Of course it all evens out..

[BTRFTG]

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

They should learn from footballers / managers what a foul is,

Given managers and players struggle with The Laws what use might this be?

Better pre season and pre match (as in theory they do now,) they remind The Laws and, most importantly, of their intention to apply them. Two weeks of chaos and things will settle down save when English clubs play in Europe or England in international events.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

Given managers and players struggle with The Laws what use might this be?

Better pre season and pre match (as in theory they do now,) they remind The Laws and, most importantly, of their intention to apply them. Two weeks of chaos and things will settle down save when English clubs play in Europe or England in international events.

That’s why I suggested it should work both ways.

[BTRFTG]

Just now, Davefevs said:

That’s why I suggested it should work both ways.

It doesn't and never should (though Ferguson would disagree).

There are Laws.

Laws are not subject to interpretation.

The officials implement those Laws.

If managers and players don't understand The Laws, they should.

If players transgress The Laws they must be punished in accordance with those Laws.

[Rich]

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Again that's harsh on officials. The problem lies with The Laws and the way in which officials are asked to implement them.

Your point about the Laws of Physics being wholly valid.

 

Can't see how that's harsh on officials. All I want them to be able to do is differentiate between the instigator and the recipient, action and reaction, simple physics really.

How many times have we seen a defender in the air about to head the ball, his only movement is either up or down, an attacker backs into him and the defender lands on top, the referee gives a foul against the defender, totally opposite of the correct decision.

[Rich]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

It doesn't and never should (though Ferguson would disagree).

There are Laws.

Laws are not subject to interpretation.

The officials implement those Laws.

If managers and players don't understand The Laws, they should.

If players transgress The Laws they must be punished in accordance with those Laws.

We do see though that the officials ignore many laws, particularly when within the penalty area. I refer to obvious fouls committed when holding onto players, easily stopped, warn before the match that a penalty will be awarded for such infringements.

[View from the Dolman]

18 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

There are Laws.

Laws are not subject to interpretation.

The officials implement those Laws.

Staggering.

Strange how there is a section entitled in the IFAB Laws of the Game called "interpreting the law".

[BTRFTG]

8 minutes ago, Rich said:

Can't see how that's harsh on officials. All I want them to be able to do is differentiate between the instigator and the recipient, action and reaction, simple physics really.

How many times have we seen a defender in the air about to head the ball, his only movement is either up or down, an attacker backs into him and the defender lands on top, the referee gives a foul against the defender, totally opposite of the correct decision.

Wholly agree though in that case it's usually adjudged that the striker halts with the defender running into him as few jump straight up and down. In that case its a tad like driving, matters not who's caused the incident, stupid Law 12 forbids challenges from behind save where one is able so to do without contact - yeah, go figure... Strikers backing in should be punished but rarely are and that's just bad officiating. In respect of physics the worst is the commonplace interpretation  that players must jump with their arms by their sides- barmy.

In respect of culprit and recipient my bugbear is the protection of players not in control of the ball nor seeking to control the ball who then obstruct opponents. Usually seen with defenders marshalling the ball into touch. Law 12 has this covered but it appears the authorities have dictated it should not be applied in certain circumstance. That's barmy.

Again that's not the officials, it's FIFA, UEFA and their diktat.

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, Rich said:

We do see though that the officials ignore many laws, particularly when within the penalty area. I refer to obvious fouls committed when holding onto players, easily stopped, warn before the match that a penalty will be awarded for such infringements.

Exactly, they do interpret the rules / laws.

[BTRFTG]

Just now, View from the Dolman said:

Staggering.

Strange how there is a section entitled in the IFAB Laws of the Game called "interpreting the law".

Any therein lies the problem.

IFAB love to provide guidance on how Law should be interpreted and regularly change that, including in season when it's found not to work, but the simple fact is Laws are Laws and rules are rules and only rules are interpretive.

For example,  they've made mockery of Law 11, it's no longer enforceable without a microscope and multiple TV replays, so God help kids in the park. We were punished Sunday for an advantage that was interpreted no advantage, Semenyo scored Wednesday using the same interpretation.

The Laws should be in the 'opinion of the officials', then you may call them out as to whether or not they've done a good job. A few years ago IFAB went big on sanctions first few weeks of the season which saw multiple sendings off and rather than reinforce the message to players they did a quick reverse ferret. What message does that send?

[BTRFTG]

27 minutes ago, Rich said:

We do see though that the officials ignore many laws, particularly when within the penalty area. I refer to obvious fouls committed when holding onto players, easily stopped, warn before the match that a penalty will be awarded for such infringements.

That's rank bad officiating. The 'I won't book you because were only 5 minutes in... 'I'll give you a second bite at the cherry'. Ditto failing to blow when time's up instead waiting for play to come to a neutral point.

There was a time Refs did just as you correctly suggest and the authorities didn't like it and accused them of spoiling the game. The Lawmakers can't have it both ways 

 

[BTRFTG]

36 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Staggering.

Strange how there is a section entitled in the IFAB Laws of the Game called "interpreting the law".

It's actually called 'guidance' and here's what it says:

These guidelines contain practical advice for match officials which 
supplements the information in the Laws of the Game section.
Reference is made in Law 5 to referees operating within the framework of the 
Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’. Referees are expected to use 
common sense and to apply the ‘spirit of the game’ when applying the Laws of 
the Game, especially when making decisions relating to whether a match takes 
place and/or continues. 
This is especially true for the lower levels of football where it may not always 
be possible for the Law to be strictly applied. For example, unless there are 
safety issues, the referee should allow a game to start/continue if:
• one or more corner flags is missing
• there is a minor inaccuracy with the markings on the field of play such as 
the corner area, centre circle etc.
• the goalposts/crossbar are not white
In such cases, the referee should, with the agreement of the teams, play/
continue the match and must submit a report to the appropriate authority.

 

Officials are NOT at liberty to amend The Laws.

[BTRFTG]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Exactly, they do interpret the rules / laws.

It's ignoring, not interpretation and the finest example about which folks get het up each week is Law 15 - The Throw In.

The Law is exact. The ball must be returned to play from the spot it left the field of play either on the ground or in the air. Couldn't be clearer. And does that happen? Like **** does it. And why is that?

IFAB and the other authorities demand officials officiate within what is nebulously termed 'the spirit of the game', whatever that means. They don't want each and every minor infringement punished. IFAB went so far as to produce analysis showing in the majority of cases the team returning the ball to play cedes possession within two touches (in City's case it's one.) They concluded taking a throw-in from the wrong spot or occasionally seeing the thrower having the whole of one of their feet over the line no longer matters and shouldn't routinely be punished. They've given up on Law 15 but haven't rewritten the Law. Try telling that to the crowd berating the officials when the officials know they've been asked not to implement The Law as written.

 

[bredwood]

Here's the link to that article again.. https://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2021/wp364/en/

The stats seem to point out that we are around 50% more unlikely to get a penalty than any other club in the division.

 

 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, bredwood said:

Here's the link to that article again.. https://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2021/wp364/en/

The stats seem to point out that we are around 50% more unlikely to get a penalty than any other club in the division.

 

 

Yet another utterly meaningless, faux correlation. What has 'big chances' (whatever they) to do with penalties being awarded? Nothing is the answer. Here's why:

Contrast two sides, one with pacy, tricky forwards who create chances by breaking quickly into their opponents box tantalizing defences. The other, a huge team of lumps, who mostly score when they send the tall blokes up for corners and free kicks. Which of those is more likely to be involved in penalty incidents?

City haven't had tricky and pacy wide men for years, nor nimble forwards in the box. We don't get awarded penalties because we rarely get ourselves into a position to be fouled in the box.

Beyond me why folks are unable to comprehend the difference between correlation and causation.

 

[Rich]

6 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Yet another utterly meaningless, faux correlation. What has 'big chances' (whatever they) to do with penalties being awarded? Nothing is the answer. Here's why:

Contrast two sides, one with pacy, tricky forwards who create chances by breaking quickly into their opponents box tantalizing defences. The other, a huge team of lumps, who mostly score when they send the tall blokes up for corners and free kicks. Which of those is more likely to be involved in penalty incidents?

City haven't had tricky and pacy wide men for years, nor nimble forwards in the box. We don't get awarded penalties because we rarely get ourselves into a position to be fouled in the box.

Beyond me why folks are unable to comprehend the difference between correlation and causation.

 

While I agree that we don't get into dangerous areas as often as some other teams, resulting in fewer shouts for penalties. We've had a few tricky type player that's been able to get in the box, such as, Patterson, Elliason, O'Dowda, more recently Scott, sure there must be others but, as others have stated, we've had a fair amount of so called stone wall penalties not given for us, while at the same time some very soft ones given against us.

I firmly believe that there's a perception amongst officials that what you say is the case, yet a run of the mill middle championship team like Preston can average about eleven pens a season. There are some teams that just seem good at winning penalties or putting constant pressure on the ref by being able to get in the box and invite challenges which result in penalties being awarded.

I believe we are not very good at either getting the opposition to make rash challenges but, also not very good at putting pressure on the ref to give them. We do seem to have had plenty of cases especially more recently, where we've almost been assaulted and nothing has been awarded.

We have certainly been a more adventurous side this season with plenty of players getting in the box and rash challenges made, yet no penalties. It can't just be down to the officials net getting it right. On the gas thread I mentioned about their supporters, the coaches, subs and managers react and claim for fouls bookings and penalties, as one, this is bound to have an effect and put pressure onto the officials to act. At AG, I feel we are one of the least responsive sets of supporters, probably comatosed into accepting that we won't be very successful, after years, no decades of mediocrity. 

 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Rich said:

Patterson, Elliason, O'Dowda

The Swede was the only one of the 3 who had the ability to beat players and cross the ball, which he always did out wide, rarely troubling the box.

The other two couldn't beat their own proverbial, rarely enter the box and in CoD's case results either in  a corner (major success) though normally sees the ball fly high and beyond the dead ball line.

Even this season when the likes of Semenyo have broken into the box it doesn't help the ball's invariably yards away from his control.

There's no conspiracy against us. We don't get pens because we don't create enough of those opportunities for them to be given and as I written elsewhere, our propensity to fall over in a light breeze everywhere on the park creates a reputation that negates decisions when deserved.

[Rich]

1 minute ago, BTRFTG said:

The Swede was the only one of the 3 who had the ability to beat players and cross the ball, which he always did out wide, rarely troubling the box.

The other two couldn't beat their own proverbial, rarely enter the box and in CoD's case results either in  a corner (major success) though normally sees the ball fly high and beyond the dead ball line.

Even this season when the likes of Semenyo have broken into the box it doesn't help the ball's invariably yards away from his control.

There's no conspiracy against us. We don't get pens because we don't create enough of those opportunities for them to be given and as I written elsewhere, our propensity to fall over in a light breeze everywhere on the park creates a reputation that negates decisions when deserved.

You're very positive in your take on things, even to the point of your positivity being negative. I personally feel the awarding or not of penalties is a very grey area. I don't agree with your assessment of some of our players and I've never claimed there was a conspiracy against us, where you got that from I don't know. We'll have to agree to disagree. 

[The Swan and Cemetery]

10 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

The Swede was the only one of the 3 who had the ability to beat players and cross the ball, which he always did out wide, rarely troubling the box.

The other two couldn't beat their own proverbial, rarely enter the box and in CoD's case results either in  a corner (major success) though normally sees the ball fly high and beyond the dead ball line.

Even this season when the likes of Semenyo have broken into the box it doesn't help the ball's invariably yards away from his control.

There's no conspiracy against us. We don't get pens because we don't create enough of those opportunities for them to be given and as I written elsewhere, our propensity to fall over in a light breeze everywhere on the park creates a reputation that negates decisions when deserved.

Surely the laws are the laws? Not convinced of any higher level of moral bankruptcy from our players vs other teams, but even if there was, the role of officials is to apply the laws, which means giving penalties when laws indicate there should be one and punishing players who cheat/show dissent? Dangerous approach if refs are considering the reputation of our players when making their decisions, surely the job is to observe what’s in front of them? Accept its far fetched that there’s an actual conspiracy, but yet to see decisions even out for us this season. Also accept that, however frustrating, it maybe a statistical anomaly, easy enough to come up tails ten times in a row. 

[luke_bristol]

11 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

The Swede was the only one of the 3 who had the ability to beat players and cross the ball, which he always did out wide, rarely troubling the box.

The other two couldn't beat their own proverbial, rarely enter the box and in CoD's case results either in  a corner (major success) though normally sees the ball fly high and beyond the dead ball line.

Even this season when the likes of Semenyo have broken into the box it doesn't help the ball's invariably yards away from his control.

There's no conspiracy against us. We don't get pens because we don't create enough of those opportunities for them to be given and as I written elsewhere, our propensity to fall over in a light breeze everywhere on the park creates a reputation that negates decisions when deserved.

Did Luis Suarez stop getting penalties shortly after arriving in England when it was obvious how much he dived, and the 1000x as much coverage of the EPL cemented that deserved reputation rapidly? Was he regularly booked for diving? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, luke_bristol said:

Did Luis Suarez stop getting penalties shortly after arriving in England when it was obvious how much he dived, and the 1000x as much coverage of the EPL cemented that deserved reputation rapidly? Was he regularly booked for diving? 

I wonder if Colin Murray and his mate not only highlighting what they saw as a positive refereeing decision but the fact that Semenyo went down easily (in their view) at Preston has had an impact. I remember them highlighting it.

Although it predates that significantly- but in the past some have had a reputation as going down easily- I remember in the mid 2000's Ronaldo, Johnson and Drogba which probably didn't help their cause.