Motherwell v Celtic 16/10/2021

[steelboy]

12 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

For those stats to make any sense all the fouls for every team would need to be the same ie bad enough to warrant a yellow or red card, however in the real world we know not every foul warrants a card, so quoting  stats like "fouls per card " is just nonsense

Either you conclude that this shite Celtic team are by far commiting the least propotion of bad fouls in the whole of Europe while also commiting a large number of fouls per game. Or you conclude that refs are letting them away with murder. 

Which do you think is more likely?

[dennyc]

12 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

For those stats to make any sense all the fouls for every team would need to be the same ie bad enough to warrant a yellow or red card, however in the real world we know not every foul warrants a card, so quoting  stats like "fouls per card " is just nonsense

Although you have a point regarding the nature of fouls, Celtic must commit an awful lot of ‘soft’ fouls given the massive difference highlighted by those figures.  
 

How about these stats lifted from  the Sporting Life text of the Aberdeen v Celtic game.  
Can you honestly see any of our players getting away with this on Saturday. Surely Jota should have been booked before the half hour mark.

16' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
22' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
23' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
26' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
26' Foul by Jota (Celtic). (Not a double entry; Jota committed 2 fouls in the same minute)
34' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
66' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
66' Jota (Celtic) is shown a yellow card.
77' Foul by Jota (Celtic).

[MJC]

40 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Either you conclude that this shite Celtic team are by far commiting the least propotion of bad fouls in the whole of Europe while also commiting a large number of fouls per game. Or you conclude that refs are letting them away with murder. 

Which do you think is more likely?

Exactly. I could maybe accept the “not every foul results in a booking” argument if the fouls per card stats were in any way close, but they’re not. 
 

Celtic are clearly being let off with a lot more than other sides are, we’ve seen it ourselves particularly over the past eleven years since the referee strike. I don’t think it’s down to cheating mind you or Celtic supporting referees deliberately favouring them, I think a lot of it is down to officials erring on the side of caution when it comes to Celtic as they know that if they make the ‘wrong’ call in their eyes then they will be hounded for it. They’re also not backed by their bosses at the SFA as was seen with the ref strike and when Scott Brown had a completely justified red card overturned on appeal a few years back.

[MJC]

Anyway to turn things back on topic for Saturday, I just don’t see us getting anything other than an absolute drubbing. Celtic have front players who will be able to exploit us badly at the back and and I fully expect them to continue their recent run of scoring at least four at Fir Park.

4-0 Celtic.

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

Although you have a point regarding the nature of fouls, Celtic must commit an awful lot of ‘soft’ fouls given the massive difference highlighted by those figures.  
 

How about these stats lifted from  the Sporting Life text of the Aberdeen v Celtic game.  
Can you honestly see any of our players getting away with this on Saturday. Surely Jota should have been booked before the half hour mark.

16' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
22' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
23' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
26' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
26' Foul by Jota (Celtic). (Not a double entry; Jota committed 2 fouls in the same minute)
34' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
66' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
66' Jota (Celtic) is shown a yellow card.
77' Foul by Jota (Celtic).

An attention to detail and whataboutery worthy of the follow follow and Kerrydale St conspiracy forums themselves, but not on here.

[MJC]

30 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

An attention to detail and whataboutery worthy of the follow follow and Kerrydale St conspiracy forums themselves, but not on here.

So are made up words like ‘whatabouttery’. 

[dennyc]

39 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

An attention to detail and whataboutery worthy of the follow follow and Kerrydale St conspiracy forums themselves, but not on here.

If that sums up your debating skills I'll just take it you have no logical contribution to make, Clearly you find hard facts hard to handle.

[Spiderpig]

43 minutes ago, dennyc said:

If that sums up your debating skills I'll just take it you have no logical contribution to make, Clearly you find hard facts hard to handle.

Nah no debating required I just dont give a feck about anything to do with the ugly sisters or the strange obsession some people seem to have with them. 

[David]

25 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Nah no debating required I just dont give a feck about anything to do with the ugly sisters or the strange obsession some people seem to have with them. 

It's not an obsession, it's simply pointing out, using stats, that what many of us suspect is most likely true. They're given the benefit of the doubt by match officials more often than not when compared with the other clubs in the league.

I find it baffling why anyone would look to try to explain it away and make it look as if our fans are mental and strange for even pointing it out 

[texanwellfan]

I’m hoping for a “Where did that result come from” kind of day with a legendary KVV performance but willing to accept a crappy 1-0 fluke goal, stolen 3 points. Hmmm actually that might even be better. 

[numpty]

1 hour ago, MJC_mkII said:

So are made up words like ‘whatabouttery’. 

All words are made up. This one is in the OED, however. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/m_en_gb1008114

[Spiderpig]

10 minutes ago, David said:

It's not an obsession, it's simply pointing out, using stats, that what many of us suspect is most likely true. They're given the benefit of the doubt by match officials more often than not when compared with the other clubs in the league.

I find it baffling why anyone would look to try to explain it away and make it look as if our fans are mental and strange for even pointing it out 

1st sentence there probably confirmed my last post "pointing out using stats" so anyone taking the time to go through an ugly sisters game minute by minute for a detailed breakdown of fouls by 1 player that never resulted in a card to back up a claim of alleged  bias by referees is just interested and not weirdly obsessed? OK then.

[joewarkfanclub]

The above stats are certainly interesting and I certainly wouldnt argue with the fact that in games against us, Celtic get a lot more decisions than we do. However, my experience is that so do Rangers, so Im surprised at the disparity in their figures.  I was always just of the opinion that the bigger crowds both clubs got swayed referees decision making during games, albeit power and influence cannot be ignored when it comes to the mindset of our officials. 

[joewarkfanclub]

18 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

1st sentence there probably confirmed my last post "pointing out using stats" so anyone taking the time to go through an ugly sisters game minute by minute for a detailed breakdown of fouls by 1 player that never resulted in a card to back up a claim of alleged  bias by referees is just interested and not weirdly obsessed? OK then.

Im not stat obsessed, and I certainly couldnt be arsed checking thru their games to see what player did what. However, if one of our players committed 9 fouls in a game I would certainly have expected him to pick up a yellow for repeated fouling regardless of how soft the fouls were. Not sure what the threshold is considered to be, but after 5 or 6 I would be thinking they are skating on thin ice.

[MJC]

1 hour ago, numpty said:

All words are made up. This one is in the OED, however. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001/m_en_gb1008114

I’m genuinely surprised at that and I’d guess that it must be a fairly recent addition. 
 

I certainly don’t think I’ve ever heard it used out-with the Celtic/Rangers soap opera in this part of the world and I find it a ludicrous term, especially the way it is used.

I tend to find that it is used predominantly by pro-Celtic types or people who lean towards them in the Celtic/Rangers debate, like Jeanette Findlay, Graham Spiers, Michael Stewart etc. They resort to it when confronted with a question or set of facts that they don’t like or that doesn’t suit their agenda so play the ‘whatabouttery’ card in order to shut down the debate and keep their views as the only ones being voiced.

They don’t seem to mind engaging in a bit of ‘whatabouttery’ themselves mind you, when it suits them.

[weeyin]

5 minutes ago, MJC_mkII said:

I’m genuinely surprised at that and I’d guess that it must be a fairly recent addition.

First known use, according to my online dictionary, was 1974.

I don't read much into these stats as it's a tiny sample size. Need a much bigger data set before any significant conclusions can be drawn.

 

[David]

1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

1st sentence there probably confirmed my last post "pointing out using stats" so anyone taking the time to go through an ugly sisters game minute by minute for a detailed breakdown of fouls by 1 player that never resulted in a card to back up a claim of alleged  bias by referees is just interested and not weirdly obsessed? OK then.

I don't think anyone on here actually went through the games and compiled the stats though, they were simply shown to us. And that's what would be interesting. Besides, people compile stats for all manner of things. 

What cannot be denied is that those particular stats, if true, are very interesting, and would certainly back up a lot of non-OF fans views that the officials are somewhat biased, be it unintentional or not.

[well_said]

5 hours ago, dennyc said:

Although you have a point regarding the nature of fouls, Celtic must commit an awful lot of ‘soft’ fouls given the massive difference highlighted by those figures.  
 

How about these stats lifted from  the Sporting Life text of the Aberdeen v Celtic game.  
Can you honestly see any of our players getting away with this on Saturday. Surely Jota should have    been booked before the half hour mark.

16' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
22' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
23' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
26' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
26' Foul by Jota (Celtic). (Not a double entry; Jota committed 2 fouls in the same minute)
34' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
66' Foul by Jota (Celtic).
66' Jota (Celtic) is shown a yellow card.
77' Foul by Jota (Celtic).

I watched this match and I could not believe how long it took for jota to be booked .It doesn't matter how bad these fouls but the fact that it was persistent offences certainly merited a yellow card long before he got it. As I remember the referee was badly madden who in my opinion has tended to favour Celtic since they pointed out his rangers supporting tendencies whilst of course failing to mention the Celtic minded referees of which there are more than a few, but that doesn't suit their victim agenda.

[well_said]

I also remember the 1991 cup final when it seemed that luc nijholt committed numerous fouls but wasn't booked until nine minutes before the end of extra time. However that was in the day when players were harder and there wasn't so many soft touches like there are nowadays.  If only we could play luc on Saturday as he cement the Portuguese poser and the Japanese  poser within the first few minutes . Also in the 91 final John Clark  didn't even receive a booking  for the assault on Maxwell.

[ropy]

On 10/13/2021 at 4:30 PM, steelboy said:

I was shown some stats at work today that Celtic are being treated far more leniently than other teams by the refs.  When Collum previously reffed them this season they managed to commit 18 fouls and the solitary booking they got was Soro in the 86th minute. They are averaging 14 fouls per card against 8 fouls per card for teams playing them.  We on the other hand are the most harshly dealt with team in the league.

To compare that to something outside of Scotland West Ham have the highest fouls per card in the EPL at 10 fouls per card then it's Chelsea at 8. Italy is AC Milan on 9. Spain is Sociedad on 8.4. Germany is Bayern Munich on 12 then RB Leipzig on 10.

 

 

Is there a separate row for Callum Slattery?

[ohwulliewullie]

5 hours ago, well_said said:

been fixed. YT

Mate, seriously, there is really no need for the pansy / poof / fairy stuff.

And John Clark didn’t get booked because it wasn’t a bad foul, just an unfortunate injury. 

[well_said]

9 minutes ago, ohwulliewullie said:

Mate, seriously, there is really no need for the pansy / poof / fairy stuff.

And John Clark didn’t get booked because it wasn’t a bad foul, just an unfortunate injury. 

Would poser be ok?

[MJC]

35 minutes ago, ohwulliewullie said:

And John Clark didn’t get booked because it wasn’t a bad foul, just an unfortunate injury. 

Agree but it 100% would be given as a foul nowadays, as would the challenge on Main for Kirk’s  winner that day. Goalkeepers get a ridiculous amount of protection these days.

[Kmcalpin]

The foul statistics will also reflect how streetwise a team is. "experience" in BBC speak.

As for John Clark's 1991 challenge on Ally Maxwell.......I've always believed it to be a cast iron foul. My reasoning is that as he jumped he swivelled around to face away from Ally and protect himself from the inevitable collision.

[steelman1991]

Agree but it 100% would be given as a foul nowadays, as would the challenge on Main for Kirk’s  winner that day. Goalkeepers get a ridiculous amount of protection these days.

Should have been given then too. The big dirty bastard knew exactly what he was doing by turning into Maxwell and leading with his elbow. Disliked the shit with a passion after that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk