11 responses

  1. Reviewer02
    15/08/2012

    I remember doing this review very well, even the big decision Moss got wrong required detailed slow mo to clarify his mistake, it really was an outstanding performance. lets hope we we get to see some more of him so we can build establish some credible data

  2. robl
    15/08/2012

    Hi Reviewer 02, first of all thanks for all your hard work, we appreciate it.

    Without wishing to cast aspertions on the good work you have done, would it not have been better to give the ref the benefit of the doubt and not deduct points where a slo mo was required that he had no access to?
    Thanks, Rob.

  3. Charlie
    15/08/2012

    Keep up the good work. Don’t let this be brushed under the carpet, it’s time for detailed scrutiny of refs because your results show that they are having a major influence on results. Although robl makes a fair point about it being harsh to penalise a ref who would’ve needed a slo-mo it’s a black and white system where a decision is either right or wrong. I don’t think there’s room for benefit of the doubt in this analysis but to highlight that it was a tough call is a good precedent. Statistics never tell the whole truth which is why we need to include some discussion.

  4. Stuart
    15/08/2012

    robl

    No, the point of this is to assess two things.

    Firstly if there is any bias (intentional or un-intentional) from the referees. The second is to see if the refs are capable of making the right decisions. If they can’t get it right then they need more help and giving them the benefit of the doubt defeats the object.

  5. RobL
    15/08/2012

    Hi Stuart & Charlie, whilst I take your points on board, in reviewing a ref for his performance surely it should be as is – ie as there is no technology available to Mr Moss, he can’t be penalised for something he couldn’t possibly see?

    Any way as you say it was highlighted so we can take it into account ourselves.

  6. Stuart
    15/08/2012

    Robl

    We are kind of agreeing without realising. The entire referee structure can be criticised for being out dated and insufficient for the modern game!

    This is not to blame the ref, this is to say they need more help so that mistakes can’t happen.

  7. WalterBroeckx
    15/08/2012

    I even remember this being one of the games where we had to make a vote. But my memory could be wrong on this.
    Not being able to see can be because of mainly 3 things.
    1. something behind his back. Then the ref has no blame and he could be giving his points.
    2. hundreds of arms and legs behind his correct position and the incident. The decision is still wrong so he gets no points. this is harsh on the ref but here comes the team work in to action. Assistants should take their responsibility.
    2. Ref being out of position and therefore not seeing it: this is a big mistake from the ref. Zero points even with the joker.

  8. Reviewer02
    15/08/2012

    The way we work is application of the law, was it a right or wrong decision. we expect referees to make mistakes, and we expect them to even out in the end. Despite the mistakes in this game, which were very difficult to call, the referee still put in an outstanding performance.

    What this shows is that our methodology is good, and that it allows for human error. remeber that if we regard 70% as a good score then the ref has 30% of slack to play with. On this occassion John Moss was comfortabley inside that margin.

  9. Jitty
    15/08/2012

    You guys should look him up on the Footbalisfixed blog

    interesting

  10. Matt Clarke
    15/08/2012

    Thanks guys – a great, gentle, introduction.

  11. Reviewer02
    15/08/2012

    @Jitty
    I was aware of the WBA stuff before i did the review (if that is what you are refering to)

    But i can only go on the performance he put in on the game I reviewed

Back to top