Do the Big Clubs get more referee decisions there way than small clubs?

Yep, apparently little old Aldershot had the referee on their side yesterday. The home fans thought it was perfectly acceptable for their defender to take out ours in the penalty box without a penalty given. They were further out raged when a player decided to elbow ours in the face and receive a red!

It's swings and round abouts to be honest, I didn't hear Patprick Viera bitching about decisions when the 'Invincible's' were getting them in their favour. I still remember as clear as day a certain Robert Pires taking a less then convincing tumble in the box against Pompy.

^^^ there were an awful lot of players in that Arsenal side that liked to go to ground.

Viera made himself look like a hypocritical muppet talking about Fulham not getting a penalty against United when only two days earlier, Stoke were denied a blatant penalty against City, with Barry lucky not to brake Whelan's ankle. and he wasn't complaining earlier in the season when City had some big decisions go their way at home to Spurs. twat.

Although I've given up on Football somewhat (same old teams winning the league year in year out) I was a Scottish Football fan and it always seemed to be the case that Rangers and Celtic were given favourable treatment by Referees, although now it's far less prevalent. I was told by my Dad and Granddad about times when the bias given toward the Old Firm was at times so blatant you would never believe it.

In all honesty this problem is not solely one that Football has, it's common to most team sports.

This website reviews every big/controversial decision in every game, and then ranks the teams.

http://www.debatabledecisions.com/tables

According to this it's generally the teams towards the bottom of the table that get more decisions their way. Obviously it isn't conclusive proof or anything of the sort, but maybe gives a general overview of who's got the rub of the green over the course of the season

Zoo Magazine did something similar a few years ago where Jeff Winter reviewed every league match. i can't remember how the 'smaller' teams did, but one of the biggest revelations was Liverpool getting something like 11 extra points through bad decisions. if it weren't for that, Everton would have finished 4th that year!

i might be wrong, but i think that one of the teams that went down should have stayed up. i'll see if i can find it....

Before the whining starts rio won the ball and the ball was a yard over the line xxx lol Blackburn will stay up without a doubt.

I wish I had something further to add, but cmiller (pleased to meet you, sir) has nailed it. That won't stop me, though, 'cos I love the sight of my own posts*...

I could name a bunch of stinkers that went against Man Utd, and do you know why? Because I've got an emotional investment in those decisions, the sense of injustice is the primary memory of the match; I don't remember the stinkers that go in our favour, because that memory gets supplanted by the happy memories associated with the win. As for the ones in matches involving two teams I don't really care about one way or the other? They're forgotten as easily as... um... that thing, you know the one, wotsitsname.

Let me give you an example involving a common misconception amongst my fellow Man Utd fans, including members of my own family. "Chelsea's last title win is all because of Drogba's offside goal. Without that goal being allowed, we'd have won the league, therefore that goal cost us the league." Now, the previous statement is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete and utter bollocks. Chelsea won the league because they were slightly better over 38 games. Over 38 games pinning your disappointments on one decision, even an absolute stinker during a pivotal match, is woolly thinking - a way to shift the blame from the team you're so invested in not quite being good enough to achieve its goals, be it avoiding relegation, mid-table comfort, a Europa League spot, winning a cup final, a CL spot or the title itself.

It's also worth remembering that decisions in the big clubs favour are perceived as being more frequent because more people care about the big clubs, really, they do, and not just in a favourable way. People watch Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and lately Man City hoping to see them fall flat, because they hate the sides who do well and want to see them brought down a peg. Even negative emotional investment is emotional investment, so those moments imprint on the memory.

* The internet equivalent of 'liking the sound of your own voice'.

(04-04-2012 01:35 )Mister Gummidge Wrote:  cmiller, pleased to meet you, sir.

likewise

(04-04-2012 01:35 )Mister Gummidge Wrote:  Let me give you an example involving a common misconception amongst my fellow Man Utd fans, including members of my own family. "Chelsea's last title win is all because of Drogba's offside goal. Without that goal being allowed, we'd have won the league, therefore that goal cost us the league."

my feelings about missing out on the title that year are quite strong, but i won't go into it because i've forgotten about most of the controversial decisions that went either for or against United. my comment is solely about Drogba's goal.

if you are referring to his goal at Old Trafford, then yes, it was offside. however, Macheda handled the ball for his goal, so the loss stands. the game at Stamford Bridge was much more decisive: Rooney being incorrectly ruled offside when clean through, Valencia being denied a penalty and Chelsea's goal - a soft free-kick, a push in the box and an offside. that result caused a 6pt swing in Chelsea's favour.

this is more of an off-topic moan, but if you wanted to relate it to the subject, it could be used as an example of home-crowds influencing the ref. me? i just think the officials had a bad day. it wasn't the first time and it won't be the last.

after hearing of Wigan being hard done-by at Stamford Bridge, something else occurred to me. if the bigger sides are on the wrong end of a bad decision, they can make up the points elsewhere. for the smaller teams though, that are fighting relegation, every point counts and each bad decision can have a lasting effect on their season.

it's the difference between having a goal ruled out when you're 4-0 up, and having one ruled out when you're 1-0 down.

(07-04-2012 17:00 )cmiller Wrote:  after hearing of Wigan being hard done-by at Stamford Bridge, something else occurred to me. if the bigger sides are on the wrong end of a bad decision, they can make up the points elsewhere. for the smaller teams though, that are fighting relegation, every point counts and each bad decision can have a lasting effect on their season.

it's the difference between having a goal ruled out when you're 4-0 up, and having one ruled out when you're 1-0 down.

also if wigan go down because of that game, think of the financial loss for them because a linesman didnt turn up to the game