Ref Review: Tottenham – Arsenal : not the consistency we are asking for

64 Replies to “Ref Review: Tottenham – Arsenal : not the consistency we are asking for”

1. Laughably biased.

2. I think the referee did well on that day.But hey since you guys are really special in finding statistics and numbers I wonder if any of you can write about which players we can find in the market .

3. I wrote extreme bias on previous article and someone wanted evidence. Here it is. Embarrassing

4. Arwar,

   If you think that the referee did well that day then you are more than welcomed here to share your findings and data.

5. The fact that somebody takes the time to do this is laughable enough, but the completely biased, one eyed view of the decisions is even more laughable!

6. 87:34. Very slight trip from behind by Bellerin on Alli.

   It was a blatent trip from behind that should’ve seen Bellerin sent off.

   Had the referee ref’d the game properly then Coquelin would’ve been sent off after 28 minutes. A cynical, dirty foul on Kane early on and then a deliberate handball to stop a Spurs attack, luckily for Arsenal the ref bottled the first yellow card.

   I also remember an occasion when one of the Arsenal defenders completely jumped over Kane around the edge of the penalty area, no foul given (wrongly) but no mention in the incidents above.

7. Good analysis as ever but as you can see by the spurs supporters response they never do any wrong. We need some European refs coming over to add some balance.

8. Spuds supporters should be banned from this site.
   How can we disgrace ourselves by comparing us with a team that has never won a title in over 50 years.
   Before even africa got independence

9. These spuds supporters have no class at all.
   They are always trolling other fan sites instead of focusing on their own team.
   You can imagine the manner in which they were eliminated by dortmund you have to think they will be a disgrace to english football next season in the champions league

10. BGM you have no clue what the word bias means.

    > In science and engineering, a bias is a [systematic error].

    Link/redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error

    > Observational error (or measurement error) is the difference between a measured value of quantity and its true value.

    Walter and Usama are analysing a process. You have done nothing to demonstrate that there is a difference between the true situation, and the situation as reported. Well, other than type on a keyboard and show what a waste of oxygen you are.

11. Ian Smart, it is only a “good” analysis if you happen to be an Arsenal fan. More accurately, it is a deeply biased analysis masquerading as a balanced report. The same was true of the earlier analysis of this season’s NLD at the Emirates.

    There’s nothing wrong, per se, with biased analysis. This is, after all, an Arsenal fan website and it is only to be expected. But the author tries to pass it off as having been written objectively. Clearly, that is not the case, as a cursory glance at the language employed amply demonstrates.

    I can’t imagine anyone else having the time or patience (or, dare I say it, obsessive paranoia) to analyse the game’s officiating in similar forensic detail. But I can imagine that any such analysis written from a similarly biased Spurs standpoint could cite a fair number of incidents that this report ignores and / or have a markedly different interpretation of some of those incidents that have been discussed.

    One such incident that I clearly remember, by way of example:

    This article makes great play of the fact that Coquelin was fouled immediately before receiving his first yellow card – and that, therefore, the card should never have been. Subsequently, the author makes an even bigger deal about Dier not being issued a second yellow for pulling back Giroud. But on this occasion, the author completely (and conveniently) completely neglects to mention that Dier himself had been fouled (caught by Giroud’s flailing forearm) immediately before committing his offence. Where is the balance and objectivity there? I am quite certain that that flailing forearm would have been noticed and mentioned, at length, had it belonged to a Spurs player and landed on an Arsenal player. In fact, I dare say that the author would have concluded that the Spurs player should have seen a straight red!

12. @Walter & Usama,

    Excellent detailed work as usual!

    @DavyD, thank you for biased opinions on the match without reading the actual ref review as evidenced by the fact that the ref review highlighted the cynical foul you mentioned by Coquelin on Kane at 8:50 should have been a yellow card and how Coquelin was clearly fouled multiple times before falling over to commit the handball offense. So in the end the sending off was correct.

    The only thing more laughable than your clearly biased and outright wrong comments, is the fact that you and the rest of the peanut gallery actually believe the comments you guys write on Untold without any actual evidence. The amazing delusions of grandeur.

13. Actually JimB,

    If you watched the video of the Dier foul on Giroud, Dier was already grabbing Giroud’s jersey before his arm flailed at him. Thank you for your failed attempt. It is very clear in the second video:

    http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2016/03/06/video-eric-dier-vs-giroud-2016-dier-pulls-girouds-shirt-but-is-not-booked-by-oliver-wenger-unhappy/

14. JimB,

    As you can see in the link provided by Jerry, that Giroud did not fouled Dier. Giroud had successfully dribbled past Dier with his second touch. Giroud did not hit Dier with arms deliberately or even in a flailing manner to make foul contact. This motion of arms is common in football when player succesfully dribbles past the opponent with his first or second touch. For example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z5hAuiW4FI

    Even if you think that was a foul, look at Dier, he was already pulling Giroud down throughout.

    Finally, if you think this a biased report disguised to be balanced one, then you are welcomed here at Untold Arsenal to share your findings and data.

15. @Arwar:

    Your moniker sounds Arab (but I may be wrong) so I may excuse your lack of in-depth knowledge about Africa. I will therefore share these nuggets of knowledge with you so that you can understand that there is no way Africa “got independent”.

    1. Africa is a continent, not a country.
    2. Different countries in Africa obtained independence (after European occupation) in different years.Some nearly as far back as a century ago (Egypt, 1922) and others as recent as about two decades ago (Eritrea, 1993). So, the notion that Africa became ‘independent’ is wrong.
    3. By the way, an African country (Ethiopia) is one of the two in the world that are deemed to have never been occupied. The other being Russia.

    Regards,

    Gideone

16. Arsenal are always at the wrong end of bad officiating . I think is conspiracy against Arsenal or may be is what they told Referee to be doing by the F A to us home or away. This things have caused of many points this season.

17. I find it funny that non of the “biased-shouters” even noticed that we agreed that Coquelin should have had a first yellow after some 8 mins and that his sending off in the end was correct.
    But hey, just call us biased of course and then in your little mind it is thus… 🙂

18. I can’t talk for Usama but I am married for more than 30 years, feel happy about life, come out a lot, so no need to give me any advice on how to act every day. Thank you for the suggestions but no need for it.

19. Actually, Jerry, I’ve just stop framed that second video and Dier’s right arm, and the relevant area of Giroud’s shirt, is entirely obscured. So the video doesn’t show what you claim it to show at all. I also stop framed the first video. And that angle shows Dier’s head being knocked back before there is any sign of a pull on Giroud’s shirt.

    Either way (and regardless that a flailing forearm to the face is a somewhat more serious offence than a tug on a shirt – even if accidental), it is too close to call for a referee without the benefit of video replay. So the end result (of no yellow card to Dier) was correct.

    Besides, my initial point was that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the incident, it would certainly have been mentioned and complained about by the author of this article had the flailing forearm belonged to a Spurs player and the receiving face to an Arsenal player.

20. Look JimB, as much you want to call us biased, I just want to make one thing very clear. For me rgiht now there is nothing more than fair and good refereeing in English Football. Its always very unpleasant to watch bad refereeing in any match of any team. I will give an example, in the 1st Leg of Round of 16 in UEFA CL PSG vs. Chelsea I saw one of the most error free and correct decision making refereeing performance this season in all of Europe. The referee was Carlos Velasco (Spain). After watching that match it gave me hope that there are very capable referees left in Europe. In fact it was very heartening to watch a fair match being played.

21. *Nothing more important..

22. JimB
    What was your take on the Lamela/Sanchez incident.
    Surely if you accept (like Walter) that Sanchez yellow card for pushing Lamela was correct, you have to concede that Lamela’s push on Sanchez also deserved a yellow.
    Now is your chance to show us how unbiased you are.

23. Usama – it’s not that I want to call you biased. I don’t even mind that you are. You’re an Arsenal fan writing for an Arsenal website, after all. I’d expect nothing less. God knows, the same kind of thing happens on pretty much every other fan forum, whichever the club. It’s just that your article seems to present itself as an entirely objective analysis. I merely wish to put that record straight.

    As to the sometimes poor quality of refereeing, yes it can be frustrating. But if you think that the overall standard in Spain or elsewhere in Europe is consistently better than it is in England, I would have to disagree. I have seen more than enough by way of shocking refereeing performances elsewhere to know that, at the very least, we are no worse off here than elsewhere and might possibly be better off.

    Regardless, I think referees have a wholly unenviable and thankless task. The pace of the game is faster than it has ever been; the players cheat more than they ever have before; and every kick, run, jump, turn and tackle is covered and analysed again and again by multiple TV angles in super slow motion.

24. Mick – I never denied it. Lamela was an idiot to get involved and should have been carded. He was also an idiot to pick up his first, wholly unnecessary, yellow card.

25. I am sorry to say if you watched the second video frame by frame and still came to the same conclusion, there is no point in I debating with you if you can still deny what your own eyes have seen.

    Frame by frame breakdown of the relevant parts of the 2nd video:
    At 0:23, Giroud hits the ball to his left around Dier (the right of Dier)
    At 0:24, Giroud went around with Dier already holding Giroud’s jersey at his stomach and side, when Giroud’s hand also comes to the upper back area since he slid around him (natural move for anyone that’s played football and actually went around someone)
    At 0:25-0:27, Dier is literally pulling Giroud’s jersey (front and back) for dear life

    At no point did Giroud’s hand hit Dier in the face or give him an American football stiff arm.

26. Jerry – back at you. If you have genuinely watched the incident frame by frame and still insist on your version of events, against all the evidence, then there is no point me debating with you.

    Which is good, because we need take this no further and it saves everyone else having to read the same repeated arguments.

    Cheers.

27. Jerry and Usama
    Excellent reply to.Jim.B who seems to be a spurs supporter and fails to accept Diers fouled Giroud and should have been shown a second yellow for sure.

28. JimB
    Well done for agreeing on Lamela.
    I do not agree with you on Dier, I think you are clutching at straws. Just about every knowledgeable (on the laws of the game) person agrees he was a very lucky boy to stay on the pitch.
    What I don’t get is Walter has said Coquelin deserved to get sent off for two yellows and Sanchez was correctly booked yet you accuse him of being biased.
    Why?

29. Mick,

    Certainly, every commentator and pundit agreed that Dier should have been shown a second yellow card for the pull on Giroud’s shirt. But equally, every pundit and commentator agreed that Coquelin was correctly shown a first yellow card for his handball.

    What I have pointed out is the inconsistency in this article. It argues that, in the case of Coquelin, his handball is negated by the earlier foul on him and that, therefore, he shouldn’t have received his first yellow card. But the same logic is not applied to the Dier incident. Now it seems that Jerry and others seem to think that Dier’s tug on Giroud’s shirt occurs before Giroud’s flailing forearm hits Dier’s face. Fair enough. Their call, as Arsenal fans. But let’s not pretend that that is an entirely objective interpretation of events. At the very least, there is a huge element of doubt involved. And when there is a huge element of doubt involved, a referee should not be making big calls, such as sending a player off. My initial purpose in mentioning it was that, judging by the remainder of the article, I am quite convinced that the author would have mentioned the flailing forearm had the roles been reversed.

    And yes, the author does concede that certain decisions for Spurs were correct and even that one or two decisions against Spurs were incorrect. But that gets to the problem at the heart of the article. Those occasional instances of objectivity give a deliberately false impression, IMO, of objectivity throughout the article. And regardless that you might feel that the author has been entirely objective in his interpretation of events, it is undeniable that the contrasting language employed by the author when referring to the different teams’ players / fouls shows a high degree of bias. Again…..nothing wrong with bias. Just don’t try to pass it off as being entirely objective.

30. Rosicky@Arsenal,

    I don’t think you’ve been reading properly, fella. At no point have I said that Dier didn’t foul Giroud. It couldn’t be more obvious that he did. My purpose was merely to contrast the interpretation of that incident, and its build up, with the interpretation of the earlier Coquelin handball incident.

31. Jim B

    That is the point.
    We feel that Oliver favoured the home side by not sending Dier off.

    Coquelain was rightly sentoff and everone agrees.

    Giroud did not commit any foul so your point is invalid.

    Keep ita straight and simple.

32. “We feel that Oliver favoured the home side….”

    THAT is the point.

    And of course that’s what you FEEL. I’ve no problem with that.

    Feel whatever you like. It’s what we all do as football fans. As I’ve said, my only issue is with the falsely given impression that the article is entirely objective.

33. @JimB,

    Can you tell me at what point Giroud’s “flailing” arm hit Dier in the face? I have provided a video link for the incident above, and did a frame by frame breakdown of the slow-mo replay from 0:23 seconds of the second video.

    Also remember the definition of flailing is to wave or swing wildly.

34. JimB
    I think you are being as ‘inconsistent’ as you are accusing Walter of being.

35. Jerry,

    I thought that we had agreed that there was no point debating each other further since our respective views of the incident differed so wildly? Nothing has changed in that regard, as far as I’m aware, so I have nothing further to say on the matter.

    Cheers.

36. Mick,

    In what way?

37. Usama & Walter – another excellent review, but once again an appalling performance by the PGMO representative.

    As for the Spuddies – serial cheats as usual!

    Do they relise or care that their continuous cheating erodes rather than enhances what is left of their reputation? Probably not!

38. @JimB,

    Thank you for the evidence you presented in support of your view.

    I never said “no point debating each other further since our respective views of the incident differed so wildly.” If that was the case there would never be any debates, courts would be useless, etc..

    My exact words were:
    “there is no point in I debating with you if you can still deny what your own eyes have seen.”

    And then I presented what my eyes saw (and thought your eyes should have seen also) frame by frame of the video.

    You were more than welcome to correct me if your eyes had actually seen something else, you know something akin to a proper debate where opposing arguments are put forward, not just unsubstantiated claims that one’s view is correct.

    Cheers

39. JimB, you can’t take a “we’ll have to agree to disagree” stance on the Dier incident as soon as you realise the video evidence contradicts what you are saying. Either way, your actual stance seems to be that:

    1) Coquelin should have been sent off
    2) Dier should have been sent off*
    3) Lamela should have been sent off**

    *You are only using the Dier incident to explain why you believe Coquelin’s first yellow was legit
    **You’ve not mentioned this, so I assume you agree with the article

    So fundamentally, in a situation where you believe that:

    1) Arsenal ended the game with the correct amount of players
    2) Tottenham ended the game with TWO more players than they should have

    Your first act is to complain that this article is biased? Do you not have an issue with the flagrant injustice, and inconsistency, of the above? Open your eyes, the PGMO are wrecking the Premier League (amongst other things). Why defend them? Even if you think these referee reviews are somewhat biased, you surely can’t deny that the refereeing is fucking appalling.

40. Sigh……..

    Jerry, I’ve already told you what I see when I look at the various videos of the incident. I didn’t think that there was a need to repeat myself? You asking for exact timings is rather pointless. We are both looking at the same videos and we can both see the exact moment at which the critical and relevant incidents occur. It has become perfectly apparent that the issue is not our differing interpretation of the timing of events. It is our differing interpretation of the substance of the events.

    You choose to see no foul by Giroud. I disagree. We are therefore at an impasse.

    Move on.

41. There is a game coming up. There will be PGMO employees present, we do not know if any of them are qualified officials. Here are the appointments:

    Saturday 2 April 2016
    K.O. MATCHES REFEREE ASST. REF. 1 ASST. REF. 2 4TH OFFICIAL
    15:00 Arsenal – Watford Anthony Taylor H Lennard P Kirkup A Marriner
    12:45 Aston Villa – Chelsea Neil Swarbrick M Salisbury D Cann L Mason
    15:00 Bournemouth – Man City Robert Madley M McDonough M Perry T Harrington
    17:30 Liverpool – Spurs Jonathan Moss S Long A Halliday M Jones
    15:00 Norwich – Newcastle Mike Dean S Burt D Cook S Martin
    15:00 Stoke – Swansea Martin Atkinson M Mullarkey S Child M Oliver
    15:00 Sunderland – West Brom Roger East R West M Scholes J Adcock
    15:00 West Ham – Crystal Palace Mark Clattenburg S Beck J Collin D Whitestone
    Sunday 3 April 2016
    K.O. MATCHES REFEREE ASST. REF. 1 ASST. REF. 2 4TH OFFICIAL
    13:30 Leicester – Southampton Michael Oliver G Beswick A Holmes L Mason
    16:00 Man Utd – Everton Andre Marriner S Ledger D Bryan M Jones

    —

    Australia recently played Jordan in Syndey. A horrid two footed tackle was almost ignored by the (Mike Riley 😈 trained?) referee.

    From News.com.au we have:
    > “It’s just disgusting. That’s what it is. Disgusting,” said Andy Harper.

    > “The referee’s let them cook. He’s let them cook all game.

    > “There’s not a second where that was a contestable ball.

    I’m not sure what muppet came up with that last comment, I dare that idiot to find this in the Laws of the Game.

42. Rodelero,

    You make the mistaken assertion that I have realised that the video evidence contradicts what I am saying. I have done nothing of the sort. But since I see no likelihood of being able to convince Jerry to see the incident as I see it, I would rather not waste my – or anyone else’s – time arguing the point. Fair enough?

    As to agreeing that Arsenal ended the game with the correct number of players…..well, actually no. As discussed, this article has only a veneer of objectivity. The Dier incident was but one example of a number that I could have cited. Another could have been that Bellerin should have seen a second yellow (as also agreed by pundits and commentators) for his trip on Alli – a foul that this article dismisses as a mere trifle.

    As to the standard of refereeing, I’ve already said what I think. Yes, it leaves much to be desired. But I also believe that referees have an incredibly and increasingly difficult job – not helped by the consistently poor behaviour of players.

43. JimB

    You live in a very shallow world. You are obviously not a professional yourself, and you have never met a professional.

    I don’t mean football player. Doctors, lawyers, engineers and so on.

    Walter is _PROFESSIONAL_!

    It is a state of mind in large part.

44. @JimB,

    Here is the difference is that

    you made a claim: “Dier himself had been fouled (caught by Giroud’s flailing forearm)” or “Giroud’s flailing forearm hits Dier’s face”

    I made a claim: Dier was already grabbing Giroud’s jersey before the arm swung in a natural movement.

    I provided evidence with video link and my interpretation of the video highlighting Dier pulling Giroud first and that there was no flailing arm.

    You chose to provide no evidence to support your claim or even an interpretation of my video. That is why we are at an impasse.

45. Jerry,

    Your evidence is a couple of video clips.

    My evidence is the same two video clips.

    You made claims about what you saw in the clips.

    I countered with claims about what I saw in the clips.

    There is no evidence other than those clips. And it is perfectly apparent that we are not going to agree as to the substance of those clips.

    THAT is why we are at an impasse.

    So please…….pretty please, with sugar on top…….move on.

46. JimB,

    From everything you have said, you seem to believe that:

    Coquelin should have been sent off (54′), Bellerin should have been sent off (87′)
    Lamela should have been sent off (64′), Dier should have been sent off (78′)

    What you then believe should have happened:

    Arsenal have ten men for thirty three minutes, and nine men for six minutes
    Tottenham have ten men for fourteen minutes, and nine men for fifteen minutes

    What this article argues:

    Arsenal have ten men for thirty nine minutes
    Tottenham have ten men for fourteen minutes, and nine men for fifteen minutes

    What actually happened:

    Arsenal have ten men for thirty nine minutes

    —————–

    You can argue this article is biased ’til the cows come home, but it explains its reasoning for each decision with constant reference to the rules. You may disagree with the review in some areas – I sometimes find myself disagreeing with the reviews – but they’re infinitely better than what you’re going to find anywhere else.

    In this particular match, it is blatantly clear that Tottenham were advantaged massively by a number of wrong decisions. It is one of hundreds of reviews that show, with similar detail, that this is happening consistently, often quite predictably, and almost always in one direction.

    If you want to debate certain aspects of these reports, go ahead, but trying to discredit the entirety of it seems morally bankrupt to me. The work that this site does is practically unique (there have been some short lived equivalents but never nearly as detailed or consistent as this one). It is one of the few voices in the entire world that stands up and highlights what the PGMO is doing. If you think that you could do better, then I welcome the attempt, but your stance seems to be that you wish Untold would shut up, and go away. Whether you realise it or not, you are on the side of the PGMO, and, in my eyes that is unforgivable.

47. I feel that the reviews are objective & are relevant. They do not cover every incident but do cover the majority of incidents that make it to the screen. These are from TV footage & can miss some incidents that are not covered by the broadcast.

    Reading the review can be a challenge because of personal bias but one has to remember that the reviewer is a qualified referee.

48. Rodelero,

    You’re being overly dramatic and reading far too much into my posts. I’m not in the slightest trying to silence Untold Arsenal. Nor am I acting as advocate of the PGMO. I had no prior knowledge of the campaign that you tell me this website is waging against the PGMO. I was merely alerted to this article by a Spurs news aggregator and have engaged politely in the subsequent discussion.

49. This is the entirety of your first post on this article:

    “Laughably biased”

    That’s not really engaging in anything. Subsequently you’ve defended your views (kind of), but you actually started off with a complete and total dismissal based on no stated reasoning whatsoever.

50. Okay.

    You were obviously offended by that.

    For which, I apologise. I would take it back if I could. I concede that it wasn’t the most constructive introduction to the discussion. In my defence, I can only say that I must have been somewhat justifiably annoyed in the immediate aftermath of having read the article.

51. @JimB,
    I agree with the first 3 sentences of your 8:16 PM post. I made the claims of what I saw in the clips in my 4:39 PM post.

    You then said that you countered with what you saw in the clips.

    Can you please point me to the post where you made this counter? That is exactly what I have been asking for this whole time and repeated the question in my 6:01 pm post asking where did it show the flailing arm to the face?

    Your 4:47 PM post said no point in arguing with me so it’s best to move on.

    Your 5:31 PM post highlighted my point of view (though I disagree with the claim Giroud’s arm was flailing or hit Dier in the face) and there is a huge element of doubt involved (but once again this is just reframing your original claim, not stating what you saw in the video)

    Your 6:19 PM- saying i thought we agreed to move on again

    At 7:32PM: you said it is “not our differing interpretation of the timing of events. It is our differing interpretation of the substance of the events.”

    Was this your counter claim? If it was, than that completely contradicts your claim (2:48Pm post) that started this debate with me:

    “the author completely (and conveniently) completely neglects to mention that Dier himself had been fouled (caught by Giroud’s flailing forearm) immediately before committing his offence.”

    Because I have
    1: a different interpretation of the timing of the events (Dier was pulling Giroud’s shirt first)
    2) and a different interpretation of the substance of the events (I didn’t see a Giroud foul)

    So please… pretty please…. with a cherry on top…. provide a counter claim with what you saw on the video (preferably frame by frame like how I posted).

    That way I and other individuals on Untold can finally see what you saw. Then I’ll gladly move on.

    Ps: Please do not respond again by just repeating the same claim that Giroud fouled Dier first or worse just try to switch the argument to the Giroud foul was worse than Dier’s. A recommended response would be something like: At min 0:22 Giroud flailing arm hit Dier in the face, and then Dier grabbed Giroud’s jersey at 0:26.

    I look forward to your counter claim.

52. JimB

    Glad you have now found the site which is spearheading the campaign for improved refereeing in the Premier League. Please read the other articles which highlight the small number of referees; the narrow geographical base of those referees; the illogical and unjustifiable way referees are allocated to particular matches; the unaccountable and secretive operations of the referees’ organization; the fact that referees are given £50,000 hush money when they retire – and many other interesting facts.

53. Pat
    Why would any Spurs fan be interested in delving into the dark side of PGMOB when their team regularly benefits from the decisions of the same officials who screw Arsenal at every opportunity.
    They don’t see any problems? Everything in the garden is rosy as far as they are concerned.

54. I understand that the Spanish ref in the England vs Netherlands game must have thought it correct that Netherlands win in honour of Johan Cruyff but he’s just dropped his standards to the PGMO level to do that. Which makes the casual viewer think crap officials are normal on the continent… As well as in the PL.

55. Andy Mack – What standards are you referring to? The handball was typical of the kind given against Arsenal (I don’t feel the ‘deliberate’ was satisfied). The ‘foul’ on Jageilka, wasn’t. In fact I think the Dutchman was fouled & Jagielka fell having made an absolute mess of trying to win the ball. England were fortunate for the second time not to have a penalty awarded against them.

    I was surprised that Drinkwater wasn’t booked for dissent following the goal. In fact several players were out of order questioning the official during the game. Bad habits from the EPL being carried into International games is not good for sport.

56. Well, looks to me JimB is one of the smarter and most articulate opponents we could face here.

    Disagreeing with him is therefore a more difficult task than usual. On another day I might try meet that challenge exhaustively but today I’ll just say most of my argument, and I believe the sites, rests on the fact (ok, technically it’s a belief) that things do not nearly even out for Arsenal. It’s about whether you can call it unlucky if things don’t go one teams way game after game after game, month after month, year after year.

    If this Spurs game took place in isolation, there’d be more willingness to say, ‘well, we were unlucky there. Coquelin did enough to earn a red, but so did two of theirs. We got one , they didn’t; it’s football; they were reasonably close calls; shit happens.’

    I wouldn’t expect any Spurs supporter to follow our games as closely as we do, and it would be impossible to follow them in the manner that we do, but the first at least is necessary to really understand where we come from and to try decide whether we are right or wrong.

    Limit it to one game in isolation and it is too easy to say : refs do a hard job; win some, lose some; all supporters, indeed all people, are biased, etc.

    My own view is that biases can never be overcome entirely, the best you can do is be aware of them as much as possible and fight the good fight to try limit their effects.

    In my opinion, Walter and Usama do put up that good fight to limit the effects of any bias. If JimB or anyone else wanted to test whether or not they really do so, they would have to closely watch and then debate not one match in isolation but a higher number- say,ten, or even five.

    Then things would become interesting. If this was a relatively normal match for us- refs are human; hey, the big calls didn’t go your way on the day; here are some good general arguments as to why football supporters are biased; here is some specific debate on questionable incidents from the game- JimB, or anyone, would have to confront the fact that virtually all matches follow that pattern for us.

    They are saved from this by the phenomenon that it is natural for supporters to only closely follow their own teams and only ever really get into blow-by-blow debates of any game when their own team is involved.

    However, if JimB or anyone did take on that task of analysing a longish sequence of our games in depth, they would then have to argue against the fact game after game after game the big calls almost always go against us. After that they might start noticing we don’t really do so well on the little calls,either.

    But anyway, they would quit the experiment before that point, walking away thinking ‘hmm, this isn’t right; they’re onto something’, and, ‘shit, this diminishes my pleasure and enjoyment of football, so I’ll abort the experiment and try forget about it entirely’.

    Just try and watch our game at the weekend with one thought reverberating in your mind- ‘arsenal are as likely to get a big call go their way as any other team’. One game is very likely to be enough to cause you unease if you do that properly while honestly hoping and believing all is well enough with refereeing here.

    Then onto the Spurs and Leicester games, with the same thoughts. There ought to be some big calls in at least one, maybe all three games.

    I’m very confident which direction they’ll go, but of course they are unlikely to be so outrageous as to offer any definitive proof of anything, and it can all be put down to ‘refs are human, calls are reasonably close; win some, lose some’

57. This argument shows why these stats on referees will ultimately lead to nothing.It is like tory and labor mps arguing in the house of commons.You, like them will not back down and will tow the party line no matter what,even if they see differently.Oh and menace because the reviewer is a qualified referee doesn’t make him any less biassed than you and me.I would love to see fans from all 20 premier teams do a review of a game involving their team and come to the same conclusion but their is more chance of Arsenal winning the champions league than happening.

58. Menace,
    I can assure you I have no great bias towards the England team but If the shoulder barge into the back of Jagielka was legal then it does explain why we (AFC) ‘win’ so few free kicks/penalties. That was a foul on Jagielka all day long…

    I Agree the Penalty was a penalty as even though he was very close to the player, the 2nd rate LB moved his hand to the ball.

    This ref set a very low standard which surprised me.

59. John

    that is what we did in the season when we published it on the refereedecisions website. We had refs who supportered different clubs (even one from Tottenham!) to review the matches.

    The final results can be found on the website refereedecisions http://www.refereedecisions.co.uk/

    And we found greater bias against Arsenal in that season than in the seasons we only did it with referees who support Arsenal.

60. Hello John, aren’t you going to reply to Walter?

61. Mick
    I will reply yes when i see fit.I dont spend 24/7 on here.Who are you his lapdog or his spokesman.

62. Menace
    I know that you like to slag the English game off and our English referees for fun but saying that questioning officials is a bad habit from the EPL is just wrong.What about a bad habit from world football where you will see players backchat referees at every league going.Why single out our league as if its the worst when its clearly not.I bet the Indian league,Belgium league,the Nigerian league and Africal leagues are just as bad..

63. John , I do not slag off any game. My comments are justified in my view. The EPL has deteriorated since the PGMO took charge. The FA are inconsistent. The players of many teams are allowed to argue with officials & get away without being booked. I do not watch the leagues you mentioned & I am sure neither do you. Observe the Arsenal players & learn.

64. John
    John
    You frequently and insultingly accuse Walter of bias in his reviews even though on many occasions he has pointed out that that they are not all done by him and a lot are indeed done by refs who are not even Arsenal supporters. This trumps your assertion that the reviews are worthless due to an inherent pro Arsenal bias.
    I would also point out that two national newspapers have done alternative league tables this season which show Arsenal top when taking into account refereeing errors.
    There was also the Debatable Decisions website which reviewed refs decisions and guess what, they also concluded that Arsenal suffered more than any other team from ref errors.
    So for you to rubbish the possibility that refs are indeed biased against Arsenal is not justified, unless of course you can provide some supporting evidence to bolster your stance.
    Finally, if you watch the Arsenal matches and you really have not noticed anything wrong with the officiating then all I can say is, in the words of the TV ad ‘You should have gone to SpecSavers’.