Man Utd get favoured decisions?? think again

Always said people forget the decisions that go against us

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9258810/Manchester-United-have-cause-for-complaint-as-unique-survey-highlights-Premier-League-errors.html

Subjective.

Don't expect any of the pricks who believe this shit to change their mind though. They'll just question the integrity and honesty of the panel, because they themselves as people who hate Manchester United are best placed to judge whether United get decisions in an objective and unbiased way.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Don't expect any of the pricks who believe this shit to change their mind though. They'll just question the integrity and honesty of the panel, because they themselves as people who hate Manchester United are best placed to judge whether United get decisions in an objective and unbiased way.

How is it done though, for example do we get favoured when Young dives and QPR get a red card if we score another goal after they're down to 10 men?

Sounds like Liverpool got it worse, they did have 2 less against them, but they had 6 less for them.

Stoke got a load of decisions.

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Don't expect any of the pricks who believe this shit to change their mind though. They'll just question the integrity and honesty of the panel, because they themselves as people who hate Manchester United are best placed to judge whether United get decisions in an objective and unbiased way.

How is it done though, for example do we get favoured when Young dives and QPR get a red card if we score another goal after they're down to 10 men?

The panel make a judgement. Given we won 4-0 anyway I wouldn't worry too much about that one decision.

Zzonked wrote:Sounds like Liverpool got it worse, they did have 2 less against them, but they had 6 less for them.

Stoke got a load of decisions.

Playing a match at the Britannia Stadium is like palying in a different dimension as far as referees are concerned.

That Newcastle penalty still makes me furious.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

kyro7 wrote:How is it done though, for example do we get favoured when Young dives and QPR get a red card if we score another goal after they're down to 10 men?

The panel make a judgement. Given we won 4-0 anyway I wouldn't worry too much about that one decision.

Yeah, it's not like going down to 10 men and being 1-0 down affected QPR in any way.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:The panel make a judgement. Given we won 4-0 anyway I wouldn't worry too much about that one decision.

Changes the whole game though, you never know.. which is why I find stuff like this unreliable.

And for the record, we won 2-0.

Sarmz wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

The panel make a judgement. Given we won 4-0 anyway I wouldn't worry too much about that one decision.

Yeah, it's not like going down to 10 men and being 1-0 down affected QPR in any way.

Of course it effected them, but there's at least a 90% chance they would have lost anyway, they're shit, we're Manchester United and we were at home.

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:The panel make a judgement. Given we won 4-0 anyway I wouldn't worry too much about that one decision.

Changes the whole game though, you never know.. which is why I find stuff like this unreliable.

And for the record, we won 2-0.

Ah yeah, I was thinking of the Villa game instead. You're right, you do never know, but it's a lot more likely that we'd have won than it is they'd have kept us at 0-0 or beat us.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Ah yeah, I was thinking of the Villa game instead. You're right, you do never know, but it's a lot more likely that we'd have won than it is they'd have kept us at 0-0 or beat us.

I agree but that's why I don't take too much out of these things, if the same happened away to Wigan I'm confident we would have gone onto win, would be easy to say we probably would have won anyway.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Sarmz wrote:

Yeah, it's not like going down to 10 men and being 1-0 down affected QPR in any way.

Of course it effected them, but there's at least a 90% chance they would have lost anyway, they're shit, we're Manchester United and we were at home.

That's not looking at it objectively is it?

''We're Man Utd at home and they're shit so favourable decisions that go for us don't matter because we'll win anyway''

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Ah yeah, I was thinking of the Villa game instead. You're right, you do never know, but it's a lot more likely that we'd have won than it is they'd have kept us at 0-0 or beat us.

The point of this is to point out correct and incorrect decisions, not predicting/assuming results.

Which brings me to the point that....a wrong decision going against doesn't mean you lost points. If it's 0-0 and you don't get a penalty....you cannot assume you would have won the game if you got the penalty.

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Ah yeah, I was thinking of the Villa game instead. You're right, you do never know, but it's a lot more likely that we'd have won than it is they'd have kept us at 0-0 or beat us.

I agree but that's why I don't take too much out of these things, if the same happened away to Wigan I'm confident we would have gone onto win, would be easy to say we probably would have won anyway.

What happened at Wigan was a shock result, it was a fluke, and we got screwed by officials in that game anyway.

Sarmz wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:
Of course it effected them, but there's at least a 90% chance they would have lost anyway, they're shit, we're Manchester United and we were at home.

That's not looking at it objectively is it?

''We're Man Utd at home and they're shit so favourable decisions that go for us don't matter because we'll win anyway''

Alright, fine, we're Manchester United, the Champions of England, who were at the time top of the table, while QPR were involved in a relegation struggle, in a match at Old Trafford. Only an idiot would not expect United to win that match if there are no favourable decisions for any team.

Lux wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Ah yeah, I was thinking of the Villa game instead. You're right, you do never know, but it's a lot more likely that we'd have won than it is they'd have kept us at 0-0 or beat us.

The point of this is to point out correct and incorrect decisions, not predicting/assuming results.

Which brings me to the point that....a wrong decision going against doesn't mean you lost points. If it's 0-0 and you don't get a penalty....you cannot assume you would have won the game if you got the penalty.

I'd say you can fairly safely assume that. It's an assumption that would sometimes be wrong, but it's a fair assumption, certainly much fairer than finding some other result from your imagination.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:What happened at Wigan was a shock result, it was a fluke, and we got screwed by officials in that game anyway.

My point is, shock results can happen, and could have happened against QPR.

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:What happened at Wigan was a shock result, it was a fluke, and we got screwed by officials in that game anyway.

My point is, shock results can happen, and could have happened against QPR.

Could have, but it probably wouldn't. We must use the more probable result for our analysis.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

kyro7 wrote:My point is, shock results can happen, and could have happened against QPR.

Could have, but it probably wouldn't. We must use the more probable result for our analysis.

You have a strange obsession with probability....and a strange avoidance of facts.

Lux wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Could have, but it probably wouldn't. We must use the more probable result for our analysis.

You have a strange obsession with probability....and a strange avoidance of facts.

Probability is all we have. Which facts are you talking about?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:What happened at Wigan was a shock result, it was a fluke, and we got screwed by officials in that game anyway.

My point is, shock results can happen, and could have happened against QPR.

Could have, but it probably wouldn't. We must use the more probable result for our analysis.

We could have won, we could have drawn, we could have lost, we can look at probability but we will never know so why even bother?

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Could have, but it probably wouldn't. We must use the more probable result for our analysis.

We could have won, we could have drawn, we could have lost, we can look at probability but we will never know so why even bother?

For the sake of our own knowledge, and for the purposes of discussion - let's not forget, I'm seeker of the ultimate truth and unveiler of fact. If you don't want to bother why are you even in this thread? What did you think it was about before you clicked it?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Could have, but it probably wouldn't. We must use the more probable result for our analysis.

We could have won, we could have drawn, we could have lost, we can look at probability but we will never know so why even bother?

For the sake of our own knowledge, and for the purposes of discussion - let's not forget, I'm seeker of the ultimate truth and unveiler of fact. If you don't want to bother why are you even in this thread? What did you think it was about before you clicked it?

I came in to discuss my point like I am right now with you, it's pretty obvious why I came in, because I feel this is silly.

kyro7 wrote:We could have won, we could have drawn, we could have lost, we can look at probability but we will never know so why even bother?

Apparently whatever is most probable is what we should assume will happen. Any other outcome is irrelevant.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Probability is all we have. Which facts are you talking about?

Probability is not all we have. You moan about religious people ignorantly making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same thing? (that is not a cue to talk about religion. The point is that you're making assumptions and trying to project them as reality).

I don't want to go off-topic by listing facts/previous discussions.

Lux wrote:

kyro7 wrote:We could have won, we could have drawn, we could have lost, we can look at probability but we will never know so why even bother?

Apparently whatever is most probable is what we should assume will happen. Any other outcome is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant if you have no evidence to support it happening other than "Well it could have done". I could get killed by a meteorite crashing through my roof in 3 hours and 53 minutes, I assume it won't happen because it probably won't.

Can you explain why we should assume things that probably wouldn't have happened would actually have happened?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Probability is all we have. Which facts are you talking about?

Probability is not all we have. You moan about religious people ignorantly making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same thing?

I don't want to go off-topic by listing facts/previous discussions.

My assumptions are based on demonstrable facts and evidence.

Why are you seeking for ultimate truth that can not be found? Surely you are smart enough to realise you can not prove anything therefore will never find the truth you're searching for?

for me this was more about decisions go against us more then they go for us.. instead of "we would be top if these decisions didnt go against us"

because everyone is always here saying we get majority of the decisions when this proves we dont

ResurrectionRooney wrote:It is irrelevant if you have no evidence to support it happening other than "Well it could have done". I could get killed by a meteorite crashing through my roof in 3 hours and 53 minutes, I assume it won't happen because it probably won't.

Can you explain why we should assume things that probably wouldn't have happened would actually have happened?

Sensationalist. When the score is 0-0 QPR getting at least a point is clearly a probability that should be considered. A meteorite killing you at a specific time is not. If you cannot see the difference then you're deluded.

My assumptions are based on demonstrable facts and evidence.

Same as above really. If a team is drawing with you there are no facts or evidence to categorically (to the extent that all other possibilities are not worth considering) suggest that Man Utd will win.

ViVaRooney wrote:for me this was more about decisions go against us more then they go for us.. instead of "we would be top if these decisions didnt go against us"

because everyone is always here saying we get majority of the decisions when this proves we dont

Vaguely, you have brought up a good point. There are lots of ways to come up with these conclusions, most (including this) are not perfect....but it's something. Enough to argue that Man Utd do not get unfair treatment in comparison to other teams.

United, for example, had 59.3 per cent of incorrect decisions go against them; City had 73.7 per cent of incorrect calls go against them.


City have a crazy amount against them!

I suppose Wigan and Everton needn't have bothered turning up to Old Trafford, nor anyone else for that matter, because United are Champions of England.
I suppose we'd better start handing City the title every season, because after they beat a shit team like QPR, not only will they be Champions, but they will have the best squad and the most money.

I think we could go through this season after season and find decisions for and against teams. I remember a lot of these decisions go for and against City and United this season.

There was that Van Nistelrooy goal against us in 03/04 at Old Trafford which cost us a point.