What are the odds?

[Pegleg]

What are the odds on the first (material) case of a player going off his feet occurs in the 79th minute of a game?

According the George Clancy that is what happened last night.

 

[OB..]

What are the odds on the first (material) case of a player going off his feet occurs in the 79th minute of a game?

According the George Clancy that is what happened last night.

Who cares? What matters is whether or not you are arguing that there were previous occasions that should have been penalised. Statistics are of no value in deciding individual cases. "1 in 1,000" means the event will actually occur, just not very often.

 

[Pegleg]

People care. Whe nyou see players going off their feet for 79 minutes it is totally inconsistent to ping it at the end. Glasgow, last night had every right to be agrieved that a tactic that they had been allowed to use all game was pinged when they were chasing the try that would give them the win. As It was Cardiff kicked the PK to touch to secure a 4 point win.

People care because they want consistency. (should assessors not want that too?).

People car because they pay good money to see "bingo card" refereing.

The odds of Clancy being right in that it happened only once all game are non existent.

But they I guess you know all the above already.

I have no problem with material effect being applied. But lot of the missed / ignore offences were clearly material.

 

[OB..]

People care. Whe nyou see players going off their feet for 79 minutes it is totally inconsistent to ping it at the end. Glasgow, last night had every right to be agrieved that a tactic that they had been allowed to use all game was pinged when they were chasing the try that would give them the win. As It was Cardiff kicked the PK to touch to secure a 4 point win.

People care because they want consistency. (should assessors not want that too?).

People car because they pay good money to see "bingo card" refereing.

The odds of Clancy being right in that it happened only once all game are non existent.

But they I guess you know all the above already.

I have no problem with material effect being applied. But lot of the missed / ignore offences were clearly material.

I have no issue with people criticising referees for getting decisions wrong, and sometimes repeatedly. If the criticisms are valid then you can be sure the Match Observer will raise the matter.

I do have a problem with trying to apply statistics to it without any data. In my games, penalties for going off your feet are in single figures, which statistically implies that only once is not unbelievable. If I have time I'll review my data.

 

[Pegleg]

Yes the number of Penalties might be. but it happens all the tine. Off the feet and sealing off.

Just as with crooked feets. The number of free kicks for crooked feeds are negligible. Whyis that? Well it's not because it aint happening. It is because it is being ignored.

 

[Rushforth]

Is http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-match-reports/cardiff-blues-23-19-glasgow-11898805 being referred to?

With just the three cameras in place for highlights purposes and no OB truck, there was no way of having a TMO, so it was all down to Irish referee George Clancy and his officials.

Happily, there were no contentious scoring incidents in the game, but there was plenty of good rugby to enjoy.

Disappointing that there was no truck for OB..

Has Pegleg heard of ATP? That is to say Ask-Tell-Pen?

Players go off their feet all the time, but it is rarely material and often a case of opponents slipping at roughly the same time, with soft soil the main culprit over here in NL (either mud or sand).

http://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/sport/rugby/glasgow-warriors-defeated-in-cardiff-11899063 says:

Glasgow continued to press for a winning try, but another Cardiff penalty with two minutes on the clock condemned them to defeat, albeit with a losing bonus point as they were defeated by fewer than seven points.

Note the lack of whining from the Scottish paper.

 

[Pegleg]

The pitch it artificial. Sh that's no excuse there.

ATP is not AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTp! So yes thanks I am well aware of ATP. Ask in the changing room / first incident. Tell the second and ping the third. I use ATP all the time.



At senior level little is accidental and sealing off is common practice. It's done for a reason and very effective it is as well.

 

[Rushforth]

Artificial pitches have incredibly crappy grip for the feet/boots of ruckers and maulers alike. Worse than sand or mud, all the more so if the players are wearing crappy boots to 'protect' the pitch.

 

[Pegleg]

If you use poor quality that might well be the case. THe pitch used last night is of very good quality.

 

[OB..]

I checked my records for the last 213 matches. These covered levels 6 down to 11, and penalty counts are generally higher than at top levels. There were 379 PKs awarded for players going off their feet at a tackle/ruck. 41 games had no such penalties. The commonest offences were tackler not releasing, offside, hands, tackled player not rolling away.

 

[Pegleg]

All not to the point. It's about offences committed and not about the ones pinged. I'm sure you realise that. If you don't ping it will not register will it. Come on please.

 

[OB..]

All not to the point. It's about offences committed and not about the ones pinged. I'm sure you realise that. If you don't ping it will not register will it. Come on please.

You effectively claimed that Clancy ought to have penalised the offence earlier, implying that players were getting away with it.

What are the odds on the first (material) case of a player going off his feet occurs in the 79th minute of a game?

According the George Clancy that is what happened last night.

My data also refers to offences that were pinged. Are you claiming that referees at my levels are also letting players get away with it?

The odds of Clancy being right in that it happened only once all game are non existent.

You chose to bring in statistics. Let's stick to the actual incidents that he allegedly got wrong

 

[Pegleg]

You effectively claimed that Clancy ought to have penalised the offence earlier, implying that players were getting away with it.
My data also refers to offences that were pinged. Are you claiming that referees at my levels are also letting players get away with it?
You chose to bring in statistics. Let's stick to the actual incidents that he allegedly got wrong

OK I'll make it a little clearer for you: Players were getting away with it all night.

They do so regularly at all levels. I know your data refers to pinged offences hence my comment. I would doubt that your part of the world is way out of line with other areas. Players going of f their feet has been a problem for a long time. At all levels of the game. Perhaps you have very well behaved players in your neck of the woods. The breakdown is in general a mess. Often we referees get there too late and ping the second or even the third offence.

Yes I did inded introduced stats (after all I asked about the odds). However, your stats, ones that ignore the problem, ie the non pinged offences (taking into advantage / materiality etc) are as much use as a choc teapot.

 

[Pegleg]

Unfortunately there is not a record of the game it was not covered. There are, very limited highlights. However, if you want to believe that that everything at the break down is rosy. Enjoy it.

 

[OB..]

OK I'll make it a little clearer for you: Players were getting away with it all night.

I would not have responded to that comment, because I have no way of judging.

My objection is to the misuse of statistics.

They do so regularly at all levels. I know your data refers to pinged offences hence my comment. I would doubt that your part of the world is way out of line with other areas. Players going of f their feet has been a problem for a long time. At all levels of the game. Perhaps you have very well behaved players in your neck of the woods. The breakdown is in general a mess. Often we referees get there too late and ping the second or even the third offence.

Yes I did inded introduced stats (after all I asked about the odds). However, your stats, ones that ignore the problem, ie the non pinged offences (taking into advantage / materiality etc) are as much use as a choc teapot.

Unfortunately there is not a record of the game it was not covered. There are, very limited highlights. However, if you want to believe that that everything at the break down is rosy. Enjoy it.

I listed the four other breakdown offences that are more common than going off your feet, and the breakdown is the commonest area for giving away penalties.

One of the things I look for is referees getting to the breakdown quickly enough to spot the first offence (unfortunately I will often be badly placed to see it myself). Going off their feet is often a secondary offence, but I don't keep details of that. A common sequence is for a jackler to get to the ball, the tackled player holds on just long enough for the next opponent in to drive the jackler over the ball, thus going off his feet. As you say, the best referees will catch the first offence.

I once had the pleasure of being refereed in a 3rd XV game by a panel referee. When giving a PK he would list the offences in the order they had occurred and then say which he was penalising and why. It improved the game enormously.

 

[Pegleg]

But it is you that has missued the atats by only referrign to those pinged and not incuding stats for offences not pinged

50 PKs with none "missed"is very different to 50 pks with 150 missed. So please level playing field in future. Player seal off by going off their feet regularly. WR have regularly sent a number of clips out to ilustrate the problem.

At lower levels a lot of "off your feet" is down to skill levels. At pro level it is down to intent. It's not the Jackel that is the problem it is the players supporting the tackled player who prevent a contest by going off their feet and sealing off the ball. The ball them is made available on their side. Funny that.

Clearly we are going around here. It would seem you feel thaty one incident in 8o minutes is not "odd". We disagree. I'll leave it there.

 

[OB..]

But it is you that has missued the atats by only referrign to those pinged and not incuding stats for offences not pinged

... but that was the basis on which you were attacking Clancy - that only one got pinged..

It would seem you feel thaty one incident in 8o minutes is not "odd". We disagree. I'll leave it there.

I had 41 games with no PK for going off the feet.

Clancy might indeed have been wrong, but my objection is that your use of unsupported statistics is invalid.

 

[Pegleg]

Right last word from me.

I asked a question as the the probability oif pnly one off your feet in 80 minutes. The stats will support of undermine replies. Your "stats" ignore any missed etc offences, so they are incomplete and invalid. I don't need to provide stats to support a question.

That said in a game with around 150 breakdowns the claim that there was only one penalisable "off the feet" is absurd. I would say on the evidence of my eys there were nearer 50 such offences (though often it was two players sealing off the same ball).

Bow unless your stats show one PK offence and No detail of any missed / advantage / not materials. Then they really add nothing to your argument. I'm out.

17 million voted for brexit = overwhenlming support.

52 % - 48% was (according the Farage before the vote) to close to be valid It certainly was close and is a powerful argument against the "overwelming" argument.


Please be careful using incomplete stats.

 

[Phil E]

Right last word from me.

Promise?

 

[OB..]

Your criticism of Clancy is as follows:

I have no problem with material effect being applied. But lot of the missed / ignore offences were clearly material.

. That may well be correct, but I have no way of telling.

You chose to try and reinforce your view by appealing to statistics

What are the odds on the first (material) case of a player going off his feet occurs in the 79th minute of a game?

It doesn't matter what the odds are (as long as the event is not physically impossible), since you cannot decide what happened in a specific event by appeal to overall statistics. That is an invalid argument because you are trying to go from the general to the particular whereas statistics work the other way..

The odds of Clancy being right in that it happened only once all game are non existent.

It is not impossible, however unlikely you believe it is. Again you are working your statistics backwards.

That said in a game with around 150 breakdowns the claim that there was only one penalisable "off the feet" is absurd.

Same logic error as above. "Absurd" and "impossible" are not synonyms.

I would say on the evidence of my eys there were nearer 50 such offences (though often it was two players sealing off the same ball).

You may well be right, but that argument is based on observation, not statistics.

Please be careful using incomplete stats.

Thank you, but I prefer to trust my own understanding of statistical arguments.

My data gave some information on assessing the likelihood on Clancy being right. I don't know how well they compare to top level statistics, and we have no information on relevant refereeing errors. What we do have is data that suggest your argument from disbelief is overstated.

If we have facts/observations, let's stick to those.