By Tony Attwood
In our society there are many things that one doesn’t talk about. Notions that are considered so awful that they simply can’t be debated – at least not in public. Notions that, if we had the Thought Police actively working on the streets, would lead to instant arrest just for thinking about it.
Indeed so awful are these ideas that I am finding it hard to think of them and write them down. But to give you an idea of what I am trying to say, consider just very briefly, the notion of legalising child sex abuse. Or legalising and actively encouring rape.
Of course not every “we do not talk about” concept quite as horrific – I don’t think there are many debates on getting rid of democracy in the UK and replacing it with a fascist dictatorship. Indeed neo-Nazi organisations get proscribed in my country – but we don’t much debate whether we should do this or not.
In thinking about this it took me only a minute to come up with a list of 20 or so things that we do not debate in the UK simply because they are considered undebateable – we are simply not going there so we (by which I mean the massively overwhelming majority of people, and most of our politicians) do not even consider the issue. We are not going to bring back hanging or cut the school leaving age to 11, so there is nothing to discuss.
And then it struck me that tucked into this “do not discuss” list, is the notion that referees might be corrupted.
Now I know that is a huge leap from the appalling concepts I have mentioned or hinted at above to the issue of referees – but the notion is the same. The possibility that some top referees can be bought is not a topic. And I want to emphasise, I am not even saying that some have been bought, but just the notion that they might have been.
Two things lead me down this line of thought today. One is Walter’s reporting of the finding in Belgium that player agents are involved in match fixing, and that there is enough evidence for phone taps to have been implemented. And the other is the finding via Andrew’s analysis of the huge difference between the number of fouls committed by different teams, before a card is issued.
Of course neither of these topics means that there is anything wrong with refereeing in the Premier League. Corruption in Belgium does not imply corruption in England. And maybe the fouls committed by teams that don’t get yellow cards reveal a return to “rotational fouling” – a system Untold was alone in reporting ten years ago and which is designed specifically to avoid yellow cards. (Although when I created the phrase “rotationl fouling” I had no idea it could exist on the scale that Andrew’s figures suggest).
But then if that is the case one might have thought that the eagle eyed journalists, with their special boxes at grounds, their computers, their additional research teams, their replays, their own personal entrance to the ground and so forth, might have noticed. After all, each journalist at Arsenal Stadium takes up about three times as much space as each paying spectator and with all that space they ought to be noticing stuff like this. And now I start to wonder: why have they not noticed how many fouls Arsenal have to commit to get a yellow, compared with some other teams? Even if they have an explanation, surely it is worth mentioning.
However it seems this topic is not to be discussed – just as we don’t discuss the option of removing the rights and privileges of religions in the UK. Not at issue, not to be talked about, don’t say a word.
But why is this? Of course I know why we don’t debate reducing taxation on cigarettes – the population at large is paying, through the NHS, for the treatment of people who get the diseases that smoking can bring. But why don’t our newspapers and broadcasters discuss the accuracy of referee decision making? Or come to that the way refereeing is set up in the Premier League?
And I think of this yet again at the start of 2019 because of Andrew’s recent report and the notion of Type III match fixing*.
In the simplest terms it goes like this. Imagine Club A where the chairman or top shareholder who maybe craves grandeur, or simply wants to sell his shares at a profit. This person of great power and influence, not to mention wealth, believes that referees can be influenced by inducements. So via a range of people (and the Belgium report shows we ought to add player agents to this list of such intermediaries) the chairman or owner approaches a few referees and offers inducements for match fixing.
But being clever he does not ask for his own team to win matches it might otherwise use, that would be too obvious. Instead he asks that when the referee is overseeing a game involving various rivals, he does anything he can to make sure that team draws or loses.
This might be the award of a dubious penalty, or of yellow cards for fouls which in other cases might just get a free kick. Yellows are a particularly potent force here since it can make some players much more cautious in their tackling (and thus less effective) after getting the yellow, can result in a manager having to substitute the player to prevent the second yellow, and can mount up so that important players get suspended.
Because the referee is doing this to hinder a variety of teams, and will not be doing it in every game, it is hard to spot. But, and this takes me back to my opening point, it would still be spotted if journalists reported the quirk in the statistics that Andrew pointed out, or the behaviour of agents in Belgium that Walter reported, and thus started to question referee behaviour.
But they don’t. Such statistics as we do get, don’t focus at all on referees, except to note in match previews how many yellow and red cards they have given out. This makes it look like the preview is considering the ref, but a Type III match fixer doesn’t give out that many more cards overall – he gives out more cards against certain teams – and that is a figure that we never get given.
I’m not saying something is wrong with refereeing in the Premier League because the media don’t talk about Type III match fixing, but rather that because they don’t do any sort of analyses of referees and don’t consider the possibility that something is wrong, the assumption is that everything is ok with match referees. The media does conider the possibility that something might be wrong with our police force, our politicians at local and national level, our fire service, the people who run the nation’s privitised prisons, our train operators… but referees?
No, it is a taboo subject. And all I do is ask, why? Why won’t they talk about referees?
*Type I match fixing involves making sure team A beats team B in a specific match. Type II match fixing involves making sure Team A loses a specific match. Type III match fixing works across an entire season and ensures that on where possible, Team A draws matches it might have won, or loses matches it might have drawn and thus helps team Z. It is the hardest form of match fixing to spot, but the fouls v cards figures give the suggestion that it might be widespread in the Premier League. Not, I stress, that it is present, but that it might be, and thus should be a topic of debate. And yet the subject remains closed.
- Operation clean hands, when will it start in England?
- How four clubs commit fouls with impunity, while others constantly get punished
Oh the surprise that the officiating can remains closed!! The can might contain some fizzy juice or even a mild alcoholic beverage…. but wriggly worms?? Now theres a thought – a can of worms that the media will not open. Wonders never cease.
Have you also considered that maybe the reason people don’t talk about some things is that people haven’t seen a reason to suspect those things and so we attribute to them their natural characteristics? For example, even though there have been isolated cases of doctors malpractice, when I’m Ill I still go to the doctor confident that Ill get good treatment. This is because there isn’t sufficient evidence to show me that the health care system is broken and deleterious to my well-being. Also, I don’t Accuse you Tony of being a liar, paid by Arsene Wenger to spin the narrative in his favor, you have been accused of that, but there hasn’t been sufficient evidence to make it stick. So because someone thought it, or accused you of it doesn’t warrant for it to become a topic for discussion.
I hope my point is clear enough
Another thing is this, the number of fouls made has little or no bearing on the number of cards issued. Cards are or should be based on the quality/characteristic of the individual foul, thus are qualitative and not quantitative entities. A team can commit only 2 fouls and get 2red cards while another commit 20fouls and none is yellow worthy. Thus in my opinion, there’s very little deductive potential in a study of number of fouls/number of cards
This is what frustrates me most in football. There might be something wrong but the media (at best) reiterate that everything is ok without even carrying out any analysis to prove it. The authorities in the form of the EPL don’t ask any questions either but just go along with it too. Why?
The people with the power to actually prove things won’t even try. Surely to stop all this nonsense about potential cheating and corruption and prove that they were correct all along and that the pigmob are the best in the world is easy for them. Why wouldn’t they do it? After all, surely to be the only media outlet to uncover corruption would be a scoop; or alternatively, the powers that be would love you forever if you actually PROVED that everything is brilliant. There has to be a significant reason why they won’t do it.
What frustrates me is why the club does nothing. Why not publish a video showing all the fouls on our players that are not given and the dives that result in penalties or free kicks against us and contrast them with the “favoured clubs”. It may result in a “bringing the game into disrepute” charge but it would be difficult to ignore. Worth a fine in my book. Let them take us to court, it can’t go on like this.
Before the VAR comes into play in the PL next season as promised it will, us Gooners will see then when it comes into play if there will be a just difference to the intentional unjust in match refereeing in the PL that’s been reigning for a decade and a half now and looking to be principally designed at the Pgmol to stop Arsene Wenger’s managed Arsenal then to further win the PL title not for any reason other than for the envy of Arsenal winning it in 2003-2004 season when they last won it in an unbeaten run season campaign record that they set, Unai Emery’s manage Arsenal now should do all they can to stop the Pgmol from causing further damage to Arsenal PL campaign this season from the damage they already caused to their campaign so far this season’s campaign. The Pgmo will not stop being the Pgmo that they are against Arsenal until maybe when the VAR comes into use more especially in the Arsenal remaining big games this season in the PL and some selected games too in it and in the FA Cup as well where and when the Pgmo could carry out their anti-Arsenal match refereeing in the big games in the PL and in some selected matches. Therefore, Arsenal should prepare themselves fully ahead of playing against Blackpool in the FA Cup and at away and at home to West Ham and against Chelsea, a big game. So that the Pgmo will forestall from sabotagging Arsenal in their efforts to beast these 3 teams when they play against them in a couple of few weeks time.
Finally, I think it’s not true to say the media don’t discuss refs. They do quite well. There are a raft of ref discussion programs across the media platforms, my favorite being ref watch. I believe your main issue with them is why they only focus on the rightness/wrongness of ref decisions and not on ref integrity. Well I have a theory on that, as humans, we understand when you question the correctness or otherwise of my action, but if you will question my integrity, you will need to have solid proof. Even the law would back me up on that. Untold can question a refs integrity as much as it wants, I believe it will pass because of the insignificant audience. But if BBC were to question the integrity of a ref without good evidence, they might find themselves in a libel lawsuit. However everyone can question another person’s competence, but then again for a media brand as big as BBC for example, they will need to be absolutely certain the ref was incompetent else they’ll lose credibility, something you can afford but they can’t.
The trouble is Aziz, that the argument doesn’t hold together. I go to my GP, and get a diagnosis and get better. Once I went and saw a temp doctor, got treated appallingly and complained and something was done. If I see something that is questionable with refs and I see it repeatedly, I might expect the media to pick up on it too. But they don’t. Even when we analysed the first 160 games of a PL season and provided video evidence they still wouldn’t touch the story. So the comparison would be with me going to the GP and being treated badly a number of times, complaining and nothing happening.
Again Aziz I am sorry that you don’t see the process of the argument developing here. Of course it is possible that some teams commit a large number of minor fouls and get no cards while others get cards for a smaller number of cards. But the large number of cards raises the issue of rotational fouling – which most certainly is an unfair way to play the game and could be a matter of debate. And yet although the number of fouls is recorded by the league itself, no one in the media asks, “isn’t this a bit odd?” All the way through this, I am not saying “there is match fixing” but rather “this is an interesting issue and one that would seem to be worthy of some debate. Maybe not the lead story, but a bit of a mention – but the reality is none of these issues concerning PGMO and its staff gets discussed. We know that PGMO does institute some secrecy policies, and the deal with TV companies includes regulations about what cannot be shown and said. What we don’t know is how far this goes – and that secrecy is again a matter of interest. At least to some of us.
Again, I don’t think I have made my point in a way that is clear enough Aziz. I am not suggesting anyone questions the referee’s integrity. I am questioning why the activities of PGMO are not questioned. why no one raises the issue of their secrecy, why they are organised in such a different way from referees in other countries, why we have so few referees being used that if there were to be someone fixing matches it would make it easier for them, why they have their secrecy requirement for refs on retirement (any refs who speak out lose a substantial pay out), etc etc etc.
It is not just how many cards are issued, it is to some extent when. Or fouls for that matter. A game that ends with both teams having statistically the same number of cards (say 2 for team A and 3 for team B). Compare the situation where team A gets both of its yellow cards in the first quarter of the game, and team B get all of its cards in the last 5 minutes of the game. Team A has had to play with the handbrake on for more than 3/4 of the game, whereas team B has not had to restrain itself much at all.
Or, 2 or 3 games ago, the spuds were called for their first foul in the 73 minute. Are we to believe that in the first 72 minutes of the game, that they did no fouling? But, let’s say that in fact, the spuds were not fouling. In which case it is very likely they would have ended the game with just that one solitary foul on their record. How often does a team go through a game and _only_ get one foul? Someone might investigate such a game. No, the game ended (I believe) with 5 fouls to the spuds and 8 to their opposition. And really, 5 and 8 are about the same, so you would think that both teams were cheating about the same.
Let’s look at yesterday’s spud game.According to the counter, there were 6 fouls a piece. There were 4 treatments in the game, two each. The second treatment to the spuds resulted in the only yellow card of the game (to Bamba). The last two treatments were to Cardiff players. The first Cardiff treatment came 5 minutes after the treatment/yellow at 53 minutes, and the Cardiff player had to be substituted (1 minute later). No foul or card to the spuds. Then in the 79th minute, someone on the spuds gets Bamba back, and he requires treatment for 2 minutes. Again, no foul or card.
Selective vision.
Aziz
To suggest that Arsenal somehow commit worse types of fouls than city do as a means of justifying the massive disparity in cards is an incredibly weak argument if you don’t mind me saying.
This disproportionately high ratio of cards to fouls has been imposed on us for well over 10 years now, where as the leniency has been afforded a variety of teams, often it seems benifiting the current ‘flavour of the month’ .
In the season United cheated us out of our unbeaten run they were on a similar ratio to that of City now and we were even then getting carded similarly to know.
Are you trying to tell me we’ve been tackling more dangerously than everyone else for all those years ?
There’s another issue to think about too. In the analysis, we would also ask why certain fouls draw cards for certain teams and not others. Why certain situations draw penalties for certain teams/individuals and not others. So the issue of card analysis would only be the starting point and it would be pertinent.
The game here is not too big to be allowed to fail.
Just one scandal involving referees, supposedly the guardians of fair play would do immense damage to some very powerful people with vested interests, they seem powerful enough to create silence.
That, and the fact that the British football media work as a pack, rarely remaking ranks on such things in out game, perhaps the powers that be make things like referees very hard to report on
Still convinced it will eventually out though, as it becomes too complicate to please all that want to be pleased.
Just hoping the new people at our club are a little more proactive on all this than some of the prev regime, and by that, I don’t mean Wenger, he made it very clear what he thought of the way his team were treated
@tony, my point with the doctor/malpractice issue is that maybe people just don’t see it your way. Just like you might continually accuse a doctor of malpractice and every time it is investigated nobody finds anything wrong with his practice. It might possibly fly if you say there’s a hush pact by organized media, but what about the blogs? People are just not buying into your theory.
Also, the rotational foul argument is still subject to the qualitative vs quantitative argument. I believe we are more interested in the quality of the foul,be it rotational or not than the quantity. For example I’m more concerned if its a last man cynical foul than a nudge in the opponent’s 18yard box while contesting a corner, irrespective of who commits it, a serial offender or a debut offender.besides if it isn’t against the rules of the game, I don’t expect it to get much coverage.
3rdly, I would advice you stick to your point then. If your point of debate/concern is the number of refs &its secrecy, then by all means stick with it. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
@nitram I didn’t suggest what you attribute to me, simply because that is beside the point. But if you ask me as a direct question, between arsenal and man city/ Liverpool who do I think commits worse fouls, I would say arsenal in a heartbeat. My reasons would be
1. The stats say so, and I’m not of the untold stock that believe the refs have a vendetta against arsenal(and yes I followed the 160matches review, I’ve made it clear I debate the analysis of a lot of the events reviewed), there’s no convincing motive nor stats to back that up.
2. I believe better defenders, team in general, coaching and tactics should naturally mean less need to resort to fouling, especially those of a desperate nature. Since I believe man city is better in these areas, I expect better defending from them and hence less need for fouling and even less need for desperate fouling.
@nitram, Besides you have made so many unfounded assumptions in your post, with zero evidence to back them up. I have refused to respond to them because I believe it adds nothing to the debate
Great article, but do we even have a democracy? Anyways, that’s another discussion, but for this one, its not Arsenal, its the whole PL and there’s a story somewhere, don’t miss the wood for the trees.
Follow the cash, not the club. Focus further consideration as will need some work. Do you have Optima & ref stats? The £ is in the TV rights, so look for events that raise that value against the bid timings – MU v A, Chelski rise&fall, Man C, Leicester etc. Impossible to ‘prove’, even if you know. Bread and circuses.
Like all british corp biz, brown envelopes are old-skool, more like nod/wink/people-who-get-nod-wink combo. Look at the business. Look at the personnel. Only a few fixers, one or two refs, minimal bent action, team-by-team doesn’t matter as they all gain every year. Honours(£)-even over a couple of decades. Cartel of the big X – see FFP figleaf.
Media don’t care, why would they kill golden goose? Up to your good self!
Aziz I really can’t find the consistency in your argument.
You say that Nitram as “made so many unfounded assumptions” and yet in a post yourself you say, “I followed the 160matches review, I’ve made it clear I debate the analysis of a lot of the events reviewed), there’s no convincing motive nor stats to back that up,” but have not provided the evidence as to where our videos have got it wrong – unless of course I have missed it. If so please point me to it.
But as for no convincing motive – ok you are not convinced by the argument of Type III match fixing, although this was what came out in evidence in the Italian match fixing scandals.
All right – you deny the validity of the notion that what happened in Italy could happen here and that the Type III approach could be a motive – but you don’t explain why.
I am not suggesting that you should explain why but your decision to deny the validity of a point without explanation – or without directing us towards a text in which you have given explanations, weakens your argument considerably.
To summarise my position: we know Type III match fixing happened in Italy on an industrial scale, because that came out in the evidence of the phone taps. We know that PGMO is ultra-secretive and allows referees to oversee the same team multiple times per season (a major factor in allowing Type III match fixing to take place in Italy, and will not explain why. And we know that PGMO has gone down a different organisatiional approach from other major leagues. None of these prove anything but all are suggestive that there is an issue that deserves investigation.
@tony, the 160game review is not what is being debated here. The misgivings I have with the 160game review was made when it was posted. As usual very few dissenting views were published and I can assure you they didn’t breach the comments rules. But to summarize my views on the 160 game review… Many of the events which Walter and his team called referee errors, were simply judgement calls I.e dependent on the interpretation of whoever makes the call, and in truth I found out that in most of them I was more likely to agree with the ref than with Walter and co.
I don’t deny that anything could be happening,im simply saying for want of evidence that such is going on, I expect life to carry on as usual, when the evidence comes, then we’ll talk about it. I don’t expect people to make it a major subject of discussion without significant evidence suggesting it is going on, just like I don’t expect all the blogs to start discussing whether you’re a paid staff of Wenger’s just because someone made the accusation. To reiterate I DON’T DENY THAT WHATEVER SORT OF MATCH FIXING COULD BE GOING ON(because I don’t have evidence that it isn’t) HOWEVER THAT POSSIBILITY DOESN’T MEAN I SHOULD MAKE IT A MAJOR TOPIC OF DISCUSSION(Obviously above things which are indeed/evidently happening)
Ah I see what is happening Aziz. I don’t think you have fully taken on board that the name of this blog was chosen very particularly. Untold is not just the name of the site, it is what it is. You might also find the Comments page of interest.
Aziz
I have many many times, as have others provided data regarding the fouls to camera ratio and it has remained consistently harsh on us for years.
Back as far as the early noughties I had noticed it in the rudimental fair play’ table published in the SUN at the time.
The average fouls per card was as I recall 7.7. Arsenal averaged around a card every 5.5.
I used to write articles on this subject on the old BBC board that was stopped about 10 years ago.
I have posted on here on numerous occasions, again as have others, the harsh ratio of fouls to cards that has still been occurring over recent years.
I have on several occasions attempted to attain the fouls/cards stats from 2000 onwards, including asking the SUN directly as well as posted a request for help on here, but to no avail.
I know for a fact having followed this particularly annoying anomaly for years, that it exists. If you chose to disbelieve me that is your problem.
But given your way of justifying the enormous difference between us and City is we tackle worse tha them I feel you are beyond reasonable debate anyway.
Even so if anyone can attain the fouls/red/yellow cards stats as far back as 2000 I would be very grateful.
@ Aziz
“It might possibly fly if you say there’s a hush pact by organized media, but what about the blogs? People are just not buying into your theory.”
Sadly, people ignore facts when they are told often enough that they are untrue or if the simply choose to go with the pack. Let’s not forget, a few hundred years ago people who thought the world was round were considered insane. Does that mean they were wrong just because the majority “didn’t buy into the theory”?!!
Mikey
And the point is this anomalous fouls to card ratio is not even just a ‘theory’ it’s a ‘fact’ as the figures above show.
And even though I can’t lay my hands on the older statistics I know that this anomaly has existed for many years.
The only theories are those relating to as to WHY the anomaly exists in the first place.
Personally I think to suggest, as Aziz is seeming to do, that for the last 10 to 15 years Arsenal have been tackling in a somehow worse manner than just about every other team is extremely hard to justify, especially given the atrocious injuries inflicted Upon us compared to those inflicted by us on others.
How many limbs have we had broken ?
How many limbs have we broken ?
Personally I subscribe to the theory that referees are as bent as arseholes, but maybe that’s just me !
@nitram,
So in essence you’re saying “you used to have evidence, but not anymore”. Yet you’re still vociferous in your argument. Well like I said, I don’t have energy to argue in a vacuum. I’m not interested in statistics you used to have. When you are ready to post it maybe we can debate it.
@mikey, @the end of the day, heliocentrics still had to scientifically prove their point. They didn’t just say ” we’re right and you’re wrong “. If you believe there’s something wrong with the league, the burden of proof lies with you, you need proof/evidence
Aziz, not sure if you have mentioned who you support, but who do you support? You seem hell bent on being argumentative without any evidential back up of your assertions. Try to support your case with details before you accuse others of not doing so.
http://uniteforvar.com/?p=1569
Nitram here you go.
Stas on penalties for and against, for the top teams.
Which we should point out are also fouls for the benefit of the keen eyed yet number shy troll above.
Data that is easily obtained.
There is no reasonable or rational explanation that can be supplied in order to make the obvious objective bias that can be observed and has been recorded to evaporate. So don’t expect one to be given! But hey everyone is entitled to an opinion.
😉
@ Aziz
I’m pretty sure that the evidence is scientifically clear proving that the earth is a spehere(ish) but the Flat Earth Society still exists. I reiterate, just because someone refutes the evidence, it does not make it untrue.
You’ve been led to water mate. If you choose to ignore the opportunity to drink, the water is still there……………
We do have some tech issues with comments and I have been asked to send this on behalf of Nitram. The links can be found by entering the article title in the search box.
Aziz
To be fair seeing as you are simply an argumentative little troll you are not really worth the effort but just for you:
“It takes Arsenal 4.6 fouls to get a card. It takes Palace 8.1 fouls to get a card. How refs target teams” |
And
“Football is changing… Fouls and Cards awarded by the referee”.
And regarding penalties:
https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/38760 (from comment Nov 2nd at 6:56pm)
And
“An Absolute Scandal: When Arsenal’s penalty fortunes suddenly changed”
There is more but hope that’s enough for you to be going on with for now.
And the missing links (sorry I missed them before)
It takes Arsenal 4.6 fouls to get a card. It takes Palace 8.1 fouls to get a card. How refs target teams
https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/39647
Football is changing… Fouls and Cards awarded by the referee.
https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/38737
An Absolute Scandal: When Arsenal’s penalty fortunes suddenly changed
https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/34444
To end GD 21.
Caution league. Liverpool is now 3.7 MAD below the median caution of 1331 man-minutes. If we drop Liverpool as an outlier, our new median is 1334. ManU is now 2.8 MAD above the median, which is getting close to outlier territory itself.
There is a group of teams (Chel$ea, Newcastle, Man$ity, Wolves, Spuds and possibly CPalace) which could be a group unto themselves. But what is common to that group? Sure, it has 3 of the Top-6 (and Liverpool already spun off makes that 4), so PGMO tosses in a new ringers to confuse things?
Watford and CPalace are doing exceptionally well at avoiding the needs for treatment. Cardiff and Arsenal are on the verge of becoming high side outliers in the need for treatment. Cardiff is suffering from much more treatment time needed, and is tied for the lead in needing the most substitutions because of needing treatment.
It’s hard to make a tactical substitution if you may need all your substitutes to cover injuries.
Man$ity, ManU and Chel$ea are all near the bottom of not needing treatments. Maybe referees will not their opposition get close enough to them to whack them? Spuds and Liverpool are middle of the pack.
In terms of inflicting treatments on other teams, Leicester are the gentleman of the EPL, having only inflicted 10 treatments for 15 minutes of treatment time and 1 substitution. For a few weeks now, it has been apparent that the Spuds are determined to inflict the most treatments on opposition. And because of this, the spuds are getting whacked in return, and equal Cardiff on the need to substitute players because of treatments.
The other three highest teams are ManU, CPalace and Newcastle. CPalace and Newcastle also happen to be at the low end of the caution league. They should be getting more minutes of caution due to their whacking of opposition, but referees seem to large ignore treatments with respect to indicating a need for fouls and/or cards.
Most of the referees are “balanced” Home versus Away in terms of treatments; it doesn’t matter if you are talking number of treatments, short-handed time or substitutions. Roger East, Stuart Attwell and Keving Friend might be tending to be unbalanced with respect to short-handed time, with all of them having the home team suffering what might be a significantly longer period of short-handedness.