Last season's table "corrected" for ref errors

Reason Himself

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Jul 2011
Messages
332
<a class="postlink" href="http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/article/65340/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/wor ... cle/65340/</a>

Arsenal would have made the 2nd place, City got nine (9!) points deducted... :)
 
In who's opinion and what criteria was used.
For example what games did we get the 9 points, most of which could be debated, I'm sure! Does he take into account the blatant penalties we should have had against Everton?
I am also sure that 1 of the decisions will be when the ref failed to give Blackpool a Penalty against the rags, so should have drawn, however that could have made it 3 nil so would united have come back from that? so a possible 3 points gained. But with all these decisions you don't know what would have happened next, Blackpool might have missed the penalty! We might have gone on to gain the "alleged" 9 points anyway!
So it all comes down to their opinion and of course City always get treated fairly don't they?
 
What about sendings off that should have happened... Like Rat Boy at wherever it was. He got subbed at half time but should've seen red in that game... But can't remember where it was!

WBA?
 
I dont think this is something that can be calculated....

eg if a player gets sent off wrongly/stays on wrongly then who knows how the game would have ended.

Stats can go in any teams favour if you try hard enough!
 
1.618034 said:
What about sendings off that should have happened... Like Rat Boy at wherever it was. He got subbed at half time but should've seen red in that game... But can't remember where it was!

WBA?

WBA and Stoke - he admitted on TV lastweek he should have walked in both games. And there was Rooney at Wigan. n fact i could find a reason to send 2 or 3 of them off in every game. Anderson should have gone for that stupid dance the other night.
 
Apparently it took the guy 250 hours to do and only looked at offside/penalty decisions. There are significant statistical holes all over it.

What a waste of time and a complete load of bollox.

Next we'll be getting tables to show where teams should finish based on the noise/support from the crowd and how hot the pies are.
 
nmc said:
1.618034 said:
What about sendings off that should have happened... Like Rat Boy at wherever it was. He got subbed at half time but should've seen red in that game... But can't remember where it was!

WBA?

WBA and Stoke - he admitted on TV lastweek he should have walked in both games. And there was Rooney at Wigan. n fact i could find a reason to send 2 or 3 of them off in every game. Anderson should have gone for that stupid dance the other night.

Vidic twice should have gone at Upton Park when 2-0 down. Utd gifted a soft penalty and came back to win. Wigan/Blackpool/West Brom/West Ham alone were won by incorrect decisions
 
You just cant do this type of analysis by assuming that if the "wrong" decisions had been reversed everything else would have stayed the same.

I expect that 6 of our 9 points came in the Newcastle (h) and Blackpool(a) games where we won after 2 dodgy decisions. But if the first decision had not been given the game changes and the second incident doesnt happen.
 
Either written by an Arsenal fan or a United fan.

0 points awarded to Spurs. They didn't see the game at Old Trafford then, or being robbed at Stamford Bridge twice.

I've seen a lot of these videos circulating on Youtube that Arsenal would have won the title if it wasn't for poor decisions.

I think they have to hold their hands up and say they were shite
 
Already posted and suitably discussed...
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=230724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=230724</a>
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top