www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 37791.html Or perhaps they need to work on their discipline?

www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 37791.html Or perhaps they need to work on their discipline?

Anecdotally, I have to say that this seems right. At least two of disallowed tries scored by the Cats on Sat seemed legit to me. I've been to Gilbert Brutus a couple of times in the past year and always felt that the rub of the green was against the french side. I'd not thought much of it, but perhaps it's true. Obviously without reading the methodology of the study (by a frenchman it should be noted), it's impossible to say one way or another.

Scandalous. Just goes to highlight another example of how the referees hold Super League back, they really are shocking.

Try being welsh. Only ganson is fair to us in this league. That french ref is the worst in the league too.

I'm surprised, I've seen Toulouse 3 times this season and thought the ref was leaning towards them every time.

I think wales gets more than enough help from the RFL.

So that explains Thierry Alibert's refereeing.

How can someone with no background in the sport possibly evaluate whether refs are biased or not? If you can't know and see all the possible offences being committed, and make an informed judgement as to which are incorrectly missed or incorrectly given, and then make a further judgement as to whether the official has made a genuine error, a subconscious assumption or a conscious decision....

this is a NON STORY. One team will always have the poorest disciplinary record, just as one will always have the worst defensive record. Its nonsense to call it bias if the team happens to be Les Cats.

Take the 'tv makes a difference' line. Chances of the stats being IDENTICAL in tv and non-tv games? TINY. There's no mention of how much difference the tv makes to penalty counts, but it was EITHER going to be better or worse, and this article would have mentioned it as 'proof' (of something, don't know what) regardless. And, despite the utter lack of validity of the comparison in the first place, the conclusions are unsupportable... it suggests the refs are less biased when Les Cats are on tv. Perhaps the players are less dirty? Its as valid a theory.

I don't believe for one second that any of the officials in the RFL are biased against the French team. Or the Welsh team. Or any other team. I think they all give what they see. They may make errors - some howling - but biased? Delivberately giving wrong decisions to favour one side or other? Not a chance.

Anyone who has read the opening chapters of The Forbidden Game will know the French have always hated referees. Even in the early French rugby union days, referees were always the reason a team lost. It must be embedded in French sporting culture, and would explain why our lot always get an escort when they're leaving the field in France.

Looking back, I can sort of understand why Thierry Henry's handball goal was given against Ireland last year.

More likely French players are less adept at "playing the ref" because they don't speak the same language.

I'm Anti-French .... Ray, that is.

Armchair match officials AGAIN

I find it very hard to be surprised by this. The only time I've ever felt a team got a more raw deal than us was watching Catalans. Now perhaps they could do another study to find out why Harlequins get so few decisions their way.

The authors of the report did not try to judge whether any decision was correct or not. It was a statistical analysis of how the number of decisions going each teams' way depended on the nationality of the referee. After allowing for variables such as the quality of opposition, which team was at home, et cetera, the conclusion was that teams were favoured by referees of the same nationality. Some referees were worse than others and there was less bias shown in games that were televised live. I am not a statistician, but on reading quickly through the paper it looked like a fair analytical study.

You can collect statistical data from anything and find trends and patterns in it. It is the nature of statistical data.

That does not mean the statistical data has any value in determining cause and effect in actual events, unless it is grounded in a corroborating analysis of those actual events.

i.e. - if you match penalty counts against nationality of the referee, it will either show refs give more penalties against their own nation, or it will show they give less. Identical results are most unlikely, though variations may be very small or, for whatever reason (correlation or coincidence) the variation might be quite large.

It's interesting you say "After allowing for variables such as the quality of opposition, which team was at home, et cetera"... this highlights some of the problems in drawing conclusions from such statistical data. What are the effects of those variables? Does a higher-quality opposition concede less penalties because they are better (and so higher in the league), or is a team higher-placed in the league there because they concede less penalties and so win more games? Does being at home increase your penalty count, or does it decrease it? Are referees sympathetic to home crowds, or antagonised by them? And will the decisions and patterns of behaviour of one official make the sllightest difference to the patterns from another? In other words, how can you isolate one factor from another... where's the evidence in the study? and where's the bias in the interpretation of results?

Stats will always subject to interpretation and presentation, but you cannot evaluate the decisions of an official based on stats and averages. You cannot, in fact, do it without observing the performance of the official on individual decisions in individual games.

If I looked at the penalty count against Lancashire teams and against Yorkshire teams, it would either be higher or lower. If it was higher, I could say Lanky sides were unfairly punished by the Leeds-based RFL. If it were lower I could say that referees lean west. Or I could say that the higher proportion of good Lancashire teams (Wigan, Saints, Wire vs Salford, 3-1 high-quality vs poor quality) means that their sides have better discipline than the more evenly-split Yorkshire teams. Or I could say that the higher rainfall in western England means matches are slower and less open, so there is less time in which to concede penalties, and there are fewer offsides because there are fewer quick ptb's in heavier conditions.

But - and here is the most important point about my hypothetical study, and about the real one mentioned in the Independent - it would all be spurious, made-up b0llocks.