| The bizarre case of penalties 07:44 - Dec 2 with 2501 views | Asa |
There was contact. Jota dived more than any player I can remember against us since League One but there was some small contact. Not enough for a penalty I don't think. Seen them given. But it's the bloody inconsistency!
Davis gets substantial contact at City. No penalty. We get a sorry we didn't check it.
Clarke goes down against Everton. Similar minimal contact. There was some. We get the penalty. This is somehow overturned.
Chaplin gets hit by the a runaway bus that Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock are struggling with. It's a 'coming together'. Infuriating.
Brentford get one given in their favor. City get one given for less contact than the Davis one.
I have no issue with soft penalties or refs letting the games go. But it very much seems at times as if these penalties are given based on league position or reputation. It's hard not to.
Even last season, little old Ipswich got 2-3 penalties whilst the newly promoted three, who had all the same attacking stats as us, averaged 12 or so.
It never really felt like we were massive Ipswich in League One that got loads of decisions. Remember thinking it was very much the other way. I do wonder what level we'd have to play at to get the sort of favourtism that seems to be shown against us.
Refs can say what they want about how impartial they are but there's a reason why Man Utd didn't concede a penalty at home for 8 years and it's not because teams never had players fouled in the box. It's the worst thing about this division for me.
We've had one call go for us really, Solanke's clear handball and it's now plenty that have gone against us that you've seen given either way. It's the soft ones teams get against us when we have stonewallers turned away that's very tough to take. |  | | |  |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 07:49 - Dec 2 with 2435 views | tivo |
We have just taken the subjectivity of decisions, and given it to someone not involved with the game at all hundreds of miles away.
VAR made simple, give the referee a small wrist worn tablet, they can review the decision themselves by watching the incident in full speed, from three different angles. Done. | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:08 - Dec 2 with 2352 views | Parmigiano |
The devil’s advocate, which many players and former players use, is that, if you’re fouled but you don’t go to ground, the refs don’t give it. Unfortunately the stats support this. It’s just annoying when the simulation is so ridiculous like today.
But I agree with your overall point. We’ve only had one call go for us this season and it was the handball at Spurs which doesn’t offset anything for me given it was a binary decision, no opinion required. |  | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:18 - Dec 2 with 2283 views | Metal_Hacker |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 07:49 - Dec 2 by tivo |
We have just taken the subjectivity of decisions, and given it to someone not involved with the game at all hundreds of miles away.
VAR made simple, give the referee a small wrist worn tablet, they can review the decision themselves by watching the incident in full speed, from three different angles. Done. |
“small wrist worn tablet”
Dunno why this made me laugh so much sorry
Imagine the size of the screen or the size of the ref’s wrist !!
Or is it just me with bad eyes |  |
| |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:22 - Dec 2 with 2248 views | tivo |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:18 - Dec 2 by Metal_Hacker |
“small wrist worn tablet”
Dunno why this made me laugh so much sorry
Imagine the size of the screen or the size of the ref’s wrist !!
Or is it just me with bad eyes |
Just you. With a single use it could be lightweight and easily made flexi to wrap around the arm and open up. Weight wise it would be less than their foam spray so could even be attached in the same manner now thinking about it :) | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:23 - Dec 2 with 2238 views | Bellevue_Blue |
I don't have too many complaints about Saturday's penalty. It's a really really stupid tackle from Szmodics and we would be furious had we not got that.
The consistency is a real issue though. It was soft but if that is a penalty then the Clarke and Chaplin fouls fall into the same bracket. | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:30 - Dec 2 with 2186 views | SitfcB |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:23 - Dec 2 by Bellevue_Blue |
I don't have too many complaints about Saturday's penalty. It's a really really stupid tackle from Szmodics and we would be furious had we not got that.
The consistency is a real issue though. It was soft but if that is a penalty then the Clarke and Chaplin fouls fall into the same bracket. |
It wasn’t even really a tackle, he just put his leg down to block and unfortunately caught Jota’s toe. McKenna was clearly fuming about it though and Szmodics did apologise to the away end.
I put it down as dubious, can understand why it was given but we will see one like that not given this season.
Jota played on it and played it well. |  |
| |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:33 - Dec 2 with 2169 views | HighgateBlue |
If you say that penalties are given on league position on reputation, but then you say that we didn't get nearly enough penalties last season, then what you're really saying is 'poor me'. We had a high league position last season and a good reputation, certainly in the context of the Championship. There's always been inconsistency - what there hasn't always been is a gazillion cameras, instant Twitter replays for the world, VAR expected to solve all subjective disputes, and social media to grumble about decisions.
We've a few bad decisions against us, no doubt about it. But I'm far from sure that it's 'this division' rather than an inevitable part of football. It's maddening that we have all this technology and mistakes still get made, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't get made absent the technology.
I think it's very easy to form an impression without being objective. I haven't kept a tally of all of the VAR decisions that have been made this season. But the goal that was ruled out for Spurs could very easily have gone the other way. One would maybe expect us to give away more penalties than we get, because (a) we have had less than 50% of the possession, (b) the opposition have more time and touches in our area than at the other end, and (c) there's only one team with a worse goal difference than us.
But actually when you look at the numbers: Man City, Chelsea and Brighton have conceded more penalties than the majority of the league, and they're all in the top 5 in the league. Chelsea have the most yellow cards, Arsenal have the most red cards.
Bournemouth have the most penalties. Huge, mighty Bournemouth, with a smaller home attendance than Bradford in League 2. Leicester and Southampton are both in the top half for penalties awarded. 15 penalties have been awarded to top half teams. 15 penalties have been awarded to bottom half teams. For me that's the key stat.
It's so easy just to say we're hard done by, but I don't think it's objectively backed up.
The neutral media reports of the Forest don't call it controversial or dubious, and Kieran doesn't question the decision either. He's asked the direct question and says he can understand why it was given. It's one of those ones that could have gone either way.
If Kieran assumes that we're losing because refs hate us, then we will get relegated. If he thinks that maybe it's because of factors that he can affect, then we have a chance of staying up. Fortunately, I'm pretty certain he's in the latter camp. |  | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:33 - Dec 2 with 2159 views | itfcjoe |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:30 - Dec 2 by SitfcB |
It wasn’t even really a tackle, he just put his leg down to block and unfortunately caught Jota’s toe. McKenna was clearly fuming about it though and Szmodics did apologise to the away end.
I put it down as dubious, can understand why it was given but we will see one like that not given this season.
Jota played on it and played it well. |
Anywhere else on the pitch and Jota just skips over that challenge, but it's always going to be given |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:35 - Dec 2 with 1920 views | Guthrum |
Szmodics trod on Silva's foot quite heavily (and inside the box) as the former lunged for the ball. That was what caused him to go down in pain, not any subsequent trip.
If there is any bias, it's likely more a matter of the established teams having the experience to milk situations better than ourselves. Screaming, rolling over and playing dead all serve to accentuate the coming together and innocent victimhood in the moment than simply going down in a heap before raising arms to a referee whose attention is already elsewhere. |  |
| |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:42 - Dec 2 with 1883 views | blue_curacao |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:33 - Dec 2 by itfcjoe |
Anywhere else on the pitch and Jota just skips over that challenge, but it's always going to be given |
Even if he goes down, I don't think the foul would be given elsewhere on the pitch. And isn't the threshold supposed to be higher for a foul in the box? | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:42 - Dec 2 with 1878 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
It was pretty obviously a penalty, unfortunately, but have given you your uppie anyway |  |
| |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:42 - Dec 2 with 1878 views | Guthrum |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 07:49 - Dec 2 by tivo |
We have just taken the subjectivity of decisions, and given it to someone not involved with the game at all hundreds of miles away.
VAR made simple, give the referee a small wrist worn tablet, they can review the decision themselves by watching the incident in full speed, from three different angles. Done. |
Putting it on a tiny screen at full speed only will negate any usefulness of VAR to correct decisionmakling. It will almost always be impossible to detect errors with that lack of detail.
Moreover, distance from the action is an advantage in making cool adjudications. | |
| |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:42 - Dec 2 with 1886 views | Asa |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:33 - Dec 2 by HighgateBlue |
If you say that penalties are given on league position on reputation, but then you say that we didn't get nearly enough penalties last season, then what you're really saying is 'poor me'. We had a high league position last season and a good reputation, certainly in the context of the Championship. There's always been inconsistency - what there hasn't always been is a gazillion cameras, instant Twitter replays for the world, VAR expected to solve all subjective disputes, and social media to grumble about decisions.
We've a few bad decisions against us, no doubt about it. But I'm far from sure that it's 'this division' rather than an inevitable part of football. It's maddening that we have all this technology and mistakes still get made, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't get made absent the technology.
I think it's very easy to form an impression without being objective. I haven't kept a tally of all of the VAR decisions that have been made this season. But the goal that was ruled out for Spurs could very easily have gone the other way. One would maybe expect us to give away more penalties than we get, because (a) we have had less than 50% of the possession, (b) the opposition have more time and touches in our area than at the other end, and (c) there's only one team with a worse goal difference than us.
But actually when you look at the numbers: Man City, Chelsea and Brighton have conceded more penalties than the majority of the league, and they're all in the top 5 in the league. Chelsea have the most yellow cards, Arsenal have the most red cards.
Bournemouth have the most penalties. Huge, mighty Bournemouth, with a smaller home attendance than Bradford in League 2. Leicester and Southampton are both in the top half for penalties awarded. 15 penalties have been awarded to top half teams. 15 penalties have been awarded to bottom half teams. For me that's the key stat.
It's so easy just to say we're hard done by, but I don't think it's objectively backed up.
The neutral media reports of the Forest don't call it controversial or dubious, and Kieran doesn't question the decision either. He's asked the direct question and says he can understand why it was given. It's one of those ones that could have gone either way.
If Kieran assumes that we're losing because refs hate us, then we will get relegated. If he thinks that maybe it's because of factors that he can affect, then we have a chance of staying up. Fortunately, I'm pretty certain he's in the latter camp. |
I've always considered myself pretty objective and fair and consistent but it feels like three years now where we've had about 5 decisions go for us and about 50 against.
Two seasons we were top of the league and aren't exactly likely to complain about officials. But you can run it back to Sheffield Wednesday's offside equalizer, the ridiculous Harness goal ruled out against Barnsley, as far back as you want. It was constant all season.
How many decisions have we really got during that period you'd say we were lucky to get? We got a penalty against Port Vale the third time it hit Benning's hand! Morsy and Evans were lucky at Plymouth to only get yellows but that was in a match where a worst challenge from Mumba wasn't even a yellow.
The list of decisions against us is mental. Even removing borderline or blue tinted ones. We've barely got anything for in this period. Last season it was the same. Leeds and Leicester would fall over and get a penalty. We'd get pole axed in the box and nothing doing.
Bournemouth could have 10 penalties but maybe they deserved 20. Man City might have 3 but maybe they deserved none. I'm talking about us largely here and observations I have seen in all sorts of Premier League matches where marginal decisions go against the smaller teams.
I agree Armstrong's goal was offside as he interfered with play but I can't see that being ruled out had Brighton scored it.
The inconsistency itself is a massive issue. Not just from club to club and match to match but Arsenal had players sent off for tapping the ball away on a yellow when in the same match the other team had players hoof it 50 yards away without a booking.
From purely an ITFC perspective though, we must be an insane amount of net borderline decisions against us over three seasons now. [Post edited 2 Dec 2024 9:57]
| | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:55 - Dec 2 with 1797 views | homer_123 |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:42 - Dec 2 by blue_curacao |
Even if he goes down, I don't think the foul would be given elsewhere on the pitch. And isn't the threshold supposed to be higher for a foul in the box? |
"I don't think the foul would be given elsewhere on the pitch"
By your own definition, it's a foul then! |  |
| |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:58 - Dec 2 with 1778 views | Asa |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:55 - Dec 2 by homer_123 |
"I don't think the foul would be given elsewhere on the pitch"
By your own definition, it's a foul then! |
Yep. Jota consistently won fouls all over the pitch with no contact.
He was certainly going to get the one with slight contact. | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 10:12 - Dec 2 with 1687 views | tractorshark |
100% Jota makes the most of it in a ridiculous, embarrassing way.
But 100% Szmodics or Delap would have gone down as well.
Sadly it doesn’t pay to stay on your feet in the Prem nowadays. | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 10:30 - Dec 2 with 1564 views | Vegtablue |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 08:33 - Dec 2 by HighgateBlue |
If you say that penalties are given on league position on reputation, but then you say that we didn't get nearly enough penalties last season, then what you're really saying is 'poor me'. We had a high league position last season and a good reputation, certainly in the context of the Championship. There's always been inconsistency - what there hasn't always been is a gazillion cameras, instant Twitter replays for the world, VAR expected to solve all subjective disputes, and social media to grumble about decisions.
We've a few bad decisions against us, no doubt about it. But I'm far from sure that it's 'this division' rather than an inevitable part of football. It's maddening that we have all this technology and mistakes still get made, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't get made absent the technology.
I think it's very easy to form an impression without being objective. I haven't kept a tally of all of the VAR decisions that have been made this season. But the goal that was ruled out for Spurs could very easily have gone the other way. One would maybe expect us to give away more penalties than we get, because (a) we have had less than 50% of the possession, (b) the opposition have more time and touches in our area than at the other end, and (c) there's only one team with a worse goal difference than us.
But actually when you look at the numbers: Man City, Chelsea and Brighton have conceded more penalties than the majority of the league, and they're all in the top 5 in the league. Chelsea have the most yellow cards, Arsenal have the most red cards.
Bournemouth have the most penalties. Huge, mighty Bournemouth, with a smaller home attendance than Bradford in League 2. Leicester and Southampton are both in the top half for penalties awarded. 15 penalties have been awarded to top half teams. 15 penalties have been awarded to bottom half teams. For me that's the key stat.
It's so easy just to say we're hard done by, but I don't think it's objectively backed up.
The neutral media reports of the Forest don't call it controversial or dubious, and Kieran doesn't question the decision either. He's asked the direct question and says he can understand why it was given. It's one of those ones that could have gone either way.
If Kieran assumes that we're losing because refs hate us, then we will get relegated. If he thinks that maybe it's because of factors that he can affect, then we have a chance of staying up. Fortunately, I'm pretty certain he's in the latter camp. |
Just a point on the Tottenham decision, we shouldn't feel we received the rub of the green there. The goal couldn't stand once the handball was seen, and it was impossible to avoid seeing it during goal replays that VAR always review. It's the reason it was disallowed without calling the ref to the monitor, as there's no subjectivity involved. | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 10:55 - Dec 2 with 1479 views | HighgateBlue |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:42 - Dec 2 by Asa |
I've always considered myself pretty objective and fair and consistent but it feels like three years now where we've had about 5 decisions go for us and about 50 against.
Two seasons we were top of the league and aren't exactly likely to complain about officials. But you can run it back to Sheffield Wednesday's offside equalizer, the ridiculous Harness goal ruled out against Barnsley, as far back as you want. It was constant all season.
How many decisions have we really got during that period you'd say we were lucky to get? We got a penalty against Port Vale the third time it hit Benning's hand! Morsy and Evans were lucky at Plymouth to only get yellows but that was in a match where a worst challenge from Mumba wasn't even a yellow.
The list of decisions against us is mental. Even removing borderline or blue tinted ones. We've barely got anything for in this period. Last season it was the same. Leeds and Leicester would fall over and get a penalty. We'd get pole axed in the box and nothing doing.
Bournemouth could have 10 penalties but maybe they deserved 20. Man City might have 3 but maybe they deserved none. I'm talking about us largely here and observations I have seen in all sorts of Premier League matches where marginal decisions go against the smaller teams.
I agree Armstrong's goal was offside as he interfered with play but I can't see that being ruled out had Brighton scored it.
The inconsistency itself is a massive issue. Not just from club to club and match to match but Arsenal had players sent off for tapping the ball away on a yellow when in the same match the other team had players hoof it 50 yards away without a booking.
From purely an ITFC perspective though, we must be an insane amount of net borderline decisions against us over three seasons now. [Post edited 2 Dec 2024 9:57]
|
I do agree that Armstrong's goal was a really poor decision.
I also do agree that it feels like we've been on the unlucky end of poor decisions more often than on the lucky end. But first I think all fans feel like that, especially when they're not doing well in the league, and secondly I don't think you can get an objective measure by going on the basis of what it feels like.
When refs get it wrong, I scream and shout, in person, at the telly, whatever. I am a bad loser. I overreact. So I'm not trying to tell anyone to be robotic or take the passion out or whatever. But I think in the cold light of day, trying to work out whether there is bias, or a terrible system, or terrible officials, or terrible rules, must be a question of objectivity.
I know we didn't have VAR in the lower leagues, and so technology is not the only, or even main, point of your contentions. But I'll set out a few thoughts on technology in sports refereeing, just to get it off my chest.
I think football is a really unique challenge in terms of refereeing. Maybe this is the interesting point here. As regards using technology, I think that there are several factors that affect whether it is a success or not, including:
1) how high stakes each decision is.
2) how subjective each decision is.
3) whether it is a contact sport or not.
4) whether fans are unanimous in liking the rules to start with.
5) what the culture of the sport is like, amongst players and fans.
6) impact of the technology on the flow of the match.
Looking at those factors in different sports:
A) Tennis.
1) each decision matters, and matters way more on some points than others, but at the end of the day, one point is seldom the difference between winning and losing.
2) when hawkeye is used, it is accepted that it is at least acceptably accurate, surely better than real time human eyes from a distance, and the ball is objectively either in or out. It is rare that there is genuine controversy.
3) non contact sport. I'll return to this below.
4) the rules haven't materially changed in a long time, in any way that is relevant to officiating. There's no real clamour for it.
5) the culture of the sport is respectful, not overly partisan, and not raucous in the main. That may be a bad thing or a good thing, but it's a thing.
6) The number of challenges is limited. It's a stoppy game anyway. And a challenge becomes part of the fun.
Technology overwhelmingly works in tennis.
B) Cricket
1) Each decision matters a fair bit, but with half a dozen really important wickets on each side, the number of important events is in double figures, before you even consider fours, sixes and the like. More important decisions per match than football, certainly, and so the impact of each is lessened in most cases.
2) There is some subjectivity, such as in interpreting the "snicko" data, or whether the ball hit the ground before being caught, and of course ball tracking is predictive, unlike in tennis, so there is room for doubt. it's not perfect, but people generally trust ball tracking and think that it's far better than an umpire's subjective judgment.
3) non contact sport
4) fans generally like the principal rules of cricket, and modes of dismissal are very well established and unlikely to change materially.
5) cricket is fairly sleepy, and even in T20 is pretty respectful of the officiating. I know there have been controversies in the past, but there were more pre-technology, and these have often related to pre-meditated cheating like sandpaper gate and all of that.
6) again it's a stoppy sport and the number of challenges is limited. One gets to hear some of the reasoning of the umpires and I think that's a good thing.
Technology works well in cricket.
C) Rugby
1) tries are relatively few, so the decisions are fairly high stakes, but nowhere near as much as in football. Looking at the 2023 six nations (stats easily to hand) there were at least 6 scoring events in every game, with a high of 24 and an average of about 13.
2) the rules are fiddly and complicated, and rely a lot on subjective decision making. But whether something is a try or not is typically not as subjective as for example behaviour in scrums, mauls etc.
3) Contact sport. In my view, in a contact sport there is a lot more room for disagreement as to whether interactions between players were lawful or not.
4) fans are fine with the /main/ rules. Things like offside are tinkered with, and some people hate some of the constant changes, but rarely affect whether a try is good or not.
5) culture of the sport - refs talk to captains, huge great big hulks of men show respect and rarely get angry with officials. This helps refs, and it helps fans not to get too angry as well.
6) it's more of a stoppy game than football anyway. The pauses are not excessive generally, and often you can hear what the refs are saying (on tv). This is good for transparency and for the overall experience.
On the whole technology works in rugby. Transparency really helps.
D) Football
This is a pretty perfect storm in my view.
1) Each decision matters a lot, because (a) there are very few scoring events in each game. A record number last year, but only just more than 3, (a) a red card makes a massive difference to the game, and (c) the money in football is huge huge huge.
2) The subjectivity levels are high. Whether a tackle is a foul or not, whether a handball hit the right bit of the body, whether it was sufficiently intentional, whether something was a obvious goalscoring opportunity, whether someone was the last man, whether someone was interfering with play. All of these are argued over a lot by fans. We know this.
3) the fact that it is a contact sport increases the number of subjective decisions. The Jack Clarke non-penalty for example, this incident is interpreted in a million ways. A tangle of legs, or a foul?
4) there are a few important rules that fans are very divided on: should there need to be daylight with offside? what should be the test for handball? to what extent should a player need to be interfering with play in order to be offside? should VAR intervene to give the "right" decision, or only change "clear and obvious" errors?
5) football fans love arguing, love shouting, players crowd round the referee and swear at him. It is what it is.
6) VAR incidents seem to take ages, and this is heightened by the lack of audio on the TV. Football is a free-flowing game, and we like this about it. VAR disrupts this. Also, you can't properly celebrate a goal, and goal celebrations are important because they are relatively few (see 1) above).
I think the substantive rules of football have piled complication on top of complication as a result of vastly increased over-scrutiny (ball to hand, hand to ball, goal ruled out for handball even if accidental, whereas it wouldn't be handball if a goal hadn't resulted - madness). I think the rules around VAR are wrong. For a ref to decide whether something is clear and obvious is a stupid test. If there is to be a margin of error, it should be objective even if arbitrary (see the half ball hitting the stumps thing in cricket ball tracking). So we have disagreement about the substantive rules and the VAR rules before we even get to whether the officials applied those rules (which is their only job, to be fair to them).
I think football is uniquely poorly suited to technological decision-making about matters which are not 100% objective (goal line technology seems to be uncontroversial). Decisions are considered to be wrong more often than in other sports by a larger portion of people, it matters more when they are wrong, and the process disrupts the game.
I don't know what the answer is.
Part of the answer, I am certain, is that if VAR is to remain, we should hear the audio of the decision makers. That will then enable us to judge whether the correct rules are being applied, how they are being applied, and therefore what needs to change. At present, there is a lot of crying foul in terms of officials' neutrality, and whether the VAR is "backing their mate" or not. Transparency is key. It will not end fierce argument, but it will shed more light and that has got to be a good thing. There has to be accountability. Just one bloke making a decision without anyone hearing his thoughts means that there is more scope for corruption and dumb-headed error. It's right to say that VAR isn't going anywhere any time soon, but I think an audio feed would make a big difference. It will either make us a little more grudgingly accepting, or it will increase the argument to scrap the thing. And that's a good thing I think. | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 10:57 - Dec 2 with 1469 views | glasso |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:35 - Dec 2 by Guthrum |
Szmodics trod on Silva's foot quite heavily (and inside the box) as the former lunged for the ball. That was what caused him to go down in pain, not any subsequent trip.
If there is any bias, it's likely more a matter of the established teams having the experience to milk situations better than ourselves. Screaming, rolling over and playing dead all serve to accentuate the coming together and innocent victimhood in the moment than simply going down in a heap before raising arms to a referee whose attention is already elsewhere. |
I agree with that to a point, but pretty much ALL of the denials about our penalty appeal against Leicester were pointing out that Chappers made a meal of it; that he was already jumping; that he laid on the floor to try and con the ref.
Pretty much all of the stuff Jota did, only when he does it, we all cry "that's clever! We should do more of that!" | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 10:59 - Dec 2 with 1452 views | NedPlimpton |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:35 - Dec 2 by Guthrum |
Szmodics trod on Silva's foot quite heavily (and inside the box) as the former lunged for the ball. That was what caused him to go down in pain, not any subsequent trip.
If there is any bias, it's likely more a matter of the established teams having the experience to milk situations better than ourselves. Screaming, rolling over and playing dead all serve to accentuate the coming together and innocent victimhood in the moment than simply going down in a heap before raising arms to a referee whose attention is already elsewhere. |
Also, the more experienced teams are less likely to play themselves into that situation. It's all well and good debating whether it was a penalty or not, but at the end of the day it's our own fault for giving the ref the decision to make and we've only got ourselves to blame. That seems to be getting ignored at the moment |  | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 12:19 - Dec 2 with 1253 views | bsw72 |
You need to take into account unconscious bias and the impact it has on both a referee at the larger more vociferous stadia but also the impact it has on us as fans.
Unconscious bias as part of human nature is almost 100% the reason for the perceived favourability in certain conditions / locations rather than a conscious act by those involved.
The other aspect is that we (as Ipswich fans) take more note of those calls involving our team and will tend to look at them with a more Ipswich favourable view - I cannot believe there is a conspiracy against the so called smaller clubs what you have are just decisions made by humans which either we do not agree with or are a mistake. I would pretty much guarantee that every fan has perceived bias against them, look at how Arsenal fans bleated on about their red cards earlier in the season.
VAR has compounded this by offering a means to "correct" an incorrect decision, but that is not what VAR is doing, it is just adding another level of human interpretation, which can be incorrect.
Generally football is a game of split second decisions by players and officials, of which a large number are subjective (was it a foul, were they interfering with play etc) rather than objective (were they in an offside position, did the ball go out of play).
VAR is probably reviewing more subjective than objective calls, and this is then compounded by only correcting those which it deems to be a "clear and obvious" failing. Therefore case an error is not a simple binary decision, it is asking an official in a box to interpret "how wrong something was" and not simply "was it a wrong decision"; hence tha additional layer of human perception / unconscious bias.
Finally the simple solution is "consistency" but from a human nature aspect, that is another fairly large can of worms which people have written PHD papers on, so not going there today. |  | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 12:26 - Dec 2 with 1214 views | Parmigiano |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 09:42 - Dec 2 by Asa |
I've always considered myself pretty objective and fair and consistent but it feels like three years now where we've had about 5 decisions go for us and about 50 against.
Two seasons we were top of the league and aren't exactly likely to complain about officials. But you can run it back to Sheffield Wednesday's offside equalizer, the ridiculous Harness goal ruled out against Barnsley, as far back as you want. It was constant all season.
How many decisions have we really got during that period you'd say we were lucky to get? We got a penalty against Port Vale the third time it hit Benning's hand! Morsy and Evans were lucky at Plymouth to only get yellows but that was in a match where a worst challenge from Mumba wasn't even a yellow.
The list of decisions against us is mental. Even removing borderline or blue tinted ones. We've barely got anything for in this period. Last season it was the same. Leeds and Leicester would fall over and get a penalty. We'd get pole axed in the box and nothing doing.
Bournemouth could have 10 penalties but maybe they deserved 20. Man City might have 3 but maybe they deserved none. I'm talking about us largely here and observations I have seen in all sorts of Premier League matches where marginal decisions go against the smaller teams.
I agree Armstrong's goal was offside as he interfered with play but I can't see that being ruled out had Brighton scored it.
The inconsistency itself is a massive issue. Not just from club to club and match to match but Arsenal had players sent off for tapping the ball away on a yellow when in the same match the other team had players hoof it 50 yards away without a booking.
From purely an ITFC perspective though, we must be an insane amount of net borderline decisions against us over three seasons now. [Post edited 2 Dec 2024 9:57]
|
A rare huge one in our favour was at home to Leicester last season when KDH was clearly wiped out for a penalty when they were already 1-0 up. Ref somehow didn’t see it. Then Morsy scored his quintuple deflected equaliser late on.
You’re right overall though; we are, without question, in a net deficit. | | | |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 12:39 - Dec 2 with 1157 views | Parmigiano |
| The bizarre case of penalties on 10:55 - Dec 2 by HighgateBlue |
I do agree that Armstrong's goal was a really poor decision.
I also do agree that it feels like we've been on the unlucky end of poor decisions more often than on the lucky end. But first I think all fans feel like that, especially when they're not doing well in the league, and secondly I don't think you can get an objective measure by going on the basis of what it feels like.
When refs get it wrong, I scream and shout, in person, at the telly, whatever. I am a bad loser. I overreact. So I'm not trying to tell anyone to be robotic or take the passion out or whatever. But I think in the cold light of day, trying to work out whether there is bias, or a terrible system, or terrible officials, or terrible rules, must be a question of objectivity.
I know we didn't have VAR in the lower leagues, and so technology is not the only, or even main, point of your contentions. But I'll set out a few thoughts on technology in sports refereeing, just to get it off my chest.
I think football is a really unique challenge in terms of refereeing. Maybe this is the interesting point here. As regards using technology, I think that there are several factors that affect whether it is a success or not, including:
1) how high stakes each decision is.
2) how subjective each decision is.
3) whether it is a contact sport or not.
4) whether fans are unanimous in liking the rules to start with.
5) what the culture of the sport is like, amongst players and fans.
6) impact of the technology on the flow of the match.
Looking at those factors in different sports:
A) Tennis.
1) each decision matters, and matters way more on some points than others, but at the end of the day, one point is seldom the difference between winning and losing.
2) when hawkeye is used, it is accepted that it is at least acceptably accurate, surely better than real time human eyes from a distance, and the ball is objectively either in or out. It is rare that there is genuine controversy.
3) non contact sport. I'll return to this below.
4) the rules haven't materially changed in a long time, in any way that is relevant to officiating. There's no real clamour for it.
5) the culture of the sport is respectful, not overly partisan, and not raucous in the main. That may be a bad thing or a good thing, but it's a thing.
6) The number of challenges is limited. It's a stoppy game anyway. And a challenge becomes part of the fun.
Technology overwhelmingly works in tennis.
B) Cricket
1) Each decision matters a fair bit, but with half a dozen really important wickets on each side, the number of important events is in double figures, before you even consider fours, sixes and the like. More important decisions per match than football, certainly, and so the impact of each is lessened in most cases.
2) There is some subjectivity, such as in interpreting the "snicko" data, or whether the ball hit the ground before being caught, and of course ball tracking is predictive, unlike in tennis, so there is room for doubt. it's not perfect, but people generally trust ball tracking and think that it's far better than an umpire's subjective judgment.
3) non contact sport
4) fans generally like the principal rules of cricket, and modes of dismissal are very well established and unlikely to change materially.
5) cricket is fairly sleepy, and even in T20 is pretty respectful of the officiating. I know there have been controversies in the past, but there were more pre-technology, and these have often related to pre-meditated cheating like sandpaper gate and all of that.
6) again it's a stoppy sport and the number of challenges is limited. One gets to hear some of the reasoning of the umpires and I think that's a good thing.
Technology works well in cricket.
C) Rugby
1) tries are relatively few, so the decisions are fairly high stakes, but nowhere near as much as in football. Looking at the 2023 six nations (stats easily to hand) there were at least 6 scoring events in every game, with a high of 24 and an average of about 13.
2) the rules are fiddly and complicated, and rely a lot on subjective decision making. But whether something is a try or not is typically not as subjective as for example behaviour in scrums, mauls etc.
3) Contact sport. In my view, in a contact sport there is a lot more room for disagreement as to whether interactions between players were lawful or not.
4) fans are fine with the /main/ rules. Things like offside are tinkered with, and some people hate some of the constant changes, but rarely affect whether a try is good or not.
5) culture of the sport - refs talk to captains, huge great big hulks of men show respect and rarely get angry with officials. This helps refs, and it helps fans not to get too angry as well.
6) it's more of a stoppy game than football anyway. The pauses are not excessive generally, and often you can hear what the refs are saying (on tv). This is good for transparency and for the overall experience.
On the whole technology works in rugby. Transparency really helps.
D) Football
This is a pretty perfect storm in my view.
1) Each decision matters a lot, because (a) there are very few scoring events in each game. A record number last year, but only just more than 3, (a) a red card makes a massive difference to the game, and (c) the money in football is huge huge huge.
2) The subjectivity levels are high. Whether a tackle is a foul or not, whether a handball hit the right bit of the body, whether it was sufficiently intentional, whether something was a obvious goalscoring opportunity, whether someone was the last man, whether someone was interfering with play. All of these are argued over a lot by fans. We know this.
3) the fact that it is a contact sport increases the number of subjective decisions. The Jack Clarke non-penalty for example, this incident is interpreted in a million ways. A tangle of legs, or a foul?
4) there are a few important rules that fans are very divided on: should there need to be daylight with offside? what should be the test for handball? to what extent should a player need to be interfering with play in order to be offside? should VAR intervene to give the "right" decision, or only change "clear and obvious" errors?
5) football fans love arguing, love shouting, players crowd round the referee and swear at him. It is what it is.
6) VAR incidents seem to take ages, and this is heightened by the lack of audio on the TV. Football is a free-flowing game, and we like this about it. VAR disrupts this. Also, you can't properly celebrate a goal, and goal celebrations are important because they are relatively few (see 1) above).
I think the substantive rules of football have piled complication on top of complication as a result of vastly increased over-scrutiny (ball to hand, hand to ball, goal ruled out for handball even if accidental, whereas it wouldn't be handball if a goal hadn't resulted - madness). I think the rules around VAR are wrong. For a ref to decide whether something is clear and obvious is a stupid test. If there is to be a margin of error, it should be objective even if arbitrary (see the half ball hitting the stumps thing in cricket ball tracking). So we have disagreement about the substantive rules and the VAR rules before we even get to whether the officials applied those rules (which is their only job, to be fair to them).
I think football is uniquely poorly suited to technological decision-making about matters which are not 100% objective (goal line technology seems to be uncontroversial). Decisions are considered to be wrong more often than in other sports by a larger portion of people, it matters more when they are wrong, and the process disrupts the game.
I don't know what the answer is.
Part of the answer, I am certain, is that if VAR is to remain, we should hear the audio of the decision makers. That will then enable us to judge whether the correct rules are being applied, how they are being applied, and therefore what needs to change. At present, there is a lot of crying foul in terms of officials' neutrality, and whether the VAR is "backing their mate" or not. Transparency is key. It will not end fierce argument, but it will shed more light and that has got to be a good thing. There has to be accountability. Just one bloke making a decision without anyone hearing his thoughts means that there is more scope for corruption and dumb-headed error. It's right to say that VAR isn't going anywhere any time soon, but I think an audio feed would make a big difference. It will either make us a little more grudgingly accepting, or it will increase the argument to scrap the thing. And that's a good thing I think. |
I like the comparisons with other sports. The key for me is that, in rugby, cricket and tennis, the best team/player on the day usually wins because so many points/runs are available and attainable. Whereas in football, the best team on the day doesn’t always win. For me, that’s why it’s the best sport in the world. Underdogs have a chance in every game, purely because the act of scoring a goal is much harder than scoring points in rugby or runs in cricket. And in tennis, one player has to win every point which again favours the better player on the day. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
