Soccer Goalies Ignore Basic Rule of Probability
When penalty shots repeatedly head in one direction, world-class goalkeepers are more likely to lunge the other way. Karen Hopkin reports
By Karen Hopkin
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Imagine you’re a soccer goalie. Your opponent gets ready to take a penalty kick. You’re crouched in front of the net. The past three kickers have aimed to your left. So which way do you dive? If you said “right,” you’d be in good company. Because when penalty shots repeatedly head in one direction, world-class goalkeepers are more likely to lunge the other way. That’s according to a study in the journal Current Biology. [Erman Misirlisoyemail, Patrick Haggard: Asymmetric Predictability and Cognitive Competition in Football Penalty Shoot-Outs]
This form of misconception—that a string of rights is bound to be broken by a left—is also common in casinos, so much so that it’s called the “gambler’s fallacy.” At the roulette wheel, for example, bettors tend to back black after seeing a run of reds. “We’re due for a black,” the thinking goes. But in reality, the roulette ball is still equally likely to land on either color.
And despite what netminders might think, the same is true for penalty kicks. In fact, researchers studying 36 years’ worth of World Cup and Euro Cup finals found that the direction of penalty shots is basically a coin-flip.
Ah, but if kickers in the next World Cup were to take advantage of the goalie falling for the gambler’s fallacy, they could really get a leg up. [gooooal]
— Karen Hopkin
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
