Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) err in testing the optical error hypothesis

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    In this commentary, we react to the recent study by Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) on judging offside in football. Helsen et al. claim that their data falsify the optical error hypothesis presented by Oudejans et al. (2000). However, as we will elucidate here, they misinterpret this hypothesis and present a data set that is seriously flawed, and hence not suited to test it. Therefore, their conclusions regarding the optical error hypothesis are in error.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)987-990
    JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
    Volume25
    Issue number9
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2007

    Fingerprint

    Football
    Datasets

    Cite this

    @article{55a33be3bf1e4d2590c2623d99ece6fe,
    title = "Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) err in testing the optical error hypothesis",
    abstract = "In this commentary, we react to the recent study by Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) on judging offside in football. Helsen et al. claim that their data falsify the optical error hypothesis presented by Oudejans et al. (2000). However, as we will elucidate here, they misinterpret this hypothesis and present a data set that is seriously flawed, and hence not suited to test it. Therefore, their conclusions regarding the optical error hypothesis are in error.",
    author = "R.R.D. Oudejans and F.C. Bakker and P.J. Beek",
    year = "2007",
    doi = "10.1080/02640410600778610",
    language = "English",
    volume = "25",
    pages = "987--990",
    journal = "Journal of Sports Sciences",
    issn = "0264-0414",
    publisher = "Routledge",
    number = "9",

    }

    Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) err in testing the optical error hypothesis. / Oudejans, R.R.D.; Bakker, F.C.; Beek, P.J.

    In: Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 25, No. 9, 2007, p. 987-990.

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) err in testing the optical error hypothesis

    AU - Oudejans, R.R.D.

    AU - Bakker, F.C.

    AU - Beek, P.J.

    PY - 2007

    Y1 - 2007

    N2 - In this commentary, we react to the recent study by Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) on judging offside in football. Helsen et al. claim that their data falsify the optical error hypothesis presented by Oudejans et al. (2000). However, as we will elucidate here, they misinterpret this hypothesis and present a data set that is seriously flawed, and hence not suited to test it. Therefore, their conclusions regarding the optical error hypothesis are in error.

    AB - In this commentary, we react to the recent study by Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) on judging offside in football. Helsen et al. claim that their data falsify the optical error hypothesis presented by Oudejans et al. (2000). However, as we will elucidate here, they misinterpret this hypothesis and present a data set that is seriously flawed, and hence not suited to test it. Therefore, their conclusions regarding the optical error hypothesis are in error.

    U2 - 10.1080/02640410600778610

    DO - 10.1080/02640410600778610

    M3 - Article

    VL - 25

    SP - 987

    EP - 990

    JO - Journal of Sports Sciences

    JF - Journal of Sports Sciences

    SN - 0264-0414

    IS - 9

    ER -