Match Review: Kevin Friend – Arsenal Vs Southampton (6 – 1) [15/09/2012]

10 Replies to “Match Review: Kevin Friend – Arsenal Vs Southampton (6 – 1) [15/09/2012]”

1. I would put the summary first and then have a link to the details for each half. This means more web pages I know but far better to have the words explaining the performance and the summary figures for the user to read than this, which is too much for most of us to scroll through and read.

   You are obviously interested in the detail. I am not, and am willing to trust you have done the detail correctly. If I were interested, I would happily click the link to the detailed decisions.

   I have done a lot of web-based work and my advice is to put the user first and give them less rather than more, where possible. Thinking about it further, could you have the intial link to the words describing the performance and have all the detail accessible via links? What I am interested in is the summary of the reffing, not all the tables – but may like to look at the detailed decsions, competence and bias summaries. And I would much prefer to spend a few minutes reading the words, moving on if the refereeing was good or getting into more details if not.

   Otherwise, was the refereeing that good in this match? And the weightings look screwy ie more for a foul than a goal.

2. Good points from CB there – we can just link back to the ref site and concentrate more on the analysis.

   Walter set the weightings… they are experimental at the moment so please feel free to make suggestions.

   I think they work ok but they are not set in stone.

3. I agree with @CB — while occasionally an incident will stick out in my mind, and I’d like to find out what the Ref Reviewer’s take on it was, I generally just scroll down to the summary statistics. As the review has grown more comprehensive (and thus lengthier) over time, this would help draw in casual readers.

   @DogFace — in regard to the weighting system, have you considered applying them to some of last year’s games to see the effect on the ref’s “score”? I know we’ve added throw-in decisions and the like, but maybe we could just use typical frequencies of those decisions to make a consistent baseline. To some extent, these reviews are always going to be backstopped by our intuitive sense of how well a ref did, so looking back at notable good or poor games using the new weights will help us determine if decisions are receiving the proper consideration. Thanks again for your hard work with this feature, and let’s hope the PGMOL is reading!

4. I agree with CB, summary 1st.

5. I’m no great reader of figures but Kevin Friend seems to have had a very good game.
   Perhaps you could have made it easier for idiots like me by saying that at the end.

6. Excellent work again crew. I agree that – for reasons of comparison- indications of competence and fairness in summary will help many people (most media pundits and journos for a start).
   The new format is good. And I am mega impressed with K Friend’s performance in this game. He has set a benchmark here which will be difficult to maintain. This high standard- the St. Kev Arsenal- Southampton standard (or SKAS) is all supporters ever want from officials. Of course- the players contributed by getting on with the game in good spirit without threats and venom from any touchline ogre- which must help! Great stuff!

7. Part of the thinking behind the difference in weight between good and bad calls is that making a good call is not that difficult.
   Let us say a team has the ball for a minute, and scores from a long distance shot with no fouls, no offside, not even close to anything against the rules. In fact the ref had nothing to do with this.
   But if the striker that made a goal punched a defender, pushed the goalkeeper away, and scored with his hand…then he surely had to disallow that goal. And that is a reason for the weight being more for a mistake than for a good call.

   The same can be said about a regular foul. Player trips his opponent and the ref gives the foul. I could say even a blind man could get this right. As refs are not blind there is no big deal in this and this is a straightforward decisions he has to make and made. But if he misses that clear trip in front of his eyes then he will be punished more severely.

   This is the same (and we apply it rather mild) way the refs are reviewed in at least one country (and also by Uefa in the CL by the way) and which I explained http://blog.emiratesstadium.info/archives/25289

   With the new system we give the ref a chance to get a higher score with all the decisions we give to him for throw ins, goals kicks. In fact the ref can get a 100% score. Just watch and see. 😉 But his mistakes are counted more than before. But still in a very soft way compared to how other countries work

8. Very much like the new setup the only thing missing which I take particular attention to is your ref final remarks, be it good, bad or indifferent preformance.

9. Ozziearsenal,
   As on the new site we try not to give too much comment on the ref but try to let the numbers do the talking … I completely forgot this is Untold. So I should have told something.

   So here we go and my take on the ref:
   Two teams who came to play football and credit to them for trying this. A ref who wanted to keep the game flowing and seeing both teams were playing in the right spirit could allow himself some time before giving a foul. Resulting in a great advantage leading to the first Arsenal goal. He did this again later on.
   Only two wrong decisions in the first half and again only two wrong decisions in the second half. It hardly can get any better.

   So a very high competency score over the whole 90 minutes. And look at the bias score: completely even out for both teams!

   Oh, please keep it up like this!!!!

10. Thanks for the summary Walter.
    As you say, let’s hope the other refs follow his lead.