"Lee Mason. Oh Dear"

[Didsbury Dave]

So what is your conclusion, then, Chris?

 

[hgblue]

Re: Re:

Yeah, why can't they? I assume you've missed all the police investigations, high-profile resignations, parliamentary enquiries, court cases, criminal convictions, entire newspapers being shut down, and massive compensation payouts around this very matter over the last few years. It's been fairly big news.
!

It's the fundamental point that all the conspiracy people miss. We have the most vigorous press in the world. News that referees were bent would be one of the biggest news stories of the decade, if not the century. Can you imagine? It would bring the game to it's knees.

One referee, past or present, could expose this and make himself millions. Just one. One retired ref earning a pension of £150 per week. He wouldn't even need to give his name.

It doesn't happen because whilst referees are routinely rubbish, and influenced by external factors doing a game, they are not intentionally corrupt. They are paid professionals now. They are doing a job they have dedicated their lives to obtaining. You think they'd give up their nice, high profile career, risk killing football forever, be demonsied by every press outlet forever and become the target of death threats for the rest of their lives? Just because they "don't like City"?

It's deluded to even think we are that important.

Bit naive this Dave. If a person chooses a career in refereeing then you can bet your life that they have an interest in football and grew up liking/disliking particular teams. I'd be amazed if some of our Premiership referees didn't grow up supporting United, and I can understand the temptation for them to conceal this fact, maybe not for the purposes of cheating per se, but because they don't want to preclude themselves from refereeing the high profile games. The question is, are they able to ignore past allegiances and referee games impartially, or are they tempted to 'tweak' their decisions to favour United and penalise their title rivals? If you're correct and the answer is the former, then I applaud their self control and professionalism, but if the answer is the latter then I fail to see how you could possibly prove it? They're hardly likely to shout about it are they?

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Sorry Chris, not trying to be offensive at all. You'll know if I am ;-)

He he :)

The reason for this "statistical connection" is the same reason that all three of our best away performances and results have been on a Sunday, on a sunny day AND live on Sky. And we've conceeded one goal in each.

Exactly the same reason.

It is easy to see how a referee might influence a game due to conscious or unconscious bias, and it is easy to see how knowledge of a certain referee might affect a team's performance (for good or ill).

Can you imagine making this excuse for any other profession, police officer ? doctor ? Referees need to be professional full stop or be dismissed.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Re:

Yeah, why can't they? I assume you've missed all the police investigations, high-profile resignations, parliamentary enquiries, court cases, criminal convictions, entire newspapers being shut down, and massive compensation payouts around this very matter over the last few years. It's been fairly big news.
!

It's the fundamental point that all the conspiracy people miss. We have the most vigorous press in the world. News that referees were bent would be one of the biggest news stories of the decade, if not the century. Can you imagine? It would bring the game to it's knees.

One referee, past or present, could expose this and make himself millions. Just one. One retired ref earning a pension of £150 per week. He wouldn't even need to give his name.

It doesn't happen because whilst referees are routinely rubbish, and influenced by external factors doing a game, they are not intentionally corrupt. They are paid professionals now. They are doing a job they have dedicated their lives to obtaining. You think they'd give up their nice, high profile career, risk killing football forever, be demonsied by every press outlet forever and become the target of death threats for the rest of their lives? Just because they "don't like City"?

It's deluded to even think we are that important.

Bit naive this Dave. If a person chooses a career in refereeing then you can bet your life that they have an interest in football and grew up liking/disliking particular teams. I'd be amazed if some of our Premiership referees didn't grow up supporting United, and I can understand the temptation for them to conceal this fact, maybe not for the purposes of cheating per se, but because they don't want to preclude themselves from refereeing the high profile games. The question is, are they able to ignore past allegiances and referee games impartially, or are they tempted to 'tweak' their decisions to favour United and penalise their title rivals? If you're correct and the answer is the former, then I applaud their self control and professionalism, but if the answer is the latter then I fail to see how you could possibly prove it? They're hardly likely to shout about it are they?

I think you could easily make the opposite point. If a referee is known to have favoured a club at some time in their life, they may just overcompensate in the full knowledge that any errors may be looked at suspiciously.

I think these guys are the priviledged few. If they are dismissed they are back to PE Teacher at Dudley Comprehensive next week. They aren't going to risk that by showing a bias to their favourite team. I also think that many football fans fall into the trap of thinking that people who make a living from the game think like fans. Mostly they don't - if you look at interviews most players say "As a boy I supported...".

I can't say that one ref in one game hasn't given the benefit of the doubt to someone somewhere for personal reasons. I'm sure they have.

What I have an issue with and I hope I've made clear is that I believe the fact that we had three bad results under one referee is meaningless.

Don't know why I'm getting sucked into this. All fans of all clubs in all countries in all continents believe the referees are biased against them. It comes with the territory of being a biased football fan.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

Re: Re:

Yeah, why can't they? I assume you've missed all the police investigations, high-profile resignations, parliamentary enquiries, court cases, criminal convictions, entire newspapers being shut down, and massive compensation payouts around this very matter over the last few years. It's been fairly big news.
!

It's the fundamental point that all the conspiracy people miss. We have the most vigorous press in the world. News that referees were bent would be one of the biggest news stories of the decade, if not the century. Can you imagine? It would bring the game to it's knees.

One referee, past or present, could expose this and make himself millions. Just one. One retired ref earning a pension of £150 per week. He wouldn't even need to give his name.

It doesn't happen because whilst referees are routinely rubbish, and influenced by external factors doing a game, they are not intentionally corrupt. They are paid professionals now. They are doing a job they have dedicated their lives to obtaining. You think they'd give up their nice, high profile career, risk killing football forever, be demonsied by every press outlet forever and become the target of death threats for the rest of their lives? Just because they "don't like City"?

It's deluded to even think we are that important.

Whistleblowers eh!

Because they always end up the millionaire.

 

[the blue panther]

The reason for this "statistical connection" is the same reason that all three of our best away performances and results have been on a Sunday, on a sunny day AND live on Sky. And we've conceeded one goal in each.

Exactly the same reason.[/quote]


Sorry to mess up the stats but Norwich away was Saturday and 12.45 K.O

Back to the drawing board :-)

 

[waspish]

"Lee Mason. Oh Dear"

We will see Sunday! Like I said if the rags lose or draw will Mason "tweak" it in wolves favour?

 

[scenecreamer]

Fingers crossed, by a week on Monday we'll be top of the table and not worrying about referees :)

Cheers!

 

[Didsbury Dave]

The reason for this "statistical connection" is the same reason that all three of our best away performances and results have been on a Sunday, on a sunny day AND live on Sky. And we've conceeded one goal in each.

Exactly the same reason.

Sorry to mess up the stats but Norwich away was Saturday and 12.45 K.O

Back to the drawing board :-)[/quote]

All right then.

Our best three aways were all on Sky, were all lunchtime kickoffs, we conceeded one goal in each and were all sunny days. And I wasn't at any of them. And we scored both first and in injury time in all three. Aguero scored the second goal in them all, too.

How's that ;-)

 

[Chris in London]

So what is your conclusion, then, Chris?

In relation to Mason, I don't have one. I don't think you can necessarily rule out a connection between the fact that in all of our games with Mason this year we have been shite and the fact that he is in charge. That is a long way from saying that the statistical evidence is a reflection of the man's inner hatred of all things sky blue. He has given soft penalties against us (and for the rags) but none in our favour. He gives us a lot more cards than our opponents. These things might be because there genuinely haven't been any alid penalty claims in our mason games, or that none of our opponents have committed any genuine yellow card offences. They may also be because he is either biased or incompetent or both.

So I think the statistics raise questions about Mason's impartiality and ability. But they do no more than raise questions. They prove nothing.

The question having been raised, however, I am apprehensive about Sunday. If I didn't want to end up as Gregos Traitorelli I might even have a fiver on us losing 1-0 to a dodgy penalty.

Walton is perhaps more interesting. I think it is substantially more likely than not that he had something against us whether he was conscious of it himself or otheriwse.

The stats in his case are of themselves pretty revealing, but they only tell part of the story. I think with Walton you had to see the games in the flesh to see the unfair way he handled things: all the times he gave soft fouls against us which he didn't give against Everton or Stoke; the yellow cards he showed us he never showed them. The advantage he played when it was the other side in possession and the times he refused to play advantage in our favour.

Bias isn't always about disallowing goals and giving soft penalties. Sometimes it is more subtle than that. I'm very glad he has gone over to the States, in short.

As for Mason? We will know more on Sunday evening.