Calling Feck N. Eejit (Re: Compiling Your own Odds Vol IV)

I don't gearoid. It was being skewed by their kindness to Celtic in easy wins (3 penalties in a 9-0 game) versus their duty to Rangers when they were in trouble. You could work it out yourself using the sporting life match reports if you can be bothered. As one guy on the football forum pointed out, since Rangers came under threat of administration watching the SPL is like watching a Robert Mugabe election. THEY are determined to save THEIR club.

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/
scottishpremier/rangers/results/

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/
scottishpremier/celtic/results/

As Feck implied, the Masonic Index (MI) was quietly dropped by the conspiracy theorists when it began to confirm that there was no bias against Celtic.

Neutrals have suggested that there wasn't any bias in the small number of seasons in which the MI was operational and Rangers accrued a greater number of MI points than Celtic. They noted that many factors impact the MI points gained by each side.

These factors include the strength of each of the Old Firm relative to each other and to the other opposition teams. The stronger the side relative to the opposition, the more possession in the opposition box they are likely to gain and the greater the probability of inducing a penalty award or the dismissal of an opposition player.

Equally, the style of play is an important factor. Possession of the ball on the ground in the opposition box is more likely to induce a foul that results in a penalty award than a high ball played into the opposition box.

Even if it were assumed that the Old Firm were of exactly equal competence and played in exactly the same style every season, neutrals realised that randomness played a significant part in the final tally of MI points gained each season as relatively few penalties and dismissals are awarded.

If the MI had consistently shown one side of the Old Firm gaining a greater number of MI points than the other whilst there was no other evidence to suggest that team was stronger over the given period, that may have been cause for concern. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, the MI index didn't indicate that.

Whilst neutrals concluded that there was no bias against Celtic, the conspiracy theorists couldn't be fooled. They concluded that the SFA Grand Wizards had instructed the match officials to skew the MI index by awarding 'meaningless' penalties and opposition dismissals in favour of Celtic. Such decisions were only to be awarded when they would have little impact on the outcome of the given match and therefore wouldn't significantly enhance the probability of Celtic winning the league.

Naturally the crafty referees continued to ensure that the really important decisions, such as a phantom penalty with the score tied 0-0 late in a crucial Old Firm match, all went in favour of Rangers.

This seems more applicable to the EPL. So many decisions going in favour of the big teams. 2-1 Chelsea win just now, with two goals that "weren't" goals, one was offside, and one wasn't even over the line.

Same thing happens to Man Utd often.

Amongst other reasons, that's probably because Chelsea and Man Utd tend to dominate possession and create more goal scoring opportunities than other EPL teams.

Therefore, they are likely to generate more situations in and around the opposition's penalty area that require the officials to adjudicate on, such as offside and fouls, than other teams. Inevitably the officials will get some of these decisions wrong.

As they generate a greater number of these situations, Man United and Chelsea almost certainly receive a higher absolute number of erroneous offside decisions and penalties awarded in their favour than other teams. Conversely they also receive a higher number of erroneous decisions against them than most other sides (for example, the failure to award a penalty when one of their players is fouled in the box).

But how many seasons of blatantly shocking decisions does it take for the suits upstairs to make the necessary changes?

It's clear to the fans, the managers and the players. Why isn't something being done about it?

Because the grandads in charge want things to stay like they were in the good old days when they were young, with the 'excitement' of controversial decisions.

jt45, what you say is probably correct, but I think there is more to it. If an incorrect decision goes against a big team and is has implications on winning the EPL or similar, that will be held against them far more, than if the same happens to a lower ranked team. Erring on the side of caution either deliberately or subconsciously would make sense for them.

I think you're right Investor in that the problem lies with the ancient fuds such as the ever tossfull Sepp Blatter and his cronies.

But I also wonder why other sports have adopted changed far far quicker than football. Is it because football is a working mans game and thus populated by thickets? The clever private school boys who play Rugby are about 40 years ahead of us at this rate.

Investor,

I would accept that it's entirely possible that of the erroneous decisions involving major teams, a disproportionate percentage of those decisions are given in their favour. This could be the case for a number of reasons, including the one you suggested above.

No, it's purely due to Blatter and his cronies. Everyone else wants goal line tech. He can do what he likes though. Not like we can vote him out.

We have one saving grace - he surely can't have much longer to live.

On the football forum Sellick put up a list of 80 disputed decisions in the last two seasons that could be described as pro-Rangers / anti-Celtic and invited any doubters to compile a list of disputed decisions going the other way. Any "list" that featured in replies could have been engraved on an ant's balls and, if I remember correctly, featured only the referee Craig Thomson.

Most people would admit that the west of Scotland is awash with football bigotry yet some of those same people think that SFA headquarters is a shrine to fair play. You can only assume such people are of the cap doffing ilk that think bankers are honest people and there's no such thing as a lawyer who'd sing the billy boys. To them any pro-Celtic decision, no matter how just, is proof that there is no bias. Like jt45 above they think an exception equals proof by counterexample. If they were holocaust deniers (many probably are as Ibrox is the no 1 recruiting ground for the BNP) they would search for a German murdered by a Jew and post that as proof by counterexample.

http://itcantbeparanoia.blogspot.com/

Man Utd hand ball, should be red card and penalty for Arsenal.

Non-random decisions that quite clearly favour big teams. I certainly can't be accused of being biased, after highlighting the bias against both Arsenal and Spurs against bigger teams!

Feck,

I didn't claim the penalty decision awarded in Celtic's favour as proof that there is no conspiracy against them.

As I have previously argued, the onus is on you and the other conspiracy theorists to prove that there is a conspiracy against Celtic. A list of 80 erroneous decisions, many of which may be disputed, falls some way short.

Even commentator says:

"I suppose it evens things out as Chelsea got the decisions yesterday."

Evens out if you don't consider the other teams, yes.
What it actually does is widen the chasm between Chelsea / Man Utd and the rest.

More proof of me not being biased, is that I stand to win a large sum if either Man Utd or Chelsea win the title, and I'll lose more than £1k if Arsenal win.

the onus is on you and the other conspiracy theorists to prove that there is a conspiracy against Celtic. A list of 80 erroneous decisions, many of which may be disputed, falls some way short.

jt, if they chose SFA members and referees randomly from people with a footballing background within the Scottish population Rangers minded men would greatly outnumber Celtic minded men. Why wouldn't there be a bias?

Throw in the fact the SFA is run along the lines of a masonic lodge, refs (whether Rangers or Celtic minded) continued employment is down to the approval of their masters and it's obvious to anyone but a complete fool that there must be a bias but, no matter how blatant that bias is (e.g. the recent sentences handed down to the Rangers three), it would appear there's no shortage of fools about. Add on the fact that the above applies also to the media and it becames fairly easy to fool most of the people most of the time. 80 disputed decisions may fall short for you but when the opposite side of the coin amounts to no more than a few disputed decisions it wouldn't fall short for anyone who was in any way statistically minded.

Feck,

I believe that the support base for each of the Old Firm within Scotland is relatively equal. If you picked a random selection of the Scottish population, it is highly probable that the majority of the people within that selection would be of a Protestant background. That doesn't mean that the majority would be 'Rangers minded' or in any way biased against Celtic.

With regard to the 80 disputed decisions, I would suggest that this would fall a long way short of proof of bias to the vast majority of people vaguely competent with statistics. I would go as far as to suggest that it would only be accepted as proof of bias by someone competent with statistics if they allowed their own bias to supersede their statistical knowledge.

Disagree re support base. Most people I know wouldn't think of going to a game but generally support the team their school would suggest and many of them are quite bitter. Put them in an organisation where the majority will be Rangers minded and make them answerable to Rangers minded masters and it's a recipe for bias. There's also the problem that genuine honest mistakes are lumped in with "honest mistakes" and a fair minded ref might think "what the fk, I'm being accused of being a hun so I might as well act like one". Errors in Celtic's favour will also be punished whereas the reverse is quite possibly the case (Andy Davis) for errors in Rangers' favour. The guy who has taken over Hugh Dallas's job in the SFA has stated "There is no bias. In 27 years I have never seen any bias.". Surely no sane person could think that in 27 years a referee hasn't once let his background decide what way to call a 50:50 decision? Seems he's also "blissfully unaware" of the after dinner speeches of Bobby Tait and co. 

Re the 80 disputed decisions, if the incidents were shown to foreign refs I'm sure any competent statistician could make a statistical test out of their verdicts. The fact bias deniers are unable to dig up no more than a handful of incidents suggesting a bias the other way would then speak for itself.

It's entirely possible that the new Head of Referee Development is being truthful in stating that he has 'never seen any bias'. It rather depends on what he perceives as bias.

I would acknowledge that there have been a number of incompetent officials involved in Scottish Football over the past 30 years. I would regard it as probable that there have been a few biased or corrupt officials over the same period. I don't accept that there has been a conspiracy against Celtic FC over that period.


The 80 disputed decisions referred to previously have been identified as potentially erroneous by Celtic fans who perceive that there is a conspiracy against their team.

As the vast majority of Rangers fans do not perceive that there is a conspiracy against their team, it's hardly surprising that they are unable to produce a long list of disputed decisions awarded against Rangers on demand. There are probably very few Rangers fans that are sufficiently motivated to identify and record the contentious decisions made against their team.

I suspect that if the 80 disputed decisions were examined by an independent panel of foreign referees, many of the decisions would be adjudged correct by a majority of the panel. Regardless of whether that would be the case, it wouldn't represent a fair test in my opinion.

A fairer test would be to invite an independent panel to view every game involving Rangers or Celtic over the past x seasons and conclude whether there was any evidence of bias over that period.

It's entirely possible that the new Head of Referee Development is being truthful in stating that he has 'never seen any bias'. It rather depends on what he perceives as bias.

The fact he's been given the job makes it very likely he would perceive bias against Celtic as business-as-usual. Doubtless he would consider Dougie McDonald to have been one of our top referees yet anyone who watched him in last season's 3rd Rangers v Celtic game, the two Rangers v Dun Utd cup ties and this seasons opening Dun Utd v Celtic game could only have come to the conclusion he was a big Rangers fan. Take a look at the "honest mistakes" file on itcantbeparanoia.com. Hilarious stuff from Dougie.


I would acknowledge that there have been a number of incompetent officials involved in Scottish Football over the past 30 years. I would regard it as probable that there have been a few biased or corrupt officials over the same period. I don't accept that there has been a conspiracy against Celtic FC over that period.

You would probably say much the same about Northern Ireland.


The 80 disputed decisions referred to previously have been identified as potentially erroneous by Celtic fans who perceive that there is a conspiracy against their team.

The large majority were flagged similarly in match reports.


As the vast majority of Rangers fans do not perceive that there is a conspiracy against their team, it's hardly surprising that they are unable to produce a long list of disputed decisions awarded against Rangers on demand. There are probably very few Rangers fans that are sufficiently motivated to identify and record the contentious decisions made against their team.

They can produce them all right it's just that they end up embarrassing themselves by going back several seasons to point out dodgy free kicks and corners that went Celtic's way.


A fairer test would be to invite an independent panel to view every game involving Rangers or Celtic over the past x seasons and conclude whether there was any evidence of bias over that period.

I'd settle for that. Since Rangers came under threat of administration the SFA's Save-Our-Club group has embarrassed themselves no end. Had Celtic and Neil Lennon not brought the matter out into the open this season the spl would've been done and dusted as early as it was last season.

I see you're not commenting on the paltry fines handed out to Boughera and Diouf. These guys were needed for the spl run in, so what else could the SFA's Save-Our-Club committee do apart from embarrassing themselves yet again.

You would probably say much the same about Northern Ireland.

The key difference is that in the case of Northern Ireland, evidence has been produced to demonstrate that a section of the population was treated unfairly, arguably oppressed, by the authorities. No evidence has been produced to prove, to a reasonable standard, there is or has been a conspiracy against Celtic.

(Re the 80 Disputed decisions:) The large majority were flagged similarly in match reports.

That may well be the case. My main point was that a list of erroneous decisions awarded against a team proves nothing without due context. It's akin to a poker player asserting that a list of 80 hands in which the money went in whilst he was ahead and he lost, is proof that the software is **** against him.

I see you're not commenting on the paltry fines handed out to Boughera and Diouf. These guys were needed for the spl run in, so what else could the SFA's Save-Our-Club committee do apart from embarrassing themselves yet again.

I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests those players were treated unduly leniently by the SFA (in comparison to other players who committed the same offences).

The key difference is that in the case of Northern Ireland, evidence has been produced to demonstrate that a section of the population was treated unfairly, arguably oppressed, by the authorities. No evidence has been produced to prove, to a reasonable standard, there is or has been a conspiracy against Celtic.

You're aftertiming. The apartheid was there for a long time before it was "demonstrated".


I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests those players were treated unduly leniently by the SFA (in comparison to other players who committed the same offences).

What about the Hearts player who was given a 6 match ban for "bellying" Andy Davis after the latter's hallucinated penalty at Tynecastle or even Neil Lennon's 3 match ban as a player for threatening Stuart Dougal (a ban the then journalist Ally McCoist described as lenient). Suppose in the Rangers v Celtic game that followed the SFA's leniency Beram Kayal manhandled Craig Thomson in the way Boughera did Calum Murray. Do you think he'd have been available for Celtic's run in? Your problem is you don't see leniency because you're a hun (closet or otherwise).

Incidentally, Stuart Dougal (a hun) described Boughera's punishment as ridiculous.

What about the Hearts player who was given a 6 match ban for "bellying" Andy Davis after the latter's hallucinated penalty at Tynecastle...

Mikolunas' offence was much more severe than Boughera's. He aggressively barged into the linesman whereas Boughera lightly gripped the referee's arm. Of the 6 match ban served by Miukolunas, 3 of those games were as a direct result of receiving two red cards in that match.

Suppose in the Rangers v Celtic game that followed the SFA's leniency Beram Kayal manhandled Craig Thomson in the way Boughera did Calum Murray. Do you think he'd have been available for Celtic's run in?

Yes.

I can't recall the Neil Lennon incident you referred to. Therefore, I'm not in any position to comment as to whether the punishment he received was fair.


You perceive that there is a conspiracy against Celtic. I do not concur. As it's unlikely we are likely to reach agreement, there doesn't appear to be much point in continuing this debate.

In the highly unlikely event that, within my lifetime, evidence is produced to prove that there is or has been a conspiracy against Celtic, I will be happy to acknowledge that you were correct.

* Mikoliunas

Hearts employed a PI to look into Andy Davis and he discovered he was a Rangers season ticket holder. A totally unbiased one of course.

Incidentally, Stuart Dougal (a hun) described Boughera's punishment as ridiculous.

You have to hand it to Terry Butcher. In 3 games against each of Rangers and Celtic ICT have scored 7 and only conceded 8. Here's a summary of their spl games this season.

ICT 3 Celtic 2
Celtic 2 ICT 2
ICT 0 Celtic 1


Rangers 1 ICT 0

Rangers' breakthrough here arrived seconds before the interval. Kyle Lafferty's shot was blocked, the ball dropping to Steven Davis, who slammed home from 18 yards. Inverness's anger stemmed from a legitimate belief that Adam Rooney had been fouled by Andy Webster as Rangers gained possession.


ICT 1 Rangers 1

Referee Callum Murray has apologised to Terry Butcher for awarding a penalty to Rangers (can be seen at itcantbeparanoia.blogspot.com) against Inverness Caley Thistle on Saturday. There was minimum contact between James Beattie and Stewart Duff before the Rangers striker hit the deck with Murray racing dramatically to the scene and pointing to the spot. Despite the protests of the Inverness defenders there was to be no ‘Dougie Dougie’ moment for the referee to consult his assistant despite the widespread belief after the Tannadice fiasco that assistant are best placed to judge these incidents. Fortunately Kenny Miller missed the gilt edged chance provided by Murray with ‘keeper Ryan Esson saving the striker’s penalty. Butcher revealed: “The ref came up to me after the match and said sorry.


Rangers 1 ICT 1

ICT denied stonewall penalty which can be seen at itcantbeparanoia.blogspot.com. Asked to comment Terry Butcher replied "you don't get penalties at Ibrox".




Tel knows what SPL title winners are made of and who makes them as well.

...Critics suggested that Bougherra should have received a suspension.

But Dougal says that the SFA's hands were tied as referee Calum Murray did not deem the action as aggressive.

"Based on the criteria the disciplinary committee were working with, But Dougal says that the SFA's hands were tied as referee Calum Murray did not deem the action as aggressive.

"Based on the criteria the disciplinary committee were working with, I don't think they have failed," Dougal told BBC Scotland.

"If he as the referee viewed it as violent conduct, we are talking a whole different ball game.

"He wasn't threatened, there was no violence and in his eyes there was no aggression towards him." (BBC Sport)

*

Critics suggested that Bougherra should have received a suspension.

But Dougal says that the SFA's hands were tied as referee Calum Murray did not deem the action as aggressive.

"Based on the criteria the disciplinary committee were working with, I don't think they have failed," Dougal told BBC Scotland.

"If he as the referee viewed it as violent conduct, we are talking a whole different ball game.

"He wasn't threatened, there was no violence and in his eyes there was no aggression towards him."

(BBC Sport website)

Feck this thread really does show you in a very poor light indeed.

I am afraid the tiny bit of credibility I assumed you had has now gone. You are a professional victim and this pervades virtually every thread you comment on.

Sorry jt, it was Kenny Clark not Stuart Dougal. Clark went as far as to suggest the lack of action against Boughera could even lead to another ref's strike.

Banks, as I said, you're becoming pathetic.

http://itcantbeparanoia.blogspot.com/

Feck is there anything you don't moan about?

I reckon you must be the ultimate pub bore.

The ultimate pub bore always has an opinion on everything, even the things he knows nothing about. That describes your presence on this thread (in fact on most threads you participate in).

The ultimate pub bore always has an opinion on everything, even the things he knows nothing about.

ie you and gambling law.

Yet I gave you a severe shafting on that very subject. HTH.

Yet I gave you a severe shafting on that very subject. HTH.

Quite staggering one eyed nonsense.

Your lack of knowledge of gambling law was cringeworthy but not as bad as your inability to accept that you were wrong despite being presented with unambiguous legal arguments.

You are so out of your depth on such matters that you can't help but make a fool of yourself.

Sorry Banks, but you ducked every question I put on that thread. Your argument seemed to be built around a belief that section 9 of the gambling act allowed the GC to effectively do what they want regardless of fairness. Your continual stalking of me since then merely illustrates the fact that you are well aware that you received a severe shafting. HTH.