Manchester United Message Board
sorry spurs, its all opinion and theory, Until you get 3 good and fair refs to look at in detail all the recordings of all games as far back as is possible it will remain opinion and theory as all unsubstantiated statistic can be twisted whatever way anyone wants
its impossible for me to do complete evidence. i dont have 90min access to every game recorded in my archive!
so of course all of us will just pick out a small number of games.
my opinion is based on watching lots of football & more often than not seeing the bigger team get the decision.
also the human nature argument is very strong.
every day people are going with the popular-easy-less hassle choice in life.
ie- siding with a big team at home rather than going against them.
Well, I'm asking for evidence. All there is is anecdotes about a small number of games, so I'm pointing out that you can just easily come out with anecdotes about a small number of games which go the other way.
"overall the bigger teams get more"
What is your evidence for this?
rob, ur qpr match doesnt do anything for my theory.
u are sounding like some of the utd fans now!
my theory is overall. there are cases of course like the qpr match, newcastle pen at OT etc.
but overall the bigger teams get more. iv never said once the bigger teams get all the decisions!
yes u and others are pointing out games in which the smaller team got the decisions.
i hate debates when people argue against something that no one has argued for.
who the hell said all big teams get all big decisions in their favour?
oh & rob, ashley cole is faster than terry.
u didnt argue terry case, but i thought id join in arguing a case no one argued against!
have a think for yourself tasty geezer?
things dont have to be 100% 1 way or the other u numpty!
most of the presidents of america have been white.
wait for it, tasty geezer is about to speak....
hmmm, so what about obama? isnt he black?
yes tasty, but more have been white.
because obama is black, it doesnt mean it cancels out all the rest that were white.
just like the odd decision against the bigger team doesnt cancel out lots of decisions against the bigger team.
why do i even bother explaining things like this to people like him.
to sum up for u, sometimes the bigger teams will get bad decisions against them. of course they will. mistakes go both ways. but overall, the bigger teams get much more go there way.
No, of course it's not good enough! Some guy's opinion is not evidence. If he has evidence, show it.
We all have opinions. We all tend to give more credibility and notice to evidence that supports our opinions than contradicts them. Just because losing managers like to blame something other than their team's inadequacy on not beating "the big teams" whoever they are isn't a reason to think referees are biased.
" You can't take a tiny number of incidents and credibly come up with some grand theory." So , you think the ref completely ignoring a clear Terry handball, and giving Chelsea a goal when clearly it wasn't even near the goal line in one game " a tiny number of incidents " Chelsea could have been 2-1 down rather than 2-1 up . I think they were quite large incidents.
But you're extrapolating from a few incidents which you think should have been done differently into a gross generalisation. There's a huge number of incidents which work the other way too. Take Chelsea QPR. In addition to sending off two Chelsea players (one fully deserved, the other questionable) the ref gave QPR a soft penalty while dismissing four incidents of QPR defenders wrestling Chelsea players away from the ball in the pnealty area. Result 1-0 to QPR. So does that favour your theory?
You can't take a tiny number of incidents and credibly come up with some grand theory.
"If people want to assert that refs favour big teams, can they put up some evidence. I haven't seen any."
As evidence goes, is below note to Tim Long's extensive work on decisions for and against (Freelance Sports Commentator) good enough Robert?
I have received a couple of tweets/emails telling me that the correlation between the percentages a club benefitted from decisions and club revenue is weak.
While this may be the case, it can not be denied that there are some important indicators that generally “bigger” clubs are gaining more from incorrect decisions.
Yes, Manchester United and Arsenal finished towards the bottom of this table and Bolton, Blackburn and Wolves towards the top - there will always be a few big clubs benefitting less and few smaller clubs benefitting more.
Figures can always be manipulated to back up a particular view, but, rather than looking for a correlation throughout the teams, look at the top and bottom benefiters – there is undoubtedly a difference in the size of those clubs.
There will always be exceptions – of course we are talking about a subconscious element that may be more present in some than it is in others. And which official takes charge of which match will therefore have an impact on these figures.
Aside from looking at clubs’ revenues, the top three in the league should have lost points, while the bottom three should have gained points.
And speaking to a number of key personalities within the game, it appears there is widespread agreement that bigger clubs do get, in general, a greater benefit from incorrect decisions.
Coincidence these things may be, but, I know what my opinion is, and everyone else can form their view guided by their own interpretation of my findings"
i think a ref is far more likely to give utd a pen against fulham than he is to give a pen for fulham against utd at OT.
Hmmm, so what about the penalty newcastle got at OT when Rio made a perfectly good tackle?
- View More Messages