Ref Loses the Plot

[SimonSmith]

refereed Neath 3s once.

Summoned prop over for a chat - fists had been flying.
His justification: That nasty so 'n so from the home team had hit his boy, see, and he was only looking after his boy.

His 'boy' happened to be a strapping 6 footer late 30 something year old who doing a grand job of looking after himself, and the opposition.

the joys of exchange games

 

[ddjamo]

If you leave the trailer park without changing your clothes, then you may forget you're not on the trailer park when you need to make a decision about how to respond to non-benign activity. Thank goodness he didn't pull a gun!

(Oh - it was Spain, not US. Still ......)

hahahahahaha...yea...good one! he forgot where he was. that's horrible. I hope he does some time.

 

[Phil E]

Pure chance would think it was very rare, as RCs are very rare,

Not in certain areas of Yorkshire :wink:

 

[crossref]

i guess we could do a (tiny) survey

A - how many games have you refereed in your career
B - in how many of them was a son/daughter playing
C - how many RCs have you given
D - how many have been to your son/daughter

if it's pure chance then ratio A : B should be about the same as C : D

or another way of putting it
D should be less than or equal to C * B/A

 

[Phil E]

if it's pure chance then ratio A : B should be about the same as C : D

or another way of putting it
D should be less than or equal to C * B/A

You forgot to take away the number you first thought of :shrug:

 

[crossref]

You forgot to take away the number you first thought of :shrug:

And I got it wrong!

let's try again

A - you have reffed 500 games
B - in 20 of them a son/daughter was playing
C - in the 500 games you have issued 10 RC

this means that you issue a RC is 10/500 = 1 in 50 games.
in any game 35 players are on the pitch.

So the number RCs in games involving your son should be 20 * 1/50 = 0.4
Number of RC given to son = 0.4 / 35 = vanishingly small.

Lets say you are a club ref like me

- number of games reffed = 60
- of which son playing = 30
- number of RC = 1
- chance my son got the card = 1 * 30/60 * 1/30 = vanishingly small.

He didn't get it.
I have never YC him either
But I have given a few PKs, but what do you expect as he plays #9

 

[Phil E]

Lets say you are a club ref like me

Let's not epper:

 

[Robert Burns]

I have no idea how many games I have refereed or how many cards I have given.

Games could probably be calculated to about 600, assuming 50 games a season, and 12 years refereeing (I thought it was 15, but looked up first test paper that was 2000, so since 1999 I would suggest).

 

[Davet]

A Quite a lot
B almost none
C very few (good management you see!!! :booty
D none

 

[Waspsfan]

I think your formula needs to allow for your son's likelihood of receiving a red card as a variable, in addition to your propensity for awarding them. For example your son might receive a red card in every other game his whole career. If you red card him in every fourth game you ref him, but only normally issue a red card every season (when he isn't playing) your formula would suggest you are being extremely harsh on your son, in reality you are being very lenient on him! I would propose the following;

A - number of games your son has ever played
B - number of red cards your son has ever received
C - number of games you have ever refereed
D - number of red cards you have ever given
E - number of times you have refereed your son
F - number of times you have red carded your son

Likelihood of son getting a red card = B/A
Likelihood of you issuing a red card = D/C

Likelihood of both occurring therefore = (BxD)/(CxA)
lets call this Y.

Let's call F/E = Z

Now if these were all random events then Y = Z x Z

Whilst if Z x Z > Y, people are harsher than random on their sons and issue them more red cards than they deserve.

If Z x Z < Y, people are lenient on their sons!

 

[upnunder]

There must be nothing on the TV at Waspsfan's house

 

[Agustin]

I think your formula needs to allow for your son's likelihood of receiving a red card as a variable, in addition to your propensity for awarding them. For example your son might receive a red card in every other game his whole career. If you red card him in every fourth game you ref him, but only normally issue a red card every season (when he isn't playing) your formula would suggest you are being extremely harsh on your son, in reality you are being very lenient on him! I would propose the following;

A - number of games your son has ever played
B - number of red cards your son has ever received
C - number of games you have ever refereed
D - number of red cards you have ever given
E - number of times you have refereed your son
F - number of times you have red carded your son

Likelihood of son getting a red card = B/A
Likelihood of you issuing a red card = D/C

Likelihood of both occurring therefore = (BxD)/(CxA)
lets call this Y.

Let's call F/E = Z

Now if these were all random events then Y = Z x Z

Whilst if Z x Z > Y, people are harsher than random on their sons and issue them more red cards than they deserve.

If Z x Z < Y, people are lenient on their sons!

Why Z x Z? Why not just Z?

 

[OB..]

I think your formula needs to allow for your son's likelihood of receiving a red card as a variable, in addition to your propensity for awarding them. For example your son might receive a red card in every other game his whole career. If you red card him in every fourth game you ref him, but only normally issue a red card every season (when he isn't playing) your formula would suggest you are being extremely harsh on your son, in reality you are being very lenient on him! I would propose the following;

A - number of games your son has ever played
B - number of red cards your son has ever received
C - number of games you have ever refereed
D - number of red cards you have ever given
E - number of times you have refereed your son
F - number of times you have red carded your son

Likelihood of son getting a red card = B/A
Likelihood of you issuing a red card = D/C

Likelihood of both occurring therefore = (BxD)/(CxA)
lets call this Y.

Let's call F/E = Z

Now if these were all random events then Y = Z x Z

Whilst if Z x Z > Y, people are harsher than random on their sons and issue them more red cards than they deserve.

If Z x Z < Y, people are lenient on their sons!

The answer is obviously ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[Waspsfan]

Why Z x Z? Why not just Z?

Because Y is the likelihood of both events occurring, i.e. your son getting a red and you giving a red. In the E & F scenario, these two events also occur, but by definition they occur with exactly the same probability, as they must occur together (because you must issue the red and your son must receive it). Hence z squared.

 

[Dickie E]

I've lost the plot. Bye.

 

[Drift]

And I got it wrong!

let's try again

A - you have reffed 500 games
B - in 20 of them a son/daughter was playing
C - in the 500 games you have issued 10 RC

this means that you issue a RC is 10/500 = 1 in 50 games.
in any game 35 players are on the pitch.

So the number RCs in games involving your son should be 20 * 1/50 = 0.4
Number of RC given to son = 0.4 / 35 = vanishingly small.

Lets say you are a club ref like me

- number of games reffed = 60
- of which son playing = 30
- number of RC = 1
- chance my son got the card = 1 * 30/60 * 1/30 = vanishingly small.

He didn't get it.
I have never YC him either
But I have given a few PKs, but what do you expect as he plays #9

Sickening favouritism...