Taking Stock; A visit from the neighbours. V Hatters, Sat, 15th Mr. 12-30.

[Worthy4England]

Ahh spreadsheet - thing of beauty, mate.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be any technology. If you need 5 minutes, 5 camera angles and frame by frame then what is the point? Players don't have the benefit of technology telling them when to time runs etc, so neither should the ref. We need better refs and whether that is training, or better people I don't know. I'd also make the refing more like basketball. Give them all a whistle to use and they cover zones in different phases. Allows them to be more focussed and blow when they see stuff. They can still confer etc.

[BWFC_Insane]

It’s never going to balance out completely in the way you describe. There are I think relatively few times we are robbed by a refereeing display in the 4 decades I’ve watched us. Yes decisions sometimes go against us. The refs down here are poor. Yes a big game a poor decision can have longer term consequences and can’t ’balance out’ in the immediacy.

I don't particularly want it to balance out completely. There's bound to be winners and losers, but we shouldn't have to see that in terms of big games.

But we also only focus on decisions that go against us. Number of games we’ve played we have had and enjoyed rub of the green on decisions and these are forgotten by us instantly yet become part of our opponents grievances.

The spreadsheet I mentioned on my previous post would indicate that i'm not just focusing on our grievances, but ones that make up a bigger picture of things balancing out, so it's not just only on particular decisions against us, but more as a holistic view of all to sort of answer the question, does it really balance out?

Stats would suggest no, but lets be honest, it doesn't really matter. Every team has a sob story to tell, we're no different. The stats just help to paint a picture to reflect upon.


For those actually interested:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

I mean the stats there are not really a full picture and even if every single decision weighted the same and was equivalent the difference in beneficiaries is not really statistically significant but it’s an incomplete sample of one decision type.

It’s our natural instinct as football fans (or is for many of us) to sit there and watch and say ‘this ref is biased against us’ and often in the ground you can feel that way. As decisions to the naked eye from your seat feel like they often go against you. But watch back and usually in the cold light of day with a clear head you can make the case for the ref either just seeing it differently to you, your emotion maybe clouding judgement on the day or indeed your view being less than optimal or as I would say is the case much of the time in this league the ref just not being all that good.

I do think it’s not completely even and never really has been. Man Utd in their period of dominance got probably a slight favouring in decisions as Liverpool do now. But it’s slight. It is noticeable because they are good sides. So the whole Fergie time thing whilst maybe having a ring of truth to it was very noticeable because they were the best side in the country and would therefore frequently score in time added on. Most sides would have similar added on time but not score and hence what might be a relatively minor thing in reality becomes some massive footballing injustice.

The thing is that it’s statistically unlikely for every team to always be sitting at exactly half the decisions being for them or against them. It’s never going to be exactly like that. And there will be instances of bad luck where teams feel that the refs are against them.

There is only one real game I’ve ever been to where in the cold light of day a few days post game I felt the ref was genuinely biased and that’s the famous game at Ipswich. Even then I don’t think you can reflect that in the big decisions either as cold light of day most of those were probably just about right. They all lent one way but I don’t think any were glaringly wrong. But it was the entire performance the smaller decisions the body language. Nobody to this day will convince me there wasn’t that night some sort of agenda probably a subconscious one.

But I still maintain that is pretty unusual. Most of the issue down here is refs just being pretty poor.

[Mar]

I mean the stats there are not really a full picture and even if every single decision weighted the same and was equivalent the difference in beneficiaries is not really statistically significant but it’s an incomplete sample of one decision type.

The stats there are never intended to be a full picture. There's no way to get that full picture as it's indicative of the amount of time attacking by both sides, or types of chances. But I found it interesting and it paints a picture, make of that picture what you will.

It’s our natural instinct as football fans (or is for many of us) to sit there and watch and say ‘this ref is biased against us’ and often in the ground you can feel that way. As decisions to the naked eye from your seat feel like they often go against you. But watch back and usually in the cold light of day with a clear head you can make the case for the ref either just seeing it differently to you, your emotion maybe clouding judgement on the day or indeed your view being less than optimal or as I would say is the case much of the time in this league the ref just not being all that good.

I do think it’s not completely even and never really has been. Man Utd in their period of dominance got probably a slight favouring in decisions as Liverpool do now. But it’s slight. It is noticeable because they are good sides. So the whole Fergie time thing whilst maybe having a ring of truth to it was very noticeable because they were the best side in the country and would therefore frequently score in time added on. Most sides would have similar added on time but not score and hence what might be a relatively minor thing in reality becomes some massive footballing injustice.

The thing is that it’s statistically unlikely for every team to always be sitting at exactly half the decisions being for them or against them. It’s never going to be exactly like that. And there will be instances of bad luck where teams feel that the refs are against them.

Indeed. We'll not get parity, nor should we.

I do however think there is subconscious biases that will play a part in terms of referees making decisions, whether that's as a result of struggling to manage a crowd or an occasion. There lies the need for better training and better referees.

There is only one real game I’ve ever been to where in the cold light of day a few days post game I felt the ref was genuinely biased and that’s the famous game at Ipswich. Even then I don’t think you can reflect that in the big decisions either as cold light of day most of those were probably just about right. They all lent one way but I don’t think any were glaringly wrong. But it was the entire performance the smaller decisions the body language. Nobody to this day will convince me there wasn’t that night some sort of agenda probably a subconscious one.

But I still maintain that is pretty unusual. Most of the issue down here is refs just being pretty poor.

Barry Knight was shocking and I think we all questioned how he came to the decisions he did. We ended up on the rough end of his decisions and I wouldn't wish a repeat of that on any other team, so if there are things we can do to help prevent it then so be it.

And yes, refs are pretty poor, but that's refereeing. Theres more than enough money in the game to get full time professionals throughout the leagues.

[Prufrock]

They're not bent, they're just bad. But truly horribly bad. There is comfortably enough money in the game for professional leagues to have professional refs.

And Zenden kicked it twice. Clear as glass on the day and I'll go to my grave livid about it. Knight the only one I think might have been bent. But Riley was a c*nt.

[BWFC_Insane]

They're not bent, they're just bad. But truly horribly bad. There is comfortably enough money in the game for professional leagues to have professional refs.

And Zenden kicked it twice. Clear as glass on the day and I'll go to my grave livid about it. Knight the only one I think might have been bent. But Riley was a c*nt.

Yep. They are dreadful and given the level of football is better than ever down here it’s time that the referees were reflective of that. Quite a few times I feel they haven’t even been really able to keep up with the pace of the game.

[Mar]

They're not bent, they're just bad. But truly horribly bad. There is comfortably enough money in the game for professional leagues to have professional refs.

And Zenden kicked it twice. Clear as glass on the day and I'll go to my grave livid about it. Knight the only one I think might have been bent. But Riley was a c*nt.

Yep. They are dreadful and given the level of football is better than ever down here it’s time that the referees were reflective of that. Quite a few times I feel they haven’t even been really able to keep up with the pace of the game.

We're constantly told that we should respect the referees, yet the FA don't respect them enough to give them adequate pay and conditions for a full time role.

I'm sure most of us would happily pay a pound for competent refereeing.