↓ Skip to main content

The use of vanishing spray reduces the extent of rule violations in soccer

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
The use of vanishing spray reduces the extent of rule violations in soccer
Published in
SpringerPlus, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3274-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Otto Kolbinger, Daniel Link

Abstract

More and more sport associations introduce innovative devices to support referees and umpires respectively, affecting a strong need for the evaluation of these devices. This study evaluates the use of the new vanishing spray for free kicks in the German Bundesliga. In more detail, the aim of the study is to investigate if the spray reduces violations of the required minimum distance and consequently the respective punishments, if it reduces errors concerning the distance set by the referee and if it leads to a higher success rate of free kicks. Therefore, 1833 free kicks of the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 season of the German Bundesliga were screened using a self-designed observational system. For the statistical analysis two parallel samples were built of 299 free kicks each. The results showed no decrease of free kicks with distance violations but a significantly lower extent of these violations (χ(2) = 4.58; p < .05). However, none of these violations were punished appropriately. Concerning the success of free kicks, no significant impact was found neither for shots nor for crosses. In addition, no influence on the distance set by the referee could be identified. The main objective of the vanishing spray was basically realized, but the use didn't lead to any further positive (side) effects. Due to the lack of punishment, the authors raise concerns about the current application of the minimum distance rule.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 22%
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 12 44%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#5,828,936
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#332
of 1,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,953
of 323,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#45
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.