Many of us are pretty confident that we understand how a four-stroke engine works. Some of us probably learned it in a high school shop class: intake, compression, power and exhaust. Seems simple enough. But if someone asked you to explain exactly when the intake and exhaust valves open and close, how the camshaft controls them, how the pistons turn the crankshaft, and precisely when the spark plug fires, how well could you explain it?
Knowing the four strokes makes us feel like we understand how an engine works. But when we’re asked to explain the process in detail, we may discover that our understanding isn’t nearly as complete as we thought.
That question gets at something psychologists Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil studied at Yale University. In a 2002 study, they examined what they called the “illusion of explanatory depth.” Their research found that people frequently believe they understand familiar things much better than they actually do. The illusion becomes apparent when they are asked to explain, in detail, how those things work.
Before attempting an explanation, people were often quite confident in their knowledge. After trying to explain the mechanism step by step, that confidence dropped. They discovered gaps in their understanding that they didn’t know existed.
There may be an officiating version of the illusion of explanatory depth.
We read a rule and think, I know that. We’ve seen it before. We’ve discussed it at meetings. We’ve answered questions about it on an exam. Maybe we’ve even enforced it during a game. Because the rule is familiar to us, we can easily mistake familiarity for mastery.
But imagine that instead of answering a multiple-choice question, someone closes the rule book and says, “Explain the rule to me.”
What exactly makes this action a foul? What are the elements that must be present? Are there exceptions? How is the penalty enforced? And perhaps most importantly, could you explain your ruling clearly to a coach who wants to know why you threw, or didn’t throw, your flag?
That’s where the gaps in our knowledge begin to show.
Consider a horsecollar tackle. Many officials could quickly tell you that they “know the horsecollar rule.” But knowing that grabbing the back or side of certain equipment can be involved isn’t enough. What exactly may the defender grasp? What action must follow that grasp? Does it matter how the runner is brought to the ground? Are there situations where the restriction does not apply?
If we can’t answer those questions precisely, we probably don’t understand the rule as well as we thought we did.
The same thing applies to mechanics. We can say, “I know my position,” but can we explain our keys, initial responsibility, what we’re reading after the snap, when responsibility transitions, and why we move where we move? Knowing where to stand is different from understanding why we are standing there.
This is one reason crew discussions and video review can be so valuable. Don’t stop at, “That’s DPI,” or, “I’ve got nothing.” Make yourself explain why. Identify what you actually saw and connect it to the language of the rule. If another official disagrees, require the same thing from him. The goal isn’t to win the argument. The goal is to discover whether our understanding survives the explanation.
There is also value in occasionally studying without immediately looking at the rule book. Pick a rule and try to explain it from memory first. Write down everything you believe the rule says. Then open the book and compare your explanation with the actual language. The differences between the two may be more educational than simply reading the rule another time.
Ultimately, we’re preparing for a moment when there won’t be a rule book in our hands. A coach will ask what we saw and why we ruled it the way we did. We need to be able to say, “Coach, in my judgment…” when the decision depends upon judgment, and “Coach, by rule…” when we’re explaining what the rule requires.
The illusion of explanatory depth reminds us that feeling like we know something isn’t particularly good evidence that we actually know it.
So the next time you catch yourself thinking, I know that rule, give yourself a better test.
Close the book. Now explain it.
Quiz
Read the quiz stem and then choose the best answer. (Choose all that apply.)
2/5 from the B-48. A33 runs toward the sideline, is hit, and fumbles on the B-37. He bats the ball at the B-35, and it goes out of bounds at the B-36.
- No foul, A33 batted the ball toward his own goal line
- Foul for illegal batting; Enforce the penalty from the B-37 (spot of the fumble)
- Foul for illegal batting; Enforce the penalty from the B-36 (dead ball spot)
- Foul for illegal batting; Enforce the penalty from the B-35 (spot of the bat)
Review Rules 9-7-2, 10-4-4a, 10-4-6c