ole_1999

If you look at it from the angle from behind the goal, Murphy is actually going over before Carrick touched him.

It was actually very clever from Murphy and could have easily paid off.

TOOR

http://watchhighlightsonline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/video-carrick-tackle-on-murphy-in-box.html

Ole - the penalty incident itself isn't really the point. I haven't seen the incident - but whether it is or isn't doesn't prove how fairly United are treated.

We are not claiming the myth is true – we are saying that this is not proof that it is false.

"The myth of preferential treatment can be true even if United have given away penalties at Old Trafford. Say they give away 5… if they should have conceded 50 then they could getting preferential treatment still! "

If only they could get this into their heads.

Highly debatable. If I'd seen that in real time, I'd have given it. Seeing it in a slow motion replay it doesn't look like the is strong enough contact to make a player go down. Looks like a good decision to me.

spot on vidicschin. i was at the game so i sky plussed the highlights to watch back later and the first thing i said when i first saw it was that murphy was almost horizontal before carrick is anywhere near him. murphy was looking for it, make no mistake, and the more times i see it the more i think the referee called it right.

there*

Slow motion shows that there's a tiny clip from Carrick's left foot on Murphy. It was obviously exaggerated as most fouls are in the box by players, Murphy was looking for it.

He was, however was the contact enough to put the player off? I'm not sure. Was it enough to make him go down? Not a chance. I don't think it's a penalty.

my main worry now is that because of the usual media overreaction everyone in football has had their morally indignant shorts on for the past two days and are trying to spin it so that it looks like we've got away with one when we clearly haven't. the problem now could be that if an official gets that into their heads then a poor decision could go against us at some point on the run in.

If he was running fast I'd understand as a tiny clip can make you lose concentration and trip, but Murphy with pace? He was looking for it and it was exagerrated, good decision by the ref. Nice to see you agree TOOR.

ole_1999

It is one of those, that if given, you can't complain. You could be upset, yes.

i'm not surprised as murphy's a proper snide who hates united. you can just imagine what was going through his head when we down and how quickly he'd have jumped up to take the penalty and dent manchester united's title hopes. in my opinion, justice was done.

Forgot Murphy played for the dippers, he's such an old fart now. Fulham has a few past it players there, Risse and Duff are examples.

I have never understood the facination with Duff.

Appart from Homer's one.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
ole_1999

It is one of those, that if given, you can't complain. You could be upset, yes.
------------------------------------
I would agree with that. It could have been given either way and a different referee might have made a different call.

I would have given it if I were the referee, however if I were a man sitting watching a replay, I might not have given it. If I were sitting in the atmosphere of a packed United stadium, I might not have given it. If it were for United, I might have.

These are all things which might affect the outcome of a decision.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
I have never understood the facination with Duff.

Appart from Homer's one.
-----------------------------
Duff was a great player until Chelsea got a hold of him.

i don't think the referee could possibly have given it from where he was, there was no way he could have known for definite, and if you're unsure then you can't give it. michael oliver got it spot on.

Mr Mortimer nowhere did I mention you or TOOR, my posts in this article have all basically referred to the fact that the myth being discussed is just a conspiracy theory unless someone is willing to back it with some evidence...

Anyway the myth mentioned in the article is that you are less likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford than other grounds, the stats show that myth is untrue as more penalties have been given at Old Trafford than other grounds.

What you are actually arguing for is that these statistics don't show that a good penalty claim is more or less likely to be turned down that at other grounds.

"Anyway the myth mentioned in the article is that you are less likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford than other grounds, the stats show that myth is untrue as more penalties have been given at Old Trafford than other grounds."

Wrong. The stats show that more penalties have been given, not that you are more likely to get one. To determine that, you have to determine whether decisions were correct and how many decisions were incorrect.

These stats simply show more penalties were given, not that you're more likely to get one. Whoever wrote the article is very foolish and it doesn't surprise me, he works for a newspaper.

Wrong. The stats show that more penalties have been given,


................

So, right then, not wrong.

7 t b

You aren't seeing the stats properly.

I understand what you are saying - that if more pens are given at OT than say Stamford Bridge then you are more likely to get one at OT than Stamford Bridge - but you are missing the fundamental point that there aren't an equal number of penalty claims in each game.

EXAMPLE A) You have 100 shouts for a penalty, 50 of them should be a penalty, and the referee gives 5 of them. There are 5 penalties given, but only 10 per cent of those that should have been given have been.

EXAMPLE B) You have 20 shouts for a penalty, 10 of them should be, 5 are given. There are 5 penalties given, and 50 per cent of those that should have been given.

Is the refereeing consistent in these examples? Both have 5 penalties given...
No, the refereeing isn't consistent because in example A the team gets away with more.

The actual number of penalties given shows nothing without the information of how many penalties should have been given.

Do you see?

The post was there to show how the myth was false - at least that's how I interpreted the OP. Both TOOR and I are trying to show that in fact it does not prove the myth to be false. We are not arguing the myth is true - we are simply arguing that the myth is false...

If you don't think the original post should be there because the myth holds no validity then that is fine - no one has produced statistical evidence to show bias so the myth is not proven to be true. Can you see that the evidence given doesn't prove it false though?

comment by MrMortimer (U8234)
posted 27 minutes ago

7 t b

You aren't seeing the stats properly.

................

You and TOOR are the ones not seeing the stats properly.

Every one else is.

Get a grip people. To beleive in the myth is to call into question the whole integrity of the game in England. Do people seriously beleive that there is a culture of favouritism for UTD when they play at OT. I suspect that referees are no more prone to the influence and pressure of the home team and fans at OT than they are when they officiate at any other club in the PL. The myth suits the likes of Jol who's teams are regularly outplayed when they play at OT and they can grasp the straw of a contentious decision as an excuse. The myth also suits the ABU brigade who use it as a reason to belittle UTD's success because there own teams are shizite and they are jealous that their teams no longer acheive what UTD are doing...

Vidicshin - will you actually look at the example given in my last post and respont to it.

You seem to ignore all the reasoned arguments that are put forward and just rely on insults.

Is there a difference between 5 out of 100, and 5 out of 6?
Surely you can accept there is.

So simply saying 5... or any number... isn't telling the actual story is it?