Why does the FA continue to lie?

I am a sad and bitter individual, hence I have looked into some things in a great more detail than many other people can be bothered to.  Today the FA did nothing about Balotelli's shocking challenge on Alex Song, they stated:

"Retrospective action in relation to the incident involving Mario Balotelli of Manchester City and Alex Song of Arsenal, which occurred in the 20th minute of Sunday’s game, will not be taken.

Where at least one of the officials has seen the coming together of players retrospective action is not taken, regardless of whether they have seen the full extent of the challenge.Retrospective action can only be taken in scenarios where none of the Match Officials saw the players coming together. The normal scenarios in which retrospective action is taken are for ‘off the ball’ incidents."

The FA are lying and I do not know why.  I have written exactly the same stuff many months ago explaining my case in great detail, the FA continue to make up this story about FIFA guidance that does not exist, it is all rather strange.

I have written to the FA and explained my case, as the FA's own guidance quite clearly states that they can make a subjective decision and charge players for incidents that have been seen by the officials, but the FA will not answer me, they consistently ignore the questions posed and continue to keep their heads in the sand.  Here is rule E3 from the FA's very own handbook which actually encourages retrospective punishment for reckless tackling:

                                       "RULE E3 OF THE ASSOCIATION

A charge of Misconduct (as defined in and) pursuant to Rule E3 of the Rules of The

Association may be brought against a Player in relation to an incident, notwithstanding

that the same incident has been dealt with pursuant to this Memorandum. For example,

against a player who has been dismissed from the Field of Play for an incident which The

Association is satisfied was sufficiently serious to warrant an additional sanction, having

particular (but not exclusive) regard to the following:

(a) Any applicable Law(s) of the Game or Rules and Regulations or FIFA instructions

and/or guidelines;

(b) The nature of the incident, and in particular any intent, recklessness, negligence

or other state of mind of the Player;

(c) Where applicable, the level of force used;

(d) Any injury to any Participant caused by the incident;

(e) Any other impact on the game in which the incident occurred;

(f) The prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally;

(g) The wider interests of football in applying consistent sanctions."

Balotelli scapegoated as it turns sour for City

It is interesting to see the emerging fallout from yesterday's game, is Mancini giving Balotelli a final warning or is he actually going to give up on his temperamental Italian striker?  Either way, it does appear that a certain Italian striker is getting a disproportionate amount of blame for City's poor recent run of form.  Sadly and unsurprisingly the media focus has largely been on Balotelli, just as Mancini would have hoped I would imagine, it is just weak that the media get sucked in by this and continue to ignore that there were ten other City players on the field yesterday, who were comprehensively outplayed by their Arsenal counterparts managed by Arsene Wenger.

City fans and the media would do well to notice that Balotelli was actually one of City's most dangerous players, and although he should have been sent off in the first half, his red card at the death did not affect the outcome of the game, there were another ten City players on the field who also deserve their share of the blame, as well as a manager who seems to be rather keen to dump the blame with Balotelli rather than at his own door.

Hart, Lescott and Kompany were all solid in my opinion but that was about it in terms of positives for City.  I was particularly unimpressed with their midfield, but then I have never rated Barry or Milner, both great examples of how over hyped and overpriced English players can be, they both try hard but are not great footballers, Milner is particularly average.  The manager Mancini must also take a good share of the blame, as City died in the 2nd half, he did nothing, his multi-million pound bench was of no use to him.  The lack of media criticism of Mancini is strange given his obvious failings and his complete failure to try to win the game in yesterday's second period.

It is amusing to see some of the bitter City comments on yesterday's blog, one fan didn't think it was a defeat because Silva was injured, while another felt we shouldn't celebrate victory because it didn't reflect well upon our 'once great club'.  I have to say there are many great City fans out there, but this bunch of bitter idiots are not covering City with glory, rather the exact opposite.

I haven't done the maths but from what I've heard City's bench was not far off triple the cost of our starting eleven, that certain breed of bitter City fan should put that in their pipe and smoke it, certainly before moaning about their own injury woes.  Wins like yesterday are great moments, and for me they are just as good as winning titles, after all we should know, we have won several titles in recent years, and I be savouring yesterday for at least the rest of the day!  Well done Arsene and the lads once again!

Arsenal 1 Bank of Manchester Arabia 0

Cheers Wojciech (picture above courtesy of Younggunsblog) and well played Arsenal, a thoroughly deserved 3 points today against the money men of Manchester, even the most ardent of City fans would struggle to claim that we did not deserve the win today.  Arsene's big decision was to start with the same side that had humbled Tottenham 5-2, and starting Benayoun was a good move in my opinion.

We started well and had the bulk of the early pressure, our nearest was when RVP's flicked header hit Vermaelen and cannoned back off the crossbar, unlucky.  City lost Toure early on and this obviously affected them, Pizarro, his replacement, did little all game.  City did come into the game more as the half wore on but they never really broke us down, or got behind our defence.  Szczesny did excellently dart out of his box to sweep away the danger when it looked like City may have sprung our offside trap.  In the meantime Balotelli was lucky to still be on the field, a nasty lunge on Song was unpunished, then a nasty lunge on Sagna resulted in a yellow, he could easily have seen red before the half was up.

City didn't start the second half too badly either but they still failed to break us down, their only moments of threat came from free kicks and corners, Aguero never got in the game and their midfield struggled to offer much support to their strikers, so sad to see Samir Nasri with no end product.

We grew as the second half wore on, RVP so unlucky not to score with a powerful downward header from Song's cross, it rebounded back the foot of Hart's left hand post with the City keeper beaten.  City were on the ropes, our midfielders were everywhere like beavers, we gave City no space to breathe.  The work rate of Song, Arteta, Rosicky and Benayoun was outstanding.

It looked like it may not be our day, Sagna's expert low centre was hit firmly into the corner by Walcott's right foot, Hart magnificently tipped the ball onto the post, it rebounded to Benayoun who somehow scuffed the ball across the goal when it looked easier to score, and no one could force the ball home, was this going to be one of those days when the ball just wouldn't quite run for us?

With four minutes to go, Arteta strode forward, City backed off, RVP made a run towards the back post, Hart just edged towards the right of his goal, perhaps expected a cross towards our mercurial Dutchman, the ball sat up and Arteta let rip with an unstoppable tubthumping drive, 1-0 and so deserved, such a great goal.  City were dead on their feet, they had been comprehensively outplayed and that was that, Balotelli was sent off for a second yellow as he again clattered Sagna, this was immaterial, City were beaten.

It's funny how things go, Mancini has been given so much praise by his many lovers in the media but he's not looking so clever now, with all those hundreds of millions spent, is he?  Arsene got it right today, Benayoun and not Ramsey was the right call, the team gave their all and proved that football is about more than money.  Well done Arsenal and Arsene Wenger, a cracking three points, just need to keep things going and keep up this momentum for the final six games.

Wigan robbed: another game wrecked by the officials

One cannot help but feel Robert Martinez' pain, his Wigan side outplayed Chelsea for long periods at Stamford bridge and were undone by some atrocious officiating.  Chelsea's first goal was yards offside, a terrible error from the linesman, while their second goal saw two offside men interfering around and about the Wigan goalkeeper.  Martinez used the words 'disgusting' and 'robbed', it is hard not to agree with him, Chelsea were handed the points, they didn't deserve the win in the slightest.

It is yet another example of the pathetic joke that the world's richest sport has become.  It is worth repeating that the richest sport in the world is practically the last to introduce video technology in order to help minimise error in the decision making of officials.  It goes to prove that football has one of the most corrupt and stinking hierarchies of power of any sport.  FIFA are beyond a joke, as are the useless UEFA, the latter's limp measure of introducing extra officials near the penalty boxes has been nothing but a gross failure, we need video technology, things have gone far enough.

These decisions do not even out over a season, anyone who knows anything about statistics can tell you that the systematic bias that is reinforced by the hidden and dodgy process of referee selection in the Premier League will make error add up over a season, it will not even out.

Anyway onto today's game against City.  With Tottenham dropping more points yesterday, it gives us a great opportunity to put some daylight between them and us.  The interesting selection will be who plays in the front three with Theo and RVP, I certainly hope it's not Ramsey, I do not feel his recent form has been great, I would definitely plumb for the young and powerful Ox, who can threaten going forward and contribute defensively.  I would not argue with Gervinho or Benayoun starting though, just not Ramsey please.

What does the PGMOL and Premier League have to hide?

These simple questions have been sent to the Premier League and PGMOL repeatedly.  These authorities have not even sent a response to these questions, not even a statement saying that they cannot answer the questions despite their silence making it very clear that they have something to hide.  Here are the simple 8 questions that the Premier League refuse to answer:


"1. Would it be possible to see the template scoring systems (for both match assessor and match delegate) used for assessing the performance of referees at games?  Obviously I do no expect to see specific scored but would like to see the blank marking sheets to see what they are scored on for each game.

2. Are referees routinely scored based on the review of match videos after games?

3. If the answer to 3 is yes, then are they scored for their technical performance ie whether specific decisions were right or wrong in games?

4. The figure quoted by Mike Riley is that 99% of assistant referee decisions on offside are correct.  Where does this data come from, it is based on video review of the decisions or some other form of review (match assessors or delegates)?

5. Does the PGMO think that the region of the country from which a referee originates may result in some unconscious decision making bias?

6. Does the PGMO agree with the substantive body of research that shows referees will tend to unconsciously favour the home side with decisions?

7. Are you able to give me some basic details of who makes up the PGMO?

8.  Are you able to give me any details on how referees are selected? ie how often are the meetings and who is involved?"


The geographic skew of Premier League officials is a massive source of subconscious bias in isolation, but given how many other potential flaws there are in the refereeing process it may just be the small tip of the iceberg.


The Premier League and PGMOL are behaving like a corrupt 3rd world dictatorship.  They are acting like they have something to hide.  The fact that such a massive multi-billion pound industry operate so unaccountably and behind closed doors is rather scary, especially when they appear to be completely unregulated by anyone independent.  I will not give up repeating my questions but do not hold out much hope for any kind of meaningful answer.  The Premier League knows that the best tactic is silence when their hidden and shady world is threatened with exposure. 

Systematic bias? Ignorance and stupidity is bliss

Some things are just coincidence, however when strange and unlikely things continue to happen, then it becomes less and less likely that they are down to chance, and more and more likely that they are subject to some kind of bias, whether that be subconsciously or consciously.  The more one looks at the way in which referees are selected from Premier League games, the more fishy things look, especially in the context of big decisions having big effects on the season's end outcome.

The evidence is gathering and I would strongly recommend that anyone interested have a look at Untold Arsenal's recent stuff on Mike Riley's PGMOL and the referee selection process, the excellent 'football is fixed' is also well worth a glance.  Untold Arsenal's recent work on the hidden process of referee selection is particularly interesting, the PGMOL's process is incredibly open to bias and subjectivity, meaning that even if there is no conscious manipulation of influence at work, then subconscious bias is going to be massive exaggerated and increased by such a weak system:

• - The current form of the official
• - The referee’s position in the merit table
• - Overall experience
• - How often they have refereed the Clubs involved
• - Proximity to the ground or city in which they were born or live
• - The team the referee supports
• - International appointments (For example if referees have UEFA matches on Thursdays they will only be available for matches on Sundays or Mondays)

The above 'factors' essentially leave officials to be hand picked behind closed doors in a completely non-transparent manner.  Recently we have seen Howard Webb selected for 3 Manchester United games in a row at a crucial time of the season, what are the chances of that?  There are many other hugely suspicious coincidences, the Walton coincidence and the Mike Dean coincidences. 

Ignore the coincidences, ignore the strange runs, but one thing that simply has to be noticed is the way in which referees are allocated so very subjectively.  I wholeheartedly agree with Untold Arsenal on this one, there simply is no good argument against having a random allocation of referees that spreads the games evenly between all the 19 elite Premier League referees.  One could easily allocated all the games to referees at the beginning of the season when the fixtures are announced, this process should be as random as possible to remove all types of bias from the process.

We need video technology badly, there is no good argument against it, the same is true for having a decent transparent and objective system by which referees are selected for games.  The best case scenario at the moment is that the undeniable variable subconscious bias of referees that skews results is being exaggerated by a biased subjective process of referee selection, the worst case does not even bear thinking about.

Sadly it is rather obvious that football is about as corrupt as any business out there; FIFA, UEFA and the Premier League has given us many great examples of of this.  Football is now a largely unregulated business, the government aren't regulating it, the FA aren't and the Premier League certainly aren't.  There is also no democratic process by which the stakeholders, us - the fans, can hold any of these private institutions to account and force them to reform.  We have seen what a joke reform is at FIFA, it is like asking the tobacco industry to self regulate.  The mainstream media appear to largely have their head in the sand on many of these issues, they are often scared of biting the hand that feeds, the momentum is gathering though......

Mike Riley has openly lied on refereeing bias?

Mike Riley, the head of the refereeing body the PGMO, was recently interviewed on the BBC and he openly stated that:

" 'all the evidence' doesn't support there being any bias present in refereeing decision making"

I summarised the interview in two articles at the time.  There are numerous problems with refereeing in the Premier League and it now abundantly clear that the workings of the PGMO are completely hidden from the view of the media and the public.  However ignoring all the major problems with refereeing (like the lack of objective referee assessment, the lack of an open and transparent system of referee selection, and the massive potential for corruption by clubs influencing the referee selection process) for one minute, let us just analyse Riley's comments on refereeing bias.


We have numerous scientific studies that prove Mike Riley to be an idiot or a liar, either is not promising for the PL's refereeing system.  Statistical reviews have shown a systematic home bias in the decisions of referees (1):

"We can confirm a systematic home bias of referees."

Excellent research in Italy proved the subconscious and conscious bias in refereeing decisions (2).  The systematic home bias has also been demonstrated in Spanish football (3,4) and recently in English football by Professor Steven Dobson (5,6).

There is simply no doubt to anyone of sound mind who has read up on this issue, referees are inherently biased.  At best this is just a subconscious bias in favour of home sides, but at worst if the PGMO's referee selection process is subject to influence by the clubs then the amount of bias affecting the results of games could be huge.  We simply don't know because the PGMO and Premier League persistently refuse to release any meaningful information about referee assessment and selection, at the moment we are simply expected to trust that what goes on behind closed doors is perfectly fair.

Whatever the real truth behind the referee selection process in the Premier League, it is clear that Mike Riley's comments are at best ignorant and wrong, and at worst designed to hide a corrupt network of dodgy refereeing.  I have very little faith in Mike Riley, the PGMO and the Premier League, there is so much money and so many vested interests at work here.  Trusting  these people as the vast majority of the mainstream media do appears extremely foolish and naive.

References

1. M Sutter and M Kochler.  Favoritism of agents – The case of referees' home bias. Journal of Economic Psychology. Volume 25. Issue 4. August 2004. Pages 461-9.
2. CORRUPTION AND REFEREE BIAS IN FOOTBALL: THE CASE OF CALCIOPOLI 
WALTER DISTASO, LEONE LEONIDA, DARIO MAIMONE ANSALDO PATTI AND PIETRO NAVARR. http://www-3.unipv.it/websiep/2008/200891.pdf
3. Andrés Picazo-Tadeo & Francisco Gónzalez-Gómez & Jorge Guardiola Wanden-Berghe, 2011.

"Referee home bias due to social pressure. Evidence from Spanish football,"
Working Papers 1119, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.

4. Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo & Francisco González-Gómez & Jorge Guardiola, 2011.

"The importance of time in referee home bias due to social pressure. Evidence from Spanish football,"
FEG Working Paper Series 03/11, Faculty of Economics and Business (University of Granada).

5.  DAWSON, P, DOBSON, S., GODDARD, J.A. and WILSON, J., 2007. Are football referees really biased and inconsistent? Evidence from the English Premier League. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 170 (1), pp. 231-250. 

6.  The influence of social pressure and nationality on individual decisions: evidence from the behaviour of referees, Journal of Economic Psychology (2010) Vol. 31 No.2 pp 181–191 (with P Dawson).