There has been a enourmous amount of booking this weekend and looking at the stats for the start of the season. There are ten Red cards and i gave up counting after 80 yellows (of course this would include the 2x yellows given to the 10red cards) To me that seems like a lot for just 5 games. Either teams are fouling alot more or is it the ref's being to soft.
The ref's have taken a huge step down, and I'm not talking about just Liverpool either. The Man U - Chelsea match yesterday had some important decisions missed by the ref, at the moment it's hit and miss whether you're going to get a lenient or card-happy ref.
Its a pitty that replays cant be viewed like in tennis they get (i think) 2 chances to challege the decision of the ref. The managers should have this too. Obviously there is pro's and cons to this but i like it
I agree with that for offsides, and think it should be standard for offside decisions when a goal is scored or the ball goes dead. After all, the time that players spend whining at the ref about offsides could be better spent reviewing the footage and it would only take a few seconds. It also wouldn't undermine the assistants or the ref imo as no one expects them to be 100% accurate given the pace of the modern game. But the problem with fouls and cards is that it's all about judgement. On this site alone there have already been Liverpool fans disagreeing over whether Skrtel's first offence was a yellow card yesterday, and Chelsea fans disagreeing over whether Cole's challenge on Hernandez deserved no punishment, a yellow card, or a red card. If the fans of the club can't even decide what the right decision is after viewing endless replays some hours after the event, how can referees do the same with ten or fifteen seconds to view the replay? Added to which, marginal decisions being overruled would probably just damage the ref's confidence and make their future decisions even worse. Btw, last season there were 64 red cards in all, which is 8.4 per every five rounds of games. So 10 red cards isn't way over that level imo. Also there were 1,238 yellow cards, which works out at 162.9 for every five rounds of games, which is again only slightly less than the current total of 176 yellow cards. And those numbers will probably come down over the season as people get used to the stricter interpretation refs seem to be taking this season.
Is that really a lot? 5 rounds of games, roughly 10 games per 'round' give or take the odd few, take off the margin of error is 40 matches. is 2 yellow cards a match and 1 red in every 4 games really that excessive? Or am I just being a bit mathematically dull......?
Interesting. According to my spreadsheet, which I update weekly, last season there were 1246 yellows and 65 reds handed out last season in the prem.
I just took the stats from here: http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueDiscipline2010-11.html The red card tallies total with the PL's official list (http://www.premierleague.com/page/Statistics/0,,12306,00.html) and I didn't bother checking the yellows. Either way, it doesn't look like there are a huge number of additional reds or yellows this season.
ok so hang on with the stats. first one guy says its 8.4 reds cards for every set of 5 matchs... ok i can accept there could be a trend there, however.... statisitcally you would be much better to break the sample set into a smaller szie (say oh 1 or 3) so if you said to me for every 3 sets of games you get 5.04 reds and thats 12 data points or on average we got 1.68 reds per et of games last year and that is over 38 data points I could say ok now you've some real data you could throw into a control chart and tell me if the dta is consistent and stable. now that said 8.4 to 10 is an increase of 15% which is a lot but you have only one data point. you can't tell anything from one data point unless its way off. (3 sigma for example) so i'd suggest you got trend the data over a mean and range chart for a smaple size of no more than 3 rounds of games and then you could plot this latest data against that.... in the meantime i'll jsut assume there's a few younger refs who've not been hammered enough by ferguson yet. some say he gets favoritism, i say he puts them in their place when the first arrive and we all get the benefit of less card waving wannabes.
Doesnt seem alot at all. In fact the numbers are very very low I think. Edit, hasnt there been like 48 games so far? Its like <2 yellows a game which is low by any standards.
Stats are misleading. You can't look at cards/fouls on a 5match average, you need to look at how those cards/fouls were distributed per match. Overall, the numbers aren't too far off from previous seasons, however there could well be games with 0 bookings but 20 fouls, and a game with 10 bookings and 11 fouls. The point which I believe is more true is that consistancy is massively lacking from game to game based on referees' opinions and not how many bookings we've seen overall.
The stats will only tell you part of the story no matter how you construct them. Take Sunday's game. Liverpool had 2 players sent off (rightly or wrongly) but the effect upon the game was not equal. Until the 2nd sending-off, Liverpool were technically 'still in the game'. Somehow you have to be able to measure both the timing and the efcts of the sending-offs.
Take Arsenal out of the equation, and I would imagine the stats would be quite lower. ****ing dirty gooners.
With 49 games gone, there have been 10 red cards and 176 yellow cards issued. That averages-out to a red for every 4.9 games and 3.59 yellows a match. So how does this compare with last season? The 380 matches played produced 64 reds and 1,238 yellows. That averages-out to a red for every 5.94 matches and 3.29 yellows a game. Premier League Discipline Tables 2011-12
I did this earlier on a thread about how we could blag back door entry into Europe. Interstingly, Man City are the next "cleanest" team after ourselves... I'd have thought with a load of no nonsense players (Kompany, De Jong, Lescott, Yaya Toure) they'd be picking up yellows, but they seem to be keeping away from them thus far. Personally, I don't think there's much difference in refereeing, from what I've seen in the past. Having said that, our midfield three have definitely had more protection than they would have in the Championship, I'm sure of it. They're all tiny, and they seem to be benefiting from this at the moment! Originally I thought this was a thread about Stoke *runs and hides*
Not really - I thought the same - 5 rounds of games - 20 teams have played 5 times each (except for Spurs and Everton) which means, on average, out of a possible 1100 bookings (if every player which started every game had been booked) which could have occurred, only 80 have actually occurred (not including subs etc. so it would probably actually be more) 7% booking rate - it looks a lot when you say 80 yellows in 5 games but it really isn't as many as it seems Besides - don't certain players like Cattermole and Tiote start every game with a yellow card? Not a massive amount all in all really Edit - although the actual numbers (from the JPG above) are 177 yellows and 10 reds - which is a little worse than I tought (i.e. more like 16%!!)
Another form of evidence is statistics. Statistics are a favorite evidence of many writers and speakers. They provide actual numbers in support of ideas and conclusions. If you can show that 75% of high schools seniors cannot find Washington State on a map of North America, then it is strong evidence for your contention that high school seniors are not being taught the geography of the United States. Such evidence is not only difficult to refute, it's often accepted as the final word in what's true or not true. Statistics are a prime source of proof that what you say is true. Statistics are based on studies: a search for possible connections between disparate facts that nonetheless have a connection. If you remember your math classes, you will recall the concept of sets and subsets. Statistics are, in large measure, concerned with that concept. They are basically telling you the proportion a subset represents in a set. To clarify this idea, look at political polls. Candidate A receives 46% approval, Candidate B receives 43% approval. Thus, the subset "responses favoring Candidate A" is 46% of the whole set, "People asked about Candidates A and B." Another example, from real life. William Chadwick, with his assistant William Farr, during the great cholera plague in London in 1831, drew together factors on who was getting the disease and where they were getting it in London. They were looking for some common factor that would lead to what was the source of the disease. Their statistics led them to the conclusion that the polluted waters of the Thames River was the source, and there was a particular pump that supplied the water to certain neighborhoods that was a prime source of infection. With these data they were able to make recommendations which did much to reduce the incidence of cholera in London. Statistics also use samples to obtain results, rather than doing actual "head counts". Neilson ratings on how many of what kind of people watch a particular TV program is not determined by the Neilson company asking all 300 million people in the United States what they are watching every few minutes. What they use is a sample of the population (called the Neilson families) that, demographically, represent the 300 million people. Neilson selects these families very carefully since each one represents the viewing habits and desires of some 60,000 people. Nonetheless the statistics generated by the Neilson measurements are used to make programming decisions and set advertising rates and budgets, things that represent billions of dollars. Thus the selection of the sample, whether Neilson's or incidence of AIDS in the US population, is of paramount importance in the validity of the statistics thus generated. The above is, of course, a simplistic view of an extremely complicated discipline. It is, nonetheless, the essence of statistics. Statistics are invaluable as evidence in support of conclusions. If you can either find or generate statistics that show the truth of your conclusions, there are few that would refute your ideas. There are, of course, problems with using statistics as evidence. Let me remind you of a famous saying: "There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics." What you must do is ask yourself some questions: who did the study that came up with the statistics, what exactly are the statistics measuring, who was asked, how were they asked, and compared with what? If one believes in the truth of statistics (and there are many such), then how does one explain that the same Presidential candidate can be 20 points ahead and 5 points behind his opponent in the polls at the same time? After all, both polls are "statistics". What you must be examine, if you wish to use statistics as evidence, are the above questions.
