Pride of the North and Post NEarly Man - TOOR is quite right.
The measurement is not match time but penalty incidents surely?
If team A gets 100 per cent of the decisions it should, and team B only gets half the decisions it should...
And both teams have players fouled in the box - which team is more likely to have apenalty awarded?
Team A!
I didn't disagree MrM, I'm saying you can't say that the big clubs get all the favourable decisions, no one here knows.
It's highlight more with the bigger clubs though as more people see them.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 35 seconds ago
I didn't disagree MrM, I'm saying you can't say that the big clubs get all the favourable decisions, no one here knows.
It's highlight more with the bigger clubs though as more people see them.
------------------------------------
You can say it and you can think it, proving it though, is a different matter and it certainly cannot be proved.
However as you said earlier, it is certainly understandable if people hold the view that bigger clubs are more likely to get a decision, considering bigger clubs are more likely to be spending time on the ball and time in the box, thus meaning it can be perceived as the club getting the decisions but in actual fact, percentage wise, the decisions are the same. This is the same argument, we're using against the Telegraph article, you cannot determine things by how many are given, in a set time limit.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 18 minutes ago
Like I say, no one here can prove that the decisions favour the big clubs, there's dodgy decisions in every game
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly PON
So whats the agenda for people who spout the possibility of the UTD myth. A utd myth that includes Fergie Time, Horward Webb, and Dodgy decisions.
Cardif didnt meet a big club until they got to the final. But what happened to all these big clubs in this competition that supposedly get all or most of the decisions in their favour. One of them was actually beaten by palace at home. Theres a thing eh....
The game is made up with human error by officials. Examples of it every week but to claim without proof that UTD get or possibly get a greater share of this human error is also implying that maybe human error isnt a factor and its something else. Well then the onus is on people to prove this otherwise be classed as bitter, jealous, paranoid, a fantasist or just an idiot...
POTN
Completely agree the highlight is on the big clubs more and that could distort opinion.
In the same way that Bale was criticized heavily for diving recently – he has the reputation of diving now, even though Joe Blow for another team might actually be more likely to dive – but because he is a lower profile player his actions don’t get him the reputation. The only way you could tell whether Bale was more of a diver than anyone else was to look at how often he does dive compared to how often other players dive… picking at individual examples is meaningless – and naturally distorted by player profile in the media.
The truth is we don’t know how many decisions big clubs get compared to other clubs. Some people say they get more decisions… I know sometimes they do, sometimes the backlash means they won’t get decisions even though they should.
There’s no statistical evidence to prove whether it evens itself out though… and certainly no evidence to actively disprove the myths that exist. Just as there is no evidence to prove it.
“So whats the agenda for people who spout the possibility of the UTD myth. A utd myth that includes Fergie Time, Horward Webb, and Dodgy decisions.”
Maybe they want proof? You believe decisions even themselves out and each club gets treated equally – maybe people want proof of that.
“Cardif didnt meet a big club until they got to the final. But what happened to all these big clubs in this competition that supposedly get all or most of the decisions in their favour. One of them was actually beaten by palace at home. Theres a thing eh....”
Again – a referee could award a club 10 penalties… they could miss all 10. The myth doesn’t mean a big club automatically wins, it just makes it more likely.
“The game is made up with human error by officials. Examples of it every week but to claim without proof that UTD get or possibly get a greater share of this human error is also implying that maybe human error isnt a factor and its something else. Well then the onus is on people to prove this otherwise be classed as bitter, jealous, paranoid, a fantasist or just an idiot...”
Agreed human error by officials exist. I don’t think there needs to be a question on a referees integrity to suggest a big club bias. There are numerous reasons why big clubs might get decisions which have nothing to do with prejudice officialing. For example a big crowd might sway a decision… that doesn’t mean the referee is in the pay of a big club – it just means his interpretation has been swayed. A team with a lesser fan base may not get the same decisions.
Again you have interpreted it as you have wanted to rather than looking at the facts – your entire reasoning base is faulty.
The onus is on people to prove the myth you say I’m curious as to why.
Apparently according to you anyone who doesn’t support United is an ABU. Given that more people don’t support United than do – it means the ABU opinion is the accepted norm. If that is the case surely it is up to the minority view to prove that the widely held majority view is wrong? You and the “it evens itself out” theory are challenging the accepted knowledge by all the evil jealous and bitter ABUs… so isn’t it up to you to prove your point of view?
However we can say that since 2006 you are statistically more likely to have had a penalty awarded at Old Trafford than Craven Cottage
The game is made up with human error by officials. Examples of it every week but to claim without proof that UTD get or possibly get a greater share of this human error is also implying that maybe human error isnt a factor and its something else. Well then the onus is on people to prove this otherwise be classed as bitter, jealous, paranoid, a fantasist or just an idiot...
---------------------
Why are you being so hostile?
I see the validity in saying that the bigger clubs get more decisions go in their favour when playing at home than smaller clubs do when they play at home. My reasoning being:
1) Bigger clubs have more fans. More fans shouting down from the terraces resulting in more opposition (and ultimately pressure) on the referee to make a decision. 70,000 people at Old Trafford, or 60,000 people at The Emirates, shouting down as opposed to, say, less than 20,000 people at the DW stadium? As you say, human error is part and parcel of football. Meaning that when it comes to referee's they are not infallible. They can make mistakes. Well the bigger the game (a game involving a bigger club will always by definition be a bigger game), the higher the pressure, coupled with a greater number of people shouting in favour of their team, all possible reasons that can influence any decision that a referee makes.
2) Bigger clubs have better players. A referee sees a challenge come in, is he more or less likely to think, even on a subconscious level, that a better player has made a good challenge as opposed to a bad one? Another poster said to me in another debate that a linesman admitted that it was easy to be sucked into the perception that a better player is more likely to time his run to perfection and so is less likely to be offside, that a better defender is more likely to step up at the right moment and so catch his opponent offside. Thus meaning that this perception can lead to the more marginal decisions going in favour of the better players, and by extension, the bigger clubs.
Now, I want to make it absolutely clear that none of the above either proves or disproves a claim that the bigger/better clubs get more favourable decisions, especially when at home. They are merely reasons why I do see why such a claim has a degree of logic to it.
And it's a claim that professional footballers themselves have agreed with. Stewart Robson for example stated that Arsenal benefitted from such an advantage during his time playing with the club at Highbury. Alex Ferguson himself has stated that he can see the argument for this being the case. Vieira himself also stated this - for the record, he didn't make his comments all about United in doing so, the Journalist who interviewed him was the one responsible for that.
Does that make me an idiot? A bitter, jealous, paranoid, fantasist? Even though I will admit that seeing a validity in such a perception in no way proves it. And even though I include my own club in being one who does get the benefit of the doubt more so than many clubs who we play against do. Thus rendering any comment I have about not being based from any ridiculous idea that I am "Anything but United".
Bigger clubs having more fans is an advantage at home ONLY if the team on the pitch is good enough. Stoke and swansea have a very vocal and intimidating home support not necessarily to do with their numbers but can be i am sure as intimidating and influential on officials as a packed OT or the emirates. OT for years was a packed home venue always the biggest home crowds but people never talked about this being an issue or advantage in the 70's and 80's because UTD were not dominating english football then. Why because they were not good enough....
Liverpool were dominating back then but I cannot remember such nonsense as a liverpool myth, Paisley time or issues about decision making at anfield...
Professional footballers and managers have agreed and constantly speak up the value of playing in front of their own fans and how they can influence the game so that isnt a phenomenon associated purely with UTD so why is it part of a UTD myth...
This so called UTD myth irks me because I see it as a attempt to somehow lessen the acheivements of UTD and despite the protests of people posting in this article I beleive they are interpreting these perceptions in a manner thats reflecting their personal biases about UTD.....
A utd myth....
get a grip people....
I don't even go in for the bigger clubs get more decisions (decisions that they shouldn't get) than smaller clubs...
Bigger clubs get more penalties and concede less because they are quite simply better teams.
Newcastle despite one of the biggest stadiums in England and a fairly vocal following didn't get much help in their relegation year, Stoke have the noisiest fans in the premiership but they don't seem to get refs any more biased to them than any home team...
Liverpool are always the ones I thought may be favoured by referee's. Over the last 10 years they have more penalties than Arsenal, Chelsea and United despite being a worse team over the last 10 years than all 3.
There are only a few penalties in it but if anything you would think United would have the most followed by Chelsea then Arsenal and then possibly Liverpool.
Clearly teams have an advantage when playing at home. The question is, how does we contextualise this advantage? Playing in front of your home supporters, who vastly outnumber the away fans giving the players of the home team a confidence boost? I would say that is a significant contributing factor. I would also say that the actions and reactions - the vocal nature of the home fans - can influence a referee in the split-second moment when a contentious decision (that is any decision that from the fans perspective either set of supporters would contest) has to be made. Which let's be honest here, is pretty much all of the time given the partisan nature of support.
When such moments happen, are Arsenal fans any less voracious than Stoke or Swansea fans? When a goal is scored, is the roar that goes up at one ground any less impressive than it is at another?
Only in terms of numbers. By and large, the louder the reaction will be based on the number of people in the stadium. That stands to logical reason. It may be that overall Stoke fans sing more songs than a team who has more fans, but when it comes to a penalty decision, a goal scored, what the fans feel is a foul on one of their players, I don't believe that Stoke or Swansea are any more vocal as individuals than the fans who support bigger clubs are. So put 20,000 of those individuals together, and compare it to the crowds that the bigger clubs have, then it is really such a ludicrious suggestion that many more people can have a larger affect upon a match official? I don't think so, even if it can't be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever.
filters: "OT for years was a packed home venue always the biggest home crowds but people never talked about this being an issue or advantage in the 70's and 80's"
Throughout this discussion you've lambasted posters for not being able to prove this so-called myth. Well I will now ask you to prove this comment of yours. And while you are doing so, prove that any reaction of the home support during such periods didn't have an affect upon the referee. If you can't, would that justify me in responding by calling you a fantasist and/or an idiot?
filters: "Professional footballers and managers have agreed and constantly speak up the value of playing in front of their own fans and how they can influence the game so that isnt a phenomenon associated purely with UTD so why is it part of a UTD myth.."
It is associated to all the bigger clubs. This isn't, and never was exclusive to United. It just appears that way because United, as the BIGGEST club are in the spotlight more than any other. If you really think that no other club has had this "myth" attributed to them, then you are mistaken.
filters: "This so called UTD myth irks me"
It's obvious that it irks you - so much so that you deem it necessary to call anyone who sees any value in it an idiot. It's a problem for you that you struggle to comprehend, so you go on the attack and get personal with anyone who even dares hint at its possibility. So much so that you even attack anyone who has the temerity to question a journalist at a national newspaper who has no affiliation to you whatsoever. I would suggest that it is you who needs to get a grip and stop taking it so personally against your club. It doesn't even need to be regarded as a criticism of your club. But merely something that hints at a possibility that all the best clubs in the world benefit from to a greater extent than the lesser clubs do.
Does that devalue the achievement of all the world's most successful clubs? Or is it just something that comes with the territory of being successful? I would suggest the latter. Even if it could be proven to be true beyond any doubt whatsoever, I as an opposition fan wouldn't belittle the achievements that United have attained.
So Ripley what you are saying is instead of it being big teams that get all the decisions it is those with the biggest numbers in their ground?
For example Newcastle would get more decisions than Liverpool because of the extra thousands they pack in their stands?
....................................
Throughout this discussion you've lambasted posters for not being able to prove this so-called myth. Well I will now ask you to prove this comment of yours. And while you are doing so, prove that any reaction of the home support during such periods didn't have an affect upon the referee. If you can't, would that justify me in responding by calling you a fantasist and/or an idiot?
.......................................
Which bit exactly are you asking for proof for?
All he said was United had big attendances in the 70's and 80's which is common knowledge and that this wasn't much of an issue back then.
Being quite young in the 80's I can't confirm the second bit but I can't say I have ever heard of it being much of an issue back then...
7_t_B
The more clear-cut an incident is, the easier it is for the referee to make the correct decision, irrespective of the influence of the crowd, or indeed the respective ability of the two (or so) players in question. That stands to reason.
It's when a decision isn't as clear cut, where the split-second decision that a referee has to make becomes harder, where external factors (such as the crowd, the respective abilities of the players involved) can have a contributing factor to the decision that is made.
Consider the following. During a game it is more likely the case the better team will dominate possession. How many times do teams when in possession commit a foul? Rarely, if indeed at all. So there are more opportunities for the lesser team to make a challenge that may or may not be legal within the laws of the game.
Let's say that 20 minutes in a game has gone. To use United as an example (but not to say this is exclusive to United, just so filters doesn't get "irked" ), United have enjoyed 75% of possession. 10 challenges from the opposition have come in, all of which the crowd have reacted to, but none of which are illegal challenges. What are the chances of the referee blowing up and giving a decision to United? None in 10? One in 10? All of them? Let's say United get awarded 2 free kicks out of those 10 challenges.
Now the opposition get a chance, their first in the game, and a 50-50 challenge comes in, a challenge in which it isn't clear cut whether a foul has been committed or not. Is the referee likely to give it, knowing that he hasn't pulled up several other contentious challenges on United? Even if replays show that it really should have been a foul?
My point is it's really a question of percentages. How often have we seen a soft penalty given to a team when there have been a couple of other soft incidents in the game prior to that penalty being awarded? We know this happens. Many people in the game have verified it. So why wouldn't this be the case anywhere else on the pitch when any "contentious" decision has to be made?
Like I say, none of this proves whether the contention that the bigger teams get a greater percentage of decisions in their favour than the smaller teams do, especially when playing at home. But I for one do see the logic why this could be the case.
So Ripley what you are saying is instead of it being big teams that get all the decisions it is those with the biggest numbers in their ground?
For example Newcastle would get more decisions than Liverpool because of the extra thousands they pack in their stands?
---------------------
Not quite. I'm saying there are several factors which can all contribute to it being this way. Two of which I highlighted in a previous post in this thread. One is the crowd - that is the amount of people in attendance. Another is the ability of the players themselves. Another is possession and a question of percentages (which I mentioned in my last post).
7_T_B: "Which bit exactly are you asking for proof for?"
That this "myth" was never an issue back in the 70s and 80s. That the idea that the bigger and better clubs didn't get a greater number of decisions in their favour than the smaller clubs did during that time.
I can remember it being an issue back then. Of course, back then such issues were more exclusive - that is, no message boards such as this in which fans could discuss such incidents with strangers, but certainly in the media (although again not to the same degree as today because the media wasn't as widespread or accessible as it is today (and certainly because football overall wasn't as accessible in terms of television to the extent that it is today). But it was discussed. Referee's were called into question. Decisions were contested. Home advantage was still the case. Crowds were just as partisan. Incorrect decisions were made.
There was no such thing as a "myth" back then
Liverpool as the dominating team of that era never and I repeat never had such nonsense as a myth leveled at them. Like I said I never heard of Paisley Time or Shankly time, Never heard of issues about dubious penalty decisions or decision inbalances associated with Anfield, never heard of particular referees a la howard webb being associated with liverpool. Anfield was a fortress because liverpool were the best in England.
Now your argument that 60,000 utd or arsenal fans are louder than 30,000 stoke or bolton is correct. However to an official in stokes compact stadium I would suspect 30,000 in full voice would feel just as daunting or intimidating.
At the end of the day it dosent matter how noisy the home crowd is if the team they support aint good enough it really dosent matter...
"I would suggest that it is you who needs to get a grip and stop taking it so personally against your club. It doesn't even need to be regarded as a criticism of your club.But merely something that hints at a possibility that all the best clubs in the world benefit from to a greater extent than the lesser clubs do."
Its called the UTD myth of course its against my club. If you want it to hint at all the best clubs well then call it the Big Club myth.
There was no such thing as a "myth" back then
----------------
Once again, Stewart Robson reiterated this claim on Talksport last week when he said that Arsenal had many decisions go in their favour, especially when playing at Highbury. Stewart Robson played for Arsenal from 1981 to 1986.
And once again, the crowd size is just one aspect of the logic as to why this may be the case.
Finally, let's call it a big club myth. I have no problem with that. Hopefully that will result in you ceasing to be unnecessarily insulting to anyone who can see the logic in it.
Filters – I think you’ll find people did believe that a penalty was hard to come by at the Kop when Liverpool were in their prime – perhaps there wasn’t the same media attention to it but that is a separate matter and perhaps involves the respect given to refereeing generally then.
Again saying United didn’t dominate before means nothing as if the myth were true – it would just make favourable decisions more likely. Just as to win the lottery by guessing 5 numbers is more likely than by guessing 6 balls. It doesn’t mean that it will automatically happen – just that it is more likely. This is a concept you have struggled with since the start.
Rangers played St Mirren in a cup final a couple of years ago and we had 2 players sent off. When down to 9 we still managed to win 1-0. Going down to 9 made it more difficult to win and less likely, but it didn’t mean it couldn’t happen.
Just as a big club myth does not mean that smaller teams cannot win trophies or get to finals… it just means it is more difficult. So quoting small teams which have had success proves nothing… you struggle with what actually constitutes proof too it seems.
Ripley – well said, would probably agree with all of what you have written.
Big Club bias is an interesting concept – it’s a shame it can’t be discussed properly without people getting tribal about it.
Big Club bias is an interesting concept – it’s a shame it can’t be discussed properly without people getting tribal about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "UTD" myth I beleive dragged it down the tribal direction....
"Filters – I think you’ll find people did believe that a penalty was hard to come by at the Kop when Liverpool were in their prime "
Yet the article that started all this did show that penaltys are not as hard to come by at OT as people would want to have you believe....
“The "UTD" myth I beleive dragged it down the tribal direction....”
I completely disagree. The debate was about the Utd myth. Statistics were put forward that some claimed disproved the myth – some posters explained the statistics did not disprove the myth. A point that was rejected at the time from United fans claiming the belief that the stat wasn’t proof was proof itself of club bias.
All along the posters on my side of the argument have been remarkably un-tribal - in spite of your attempts to lure them in with the rants about ABUs. The silly thing is you now accept that the stats don’t disprove the myth! Had you said that at the start of the discussion you would have been accused of being an ABU.
“Yet the article that started all this did show that penaltys are not as hard to come by at OT as people would want to have you believe....”
The article showed that penalties are given at OT – it did not show how easy or hard it is to get one though. It doesn’t show how much of a “stone waller” it has to be, or how many claims were made before a penalty is awarded.
I’m sure some people were surprised at how many penalties were actually given though you are right on that front.
It's not about winning or losing... just about making sense!
You're all just a bunch of ABU's!
Sign in if you want to comment
The myth about pens at Old Trafford
Page 21 of 25
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25
posted on 3/4/12
Pride of the North and Post NEarly Man - TOOR is quite right.
The measurement is not match time but penalty incidents surely?
If team A gets 100 per cent of the decisions it should, and team B only gets half the decisions it should...
And both teams have players fouled in the box - which team is more likely to have apenalty awarded?
Team A!
posted on 3/4/12
I didn't disagree MrM, I'm saying you can't say that the big clubs get all the favourable decisions, no one here knows.
It's highlight more with the bigger clubs though as more people see them.
posted on 3/4/12
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 35 seconds ago
I didn't disagree MrM, I'm saying you can't say that the big clubs get all the favourable decisions, no one here knows.
It's highlight more with the bigger clubs though as more people see them.
------------------------------------
You can say it and you can think it, proving it though, is a different matter and it certainly cannot be proved.
However as you said earlier, it is certainly understandable if people hold the view that bigger clubs are more likely to get a decision, considering bigger clubs are more likely to be spending time on the ball and time in the box, thus meaning it can be perceived as the club getting the decisions but in actual fact, percentage wise, the decisions are the same. This is the same argument, we're using against the Telegraph article, you cannot determine things by how many are given, in a set time limit.
posted on 3/4/12
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 18 minutes ago
Like I say, no one here can prove that the decisions favour the big clubs, there's dodgy decisions in every game
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly PON
So whats the agenda for people who spout the possibility of the UTD myth. A utd myth that includes Fergie Time, Horward Webb, and Dodgy decisions.
Cardif didnt meet a big club until they got to the final. But what happened to all these big clubs in this competition that supposedly get all or most of the decisions in their favour. One of them was actually beaten by palace at home. Theres a thing eh....
The game is made up with human error by officials. Examples of it every week but to claim without proof that UTD get or possibly get a greater share of this human error is also implying that maybe human error isnt a factor and its something else. Well then the onus is on people to prove this otherwise be classed as bitter, jealous, paranoid, a fantasist or just an idiot...
posted on 3/4/12
POTN
Completely agree the highlight is on the big clubs more and that could distort opinion.
In the same way that Bale was criticized heavily for diving recently – he has the reputation of diving now, even though Joe Blow for another team might actually be more likely to dive – but because he is a lower profile player his actions don’t get him the reputation. The only way you could tell whether Bale was more of a diver than anyone else was to look at how often he does dive compared to how often other players dive… picking at individual examples is meaningless – and naturally distorted by player profile in the media.
The truth is we don’t know how many decisions big clubs get compared to other clubs. Some people say they get more decisions… I know sometimes they do, sometimes the backlash means they won’t get decisions even though they should.
There’s no statistical evidence to prove whether it evens itself out though… and certainly no evidence to actively disprove the myths that exist. Just as there is no evidence to prove it.
posted on 3/4/12
“So whats the agenda for people who spout the possibility of the UTD myth. A utd myth that includes Fergie Time, Horward Webb, and Dodgy decisions.”
Maybe they want proof? You believe decisions even themselves out and each club gets treated equally – maybe people want proof of that.
“Cardif didnt meet a big club until they got to the final. But what happened to all these big clubs in this competition that supposedly get all or most of the decisions in their favour. One of them was actually beaten by palace at home. Theres a thing eh....”
Again – a referee could award a club 10 penalties… they could miss all 10. The myth doesn’t mean a big club automatically wins, it just makes it more likely.
“The game is made up with human error by officials. Examples of it every week but to claim without proof that UTD get or possibly get a greater share of this human error is also implying that maybe human error isnt a factor and its something else. Well then the onus is on people to prove this otherwise be classed as bitter, jealous, paranoid, a fantasist or just an idiot...”
Agreed human error by officials exist. I don’t think there needs to be a question on a referees integrity to suggest a big club bias. There are numerous reasons why big clubs might get decisions which have nothing to do with prejudice officialing. For example a big crowd might sway a decision… that doesn’t mean the referee is in the pay of a big club – it just means his interpretation has been swayed. A team with a lesser fan base may not get the same decisions.
Again you have interpreted it as you have wanted to rather than looking at the facts – your entire reasoning base is faulty.
The onus is on people to prove the myth you say I’m curious as to why.
Apparently according to you anyone who doesn’t support United is an ABU. Given that more people don’t support United than do – it means the ABU opinion is the accepted norm. If that is the case surely it is up to the minority view to prove that the widely held majority view is wrong? You and the “it evens itself out” theory are challenging the accepted knowledge by all the evil jealous and bitter ABUs… so isn’t it up to you to prove your point of view?
posted on 3/4/12
However we can say that since 2006 you are statistically more likely to have had a penalty awarded at Old Trafford than Craven Cottage
posted on 3/4/12
The game is made up with human error by officials. Examples of it every week but to claim without proof that UTD get or possibly get a greater share of this human error is also implying that maybe human error isnt a factor and its something else. Well then the onus is on people to prove this otherwise be classed as bitter, jealous, paranoid, a fantasist or just an idiot...
---------------------
Why are you being so hostile?
I see the validity in saying that the bigger clubs get more decisions go in their favour when playing at home than smaller clubs do when they play at home. My reasoning being:
1) Bigger clubs have more fans. More fans shouting down from the terraces resulting in more opposition (and ultimately pressure) on the referee to make a decision. 70,000 people at Old Trafford, or 60,000 people at The Emirates, shouting down as opposed to, say, less than 20,000 people at the DW stadium? As you say, human error is part and parcel of football. Meaning that when it comes to referee's they are not infallible. They can make mistakes. Well the bigger the game (a game involving a bigger club will always by definition be a bigger game), the higher the pressure, coupled with a greater number of people shouting in favour of their team, all possible reasons that can influence any decision that a referee makes.
2) Bigger clubs have better players. A referee sees a challenge come in, is he more or less likely to think, even on a subconscious level, that a better player has made a good challenge as opposed to a bad one? Another poster said to me in another debate that a linesman admitted that it was easy to be sucked into the perception that a better player is more likely to time his run to perfection and so is less likely to be offside, that a better defender is more likely to step up at the right moment and so catch his opponent offside. Thus meaning that this perception can lead to the more marginal decisions going in favour of the better players, and by extension, the bigger clubs.
Now, I want to make it absolutely clear that none of the above either proves or disproves a claim that the bigger/better clubs get more favourable decisions, especially when at home. They are merely reasons why I do see why such a claim has a degree of logic to it.
And it's a claim that professional footballers themselves have agreed with. Stewart Robson for example stated that Arsenal benefitted from such an advantage during his time playing with the club at Highbury. Alex Ferguson himself has stated that he can see the argument for this being the case. Vieira himself also stated this - for the record, he didn't make his comments all about United in doing so, the Journalist who interviewed him was the one responsible for that.
Does that make me an idiot? A bitter, jealous, paranoid, fantasist? Even though I will admit that seeing a validity in such a perception in no way proves it. And even though I include my own club in being one who does get the benefit of the doubt more so than many clubs who we play against do. Thus rendering any comment I have about not being based from any ridiculous idea that I am "Anything but United".
posted on 3/4/12
Bigger clubs having more fans is an advantage at home ONLY if the team on the pitch is good enough. Stoke and swansea have a very vocal and intimidating home support not necessarily to do with their numbers but can be i am sure as intimidating and influential on officials as a packed OT or the emirates. OT for years was a packed home venue always the biggest home crowds but people never talked about this being an issue or advantage in the 70's and 80's because UTD were not dominating english football then. Why because they were not good enough....
Liverpool were dominating back then but I cannot remember such nonsense as a liverpool myth, Paisley time or issues about decision making at anfield...
Professional footballers and managers have agreed and constantly speak up the value of playing in front of their own fans and how they can influence the game so that isnt a phenomenon associated purely with UTD so why is it part of a UTD myth...
This so called UTD myth irks me because I see it as a attempt to somehow lessen the acheivements of UTD and despite the protests of people posting in this article I beleive they are interpreting these perceptions in a manner thats reflecting their personal biases about UTD.....
A utd myth....
get a grip people....
posted on 3/4/12
I don't even go in for the bigger clubs get more decisions (decisions that they shouldn't get) than smaller clubs...
Bigger clubs get more penalties and concede less because they are quite simply better teams.
Newcastle despite one of the biggest stadiums in England and a fairly vocal following didn't get much help in their relegation year, Stoke have the noisiest fans in the premiership but they don't seem to get refs any more biased to them than any home team...
Liverpool are always the ones I thought may be favoured by referee's. Over the last 10 years they have more penalties than Arsenal, Chelsea and United despite being a worse team over the last 10 years than all 3.
There are only a few penalties in it but if anything you would think United would have the most followed by Chelsea then Arsenal and then possibly Liverpool.
posted on 3/4/12
Clearly teams have an advantage when playing at home. The question is, how does we contextualise this advantage? Playing in front of your home supporters, who vastly outnumber the away fans giving the players of the home team a confidence boost? I would say that is a significant contributing factor. I would also say that the actions and reactions - the vocal nature of the home fans - can influence a referee in the split-second moment when a contentious decision (that is any decision that from the fans perspective either set of supporters would contest) has to be made. Which let's be honest here, is pretty much all of the time given the partisan nature of support.
When such moments happen, are Arsenal fans any less voracious than Stoke or Swansea fans? When a goal is scored, is the roar that goes up at one ground any less impressive than it is at another?
Only in terms of numbers. By and large, the louder the reaction will be based on the number of people in the stadium. That stands to logical reason. It may be that overall Stoke fans sing more songs than a team who has more fans, but when it comes to a penalty decision, a goal scored, what the fans feel is a foul on one of their players, I don't believe that Stoke or Swansea are any more vocal as individuals than the fans who support bigger clubs are. So put 20,000 of those individuals together, and compare it to the crowds that the bigger clubs have, then it is really such a ludicrious suggestion that many more people can have a larger affect upon a match official? I don't think so, even if it can't be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever.
filters: "OT for years was a packed home venue always the biggest home crowds but people never talked about this being an issue or advantage in the 70's and 80's"
Throughout this discussion you've lambasted posters for not being able to prove this so-called myth. Well I will now ask you to prove this comment of yours. And while you are doing so, prove that any reaction of the home support during such periods didn't have an affect upon the referee. If you can't, would that justify me in responding by calling you a fantasist and/or an idiot?
filters: "Professional footballers and managers have agreed and constantly speak up the value of playing in front of their own fans and how they can influence the game so that isnt a phenomenon associated purely with UTD so why is it part of a UTD myth.."
It is associated to all the bigger clubs. This isn't, and never was exclusive to United. It just appears that way because United, as the BIGGEST club are in the spotlight more than any other. If you really think that no other club has had this "myth" attributed to them, then you are mistaken.
filters: "This so called UTD myth irks me"
It's obvious that it irks you - so much so that you deem it necessary to call anyone who sees any value in it an idiot. It's a problem for you that you struggle to comprehend, so you go on the attack and get personal with anyone who even dares hint at its possibility. So much so that you even attack anyone who has the temerity to question a journalist at a national newspaper who has no affiliation to you whatsoever. I would suggest that it is you who needs to get a grip and stop taking it so personally against your club. It doesn't even need to be regarded as a criticism of your club. But merely something that hints at a possibility that all the best clubs in the world benefit from to a greater extent than the lesser clubs do.
Does that devalue the achievement of all the world's most successful clubs? Or is it just something that comes with the territory of being successful? I would suggest the latter. Even if it could be proven to be true beyond any doubt whatsoever, I as an opposition fan wouldn't belittle the achievements that United have attained.
posted on 3/4/12
So Ripley what you are saying is instead of it being big teams that get all the decisions it is those with the biggest numbers in their ground?
For example Newcastle would get more decisions than Liverpool because of the extra thousands they pack in their stands?
....................................
Throughout this discussion you've lambasted posters for not being able to prove this so-called myth. Well I will now ask you to prove this comment of yours. And while you are doing so, prove that any reaction of the home support during such periods didn't have an affect upon the referee. If you can't, would that justify me in responding by calling you a fantasist and/or an idiot?
.......................................
Which bit exactly are you asking for proof for?
All he said was United had big attendances in the 70's and 80's which is common knowledge and that this wasn't much of an issue back then.
Being quite young in the 80's I can't confirm the second bit but I can't say I have ever heard of it being much of an issue back then...
posted on 3/4/12
7_t_B
The more clear-cut an incident is, the easier it is for the referee to make the correct decision, irrespective of the influence of the crowd, or indeed the respective ability of the two (or so) players in question. That stands to reason.
It's when a decision isn't as clear cut, where the split-second decision that a referee has to make becomes harder, where external factors (such as the crowd, the respective abilities of the players involved) can have a contributing factor to the decision that is made.
Consider the following. During a game it is more likely the case the better team will dominate possession. How many times do teams when in possession commit a foul? Rarely, if indeed at all. So there are more opportunities for the lesser team to make a challenge that may or may not be legal within the laws of the game.
Let's say that 20 minutes in a game has gone. To use United as an example (but not to say this is exclusive to United, just so filters doesn't get "irked" ), United have enjoyed 75% of possession. 10 challenges from the opposition have come in, all of which the crowd have reacted to, but none of which are illegal challenges. What are the chances of the referee blowing up and giving a decision to United? None in 10? One in 10? All of them? Let's say United get awarded 2 free kicks out of those 10 challenges.
Now the opposition get a chance, their first in the game, and a 50-50 challenge comes in, a challenge in which it isn't clear cut whether a foul has been committed or not. Is the referee likely to give it, knowing that he hasn't pulled up several other contentious challenges on United? Even if replays show that it really should have been a foul?
My point is it's really a question of percentages. How often have we seen a soft penalty given to a team when there have been a couple of other soft incidents in the game prior to that penalty being awarded? We know this happens. Many people in the game have verified it. So why wouldn't this be the case anywhere else on the pitch when any "contentious" decision has to be made?
Like I say, none of this proves whether the contention that the bigger teams get a greater percentage of decisions in their favour than the smaller teams do, especially when playing at home. But I for one do see the logic why this could be the case.
posted on 3/4/12
So Ripley what you are saying is instead of it being big teams that get all the decisions it is those with the biggest numbers in their ground?
For example Newcastle would get more decisions than Liverpool because of the extra thousands they pack in their stands?
---------------------
Not quite. I'm saying there are several factors which can all contribute to it being this way. Two of which I highlighted in a previous post in this thread. One is the crowd - that is the amount of people in attendance. Another is the ability of the players themselves. Another is possession and a question of percentages (which I mentioned in my last post).
7_T_B: "Which bit exactly are you asking for proof for?"
That this "myth" was never an issue back in the 70s and 80s. That the idea that the bigger and better clubs didn't get a greater number of decisions in their favour than the smaller clubs did during that time.
I can remember it being an issue back then. Of course, back then such issues were more exclusive - that is, no message boards such as this in which fans could discuss such incidents with strangers, but certainly in the media (although again not to the same degree as today because the media wasn't as widespread or accessible as it is today (and certainly because football overall wasn't as accessible in terms of television to the extent that it is today). But it was discussed. Referee's were called into question. Decisions were contested. Home advantage was still the case. Crowds were just as partisan. Incorrect decisions were made.
posted on 3/4/12
There was no such thing as a "myth" back then
Liverpool as the dominating team of that era never and I repeat never had such nonsense as a myth leveled at them. Like I said I never heard of Paisley Time or Shankly time, Never heard of issues about dubious penalty decisions or decision inbalances associated with Anfield, never heard of particular referees a la howard webb being associated with liverpool. Anfield was a fortress because liverpool were the best in England.
Now your argument that 60,000 utd or arsenal fans are louder than 30,000 stoke or bolton is correct. However to an official in stokes compact stadium I would suspect 30,000 in full voice would feel just as daunting or intimidating.
At the end of the day it dosent matter how noisy the home crowd is if the team they support aint good enough it really dosent matter...
"I would suggest that it is you who needs to get a grip and stop taking it so personally against your club. It doesn't even need to be regarded as a criticism of your club.But merely something that hints at a possibility that all the best clubs in the world benefit from to a greater extent than the lesser clubs do."
Its called the UTD myth of course its against my club. If you want it to hint at all the best clubs well then call it the Big Club myth.
posted on 3/4/12
There was no such thing as a "myth" back then
----------------
Once again, Stewart Robson reiterated this claim on Talksport last week when he said that Arsenal had many decisions go in their favour, especially when playing at Highbury. Stewart Robson played for Arsenal from 1981 to 1986.
And once again, the crowd size is just one aspect of the logic as to why this may be the case.
Finally, let's call it a big club myth. I have no problem with that. Hopefully that will result in you ceasing to be unnecessarily insulting to anyone who can see the logic in it.
posted on 4/4/12
Filters – I think you’ll find people did believe that a penalty was hard to come by at the Kop when Liverpool were in their prime – perhaps there wasn’t the same media attention to it but that is a separate matter and perhaps involves the respect given to refereeing generally then.
Again saying United didn’t dominate before means nothing as if the myth were true – it would just make favourable decisions more likely. Just as to win the lottery by guessing 5 numbers is more likely than by guessing 6 balls. It doesn’t mean that it will automatically happen – just that it is more likely. This is a concept you have struggled with since the start.
Rangers played St Mirren in a cup final a couple of years ago and we had 2 players sent off. When down to 9 we still managed to win 1-0. Going down to 9 made it more difficult to win and less likely, but it didn’t mean it couldn’t happen.
Just as a big club myth does not mean that smaller teams cannot win trophies or get to finals… it just means it is more difficult. So quoting small teams which have had success proves nothing… you struggle with what actually constitutes proof too it seems.
Ripley – well said, would probably agree with all of what you have written.
Big Club bias is an interesting concept – it’s a shame it can’t be discussed properly without people getting tribal about it.
posted on 4/4/12
Big Club bias is an interesting concept – it’s a shame it can’t be discussed properly without people getting tribal about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "UTD" myth I beleive dragged it down the tribal direction....
"Filters – I think you’ll find people did believe that a penalty was hard to come by at the Kop when Liverpool were in their prime "
Yet the article that started all this did show that penaltys are not as hard to come by at OT as people would want to have you believe....
posted on 4/4/12
posted on 4/4/12
“The "UTD" myth I beleive dragged it down the tribal direction....”
I completely disagree. The debate was about the Utd myth. Statistics were put forward that some claimed disproved the myth – some posters explained the statistics did not disprove the myth. A point that was rejected at the time from United fans claiming the belief that the stat wasn’t proof was proof itself of club bias.
All along the posters on my side of the argument have been remarkably un-tribal - in spite of your attempts to lure them in with the rants about ABUs. The silly thing is you now accept that the stats don’t disprove the myth! Had you said that at the start of the discussion you would have been accused of being an ABU.
“Yet the article that started all this did show that penaltys are not as hard to come by at OT as people would want to have you believe....”
The article showed that penalties are given at OT – it did not show how easy or hard it is to get one though. It doesn’t show how much of a “stone waller” it has to be, or how many claims were made before a penalty is awarded.
I’m sure some people were surprised at how many penalties were actually given though you are right on that front.
posted on 4/4/12
Think you've won mate.
posted on 4/4/12
if by won you mean lost
posted on 4/4/12
posted on 4/4/12
It's not about winning or losing... just about making sense!
posted on 4/4/12
You're all just a bunch of ABU's!
Page 21 of 25
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25