An article on 606 that has received scant interest so far. It's about an article posted on the bbc football page about independent measuring of referees performances in the premiership.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9379989.stm
First off, it's interesting that The Premier League do not release statistical information about refereeing performances but insist that they're doing a good job.
There is an obligatory nod to how video technology being implemented in most other major sports has helped improve decision-making no end and how soccer is lagging behind. The excuse we're given for video technology not being implemented is that it would be unfair as it couldn't be implemented across the spectrum of football. This of course, could be offered as an excuse in any of the other major sports but isn't. So would people agee that FIFA refuse to implement it because they cannot corruptly control the outcomes of matches with such ease if it is implemented?
And also, there is research into referee's performances being conducted by two Belgians that indicates that referees are only getting 62.75% decisions correct in our games. In fact, two of the referees got as little as 40% of the decisions correct, namely Chris Foy at home to Fulham, and Howard Webb away to Manchester United. I expect many to point to the fact that the two Belgians are Arsenal supporters, and in response to that it was interesting to note that they named Mark Clattenburg as our best referee so far in our 2-3 defeat to West Brom with 93% of decisions correct.
Irrespective of that, these people are paving the way for independent statistical research of referee's performances, and already their research is showing up patterns of biased refereeing for or against certain teams.
As this research comes into the public domain, I wonder how The Premier League will justify using referees in matches where they've clearly shown a bias towards one or both of the participating teams in the past?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9379989.stm
First off, it's interesting that The Premier League do not release statistical information about refereeing performances but insist that they're doing a good job.
There is an obligatory nod to how video technology being implemented in most other major sports has helped improve decision-making no end and how soccer is lagging behind. The excuse we're given for video technology not being implemented is that it would be unfair as it couldn't be implemented across the spectrum of football. This of course, could be offered as an excuse in any of the other major sports but isn't. So would people agee that FIFA refuse to implement it because they cannot corruptly control the outcomes of matches with such ease if it is implemented?
And also, there is research into referee's performances being conducted by two Belgians that indicates that referees are only getting 62.75% decisions correct in our games. In fact, two of the referees got as little as 40% of the decisions correct, namely Chris Foy at home to Fulham, and Howard Webb away to Manchester United. I expect many to point to the fact that the two Belgians are Arsenal supporters, and in response to that it was interesting to note that they named Mark Clattenburg as our best referee so far in our 2-3 defeat to West Brom with 93% of decisions correct.
Irrespective of that, these people are paving the way for independent statistical research of referee's performances, and already their research is showing up patterns of biased refereeing for or against certain teams.
As this research comes into the public domain, I wonder how The Premier League will justify using referees in matches where they've clearly shown a bias towards one or both of the participating teams in the past?
I didn't actually dismiss it out of hand, I looked at the methodology, the sample, and the judgments made in creating the data set before pointing out how fundamentally flawed it is. I could provide numerous examples of poor quality statistics, and immense bias in the data itself, but that would probably bore everyone to tears. Just look at the Barton example above to see how the research has created and inflated the level of 'errors' to make refs look bad.
