The Right Result Table in Barclays Premier League from Football.co.uk

Wtebar · Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:30 pm

Not hard to see why Steely gets so much respect round here.

Bluenose · Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:38 pm

Steely Hill wrote:

that is a load of crap.

its impossible to be so black and white on the issue. like jono points out, how can you judge the impact of a player wrongly banned for 3 games? how can you just add a goal or subtract a goal and leave the scoreline? any idiot knows that every goal changes the game in one way or another and could and probably would lead to an entirely different outcome.

does it include wrongly given free kicks, corners and throw ins that lead to goals?

things like this are made by idiots with very little understanding of the game itself and was quite obviously only reproduced here because it has Everton above Liverpool

Look steely... If your never going to agree with anything I post or try stir sh|t up why do you even bother replying?

Leave it out now nobby!

Bluenose · Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:44 pm

conner99 wrote:

well no one is penalising them really ...this is just an attempt to show how the table would be if every decision made by an official in a game was the correct one .. it is not that much different ..

Ours has a lot of difference really but your right, there aint that much difference over all really.

Ben91 · Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:56 pm

Steely Hill wrote:

that is a load of crap.

its impossible to be so black and white on the issue. like jono points out, how can you judge the impact of a player wrongly banned for 3 games? how can you just add a goal or subtract a goal and leave the scoreline? any idiot knows that every goal changes the game in one way or another and could and probably would lead to an entirely different outcome.

does it include wrongly given free kicks, corners and throw ins that lead to goals?

things like this are made by idiots with very little understanding of the game itself and was quite obviously only reproduced here because it has Everton above Liverpool

What i would have attempted to write had i been able to login for the past day.

Every incident plays a huge part in the course of a game and the actions of the players. If Manchester United were beating Derby 1-0 for example, and County had a goal wrongly disallowed for offside, you can't then say the game was 1-1 because obviously had the goal gone in you would have seen an assault from United in search of a second and winner. Players and teams instantly respond to events on the pitch and hence you can't merely rectify injustices, not to mention the problems that lie when only certain ones are targeted as well.

Ben91 · Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:56 pm

Steely Hill wrote:

that is a load of crap.

its impossible to be so black and white on the issue. like jono points out, how can you judge the impact of a player wrongly banned for 3 games? how can you just add a goal or subtract a goal and leave the scoreline? any idiot knows that every goal changes the game in one way or another and could and probably would lead to an entirely different outcome.

does it include wrongly given free kicks, corners and throw ins that lead to goals?

things like this are made by idiots with very little understanding of the game itself and was quite obviously only reproduced here because it has Everton above Liverpool

What i would have attempted to write had i been able to login for the past day.

Every incident plays a huge part in the course of a game and the actions of the players. If Manchester United were beating Derby 1-0 for example, and County had a goal wrongly disallowed for offside, you can't then say the game was 1-1 because obviously had the goal gone in you would have seen an assault from United in search of a second and winner. Players and teams instantly respond to events on the pitch and hence you can't merely rectify injustices, not to mention the problems that lie when only certain ones are targeted as well.

To put it into context, as moronic as it is, after the 2-1 Merseyside derby somebody on a phone-in said how Kuyt should have been sent off, and that he was the one who took our final penalty - as though no-one else would've stepped up to take it. It's idiotic. Actions provoke consequences, ones you simply can't account for.

Steely Hill · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:31 pm

G_Man wrote:

Steely Hill wrote:

Roonanialdo wrote:

Steely Hill wrote:

that is a load of crap.

its impossible to be so black and white on the issue. like jono points out, how can you judge the impact of a player wrongly banned for 3 games? how can you just add a goal or subtract a goal and leave the scoreline? any idiot knows that every goal changes the game in one way or another and could and probably would lead to an entirely different outcome.

does it include wrongly given free kicks, corners and throw ins that lead to goals?

things like this are made by idiots with very little understanding of the game itself and was quite obviously only reproduced here because it has Everton above Liverpool

It makes for interesting debate. It's these type of controversial decisions, that refs get wrong on many occasions because of the fast moving nature of the game, provide a strong argument for the introduction of a video ref to make a judgement. Maybe the table shown is PROOF that luck doesn't even itself out for EVERYBODY throughout the course of the season. The following is from the 'Right Result' web site:

The Right Result concept was devised by people who�d had enough of seeing bad decisions affect the outcome of football matches week in week out. Like many other fans we don�t buy into the old �luck evens itself out over the course of a season� line that gets offered up so often as if it makes everything ok, because luck doesn�t do this and it isn�t ok! We wanted to see just how different the league table would look if refs called it right more often.

Each week on this website� the Right Result panel� selects the key injustices that happen each week during the Premiership season, applies the strict rules of the game to them and passes an impartial� judgement on whether or not questionable decisions should stand. The panel is a neutral and� independent body, comprised of members from the Association of Football Statisticians (www.11v11.com).

Typical examples of incidents include penalties that don�t get given when they should have been. Or those that do get allowed in dubious circumstances. Whether balls did or didn�t cross the goal line. Goals disallowed for questionable offside. These incidents happen so frequently that there�s virtually never a weekend passes without at least one controversial call that not only affects the scoreline of a game, but actually changes the outcome.

yes but my point is that this system is just as flawed as the refereeing itself.

there are decisions given incorrectly that may, on the surface, appear harmless. but a didgy free kick deep in your half would give you possession and build an attack and score from it. they wouldnt call that a 'key' decision but it undoubtedly is. the affect of teams having 10 men is undoubtedly impossible to judge and to simply say, as an example, that Everton beat West Ham 2-1 because they got a goal disallowed in the early stages of the game is ludicrous, short sighted and almost playground-like.

the table is not proof of anything. it highlights what the people that run it want to highlight. who is to argue it? do they display every single decision that was unjust? of course not so it does not represent true justice and therefore is completely invalid.

they are also 'studying' each individual decision over the split second reactions of a match day official, hardly fair is it. video ref will signal the end of the game as we know it. should that be bought into all football? or is only the Premier League 'important' enough? if not who will pay for it? how far down do we go before we reach a league that is not 'important' enough and where it would be 'acceptable' for decisions to go wrong?

Be a ref yourself. Go out there and show how refereeing should be. Cool

Refeering is hard we all know this. Noone is perfect but what stick they get is incredible for what money they get.

ive done refereeing. i know exactly what its like. i think you will find that im one of the few that backs referees and very rarely attacks referees for making mistakes. i accept that mistakes happen. in fact if you actually read what i have typed then you will see just that.

i dont see what your point actually is. do elaborate please.

Steely Hill · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:43 pm

Bluenose wrote:

Steely Hill wrote:

that is a load of crap.

its impossible to be so black and white on the issue. like jono points out, how can you judge the impact of a player wrongly banned for 3 games? how can you just add a goal or subtract a goal and leave the scoreline? any idiot knows that every goal changes the game in one way or another and could and probably would lead to an entirely different outcome.

does it include wrongly given free kicks, corners and throw ins that lead to goals?

things like this are made by idiots with very little understanding of the game itself and was quite obviously only reproduced here because it has Everton above Liverpool

Look steely... If your never going to agree with anything I post or try stir sh|t up why do you even bother replying?

Leave it out now nobby!

look bluenose if you are going to act like a f*cking child every time somebody makes a post on the contrary to what goes on in your tiny brain then why do you bother replying?

did you personally produce that league table? i think not. so why get so uptight? i have disagreed with the system that produces the table, you dont have to cry over it. if you feel i am wrong then tell me why. engage your brain and use it properly. that is the whole point of this place i thought.

stir up sh*t? from what i can see the majority agree with what i have said? perhaps they too are all sh*t stirrers?

one question, if that league had put Everton in say 8th position would you have c&p'd it? the answer is an obvious no. so therefore my previous sentence was fully valid (the one im sure you would have picked up on). if you argue that point you are kidding yourself.

quit acting like a f*cking child at every opportunity and either engage in relatively adult debate or dont bother. either way i dont care. i will not have you constantly bickering about crap, saying things like 'leave it out nobby' is both childish and embarrassing for a middle aged bloke like yourself. id expect it from somebody of millsy's age.

grow up and stop raping the forum of your crap.

other sections may tolerate it but this section will not. if you have an issue take it up with somebody else because i am tired of dealing with you. that is the reason for this extended reply. its constant and tiresome. and i for one am sick of it.

if anybody else has an issue im available as always via PM. i try to be fair to people and if thats not good enough then you know the avenues available to complain.

Bluenose · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:47 pm

Ooooo nasty....

Maybe you should just STOP replying to my posts instead of going against everything I say then...

Peace man.... Cool

I love simple solutions....

oleoleoleoleole · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:50 pm

This makes up for Andy Johnson's robbing in 2006-07 Smile

Bluenose · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:53 pm

We already have a oleoleole

Steely Hill · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:53 pm

Bluenose wrote:

Ooooo nasty....

Maybe you should just STOP replying to my posts instead of going against everything I say then...

Peace man.... Cool

I love simple solutions....

or...

maybe i should reply to whatever post i like from whoever it is in whatever form i choose and you stop being so sensitive.

now isnt that a novel idea. Rolling Eyes

G_Man · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:58 pm

Steely Hill wrote:

G_Man wrote:

Steely Hill wrote:

Roonanialdo wrote:

Steely Hill wrote:

that is a load of crap.

its impossible to be so black and white on the issue. like jono points out, how can you judge the impact of a player wrongly banned for 3 games? how can you just add a goal or subtract a goal and leave the scoreline? any idiot knows that every goal changes the game in one way or another and could and probably would lead to an entirely different outcome.

does it include wrongly given free kicks, corners and throw ins that lead to goals?

things like this are made by idiots with very little understanding of the game itself and was quite obviously only reproduced here because it has Everton above Liverpool

It makes for interesting debate. It's these type of controversial decisions, that refs get wrong on many occasions because of the fast moving nature of the game, provide a strong argument for the introduction of a video ref to make a judgement. Maybe the table shown is PROOF that luck doesn't even itself out for EVERYBODY throughout the course of the season. The following is from the 'Right Result' web site:

The Right Result concept was devised by people who�d had enough of seeing bad decisions affect the outcome of football matches week in week out. Like many other fans we don�t buy into the old �luck evens itself out over the course of a season� line that gets offered up so often as if it makes everything ok, because luck doesn�t do this and it isn�t ok! We wanted to see just how different the league table would look if refs called it right more often.

Each week on this website� the Right Result panel� selects the key injustices that happen each week during the Premiership season, applies the strict rules of the game to them and passes an impartial� judgement on whether or not questionable decisions should stand. The panel is a neutral and� independent body, comprised of members from the Association of Football Statisticians (www.11v11.com).

Typical examples of incidents include penalties that don�t get given when they should have been. Or those that do get allowed in dubious circumstances. Whether balls did or didn�t cross the goal line. Goals disallowed for questionable offside. These incidents happen so frequently that there�s virtually never a weekend passes without at least one controversial call that not only affects the scoreline of a game, but actually changes the outcome.

yes but my point is that this system is just as flawed as the refereeing itself.

there are decisions given incorrectly that may, on the surface, appear harmless. but a didgy free kick deep in your half would give you possession and build an attack and score from it. they wouldnt call that a 'key' decision but it undoubtedly is. the affect of teams having 10 men is undoubtedly impossible to judge and to simply say, as an example, that Everton beat West Ham 2-1 because they got a goal disallowed in the early stages of the game is ludicrous, short sighted and almost playground-like.

the table is not proof of anything. it highlights what the people that run it want to highlight. who is to argue it? do they display every single decision that was unjust? of course not so it does not represent true justice and therefore is completely invalid.

they are also 'studying' each individual decision over the split second reactions of a match day official, hardly fair is it. video ref will signal the end of the game as we know it. should that be bought into all football? or is only the Premier League 'important' enough? if not who will pay for it? how far down do we go before we reach a league that is not 'important' enough and where it would be 'acceptable' for decisions to go wrong?

Be a ref yourself. Go out there and show how refereeing should be. Cool

Refeering is hard we all know this. Noone is perfect but what stick they get is incredible for what money they get.

ive done refereeing. i know exactly what its like. i think you will find that im one of the few that backs referees and very rarely attacks referees for making mistakes. i accept that mistakes happen. in fact if you actually read what i have typed then you will see just that.

i dont see what your point actually is. do elaborate please.

You said please so i will. Good lad.

"yes but my point is that this system is just as flawed as the refereeing itself".

Even tho you back referees you say refeering is flawed. They set rules players should abide by them. Simple as. Get them to say what the decision so the crowd hear it like rugby. Get them to have someone upstair to decide if it was overline or not. Stop play so you play 90 minutes of football. That would work.

Point i make is none of that wont happen just yet. Until then abide by the rules that are given infront of you. Like you i also refereed. From the age of 18 to 20.

Steely Hill · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:07 am

of course refereeing is flawed.

what system is perfect? would trial by viedo be perfect? i dont think so.

of course players should abide by them. but that means for better or worse. sh*t goes wrong. its a fact of life. you are only talking about the plainly obvious 'over the line decisions'. you have been a ref, look deeper. what about the seemingly unimportant free kicks on the half way line? they too can change a game. where do you draw the line?

its a huge can of worms that can not be opened.

the system in place now is the best thats humanly possible. the increase in cameras and highlights etc has highlighted the refereeing errors. i would be highly doubtful the standard of refereeing is so much different from 30 years ago. the players didnt lead mass verbal attacks as much back then from what i am aware.

G_Man · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:10 am

No wonder tho. If something happened back then the players would fight n fight n get what ban? a big ban? nah i dont think so.

Rugby you see how successful that is with refeering. Never see there refs in the paper saying how bad they are. or are they cheats? would you disagree?

Steely Hill · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:28 am

G_Man wrote:

No wonder tho. If something happened back then the players would fight n fight n get what ban? a big ban? nah i dont think so.

Rugby you see how successful that is with refeering. Never see there refs in the paper saying how bad they are. or are they cheats? would you disagree?

yes and no.

you dont see that because rugby does not have the column inches. it does not generate as much interest and therefore any headlines are minimal and barely read anyway.

besides that i have personaly seen many occasions where opponents are deliberatly punched clean in the face, sometimes cowardly from behind or while in a scrum. perhaps this is acceptable? rugby is not as clean cut as people make out, there is a bit of a myth surrounding the sportsmanship of rugby players. im sure any genuine rugby fans will agree.

G_Man · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:31 am

You dont get all this pathetic drama. You dont get diving. You dont get any fake injuries.

Course not acceptable but refs try to "stamp" it out the game.

Its alot more successful than what football is when it comes to sportsmanship

floody · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:32 am

G_Man wrote:

You dont get all this pathetic drama. You dont get diving. You dont get any fake injuries.

Course not acceptable but refs try to "stamp" it out the game.

Its alot more successful than what football is when it comes to sportsmanship

Diving is virtually impossible in Rugby.

G_Man · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:35 am

Trying to stay away from you remember. Please do the same. Thats why i said it cause i know it dosnt happen. State the obvious

Bluenose · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:40 am

Steely Hill wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

Ooooo nasty....

Maybe you should just STOP replying to my posts instead of going against everything I say then...

Peace man.... Cool

I love simple solutions....

or...

maybe i should reply to whatever post i like from whoever it is in whatever form i choose and you stop being so sensitive.

now isnt that a novel idea. Rolling Eyes

Do what you like and call me what you like... Rolling Eyes

Steely Hill · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:48 am

G_Man wrote:

You dont get all this pathetic drama. You dont get diving. You dont get any fake injuries.

Course not acceptable but refs try to "stamp" it out the game.

Its alot more successful than what football is when it comes to sportsmanship

dont be silly. its incomparable.

what advantage would be gained by diving or feigning injury in rugby!?? thats the obvious reason it does not occur!! come on mate!

is punching somebody in the jaw more sporting than diving? well thats another matter.