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.