In fairness United fans have a reputation for being really loud and noisy... so you can understand how referee's would get intimidated...

You'll have to explain although this debate is not my cup of tea. A back of the net ball could not be missed by the Roy Carroll one was a belter.

7_T_B We're all cheering you on Muamba! (U5768)
posted 1 minute ago

In fairness United fans have a reputation for being really loud and noisy... so you can understand how referee's would get intimidated...
===================

Not at times on Monday night.

ssssshhhhhhh

So referee's give United decisions because the large amount of quiet people in the stadium is very intimidating.....?

This is where the wums fall down, I can't see how our crowd can intimidate referee's into decisions whilst also being so quiet that opposition fans take the mick.

Either we are loud and intimidating or quiet and unintimidating. That one will have them chasing their tail for hours now, do I want to criticise United fans or make out United get unfair decisions?

comment by Javier-Stevie&Aquilani (U7411)
posted 11 minutes ago

You'll have to explain although this debate is not my cup of tea.

.............

Think along the lines of the physicality of turning an eye you can not see out of.

comment by Javier-Stevie&Aquilani (U7411)
posted 12 minutes ago

7_T_B We're all cheering you on Muamba! (U5768)
posted 1 minute ago

In fairness United fans have a reputation for being really loud and noisy... so you can understand how referee's would get intimidated...
===================

Not at times on Monday night.

..............

That was his point.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Javier-Stevie&Aquilani (U7411)
posted 11 minutes ago

You'll have to explain although this debate is not my cup of tea.

.............

Think along the lines of the physicality of turning an eye you can not see out of.
-----------------------------------------------
Or turning into a field doesn't actually mean you physically transform into a field.

“The sentence you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford doesn't exclude the possibility that several terrible fouls have to be committed in the box for that penalty to happen. The only thing that needs to be happen for that to be true is to have some teams over a certain period of time getting more penalties.”

OK here we come to the crux of the matter, what do we mean when we say “more likely”. You are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford simply because the number given is more. You are measuring penalties given compared to the amount of time played. 9 penalties in 9 years is more than 7 penalties in 9 years… so there are more, and hence you are more likely to get a penalty at OT.

This is a simple way of doing it - but it is fundamentally flawed as penalties are not given based on time – they are given based on fouls in the box.
If Manchester United should concede 10 penalties and only concede 5 – whilst Arsenal should concede 4 and do concede 4 – then you are less likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford because 100% of penalties are given at Arsenal, whereas only half of them are given at Old Trafford.
Look at this from the perspective of an individual challenge on a player – if at OT a referee gives only 50% of penalties then when you are fouled in the box you have an even chance of it being given or not given. If you are fouled in the box and the referee gives 100% of the penalties – then you are certain to get the penalty.
Therefore at OT you are less likely to get a penalty awarded for each foul.

Regardless of how many times this happens – you are less likely to get one! Saying it happens more and measuring it by time is simply not valid.

“Personally I dont follow football for stats and I couldnt be bothered checking either the telegraphs or ripleys numbers. But myth by definition is something that isnt based on fact and as such cannot be proved by facts and should be considered bullturds...”
I don’t think TOOR, Ripley or I do either… that’s completely irrelevant though. Again we aren’t saying the myth is true – we are saying the stat given does not disprove it!
Even if Ripley’s stats are wrong – look at the point that is being made… the stats given prove nothing either way!


Vidic – the stat doesn’t prove the myth to be false. I think you’re just teasing us now – you understand really!

Vidic – the stat doesn’t prove the myth to be false. I think you’re just teasing us now – you understand really!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The stat as put forward by the telegraph journo

was to prove that

"Manchester United more likely to concede penalty at home than Fulham despite manager Martin Jol's claim"

now if this goes to the crux of the famous myth well then it dose prove the myth to be false....

BTW I am favoring the validity of the jounos stats over ripleys......

Vidic – the stat doesn’t prove the myth to be false.

....................

It quite clearly does.

This is a simple way of doing it - but it is fundamentally flawed as penalties are not given based on time – they are given based on fouls in the box.
...............................

You are adding conditions that are not specified in the original post.

The sentence simply states you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford than you are several other grounds.

There is no specific mention of amount of fouls or anything else, all that needs to be made sure of is that the same amount of games have been played at all the grounds listed.

What you are actually arguing is that this doesn't prove United don't give away more penalties per foul in the box, but that isn't mentioned at all in the original sentence so is not actually an argument against the original sentence.

You are more likely to get penalties at Old Trafford than several other grounds (over the last 5 years)

No mentions of amount of fouls or tackles just simply how many penalties have been given and a time frame.

"Manchester United more likely to concede penalty at home than Fulham despite manager Martin Jol's claim"

“now if this goes to the crux of the famous myth well then it dose prove the myth to be false....”

Not more likely – OK a foul is committed and a penalty should be awarded.
If it more likely to happen at a ground where 100% of penalties are given, or where 10% of penalties are given?
It is more likely to happen where the foul to penalty awards ratio is higher!

“BTW I am favoring the validity of the jounos stats over ripleys......”
Both sets of stats prove nothing!

comment by filters=wimps (U11635)
posted 1 minute ago
Vidic – the stat doesn’t prove the myth to be false. I think you’re just teasing us now – you understand really!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The stat as put forward by the telegraph journo

was to prove that

"Manchester United more likely to concede penalty at home than Fulham despite manager Martin Jol's claim"

now if this goes to the crux of the famous myth well then it dose prove the myth to be false....

BTW I am favoring the validity of the jounos stats over ripleys......
-------------------------------------
No. This simply proves in the past five or six seasons United have had more penalties against them. It doesn't prove you are less likely to get one, as has been repeated over and over again, you'd have to take many more factors into it.

This simply proves in the past five or six seasons United have had more penalties against them.

...................

Sort of goes against the myth then, doesn't it.?

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 seconds ago
This simply proves in the past five or six seasons United have had more penalties against them.

...................

Sort of goes against the myth then, doesn't it.?
----------------------------------------
No, as it doesn't take other factors into it, for example how many should have been given but weren't. How many should not have been given but were.

Do you not think it interesting that the writer took only the past five or six seasons into account when clearly the 'myth' has been going on a lot longer than that? Why six seasons? Why did he chose that amount? Is it because digging any further back would have resulted in him not reaching his target?

Come on, I think we can all accept that there is no evidence to suggest you're less likely to get penalties at Old Trafford and also that these stats don't prove it either way.

No, as it doesn't take other factors into it, for example how many should have been given but weren't. How many should not have been given but were.

Do you not think it interesting that the writer took only the past five or six seasons into account when clearly the 'myth' has been going on a lot longer than that? Why six seasons? Why did he chose that amount? Is it because digging any further back would have resulted in him not reaching his target?

Come on, I think we can all accept that there is no evidence to suggest you're less likely to get penalties at Old Trafford and also that these stats don't prove it either way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

the journalist is trying to use FACTS to address a MYTH. He has put forward STATS i.e FACTS that proved that in the past 6 seasons UTD conceded more pens at OT than Fulham did at craven cottage.

You however want to cling to the subjective and the what ifs and some conspiracy regarding the journalist only going back 6 years.....

“You are adding conditions that are not specified in the original post.
The sentence simply states you are more likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford than you are several other grounds.”

I’m not adding more conditions – the condition is how likely you are to getting a penalty. A penalty is awarded for a foul… a penalty is not awarded based on how long a team plays.
A team could go a whole season not conceding a single penalty – that would not prove that referees favour that side – since it would depend entirely on how many penalties should have been given. To say each team should get 7 penalties is meaningless… why 7? Why 10? Why 20? Surely a team should get penalties when they are fouled in the box – not just pick up the same number as every other team by the end of the season!

“What you are actually arguing is that this doesn't prove United don't give away more penalties per foul in the box, but that isn't mentioned at all in the original sentence so is not actually an argument against the original sentence.”
The discussion is whether or not you are more or less likely to get penalties at OT – penalties are given for fouls in the box… how can it not be against that?

“You are more likely to get penalties at Old Trafford than several other grounds (over the last 5 years)”
I think actually it’s more accurate to just say - More penalties have been given – to infer more than that is incorrect as you aren’t judging it by its proper standards.

“No mentions of amount of fouls or tackles just simply how many penalties have been given and a time frame.”
I know – the whole point we are making is that that is an inadequate measure. It does not prove you are more or less likely to get a penalty at Old Trafford.

the journalist is trying to use FACTS to address a MYTH. He has put forward STATS i.e FACTS that proved that in the past 6 seasons UTD conceded more pens at OT than Fulham did at craven cottage.
-------------------------------------------
True. However he hasn't dispelled the myth that it's more difficult to get penalties at Old Trafford.

Only that more have been given, in that period, go back a year further and it's a different story, go back ten more and it's very different. The writer chose six seasons on purpose. He used wrong stats and a time limit on purpose.

He's made himself look rather silly and many of you fools are hanging on his every word, as your bias blinds you.

However he hasn't dispelled the myth that it's more difficult to get penalties at Old Trafford.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet he proved in recent seasons its more difficult to get pens at craven cottage than it is at OT.

Why isnt there a myth regarding Fulham

Off ye pop to the fulham board....

This simply proves in the past five or six seasons United have had more penalties against them.

...................

Sort of goes against the myth then, doesn't it.?
----------------------------------------
No

............

it does. You just said it:

This simply proves in the past five or six seasons United have had more penalties against them.

How do you keep forgetting what you say?

Don't take this the wrong way but you need to contact Terry Pratchetts site.

“the journalist is trying to use FACTS to address a MYTH. He has put forward STATS i.e FACTS that proved that in the past 6 seasons UTD conceded more pens at OT than Fulham did at craven cottage.”
Agreed – the trouble is he is putting forward the wrong facts.

Consider the ‘Fergie time’ myth. Would it be applicable to just add up all the injury time of every match and see which team gets more? You could do that and present a statistic that say Man Utd get less injury time in their games than say Arsenal. If Arsenal have had two broken leg injuries which took 10 minutes each that would severely skew the results wouldn’t it?

“You however want to cling to the subjective and the what ifs and some conspiracy regarding the journalist only going back 6 years.....”
We aren’t clinging to subjective – we are actually asking for something objective and meaningful… the journos stats are not.

Look at it this way – One man earns £10 an hour, while his younger brother earns £5 an hour. Who works harder?
The elder brother earns more money – that is proven by the facts. Who works harder is not proven by the facts – the one on less money might work twice as hard but be just paid less. Stats are all well and good but they have to be the relevant ones.

This has shown that Blackburn are very unfairly treated by the FA. Thanks.

Filters - he hasn't proved it's more difficult to get pens at Fulham... this just simply is not true.

He has proved more pens have been given over a period of time at OT.

The difficulty in getting a pen is not based on time though- you get a pen when you are fouled in the box... so that should be the ciretrion!

comment by filters=wimps (U11635)
posted 5 minutes ago
However he hasn't dispelled the myth that it's more difficult to get penalties at Old Trafford.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet he proved in recent seasons its more difficult to get pens at craven cottage than it is at OT.
---------------------------
No he didn't. He proved there has been more penalties at Old Trafford than at Craven Cottage.