It all evens out over a season...

But it doesn't really, does it? Not disputing that we had an amazing season, but could it have been even better?

I'm not entirely sure about the qualifications of the 'panel of experts' at SunSport, but according to them the league table would have looked rather different if the officials had managed to get their penalty area decisions right during the season. Apparently this concerns goals that should have been disallowed or weren't given and penalty shouts.

Unsurprisingly. we do rather better than the majority out of these, although Leicester would have dropped to second behind Arsenal and Newcastle would have stayed up comfortably.

So, time for TV refs?

1........Arsenal.............73

2........Leicester...........71

3........Saints..............67

4........Spuds..............66

5........West Ham.........66

6........Man Utd...........66

7........Man City...........65

8........Chelsea............53

9........Liverpool...........50

10......Stoke...............48

11......Everton............47

12......Swansea...........45

13......Palace..............45

14......Newcastle.........43

15......Watford............42

16......Bompy..............42

17......West Brom........41

18......Sunderland........41

19......Norwich............36

20......Villa..................24

http://www.90min.com/posts/3260946-analysis-reveals-arsenal-would-have-won-premier-league-league-if-refs-did-their-jobs-properly?ref=1&team=newcastle&utm_campaign=Newcastle&utm_medium=fan_pages&utm_source=facebook.com.html

I knew my Southampton FC tinted spectacles were the right prescription.

As my Granny always said, "To be a referee you need to be able to run about, require glasses, be able to write, and most importantly not know who your Father is!".

I looked at that Sunsport "ref decision" list once, and disagreed with pretty much everything they said the refs got wrong, so I wouldn't read much into it.

Interesting that in many cases the actual results over the season would not have been much different, we lost 4 points, Arsenal only had an affected result in one game. But it does suggest that Leicester may have benefitted rather more than they should have.

Note that 40 points would not have been enough to stay up if it weren't for these bad decisions, as I surmised around the New Year

That list cannot possibly be the result of unbiased judgements nor can it be comprehensive. They would have had to examine every decision made in every minute of every match.

Give up, people. It's only a game.

Also there is no way of knowing how a game would have finished if a decision had gone the other way. If a goal had been allowed instead of disallowed or vice-versa then a completely different match would have proceeded from that point. You can't just say it would have been the same result plus or minus that goal.

That list cannot possibly be the result of unbiased judgements nor can it be comprehensive. They would have had to examine every decision made in every minute of every match.

 

Give up, people. It's only a game.

No, it only covers certain issues, i.e. those in the penalty area and goals allowed/disallowed. Plenty of time in all matches when the ball is in midfield that does not have to be covered. It is easy with a panel to cover all matches in a relatively short period of time. If you actually look though at the tables, it actually supports the notion that in the majority of cases the incorrect decisions make little or no difference over the course of the season, which given your support of referees should be music to your ears. The headlines of the article are that Arsenal should have won the title, but the reality is that 16 teams had a points difference of 0-4 points. Arsenal actually only had a difference in 1 match out of 38. The headlines should be focused on why Leicester and Liverpool were 10 points better off because of these mistakes (and to a lesser extent Newcastle with 7). We all know that Liverpool were scrawny time after time and these stats seem to support the notion that they do get more than their fair share of dubious decisions.

No, it only covers certain issues, i.e. those in the penalty area and goals allowed/disallowed. Plenty of time in all matches when the ball is in midfield that does not have to be covered. It is easy with a panel to cover all matches in a relatively short period of time. If you actually look though at the tables, it actually supports the notion that in the majority of cases the incorrect decisions make little or no difference over the course of the season, which given your support of referees should be music to your ears. The headlines of the article are that Arsenal should have won the title, but the reality is that 16 teams had a points difference of 0-4 points. Arsenal actually only had a difference in 1 match out of 38. The headlines should be focused on why Leicester and Liverpool were 10 points better off because of these mistakes (and to a lesser extent Newcastle with 7). We all know that Liverpool were scrawny time after time and these stats seem to support the notion that they do get more than their fair share of dubious decisions.

You can't go selectively picking which decisions to change. That process is intrinsically biased.

Bit o' fun tho, innit.

Aside from the possible penalties a Leicester have we really had that many bad decisions this year?

Bit o' fun tho, innit.

It's another case of 'what if'. History is full of examples of small missed chances that might have changed everything. Unless you believe in predestination of course

I wonder just how those stats. were calculated?....and precisely what they took into account?.

To say " it evens out " isn't the ideal response, and who's to say what was / wasn't a goal?.... not just any old former-pro who happens to be a TV "expert " to be sure.

Exactly how an incident affects the final result is surely the key. Being denied a penalty if you're losing 0-1, might certainly change a game (as Wenger always claims)

but ...having " a good goal " disallowed, might not affect the final result - as with our 4-0 win over Arsenal at SMS - when Shane Long scored twice, hit a post and had a goal disallowed for a previous foul, when some TV pundits I watched said it was a 50/50 tussle and no foul, and ref. (who was too far away to judge) - gave Long a yellow card instead.

Vivid shots of a Chelsea defender tugging wildly at Virgil's shirt (at Stamford Bridge) whilst waiting for a corner....would surely have resulted in a penalty IF the ref. had seen it .... AND had the courage to award a penalty in the first place. However, it wouldn't have affected the final outcome as we finally won 3-1 .

Until we get good camera coverage to assist officials with decisions (as many millions of TV viewers see)....the final result will remain at the whim of ...an unsighted referee.

I wonder just how those stats. were calculated?....and precisely what they took into account?.

 

To say " it evens out " isn't the ideal response, and who's to say what was / wasn't a goal?.... not just any old former-pro who happens to be a TV "expert " to be sure.

 

Exactly how an incident affects the final result is surely the key. Being denied a penalty if you're losing 0-1, might certainly change a game (as Wenger always claims)

but ...having " a good goal " disallowed, might not affect the final result - as with our 4-0 win over Arsenal at SMS - when Shane Long scored twice, hit a post and had a goal disallowed for a previous foul, when some TV pundits I watched said it was a 50/50 tussle and no foul, and ref. (who was too far away to judge) - gave Long a yellow card instead.

 

Vivid shots of a Chelsea defender tugging wildly at Virgil's shirt (at Stamford Bridge) whilst waiting for a corner....would surely have resulted in a penalty IF the ref. had seen it .... AND had the courage to award a penalty in the first place. However, it wouldn't have affected the final outcome as we finally won 3-1 .

 

Until we get good camera coverage to assist officials with decisions (as many millions of TV viewers see)....the final result will remain at the whim of ...an unsighted referee.

Did you actually read the article at all?

Did you actually read the article at all?

yes I did, but it quotes "refereeing mistakes". No suggestion whether that is .....decisions they made that were wrong .. or simply missed altogether.?