Why is Joey Barton such a c*ck?

[Alex Holowczak]

yet statistics have actually proven

No, they haven't. Statistics don't prove anything. They merely provide evidence that a hypothesis is correct, based on a certain level of confidence.

Sorry about the pedantry, but this one irks me.

[Alan Burke]

OK Alex, you want to be pedantic.

Did I say that the statistics were from every match ever played or if they might just be from one particular game ? So, without you knowing where I got my evidence to make my claim just how can you try and counter it ?

If in one football game there are 12 corners, the statistics of that match will prove that fact.

A few years ago many, many videos were studied and analysed to discover just how many decisions were correctly made by referees in comparison to those they got wrong - the result proved that on those occasions the referees got well over 90% of decisions correct.

How do I know ? Because I was involved with the experiment.

OK, if the study was done by viewing other matches then the result might be different, but on that occasion the statistics DID prove that wrong decisions were minimal and thus my comment, based on that evidence, was correct.

Anything else you want to be pedantic about or can we continue with the discussion without everyone having to dot their I's and cross their T's ? (oops .. that should have been an "i" because there isn't a dot on the top of a capital "I".)

[Alex Holowczak]

Did I say that the statistics were from every match ever played or if they might just be from one particular game ? So, without you knowing where I got my evidence to make my claim just how can you try and counter it ?

They won't be from every match ever played, or just one game. It'll be a sample, or perhaps all matches in a particular league. You're right that you didn't say that, but it was an obvious assumption that it was neither of the two extremes you mention.

If in one football game there are 12 corners, the statistics of that match will prove that fact.

The number of corners in a football game is not a statistic, it's data. The mean number of corners in football games in a particular league for a particular season would be an example of a statistic with two parameters (the particular league, and the particular season).

A few years ago many, many videos were studied and analysed to discover just how many decisions were correctly made by referees in comparison to those they got wrong - the result proved that on those occasions the referees got well over 90% of decisions correct.

How do I know ? Because I was involved with the experiment.

OK, if the study was done by viewing other matches then the result might be different, but on that occasion the statistics DID prove that wrong decisions were minimal and thus my comment, based on that evidence, was correct.

"OK, if the study was done by viewing other matches then the result might be different" - Exactly. Which is why it hasn't proven anything. You can say, with a certain level of confidence (which you haven't specified), is that referees get well over 90% of decisions correct.

This is not the same as saying that all referees always get well over 90% of decisions correct. You would need to look at every example in the population, and at that point, you're no longer dealing with statistics, and you enter the realm of population parameters.

The whole point of statistics is that you're using a sample to represent a population, because the latter is impossible to consider on practical grounds. Which is why statistics can never prove anything; you can never say anything with 100% confidence.

[Alan Burke]

So Alex, what irks you is that I used the word "statistic" instead of the word "data".

I pity you.

Anything else you want to be pedantic about or can we continue with the discussion without everyone having to dot their I's and cross their T's ? (oops .. that should have been an "i" because there isn't a dot on the top of a capital "I".)

[Mick Norris]

There was a study (Belgian I think) on football linesmen and offside decisions, which showed they got about half wrong

With assistance from the fourth official so that they could concentrate on the last defender and not have to guess when the ball was played, the success rate went above 90%

Football and technology, way behind rugby and cricket and tennis and chess

[IM Jack Rudd]

Football and technology, way behind rugby and cricket and tennis and chess

That's not entirely the administrators' fault. Football is harder to get the technology right for than most of those other games because its action is continuous and not discrete.

[Alex Holowczak]

So Alex, what irks you is that I used the word "statistic" instead of the word "data".

No, not at all. The objection I have is your use of the word "prove". You could use other words; "shows", "suggests", or anything like that. Just not "prove".

Having derailed this thread, I have a (hopefully) productive question to ask about this, which you can hopefully answer given you were involved with it.

How did they take into consideration the different types of decision that have to be made? For example, I imagine there's a far lower success rate with offside decisions than there are with throw-in decisions, for example.

How did they take into consideration the decisions required for a throw-in? I'd imagine there were two decisions being made in reality: (1) Whether it was a throw-in to a team at all, and (2) Which team should be awarded the throw-in.

Along similar lines, how did they consider disciplinary elements to this? Again, I can imagine many decisions: (1) Should it have been a free-kick/penalty? (2) Is further discipline (i.e. cards) required? (3) If yes to (2), was the card issued the correct choice?

If you're going to say that referees get "well over 90% of decisions correct" according to the statistics, it'd be interesting to know how the statisticians define a 'decision'.

[Alan Burke]

OK Alex, you objected to the word "prove" - By giving the other examples of words you think I could have used it shows you knew of the meaning behind my comment and therefore I really do pity you if you felt the need to just object to my use of that word.

No, I cannot answer the above questions of yours as that was not part of my role in the experiment.

Regarding Jack's comment about technology; he is totally correct in that although rugby / cricket / tennis all use technology, they are all stop-start games (ie the game has a natural stoppage in play in order to allow video replays to be immediately watched before restarting the game without it having interfered with its natural progression). However, football is a more continuous game which could go on for several minutes before a stoppage when a video could be viewed about a previous decision.

For example, a Rugby League player dives for the line whilst being tackled by several opponents and the referee is unsure if he has scored a try. If the game is stopped whilst the video is looked at and it is decided that the player was short of the line, he can just resume with a play-the-ball just as he would have done if the referee had made that decision himself.

However, for football, let's go back to the famous Geoff Hurst goal in the 1966 World Cup Final. If after coming down off the crossbar, the ball had bounced out and the Germans had got possession and began attacking the other end of the field, just when would the game be stopped to check the video ? (ie the game could have continued for several minutes before it went out of play.) If you stopped the game immediately to look at the video and it showed it hadn't crossed the line then the opposition would have been penalised by not being allowed to continue with their attack. However, if you waited until the next stoppage and then viewed the video which then proved a goal had been scored, would those extra minutes then be added back onto the time because shouldn't have actually be played ?

[Sean Hewitt]

One of the reasons why football referees "won't take the risk" with decisions is that they probably won't get the backing from the authorities (FIFA, the FA, etc). There is too much player-power in football and those in charge of the game are wary of upsetting their "stars".

Nonsense. Referees get the backing from the authorities when they get decisions right either way, but not if they don't.

A few years ago football introduced the rugby-style rule of advancing a free-kick 10 yards if players argued about a decision - and just how many times do you see that rule employed thesedays after mangers/players/clubs complained about it ?

FIFA trialled this rule in a number of competitions across the globe such as the u17 world cup and the English Football League where a free kick was advanced 10 yards if a caution was issued for dissent. The trial was abandoned as a failure after 2 years which is why you don't see it employed these days.

The only 'non league' competition in which it was trialled was England's Central Midlands League. I was a referee on the CML at the time so I speak from experience. The trial was rightly deemed to have failed. You could only advance the free kick if you cautioned the player. This was a mistake. The rule would have been far more effective if you could have advanced the free kick without having to caution the offender.

However, rather than appeal, both himself and his club made a personal apology to the referee - can you really imagine that happening in football ?

Yes.

[Sean Hewitt]

There was a study (Belgian I think) on football linesmen and offside decisions, which showed they got about half wrong

That might be the case in Belgium - not in England!

Last season’s ProZone data shows that Assistant Referees got over 99 per cent of offsides right, up six per cent over last two seasons. ProZone analysed over 12,000 offside decisions in the 2010-2011 Premier League for that 99 per cent figure. ProZone is more accurate than TV replays.

[Alex Holowczak]

There was an NHL game a few years ago - I've looked for the video, I can't find it -

I found it!!

(1) LA thought they scored; not given.
(2) San Jose thought they scored; not given.
(3) San Jose undeniably scored, given.

Reviewed the first two goals, and LA scored, so LA was credited with a goal, and San Jose's goal was wiped off.

The clock was reset, and the players whose penalties had expired between (1) and (3) were sent back to the penalty box to serve the rest of their penalties again.

All of this is written into the NHL (and IIHF, I think) rules. No reason why football couldn't do the same at all.

[Alan Burke]

Alex H .. I did not make the quote you have attributed to me a few posts above - or am I just being pedantic about that ?

Sean Hewitt ... Please read what I actually wrote and why I wrote it before saying it is nonsense. I did not say referees were shy from making correct decisions; I was replying to a comment from a previous post which stated that referees did not wish to take a risk in sending off an innocent player - to which I replied that by taking that risk they probably would not get the backing of the authorities.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex H .. I did not make the quote you have attributed to me a few posts above - or am I just being pedantic about that ?

That was a quote that should have been an edit. I've asked the Mods to roll it back if they can. If not, I'll delete the post.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Alex H .. I did not make the quote you have attributed to me a few posts above - or am I just being pedantic about that ?

That was a quote that should have been an edit. I've asked the Mods to roll it back if they can. If not, I'll delete the post.

We can't, or at least I can't.

[Roger de Coverly]

Going back to the original comment, don't I recall "Sir" David Beckham being sent off in a rather critical game in the 1998 World Cup? I think he had been a victim of a dubious tackle and fell over as normal for footballers. What wasn't normal was tripping up his Argentinian adversary whilst lying on the ground. This was however witnessed by the referee who produced a red card.

It even inspired an online game where you got points for tripping up Argies, doubled if you did it whilst Posh was a spectator.

The game has probably disappeared without trace, but here's the trip.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/ ... 68x317.jpg