several age
groups, and the grandsons have moved up through all of them. (They
are now playing high school baseball)
The umpires have always been paid by the league. The cost is included
in the registration each season. I've talked to several of the
umpires over the years. They work games in this league, some other
leagues in the area, and some of the high schools. Umpiring is a
part-time job for them. They have a central registry that the league
calls, and the registry assigns the umpire. The league doesn't know
which umpires will be sent for any game.
It's very impartial. There is no home field advantage
And you know for a fact that the same system holds on Long Island.
Paul
2019-11-06 10:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Paul
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team
(squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench.
The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a
penalty. Home cooking?"
What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
Home cooking? The visitors always think so.
Clearly this is suggesting that "we" were the visiting team and the
referee was favoring the home team -- which fans of the visiting team
always think is happening.
And they're right a significant number of times, according to
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/
You can find a lot of other examples with a search for
"home cooking" sports advantage
I don't have time to look into the study.
It seems to me that an attempt can be made to isolate the
refereeing effect from other effects such as familiarity
with the ground, crowd support etc.

There are sports where disputed calls are extremely rare and
so referees don't impact the event. It would be interesting
to compare the home advantage at these events with
events where referees make a real impact. (Perhaps the
study already does this).

One great opportunity for comparison is table-tennis vs tennis.
The umpire has a huge effect in tennis but not in table-tennis
because over 99.9% of the time, it's obvious whether a ball has
hit the table or not.

Other events where refereeing has minimal impact would be
track-and-field events and chess.

With regard to chess, when I played competitively, I seem to
remember that, in the events I played in, the home advantage was
considerable. At the British Universities Chess Championships,
the team from the university which hosted the event usually did
much better than expected.
The explanation here is obvious. The home players were living in
their student accommodation which would have been very comfortable.
Other students, not having much money, had to make
do with their sleeping bags, with the entire team in the same room.

There must be a neat phrase for this sort of student set-up
where people don't make very formal or convenient arrangements and
are just looking for a place to crash. "Crash" is the US term I think.
But I can't think of a good phrase for it.

Paul
Paul
2019-11-06 10:24:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 10:13:36 AM UTC, Paul wrote:
...
Post by Paul
There are sports where disputed calls are extremely rare and
so referees don't impact the event. It would be interesting
to compare the home advantage at these events with
events where referees make a real impact. (Perhaps the
study already does this).
One great opportunity for comparison is table-tennis vs tennis.
The umpire has a huge effect in tennis but not in table-tennis
because over 99.9% of the time, it's obvious whether a ball has
hit the table or not.
...

Re table-tennis, I mean singles. In table-tennis doubles (which I
haven't seen much of), there's a line in the middle of the table,
used for serving, so there's the same opportunity for the "I hit the line" squabbles
that you get in non-Hawk-Eye tennis matches. My guess is that
there isn't a significant advantage in serving on or close to that line
so players leave enough margin for error to avoid these disputes.
But I'm just guessing. I'm sure that line disputes happen in table-tennis
but they may be rare. I have seen an "I hit the table" dispute in
high-level table-tennis but I'm sure those are very rare.

Paul
GordonD
2019-11-06 12:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Paul
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team
(squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench.
The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a
penalty. Home cooking?"
What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
Home cooking? The visitors always think so.
Clearly this is suggesting that "we" were the visiting team and the
referee was favoring the home team -- which fans of the visiting team
always think is happening.
And they're right a significant number of times, according to
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/
You can find a lot of other examples with a search for
"home cooking" sports advantage
I don't have time to look into the study.
It seems to me that an attempt can be made to isolate the
refereeing effect from other effects such as familiarity
with the ground, crowd support etc.
There are sports where disputed calls are extremely rare and
so referees don't impact the event. It would be interesting
to compare the home advantage at these events with
events where referees make a real impact. (Perhaps the
study already does this).
One great opportunity for comparison is table-tennis vs tennis.
The umpire has a huge effect in tennis but not in table-tennis
because over 99.9% of the time, it's obvious whether a ball has
hit the table or not.
Other events where refereeing has minimal impact would be
track-and-field events and chess.
With regard to chess, when I played competitively, I seem to
remember that, in the events I played in, the home advantage was
considerable. At the British Universities Chess Championships,
the team from the university which hosted the event usually did
much better than expected.
The explanation here is obvious. The home players were living in
their student accommodation which would have been very comfortable.
Other students, not having much money, had to make
do with their sleeping bags, with the entire team in the same room.
There must be a neat phrase for this sort of student set-up
where people don't make very formal or convenient arrangements and
are just looking for a place to crash. "Crash" is the US term I think.
But I can't think of a good phrase for it.
'Crash' in that sense is commonly used in the UK too.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-06 14:25:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Paul
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team
(squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench.
The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a
penalty. Home cooking?"
What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
Home cooking? The visitors always think so.
Clearly this is suggesting that "we" were the visiting team and the
referee was favoring the home team -- which fans of the visiting team
always think is happening.
And they're right a significant number of times, according to
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/
You can find a lot of other examples with a search for
"home cooking" sports advantage
I don't have time to look into the study.
It's not a study--it cites a couple of studies.
Post by Paul
It seems to me that an attempt can be made to isolate the
refereeing effect from other effects such as familiarity
with the ground, crowd support etc.
And according to the article I linked to, such attempts have been made.
Post by Paul
There are sports where disputed calls are extremely rare and
so referees don't impact the event. It would be interesting
to compare the home advantage at these events with
events where referees make a real impact. (Perhaps the
study already does this).
I didn't see anything about that.

A straightforward method, in this day and age, is to have experts review
video as impartially as possible.
Post by Paul
One great opportunity for comparison is table-tennis vs tennis.
The umpire has a huge effect in tennis but not in table-tennis
because over 99.9% of the time, it's obvious whether a ball has
hit the table or not.
Other events where refereeing has minimal impact would be
track-and-field events and chess.
...

The article cites a study of the Bundesliga (soccer, not chess) in which
the presence of a track around the field was found to decrease the
home-field advantage, presumably because the crowd was farther from the
action. It quotes the author as saying this was because of an effect of
the referees, but it doesn't say how the author distinguished that from
an effect on the players.
--
Jerry Friedman
Ken Blake
2019-11-06 20:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul
With regard to chess, when I played competitively, I seem to
remember that, in the events I played in, the home advantage was
considerable. At the British Universities Chess Championships,
the team from the university which hosted the event usually did
much better than expected.
The explanation here is obvious. The home players were living in
their student accommodation which would have been very comfortable.
Other students, not having much money, had to make
do with their sleeping bags, with the entire team in the same room.
Back in the 1950s, I played for my high school chess team, my college
chess team, a Marshall Chess club team, and a Manhattan Chess club team.
I never felt there was any advantage to the home team, but neither my
team nor the opposing team had to sleep over anywhere.
--
Ken
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-08 18:13:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul
With regard to chess, when I played competitively, I seem to
remember that, in the events I played in, the home advantage was
considerable. At the British Universities Chess Championships,
the team from the university which hosted the event usually did
much better than expected.
The explanation here is obvious. The home players were living in
their student accommodation which would have been very comfortable.
Other students, not having much money, had to make
do with their sleeping bags, with the entire team in the same room.
Back in the 1950s, I played for my high school chess team, my college
chess team, a Marshall Chess club team, and a Manhattan Chess club
team. I never felt there was any advantage to the home team, but
neither my team nor the opposing team had to sleep over anywhere.
That suggests that you agree with Paul's explanation.
--
athel
s***@gmail.com
2019-11-14 01:50:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Paul
"One day, during a game on Long Island, a boy on our squirt team
(squirts are nine- and ten-year-olds) got clocked in front of our bench.
The referee saw it but gave no indication that he considered it a
penalty. Home cooking?"
What does "Home cooking?" mean in this context.
Home cooking? The visitors always think so.
Clearly this is suggesting that "we" were the visiting team and the
referee was favoring the home team -- which fans of the visiting team
always think is happening.
And they're right a significant number of times, according to
http://freakonomics.com/2011/12/18/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/
You can find a lot of other examples with a search for
"home cooking" sports advantage
I don't have time to look into the study.
It seems to me that an attempt can be made to isolate the
refereeing effect from other effects such as familiarity
with the ground, crowd support etc.
There are sports where disputed calls are extremely rare and
so referees don't impact the event. It would be interesting
to compare the home advantage at these events with
events where referees make a real impact. (Perhaps the
study already does this).
One other reference might be the book _Scorecasting_,
(SCORECASTING
The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won
By Tobias J. Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim
278 pp. Crown Archetype)
and which you can read a review of at
<URL:https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/books/review/Weber-t.html>
(I got there via a fivethirtyeight.com reference).

A relevant portion of the review, by Bruce Weber
,
is
<quote>
By far the most startling and resonant chapters in the book
deal with the authors’ search for the reasons behind home-field advantage,
which the numbers prove exists across all sports.
Using clever techniques to isolate elements of the game
that can be accurately measured, they manage to dismiss
some conventional explanations — that players respond
to the cheers and jeers of the crowd, for one.

In the end, they determine, stunningly, that home-field advantage
in virtually all sports is largely due to the bias of ­officials
toward the home team. Soccer referees
call more penalties against the visitors
and allow more injury time when the home team is behind.
In baseball, though the authors are a little naïve
about the art of calling balls and strikes
(no one, not even the players, wants or expects the umpires
to call a strict rule-book strike),
their numbers are, well, striking: fewer called strikes,
especially in crucial situations, against the home team.
In basketball, the authors write, “the chance of a visiting player
getting called for traveling is 15 percent higher
than it is for a home-team player.”

The authors attribute this not to a widespread conspiracy
but to a common psychological trope:
people want to be liked and to be confirmed in their judgments.
Maybe so. I do wish the authors had been less rhetorically presumptuous
in attributing behavioral predilections to groups of people
and even individuals on circumstantial grounds.
Most of their conclusions are, after all, subject to debate.
</quote>

/dps "I wanna be liked, too"

Loading...