|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 10:50:41 GMT
.....is it actually true?
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Oct 21, 2014 10:53:58 GMT
The answer you're looking for is NO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Oct 21, 2014 10:59:25 GMT
No.Teams who get relegated have more decisions against them than for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Oct 21, 2014 11:05:43 GMT
Maybe not over 1 season, but over several seasons I would say that by and large they do.
Our first 2 seasons up I'd say we were on the wrong side of a spate of poor decisions, our 3rd season I thought it went our way more than against us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 21, 2014 11:06:55 GMT
No.Teams who get relegated have more decisions against them than for them. I'm sure they do but a team at the bottom who spends twice as much time defending as one at the top has twice has much time to cop a bad decision even if the time between bad decisions is exactly the same if you see what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Oct 21, 2014 11:11:53 GMT
We've benefitted from dubious penalties against Swansea in the last 2 seasons yet those decisions still don't balance out all the bad decisions from the Newcastle game alone.
Over our 6 seasons to date in the Premier League we have been on the receiving end of far more dodgy decisions than we've had in our favour.
2 dubious penalty decisions against Swansea don't even come close to balancing the books.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 11:24:42 GMT
Last season at newcastle would have taken a lot of evening up
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Oct 21, 2014 11:31:14 GMT
We've benefitted from dubious penalties against Swansea in the last 2 seasons yet those decisions still don't balance out all the bad decisions from the Newcastle game alone. Over our 6 seasons to date in the Premier League we have been on the receiving end of far more dodgy decisions than we've had in our favour. 2 dubious penalty decisions against Swansea don't even come close to balancing the books. Liverpool as well. Referee had a stormer that game. El Greasy Spanish Penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Oct 21, 2014 11:32:58 GMT
No
|
|
|
|
Post by luke45 on Oct 21, 2014 11:56:17 GMT
The standard of refereeing across the league this season has been absolutely appalling so far in my opinion. It's easy to forget the injustice we had in the Sunderland game as well, it was 1-1 when Fletcher handled the ball and the referee didn't give it and awarded Sunderland the corner which they scored off, we should've defended it better but it still doesn't change the fact it was a very poor and costly decision that went against us. As for the game against Swansea, the most clear penalty in the match was the shirt pull on Crouch in the first half that the linesman had a perfect view of and decided to ignore.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 21, 2014 12:03:39 GMT
I'd like to hear what Crouchie thinks about this. He gets nowt much.
{It must be difficult to ref Peter though, his feet are often at head height.}
I try not to get too hung up on the officiating, it can often be used as an excuse for a poor performance by the team.
I wouldn't want to see technology and replays etc disrupting the game.
On the whole the standard of English reffing is pretty good.
But I'd like to see more honesty from Clubs.
{The Newcastle game was an aberration though.}
|
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 21, 2014 12:25:54 GMT
No.Teams who get relegated have more decisions against them than for them. You mean like goals against decisions? Saying that, the answer is no. Only the big teams get more for than against decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Oct 21, 2014 15:03:44 GMT
The fans of every single club in the league are convinced that they get screwed by dodgy and/or corrupt referees. At least half of them must be wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Oct 21, 2014 15:15:24 GMT
The big clubs will always get the lions share, it was ever thus. It's all down to luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by podolipotter on Oct 21, 2014 15:19:40 GMT
Where is a statto when you need one?
|
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 21, 2014 15:20:58 GMT
There has been pretty much acceptance by the authorities that big clubs get more favourable decisions.
Hence, if some clubs get more favourable decisions therefore there must be clubs who lose out. Therefore decisions don't even themselves out.
Just think back to that run of horrible decisions we got under TP a few seasons ago - do the top clubs ever get that level of bad decision going against them?
The only time they do is when they play in Europe and come across one of the big boys - then they don't get the decisions and they whinge like hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Oct 21, 2014 15:28:52 GMT
There has been pretty much acceptance by the authorities that big clubs get more favourable decisions. Hence, if some clubs get more favourable decisions therefore there must be clubs who lose out. Therefore decisions don't even themselves out. Just think back to that run of horrible decisions we got under TP a few seasons ago - do the top clubs ever get that level of bad decision going against them? The only time they do is when they play in Europe and come across one of the big boys - then they don't get the decisions and they whinge like hell. There has? Which authorities have accepted this? My view is that fans tend to remember the times they got shafted far more than when it goes in your favour. |
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 21, 2014 16:19:37 GMT
www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2036381/Graham-Poll-Do-referees-favour-big-clubs-Yes-dont-know-theyre-doing-it.html"Let me guarantee you this: none of the penalties given to Wigan Athletic, Stoke City or West Bromwich would have been awarded against Manchester United and yet they were against Norwich City. So are match officials really biased, do they deliberately favour the big teams?" There was other talk a while back where I seem to remember some FA figures almost accepted the bias. Refs know that a decision against the likes of Mourino, Wengar or Ferguson, will receive massively more back page coverage, MotD discussion, etc. than any decision no matter how ludicrous (like pulling the ball from behind the line with your hand and knocking it out for a corner) will. That scares most of them so they want to be absolutely certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Oct 21, 2014 17:58:44 GMT
I'd like to hear what Crouchie thinks about this. He gets nowt much. {It must be difficult to ref Peter though, his feet are often at head height.} I try not to get too hung up on the officiating, it can often be used as an excuse for a poor performance by the team. I wouldn't want to see technology and replays etc disrupting the game. On the whole the standard of English reffing is pretty good. But I'd like to see more honesty from Clubs. {The Newcastle game was an aberration though.} Personally I think Crouch needs to man the fuck up and grow a pair......the amount of times hes flappin his arms around and looking to the ref for a foul is poor form...he should get in there and start battling for it |
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Oct 21, 2014 18:07:03 GMT
www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2036381/Graham-Poll-Do-referees-favour-big-clubs-Yes-dont-know-theyre-doing-it.html"Let me guarantee you this: none of the penalties given to Wigan Athletic, Stoke City or West Bromwich would have been awarded against Manchester United and yet they were against Norwich City. So are match officials really biased, do they deliberately favour the big teams?" There was other talk a while back where I seem to remember some FA figures almost accepted the bias. Refs know that a decision against the likes of Mourino, Wengar or Ferguson, will receive massively more back page coverage, MotD discussion, etc. than any decision no matter how ludicrous (like pulling the ball from behind the line with your hand and knocking it out for a corner) will. That scares most of them so they want to be absolutely certain. Since when is Graham Poll an authority? And anyway his argument in that article makes no sense. His "evidence" is that soft penalties were awarded against Norwich which he "guarantees" wouldn't have been awarded against Man Utd. How does he know? In any case his argument only works if the pens were awarded to "bigger" clubs, but it was WBA, Wigan and little old Stoke who were the beneficiaries. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Oct 21, 2014 18:20:40 GMT
IMO no.
Referees are influenced by the crowd and the bigger the crowd or more vocal they are the more they are influenced.
I also believe they are more lenient towards the "big clubs" with "star players" and will not give decisions against them unless they are absolutely sure, whereas thy will be more inclined to rule against small clubs and less well known players.
I also believe that their decisions are also influenced by the media. Across UK football there could have been dozens of penalties given for what Shawcross did on Saturday. Everyone knows it and many "experts" are applauding Michael Oliver for "his bravery" who chose to penalise Shawcross knowing full well he has let such behaviour pass before if the incident did not affect a goal scoring opportunity.
Finally, I also believe, however, that referees will engage in an element of "evening up" their decisions especially if they think they have made a mistake or been unduly harsh, which is only human nature to try and be fair to both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Oct 21, 2014 18:21:48 GMT
The 'Tone' view will come into play against us now and hughes will need to speak about it before the next home game is that refs sometimes try to show how tough they are by not giving into our hostile crowd. Tone said it on many occasions and he was right.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Oct 21, 2014 18:34:45 GMT
www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2036381/Graham-Poll-Do-referees-favour-big-clubs-Yes-dont-know-theyre-doing-it.html"Let me guarantee you this: none of the penalties given to Wigan Athletic, Stoke City or West Bromwich would have been awarded against Manchester United and yet they were against Norwich City. So are match officials really biased, do they deliberately favour the big teams?" There was other talk a while back where I seem to remember some FA figures almost accepted the bias. Refs know that a decision against the likes of Mourino, Wengar or Ferguson, will receive massively more back page coverage, MotD discussion, etc. than any decision no matter how ludicrous (like pulling the ball from behind the line with your hand and knocking it out for a corner) will. That scares most of them so they want to be absolutely certain. Since when is Graham Poll an authority? And anyway his argument in that article makes no sense. His "evidence" is that soft penalties were awarded against Norwich which he "guarantees" wouldn't have been awarded against Man Utd. How does he know? In any case his argument only works if the pens were awarded to "bigger" clubs, but it was WBA, Wigan and little old Stoke who were the beneficiaries.
Isn't his argument that those pens wouldn't have been awarded against the likes of Man Utd. If you believe that is untrue then welcome to watching football.
the likes of Wigan, Norwich and us - will get pens against each other, but will need to be far clearer against the big boys.
So a recently retired top ref has given his view where he is certain that his former fellow colleagues (and you'd assume, some current friends) give decisions that favour the big clubs - and that is to be disregarded out-of-hand - despite the corroborating evidence? |
|
