Agenda against City? Ref Stats 2012/13

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Agree with pigeon in some ways, ie that we all know that in certain games we haven't performed and so dropped important points. That's the reason for the points gap. Though we will never know that if free kicks and penalties, we think we should have got, would have led to more points. One I can remember was Everton. Should have had a pen and robbed them blind.

 

[Chris in London]

Until 3/4, QPR hadn't conceded a penalty either. Was there preferential treatment of them until that point, or is it just the case that none of their players had committed a foul inside the area, or hadn't been caught doing so?

There are 2 other clubs who have not had a man sent off this season. Are they being given preferential treatment, or is it just the case that none of their players have been deserving of a red, or at least not been caught doing so?

As for the other points, is it not just the case that those stats are correct and the decisions made/not made were right? If it was Southampton who appeared favoured by those stats, would such a fuss have been made?

If QPR hadn't conceded a penalty all season

AND hadn't had a man sent off all season

AND had conceded only one penalty at Loftus Road in five seasons

AND had a manager well known for making such a fuss in the media about refereeing decisions with a consequence that those he complains about no longer refereed desirable QPR games

AND we had all watched QPR's rivals week in week out and had seen 50/50 decisions are given far more against us than for us

AND we had all been in the stands at QPR and watched their star centre forward commit four yellow card offences but only get one yellow card

AND we had all seen that star centre forward dive in two footed and give away nothing more than a free kick (without any media outcry, either)

then we might reasonably conclude that QPR were getting preferential treatment, yes.

 

[Mr. Aguia]

Very interesting stuff. I really am surprised at some of the stats. Not that I'm buying into the conspiracy stuff. It is pretty bizzare that the 32 club in the country doesn't seem to get any calls. I do believe that the refs are influenced by certain managers, fergie in particular as well as the crowd. The game at Arsenal really comes to mind. I thought the ref was making all the right calls but the fans started moaning every call and as a result the ref started calling things their way. The red for Vinnie in particular was heavily influenced by the fans reaction. Since we are such a strongly supported club both home and away and our supporters regularly make more noise then the home squad I would think we'd be more favored than we are.

 

[LoveCity]

The only true agenda is in the media with the rag sycophants infesting Fleet Street. The side-by-side Van Persie/Aguero stories the other day was a perfect illustration of how they work (<a class="postlink" href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BH2COtmCEAAQoR6.jpg:large" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BH2COtmCEAAQoR6.jpg:large</a>).

The dodgy refereeing comes down in part to institutional bias but also other things. Fear of Fergie with past events preying on the mind (referees repeatedly demoted or deprived big games after giving decisions against United = referees afraid of suffering the same fate, hence the disgraceful lack of punishment against their players) aids them each and every year. When that vile excuse of a man finally retires it will be interesting to see if it carries over to the next manager.

The bitterness and contempt against the rich kids works against us... the referees will be supporters of teams less fortunate than us and like countless other fans many of them will sport deep-seated negative feelings against us that can often be seen in how we're treated. There's no such thing as a 50/50 in most City games.

 

[Blue Mooner]

I'm sorry but the only stats I needed to see in that lot that prove we get treated mightily unfairly and there IS a deliberate mandate to not treat us with an even hand.

City - bottom of the total of free kicks won
City - 4th in free kicks conceded
City - bottom of the number of free kicks won per match
City - top of the number of free kicks conceded per match

I really didn't need to go any further than that, it's not restricted to particular refs its across the board.

Anyone who doesn't think that the weight of those decisions can't have an impact on the matches is deluded. It makes my blood boil.

 

[Nascent Blues]

What I really don't understand is how certain posters can utterly dismiss bias - not a conspiratorial agenda from dubious men in dark corners from the FA, but bias. It seems fantastical and implausible to me that there wouldn't/couldn't be bias shown by referees in various games, up and down the leagues, throughout the country.

We all work with people who we don't particular like and with people who we think are decent, top blokes. If I had a deadline by which I had to complete a task, either for someone I didn't get on with or a person I did, but could only choose one task to complete, which one am I going to pick?

People pick and choose; make decisions and choices due to personal preference, likes and dislikes, prejudices and peccadillos, all the time in everyday life, whether in the private or public arena. Do you honestly think that in 100% of cases professionalism always overrides the desire to 'get one back', possibly due to a historical grievance, or a general, irrational dislike or misapprehension that somehow you are benefitting yourself by doing so? Why should it? Maybe they see the rags as a paragon of football virtue, a team who do it the right way - unlike us who have destroyed the heart and soul of the beautiful game due to our nasty Arab owners and their filthy lucre.

The rags have been dining at the top table for many years and because of this have made many friends and have become the media darlings. That's not to say that they will get every decision, or that they will never get bad press, but it does mean that it is likely that they could benefit due to a trait of human nature – a desire to be liked by the majority; to be seen as favourable by the powerful and influential – which the rags undeniably are.

Agenda – no.

Bias due to a perfectly natural human trait – a desire to be liked – yes.

 

[ballinio]

What I really don't understand is how certain posters can utterly dismiss bias - not a conspiratorial agenda from dubious men in dark corners from the FA, but bias. It seems fantastical and implausible to me that there wouldn't/couldn't be bias shown by referees in various games, up and down the leagues, throughout the country.

We all work with people who we don't particular like and with people who we think are decent, top blokes. If I had a deadline by which I had to complete a task, either for someone I didn't get on with or a person I did, but could only choose one task to complete, which one am I going to pick?

People pick and choose; make decisions and choices due to personal preference, likes and dislikes, prejudices and peccadillos, all the time in everyday life, whether in the private or public arena. Do you honestly think that in 100% of cases professionalism always overrides the desire to 'get one back', possibly due to a historical grievance, or a general, irrational dislike or misapprehension that somehow you are benefitting yourself by doing so? Why should it? Maybe they see the rags as a paragon of football virtue, a team who do it the right way - unlike us who have destroyed the heart and soul of the beautiful game due to our nasty Arab owners and their filthy lucre.

The rags have been dining at the top table for many years and because of this have made many friends and have become the media darlings. That's not to say that they will get every decision, or that they will never get bad press, but it does mean that it is likely that they could benefit due to a trait of human nature – a desire to be liked by the majority; to be seen as favourable by the powerful and influential – which the rags undeniably are.

Agenda – no.

Bias due to a perfectly natural human trait – a desire to be liked – yes.

uber blue , you have just nailed it, the truth at last .

 

[adrianr]

Would still love to see those kind of stats for a season before and after the 6-1. It felt like immediately after that game we were on a leash, even just being called for stupid fouls interrupting play (which was a huge reason we were so good).

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

The thread title was an open ended question, which is why there are a plethora of stats in the post so you can make your own call.

The top 5 stuff I have but will have to wait till I have a chance to mull through it.

Suprising to see really how QPR/Reading seem not to do too badly off refs(Sunderland as well) yet Villa in particular have been mullered this season, arguably making their fight to stay up harder so they're doing pretty well considering.

Shows Everton are a combative team but are getting plenty of decisions which with the likes of Baines is probably helping them be so high up the table.

 

[kawkav]

just the fact that some teams have been given/conceded more free kicks/penalty/cards doese not mean that there has been an aganda. maybe they play harder, tackle more or .....

if you actually want to see if there has been an aganda you should proccess all the unjust calls made by ref, that have been proven wrong in replay. if wigan conceded 7 penalty maybe they deserved to conced it. in this case it won't be an aganda but some club maybe had only conceded one penalty and wrong so. this is what matters.

what i'm trying to say is this stats only show how aggresive a team plays rather than showing refs aganda. the determining satats should be about wrong decisions/calls rather than total number of calls