Bet Bagpuss is legless this afternoon

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Is it? After all, as you said, they're only human. With over fifty-thousand United fans calling for your blood, I don't suppose any amount of experience would help there.

No doubt that there has been the odd ref who has been influenced by crowd and player behaviour but stating that there is a trend suggests that it is every ref and that is not the case. Except it is to those who dislike Man U on principle and because their mates dislike them. They will say anything to vent their wrath.

Originally Posted by shakermaker

For the record, I don't believe that the refs are crooked or biased. There is a trend of statistics that show how Manchester United are more likely to have a decision go in their favour when playing at home. My opinion on the reasons for that trend is that some refs are likely to buck under pressure from fans and/or big characters on and off the field.

Now which is it? You are not biased or you are. Make your mind up.

If you are not biased how can you countenance the myth that Man U are more likely to get a decision in their favour when playing at home? Believing that is bias against Man U.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by churchman phil

If you actually read my earlier post I stated top premiership sides - PLURAL. Ergo it is not a go at just Man U being favoured but a general observation. Shakermaker is strictly correct - the higher up the footballing ladder you go the more decisions are likely to go for you.
As a matter of recourse JB - are you or have you ever been a pro/am referee??

So you admit that it is not just Man U who, it is claimed, get preferential treatment from a referee.

That is a major slur on the referees.

Yes! Amateur, donkey’s years ago.

Have you?

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by jambutty

If you are not biased how can you countenance the myth that Man U are more likely to get a decision in their favour when playing at home? Believing that is bias against Man U.

Manchester United have had very few decisions go against them while playing at home, in comparison to every other Premier League team since the League's inception. The lack of penalties given against them being the largest statistical anomalie. These statistics (not opinions or views from supporters) make the probability of decisions going Manchester United's way being high. There is no myth.

Now, my opinion on that statistical trend links to the likelihood of referees to buck under pressure. There is no bias. I have nothing against Manchester United. I just have an opinion on a statistical trend.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Manchester United have had very few decisions go against them while playing at home, in comparison to every other Premier League team since the League's inception. The lack of penalties given against them being the largest statistical anomalie. These statistics (not opinions or views from supporters) make the probability of decisions going Manchester United's way being high. There is no myth.

Now, my opinion on that statistical trend links to the likelihood of referees to buck under pressure. There is no bias. I have nothing against Manchester United. I just have an opinion on a statistical trend.

Since the start of the Prem I can count numerous dodgy decisions being given against the Rovers when playing Man Unt., but none going our way, two this year to start with

[Bagpuss]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Except it is to those who dislike Man U on principle and because their mates dislike them.

I love Man Yoo in fact I love them so much I like to play them every week, this thread has become boring now.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Bagpuss

I love Man Yoo in fact I love them so much I like to play them every week, this thread has become boring now.

i wonder why?

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Manchester United have had very few decisions go against them while playing at home, in comparison to every other Premier League team since the League's inception. The lack of penalties given against them being the largest statistical anomalie. These statistics (not opinions or views from supporters) make the probability of decisions going Manchester United's way being high. There is no myth.

Now, my opinion on that statistical trend links to the likelihood of referees to buck under pressure. There is no bias. I have nothing against Manchester United. I just have an opinion on a statistical trend.

Let me see if I have this right. You (and many others) a non-referee sitting in the stands or watching on TV reckon that a penalty should have been given when it wasn’t.

Don’t come quoting that you have seen a dozen replays because the real ref, who has spent years working his way up to the top, has only a split second to make a decision and in any case is much closer to the action than you are. And the chances are that your view was impeded by the guy in front jumping up or players in your line of site.

This is where this myth has started – it is all based on unqualified opinions of non-referees sat in the stands or watching from the comfort of their armchair and following each other around like sheep perpetuating the myth.

This equally mythical statistical anomaly is based on what the public sees and wants to believe. I would be interested to know where these statistics are published and by whom.

Then there is the very real possibility that the opposing teams, desperate to come away with something, will do anything to gain an advantage over the home team and these incidents are spotted by the referee and awarded accordingly.

[shakermaker]

Here are the amount of penalties awarded against teams in the Premiership, from the start of the 98/99 season to the start of the 08/09 season. I can't find earlier stats, but a ten year slice seems fair to me. The nine teams listed are the only ones to have been in the Premier League since the start of the 98/99 season.

1. Manchester United: 18 (8 home, 10 away) % at home: 44.4
2. Arsenal: 23 (8 home, 15 away) home %: 34.8
3. Chelsea: 29 (8 home, 21 away) home %: 27.6
4. Liverpool: 32 (11 home, 21 away) home %: 34.4
5. Middlesbrough: 37 (16 home, 21 away) home %: 43.2
6. Everton: 39 (16 home, 23 away) home %: 41
7. Newcastle: 44 (15 home, 29 away) home %: 34.1
8. Tottenham: 48 (18 home, 30 away) home %: 37.5
9. Aston Villa: 49 (16 home, 33 away) home %: 32.7

From that data, we can see that the statistical probability of a penalty being awarded against Manchester United, Arsenal or Chelsea is very low. That can't be disputed.
Indeed, we also see that Manchester United hold the highest percentage of penalties conceded at home. Personally I don't see the importance of that particular statistic when the overall amount of penalties over ten years is only eighteen.
I think the state of low probability is because the performance of referees, and you think it's because the best teams simply don't allow the opposition to get in their 18 yard box very often. A simple difference of opinion. I respect yours, but it seems that we're going around in circles.
Cheers for the discussion.

[jambutty]

Your statistics are ignoring the fact that maybe there were only 18 incidents where a penalty could have been awarded.

To make those statistics meaningful we need to know how many penalty area incidents there had been and then we get into the realm of the spectators’ unqualified opinion.

I prefer to believe that a fully qualified and highly experienced referees will make the right decision regardless of what the crowd thinks and then perpetuates the myth that some Premier teams get favoured at home.

[churchman phil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

That is a major slur on the referees.

Rubbish!! It is just a statement that a referee's judgement WILL be affected by the crowd to some degree regardless of the man's integrity. It isn't a slur at all as that would imply referee's deliberately award decisions to the bigger team which I never said they did.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by churchman phil

Rubbish!! It is just a statement that a referee's judgement WILL be affected by the crowd to some degree regardless of the man's integrity. It isn't a slur at all as that would imply referee's deliberately award decisions to the bigger team which I never said they did.

I think in the main you are on the right tracks. Subconsciously there must be an influence from a larger crowd. Stick your self in the middle of a football pitch with one person shouting penalty, then shove 70,000 people round the side of the pitch shouting penalty and see which has the most influence . It's an instant trigger in the human brain.

Referees don't cheat despite the protestations of many fans, but they do get things wrong, thankfully nowhere near as many as they get right

[churchman phil]

They are human dave and as such will err. If anybody on here wants a ref who is perfect then they should stop watching the game.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by churchman phil

They are human dave and as such will err. If anybody on here wants a ref who is perfect then they should stop watching the game.

I used to be a Class One referee years ago, not sure some of the people I sent off would regard me as human, unless some of the words that were used actually translated in to meaning human

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

I used to be a Class One referee years ago, not sure some of the people I sent off would regard me as human, unless some of the words that were used actually translated in to meaning human

Human and Dingle dave

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by churchman phil

Rubbish!! It is just a statement that a referee's judgement WILL be affected by the crowd to some degree regardless of the man's integrity. It isn't a slur at all as that would imply referee's deliberately award decisions to the bigger team which I never said they did.

You’re right it is rubbish. Your post that is.

I never said that YOU implied that refs deliberately favour the bigger team. But hey! Why spoil a good rant with accuracy.

However it is comforting to know that in your arrogance you can state unequivocally that a referee’s judgement WILL be affected by crowds. And your degree in psychology comes from where?

What your really mean is that you are judging the situation by your own standards and then assuming that a referee of many years standing will be like you. Bah! Humbug!