Planetarion Forums - This just throws all the problems with ref's into sharp relief

MrL_JaKiri · 29 May 2005, 20:57

8 Roma 38 6 8 5 31 26 5 4 10 24 32 -3 45
9 Livorno 38 9 5 5 28 25 2 7 10 21 35 -11 45
10 Lecce 38 8 8 3 40 30 2 6 11 26 43 -7 44
11 Reggina 38 7 6 6 21 23 3 8 8 15 22 -9 44
12 Cagliari 38 9 9 1 30 17 1 5 13 21 43 -9 44
13 Lazio 38 6 6 7 26 24 5 5 9 22 29 -5 44
14 Siena 38 5 8 6 21 27 4 8 7 23 28 -11 43
15 Chievo 38 8 5 6 20 18 3 5 11 12 31 -17 43
16 Fiorentina 38 7 7 5 29 22 2 8 9 13 28 -8 42
17 Bologna 38 6 7 6 20 17 3 8 8 13 19 -3 42
18 Parma 38 8 9 2 33 25 2 3 14 15 40 -17 42
19 Brescia 38 6 3 10 15 22 5 5 9 22 32 -17 41

That's right folks, only 4 points seperated being relegated and finshing just outside the european places. One off bad calls make a huge amount of difference in these circumstances - and you get a lot of those in italy (oh hey bias towards juve).

Appocomaster · 29 May 2005, 21:03

obviously they're all extremely balanced teams... or something. How can that many teams be so close? surely that's illegal under some international law

getting a bad call would really really suck heh

NEWSBOT3 · 29 May 2005, 22:21

flavius stole the [football] from this thread!

Lunar_Lamp · 29 May 2005, 22:35

The league is based upon an entire seasons results, so assuming the referees are unbiased*, the luck will balance out across the season. Ok, so you might feel more gutted if you get your bad decision on the last day of the season, but if all the other teams have had theirs already, in a way, it is fair. Ref's decisions tend to even out, though I still get angry when they go against my team.

*I don't particulalrly think the refs in Italy are biased towards Juve really, but if they are, when it doesn't affect Juve they will be unbiased, and pretty much anyone in that section has nothing to do with Juve.

MrL_JaKiri · 29 May 2005, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

the luck will balance out across the season

"Assumptions that have been mathematically proven to be incorrect" called, they want their opinion back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

I wish I had a [football] tag

Would you prefer it if I posted a load of nonsense? You don't appear to have any objection to that thread about football not having a "football" tag, and that one could probably have used it more, given it's lack of a descriptive title. Of course, with a title talking about referees, like mine is, it must be a thread about the works of Hunter S Thompson. Or effective hangover cures. Or precise, accurate data on how many dogs have danced the can-can in the last year. Because it can't possibly be talking about some sort of sporting endeavour. Oh no, because of your stupidity you believe me to have wasted moments of your life! Of course, it must be pointed out that you probably spent more time posting in the thread that you did clicking on the link. Oh, and congratulations on using that idiom. Because that's what's going on in another thread, isn't it? And you've adopted that style outside the thread and used it to insult me! Because that's what humour's about, isn't it? Derivation from the expected? Did you think of that yourself? My, you are clever!

Lunar_Lamp · 30 May 2005, 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

"Assumptions that have been mathematically proven to be incorrect" called, they want their opinion back.

Where is this proof? Point me to the paper please

(not supposed to sound obnoxious

)

MrL_JaKiri · 30 May 2005, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

That thread was made by dace, and we all know Dace > you.

He's certainly better at posting contentless threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

Secondly, your title has the word "ref", which I did not identify as referee at first sight. You could do some work on the description amigo.

That's your fault, not mine!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

Thirdly, what idiom?

I wish "x".

MrL_JaKiri · 30 May 2005, 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

Where is this proof? Point me to the paper please)

"Why doesn't 3x4 = 16 in base 10? WHERE'S THE PROOF?"

Probability just doesn't work like that. There is no "law of averages".

Unless the referees are making an actual conscious decision to balance things out (which could only really work if referees did this as a body), which is utterly against their code of conduct, then, on a very simple level, the chances for a bad decision to go to either of the teams in a game is equal - 1:1, 50/50. Of course, it isn't equal, but that just goes on to reinforce the point, so it can be safely ignored.

Do I really need to continue? Shouldn't it be obvious that these things do not magically balance?

Lunar_Lamp · 30 May 2005, 11:30

So you claim that over 38games you aren't going to get approximately as many bad decisions in your favour as against you?

Nantoz · 30 May 2005, 11:33

If a ref is bad, there is no reason to expect him to be bad in just half of his matches, and then very good in the other half.
He'll probably be bad in a majority, however slight.

Lunar_Lamp · 30 May 2005, 11:47

I would argue though, that the ref may be bad, and make on average, say, 6mistakes per game, whilst a good ref makes 1. However, why would the bad ref favour one team over the other, it is likely that in a wide enough sample those bad decisions will be made equally to either team.

MrL_JaKiri · 30 May 2005, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

I would argue though, that the ref may be bad, and make on average, say, 6mistakes per game, whilst a good ref makes 1. However, why would the bad ref favour one team over the other, it is likely that in a wide enough sample those bad decisions will be made equally to either team.

"6" isn't a very big sample, and given that only ONE mistake can mean being relegated or not...?

MrL_JaKiri · 30 May 2005, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nantoz

If a ref is bad, there is no reason to expect him to be bad in just half of his matches, and then very good in the other half.
He'll probably be bad in a majority, however slight.

What on earth are you blithering about?

JonnyBGood · 30 May 2005, 15:15

Bad decisions are just bad decisions. If every potential scenario happened an infinite number of times for every ref then I guess you could say it's likely that it balances out (as every team endures every scenario an infinite number of times). However shit refs are shit and inconsistent so this wouldn't make sense in the short-term. It's like poker, look back at your last fifty hands and you've usually been either lucky or unlucky, in the sense that you haven't gotten a perfectly balanced number of good and bad hands as rated on the poker ladder. Once shit things happen reality doesn't try and balance them out guys.

This thread really goes every which way

Nantoz · 30 May 2005, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What on earth are you blithering about?

blithering 'bout bollocks.

behold my cunning alliteration.

lokken · 30 May 2005, 16:13

Serie A looks like a fun league

Lunar_Lamp · 30 May 2005, 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

"6" isn't a very big sample, and given that only ONE mistake can mean being relegated or not...?

My point was that the sample isn't actually 6 though. I was saying that over the course of the entire season you will, on average, get an equal number of decisions for and against you incorrectly.

Appocomaster · 30 May 2005, 17:36

Unless someone has bribed the referee

MrL_JaKiri · 30 May 2005, 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

My point was that the sample isn't actually 6 though. I was saying that over the course of the entire season you will, on average, get an equal number of decisions for and against you incorrectly.

200 isn't a very large sample either, and 6 game changing incorrect decisions every match seems a bit high.

Nodrog · 30 May 2005, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

"Why doesn't 3x4 = 16 in base 10? WHERE'S THE PROOF?"

Probability just doesn't work like that. There is no "law of averages".

Unless the referees are making an actual conscious decision to balance things out (which could only really work if referees did this as a body), which is utterly against their code of conduct, then, on a very simple level, the chances for a bad decision to go to either of the teams in a game is equal - 1:1, 50/50. Of course, it isn't equal, but that just goes on to reinforce the point, so it can be safely ignored.

Do I really need to continue? Shouldn't it be obvious that these things do not magically balance?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LawofLargeNumbers.html

MrL_JaKiri · 30 May 2005, 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LawofLargeNumbers.html

Not relevent at all, but thanks for playing.

Stew · 30 May 2005, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

200 isn't a very large sample either, and 6 game changing incorrect decisions every match seems a bit high.

It's typically considered large enough.
It's not massive no, but it is large enough for the central limit theorm to start coming into play.

MrL_JaKiri · 30 May 2005, 23:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stew

but it is large enough for the central limit theorm to start coming into play.

Start coming into play. ONE bad decision could have meant the difference between 19th and 15th*. Unless you're trying to tell me that the theorem somehow now says that it's impossible for it not to balance out, then what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

*And, as bad decisions have certainly been made, DID make the difference.

Cannon_Fodder · 31 May 2005, 08:04

Mr_J is right in reality, the rest are right in theory.