Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Evolution and Spatial Network Analysis of the Urban Ecological Carrying Capacity in the Yellow River Basin
Next Article in Special Issue
Acceptance of Digital Sports: A Study Showing the Rising Acceptance of Digital Health Activities Due to the SARS-CoV-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
Spirituality in Patients at the End of Life—Is It Necessary? A Qualitative Approach to the Protagonists
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of COVID-19 Home Confinement on Behavior, Perception of Threat, Stress and Training Patterns of Olympic and Paralympic Athletes
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Behaviour of Home Advantage during the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Rink Hockey Leagues

1
Department of Sports Science, Ramon Llull University, FPCEE Blanquerna, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
2
Department of Physical Activity Sciences, University of Vic—Central University of Catalonia, 08500 Vic, Spain
3
Sport Performance Analysis Research Group (SPARG), University of Vic—Central University of Catalonia, 08500 Vic, Spain
4
Sport and Physical Activity Studies Centre (CEEAF), University of Vic—Central University of Catalonia, 08500 Vic, Spain
5
Cerebrovascular Division, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitari del Sagrat Cor, Universitat de Barcelona, 08029 Barcelona, Spain
6
National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), University of Lleida, 25192 Lleida, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(1), 228; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19010228
Submission received: 26 November 2021 / Revised: 17 December 2021 / Accepted: 23 December 2021 / Published: 26 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sport, Physical Activity and Health at Time of COVID-19)

Abstract

:
The primary purpose of the present study was to compare the home advantage (HA) and the home team performance in the most relevant European rink hockey leagues (Spanish, Portuguese and Italian), considering the presence or absence of spectators in the competition venues due to the effect of COVID-19 restrictions. The sample was composed of 1665 rink hockey matches (654 from the Spanish league, 497 from the Portuguese league, and 514 from the Italian league) played between the 2018–2019 and 2020–2021 seasons. The HA and match variables comparisons were established using several negative binomial regression models. Results showed that the effect of HA did not disappear despite playing without spectators but decreased from 63.99% to 57.41% (p = 0.002). Moreover, the comparison of the match variables showed that playing with spectators benefited local teams’ performance, especially in the Portuguese and Italian leagues. Playing with spectators favoured local team performance in rink hockey matches, which is more evident in some analysed leagues. However, as HA does not disappear entirely without spectators, it is necessary to study other relevant performance factors that are not directly or indirectly attributable to crowd behaviour in rink hockey performance analyses.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the increasing interest in sports performance analysis has resulted in many studies regarding match variables in team sports [1]. Rink hockey, also known as roller hockey or hardball hockey, is not an exception, and, lately, the number of studies about this sport has grown considerably [2].
One of the most studied match variables in sports science is the effect of match location [3]. This concept is known as the ’home advantage’ (HA) effect and may be defined as home teams’ advantage over the visiting team by playing in their home court [4]. This phenomenon was firstly studied by Schwartz and Barsky [5] in different team sports, such as basketball, ice hockey, American football, or baseball in the United States.
HA has been widely studied and documented in a variety of different sports, competition standards and countries [6] in individual disciplines such as tennis [7], judo [8,9], speed skating [10], boxing [11] or golf [12], and team sports such as football [13,14], basketball [15,16], rugby [17,18], handball [19,20] and water polo [3]. HA can be affected by the format of the competition, showing differences depending on whether the competition is a playoff, a knockout or a regular league [21,22,23]. Although HA influences differently depending on the sport, region, or competitive standard, it can be quantified by 60% on average [24]. To our knowledge, only two studies have previously focused on HA in rink hockey, determining a 59.80% and 60.88% advantage in Spanish and Portuguese leagues, respectively [25,26].
The adverse effects of travel fatigue, the familiarity with the context, the referee bias, the territoriality, the rules that favour the home team, or the effect of the home crowd have been identified as explaining factors for the HA phenomenon [27]. According to Pollard et al. [28], the majority of the HA studies have tended to consider each factor in isolation when attempting to explain the HA effect. However, determining how these factors operate and how they affect performance is still unclear. In this vein, there is still little consensus about the weight of each factor in the HA effect, which is currently considered a multifactorial phenomenon with a variety of interacting causes and contributing factors [29]. Among them, the crowd effect is one of the most studied. It is suggested that crowd support could influence team performance by placing home players in a more positive and confident psychological state [30]. Thus, Schwartz and Barsky [5] found that crowd density increased the HA in Major League baseball. HA increased from 48% in relatively empty venues (less than 20% capacity) to 55% when the venues were between 20 and 40% of their capacity, and the value was 57% when crowd density was greater than 40% capacity.
Similarly, Agnew and Carron [31] showed crowd density to be significantly related to the HA in ice hockey matches (R2 = 0.011, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the public could influence not only the players but also the referees, creating a bias in favour of the home team [32], receiving significantly fewer penalties and disciplinary cards than the visiting team [32,33]. In this vein, Nevill et al. [30] noted that a large audience and noise generation could lead to an imbalance in referees’ decisions in favour of the home team.
Currently, given the unprecedented times we face because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, many sporting events have been played without an audience, a move that has affected team-sport leagues, including rink hockey. This situation creates a unique and natural scenario to study crowd influence and compare the HA phenomenon with spectators and without them [34].
To the best of our knowledge, no previous research has analysed the influence of crowd support in rink hockey in the above mentioned terms. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was to analyse the effect of the absence or presence of spectators in HA and other relevant match variables. It was hypothesized that the HA effect will be lower (fewer points) without home supporters at the competition venue and that visiting teams will benefit from this circumstance.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

In order to carry out the study, 1665 rink hockey matches were analysed: OkLiga (Spanish league; 654 matches), 1a Divisao (Portuguese league; 497 matches), and Serie A1 (Italian league; 514 matches). These rink hockey leagues have a similar competition format; each team plays every other team once at home and once away during the season. Only regular-season matches have been included in the sample. In all played matches, there was a home and a visiting team. The scoring system of all the analysed rink hockey leagues was: 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss. This league structure allows an unbiased method for quantifying the HA over a complete season [35].

2.2. Design and Procedures

The dataset of this study was collected through the open-access websites from each Rink Hockey Federation. Additionally, match data were rechecked and validated by using the independent website hockeypista.it (http://www.hockeypista.it, accessed on 26 November 2021). Before data collection, written permission from all the website administrators was received, with the respective privacy policies being entirely respected. The methodological procedures conformed to the ethics guidelines of a local university, and the investigation was conducted in compliance with the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki (revised in Fortaleza) [36].

2.3. Variables

Table 1 shows the different analysed variables.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The causal effect of the presence of spectators on the number of goals scored, the number of set-pieces shot, the number of faults committed, and the number of cards received was quantified using several negative binomial regression models—suitable models for the analysis of count-dependent variables exhibiting the phenomenon of overdispersion [37]. A dependent variable Y (goals scored, set-pieces shot, faults committed, or cards received), an independent variable X (spectators), and two moderator variables M (match location and opponent’s level) were included in each model. Moderator variables were also included as adjustment variables by the hierarchical principle. The exposure time t was not included in the models because all the matches analysed lasted the same time (50 min). Therefore, the multiplicative formulation of the negative binomial models constructed was as follows:
μ ˜ i = e ( β 0 + β 1 × S p e c t + β 2 × M a t L o c + β 3 × O p p L e v + β 4 × S p e c t × M a t L o c + β 5 × S p e c t × O p p L e v + ε i )
The factor change e β 1 was expressed as a percentage change in the expected mean count of Y for one-unit increase in X with the following formula:
[ e | β 1 | × 1 1 ] × 100
The goodness-of-fit of the binomial regression models constructed was assessed by analysing the deviance residuals [38]. These residuals were represented by box plots and checked whether they were all within the interval −2 to 2.
The presence of overdispersion was tested using different procedures exposed by Long [39], Doménech and Navarro [40]. There was the problem of overdispersion (a) if the quotient between variance and mean of each count-dependent variable was greater than 1, (b) if the quotient between deviance and residual degrees of freedom (−2LL/dfRes) of each Poisson model was statistically greater than 1 (procedure only applicable when all predictors are categorical), or (c) if the likelihood-ratio test of the parameter α = 0 was statistically significant.
Statistical analyses were performed using Stata/IC v.17.0 statistical package (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). Analyses were performed on all sample data and stratified by the European national league (Spanish OkLiga, Portuguese CN 1ª Divisão, and Italian Serie A1). The significance level was set at p < 0.05 for all tests.

3. Results

Figure 1 shows the distribution of the count-dependent variables. The goals scored, set-pieces shot, and cards received variables presented a negative binomial distribution: a right-skewed distribution with a predominance of zero and near-zero values; and a variance greater than its mean (symbol | and X in the figure, respectively). Conversely, the faults committed variable presented an approximation of the negative binomial distribution to the normal distribution because its mean was higher than the other variables.
The descriptive analysis of match variables and the comparison of mean pre- and post-COVID are presented in Table 2. In local teams, the only significant difference when playing without public was a higher number of cards received (0.91 ± 1.03 vs. 0.76 ± 0.93; p = 0.003). However, local teams were sanctioned with more defensive fouls and scored fewer goals when playing without spectators despite not being significant. Conversely, the visiting teams significantly scored more goals when playing with no public (3.40 ± 2.10 vs. 3.03 ± 1.91; p > 0.001). As for the HA, Figure 2 clearly shows how the sample value of “points HA%” = 57.41 falls far below the value of 63.99 (p = 0.002). This decrease in the HA value is especially evident in the Italian League (66.74% vs. 55.73%; p = 0.016). In the Portuguese and Spanish leagues, despite not being significant, there also exists an HA decrease (64.01% vs. 58.31%; p = 0.09 and 61.41% vs. 58.10%; p = 0.284, respectively).
Table 3 shows the number of goals scored with and without spectators, according to match location and opponent’s level. The results showed that visiting teams, playing with spectators (relative to playing without) decreased the expected mean number of goals scored by a significant factor of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.96; p = 0.002), both when the match was played against a lower-level opponent and when it was played against a higher-level opponent (p = 0.01; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97).
Table 4 shows the number of set-pieces shot with and without spectators, according to match location and opponent’s level. Results show that visiting teams, when playing with spectators (relative to playing without), decreased the expected mean number of set-pieces shot by a significant factor of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.95; p = 0.003) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.93; p = 0.001) both versus higher and lower opponents, respectively.
Table 5 shows the number of defensive faults with and without spectators, according to match location and opponent’s level. Results showed that playing against a lower level team with audience (relative to playing without), decreased the expected mean number of defensive faults by a significant factor of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.00; p = 0.03) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.00; p = 0.037).
Table 6 shows the number of cards received with and without spectators, according to match location and opponent’s level. Results show that when teams play at home without spectators (relative to playing with) increase the number of received cards by a significant factor of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.96; p = 0.012) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.025).

4. Discussion

The primary purpose of the present study was to analyse the differences in the HA effect and several match variables in European rink hockey leagues in matches with and without spectators. The main finding was that the HA value decreased when local teams played without spectators, and some match variables modified their behaviour. This piece is the first study to analyse the influence of crowd presence or absence in rink hockey to the best of our knowledge. However, despite the lack of available studies to compare the present results, these findings align with previous team-sport studies reporting a decrease in the HA values or several match variables when playing without spectators [29,38,39].

4.1. Home Advantage and Scoring

Data revealed that the HA effect remains in rink hockey despite playing without spectators since the local teams still achieved a higher percentage of the disputed points (57.41%). However, this advantage was lower than the observed in the same leagues when games were played with spectators sitting on the stands (63.99%). Similarly, Van de Ven [41] examined twenty football matches played behind closed doors and found that the HA remains present. In the same vein, Ponzo and Scoppa [32] examined a higher number of derbies whose teams played in the same stadium and found a significant HA effect, thus attributing this result mainly to the noise coming from the crowd. Moreover, Scopa [42] reported that psychological elements and the social context could strongly affect individual performance and decision-making. Thus, the crowd may directly influence players by encouraging their team or intimidating the opponent and indirectly influencing the referees’ decisions. Neville et al. [30] analysed the effect of crowd noise upon refereeing decisions in 40 English football referees. They had to referee a pre-recorded match between Liverpool (local) and Leicester (visitant). The referees were randomly distributed into two groups: (a) group with ambient noise from the field and (b) group without noise. Group (a) reported 15.5% fewer home team defensive fouls than group (b). Furthermore, the responses of the group (a) were almost identical to those of the match referee.
Regarding the goals scored in the present study, as a general trend, visitant teams performed better when played without spectators and scored more goals. Conversely, local teams had a worse performance when played without public and scored fewer goals despite not being significant. This trend is especially evident in the Portuguese league, where local teams scored 11.6% more goals and in the Italian league, where visitant teams scored −24.3% goals when playing with spectators. Surprisingly, no significant differences were found in the number of goals between playing with and without spectators in the Spanish league. These differences could be explained because of the higher spectator attendance in the Italian and Portuguese championships. It has been estimated that the goal difference between locals and visitors increases by 0.1 goals per every 10,000 spectators in football [43].

4.2. Disciplinary Cards and Defensive Faults

Local teams received 21.8% fewer disciplinary cards when playing in their supporters’ presence than without spectators. In this regard, there were also differences between the Portuguese and the Spanish leagues, which could be explained again by the average numbers of competition attendance.
The results showed that teams committed fewer faults when playing with spectators, both at home (5.2%) and away (5%). Surprisingly, match location does not influence the number of defensive faults. However, these differences were only significant when teams played against an opponent with a lower level, probably because the superior team uses a riskier and more aggressive style in these matches, thus pressing its opponents throughout the entire court and consequently having more chances to commit fouls. This particular case scenario is very common in rink hockey, where there is evident bias caused by the different budgets of teams competing in the same division [44]. This issue causes more level heterogeneity than in other team sports with professional and semi-professional athletes in the same competitions [45]. For this reason, among the different situational variables, the level of teams has been reported as one of the most decisive variables in rink hockey match outcomes [46].

4.3. Individual Set-Pieces

Individual set-pieces are probably one of the most relevant aspects influencing the match outcome in rink hockey [47]. These set-pieces are particular events involving a direct opposition between the shooter and the goalkeeper and are conformed for free direct hits and penalties. In free direct hits, the shooter has five seconds to start the execution (from 7.4 m), being able to choose a direct shot or approaching and dribbling towards the goalkeeper to score, while in the PEN, the shooter has five seconds to start the execution, consisting of a direct shot on goal from the penalty point (5.4 m) [48]. Both set-pieces happen when a player commits a defensive fault in a manifest goal action (the penalty happens inside the area). Moreover, a free direct hit happens when a player is sanctioned with a blue card or when a team accumulates 10 defensive faults.
The present results demonstrated that visitant teams shot a higher significant number of set-pieces per match when playing without spectators compared to playing with the local crowd. However, local teams also shot more set-pieces without spectators. It is challenging to elucidate the reason for these results. It can be hypothesized that the referees feel less pressure by not having the crowd in the stands and, therefore, feel less pressure to call a penalty or a free direct hit. Likewise, it cannot be ruled out that inactivity during the lockdowns has altered the players’ physical fitness [49]. This particular circumstance could result in players tackling less precisely, causing a higher number of punishable actions.
Despite the usefulness of these findings, the present study has some limitations which must be acknowledged and addressed in future studies. Firstly, the lack of studies about rink hockey to establish comparisons reduces the possibility to identify some tendencies between findings. Secondly, we did not consider factors that might contribute to HA, such as travel fatigue for the visitants or within-game events. Moreover, factors such as the playing surface (wood, terrazzo, or synthetic), court dimensions, or differences in temperature and humidity (which could alter the grip of the soil) may also be relevant to explain the HA. Another essential aspect that was not possible to consider is referees’ anxiety, which probably plays a role in their decisions given these findings. Finally, it would be pertinent to study in-depth other aspects related to the crowd behaviour that have not been considered in this piece of research, such as the involvement in encouraging their team, the aggressiveness towards the opponents, or crowd density. The strength of the present study lies in the number of analyzed matches without spectators of the most prestigious rink hockey leagues and, for its novelty, being the first study to analyse the crowd influence in this sport..

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the current study provided more evidence for the complex HA puzzle, reporting new data regarding the influence of spectators in a different discipline. Playing with spectators benefits local teams’ performance, which is more evident in the Portuguese and the Italian leagues. However, as the HA does not disappear without home crowds, other contributing factors are not directly or indirectly attributable to a significant number of spectators on the stands. Therefore, there are probably multiple and complementary reasons that would also explain the better performance on the home court and playing without spectators such as court dimensions, playing surface or travel fatigue.
The present results could help prepare players with specific psychological exercises focusing on the game and not being influenced by the crowd’s presence. These could include attempts to increase familiarity in home matches, reduce travel exhaustion, stimulate territoriality or ensure that player expectation and tactical adjustments in away matches do not hinder success. Likewise, these results can also be relevant to referees aiming for objective decision making or team officials, coaches, and players trying to influence home advantage to their advantage. In this vein, the referees, who are expected to be objective in their decisions, should be specifically trained to fulfil their objective even under pressure. We hope that our research can help to encourage similar studies that can clarify the relationship between HA and the crowd effect.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.-A., G.T., R.H. and B.B.; methodology, B.B., J.A.-A. and R.H.; formal analysis, B.B., J.A.-A. and R.H.; data curation, J.A.-A., G.T., A.A. and R.H.; funding acquisition, B.B.; investigation, J.A.-A., A.A., G.T.; writing—original draft preparation, B.B., J.A.-A. and G.T.; writing—review and editing, B.B., J.A.-A., G.T., J.P. and A.A.; project administration, B.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported and funded by the Faculty of Psychology, Education Sciences and Sport Blanquerna, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain, grant number PIF20-21-GRIES.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in this study.

References

  1. Caicedo-Parada, S.; Lago-Peñas, C.; Ortega-Toro, E. Passing Networks and Tactical Action in Football: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ferraz, A.; Valente-Dos-Santos, J.; Sarmento, H.; Duarte-Mendes, P.; Travassos, B. A Review of Players’ Characterization and Game Performance on Male Rink-Hockey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Prieto, J.; Gómez, M.-Á.; Pollard, R. Home Advantage in Men’s and Women’s Spanish First and Second Division Water Polo Leagues. J. Hum. Kinet. 2013, 37, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Pollard, R. Home advantage in soccer: A retrospective analysis. J. Sports Sci. 1986, 4, 237–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Schwartz, B.; Barsky, S.F. The Home Advantage. Soc. Forces 1977, 55, 641–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Legaz-Arrese, A.; Moliner-Urdiales, D.; Munguía-Izquierdo, D. Home advantage and sports performance: Evidence, causes and psychological implications. Univ. Psychol. 2013, 12, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Koning, R.H. Home advantage in professional tennis. J. Sports Sci. 2011, 29, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ferreira Julio, U.; Panissa, V.L.G.; Miarka, B.; Takito, M.Y.; Franchini, E. Home advantage in judo: A study of the world ranking list. J. Sports Sci. 2012, 31, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brito, C.J.; Miarka, B.; de Durana, A.L.D.; Fukuda, D.H. Home Advantage in Judo: Analysis by the Combat Phase, Penalties and the Type of Attack. J. Hum. Kinet. 2017, 57, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Koning, R.H. Home advantage in speed skating: Evidence from individual data. J. Sports Sci. 2005, 23, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pic, M. Quality, height, age and home advantage in boxing. RICYDE. Rev. Int. Cienc. Del Deport. 2018, 14, 174–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nevill, A.; Holder, R.; Bardsley, A.; Calvert, H.; Jones, S. Identifying home advantage in international tennis and golf tournaments. J. Sports Sci. 1997, 15, 437–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gomez, M.A.; Pollard, R. Calculating the Home Advantage in Soccer Leagues. J. Hum. Kinet. 2014, 40, 5–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Pollard, R. Home advantage in soccer: Variations in its magnitude and a literature review of the associated factors associated with its existence. J. Sport Behav. 2006, 29, 169–189. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ribeiro, H.V.; Mukherjee, S.; Zeng, X.H.T. The Advantage of Playing Home in NBA: Microscopic, Team-Specific and Evolving Features. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0152440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pollard, R.; Gómez, M.Á. Variations in home advantage in the national basketball leagues of europe. Rev. Psicol. Del Deport. 2013, 22, 263–266. [Google Scholar]
  17. Thomas, S.; Reeves, C.; Bell, A. Home advantage in the Six Nations Rugby Union tournament. Percept. Mot. Skills 2008, 106, 113–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mcguckin, T.A.; Sinclair, W.H.; Sealey, R.M.; Bowman, P.W. Players’ perceptions of home advantage in the Australian rugby league competition. Percept. Mot. Skills 2015, 121, 666–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oliveira, T.; Gómez, M.; Sampaio, J. Effects of game location, period, and quality of opposition in elite handball performances. Percept. Mot. Skills 2012, 114, 783–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pic, M. Performance and Home Advantage in Handball. J. Hum. Kinet. 2018, 63, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Page, L.; Page, K. The second leg home advantage: Evidence from European football cup competitions. J. Sports Sci. 2007, 25, 1547–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pic, M.; Castellano, J. Influence of match location in the spanish Copa del Rey. Retos Nuevas Tend. En Educ. Física Deport. Y Recreación 2017, 2041, 202–206. [Google Scholar]
  23. Pic, M.; Castellano, J. Efecto de la localización del partido en eliminatorias de ida y vuelta de la UEFA Champions League. RICYDE. Rev. Int. Cienc. Del Deport. 2016, 12, 149–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jamieson, J.P. The Home Field Advantage in Athletics: A Meta-Analysis. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 40, 1819–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Arboix-Alió, J.; Buscà, B.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Trabal Taña, G.; Sánchez-Lopez, M.-J. Comparison of home advantage in men’s and women’s Portuguese roller hockey league. Cuad. Psicol. Del Deport. 2020, 20, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Arboix-Alió, J.; Aguilera-Castells, J. Analysis of the home advantage in roller hockey. J. Sport Health Res. 2019, 3, 263–272. [Google Scholar]
  27. Courneya, K.S.; Carron, A.V. The Home Advantage In Sport Competitions: A Literature Review. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1992, 14, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pollard, R.; Prieto, J.; Gómez, M.Á. Global differences in home advantage by country, sport and sex. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2017, 17, 586–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pollard, R. Home Advantage in Football: A Current Review of an Unsolved Puzzle. Open Sports Sci. J. 2008, 1, 12–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Nevill, A.; Balmer, N.; Mark Williams, A. The influence of crowd noise and experience upon refereeing decisions in football. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2002, 3, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Agnew, G.; Carron, A.V. Crowd effects and the home advantage. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 1994, 25, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ponzo, M.; Scoppa, V. Does the Home Advantage Depend on Crowd Support? Evidence From Same-Stadium Derbies. J. Sports Econom. 2018, 19, 562–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Pollard, R.; Armatas, V. Factors affecting home advantage in football World Cup qualification. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2017, 17, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jiménez, Á.; Lavín, J.M. Home advantage in European soccer without crowd. Soccer Soc. 2021, 22, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pollard, R.; Pollard, G. Long-term trends in home advantage in professional team sports in North America and England (1876–2003). J. Sports Sci. 2005, 23, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull. World Health Organ. 2001, 79, 373–374. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hilbe, J.M. Negative Binomial Regression; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; ISBN 9780511811852. [Google Scholar]
  38. McCullagh, P.; Nelder, J.A. Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed.; Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  39. Long, J.S. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  40. Doménech, J.M.; Navarro, J.B. Regresión Logística Binaria, Multinomial, de Poisson y Binomial Negativa, 12th ed.; Signo: Barcelona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  41. Van de Ven, N. Supporters Are Not Necessary for the Home Advantage: Evidence From Same-Stadium Derbies and Games Without an Audience. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 41, 2785–2792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Scoppa, V. Social pressure in the stadiums: Do agents change behavior without crowd support? J. Econ. Psychol. 2021, 82, 102344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Boyko, R.H.; Boyko, A.R.; Boyko, M.G. Referee bias contributes to home advantage in English Premiership football. J. Sports Sci. 2007, 25, 1185–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Arboix-Alió, J.; Buscà, B.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A.; Trabal, G.; Peña, J. Competitive balance in male European rink hockey leagues. Apunt. Educ. Física i Esports 2021, 3, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Arboix-Alió, J.; Buscà, B.; Aguilera-Castells, J. Competitive balance using Accumulated Points Difference method in male and female roller hockey leagues. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2019, 19, 1200–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Arboix-Alió, J.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Buscà, B.; Miró, A.; Trabal, G.; Peña, J. Situational variables in elite rink hockey: Effect of match location, team level, scoring first and match status at halftime on the competitive outcome. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2021, 21, 1101–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Arboix-Alió, J.; Trabal, G.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Buscà, B. Analysis of the Individual Set-Pieces Influence on the Teams’ Ranking in Rink Hockey. J. Hum. Kinet. 2021, 79, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Arboix-Alió, J.; Trabal, G.; Valente-Dos-Santos, J.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A.; Buscà, B. The influence of contextual variables on individual set-pieces in elite rink hockey. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2021, 21, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Peña, J.; Altarriba-Bartés, A.; Vicens-Bordas, J.; Gil-Puga, B.; Piniés-Penadés, G.; Alba-Jiménez, C.; Merino-Tantiñà, J.; Baena-Riera, A.; Loscos-Fàbregas, E.; Casals, M. Sports in time of COVID-19: Impact of the lockdown on team activity. Apunt. Sports Med. 2021, 56, 100340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Distribution of the count-dependent variables.
Figure 1. Distribution of the count-dependent variables.
Ijerph 19 00228 g001
Figure 2. Home Advantage values in the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian leagues in games with and without spectators.
Figure 2. Home Advantage values in the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian leagues in games with and without spectators.
Ijerph 19 00228 g002
Table 1. Properties of the analysed variables.
Table 1. Properties of the analysed variables.
RoleVariableCategory (Code)Description
Independent variablespectatorsNo (0)The match was played without spectators.
Yes (1)There match was played with spectators.
Dependent variablegoals scored Number of goals scored per match.
Individual set-pieces shot Number of individual set-pieces shot per match.
faults committed Number of disciplinary faults committed by players per match played.
cards received Number of disciplinary cards (blue and red) received by players per match played.
Moderator variablematch locationAway (0)The analysed team played away.
Home (1)The analysed team played at home.
opponent’s levelLower (0)The opponent finished the league in a lower position.
Higher (1)The opponent finished the league in a higher position.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of match variables according to match location and spectators presence. The data represents events per match for each team and are shown as mean ± SD.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of match variables according to match location and spectators presence. The data represents events per match for each team and are shown as mean ± SD.
HomeAway
SpectatorsNo SpectatorspSpectatorsNo Spectatorsp
Goals3.89 ± 2.483.77 ± 2.240.3383.03 ± 1.913.40 ± 2.10>0.001
Individual set-pieces0.72 ± 0.900.80 ± 0.860.1040.54 ± 0.730.59 ± 0.720.221
Faults committed9.73 ± 3.5210.02 ± 3.560.1219.74 ± 3.6610.05 ± 3.660.109
Cards0.76 ± 0.930.91 ± 1.030.0030.98 ± 1.140.97 ± 1.130.854
Table 3. Effect of playing with spectators on the number of goals scored in different leagues and competitive situations.
Table 3. Effect of playing with spectators on the number of goals scored in different leagues and competitive situations.
LeagueMatch LocationOpponent’s LevelSpectators μ ˜ e β %p
SpanishAwayLowerNo3.94 [3.54, 4.38]0.92 [0.81, 1.04]−9.1 [−23.5, 3.8]0.169
(n = 1308) Yes3.61 [3.38, 3.85]
HigherNo2.17 [1.91, 2.46]0.89 [0.77, 1.03]−12.3 [−30.3, 3.3]0.125
Yes1.93 [1.79, 2.08]
HomeLowerNo4.66 [4.20, 5.17]0.97 [0.86, 1.09]−2.8 [−15.8, 9.5]0.643
Yes4.53 [4.27, 4.81]
HigherNo2.57 [2.28, 2.90]0.94 [0.82, 1.09]−5.9 [−21.9, 8.7]0.424
Yes2.42 [2.26, 2.61]
PortugueseAwayLowerNo4.09 [3.73, 4.48]1.03 [0.92, 1.15]3.0 [−8.8, 15.5]0.607
(n = 994) Yes4.21 [3.93, 4.51]
HigherNo2.43 [2.18, 2.71]1.01 [0.88, 1.15]0.9 [−13.3, 15.4]0.893
Yes2.45 [2.26, 2.66]
HomeLowerNo4.71 [4.32, 5.13]1.12 [1.00, 1.24]11.6 [0.4, 24.2]0.043
Yes5.25 [4.94, 5.59]
HigherNo2.80 [2.52, 3.11]1.09 [0.96, 1.24]9.3 [−4.0, 24.3]0.174
Yes3.06 [2.84, 3.30]
ItalianAwayLowerNo4.85 [4.45, 5.29]0.80 [0.72, 0.90]−24.3 [−39.0, −11.1]<0.001
(n = 1028) Yes3.90 [3.64, 4.19]
HigherNo2.81 [2.54, 3.12]0.88 [0.77, 1.00]−14.1 [−30.0, −0.1]0.048
Yes2.47 [2.28, 2.67]
HomeLowerNo5.00 [4.59, 5.45]1.02 [0.92, 1.14]2.5 [−8.5, 14.0]0.651
Yes5.13 [4.82, 5.46]
HigherNo2.90 [2.62, 3.21]1.12 [0.98, 1.27]11.7 [−1.7, 26.8]0.089
Yes3.24 [3.00, 3.49]
TotalAwayLowerNo4.30 [4.07, 4.55]0.90 [0.84, 0.96]−11.4 [−19.3, −4.1]0.002
(n = 3330) Yes3.86 [3.71, 4.02]
HigherNo2.48 [2.33, 2.65]0.90 [0.83, 0.97]−11.1 [−20.4, −2.6]0.010
Yes2.23 [2.13, 2.34]
HomeLowerNo4.79 [4.54, 5.06]1.02 [0.96, 1.09]2.3 [−4.2, 9.1]0.484
Yes4.90 [4.73, 5.08]
HigherNo2.76 [2.59, 2.94]1.03 [0.95, 1.11]2.6 [−5.2, 10.8]0.509
Yes2.84 [2.72, 2.96]
Abbreviation: 95% confidence intervals in brackets. n = number of observations; μ ˜ = expected mean number of goals scored; e β = factor change in the expected mean number of goals scored when moving from playing without spectators to playing with spectators, holding other variables constant; % = percentage change in the expected mean number of goals scored when moving from playing without spectators to playing with spectators, holding other variables constant; p = p-value for z-test.
Table 4. Effect of playing with spectators on the number of set-pieces shot in different leagues and competitive situations.
Table 4. Effect of playing with spectators on the number of set-pieces shot in different leagues and competitive situations.
LeagueMatch LocationOpponent’s LevelSpectators μ ˜ e β %p
SpanishAwayLowerNo2.10 [1.85, 2.39]0.74 [0.63, 0.86]−35.9 [−58.9, −16.2]<0.001
(n = 1308) Yes1.55 [1.42, 1.69]
HigherNo1.78 [1.54, 2.04]0.71 [0.60, 0.83]−41.8 [−67.7, −19.9]<0.001
Yes1.25 [1.14, 1.37]
HomeLowerNo2.29 [2.02, 2.61]0.81 [0.70, 0.95]−23.1 [−43.3, −5.8]0.007
Yes1.86 [1.72, 2.02]
HigherNo1.94 [1.70, 2.21]0.78 [0.66, 0.91]−28.5 [−50.8, −9.6]0.002
Yes1.51 [1.38, 1.65]
PortugueseAwayLowerNo2.29 [2.04, 2.58]1.02 [0.88, 1.18]2.0 [−13.5, 18.2]0.788
(n = 994) Yes2.34 [2.14, 2.56]
HigherNo2.11 [1.87, 2.38]1.07 [0.92, 1.24]6.9 [−8.6, 24.0]0.384
Yes2.26 [2.07, 2.47]
HomeLowerNo2.73 [2.44, 3.05]1.11 [0.97, 1.27]10.7 [−3.5, 26.9]0.144
Yes3.02 [2.79, 3.27]
HigherNo2.51 [2.24, 2.82]1.16 [1.01, 1.33]15.9 [0.8, 33.4]0.039
Yes2.91 [2.69, 3.16]
ItalianAwayLowerNo1.74 [1.52, 1.99]0.90 [0.75, 1.06]−11.6 [−32.6, 6.4]0.209
(n = 1028) Yes1.56 [1.40, 1.73]
HigherNo1.67 [1.45, 1.91]0.84 [0.70, 1.00]−19.2 [−41.9, −0.1]0.048
Yes1.40 [1.26, 1.56]
HomeLowerNo2.03 [1.79, 2.31]0.92 [0.78, 1.08]−8.4 [−27.4, 8.4]0.325
Yes1.87 [1.70, 2.07]
HigherNo1.95 [1.71, 2.22]0.86 [0.73, 1.02]−15.8 [−36.7, 2.0]0.084
Yes1.68 [1.52, 1.87]
TotalAwayLowerNo2.04 [1.89, 2.21]0.87 [0.79, 0.95]−15.5 [−26.9, −5.1]0.003
(n = 3330) Yes1.77 [1.67, 1.87]
HigherNo1.86 [1.72, 2.01]0.85 [0.77, 0.93]−17.9 [−29.9, −7.0]0.001
Yes1.57 [1.49, 1.67]
HomeLowerNo2.35 [2.19, 2.53]0.93 [0.85, 1.02]−7.6 [−17.7, 1.6]0.108
Yes2.19 [2.08, 2.30]
HigherNo2.14 [1.98, 2.30]0.91 [0.83, 1.00]−9.8 [−20.5, −0.1]0.047
Yes1.95 [1.84, 2.05]
Abbreviation: 95% confidence intervals in brackets. n = number of observations; μ ˜ = expected mean number of set-pieces shot; e β = factor change in the expected mean number of set-pieces shot when moving from playing without spectators to playing with spectators, holding other variables constant; % = percentage change in the expected mean number of set-pieces shot when moving from playing without spectators to playing with spectators, holding other variables constant; p = p-value for z-test.
Table 5. Effect of playing with spectators on the number of faults committed in different leagues and competitive situations.
Table 5. Effect of playing with spectators on the number of faults committed in different leagues and competitive situations.
LeagueMatch LocationOpponent’s LevelSpectators μ ˜ e β %p
SpanishAwayLowerNo10.06 [9.45, 10.71]0.96 [0.89, 1.03]−4.6 [−12.5, 2.8]0.229
(n = 1308) Yes9.62 [9.27, 9.99]
HigherNo9.97 [9.35, 10.63]0.99 [0.92, 1.06]−1.4 [−9.1, 6.2]0.721
Yes9.84 [9.48, 10.21]
HomeLowerNo10.33 [9.69,11.00]0.92 [0.85, 0.99]−9.0 [−17.3, −1.2]0.022
Yes9.48 [9.13, 9.84]
HigherNo10.24 [9.62, 10.90]0.95 [0.88, 1.02]−5.6 [−13.5, 1.8]0.139
Yes9.69 [9.34, 10.06]
PortugueseAwayLowerNo11.47 [10.80, 12.19]1.01 [0.93, 1.08]0.5 [−7.3, 8.5]0.894
(n = 994) Yes11.53 [11.01, 12.08]
HigherNo11.04 [10.39, 11.74]1.02 [0.94, 1.10]2.0 [−5.9, 10.1]0.619
Yes11.26 [10.75, 11.79]
HomeLowerNo11.51 [10.83, 12.23]0.99 [0.92, 1.07]−1.2 [−9.2, 6.6]0.752
Yes11.37 [10.86, 11.90]
HigherNo11.08 [10.42, 11.77]1.00 [0.93, 1.08]0.2 [−7.8, 8.2]0.959
Yes11.10 [10.59, 11.63]
ItalianAwayLowerNo9.13 [8.58, 9.72]0.89 [0.82, 0.96]−12.2 [−21.4, −3.7]0.004
(n = 1028) Yes8.14 [7.75, 8.54]
HigherNo8.60 [8.07, 9.17]0.96 [0.88, 1.03]−4.6 [−13.3, 3.5]0.266
Yes8.23 [7.84, 8.63]
HomeLowerNo8.76 [8.22, 9.33]0.97 [0.89, 1.05]−3.5 [−12.0, 4.6]0.398
Yes8.47 [8.08, 8.87]
HigherNo8.25 [7.74, 8.80]1.04 [0.96, 1.12]3.7 [−4.5, 12.3]0.379
Yes8.56 [8.15, 8.98]
TotalAwayLowerNo10.22 [9.85, 10.61]0.95 [0.91, 1.00]−5.2 [−10.1, −0.5]0.030
(n = 3330) Yes9.72 [9.47, 9.98]
HigherNo9.87 [9.50, 10.26]0.99 [0.94, 1.04]−1.1 [−5.9, 3.6]0.633
Yes9.76 [9.51, 10.02]
HomeLowerNo10.19 [9.82, 10.59]0.95 [0.91, 1.00]−5.0 [−10.0, −0.3]0.037
Yes9.71 [9.46, 9.96]
HigherNo9.84 [9.48, 10.22]0.99 [0.95, 1.04]−1.0 [−5.7, 3.7]0.683
Yes9.75 [9.50, 10.01]
Abbreviation: 95% confidence intervals in brackets. n = number of observations; μ ˜ = expected mean number of faults committed; e β = factor change in the expected mean number of faults committed when moving from playing without spectators to playing with spectators, holding other variables constant; % = percentage change in the expected mean number of faults committed when moving from playing without spectators to playing with spectators, holding other variables constant; p = p-value for z-test.
Table 6. Effect of playing with spectators on the number of cards received in different leagues and competitive situations.
Table 6. Effect of playing with spectators on the number of cards received in different leagues and competitive situations.
LeagueMatch LocationOpponent’s LevelSpectators μ ˜ e β %p
SpanishAwayLowerNo0.88 [0.71, 1.09]0.68 [0.53, 0.89]−46.3 [−89.8, −12.9]0.004
(n = 1308) Yes0.60 [0.52, 0.70]
HigherNo1.00 [0.81, 1.23]0.84 [0.65, 1.07]−19.4 [−53.2, 7.5]0.164
Yes0.84 [0.73, 0.95]
HomeLowerNo0.82 [0.66, 1.03]0.64 [0.49, 0.84]−56.5 [−104.9, −19.5]0.001
Yes0.53 [0.45, 0.61]
HigherNo0.93 [0.75, 1.15]0.78 [0.61, 1.01]−27.7 [−64.4, 0.9]0.058
Yes0.73 [0.63, 0.84]
PortugueseAwayLowerNo0.89 [0.72, 1.09]1.43 [1.11, 1.84]42.7 [10.7, 84.0]0.006
(n = 994) Yes1.27 [1.10, 1.46]
HigherNo1.21 [1.00, 1.47]1.14 [0.90, 1.45]13.8 [−11.5, 44.5]0.287
Yes1.38 [1.20, 1.59]
HomeLowerNo0.76 [0.61, 0.95]1.14 [0.87, 1.49]13.9 [−14.9, 49.0]0.343
Yes0.87 [0.74, 1.02]
HigherNo1.04 [0.85, 1.27]0.91 [0.71, 1.17]−10.1 [−41.8, 17.1]0.458
Yes0.95 [0.81, 1.10]
ItalianAwayLowerNo0.91 [0.75, 1.11]1.06 [0.84, 1.36]6.4 [−19.8, 35.6]0.616
(n = 1028) Yes0.97 [0.84, 1.12]
HigherNo0.92 [0.76, 1.12]1.21 [0.95, 1.53]20.9 [−4.9, 53.4]0.117
Yes1.12 [0.97, 1.28]
HomeLowerNo0.96 [0.79, 1.16]0.80 [0.63, 1.03]−24.3 [−58.9, 2.9]0.083
Yes0.77 [0.66, 0.90]
HigherNo0.97 [0.80, 1.17]0.91 [0.72, 1.16]−9.3 [−39.3, 16.5]0.469
Yes0.88 [0.76, 1.03]
TotalAwayLowerNo0.90 [0.79, 1.01]0.99 [0.86, 1.15]−0.6 [−16.6, 15.2]0.939
(n = 3330) Yes0.89 [0.82, 0.97]
HigherNo1.04 [0.93, 1.17]1.02 [0.89, 1.18]2.4 [−12.5, 18.1]0.738
Yes1.07 [0.99, 1.16]
HomeLowerNo0.84 [0.75, 0.96]0.82 [0.70, 0.96]−21.8 [−41.9, −4.5]0.012
Yes0.69 [0.63, 0.76]
HigherNo0.98 [0.87, 1.11]0.85 [0.73, 0.98]−18.2 [−36.7, −2.1]0.025
Yes0.83 [0.76, 0.91]
Abbreviation: 95% confidence intervals in brackets. n = number of observations; μ ˜ = expected mean number of cards received; e β = factor change in the expected mean number of cards received when moving from playing without spectators to playing with spectators, holding other variables constant; % = percentage change in the expected mean number of cards received when moving from playing without spectators to playing with spectators, holding other variables constant; p = p-value for z-test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arboix-Alió, J.; Trabal, G.; Buscà, B.; Peña, J.; Arboix, A.; Hileno, R. The Behaviour of Home Advantage during the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Rink Hockey Leagues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 228. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19010228

AMA Style

Arboix-Alió J, Trabal G, Buscà B, Peña J, Arboix A, Hileno R. The Behaviour of Home Advantage during the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Rink Hockey Leagues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(1):228. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19010228

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arboix-Alió, Jordi, Guillem Trabal, Bernat Buscà, Javier Peña, Adrià Arboix, and Raúl Hileno. 2022. "The Behaviour of Home Advantage during the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Rink Hockey Leagues" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 1: 228. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph19010228

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop