Penalty Differentials

[Bennett's Love Child]

A more remarkable stat is that all 15 other teams in the NRL since 2013 all have conceded the least penalties against the Roosters. You might think that is not a big deal. What if I told you the odds of this happening are 1 in 437,893,890,380,859,000. Then you might just think, something doesn't seem quite right.

How did you come up with that number?

My opinion of the referees was always that our lack of penalties was a result of subconscious refereeing whereby our reputation as an ill-disciplined team heavily influenced the way the referee saw the game.

But if your number is correct it is very hard to dismiss an inherent bias as the cause.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

How did you come up with that number?

My opinion of the referees was always that our lack of penalties was a result of subconscious refereeing whereby our reputation as an ill-disciplined team heavily influenced the way the referee saw the game.

But if your number is correct it is very hard to dismiss an inherent bias as the cause.

15 to the power of 15. It isn't evidence, it is proof of bias. If you claimed bias and the NRL took you to court, they could not possibly win. You cannot base a defence on a 1 in 437,893,890,380,859,000 shot. That is beyond reasonable doubt of bias existing.

 

[Chook Norris]

You definitely know sh*ts rough when it takes Slothfield to finally raise the issue:

More alarmingly, the stats reveal that since 2013, EVERY team in the NRL has conceded their least amount of penalties in games against the Roosters.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...osters-nrl-hopes/story-fnp0lyn3-1227310846066

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

You definitely know sh*ts rough when it takes Slothfield to finally raise the issue:


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...osters-nrl-hopes/story-fnp0lyn3-1227310846066

Say it aint so. The article in rugbyleagueweek will be interesting too.

 

[DiegoNT]

I have a theory on why teams suddenly seem to give away less penalties when playing the roosters. It's a pure tinfoil hat theory and I hope I'm wrong because it means we have huge problems with the way refs are 'coached'
Roosters are a dominate team, they give away a lot of penalties not only because they back their defence but because it makes the refs eventually become gun shy when it comes to blowing penalties. For example if in a game roosters give away 10 penalties, the refs get afraid of the penalty count blowing out and only blow penalties for the most obvious of ruck infringements causing the rucks to completely slow down. You may ask What This happens to do With the Other Team suddenly not giving away as many penalties as they would against other teams? Because the ruck has been set at a slow standard and only the most obvious of ruck penalties are given, teams suddenly seem to be more disciplined against the roosters because the standard has been set to a different level in these games

 

[Apey]

A more remarkable stat is that all 15 other teams in the NRL since 2013 all have conceded the least penalties against the Roosters. You might think that is not a big deal. What if I told you the odds of this happening are 1 in 437,893,890,380,859,000. Then you might just think, something doesn't seem quite right.

15 to the power of 15. It isn't evidence, it is proof of bias. If you claimed bias and the NRL took you to court, they could not possibly win. You cannot base a defence on a 1 in 437,893,890,380,859,000 shot. That is beyond reasonable doubt of bias existing.

You realise every possible outcome in this scenario has an equal chance of a 1 in 437,893,890,380,859,000 shot.... right? I don't know what blog or twitter or whatever you've been reading this shit from but it's a very silly argument to make. Speaking from a pure chance point of view this is no different to rolling two dice or however many die where every possible roll has an equal chance.

I agree that the original statistic you posted is fairly remarkable (silly chance/odds nonsense aside) although not as remarkable as the statistics over a longer period of time with different players and coaches etc. Roosters definitely get a raw deal in the penalty department.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

You definitely know sh*ts rough when it takes Slothfield to finally raise the issue:


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...osters-nrl-hopes/story-fnp0lyn3-1227310846066

You also know that you've reached the bottom of the barrel when you start putting Slothfield articles up as evidence.

 

[POPEYE]

The proof is irrefutable that the Roosters are being penalised more than other teams, but there needs to be a better breakdown of the type of penalties, which ones are persisting and what is being done about eradicating them. If the Roosters are being victimised it has to be proven without doubt, I for one would like to see them become a catalyst for change

If pedantic penalties are allowed to fester like f**king boils on the game they should be lanced. People are piddling themselves over the number of penalties but the number is as not as important as where on the field they're given, what effect they have on play at the time they're given and what alternative there is

All supporters should back the Roosters in finding an answer, if the subject is allowed to be dismissed as whinging the game will miss this great opportunity to return the game back to the players

 

[DiegoNT]

Roosters games are definitely reffed different, but I still think it's a tactic the roosters have a hand in. If it was such a problem roosters would be making complaints about it and/or changing the way they play. They give away so many penalties that the refs start worrying about the penalty count blowing out and start only blowing for the most obvious of infringements. If roosters games were officiated at the normal standards of most games the penalty count would probably be 35-10 against them (and no ref wants that on their records, so they change the way they usually ref), but because they are reffed to a different standard (thanks to roosters tactics and poor referee 'coaching') the penalty counts are more like 10-3 against roosters and teams suddenly seem to be more disciplined against the roosters.

 

[POPEYE]

Doesn't matter if the Roosters are the villains they're depicted as, which I doubt, what matters is that a concerted effort has to be made to fix the problem in an analytical manner . . . no f**king knee jerkin

 

[ek999]

I constantly hear how the Roosters don't play to milk penalties by lying down after high shots etc. By not playing to receive penalties, isn't it logical that they will receive the least amount of penalties in the comp? I mean some teams will receive 2 or 3 penalties a game just by staying down so the video ref can have a look at the tackle

 

[DiegoNT]

Doesn't matter if the Roosters are the villains they're depicted as, which I doubt, what matters is that a concerted effort has to be made to fix the problem in an analytical manner . . . no f**king knee jerkin

It's simple, ref roosters like everyone else, if they repeatedly offend send players to the bin for 10 minutes. But this would dramatically change the way they play, and roosters fans would be aching back for the days when the refs seemingly picked on them. Be careful what you ask for roosters fans and ask yourself why Robinson and co don't make such a fuss atm about the refs seemingly having it out for you's.

 

[GAZF]

15 to the power of 15. It isn't evidence, it is proof of bias. If you claimed bias and the NRL took you to court, they could not possibly win. You cannot base a defence on a 1 in 437,893,890,380,859,000 shot. That is beyond reasonable doubt of bias existing.

Its not 15^15. Its closer to 2^15 or 2^(however many games the roosters have played since 2013). Stop being so dramatic.

 

[POPEYE]

Someone give this thread another star, we should picket NRL headquarters with 'Let The Game Flow' or 'The Game Should Be Played By The Players' or 'One Ref One Result' . . . come to think of it the 10 metres looked pretty skinny this weekend compared to English games

 

[Canard]

You definitely know sh*ts rough when it takes Slothfield to finally raise the issue:


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...osters-nrl-hopes/story-fnp0lyn3-1227310846066

That is basically a word for word copy of some of the posts in this thread, you guys should send him an invoice.

Like the posts in this thread though its based on the logic "all penalty counts should be equal", an no more in depth analysis is being entered into.

I am happy that one club has taken over the "it's a conspiracy against us mantle" though.

Although I do note that this time its being given a lot more weight by the Sydney press and fellow LUers.

 

[sydneyroosters411]

It's simple, ref roosters like everyone else, if they repeatedly offend send players to the bin for 10 minutes. But this would dramatically change the way they play, and roosters fans would be aching back for the days when the refs seemingly picked on them. Be careful what you ask for roosters fans and ask yourself why Robinson and co don't make such a fuss atm about the refs seemingly having it out for you's.

That's because coaches are now banned from criticising referee performances in the press conference.

 

[Liddell]

f**king sooks.

Now they go crying to Slothfield, a bloke who has dragged their clubs name through the mud for years just to be heard.

 

[DiegoNT]

That's because coaches are now banned from criticising referee performances in the press conference.

I'm sure roosters could afford the odd 10k now and then. Any other club that thinks they are unfairly treated by the refs would at least attempt something to try change things

 

[POPEYE]

I constantly hear how the Roosters don't play to milk penalties by lying down after high shots etc. By not playing to receive penalties, isn't it logical that they will receive the least amount of penalties in the comp? I mean some teams will receive 2 or 3 penalties a game just by staying down so the video ref can have a look at the tackle

There are a lot of invariables, Melbourne don't lay down either but like the Roosters I suspect that's because neither want to risk losing momentum. Teams that cut out silly penalties at half time after trying to match the Roosters in the first half might just be coached well enough to take advantage of them being 'victimised'

 

[yobbo84]

Refs are human. If you give away a ridiculous amount of penalties (like the Roosters do), they're going to undoubtedly take a bit of a rest mentally when you have the ball.

Don't give away so many penalties and they'll receive more.