does it matter??? Last night the ref got it wrong, but if all refs got it right then United would be 7 points clear not the 3! United have had some shockers this season but no one give a *~** then do they, but no we get one our way and the bitters all come out! Didn't see many United fans crying like little babies when Barry clattered that stoke player on Saturday........or wasn't that a penalty anyway, United over the years give away less pens because they have the ball more than most teams.....it's that simple ffs!

Calm down 19mufc. It's just a discussion.

The reason the article in the telegraph picks that time frame is because those are the years Fulham has been in the prem.

Says so in the first paragraph

Ripleys

I just think he could only be bothered to go back five years in his research.

I wonder if he was the same guy that countered nearly all of Rafa's facts. That was in the Telegraph the next day, as well.

The reason the article in the telegraph picks that time frame is because those are the years Fulham has been in the prem.

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

Fulham have been in the prem since 2001-02.

Vidic - if he could only be bothered to go back that far, then that's fair enough. But once again, at the very least he should get the figures right for the years he's working with.

Can I just say that not all Man United fans are so blindly biased.

The article PROVES NOTHING.

You'd have to have your player beheaded at OT to get a penalty. And even then there is a 50/50 chance that the ref would book the head and red card the torso for diving.

redconn.....I seem to remember Torres falling down like a big girl to get a pen a few seasons ago, didn't Gerrard get one when Evra fouled him in the 4-1?? So not be heading is it.....now when was the last time United got a pen at Anfield?? I remember Saha getting clobbered in front of the Kop with 5 miutes left and guess what.....nothing and nothing ever said, but good for us, OShea did the rest!

liverpool have had three penalties at old trafford in the last seven seasons you dullard. united haven't had a penalty at anfield since the last millenium, despite numeros appeals. i suppose that's just coincidence is it?

you should stop assaulting our players

I find that helps

We should have had triple the amount given

looks like a merstside derby at wembley!

at least if everton get though there'll be people from merseyside in the crowd for the game.

Locals vs Norwegians. C'mon you scousers.

comment by redconn > (U5676)

posted 9 hours, 33 minutes ago

You'd have to have your player beheaded at OT to get a penalty. And even then there is a 50/50 chance that the ref would book the head and red card the torso for diving.
====================

Newcastle got one when it wasn't even a foul in the box. Arsenal also got one. What is this Norwegian on about?

comment by Ronaldo's wink aka Red_Indian (U13615)
posted 14 hours, 39 minutes ago
TOOR
I will forever remember this guy as the guy who says it's ok to call a black person a 'negro' in public.
--------------------------------------------
I have never once said that and I'm getting increasingly fed up by somebody saying that I did.

You'd have to have your player beheaded at OT to get a penalty.
................................

It would require a prison shower scene re enactment by Liverpool players on the opposition before the ref would give them a yellow at Anfield....

That or a flying kick aimed at the shin of the opposition player (a red in most grounds)

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 14 hours, 35 minutes ago
I have no idea, that's why I'm asking. It seems an arbitrary figure to choose.

Why not since the start of the Premier League? Or since the turn of the century?
-------------------------------------------
It's interesting that they decided to exclude the period of around ten seasons, when there was no penalty awarded at Old Trafford.

If the myth is that there are no penalties given at Old Trafford then that is certainly now a myth, however it was factual correct for a long period. However I never subscribed to that nonsense, as you had to go into how many were and weren't given and how many were and weren't correct decisions.

The Rangers idiot? I take it Vidic you mean me.

The Telegraph article was looking at how many penalties were given at OT. What was the purpose of the article? It wasn’t just an interesting look at numbers – it was because the Martin Jol mentioned the debate of whether it would have been given at the other end. The issue in question not being whether penalties are given against United as they certainly are, it’s whether they get preferential treatment… whether there is a statistically relevant disparity between the decisions given for Manchester United and other teams.

Counting the number of penalties given against United at Old Trafford is simply not irrefutable proof that they don’t get preferential treatment. It can’t possibly be since it is only half the point! If a referee took a personal dislike to Rooney – and booked him for his first tackle (a non-violet shirt pull), then booked him again for his third (again a shirt pull). The statistics would say that he was dealt a yellow card for every 1.5 tackles.
Another player, Vidic, might commit a dangerous leg breaking tackle as his first offence, and get a yellow – he might then trip someone up who was clear through on goal and get a second yellow. Both these instances could be instant red cards – agreed? The referee has shown great leniency to Vidic – whilst he was particularly harsh on Rooney. Agreed? The simple statistics would show that Vidic got a booking every 1.0 tackle – whilst Rooney was booked every 1.5 tackles. The statistics are clear – but they do not prove that Vidic is treated more harshly than Rooney – since in the example shown clearly Rooney is the one who is treated unfairly.
The same can be said for penalties – you can’t just look at the ones given, because if 10 penalties should have been given and he only gives 2… then he has been lenient on 8 occasions!
Seriously – this isn’t rocket science here!

For all you quoting instances where someone dived, or where penalties should have been given you are missing the point. We know referees have made poor decisions – they are fallible, that isn’t what is being debated.

Also for Vidicshin – no need for insults is there?

The ABU's really dont like that their UTD myths are challenged. The article proved that penaltys are awarded to visiting teams at OT but they still persist with the preferential treatment assertion without any proof to back it up. Its their opinion that UTD get special treatment like fergie time another reason to belittle the acheivements...

Again with the ABU defensive claptrap.

Try reading the comments, instead of going on the defensive.

Telling it like it is ABU

Pathetic.

Filters=wimps

I'm neither agreeing with the myth nor am I denying the myth. Read the post - I'm just saying that quoting a number of penalties at OT is simply not proof either way.

If a criminal goes into a shop and steals a bottle of wine 4 days in a row - on the fifth day he buys one. Does the fact he has bought one mean that he is not guilty of stealing wine the other 4 days? Would proof of his innocence be that he has bought goods from the store on other occasions?