Filters - again, we aren't saying the myth is true. We are saying that the stat given doesn't prove it is false. THere is no statistical evidence to suggest it is true - equally there is no statistical evidence to suggest it is false... statistics are limited here because the game isn't one of definites much of it is subjective and referees interpret things differently. As such a simple statistic calculator is not effective at proving anything!

As for the myth itself - I think referees could react differently at OT than at other grounds without it being a question of their integrity. The atmosphere and fans calling for a decision do have an impact that can influence things. A tackle can seem a heck of a lot worse when it draws gasps from 50,000 people...

The referee might see the same incident on another occasion, without a crowd reaction and judge it differently.

Also - let's not forget other factors... such as reputation. A player known for diving, a referee is more likely to interpret him throwing himself to the floor as a dive than someone else. The same as fouls - certain players reputations will mean they are booked sooner than others even though the tackles could be the same.

There are lots of things that influence referees - it doesn't necessarily mean you have to question their integrity.

The myth re OT was that opposing teams never got a pen decision and the article has refuted this.

I understand what you are TOOR are saying and you could argue that point. To break it down though...

The myth being You are less likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford

The facts being (in the last 5 years) several teams have had less penalties given against them in their home ground than United have had Old Trafford.

This means that you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford.than several other teams home grounds whether there was a murder that occurred that a penalty wasn't given for or someone kicked out the area. It doesn't matter, the facts state you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford.

Filters - apologies if I have misread the theme I don't think it was about never getting a penalty at OT though. As soon as one is giventhen the theory that teams never get penalties has gone! I think actually the idea is that it is more difficult to get a penalty at OT. The article has not refuted that - since simply mentioning the number that have been given does not reflect how many should have been given or what criteria are needed to get a penalty at OT.

7 T B...
Again the crucial point is the number that should have been given.

If the fixtures were messed up one year and Chelsea played their first 10 games at home, whereas Manchester United only played one of their first 10 games at home. If Chelsea give concede 5 penalties in the first 10 games at home, and Manchester United concede 3 in their 1 home game - which ground are you more likely to get penalties in?

Chelsea have conceded 5.
Manchester United have conceded 3.

So according to the argument you put forward - you are more likely to get a penalty at Stamford Bridge than you are at Old Trafford.

However - it isn't a fair reflection of the reality because Manchester United concede 3 per game at home, whereas Chelsea concede 0.5 per game at home - so are you not more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford?

Now before you come back and say the amount of games are even - that is not the point! This example just goes to show that the number of penalties given is, alone, not enough information.

There are not an even number of penalty shouts in every game - so simply totalling the numbers given is not a true reflection of whether penalties are harder to come by at Old Trafford or not.

You're wasting your time. They just don;t want to understand it, it's not that they can't.

Filters - apologies if I have misread the theme I don't think it was about never getting a penalty at OT though

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the myth and mantra from opposing fans whenever
a pen decision goes against them is you never get a pen at OT and thats simply not true...

MrMortimer (U8234)
posted 17 hours, 56 minutes ago

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?

==

This sums it up really. People can put accross whatever they want but its like shooting pool with a rope, as they say. A reasoned and well considered response is met with insults from an imbecile. Pointless.

comment by filters=wimps (U11635)
posted 19 seconds ago
Filters - apologies if I have misread the theme I don't think it was about never getting a penalty at OT though

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the myth and mantra from opposing fans whenever
a pen decision goes against them is you never get a pen at OT and thats simply not true...
------------------------------------
That's not the 'myth' at all. Everybody knows there has been at least one penalty given against United at Old Trafford. What some people think is that it is more difficult to get one there than anywhere else. Simply saying how many penalties were given there does not dispel this myth as you have to take into account, how many were correctly given, how many were incorrectly given and how many times penalties should have been given but weren't.

You'd have to repeat the same study for the other clubs, to find out if it is true that it's more difficult to get a penalty there than anywhere is.

I think I have seen a lot of people coming out with statements like the following:-

'ah but it was at Old Trafford so I wasn't expecting us to get awarded the penalty". I've even heard former United players, who manage now, saying it, along with Fergie's good friend 'Fat' Sam.

I've never seen statements saying 'nobody ever gets penalties at Old Trafford'.

So this article, this foolish article, uses the wrong set of stats to prove a point and even then, the stats are wrong. That's what people are trying to say, not that the 'myth' is true or false.

I don't think that is the myth... I think when people say "you don't get those at OT" they do not mean that literally no team ever does get a penalty... (they can't possibly mean that since penalties have been awarded at Old Trafford! The myth would be ended before it even began!) it is more that you don't get 50/50 penalties... and even some stone wallers are turned down. The myth is that referees treat United favourably - the myth is not that no penalty has ever been given against United at Old Trafford!

If the myth was just literally that no penalty was given against United - then quoting a penalty that was given would disprove the myth once and for all and no one could possibly argue the case otherwise.

Maybe that's why we're disagreeing - because we understand "the myth" differently. I don't think for a second anyone believes that no penalty has ever been given at Old Trafford against United... I think many people believe United get favourable treatment from referees at home, and that the burden of proof for a penalty is much greater at OT than at other grounds.

(I'm not saying I believe that before anyone crticises me as just being an ABU)
If that is the myth - then quoting a number of penalties given at OT does not disprove the myth - can you see that?

TOOR - couldn't agree more!

Filter - don't think anyone says you never get penalties at OT. If you have heard that then I'd suggest the meaning is not meant to be taken literally - like when a striker "misses by miles". He doesn't actually miss by miles - there is an exaggeration to emphasise the point. If you have heard people say "never" then I would imagine they were trying to emphasise the point by exaggerating to the extreme.

No one actually believes it is never! Many people do believe that United get special treatment though - and that is the myth!

Exactly Mortimer.

I think you'll find people on this board agree but are too busy going on the defensive, saying you are all ABU's even though it's clear nobody has made accusations only have said that this article, does not prove the myth to be false.

You mean all those quiet OT fans actually make noise that can influence a refs decision or is that another myth that the OT crowd are not loud enough....


"In the 110 league games both teams have played at home since August 2006 United have conceded nine spot-kicks while Fulham have given away just eight during the same period."

"The discussion of whether it would have been given at the other end has been going on for years and it will go on for years to come," he said.

However, Jol appears to lack any evidence to back up his assertion that officials favour United at Old Trafford after figures show that Fulham, in fact, are less likely to concede a penalty at home than United.

Whats next folks

Fergie Time ?

Grow Up....

"In the 110 league games both teams have played at home since August 2006 United have conceded nine spot-kicks while Fulham have given away just eight during the same period."

---------------

That stat is incorrect. Look it up for yourself. The author of the Telegraph article couldn't even get the stats right for the period in question.

Furthermore, going back just one season (to August 2005), invalidates the Journalist's own conclusion. For if we go back to Aug 2005, United have had less penalties awarded against them at Old Trafford than Fulham have at Craven Cottage.

Go back further, and the disparity between the two clubs is increased.

In fact, go back to 2000 (just as arbitrary as the journalist's own time period of 2006), then the stats show that United have had less penalties awarded against them at home than any other team (who had been in the PL for 5 seasons or more) with the exception of Birmingham. United - 10 penalties against in 12 seasons (including this season), Birmingham with 9 penalties against (in 7 seasons in the PL).

“You mean all those quiet OT fans actually make noise that can influence a refs decision or is that another myth that the OT crowd are not loud enough....”
I am sorry I don’t understand this point.

"In the 110 league games both teams have played at home since August 2006 United have conceded nine spot-kicks while Fulham have given away just eight during the same period."

How many penalty claims were there during these games? If Fulham conceded 8 out of 8 - and United conceded 9 out of 700 – then clearly there is a disparity between the decisions being made. Again I’m not saying the myth is true- I’m just showing that the statistic is useless in this argument. If the myth was that no penalty was ever given at OT then it would be valid. Since that is not the myth the statistic is of little value unless it is combined with the statistic for how many penalties should have been given.

However, Jol appears to lack any evidence to back up his assertion that officials favour United at Old Trafford after figures show that Fulham, in fact, are less likely to concede a penalty at home than United.

The stats show that Fulham have conceded less penalties – it doesn’t show that they are less likely to in any meaningful way. Time isn’t the measure here! Penalty claims are!
Let’s put this simply to see where you actually disagree with the points made.
1 – referees award penalties when an offence has been committed inside the box
2 – there are not the same amount of offences committed in the box in every game
3 – If there are no penalty offences the referee should not award a penalty.
4 – If there are penalty offences the referee should award a penalty.
5 – If a team concedes 5 penalties in a match – and they are all penalties – the team is being treated fairly.
6 – If a team does not concede a penalty in a match – and they are no offences which merit a penalty – the team is being treated fairly.
7 – If a team concedes 9 penalties over the course of a season and only 2 were penalty offences – the referees errors have cost the team.
8 – If a team concedes 2 penalties over the course of a season when the referee should have awarded 9 – the referees errors have helped the team.
9 – If a team doesn’t commit a single offence all season – the referees are not being lenient on them by not awarding a penalty.
10 – Over the course of the season different teams will have different numbers of penalties awarded.
11 – Over the course of the season different teams will have a different number of penalties that should have been awarded.
12 – Comparing the number of penalties given over the course of the season will not give you an accurate reflection of whether a penalty claim is more or less likely to be successful.
13 – working out the percentage of penalties given out of all those that should be given is a measure of how successful a penalty claim is likely to be.
14 – Time is not the measure to use, since all games are not even.


Now – please… which of these statements do you think is false? Maybe we can get to the bottom of where the understanding is breaking down.

“Grow Up....”
We’re trying to have a discussion here – no need for comments like this. This is not anti-United and it is not Fergie bashing – this is just simple mathematics. Remove the club from the equation and perhaps it will make it easier to see the point.

Ripley's cat - interesting that the journos couldn't get it right!

And as you say it was a strange period of time to take.

However - the stats don't show the story. If United are awarded 50 penalties more than another side that doesn't necessarily show anything - all the penalties could be stone wallers! The number given stat is useless by itself.

I agree with you MrMortimer. The stats on their own do not paint the full picture - the reasons why you have gone to great lengths to explain. It's a valid point that you make in my opinion.

Further consideration has to be taken into account in regards to the penalties that were awarded. A penalty may be awarded that many consider soft, but a decision that the referee made because of an earlier contentious incident in the game. Furthermore, the context of the game itself has to be taken into account. In 2006/07, United had 2 penalties awarded against them at Old Trafford in the entire season. One was for Wigan, in the 92nd minute, with United leading 3-0. The other was for Bolton, in the 87th minute, with United leading 4-0. Would you say it's easier to award a penalty in such circumstance, knowing that the decision won't affect the outcome of the game? That the pressure on the referee to be absolutely sure that it is the correct decision to give a penalty will not be as great as it would be if in the dying moments the game was 0-0, or indeed 1-0 (as was the case against Fulham on Monday night)?

It would be interesting to compare those two penalties awarded for Wigan and Bolton with the incident in the game against Fulham.

There are simply too many variables to take into consideration before we can even get close to coming to the kind of conclusion that the author of the Telegraph article is implying. And the fact that (s)he actually gets the stats wrong anyway just compound how shoddy a piece of journalism that article actually is.

In short, it tells us nothing. And it picks an arbitrary date in which to compile the stat. Why not 3 years? Why not 10 years? Why not since the turn of the century? Why not since the Premier League began (which was around the time that United actually started to become successful)?

The cynic in me thinks that the author went back as far as he could before the stat contrived against him making the point that he wanted to make - that being United had been awarded more penalties at home than Fulham had. Go back one more season and his conclusion is invalidated.

Just goes to show how flimsy his own conclusion actually is.

In conclusion, the writer, who attempted to break the myth, is an absolute idiot.

Not that he's wrong, just his methods of arriving at his conclusion are wrong and stupid.

Ripley exactly- TOOR asked earlier how one could measure such a thing accurately but the truth is the variables make it extremely difficult, and the subjective nature of the game make it impossible!

It's similar to referees showing red cards - you can't just compare how many they give over the course of a season... surely you have to see whether the cards are justified or not. If a referee sends 3 players off does that mean he is card happy? Or were there 3 very dangerous tackles - or a fight perhaps.

As for the statistics as well - the arbitrary nature of the time scale makes me laugh. It's like when commentators claim a team has a hoodoo on a rival because they haven't beaten them in 58 years...

Even though in those 58 years they may have only played once!

Or the classic - They haven't lose in an evening game against a rival....

I imagine a post mathc interview: "You haven't won on a Tuesday night... when it was raining... and the temperature was between 12 and 15 degrees... and the attendance was 32,564... how important was it for you to break that spell?"

The information is true... but utterly meaningless! It's often just media talk - and the same is true here. The Telegraph reporter obviously thought he'd make a story out of this - and sadly it seems some people are willing to read it and take is as proof of something it clearly isn't!

The cynic in me thinks that the author went back as far as he could before the stat contrived against him making the point that he wanted to make - that being United had been awarded more penalties at home than Fulham had. Go back one more season and his conclusion is invalidated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well why dont you prove it and go back one or more seasons as you have already refuted his stats for the seasons quoted.

IN fact why dont you TOOR and mortimer do just that as you seem to be obsessed with proving the myth true

As JOL said

"The discussion of whether it would have been given at the other end has been going on for years and it will go on for years to come," he said.

So stop discussing it and prove it....

Even though in those 58 years they may have only played once!

-----------------

That one always makes me laugh!

And you're right about the red card stat, for the same reason as the penalty stat. What I find quite amusing is how people are happy (lazy) to make any kind of conclusion in light of such flimsily compiled statistics. United fans I would suspect are happy with the Telegraph piece, because it favours United, so it isn't in their interest to go against the conclusion that is presented. Yet in merely questioning the conclusion and the method in which it was derived, one can be (and has been) labelled an "ABU" - a term that has no weight to it whatsoever and is one that borders on being a paranoia of some United fans.

comment by filters=wimps (U11635)
posted 28 seconds ago
The cynic in me thinks that the author went back as far as he could before the stat contrived against him making the point that he wanted to make - that being United had been awarded more penalties at home than Fulham had. Go back one more season and his conclusion is invalidated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well why dont you prove it and go back one or more seasons as you have already refuted his stats for the seasons quoted.
----------------------------
This has been done. Read Ripley's post. I had the same opinion but Ripley has the stats to back it up.

filters: "Well why dont you prove it and go back one or more seasons as you have already refuted his stats for the seasons quoted."

I have gone back "one AND more seasons". An earlier post of mine in this very thread does exactly that.

filters: "IN fact why dont you TOOR and mortimer do just that as you seem to be obsessed with proving the myth true"

That's where you are clearly missing the point. The point is not about proving whether the myth is true or not. It is that the Telegraph article neither proves it to be true or not.

In case it hasn't quite sunk in with you yet - the points of TOOR, MrMortimer, and indeed myself, are not about having a dig at United. They are rather having a dig at the author of the Telegraph article. Understand that and stop being so paranoid.

Like I said come on and prove the myth true

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 32 minutes ago

In conclusion, the writer, who attempted to break the myth, is an absolute idiot.

Not that he's wrong, just his methods of arriving at his conclusion are wrong and stupid.

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

I think you have the monopoly on stupidity here TOOR.