Ref Watch

hertsblue

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Feb 2008
Messages
14,176
It's not friend

You're also aware that fouls vary in severity and therefore sanction yeah?
Meant Friend at Chelsea, not Arsenal tonight. Yep understand that but we seem to get a very high ratio of cards per fouls, one in every 2 on Saturday yet he only issued 1 in 29 ( so far) tonight.
 

Paladin

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Jan 2009
Messages
5,018
Location
Cheshire
Meant Friend at Chelsea, not Arsenal tonight. Yep understand that but we seem to get a very high ratio of cards per fouls, one in every 2 on Saturday yet he only issued 1 in 29 ( so far) tonight.
Thanks for highlighting this. This is the sort of statistical evidence that cannot be argued against, and would help to prove a bias if it existed.

Another would be to add up the cumulative time taken from ball going out of play, to the goal kick being taken, then calculating the average delay for each goalkeeper. Take this statistical evidence to Mike Riley and ask why the goalkeeper with one of the lowest averages has two cautions for time wasting, when the goalkeepers with the highest delays don't have any cautions for time wasting.

It's one thing to say a City player would have definitely been sent off for a similar foul, but this is always subjective. Statistical evidence must carry a lot of weight.

When City presented a dossier of evidence to show Walton treated us unfairly, I'm pretty sure it would have contained hard statistical evidence, not mere speculation or opinion.

Taking the point made by someone that fouls are of different levels of severity, some of which deserve a caution for being reckless. Whilst this is true, is it really the case that City commit a high proportion of reckless fouls when compared to the Arsenal game today? Or could our referees be subconsciously refereeing us against a standard that City players are tactical foulers, as perpetrated by the British media? Not only this, but there is also the question of persistent fouling, which should be cautioned. Persistent fouling can be a number of fouls by one player, or it could be a number of different players targeting one opposition player. One caution for twenty nine fouls is remarkably lenient when considering persistent fouling.
 

Vic

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Jan 2009
Messages
16,040
Thanks for highlighting this. This is the sort of statistical evidence that cannot be argued against, and would help to prove a bias if it existed.

Another would be to add up the cumulative time taken from ball going out of play, to the goal kick being taken, then calculating the average delay for each goalkeeper. Take this statistical evidence to Mike Riley and ask why the goalkeeper with one of the lowest averages has two cautions for time wasting, when the goalkeepers with the highest delays don't have any cautions for time wasting.

It's one thing to say a City player would have definitely been sent off for a similar foul, but this is always subjective. Statistical evidence must carry a lot of weight.

When City presented a dossier of evidence to show Walton treated us unfairly, I'm pretty sure it would have contained hard statistical evidence, not mere speculation or opinion.

Taking the point made by someone that fouls are of different levels of severity, some of which deserve a caution for being reckless. Whilst this is true, is it really the case that City commit a high proportion of reckless fouls when compared to the Arsenal game today? Or could our referees be subconsciously refereeing us against a standard that City players are tactical foulers, as perpetrated by the British media? Not only this, but there is also the question of persistent fouling, which should be cautioned. Persistent fouling can be a number of fouls by one player, or it could be a number of different players targeting one opposition player. One caution for twenty nine fouls is remarkably lenient when considering persistent fouling.
Persistent fouling can only be by one player.

Otherwise v good.

I'd just count the number of times commentators use "baffling" for decisions against City (including VAR non-interventions like Saturday's offside).
 

Trevor Morley's Tache

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 Nov 2016
Messages
23,007
Location
Lincoln
Persistent fouling can only be by one player.

Otherwise v good.

I'd just count the number of times commentators use "baffling" for decisions against City (including VAR non-interventions like Saturday's offside).
Shame a manager can't be booked for their team persistently fouling the same player.

I remember the infamous Rag's v Arse game when Riley allowed the Rag's to take it in turns to kick f*ck out of Reyes.
There should have been about 5 or 6 yellow cards before the Whistling Wanker eventually booked Phil Chuckle.
 

the-ecstacy-of-eight

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 Nov 2011
Messages
2,897
Location
in your head
Team supported
CITY
I have said this before but football must be the only sport where the fans of the sport are ignorant of the laws
That's a bit spurious mate, most of us know the laws as they're written down (as City fans we've had plenty of practice reading up on them whenever we're perceived to have broken them), it's the hush-hush-in-the-know interpretations that most of us are unaware of.

My own personal bugbear are the annual totalitarian clamping down on "new laws" at the beginning of each season which then disappear into the ether by mid-October (by which time certain teams have benefited and certain teams have been shafted) that does my head in.
 

Paladin

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Jan 2009
Messages
5,018
Location
Cheshire
Persistent fouling can only be by one player.

Otherwise v good.

I'd just count the number of times commentators use "baffling" for decisions against City (including VAR non-interventions like Saturday's offside).
The Law is open to interpretation, or as @richardtheref pointed out, could be subject to additional explanation or clarification for referees only.

There is a thread on this topic in a referee forum, here: https://refchat.co.uk/threads/persistently-infringing-lotg.16065/

This is an extract that is fairly typical of the general approach being taken by referees.

 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.