This isn’t an analysis, this is about proving a point.
Hasn’t this been answered over and over again on these forums? It could be a myriad of factors. Sure, it could be because he plays for Liverpool. Or it could be because he’s a strong player who rides through challenges instead of falling over. Or it could be because he’s brown. Or it could be because he’s not English. Or it could be because he’s a famous Muslim.
It could be a mixture of any of those factors. The key issue there however isn’t about whether there’s a bias against Liverpool. The key issue is about bias against Mohamed Salah. The referees don’t seem to have as much of an issue against someone like Luis Díaz for example.
That’s the problem. It doesn’t even prove what you or he thinks it does without the relevant statistical rigour put into it. What it does do however is drive views and engagement to his Substack, which I rather suspect is an underlying motive.
I assumed that he was using that in place of a confidence interval. It’s inconsistent but I would expect his audience would understand that more than 99.9%. (of course we can’t see is workings).
More proof that what the likes of Quicksand, Cynicaloldgit, myself
etc have been saying for years is correct.
I wouldn’t waste my time arguing about this on here or anywhere else any more than I’d waste my time arguing with a flat-earther. We were right, anyone arguing otherwise is wrong, it’s as simple as that.
The data on Attwell is shocking and backs up my assertion that for years he’s been happy to see our players assaulted with impunity. Strangely enough Tompkins doesn’t even include the most blatant example of his corruption, the Cresswell ‘tackle’ on Henderson which remains to this day the most bizarre example of a red card not being given I have ever seen.
I think Slot is starting to learn what he is up against as manager of Liverpool FC while these cheating, corrupt cunts are still able to wield their influence. The exposure of Coote has made no difference, if anything it’s emboldened them. Coote himself v Villa, the red card for Robbo and non-red for Pereira, Attwell at Spurs the other night, all the usual inexplicable decisions going against LFC with absolutely fuck all in the way of balance. These cheats remain the biggest threat to us on the field of play.
Your last point that it doesn’t prove what he or I thinks it does without statistical rigour is interesting, considering you stopped reading halfway through the article. Its too “lightweight” for you?
He could produce the most robust study of all times and people like you will still consider his findings flawed, rather than agree with the points @jaffod makes above.
At no point did I assert that this piece of work stands up to checks for rigour or comparison. But the fact is he produces evidence , yes evidence that Liverpool fare worse than other clubs when it comes to important decisions.
On the Mo Salah debate.
I didnt suggest the biases clearly held against him are because he is a Liverpool player. But those biases exist.
Be it that he is a Muslim superstar or a Liverpool player.
The strong player argument you and others posit is nonsense. Fouls are fouls.
Tomkins underpins what a few people on here have always said. The interesting thing is that his work isn’t enough for you, and maybe others who disagree. Your disdain on the piece is evident from you stopping halfway.
I skimmed through the rest after I stopped reading.
Quite fascinating, I think this says more about you and @jaffod than it does about me. If it had a proper experimental design I’d be more convinced about it than this half-baked trash masquerading as statistics.
And I never claimed you did. All I did was merely to state that it doesn’t prove what you think it does.
Perhaps it’s just my confirmation bias, but I read his first foray into such things, and it was exactly the same. Cherry-picking numbers without thinking about the context.
Let me remind you of what you constantly say when you talk about refereeing – that you’re speaking from the perspective of a Liverpool fan, no matter how blinkered that might be or not. I’m speaking as someone who, if I want to make assertive claims about refereeing bias, I’d want evidence that was obtained a lot more rigorously. Coming from a field which has had exactly that problem of dodgy statistics, I can assure you that I am very firm on that regard no matter what.
It says more about me, and @jaffod? Add in a few more to the group while your at it…@cynicaloldgit maybe
What exactly does it say?
Maybe consistent?
Maybe we dont need to put our hands into the wound to see what is happening?
Reducing Tompkins work to “half baked thrash” is hardly constructive debate either. You let yourself down with that type of dersion…having hald read and half skimmed the piece. You offer very little by way of counter argument though?
I refer you to my first two comments on this. Given that you and @jaffod commented after that with only my comments being negative about this post, I think we can presume that you both feel the same way about my point that this doesn’t prove anything, certainly not what you think it does. Certainly you do feel that, but apologies to @jaffod if I’ve misinterpreted it.
I can’t speak about @cynicaloldgit though, I’d like to think he can see my point that there may well be bias, but this doesn’t tell us anything about it.
It proves nothing for you, because it hasn’t the statistical rigour that you require.
It does however underpin the belief that Liverpool are biased against by referees. Even if the data is incomplete or incorrect by 50% the fact remains that this needs to be examined further.
The “Why” question is different.
I read the whole Tomkins article, thanks for posting.
My take? He deserves a lot of credit for tracking an enormous amount of data - too much to be ignored. The way we are refereed is definitely problematic. We do not get the rub of the green, at all. In fact, based on the level of our play, we seem to suffer from an active bias against us, whether that is manifest in the quantity of fouls we concede or the amount of big decisions we do not get.
And seeing the names of a small group of referees who give us such disproportionate treatment should result in a robust investigation. But it won’t.
I think the PGMOL have offered up Coote as their sacrificial lamb, as if that now sweeps the whole thing under the rug. It does not.
The PGMOL needs to be ripped up and started again. The piece below is by an Arsenal fan, who gives some interesting suggestions about a new structure.
Edit
His club bias shines through in the way that he writes, but the six suggestions at the end, for how he would reform the PGMOL, are well worth consideration.
I think there are massive problems with PGMOL and how it’s structured, and while I hate to agree with the likes of those who argue that because every fan believes that referees are biased against them, the referees must be neutral, I think it’s not necessarily the case that referees are biased against particular teams as an institution, but the institution itself produces referees who have individual biases for whatever reasons.
I live in Nottingham, so I know a lot of Forest fans. Mostly sound, but there is a lunatic, conspiratorial edge to some of them, a bit Arsenal-lite. I remember talking to one last last year who thought the great drop ball scandal was a bigger refereeing fuck up than the VAR mess up against Spurs.
