"Swings and Roundabouts"

Mr.Crinklewood

Reading the responses to the poor non-penalty decision in tonight Manchester United Fulham game got me thinking about the impact of all these decisions have on the league in general.

These guys try and do it for you, admittedly the site appears to be a few games behind, but i thought i`d just throw it here to have the debate for all clubs wronged decisions in the one place.

League table as it would look if the people behind debatabledecisions.com had their way.

NB - Table missing a few games.


AM P W D L F A GD PTS
Man Utd 28 24 0 4 69 26 42 72
Man City 28 21 5 2 74 18 56 68
Arsenal 28 17 7 4 62 34 28 58
Chelsea 28 16 6 6 52 31 21 54
Tottenham 28 16 5 7 53 36 17 53
Liverpool 28 13 8 7 40 26 14 47
Sunderland 28 11 7 10 38 31 7 46
Everton 28 10 7 11 31 32 -1 37
Newcastle 28 10 7 11 41 44 -3 37
Norwich 28 8 12 8 38 45 -7 36
Swansea 28 8 11 9 32 36 -4 35
West Brom 28 9 7 12 40 36 4 34
Fulham 28 7 12 9 37 39 -2 33
Blackburn 28 7 9 12 41 59 -18 30
Aston Villa 28 6 11 11 30 37 -7 29
Bolton 28 7 2 19 29 61 -35 23
Stoke 28 4 9 15 25 47 -20 21
Wigan 28 4 9 15 23 53 -30 21
Wolves 28 5 6 17 30 62 -32 21
QPR 28 3 7 18 27 51 -22 16

Breakdown of the decisions so far.

amacachi

Not too surprising to see the "harder" teams get the best of the decisions.

cson

"But these things even themselves out over the course of a season" etc etc :rolleyes:

Oranage2

I dont believe it, like when was the last time you've seen a decision go against United?

Nalz

Oranage2 wrote: »

I dont believe it, like when was the last time you've seen a decision go against United?

never of course.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

remember that time fergie stabbed a man in the eye and the referee helped him bury the body?

Nalz

like it was tomorrow!

Sgt Pepper 64

Does that table show the correct result of Utd NOT getting 2 penos from a close personal friend at SB who shall remain nameless?

kitakyushu

The only thing I find interesting about that is that ManU would have '0' draws for the season so far.

niallo27

Sure that site is a load of bollox, there is an 18pt swing on liverpool and Newcastle, have they utd down to win any game there is any bit of a dodgy decision in.

Paul Tergat

niallo27 wrote: »

Sure that site is a load of bollox, there is an 18pt swing on liverpool and Newcastle, have they utd down to win any game there is any bit of a dodgy decision in.

Its bollox cause it doesnt fit your agenda or down to any research you have done? By the last part of the sentence im guessing its not down to any facts you have...

LuckyLloyd

38 games is not a big enough sample size for the variance of refereeing error to even itself out. The old chestnut 'the league table doesn't lie' is, well, a lie.

amiable

Just because a decision does or doesn't go a teams way is no way to decide how the game might have gone after that.

Who knows how a game might get played out then.

Take the Bolton V QPR game a few weeks ago and Clint Hill's effort that was deemed not to have crossed the line.
If QPR had scored first in that game Bolton may have been spurred on and still won the game anyway as there was plenty of time.

Likewise if Fulham were awarded that penalty last night they may have missed and and United could down the other end and make it 2-0.

_blank_

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The old chestnut 'the league table doesn't lie' is, well, a lie.

Strange that a Liverpool supporter would come out with that.

Not.

Maybe points should be awarded for kit deals.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

Strange that a Liverpool supporter would come out with that.

Not.

Maybe points should be awarded for kit deals.

Your hate sustains me.

You'll also notice that Utd would be further clear according to the above website. The reality is that if a challenge system had been available for any of the last five premiership seasons, all 38 teams would have ended with different point totals - and some would suffer or gain more than others. 38 games doesn't come near balancing out human error unfortunately.

LuckyLloyd

amiable wrote: »

Just because a decision does or doesn't go a teams way is no way to decide how the game might have gone after that.

Who knows how a game might get played out then.

Take the Bolton V QPR game a few weeks ago and Clint Hill's effort that was deemed not to have crossed the line.
If QPR had scored first in that game Bolton may have been spurred on and still won the game anyway as there was plenty of time.

Likewise if Fulham were awarded that penalty last night they may have missed and and United could down the other end and make it 2-0.

Or, QPR would be correctly up 1 - 0 at that point in the game and not feel hard done by or sorry for themselves, etc.

The lack of goal line technology is laughable at this stage.

_blank_

Oh right, we're back to this ludicrous "flag" from NFL idea.

Good stuff Lloyd, if you hate Soccer so much, why bother watching or investing so much time in it?

NFL is built for stoppages, soccer isn't.

Eirebear

In before the Celtic fans.

LuckyLloyd

Des wrote: »

Oh right, we're back to this ludicrous "flag" from NFL idea.

Good stuff Lloyd, if you hate Soccer so much, why bother watching or investing so much time in it?

NFL is built for stoppages, soccer isn't.

Soccer has stoppages over incorrect decisions, they are just rendered pointless because a referee never changes his initial decision. How long was play delayed after Thierry Henry's goal? More than enough time to quickly go to a replay booth, that's for sure.

Eirebear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Soccer has stoppages over incorrect decisions, they are just rendered pointless because a referee never changes his initial decision. How long was play delayed after Thierry Henry's goal? More than enough time to quickly go to a replay booth, that's for sure.

That's all fine and well.

However, what would have happened if Henry had used his hand to control it, then hit the post?
Ireland clear the ball, it's picked up by a French player in midfield and through some nice passing and movement 3 minutes later the french put the ball in the back of the net.

Do we go back to the Henry incident and claim the goal shouldnt stand?
After all, it left the Irish defence out of shape as they scrambled it to safety and left them sitting too deep when the French attacked again.

Football needs to flow, outwith goal line technology i honestly don't want to see "Video Refs".

_blank_

Eirebear wrote: »

That's all fine and well.

However, what would have happened if Henry had used his hand to control it, then hit the post?
Ireland clear the ball, it's picked up by a French player in midfield and through some nice passing and movement 3 minutes later the french put the ball in the back of the net.

Do we go back to the Henry incident and claim the goal shouldnt stand?
After all, it left the Irish defence out of shape as they scrambled it to safety and left them sitting too deep when the French attacked again.

Football needs to flow, outwith goal line technology i honestly don't want to see "Video Refs".

A cogent argument against one of Lloyd's ludicrous ideas.

Expect a hilarious gif to be posted.

Eirebear

Des wrote: »

A cogent argument against one of Lloyd's ludicrous ideas.

Expect a hilarious gif to be posted.

Good stuff, i'm bored of all the Neil Lennon ones now!

HalloweenJack

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Does that table show the correct result of Utd NOT getting 2 penos from a close personal friend at SB who shall remain nameless?

Get over it already! I'm a bloody Chelsea fan. We were 3-0 up with 40 mins to go or something. Any team worth their salt should've held on, we didn't. Even if those two penos were gifts (which they weren't and you're also leaving out the possible red card to Cahill that WASN'T given), we were still 3-2 up and should've won. We bottled it so cop the **** on.

Back on topic, I know they always say these decisions even themselves out but that shouldn't be the case. The ref should always make the call he thinks is correct, he shouldn't consider how many decisions have gone for or against the side that season. I don't know if this actually happens, but it shouldn't.

LuckyLloyd

Eirebear wrote: »

That's all fine and well.

However, what would have happened if Henry had used his hand to control it, then hit the post?
Ireland clear the ball, it's picked up by a French player in midfield and through some nice passing and movement 3 minutes later the french put the ball in the back of the net.

Do we go back to the Henry incident and claim the goal shouldnt stand?
After all, it left the Irish defence out of shape as they scrambled it to safety and left them sitting too deep when the French attacked again.

Football needs to flow, outwith goal line technology i honestly don't want to see "Video Refs".

This is the attitude that keeps football in the dark ages. The above translates to 'but we can't improve every scenario, so let's improve nothing as a result'.

In the above scenario there is no scope for replay. Fine. But where a goal has been scored or a player has been sent off or a penalty has been awarded a natural break has been created - and an inevitable delay of players remonstrating with the referee is about to begin. That delay can be filled with video replay (limited over the course of a game), and the key decision just made can be reversed if it is incorrect.

This isn't ludicrous, it's very simple. No, there will still be errors but if we can stamp out human error in a number of cases let's just do it.

I mean in the case of Goaline technology how exactly will that disrupt the flow of a game?

Eirebear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is the attitude that keeps football in the dark ages. The above translates to 'but we can't improve every scenario, so let's improve nothing as a result'.

In the above scenario there is no scope for replay. Fine. But where a goal has been scored or a player has been sent off or a penalty has been awarded a natural break has been created - and an inevitable delay of players remonstrating with the referee is about to begin. That delay can be filled with video replay (limited over the course of a game), and the key decision just made can be reversed if it is incorrect.

This isn't ludicrous, it's very simple. No, there will still be errors but if we can stamp out human error in a number of cases let's just do it.

I mean in the case of Goaline technology how exactly will that disrupt the flow of a game?

Where did i say goal line technology would disrupt the game?
I'm all for that.

Video refereeing is entirely different though.
The "Natural break" idea doesnt solve anything.

With your suggestion you may, or may not have a red card immediately rescinded - but what about points where a player should have been sent off, maybe for kicking out or stamping on an opposition player while play rages on.
When do you stop play to have a look at that? Or do you ignore this scenario as it doesnt fit your argument?

It's not about improving every scenario - it's about finding a system that works fairly across the board.

NabyLadistheman

Oh great, another United / Liverpool slugfest.

LuckyLloyd

Eirebear wrote: »

Where did i say goal line technology would disrupt the game?
I'm all for that.

Video refereeing is entirely different though.
The "Natural break" idea doesnt solve anything.

With your suggestion you may, or may not have a red card immediately rescinded - but what about points where a player should have been sent off, maybe for kicking out or stamping on an opposition player while play rages on.
When do you stop play to have a look at that? Or do you ignore this scenario as it doesnt fit your argument?

It's not about improving every scenario - it's about finding a system that works fairly across the board.

I haven't ignored the scenario above. Again, my position is simple. Fix decisions you can fix, and accept that there will always be things that escape officiating. There are easy ways to significantly up the accuracy level though and, as a consequence, consistently improve the fairness of results.

Eirebear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I haven't ignored the scenario above. Again, my position is simple. Fix decisions you can fix, and accept that there will always be things that escape officiating. There are easy ways to significantly up the accuracy level though and, as a consequence, consistently improve the fairness of results.

I'm not buying into it tbh.
Outwith "Ball In Play" rules, everything else in football is open to interpretation.

One mans excessive force is another mans mistimed tackle.

You won't get consistency with video refereeing under the ideas that you put forward, all you will end up with is further frustrated fans.

LuckyLloyd

You will correct a number of glaring mistakes. Every such mistake corrected will be frustration saved. And it will mean certain games become mistake free.

Your attitude is do nothing because you can't fix it all.

My attitude is fix what you can because any improvement is a good thing.

Eirebear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You will correct a number of glaring mistakes. Every such mistake corrected will be frustration saved. And it will mean certain games become mistake free.

Your attitude is do nothing because you can't fix it all.

My attitude is fix what you can because any improvement is a good thing.

Will you really though?

How often are these mistakes actually "Glaring" and how many of them are quite simply debatable?
Look at the Old Firm game at the weekend, or the Scottish league Cup Final the weekend before - debate is still raging on about a number of incidents in those games despite numerous video replays, analysis and slow motion viewings.

Yet somehow you expect a video referee to make the correct call in a matter of seconds?

My attitude is simple, if you can't fix something properly - leave it alone.

LuckyLloyd

Eirebear wrote: »

Will you really though?

How often are these mistakes actually "Glaring" and how many of them are quite simply debatable?
Look at the Old Firm game at the weekend, or the Scottish league Cup Final the weekend before - debate is still raging on about a number of incidents in those games despite numerous video replays, analysis and slow motion viewings.

Yet somehow you expect a video referee to make the correct call in a matter of seconds?

My attitude is simple, if you can't fix something properly - leave it alone.

In the NFL or rugby there are times it goes to the booth and the decision is: 'in the absence of indisputable video evidence the decision on the field stands'. Nothing wrong with that.

The Thierry Henry incident should never be allowed to happen again. As it stands, it will.

Neil3030

I think it would be lol if the captain had to make the challenge, and if he's wrong, he has to be subbed.

Eirebear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In the NFL or rugby there are times it goes to the booth and the decision is: 'in the absence of indisputable video evidence the decision on the field stands'. Nothing wrong with that.

The Thierry Henry incident should never be allowed to happen again. As it stands, it will.

You're missing the point.

The video ref in rugby or NFL is used for definable things, was the ball on the ground, was it over the line etc etc. Normally in areas where the players are blocking the view of the ref.

In football we are talking about interpretation - did the player go in to hurt the opposition man, or was it simply a poorly timed challenge.
Intent is very hard to prove in a video replay.

Neil3030

Eirebear wrote: »

You're missing the point.

The video ref in rugby or NFL is used for definable things, was the ball on the ground, was it over the line etc etc. Normally in areas where the players are blocking the view of the ref.

In football we are talking about interpretation - did the player go in to hurt the opposition man, or was it simply a poorly timed challenge.
Intent is very hard to prove in a video replay.

Yes, intent is difficult, but there are many, many things that can be proven with a video replay. As a previous poster said, just because you can't fix all things, doesn't mean you can't fix some things.

Eirebear

Neil3030 wrote: »

Yes, intent is difficult, but there are many, many things that can be proven with a video replay. As a previous poster said, just because you can't fix all things, doesn't mean you can't fix some things.

What can it prove?

I've already stated my wish for goal line technology, outwith that i dont see it bringing any major changes tbh.

Neil3030

Eirebear wrote: »

What can it prove?

I've already stated my wish for goal line technology, outwith that i dont see it bringing any major changes tbh.

Anything where the rules are clear, so intent is irrelevant, e.g., ref doesn't see a handball made by a defender in the box.

Eirebear

Neil3030 wrote: »

Anything where the rules are clear, so intent is irrelevant, e.g., ref doesn't see a handball made by a defender in the box.

Ref doesnt see handball made by defender in box, play continues.

Where do you stop play?

Neil3030

Eirebear wrote: »

Ref doesnt see handball made by defender in box, play continues.

Where do you stop play?

I'd give the attacking team a window to appeal, either before a certain time has elapsed, or before the ball has been cleared back into their half, or something like that. Referee can then stop play so the incident can be reviewed.

Eirebear

Neil3030 wrote: »

I'd give the attacking team a window to appeal, either before a certain time has elapsed, or before the ball has been cleared back into their half, or something like that. Referee can then stop play so the incident can be reviewed.

So you give both teams a certain amount of "Challenges" like they do in Tennis, or NFL?

This works in those sports because of naturaly stoppages - in football it doesnt and what we're left with is breaks in play that we could all do without.

LuckyLloyd

Eirebear wrote: »

Ref doesnt see handball made by defender in box, play continues.

Where do you stop play?

- Attacking player handles the ball during a move in which they score. Defending team asks for a challenge, video ref sees the handball, play restarts with a free out from the spot where it was handled;
- Attacking player is offside in build up to a goal. Defending team asks for a challenge, video ref see the offside, play restarts with a free out;
- Attacking player heads towards the byline and is fouled by a defender. He falls and the ball rolls out over the endline. Ref awards a corner. Attacking team asks for a challenge, video ref sees the foul, play restarts with a penalty to the attacking team and possibly a yellow card to the defender;

This isn't that complicated.

opr

Eirebear wrote: »

I'm not buying into it tbh.
Outwith "Ball In Play" rules, everything else in football is open to interpretation.

One mans excessive force is another mans mistimed tackle.

You won't get consistency with video refereeing under the ideas that you put forward, all you will end up with is further frustrated fans.

This has to be the stupidest line that is trotted out by people time and time again with regards to video technology.

Three man video review panels of a incident is still going to be right a far higher percentage of time than one mans view in real time of an incident. Will decisions still be controversial, absolutely. Will decisions still be wrong, maybe.

The thing that matters is the correct decision will be made a far higher amount of times.

Opr

Neil3030

Eirebear wrote: »

So you give both teams a certain amount of "Challenges" like they do in Tennis, or NFL?

This works in those sports because of naturaly stoppages - in football it doesnt and what we're left with is breaks in play that we could all do without.

Yeah, but exactly because of this I would limit teams to one challenge per team per game, or even 3 challenges per 5 games, or something like that. The maximum disruption you'd be dealing with is perhaps a minute in total.

I'd also impose harsh penalties on teams who abuse the challenge; challenges could be deemed "confirmed, denied or trolling"

An example of trolling: say a team has brought a load of players up for a corner and the cross is headed clear by the first man. The defending team then break, only for the previous attacking team to call for a challenge that the ball was handled. When the replays show that there was no grounds whatsoever to make this claim, I'd classify the challenge as trolling and send off the captain.

Eirebear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

- Attacking player handles the ball during a move in which they score. Defending team asks for a challenge, video ref sees the handball, play restarts with a free out from the spot where it was handled;
- Attacking player is offside in build up to a goal. Defending team asks for a challenge, video ref see the offside, play restarts with a free out;
- Attacking player heads towards the byline and is fouled by a defender. He falls and the ball rolls out over the endline. Ref awards a corner. Attacking team asks for a challenge, video ref sees the foul, play restarts with a penalty to the attacking team and possibly a yellow card to the defender;

This isn't that complicated.

"Handball in the box" was the situation we were talking about.
None of the above statements recognise that.

You're right, it isnt that complicated.

Eirebear

Neil3030 wrote: »

An example of trolling: say a team has brought a load of players up for a corner and the cross is headed clear by the first man. The defending team then break, only for the previous attacking team to call for a challenge that the ball was handled. When the replays show that there was no grounds whatsoever to make this claim, I'd classify the challenge as trolling and send off the captain.

But the game has still been stopped and the flow of the team's attack has been ended.
As a football fan i'd much rather see the teams break than the aftermath of a sending off for "trolling".

Neil3030

Eirebear wrote: »

But the game has still been stopped and the flow of the team's attack has been ended.
As a football fan i'd much rather see the teams break than the aftermath of a sending off for "trolling".

In such a scenario that would be true, I take your point.

But there could be a more suitable punishment. The key thing is to make the punishment for trolling severe enough that teams wouldn't want to risk it in the first place, i.e., only make a challenge when they are absolutely certain that they've been wronged.

Again it balances down to the law of averages; if a system could be devised that more decisions are accurately made relative to the few scenarios where the system can be abused, I would be in favour of at least giving it a trial.

Eirebear

opr wrote: »

This has to be the stupidest line that is trotted out by people time and time again with regards to video technology.

Three man video review panels of a incident is still going to be right a far higher percentage of time than one mans view in real time of an incident. Will decisions still be controversial, absolutely. Will decisions still be wrong, maybe.

The thing that matters is the correct decision will be made a far higher amount of times.

Opr

Sorry for the multiposts.

So, we bring in a 3 man video review for points when there is a natural stoppage in play.
i.e when the penalty has been given, when the sending off has been made.
The three man video review only has 2 options at the point, was the ref A) Correct or B)Wrong.

Given that the vast majority of refereeing decisions are correct, and that a huge percentage of them are down to interpretation i fail to see the point in this.

Eirebear

Neil3030 wrote: »

In such a scenario that would be true, I take your point.

But there could be a more suitable punishment. The key thing is to make the punishment for trolling severe enough that teams wouldn't want to risk it in the first place, i.e., only make a challenge when they are absolutely certain that they've been wronged.

Again it balances down to the law of averages; if a system could be devised that more decisions are accurately made relative to the few scenarios where the system can be abused, I would be in favour of at least giving it a trial.

Fair enough, personally i just don't see it working.
We're constantly going on about how a referee need's to let a game flow, but with this idea we're taking that option out of the referee's hands and placing it into an area where it can be used tactically - as it is in both NFL and Tennis.

LuckyLloyd

Eirebear wrote: »

"Handball in the box" was the situation we were talking about.
None of the above statements recognise that.

You're right, it isnt that complicated.

Was the Thierry Henry handball open to interpretation?
The "Hand of God"?
Henchoz against Arsenal in the FA Cup final in 2001?

Eirebear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Was the Thierry Henry handball open to interpretation?
The "Hand of God"?
Henchoz against Arsenal in the FA Cup final in 2001?

Fine, we've already stated about natural stoppages - but example like the ones above are very, very rare.

Your view of things needs to take in the fact that football, in general, is far less likely to throw these things up as play continues after the fact.

opr

Eirebear wrote: »

Sorry for the multiposts.

So, we bring in a 3 man video review for points when there is a natural stoppage in play.
i.e when the penalty has been given, when the sending off has been made.
The three man video review only has 2 options at the point, was the ref A) Correct or B)Wrong.

Given that the vast majority of refereeing decisions are correct, and that a huge percentage of them are down to interpretation i fail to see the point in this.

With all respect that post has very little to do with the point I was making. The logistics of introducing video technology in football I may or may not agree with you about but I was merely making the point that your idea one 'mans excessive force is another mans mistimed tackle' isn't a reason against video technology.

If you have a list of controversial decisions then a video review panel against a referees call in real time will make better decisions. That isn't a slight on anyone or the referee they just have access to more information to make better decisions.

Opr

Neil3030

Eirebear wrote: »

Fair enough, personally i just don't see it working.
We're constantly going on about how a referee need's to let a game flow, but with this idea we're taking that option out of the referee's hands and placing it into an area where it can be used tactically - as it is in both NFL and Tennis.

Let us then, in a rare moment for the soccer board, agree to disagree :pac: