comment by D Diggler (U4142)
posted 3 minutes ago
Congrats TOOR for keeping this going.
--------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I can take that appreciation. I am not as patient as Mr Mortimer, whilst I have got fed up with the debate and at times, just conceded that United fans will never understand it, Mr Mortimer has continued to portray his opinions, in that hope that somebody will finally get it. If anybody can be congratulated on keeping this debate going, it's him.
TOOR, would you agree that Aston Villa are a bigger side than Liverpool?
We started with the myth that UTD get more favorable decisions than everyone else.
Then it was argued or implied that the UTD myth was an offshoot of a more general myth associated with BIG clubs getting more favorable decisions.
Both myths are nonsense. Loads of evidance to prove there is no pro utd or even pro big club conspiracy or agenda in football matches. Obviously no evidance to prove that the possibility of a pro utd or big club agenda exists otherwise it would have been investigated long before now.
Now that leaves you with the people who argue for the possibility of these myths really having merit. If they are over the age of 8 and cannot use immaturity as an excuse well then that just leaves them with an anti utd agenda, an anti big club agenda,or as paranoid fantasists or just complete morons....
Which one is TOOR and Mortimer....
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 38 minutes ago
TOOR, would you agree that Aston Villa are a bigger side than Liverpool?
---------------------------------------------
No. Is that up for debate? It can certainly be cleared up very quickly if it isn't.
comment by filters=wimps (U11635)
posted 1 minute ago
We started with the myth that UTD get more favorable decisions than everyone else.
Then it was argued or implied that the UTD myth was an offshoot of a more general myth associated with BIG clubs getting more favorable decisions.
Both myths are nonsense. Loads of evidance to prove there is no pro utd or even pro big club conspiracy or agenda in football matches. Obviously no evidance to prove that the possibility of a pro utd or big club agenda exists otherwise it would have been investigated long before now.
Now that leaves you with the people who argue for the possibility of these myths really having merit. If they are over the age of 8 and cannot use immaturity as an excuse well then that just leaves them with an anti utd agenda, an anti big club agenda,or as paranoid fantasists or just complete morons....
Which one is TOOR and Mortimer....
---------------------------------------
You're really cementing your idiot position now. Once again neither myself nor Mortimer have stated that United get preferential treatment from referees. What we have said, is that this article, uses the wrong stats, which are even wrong, in themselves to prove that the 'myth' is wrong. Therefore the writer does not prove the myth is wrong.
How many more times would you like me to say it? Can you read? Do you need help?
Villa have conceded the least penalties at home along with Chelsea, by your argument that makes them a bigger club than Liverpool
You're really cementing your idiot position now. Once again neither myself nor Mortimer have stated that United get preferential treatment from referees. What we have said, is that this article, uses the wrong stats, which are even wrong, in themselves to prove that the 'myth' is wrong. Therefore the writer does not prove the myth is wrong.
How many more times would you like me to say it? Can you read? Do you need help?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 20 hours, 55 minutes ago
"oth are a crock of shizzaz and anyone who give credance that these arguments hold water are in your words "laughable""
Prove it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No what you have been arguing TOOR is for PROOF (see your posting 20 hours ago) that this myth dosent exist. I have been saying all along that this myth or the possibility of this myth is nonsense and both you and mortimer have been arguing against me.
Have you got alzheimers or something...?
“We started with the myth that UTD get more favorable decisions than everyone else.”
Actually we started with someone claiming they could disprove the myth that United get more favourable decisions than other sides. TOOR and I both pointed out that the evidence given was not proof of that. This was at first something you disagreed with – then accepted.
“Then it was argued or implied that the UTD myth was an offshoot of a more general myth associated with BIG clubs getting more favorable decisions.”
Actually then you moved into other United myths to try and clump them all together to make it look like anyone who did not agree with you was clearly deluded and paranoid… all the while using terms like ABU suggesting in fact that you believe in a myth and are the one who is deluded or paranoid.
“Loads of evidance to prove there is no pro utd or even pro big club conspiracy or agenda in football matches.”
Have you put forward any of this evidence? I haven’t seen any from you.
“Obviously no evidance to prove that the possibility of a pro utd or big club agenda exists otherwise it would have been investigated long before now.”
Again flawed thinking. It cannot just be wrong because it hasn’t been investigated. That’s like saying there was no gravity before humans investigated and understood it! Also as both TOOR and I have stated – such an investigation would have to take into account subjective interpretations of rules and would therefore be open to question whatever the results.
“Now that leaves you with the people who argue for the possibility of these myths really having merit. If they are over the age of 8 and cannot use immaturity as an excuse well then that just leaves them with an anti utd agenda, an anti big club agenda,or as paranoid fantasists or just complete morons....”
It also leaves you with people who state that the myth has neither been proven or disproven.
Take the existence of God. No one has ever proved a God does exist – equally no one has ever proven one doesn’t. One can have belief in God, or one can believe that God does not exist. Your position currently is that there is no proof for God so anyone who believes in it is an idiot.
TOOR and I have said that the evidence given does not prove it either way.
Whether we have faith in it or not does not come into it – I could believe in God but still see that the statistics don’t prove him to exist… just as TOOR might be an atheist but see that the stats given don’t prove God doesn’t exist.
We have been using reason – as opposed to knee jerk emotive reactions. If the term moron is to be banded about I think it would certainly not apply to those actually using logic and rationality.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 5 minutes ago
Villa have conceded the least penalties at home along with Chelsea, by your argument that makes them a bigger club than Liverpool
--------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't. It means they've conceded the least number of penalties at home.
If you bothered to read the pages and pages of explanations as to why that is, you'd know that.
To determine who gets the more favourable decisions can't be made simply by who conceded the most penalties. You have to go into many more factors. In fact there could have been Club a - 100 times when a penalty should have been given but only 70 times when it was. Club B could have conceded 65 in 70 times when it should have been given, but using your logic, these stats mean that Club B got the more favourable decisions as they conceded less.
The same logic applies to your silly Villa bigger club argument.
Pride of the North - I think you have missed the point. Penalties conceded should not be measured against time. They should be measured against number of instances.
For example two teams could play an even number of games... one team have two penalties given against them, when there were two penalties that should have been awarded. The second team has 3 penalties given against them when they should have had 10 awarded against them. The number given is not the important factor - it is the percentage given out of those that should have been given.
2/2 is 100%
3/10 is 30%
Meaning against the second team if you are fouled in the box you have less chance of getting a penalty.
The number given isn't enough of a measure by itself.
“I have been saying all along that this myth or the possibility of this myth is nonsense and both you and mortimer have been arguing against me.”
You claimed the myth was nonsense because it wasn’t proven. If the same argument is brought back to you- that the ‘myth’ United are treated equally is nonsense because it is unproven how would you respond?
Your argument is flawed because you suppose the myth is false before testing it… and you refuse to test it because you think it is a myth because it is unproven.
Unproven and proven false are two separate things.
“We started with the myth that UTD get more favorable decisions than everyone else.”
Actually we started with someone claiming they could disprove the myth that United get more favourable decisions than other sides. TOOR and I both pointed out that the evidence given was not proof of that. This was at first something you disagreed with – then accepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually we started with an article proving UTD do concede home penaltys and in a certain time frame conceded as much home pen as most teams in the league....
It was determined that it didnt in itself prove that your fantastic myth didnt exist....
As for proof that the myth dosent exist I did put forward proof that UTD or indeed Big clubbs dont get all or most of the decisions. If utd got most of the decisions well then they would win the league every year, if big clubs got all or most of the decisions well then cardiff wouldnt have got to the league cup final, birimingham wouldnt have won it last season, palace wouldnt have beaten utd this season, loads of evidance througout the history of the game of the small teams and the small countrys prevailing...
So it looks like i got it wrong regarding you mortimer maybe you havent got an anti utd agenda. Your god argument puts you into the paranoid fantasist category with moronic tendencys...
Filters, you don't half talk some crap. I couldn't be bothered repeating the same reasoning over and over again. If Mortimer does have the patience, which he has shown throughout, he'll attempt to explain, once again but of course, you won't understand, so what's the point?
The thread that wouldn't die. I don't even know what you're trying to get people to admit to.
I've just read back the through the Telegraph article, and it's quite correct, Manchester United are indeed more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. The only innacuracy in this is that they should have added 'since 2006', which seems a pretty arbitrary date to choose, but there you go.
Beats me what you're getting so angry about. Very entertaining though.
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 36 seconds ago
The thread that wouldn't die. I don't even know what you're trying to get people to admit to.
I've just read back the through the Telegraph article, and it's quite correct, Manchester United are indeed more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. The only innacuracy in this is that they should have added 'since 2006', which seems a pretty arbitrary date to choose, but there you go.
Beats me what you're getting so angry about. Very entertaining though.
--------------------------------------
The point is that the Telegraph article DOES NOT show that United are more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. It simply shows they HAVE conceded more at home, in the past six seasons. So the writer is wrong.
To determine if somebody is more likely to concede you'd have to take many factors into account with the main one's being, how many times should a penalty have been given but wasn't? As I explained in my Club A and Club B statement.
Also you have to ask why the writer chose six years when seven years would have meant that United conceded the fewest and 10 years even fewer and 15 years much fewer?
Could it be that the writer set out to prove a point and took the highest number of years possible before that point is wrong? Without a doubt. However that's not my biggest problem with the stats. My problem is the stats don;t prove what he claims they do, not only that but he even gets the stats wrong.
In summary as has been stated time and time again and what you people who have shown nothing but bias refuse to believe, these stats do not prove that United are more likely to concede penalties.
Lets not let the facts get in the way, eh TOOR?
Based on empirical evidence (since 2006) United are more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. Fakht. Can't see how it can be any plainer.
Of course, if United implement a 'no tackling' rule then Fulham will be far more likely to concede a penalty at home than United in the future.
Is your point that United are less likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham based on the statistics since 2006? Pop some justification up and we'll take a look at it.
I don't think it can be proven either way in my opinion, bigger clubs are in the spotlight more, hence more is made of decisions.
I watch most games and there's dodgy decisions in them all pretty much, more seems to be made of them when it comes to the bigger clubs
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 12 minutes ago
Based on empirical evidence (since 2006) United are more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. Fakht. Can't see how it can be any plainer.
-----------------------------------------
No. That means they DID concede more, not that they are more likely too. How can you not understand this?
Is your point that United are less likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham based on the statistics since 2006? Pop some justification up and we'll take a look at it.
-----------------------------------------
No, no. I know why he chose 2006, it's because if you take even one year previous to it, it means United fly up the list and if you go even further back, it shows United concede the least.
However again, this is irrelevant! Time is not the factor which determines who is most likely to concede a penalty.
You have to take into account how many should and shouldn't have been given and then you arrive at a percentage. There are also a few more factors that should be taken into account, for example human error.
"You have to take into account how many should and shouldn't have been given and then you arrive at a percentage. There are also a few more factors that should be taken into account, for example human error."
Like I say, no one here can prove that the decisions favour the big clubs, there's dodgy decisions in every game
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 7 minutes ago
"You have to take into account how many should and shouldn't have been given and then you arrive at a percentage. There are also a few more factors that should be taken into account, for example human error."
Like I say, no one here can prove that the decisions favour the big clubs, there's dodgy decisions in every game
-------------------------------------------------
I know that. I am not debating that. What I'm debating is that in the article posted, from the Telegraph, the writer does not prove what he claims to. I've demonstrated why, throughout this article.
If utd got most of the decisions well then they would win the league every year, if big clubs got all or most of the decisions well then cardiff wouldnt have got to the league cup final
----------------------
United are not too far short of doing precisely that!
For the record, Cardiff didn't play a big club until they reached the final against Liverpool - which they duly lost.
But seriously, examples of smaller clubs beating bigger clubs is not proof that bigger clubs don't get more decisions awarded to them than smaller clubs do. That is just a nonsensical point you have put forward.
Pride of the North is absolutely spot on - it can't be proven one way or the other whether bigger clubs get more favourable decisions than smaller clubs. I personally do think that it is a view that has a certain amount of validity to it, especially when bigger clubs play at home. There is logic in having that view, but that logic alone isn't enough to PROVE it. Just as any logic put forward that argues that this isn't the case - again not enough to PROVE it isn't.
It's even difficult to fall back on statistical "evidence", because this evidence in itself can be debated - we all argue our subjective opinion when it comes to incidents in any game. Some saying "it" should have been a free kick, or a penalty, or a sending off, or a corner, others saying "it" shouldn't have been. So even using statistical data isn't infallible. Can you say with absolute certainty that since 2006 Fulham shouldn't have had more penalties awarded against them at Craven Cottage than they have had? I can't. I also can't say with any absolute certainty whether United should have had more penalties awarded against them either. I also can not say with absolute certainty whether all the penalties awarded against United or Fulham (or any other team) were 100% the correct decision. And it's for this reason - an incredibly obvious reason - why the stat that the Telegraph uses in no way tells the whole story. Hence why any conclusion based from that stat is questionable.
Once again - the point here isn't to prove whether the "myth" that exists is true or not. It's to show that the conclusion that the author of the Telegraph article comes to isn't prove of whether the "myth" that exists is true or not.
"Pride of the North is absolutely spot on"
Let's leave it there
“Actually we started with an article proving UTD do concede home penaltys and in a certain time frame conceded as much home pen as most teams in the league....
It was determined that it didnt in itself prove that your fantastic myth didnt exist....”
It took a long time for people to accept that this did not prove the myth to be false. I’m glad you can accept that now though.
“As for proof that the myth dosent exist I did put forward proof that UTD or indeed Big clubbs dont get all or most of the decisions.”
When did you do this? How many decisions should United have got over the course of the season? How many have they got? Is the percentage they should have got similar to that of other clubs? These stats could be proof (if the interpretation and subjectivity of referees was taken into account) – you have not provided them.
“If utd got most of the decisions well then they would win the league every year, if big clubs got all or most of the decisions well then cardiff wouldnt have got to the league cup final, birimingham wouldnt have won it last season, palace wouldnt have beaten utd this season, loads of evidance througout the history of the game of the small teams and the small countrys prevailing...”
Again the conclusion doesn’t follow form the theory put forward. Getting more decisions would just make it easier for the big clubs – it wouldn’t guarantee success!
“So it looks like i got it wrong regarding you mortimer maybe you havent got an anti utd agenda. Your god argument puts you into the paranoid fantasist category with moronic tendencys...”
Fail to see how saying that God is not proven to exist or not exist makes me paranoid. If you are putting all those who believe in God into that category though you are being highly offensive to a great number of people who do believe in God – and I think you should be careful about such comments.
Sign in if you want to comment
The myth about pens at Old Trafford
Page 20 of 25
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
posted on 3/4/12
comment by D Diggler (U4142)
posted 3 minutes ago
Congrats TOOR for keeping this going.
--------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I can take that appreciation. I am not as patient as Mr Mortimer, whilst I have got fed up with the debate and at times, just conceded that United fans will never understand it, Mr Mortimer has continued to portray his opinions, in that hope that somebody will finally get it. If anybody can be congratulated on keeping this debate going, it's him.
posted on 3/4/12
TOOR, would you agree that Aston Villa are a bigger side than Liverpool?
posted on 3/4/12
We started with the myth that UTD get more favorable decisions than everyone else.
Then it was argued or implied that the UTD myth was an offshoot of a more general myth associated with BIG clubs getting more favorable decisions.
Both myths are nonsense. Loads of evidance to prove there is no pro utd or even pro big club conspiracy or agenda in football matches. Obviously no evidance to prove that the possibility of a pro utd or big club agenda exists otherwise it would have been investigated long before now.
Now that leaves you with the people who argue for the possibility of these myths really having merit. If they are over the age of 8 and cannot use immaturity as an excuse well then that just leaves them with an anti utd agenda, an anti big club agenda,or as paranoid fantasists or just complete morons....
Which one is TOOR and Mortimer....
posted on 3/4/12
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 38 minutes ago
TOOR, would you agree that Aston Villa are a bigger side than Liverpool?
---------------------------------------------
No. Is that up for debate? It can certainly be cleared up very quickly if it isn't.
posted on 3/4/12
comment by filters=wimps (U11635)
posted 1 minute ago
We started with the myth that UTD get more favorable decisions than everyone else.
Then it was argued or implied that the UTD myth was an offshoot of a more general myth associated with BIG clubs getting more favorable decisions.
Both myths are nonsense. Loads of evidance to prove there is no pro utd or even pro big club conspiracy or agenda in football matches. Obviously no evidance to prove that the possibility of a pro utd or big club agenda exists otherwise it would have been investigated long before now.
Now that leaves you with the people who argue for the possibility of these myths really having merit. If they are over the age of 8 and cannot use immaturity as an excuse well then that just leaves them with an anti utd agenda, an anti big club agenda,or as paranoid fantasists or just complete morons....
Which one is TOOR and Mortimer....
---------------------------------------
You're really cementing your idiot position now. Once again neither myself nor Mortimer have stated that United get preferential treatment from referees. What we have said, is that this article, uses the wrong stats, which are even wrong, in themselves to prove that the 'myth' is wrong. Therefore the writer does not prove the myth is wrong.
How many more times would you like me to say it? Can you read? Do you need help?
posted on 3/4/12
Villa have conceded the least penalties at home along with Chelsea, by your argument that makes them a bigger club than Liverpool
posted on 3/4/12
You're really cementing your idiot position now. Once again neither myself nor Mortimer have stated that United get preferential treatment from referees. What we have said, is that this article, uses the wrong stats, which are even wrong, in themselves to prove that the 'myth' is wrong. Therefore the writer does not prove the myth is wrong.
How many more times would you like me to say it? Can you read? Do you need help?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 20 hours, 55 minutes ago
"oth are a crock of shizzaz and anyone who give credance that these arguments hold water are in your words "laughable""
Prove it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No what you have been arguing TOOR is for PROOF (see your posting 20 hours ago) that this myth dosent exist. I have been saying all along that this myth or the possibility of this myth is nonsense and both you and mortimer have been arguing against me.
Have you got alzheimers or something...?
posted on 3/4/12
“We started with the myth that UTD get more favorable decisions than everyone else.”
Actually we started with someone claiming they could disprove the myth that United get more favourable decisions than other sides. TOOR and I both pointed out that the evidence given was not proof of that. This was at first something you disagreed with – then accepted.
“Then it was argued or implied that the UTD myth was an offshoot of a more general myth associated with BIG clubs getting more favorable decisions.”
Actually then you moved into other United myths to try and clump them all together to make it look like anyone who did not agree with you was clearly deluded and paranoid… all the while using terms like ABU suggesting in fact that you believe in a myth and are the one who is deluded or paranoid.
“Loads of evidance to prove there is no pro utd or even pro big club conspiracy or agenda in football matches.”
Have you put forward any of this evidence? I haven’t seen any from you.
“Obviously no evidance to prove that the possibility of a pro utd or big club agenda exists otherwise it would have been investigated long before now.”
Again flawed thinking. It cannot just be wrong because it hasn’t been investigated. That’s like saying there was no gravity before humans investigated and understood it! Also as both TOOR and I have stated – such an investigation would have to take into account subjective interpretations of rules and would therefore be open to question whatever the results.
“Now that leaves you with the people who argue for the possibility of these myths really having merit. If they are over the age of 8 and cannot use immaturity as an excuse well then that just leaves them with an anti utd agenda, an anti big club agenda,or as paranoid fantasists or just complete morons....”
It also leaves you with people who state that the myth has neither been proven or disproven.
Take the existence of God. No one has ever proved a God does exist – equally no one has ever proven one doesn’t. One can have belief in God, or one can believe that God does not exist. Your position currently is that there is no proof for God so anyone who believes in it is an idiot.
TOOR and I have said that the evidence given does not prove it either way.
Whether we have faith in it or not does not come into it – I could believe in God but still see that the statistics don’t prove him to exist… just as TOOR might be an atheist but see that the stats given don’t prove God doesn’t exist.
We have been using reason – as opposed to knee jerk emotive reactions. If the term moron is to be banded about I think it would certainly not apply to those actually using logic and rationality.
posted on 3/4/12
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 5 minutes ago
Villa have conceded the least penalties at home along with Chelsea, by your argument that makes them a bigger club than Liverpool
--------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't. It means they've conceded the least number of penalties at home.
If you bothered to read the pages and pages of explanations as to why that is, you'd know that.
To determine who gets the more favourable decisions can't be made simply by who conceded the most penalties. You have to go into many more factors. In fact there could have been Club a - 100 times when a penalty should have been given but only 70 times when it was. Club B could have conceded 65 in 70 times when it should have been given, but using your logic, these stats mean that Club B got the more favourable decisions as they conceded less.
The same logic applies to your silly Villa bigger club argument.
posted on 3/4/12
Pride of the North - I think you have missed the point. Penalties conceded should not be measured against time. They should be measured against number of instances.
For example two teams could play an even number of games... one team have two penalties given against them, when there were two penalties that should have been awarded. The second team has 3 penalties given against them when they should have had 10 awarded against them. The number given is not the important factor - it is the percentage given out of those that should have been given.
2/2 is 100%
3/10 is 30%
Meaning against the second team if you are fouled in the box you have less chance of getting a penalty.
The number given isn't enough of a measure by itself.
posted on 3/4/12
“I have been saying all along that this myth or the possibility of this myth is nonsense and both you and mortimer have been arguing against me.”
You claimed the myth was nonsense because it wasn’t proven. If the same argument is brought back to you- that the ‘myth’ United are treated equally is nonsense because it is unproven how would you respond?
Your argument is flawed because you suppose the myth is false before testing it… and you refuse to test it because you think it is a myth because it is unproven.
Unproven and proven false are two separate things.
posted on 3/4/12
“We started with the myth that UTD get more favorable decisions than everyone else.”
Actually we started with someone claiming they could disprove the myth that United get more favourable decisions than other sides. TOOR and I both pointed out that the evidence given was not proof of that. This was at first something you disagreed with – then accepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually we started with an article proving UTD do concede home penaltys and in a certain time frame conceded as much home pen as most teams in the league....
It was determined that it didnt in itself prove that your fantastic myth didnt exist....
As for proof that the myth dosent exist I did put forward proof that UTD or indeed Big clubbs dont get all or most of the decisions. If utd got most of the decisions well then they would win the league every year, if big clubs got all or most of the decisions well then cardiff wouldnt have got to the league cup final, birimingham wouldnt have won it last season, palace wouldnt have beaten utd this season, loads of evidance througout the history of the game of the small teams and the small countrys prevailing...
So it looks like i got it wrong regarding you mortimer maybe you havent got an anti utd agenda. Your god argument puts you into the paranoid fantasist category with moronic tendencys...
posted on 3/4/12
Filters, you don't half talk some crap. I couldn't be bothered repeating the same reasoning over and over again. If Mortimer does have the patience, which he has shown throughout, he'll attempt to explain, once again but of course, you won't understand, so what's the point?
posted on 3/4/12
The thread that wouldn't die. I don't even know what you're trying to get people to admit to.
I've just read back the through the Telegraph article, and it's quite correct, Manchester United are indeed more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. The only innacuracy in this is that they should have added 'since 2006', which seems a pretty arbitrary date to choose, but there you go.
Beats me what you're getting so angry about. Very entertaining though.
posted on 3/4/12
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 36 seconds ago
The thread that wouldn't die. I don't even know what you're trying to get people to admit to.
I've just read back the through the Telegraph article, and it's quite correct, Manchester United are indeed more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. The only innacuracy in this is that they should have added 'since 2006', which seems a pretty arbitrary date to choose, but there you go.
Beats me what you're getting so angry about. Very entertaining though.
--------------------------------------
The point is that the Telegraph article DOES NOT show that United are more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. It simply shows they HAVE conceded more at home, in the past six seasons. So the writer is wrong.
To determine if somebody is more likely to concede you'd have to take many factors into account with the main one's being, how many times should a penalty have been given but wasn't? As I explained in my Club A and Club B statement.
Also you have to ask why the writer chose six years when seven years would have meant that United conceded the fewest and 10 years even fewer and 15 years much fewer?
Could it be that the writer set out to prove a point and took the highest number of years possible before that point is wrong? Without a doubt. However that's not my biggest problem with the stats. My problem is the stats don;t prove what he claims they do, not only that but he even gets the stats wrong.
In summary as has been stated time and time again and what you people who have shown nothing but bias refuse to believe, these stats do not prove that United are more likely to concede penalties.
posted on 3/4/12
Lets not let the facts get in the way, eh TOOR?
posted on 3/4/12
Based on empirical evidence (since 2006) United are more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. Fakht. Can't see how it can be any plainer.
Of course, if United implement a 'no tackling' rule then Fulham will be far more likely to concede a penalty at home than United in the future.
Is your point that United are less likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham based on the statistics since 2006? Pop some justification up and we'll take a look at it.
posted on 3/4/12
I don't think it can be proven either way in my opinion, bigger clubs are in the spotlight more, hence more is made of decisions.
I watch most games and there's dodgy decisions in them all pretty much, more seems to be made of them when it comes to the bigger clubs
posted on 3/4/12
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 12 minutes ago
Based on empirical evidence (since 2006) United are more likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham. Fakht. Can't see how it can be any plainer.
-----------------------------------------
No. That means they DID concede more, not that they are more likely too. How can you not understand this?
posted on 3/4/12
Is your point that United are less likely to concede a penalty at home than Fulham based on the statistics since 2006? Pop some justification up and we'll take a look at it.
-----------------------------------------
No, no. I know why he chose 2006, it's because if you take even one year previous to it, it means United fly up the list and if you go even further back, it shows United concede the least.
However again, this is irrelevant! Time is not the factor which determines who is most likely to concede a penalty.
You have to take into account how many should and shouldn't have been given and then you arrive at a percentage. There are also a few more factors that should be taken into account, for example human error.
posted on 3/4/12
"You have to take into account how many should and shouldn't have been given and then you arrive at a percentage. There are also a few more factors that should be taken into account, for example human error."
Like I say, no one here can prove that the decisions favour the big clubs, there's dodgy decisions in every game
posted on 3/4/12
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 7 minutes ago
"You have to take into account how many should and shouldn't have been given and then you arrive at a percentage. There are also a few more factors that should be taken into account, for example human error."
Like I say, no one here can prove that the decisions favour the big clubs, there's dodgy decisions in every game
-------------------------------------------------
I know that. I am not debating that. What I'm debating is that in the article posted, from the Telegraph, the writer does not prove what he claims to. I've demonstrated why, throughout this article.
posted on 3/4/12
If utd got most of the decisions well then they would win the league every year, if big clubs got all or most of the decisions well then cardiff wouldnt have got to the league cup final
----------------------
United are not too far short of doing precisely that!
For the record, Cardiff didn't play a big club until they reached the final against Liverpool - which they duly lost.
But seriously, examples of smaller clubs beating bigger clubs is not proof that bigger clubs don't get more decisions awarded to them than smaller clubs do. That is just a nonsensical point you have put forward.
Pride of the North is absolutely spot on - it can't be proven one way or the other whether bigger clubs get more favourable decisions than smaller clubs. I personally do think that it is a view that has a certain amount of validity to it, especially when bigger clubs play at home. There is logic in having that view, but that logic alone isn't enough to PROVE it. Just as any logic put forward that argues that this isn't the case - again not enough to PROVE it isn't.
It's even difficult to fall back on statistical "evidence", because this evidence in itself can be debated - we all argue our subjective opinion when it comes to incidents in any game. Some saying "it" should have been a free kick, or a penalty, or a sending off, or a corner, others saying "it" shouldn't have been. So even using statistical data isn't infallible. Can you say with absolute certainty that since 2006 Fulham shouldn't have had more penalties awarded against them at Craven Cottage than they have had? I can't. I also can't say with any absolute certainty whether United should have had more penalties awarded against them either. I also can not say with absolute certainty whether all the penalties awarded against United or Fulham (or any other team) were 100% the correct decision. And it's for this reason - an incredibly obvious reason - why the stat that the Telegraph uses in no way tells the whole story. Hence why any conclusion based from that stat is questionable.
Once again - the point here isn't to prove whether the "myth" that exists is true or not. It's to show that the conclusion that the author of the Telegraph article comes to isn't prove of whether the "myth" that exists is true or not.
posted on 3/4/12
"Pride of the North is absolutely spot on"
Let's leave it there
posted on 3/4/12
“Actually we started with an article proving UTD do concede home penaltys and in a certain time frame conceded as much home pen as most teams in the league....
It was determined that it didnt in itself prove that your fantastic myth didnt exist....”
It took a long time for people to accept that this did not prove the myth to be false. I’m glad you can accept that now though.
“As for proof that the myth dosent exist I did put forward proof that UTD or indeed Big clubbs dont get all or most of the decisions.”
When did you do this? How many decisions should United have got over the course of the season? How many have they got? Is the percentage they should have got similar to that of other clubs? These stats could be proof (if the interpretation and subjectivity of referees was taken into account) – you have not provided them.
“If utd got most of the decisions well then they would win the league every year, if big clubs got all or most of the decisions well then cardiff wouldnt have got to the league cup final, birimingham wouldnt have won it last season, palace wouldnt have beaten utd this season, loads of evidance througout the history of the game of the small teams and the small countrys prevailing...”
Again the conclusion doesn’t follow form the theory put forward. Getting more decisions would just make it easier for the big clubs – it wouldn’t guarantee success!
“So it looks like i got it wrong regarding you mortimer maybe you havent got an anti utd agenda. Your god argument puts you into the paranoid fantasist category with moronic tendencys...”
Fail to see how saying that God is not proven to exist or not exist makes me paranoid. If you are putting all those who believe in God into that category though you are being highly offensive to a great number of people who do believe in God – and I think you should be careful about such comments.
Page 20 of 25
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25