"Lee Mason. Oh Dear"

[Chris in London]

An excuse in other words.
The paranoia used to annoy, almost anger me. I just think it's funny now.

Being paranoid, am I?

Maybe.

But tell me this: when was the last time Manchester City won a game in which Peter Walton was the referee? And how many games ago was that?

And IF Peter Walton was biased against us, is it really paranoid to consider whether Lee Mason might be as well?

Mate it was a very good read(your blog) and a lot of research went into it..
But the answer to your question is.............Yes.

Because there is no corruption in football, no corruption in sport at all or just because English premier league referees are immune?

 

[waspish]

"Lee Mason. Oh Dear"

Listening to BaconChops he's more paranoid than some posters on here unbelievable some of the shit coming out of his mouth just so his team can benifit in future games! Going on about Giggs has only won 5 penalties in 20 years!!! Guess what Giggs will run in the box dive and win a penalty in the next 4 games nailed on

 

[Blue Mooner]

I would suggest that it is impossible to play well in every game, therefore, there are always going to be occasions where other factors come into play.

Of course, if we are playing well, the amount to which the referee can influence proceedings becomes less.,

This is where the scheduling of referees becomes important, through analysis, it would be easy to identify the games where we historically struggle and to appoint to those games referees who we would see as typically biased against us like Mason et al

The referee has a number of tools in his armoury that can impact the teams performance and the flow of a game, one is yellow cards to put players under the threat of a sending off, soft fouls that interrupt the flow of the game but also provides opportunities for goals from set plays and then the more impactful decisions of sendings off, penalties not being given, penalties being awarded, offides being given or not given that very often can directly impact the outcome of the game.

Take these games wherecwe have dropped points or gone out of domestic cups;

Liverpool away Pepe Reina hand ball outside the box, Balo sent off
Chelsea away - non given penalty on silva, man sent off and dubious penalty awarded - result, loss and in that game we actually started like a house on fire
West Brom away - very fussy refereeing and a goal disallowed
Sunderland away - offside goal given
United FA cup - kompany sent off
Liverpool CC Semi - penalty lost one nil
Liverpool away CC semi dodgy handball penalty - ultimately sent us out
Everton away 3 penalties waved away, assault on richards by drenthe unpunished
Swansea away, penalty to swansea awarded, our 'goal' ruled out for very marginal offside
Stoke away assault on Silva unpunished - admittedly didnt directly result in lost points but indicated the mindset of the referee

The obvious thing here is that in the 12 games in league and cup where we have not won there have been major refereeing decisions that have gone against us in 10 of those games. I have not included fulham away but even in that game there was a foul on dzeko in the run up to their goal.

I can only conclude that these matches indicate a propensity of the referee to have awarded decisions against us and the outcome has been dropped points or out of cup competitions. I can only conclude that the 'way' a referee handles a match can clearly have a tremendous impact on the outcome of the match.

Norwich for me was an another example but we played too well for it to have an impact although at 2.1 i bet most blues were concerned that norwich would come back into it in which case the two penalty claims not awarded could have had a massive impact. The fact is this is not an exact science, but throw enough mud at the wall and some of it will stick.

Even with blue tinted specs on the litany of bad decisions against us and consequently poor results tells me that the way in which a game is refereed can have a detrimental impact on the performance and the result. The big difference to me is that when the rags play poorly, quite frequently, they often get the helping hand of the ref, and we quite clearly don't. Something is not right and those who care about the game should continue to expose it and not bury their heads in the sand.

 

[SWP's back]

Thought you said there was no agenda?

I don't think there IS an agenda.

But I have said that Utd get favourable decisions off a number of referees.

The two don't necessarily equate to the same thing.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Being paranoid, am I?

Maybe.

But tell me this: when was the last time Manchester City won a game in which Peter Walton was the referee? And how many games ago was that?

And IF Peter Walton was biased against us, is it really paranoid to consider whether Lee Mason might be as well?

Mate it was a very good read(your blog) and a lot of research went into it..
But the answer to your question is.............Yes.

Because there is no corruption in football, no corruption in sport at all or just because English premier league referees are immune?

There are enough threads on agendas & corruption which generally get pulled through petty squabbling,everyone on here as their own opinion mine is no agenda of any sort...just think there are a lot of poor referees about,who are not helped by players diving about.<br /><br />-- Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:22 am --<br /><br />

Thought you said there was no agenda?

I don't think there IS an agenda.

But I have said that Utd get favourable decisions off a number of referees.

The two don't necessarily equate to the same thing.

Fair do's..

 

[Pigeonho]

I would suggest that it is impossible to play well in every game, therefore, there are always going to be occasions where other factors come into play.

Of course, if we are playing well, the amount to which the referee can influence proceedings becomes less.,

This is where the scheduling of referees becomes important, through analysis, it would be easy to identify the games where we historically struggle and to appoint to those games referees who we would see as typically biased against us like Mason et al

The referee has a number of tools in his armoury that can impact the teams performance and the flow of a game, one is yellow cards to put players under the threat of a sending off, soft fouls that interrupt the flow of the game but also provides opportunities for goals from set plays and then the more impactful decisions of sendings off, penalties not being given, penalties being awarded, offides being given or not given that very often can directly impact the outcome of the game.

Take these games wherecwe have dropped points or gone out of domestic cups;

Liverpool away Pepe Reina hand ball outside the box, Balo sent off
Chelsea away - non given penalty on silva, man sent off and dubious penalty awarded - result, loss and in that game we actually started like a house on fire
West Brom away - very fussy refereeing and a goal disallowed
Sunderland away - offside goal given
United FA cup - kompany sent off
Liverpool CC Semi - penalty lost one nil
Liverpool away CC semi dodgy handball penalty - ultimately sent us out
Everton away 3 penalties waved away, assault on richards by drenthe unpunished
Swansea away, penalty to swansea awarded, our 'goal' ruled out for very marginal offside
Stoke away assault on Silva unpunished - admittedly didnt directly result in lost points but indicated the mindset of the referee

The obvious thing here is that in the 12 games in league and cup where we have not won there have been major refereeing decisions that have gone against us in 10 of those games. I have not included fulham away but even in that game there was a foul on dzeko in the run up to their goal.

I can only conclude that these matches indicate a propensity of the referee to have awarded decisions against us and the outcome has been dropped points or out of cup competitions. I can only conclude that the 'way' a referee handles a match can clearly have a tremendous impact on the outcome of the match.

Norwich for me was an another example but we played too well for it to have an impact although at 2.1 i bet most blues were concerned that norwich would come back into it in which case the two penalty claims not awarded could have had a massive impact. The fact is this is not an exact science, but throw enough mud at the wall and some of it will stick.

Even with blue tinted specs on the litany of bad decisions against us and consequently poor results tells me that the way in which a game is refereed can have a detrimental impact on the performance and the result. The big difference to me is that when the rags play poorly, quite frequently, they often get the helping hand of the ref, and we quite clearly don't. Something is not right and those who care about the game should continue to expose it and not bury their heads in the sand.

Good post, 2 questions though:

1. What would the refs have to gain by doing that to us, and for United?
2. If I take my head out of the sand and post pro-agenda comments, how will that help anything other than add my name to the list of people who think there is an agenda? Will someone from FIFA randomly come across the thread, read our comments and launch an investigation? Me and Didsbury Dave have said to the pro-agenda lot before to go to the papers or even FIFA themselves with the 'evidence' they have, because they could expose something huge.

No-one's done it yet.

 

[AustinBlue]

I don't disagree dom, the general standard of refereeing at the top level has nosedived.

I work with a lad who referees at non league level on Saturday, and pub level on a Sunday, and much of it dismays him, and as he says it undermines his efforts at both levels, considering they now get paid very large sums at the top level, something is wrong, but the suggestion that Mason somehow makes us lose games we don't score in, and play shite in, is I'm afraid the wrong conclusion, even if Chris doesn't make that link directly in his piece, it is rather inferred.

Cleavers... some fairpoints , you raise

and much as Iintictively agree with Cris on his general theme and onthe perniciouseffect of the Prem / Sky influence on football, chris' definition of statistical significance must be flawed (as many, even sympathetically- minded blues tried to point out to him)

On the other hand, his failure to meet statistiscal threshold of stat significance , does not mean that there is no bias, just that he didn't assemble enough numerical data to be credibly analysed for SS at p=0.05 or p =0.001

On the other hand, your point about how the general culture of cheating at the top level (diving, disssembling,harassing: media collusion : ooh it's just 'scholsey'" ) infects the culture of football at all levels in this country are spot on, IMO

Can I be absolutely clear on what the blog and my posts in this thread were intended to show?

The stats in the blog do NOT prove that Mason is biased against City, is a rag or anything else. Stats alone can never prove anything. They can demonstrate a link or connection between two things, or a general trend, and where they do it is often worth exploring in more detail the reasons for the link, but of themselves they prove nothing.

Some people have disputed that the three games he has refereed so far is enough to demonstrate a trend. I disagree, because the trend is demonstrated by the 37 games he did not referee, not the three he did. Those three games are anomalies compared to the mainstream of how we have performed, and the common factor in those particular games is Mason. The least that anyone can say is that the stats are consistent with the theory that We do badly whenever Mason is in charge, even if they don't in themselves establish that. I think that the statistical evidence gives cause for concern. If others aren't bothered by it, thats up to them. I understand entirely why some are more concerned with our tactics and selections than who the referee is, but I can't understand why anybody would reject out of hand the possibility that the identity of the ref has a big influence on the outcome of the game. Unless they've never seen a city game with Peter Walton in charge.

Of course, the less data you have to work with, the more cautious you should be about reaching any conclusions from the data alone, but to say that three games cannot be enough to suggest a link is, sorry, but just plain wrong. If your wife falls off a balcony on your honeymoon, that is very sad. If your second wife also falls off a balcony on honeymoon, that suggests a trend. How cautious you have to be before making the link depends entirely on the context of the analysis.

Statistically, there is a clear link this season between us doing badly and Mason being in charge. A number of different data points confirm this: the results of the games, cards and penalties awarded, goals scored etc. It does not automatically follow that Mason is the reason for us doing badly, but that is certainly one is the possibilities. It may just be a coincidence that of the half dozen times or so that we have been really poor this season, he happens to have been the man in charge each time - our old friend Mr Walton being in charge on another occasion. But as Clare Danes said in Homeland, "I don't believe in coincidences".

I entirely respect the view of those who say the link isn't clear enough after three games with him in charge. We will know more on Sunday night, and I really hope Mr Mason bucks the trend. Or we do, whichever way you want to look at it. but insofar as the games he has reffed before are any guide to the way he will ref on Sunday, the trend is worrying.

Only this.

Ps Dom - you appear to have three hands. I am officially "outing" you as a closet Stokie.

;-)

To be fair, the first wife was shown to have drunk excessively, and when the second wife fell off, I had the iron clad alibi of being at the York away game with about 40,000 witnesses. It's a bit out of line to pick out that example. I'm sure other people on here have suffered similar personal setbacks.

 

[Chris in London]

[Of course, the less data you have to work with, the more cautious you should be about reaching any conclusions from the data alone, but to say that three games cannot be enough to suggest a link is, sorry, but just plain wrong. If your wife falls off a balcony on your honeymoon, that is very sad. If your second wife also falls off a balcony on honeymoon, that suggests a trend. How cautious you have to be before making the link depends entirely on the context of the analysis.

To be fair, the first wife was shown to have drunk excessively, and when the second wife fell off, I had the iron clad alibi of being at the York away game with about 40,000 witnesses. It's a bit out of line to pick out that example. I'm sure other people on here have suffered similar personal setbacks.

Fair do's.

But you haven't explained the other four yet.

Or the insurance payouts

;-)

 

[Platini Pollock]

I would suggest that it is impossible to play well in every game, therefore, there are always going to be occasions where other factors come into play.

Of course, if we are playing well, the amount to which the referee can influence proceedings becomes less.,

This is where the scheduling of referees becomes important, through analysis, it would be easy to identify the games where we historically struggle and to appoint to those games referees who we would see as typically biased against us like Mason et al

The referee has a number of tools in his armoury that can impact the teams performance and the flow of a game, one is yellow cards to put players under the threat of a sending off, soft fouls that interrupt the flow of the game but also provides opportunities for goals from set plays and then the more impactful decisions of sendings off, penalties not being given, penalties being awarded, offides being given or not given that very often can directly impact the outcome of the game.

Take these games wherecwe have dropped points or gone out of domestic cups;

Liverpool away Pepe Reina hand ball outside the box, Balo sent off
Chelsea away - non given penalty on silva, man sent off and dubious penalty awarded - result, loss and in that game we actually started like a house on fire
West Brom away - very fussy refereeing and a goal disallowed
Sunderland away - offside goal given
United FA cup - kompany sent off
Liverpool CC Semi - penalty lost one nil
Liverpool away CC semi dodgy handball penalty - ultimately sent us out
Everton away 3 penalties waved away, assault on richards by drenthe unpunished
Swansea away, penalty to swansea awarded, our 'goal' ruled out for very marginal offside
Stoke away assault on Silva unpunished - admittedly didnt directly result in lost points but indicated the mindset of the referee

The obvious thing here is that in the 12 games in league and cup where we have not won there have been major refereeing decisions that have gone against us in 10 of those games. I have not included fulham away but even in that game there was a foul on dzeko in the run up to their goal.

I can only conclude that these matches indicate a propensity of the referee to have awarded decisions against us and the outcome has been dropped points or out of cup competitions. I can only conclude that the 'way' a referee handles a match can clearly have a tremendous impact on the outcome of the match.

Norwich for me was an another example but we played too well for it to have an impact although at 2.1 i bet most blues were concerned that norwich would come back into it in which case the two penalty claims not awarded could have had a massive impact. The fact is this is not an exact science, but throw enough mud at the wall and some of it will stick.

Even with blue tinted specs on the litany of bad decisions against us and consequently poor results tells me that the way in which a game is refereed can have a detrimental impact on the performance and the result. The big difference to me is that when the rags play poorly, quite frequently, they often get the helping hand of the ref, and we quite clearly don't. Something is not right and those who care about the game should continue to expose it and not bury their heads in the sand.

Excellent post - and i would add in my opinion there was definite foul on Barry in the build up to Stoke's goal by Crouch - potentially another ref decison that could have cost us points.

 

[cleavers]

the reason it is shit in my opoinion is its stats picked for a purpose,im sure if ive got the time i could gather a bunch of "stats" to prove the opposite

If you can find the stats to prove that Mason is great, and we have won ever game under his authority this season, you will be doing a pretty fine job. I think you may struggle though ;o)

Chris, I hope you don't take any of my critical comments too seriously, its been a good debate in my opinion, and the facts you posted cannot be argued with, at least until after Sunday anyway.

I don't think he has been an influence on our poor performances other than simply being shite himself, hopefully Sunday will show just that.