2010-11 Premier league table with No Ref errors.

[sunilvk7]

REVEALED: The table that shows Arsenal and Blackpool were cheated last season

By Nick Harris

SJA Internet Sports Writer of the Year

21 August 2011

Arsenal would have been runners-up in the Premier League last season and Blackpool wouldn’t have been relegated if match officials hadn’t made mistakes. (See table at bottom).

These are the headline findings from extensive new research that re-examined 713 ‘significant’ incidents – penalties, goal line incidents, offside goals – across the Premier League’s 380 games in 2010-11.

Arsenal ended up fourth with 68 points but should in reality have won 72 points and finished second to Manchester United.

Manchester City should have won nine fewer points than they did and finished fourth.

Blackpool and Birmingham should have avoided relegation while Wigan and Wolves should have been relegated along with West Ham. (West Ham should have had seven more points than they actually got but would have gone down anyway).

The research was conducted by broadcaster and journalist Tim Long for his radio documentary, Beyond The Goal Line: Football’s Technology Debate. The programme explores the need for technology, and how officiating errors can make a material difference to clubs, and versions are being aired in Australia and Britain.

The point was not to be critical of referees – because it is accepted they do their best in good faith – but to illustrate how even simple television replays can highlight erroneous decisions. Replays have shown this again this weekend in the Premier League, for example at Arsenal and Sunderland.

Long spent 250 hours analysing the 713 incidents, each of which on their own could or did lead to a goal. Of these, 361 involved penalties given (or not), and 152 involved goals given (or not) as a result of offside calls.

‘That isn’t a massive amount of incidents when you think about it, fewer than two per game on average,’ Long tells me.

‘So supposing there was a system that allowed the video evidence to be reviewed at the time, looking at these things wouldn’t necessarily take a long time.

‘I wanted to explore the extent to which decisions about offside goals or penalty calls did, in fact, even themselves out or not, and how they made a difference to the end of season table.’

Stoke would have won two more points but these would have been sufficient to finish four places higher in the table – and win an extra £3m in prize money from the Premier League.

Examples of wrong calls included the decision that famously left Wenger ‘too disgusted to speak’ in March — when a perfectly good goal from Andrei Arshavin at 0-0 against Sunderland was chalked off in error by linesman Andy Garratt. That cost Arsenal points.

Another decision Long considered was the clear handball by Nemanja Vidic as Manchester United played Arsenal on 1 May. Coincidentally, the same linesman, Andy Garratt, was involved, failing to spot that Vidic had denied Robin van Persie a clear opportunity to score with his head.

As it transpired, Arsenal beat United in that particular game so the bad Vidic call didn’t make any points difference to Arsenal or United, although Arsenal’s goal difference would almost certainly have been better by one with a good decision.

‘Actually a lot of the significant incidents I looked at were called correctly at the time and the analysis simply ratified the good calls,’ Long says.

‘More than 500 of the decisions out of 713 were right. But that still leaves just over 200 wrong calls in significant incidents over the course of the season.

‘And while not all those would have changed a result, quite a few of them would have done so.’

http://www.sportingintelligence.com...nd-blackpool-were-cheated-last-season-210801/

Would have preferred this table than the actual one.

 

[Calum]

CHEATED ! :'( I am calling the FA now

 

[*Jamess*]

I wish we where 2nd. We were cheated :'(

 

[Mads2506]

Not saying he can't be right, but how exactly does one go about "measuring" referee mistakes? Most of the time the verdicts are subjective. Let's take the Pepe-Alves incident last year. No doubt the red card was a mistake, but what if Pepe touched Alves? Then the verdict would have been subjective.

 

[Jamie.]

Hypothetically: If Vermaelen was fit Arsenal should/would have won the title...

Just another thought to hit the gunners where it hurts...

 

[Calum]

Hypothetically: If Vermaelen was fit Arsenal should/would have won the title...

Just another thought to hit the gunners where it hurts...

If you won more games you would still be in the prem

1-1?

 

[Joel`]

United are soooooooooooooooo favoured by the referees.

 

[Jamie.]

If you won more games you would still be in the prem

1-1?

You missed the problem we had...

Southgate was a moron.

Hypothetically: Without Southgate MFC would still be in Prem.

 

[sunilvk7]

United are soooooooooooooooo favoured by the referees.

Yes, we got 3 points that we shouldn't have. Clearly ref favors United..

 

[prow07]

It says about incidents involving penalties, in order to do this you have to assume that the penalty taker will score from his penalty, when this is just not the case, there is a 50% chance he will miss. Fair enough judging it on goals that should have stood from offside decisions and stuff, but not penalties

 

[Joel`]

Oh, and tables like these are stupid. It's impossible to know what would have happened after the referee decision. There's no guarantee a team would score the penalty, a goal conceded could fire up the team etc. Butterfly effect. <3

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

It says about incidents involving penalties, in order to do this you have to assume that the penalty taker will score from his penalty, when this is just not the case, there is a 50% chance he will miss. Fair enough judging it on goals that should have stood from offside decisions and stuff, but not penalties

No there's not.

 

[Aannddyy]

To be fair this table is probably biased, don't want to sound ignorant but that penalty statement alone kinda makes it out to sound stupid. No doubt another excuse for Arsenal fans, if only ay.. Still wouldn't have a trophy though.

 

[sunilvk7]

Oh, and tables like these are stupid. It's impossible to know what would have happened after the referee decision. There's no guarantee a team would score the penalty, a goal conceded could fire up the team etc. Butterfly effect. <3

Exact conversation I was having in other forum lol..

 

[Mads2506]

No there's not.

It's not 50% but there's still a chance he will not score.

 

[JordanK]

For me this just highlights the need for goal-line technology.

 

[Joel`]

To be fair this table is probably biased, don't want to sound ignorant but that penalty statement alone kinda makes it out to sound stupid. No doubt another excuse for Arsenal fans, if only ay.. Still wouldn't have a trophy though.

More biased than Howard Webb I guess?!

It's not solely based on penalties, if you're going to dismiss it, then it's not for the penalty reason. True probability of a penalty kick there's probably an 87.5% chance of scoring, multiplying by that is hardly going to affect this new table that badly. It's not precise, but it's close enough and highlights a need for technology to increase fairness, which is all it was intended for.

 

[Aannddyy]

More biased than Howard Webb I guess?!

It's not solely based on penalties, if you're going to dismiss it, then it's not for the penalty reason. True probability of a penalty kick there's probably an 87.5% chance of scoring, multiplying by that is hardly going to affect this new table that badly. It's not precise, but it's close enough and highlights a need for technology to increase fairness, which is all it was intended for.

I do not get the Howard Webb reference, well, I understand it's a petty insult that's getting a little old now, but beside from that..

'to increase fairness'? What, so you're saying that referee's are unfair? That genuine mistakes are because they have an agenda against a certain team? I'm sure the decisions that have gone against Arsenal don't outweigh the decisions that have gone their way over the years, but I doubt anybody is willing to do that table are they. Mistakes are made, we are only human, but that aside there are so many variables surrounding a football match that no amount of math could possibly decisively prove that this table is fact, because it is not.

 

[CJACKO11]

It depends what they counted as refs mistakes. I would think they would say the Zhirkov penalty against Utd wasen't a pen but for me it was a soft pen which is still a pen. But who cares refs are human and will make mistakes.

 

[Joel`]

I do not get the Howard Webb reference, well, I understand it's a petty insult that's getting a little old now, but beside from that..

'to increase fairness'? What, so you're saying that referee's are unfair? That genuine mistakes are because they have an agenda against a certain team? I'm sure the decisions that have gone against Arsenal don't outweigh the decisions that have gone their way over the years, but I doubt anybody is willing to do that table are they. Mistakes are made, we are only human, but that aside there are so many variables surrounding a football match that no amount of math could possibly decisively prove that this table is fact, because it is not.

Because you've never used petty insults on no basis? k.

I didn't say referees are unfair? If teams lose/gain points that could be avoided with the use of technology it is unfair on the teams and league. I never said referees were being unfair, and the definition of the word doesn't imply it either. It has nothing to do with the table being fact, my first post argued there were too many things to consider for it to be true representation, but it still visually highlights the fact that errors which technology can easily fix have affects on the league - which is the point of the exercise.

 

[prow07]

Because you've never used petty insults on no basis? k.

I didn't say referees are unfair? If teams lose/gain points that could be avoided with the use of technology it is unfair on the teams and league. I never said referees were being unfair, and the definition of the word doesn't imply it either. It has nothing to do with the table being fact, my first post argued there were too many things to consider for it to be true representation, but it still visually highlights the fact that errors which technology can easily fix have affects on the league - which is the point of the exercise.

Thats pretty much what i was trying to point out, i may not have been accurate when i said that there's a 50% chance you would miss the penalty, but you get where i'm coming from, there is a chance that a player misses, meaning the table isn't entirely accurate, but it's as accurate as anyone can possibly get. As for technology, i do agree with it to an extent, i wouldn't want referees to stop the game just to see which side got the throw in, as this would disrupt the fast flow of the game, and would imo make it alot less entertaining... but there is need for technology such as goal-line technology, and for stuff like what happened in the Newcastle v Sunderland match yesterday, when a corner was given instead of a penalty for Seb Larsson handballing it on the line, replays could be used for stuff like that.