There has been lots of discussion about refereeing in here recently, for obvious reasons.
There are lots of stats thrown about - penalty differential is a common one, which illustrates that we have conceded around 100 penalties more than we have been awarded over the last three years. A predictable counter argument is that maybe the Roosters have poor discipline, and although I don't believe this is necessarily true, it is impossible to prove either way.
The only statistic that proves whether or not the Roosters get a raw deal from the referees is total penalties awarded. The amount of penalties the Chooks get given has absolutely nothing to do with their own discipline, and on balance, every single side in the competition should have roughly the same amount of penalties awarded to them over the course of the season. Penalties conceded varies between teams (different teams have different levels of discipline), but in an unbiased competition, penalties awarded should not vary significantly.
The number of penalties awarded to the Roosters has absolutely nothing to do with the discipline of the Roosters; it has everything to do with the referees, and who they chose to give penalties to. Statistically, every club's 'penalties for' statistic should be almost identical if the refereeing is fair.
Have a look at the official stats for penalties awarded at the NRL site (select 'all rounds' and highlight the 'PenF' tab). This means that the Roosters have only been awarded 75 penalties all year, the lowest number of any team, and a whopping 42 short of Cronulla's 117. It is significantly short of the average number of penalties awarded, which is 93 (i.e. this is the number of penalties that every single team in the comp deserves to be awarded).
The statistics prove, unequivocally, that the referees are biased against the Roosters. For whatever reason, we do not get awarded as many penalties as we are entitled to.
There are lots of stats thrown about - penalty differential is a common one, which illustrates that we have conceded around 100 penalties more than we have been awarded over the last three years. A predictable counter argument is that maybe the Roosters have poor discipline, and although I don't believe this is necessarily true, it is impossible to prove either way.
The only statistic that proves whether or not the Roosters get a raw deal from the referees is total penalties awarded. The amount of penalties the Chooks get given has absolutely nothing to do with their own discipline, and on balance, every single side in the competition should have roughly the same amount of penalties awarded to them over the course of the season. Penalties conceded varies between teams (different teams have different levels of discipline), but in an unbiased competition, penalties awarded should not vary significantly.
The number of penalties awarded to the Roosters has absolutely nothing to do with the discipline of the Roosters; it has everything to do with the referees, and who they chose to give penalties to. Statistically, every club's 'penalties for' statistic should be almost identical if the refereeing is fair.
Have a look at the official stats for penalties awarded at the NRL site (select 'all rounds' and highlight the 'PenF' tab). This means that the Roosters have only been awarded 75 penalties all year, the lowest number of any team, and a whopping 42 short of Cronulla's 117. It is significantly short of the average number of penalties awarded, which is 93 (i.e. this is the number of penalties that every single team in the comp deserves to be awarded).
The statistics prove, unequivocally, that the referees are biased against the Roosters. For whatever reason, we do not get awarded as many penalties as we are entitled to.
Comment