this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
17 points (75.8% liked)

Football (Soccer fútbol fußball 足球 )

5679 readers
15 users here now

Here for discussion of all things association football/soccer!

Rules

Other Football/Soccer Related Communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
MushroomMan89@lemmy.world
skipseagull@lemmy.world
FootballBot@lemmy.world
ReadyUser31@lemmy.world
UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
FootballAutoMod@lemmy.world
17
According to this analysis of VAR decisions for the 22/23 season, Liverpool were the joint second beneficiaries of VAR decisions, while City were bottom. (files.mastodon.online)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by hallenbeck@mastodon.online to c/football@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

According to this analysis of VAR decisions for the 22/23 season, Liverpool were the joint second beneficiaries of VAR decisions, while City were bottom.

So why do #LFC fans believe there is a conspiracy against them? Where does that belief stem from?

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/37631044/how-var-decisions-affected-every-premier-league-club-2022-23

@football

#EPL #MastodonFC

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jonnojohnson@mastodon.scot 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

@hallenbeck @football Doesn't this data show that referee are in fact giving too many incorrect decisions against Liverpool and only with VAR are they being corrected?
I don't think that many Liverpool fans think there's a conspiracy against them but there are unconscious biases at play and Paul Tompkins work shows that very clearly.

[–] hallenbeck@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And yeah, the data shows refs are making incorrect decisions and Liverpool are benefiting from VAR overturning those decisions. It doesn't really paint a picture of Liverpool being particularly hard-done-by.

[–] Jonnojohnson@mastodon.scot 10 points 1 year ago

@hallenbeck And I would modify your statement. Liverpool are not "benefiting" from VAR. They are having mistakes be corrected only when there's nowhere to hide. It still points to us being hard done by by the officials on field.

[–] Peppermintfresh@liverpoolfootballclub.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Jonnojohnson @hallenbeck @football agree wholeheartedly

[–] Jonnojohnson@mastodon.scot 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Peppermintfresh @hallenbeck @football perfect example again right now. Defender hauls down attacker in the box for a penalty. No yellow card. No one will notice or care but it's an obvious mistake

[–] Jonnojohnson@mastodon.scot 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Peppermintfresh @hallenbeck @football Actually it should've been red. Even worse. I thought it was no double jeapordy but he made no attempt to pay the ball so should be red.

[–] hallenbeck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’ve read the shorter version now and parts of the longer version. I’m not a football data guy, but I worked in informatics for over 12 years so I am comfortable with data. His case is compelling but he’s stretching a bit to claim he’s proved it. That’s dangerous language than can be (and is) being taken to be “truth” (and in many cases as something that it’s not, eg bias against Liverpool in all cases or outright corruption). He is right that the data is objective, but he is using it to make a point about Liverpool among only 4 teams and that in itself is not objective. Anyone that’s worked around data long enough knows it’s possible to spin partisan narratives using objective data. I’m not saying he’s wrong, it’s really, really good stuff, but it’s not proof.

But regardless he has shown there is something there that should definitely be investigating further. I’d like to see the analysis extended to Spurs and Arsenal in the first instance and, to be honest, you can’t exclude any team in light off how competitive the Premier League is now.

What I don’t understand is why, if the analysis is considered so incontrovertible, why is Liverpool not picking this up and running with it rather than putting out reactionary statements? In any investigation, a smoking gun should be leapt on, surely? If I were Liverpool, I’d be all over this.

[–] hallenbeck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would be interested in seeing Paul Tompkins work - can you point to a link?

[–] Jonnojohnson@mastodon.scot 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@hallenbeck This is his shortest version but it links to much deeper versions with more context: https://tomkinstimes.substack.com/p/highlights-refs-vars-and-proving

[–] Jonnojohnson@mastodon.scot 2 points 1 year ago

@hallenbeck Before anyone thinks it's just cherry picking it does highlight in certain rare cases where certain referees are more likely to give incorrect decisions in Liverpool's favor (mainly Mancunian referees at Anfield). The main problem is with the less experienced referees (which there are more of).

[–] mlawton@mstdn.social 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@hallenbeck @football Well, it's skewed because 1) this is only VAR overturns; and 2) the combination of the high-press and high line they play critically depends on the razor thin margin of leveraging the offside line defensively. #LFC had the highest disallowed goals against with 6, which I'll stipulate means VAR has aided them -- but it also means the officials got it wrong on the field, more than any other team. I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I do think the treatment isn't equal.

[–] vruz@mastodon.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@mlawton @hallenbeck@mastodon.online @football

It's too easy to dismiss any critique as a conspiracy without addressing the facts.

A conspiracy doesn't exist, but if somebody had created a conspiracy (a very sloppy one) it would look exactly like the facts everybody has witnessed.

If the logic is that no one is accountable and nothing has to change because a conspiracy didn't exist, that's not the great dismissal some think.

The facts are the facts, it doesn't matter if it was a conspiracy or not.

#LFC

[–] hallenbeck@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone is arguing things shouldn't change and mistakes aren't being made. We'd all like to see a reduction in errors. It's more that fans of other clubs, pundits, and the media are skeptical all this is affecting Liverpool significantly more than other clubs.

[–] vruz@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@hallenbeck

I'm not seeing other clubs liking transparency and accuracy hard enough to back LFC's efforts and arrive to a fair resolution. If they did, it shouldn't have taken more than 24 hours to fix it.

The media being skeptical only have to look at the data to do some actual journalism for a change, and the fans of other clubs are irrelevant to the matter.

I'm not sure who are the "anyone" you're talking about other than the discerning section of #LFC supporters, and the club itself.

[–] hallenbeck@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think you're too close to the issue to see it with clear, impartial eyes judging by this comment. I don't see the club itself looking at the data and pursuing this - it seems to be fan led, and by your logic fans are irrelevant. As I've said before, when mistakes are made that work against Liverpool, it would mean a lot more if Klopp and Liverpool led the calls for action, if they truly believe and can prove using data there is a bias in the game.

[–] vruz@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@hallenbeck

And of course, you, the only very serious and objective person here knows for a fact that Liverpool and Jürgen Klopp haven't done that and will never do that.

The moment a discussion turns to what you know about what I believe and nothing else, that's the moment when you've just started making things up because you have no point whatsoever.

Thank you for the exchange and have a good weekend.

[–] hallenbeck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I’m not sure what you’re talking about - you’re not being very coherent, but maybe it’s just me. You make a lot of sweeping statements based on nothing other than your own feelings, and/or an extremely biased and partisan view based on Liverpool lore, it seems. You say the media should check the data, yet if it were that easy, why don’t they and the clubs do just that? I’d like to see clubs and the media take a look at Tomkins study and expand it out to other teams. It’s terrific work. It’s a huge story and would be a massive scoop for any journalist to get, plus it would be better for football.

[–] thoro@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Every fanbase thinks the refs are out to get them. Liverpool also have a historical reason to distrust authority in the country with the Hillsborough coverage and accusations as well as general Thatcherism

And this is just tracking whether VAR decisions (e.g. corrective reviews) either led to a goal that was disallowed or vice versa, etc..

It isn't tracking issues like what occurred against Spurs or the Rodri handball incident.

It's also a single season of statistics.

The point of this anyway? We trying to act like it wasn't a colossal mistake last weekend?

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. VAR decisions going against you mean refs on the field are calling mistaken calls FOR you. So, having a lot of VAR calls going AGAINST you means you would’ve gotten unfairly favorable treatment but didn’t.

[–] hallenbeck@mastodon.online 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

@thoro @football

The analysis also takes into account subjective decisions, not just goals.

I'm not sure every fanbase does think refs are out to get them. I don't get that sense in the Spurs community, for instance. But can't speak for everyone.

So no, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why Liverpool fans seem to think they get an unfair share of bad decisions leading to talk of conspiracy theories.

Hillsborough and Thatcherism don't seem like particularly valid reasons.

[–] thoro@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, but by subjective calls do they mean penalty decisions and red cards? What about decisions that are not reviewed? That's what I mean. It's only showing corrective actions.

If you look at the 2021-2022 link, the Rodri handball incident is not included.

Here are a couple pretty biased articles if you want a read.

One and two

[–] hallenbeck@mastodon.online 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@thoro @football

Thanks 👍

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

but some of these are stupid, he most obvious example is the First Arsenal goal disallowed at OT, Odegaard fouls Eriksen the ref is looking straight at it but doesn't whistle, VAR pulls it back and it's given as a foul because it obviously was, then they say VAR shouldn't have intervened because it wasn't a clear and obvious error.

[–] RIP_Apollo@feddit.ch 5 points 1 year ago

Am I missing something here? I count the total number of net beneficial decisions to be 22, and total number of net disadvantageous decisions to be 21.

Shouldn’t both totals be the same number? When one team gets a beneficial decision, it can only happen at the expense of another team (i.e. it’s a zero-sum game).

I could understand the discrepancy if this analysis were counting games in other competitions, but this is only counting Premier games so I would expect equal totals.

[–] mike@sauropods.win 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@hallenbeck @football Does this only show that more initially incorrect decisions were made against Brentford, Fulham and Liverpool than against Leeds, Brighton and Man City?

In any case, VAR overturns are such infrequent events that you can't really draw statistically significant conclusions from them.

[–] hallenbeck@mastodon.online 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@mike

Yes, I completely agree you can't draw statistically significant conclusions from them.

What it does suggest, however, is that a narrative of VAR being horribly broken with officials being in the pocket of UAE etc and punishing Liverpool doesn't seem to fit? Is VAR correcting any bias?

Anyway, I'll take a good look at that bias data - it's definitely piqued my interest.

Also, thought I'd add, what a thoroughly decent bunch we have here on fedi. So unlike Twitter.

@football

[–] mike@sauropods.win 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@hallenbeck @football Yes, it's very satisfying to be discussing thr facts of the matter in such a civilised manner!

/tips hat/

[–] hallenbeck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I read the shorter version of the Tomkins analysis. Very interesting and thanks for the pointer. I worry that people will skim it and draw conclusions that aren’t there (that all referees are biased against Liverpool in all matches). But it’s terrific work, there’s definitely something that needs to be looked at here, and I would like to see it expanded out to other teams. Need more work like this and it really needs to be looked at through a non-partisan lens.

[–] mike@sauropods.win 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@hallenbeck Strongly agree with every part of that. I don't know if Spurs fans have someone doing similarly detailed work? (Actually, I don't know if ANYONE has!)

[–] hallenbeck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No, not that I know of. It's truly impressive and valuable stuff. Sorely needed. Journalists need to pay more attention to it too.