Competition Is It Match Fixing?

[Beni]

What patterns other than penalties have been there the last 3 years - show me?

Last year we were second top of the card to fouls ratio - Premier League Team With Most Fouls Per Yellow Card 24/25 | StatMuse

And our fouls-to-tackles ratio this year is very very normal compared to last years average

If anything, this data shows Chelsea to be suffering 'bias' by this metric much more than us .

Click to shrink...

You’ve conveniently focused on Chelsea being bottom on fouls-to-yellow-card ratio while completely ignoring that Spurs are bottom for penalties relative to touches in the box. That rather matters.

Because the argument has never been that one isolated stat proves corruption or bias. It’s the accumulation of trends across multiple subjective areas of officiating over several seasons.

Spurs consistently rank among the highest sides for touches and entries into the box, yet somehow sit bottom when it comes to getting penalties relative to those attacking actions. Meanwhile Chelsea can complain about card thresholds all they like, but they’re still benefiting in another massive subjective area by being near the top for penalties awarded.

That’s why the comparison doesn’t really work. You’re selectively choosing one metric where Chelsea look hard done by while ignoring another where they massively benefit. Spurs’ issue is that the imbalance keeps appearing in the same direction across different categories and across multiple seasons.

You’ve also picked out last season alone. What about the season before, where Spurs were top five for yellow cards received and one place down on fouls-to-yellow-card ratio? Funny how that part gets ignored. And when you repeatedly look across these kinds of stats, the same clubs constantly seem to appear at the other end benefiting from them. Woolwich, Liverpool and City repeatedly end up with more favourable numbers when it comes to penalties, card thresholds and subjective officiating trends.

People also keep acting like bias has to mean Spurs are literally bottom of every refereeing metric every single year for concerns to be valid. That’s not how human bias works anywhere in real life. Not in policing, courts, workplaces or sport. It shows up in marginal decisions, thresholds, interpretations and cumulative outcomes over time.

And football officiating is almost entirely subjective. What counts as enough contact, clear and obvious, game management or a natural position changes depending on the referee, the atmosphere and often the teams involved.

That’s why people point to the repeated penalty anomalies, inconsistent VAR interventions, different card thresholds, ignored shirt pulls and box incidents, constant PGMOL apologies and obvious inconsistencies in how similar incidents are judged from one match to another.

One graph on its own means little. One season means little. But when the same kinds of patterns keep appearing over three years, people are naturally going to question whether unconscious bias plays a role. Pretending referees are somehow immune from that despite former officials openly admitting pressure and perception influence decisions just isn’t realistic.

 

[dudu]

You’ve conveniently focused on Chelsea being bottom on fouls-to-yellow-card ratio while completely ignoring that Spurs are bottom for penalties relative to touches in the box. That rather matters.

Because the argument has never been that one isolated stat proves corruption or bias. It’s the accumulation of trends across multiple subjective areas of officiating over several seasons.

Spurs consistently rank among the highest sides for touches and entries into the box, yet somehow sit bottom when it comes to getting penalties relative to those attacking actions. Meanwhile Chelsea can complain about card thresholds all they like, but they’re still benefiting in another massive subjective area by being near the top for penalties awarded.

That’s why the comparison doesn’t really work. You’re selectively choosing one metric where Chelsea look hard done by while ignoring another where they massively benefit. Spurs’ issue is that the imbalance keeps appearing in the same direction across different categories and across multiple seasons.

You’ve also picked out last season alone. What about the season before, where Spurs were top five for yellow cards received and one place down on fouls-to-yellow-card ratio? Funny how that part gets ignored. And when you repeatedly look across these kinds of stats, the same clubs constantly seem to appear at the other end benefiting from them. Woolwich, Liverpool and City repeatedly end up with more favourable numbers when it comes to penalties, card thresholds and subjective officiating trends.

People also keep acting like bias has to mean Spurs are literally bottom of every refereeing metric every single year for concerns to be valid. That’s not how human bias works anywhere in real life. Not in policing, courts, workplaces or sport. It shows up in marginal decisions, thresholds, interpretations and cumulative outcomes over time.

And football officiating is almost entirely subjective. What counts as enough contact, clear and obvious, game management or a natural position changes depending on the referee, the atmosphere and often the teams involved.

That’s why people point to the repeated penalty anomalies, inconsistent VAR interventions, different card thresholds, ignored shirt pulls and box incidents, constant PGMOL apologies and obvious inconsistencies in how similar incidents are judged from one match to another.

One graph on its own means little. One season means little. But when the same kinds of patterns keep appearing over three years, people are naturally going to question whether unconscious bias plays a role. Pretending referees are somehow immune from that despite former officials openly admitting pressure and perception influence decisions just isn’t realistic.

Click to shrink...

The penalty anomaly is one stat.

The cards thing, as you've said is different season to season so that is non conclusive and no trend to speak of that I can see.

What else you got.

You have said multiple stats over consistent years?

I also dont think you can ignore other teams experiences.

Such as Chelseas for example with the foul to card. You juat dismiss it as so what?

To see a target of one team you have to show that it is only happening to one team.

Unless the premise is that match fixing is occurring to cause issues for multiple teams?

I never said unconscious bias doesnt exist it does for refs, players and shockingly even fans.... you only have to go to any fan forum to see them saying rhe same stuff you are, with their own set of stats and video evidence to prove they are the ones being harshly treated.

 

[Matt1882]

You’ve conveniently focused on Chelsea being bottom on fouls-to-yellow-card ratio while completely ignoring that Spurs are bottom for penalties relative to touches in the box. That rather matters.

Because the argument has never been that one isolated stat proves corruption or bias. It’s the accumulation of trends across multiple subjective areas of officiating over several seasons.

Spurs consistently rank among the highest sides for touches and entries into the box, yet somehow sit bottom when it comes to getting penalties relative to those attacking actions. Meanwhile Chelsea can complain about card thresholds all they like, but they’re still benefiting in another massive subjective area by being near the top for penalties awarded.

That’s why the comparison doesn’t really work. You’re selectively choosing one metric where Chelsea look hard done by while ignoring another where they massively benefit. Spurs’ issue is that the imbalance keeps appearing in the same direction across different categories and across multiple seasons.

You’ve also picked out last season alone. What about the season before, where Spurs were top five for yellow cards received and one place down on fouls-to-yellow-card ratio? Funny how that part gets ignored. And when you repeatedly look across these kinds of stats, the same clubs constantly seem to appear at the other end benefiting from them. Woolwich, Liverpool and City repeatedly end up with more favourable numbers when it comes to penalties, card thresholds and subjective officiating trends.

People also keep acting like bias has to mean Spurs are literally bottom of every refereeing metric every single year for concerns to be valid. That’s not how human bias works anywhere in real life. Not in policing, courts, workplaces or sport. It shows up in marginal decisions, thresholds, interpretations and cumulative outcomes over time.

And football officiating is almost entirely subjective. What counts as enough contact, clear and obvious, game management or a natural position changes depending on the referee, the atmosphere and often the teams involved.

That’s why people point to the repeated penalty anomalies, inconsistent VAR interventions, different card thresholds, ignored shirt pulls and box incidents, constant PGMOL apologies and obvious inconsistencies in how similar incidents are judged from one match to another.

One graph on its own means little. One season means little. But when the same kinds of patterns keep appearing over three years, people are naturally going to question whether unconscious bias plays a role. Pretending referees are somehow immune from that despite former officials openly admitting pressure and perception influence decisions just isn’t realistic.

Click to shrink...

The voting shows our fans are almost at 66% agreed it's match fixing or something fishy.
You know. I know. They know.
Ignore the rest. They'll either come round to it, or have an aneurism trying to argue.

 

[GinolasLeftFoot]

The voting shows our fans are almost at 66% agreed it's match fixing or something fishy.
You know. I know. They know.
Ignore the rest. They'll either come round to it, or have an aneurism trying to argue.

Click to shrink...

It shame doesn't have the option of yes, we have been shit, but the ref's and especially VAR have also been against us. And they have made a bad situation worse.

As both statements can be true at the same time.

 

[Beni]

The penalty anomaly is one stat.

The cards thing, as you've said is different season to season so that is non conclusive and no trend to speak of that I can see.

What else you got.

You have said multiple stats over consistent years?

I also dont think you can ignore other teams experiences.

Such as Chelseas for example with the foul to card. You juat dismiss it as so what?

To see a target of one team you have to show that it is only happening to one team.

Unless the premise is that match fixing is occurring to cause issues for multiple teams?

I never said unconscious bias doesnt exist it does for refs, players and shockingly even fans.... you only have to go to any fan forum to see them saying rhe same stuff you are, with their own set of stats and video evidence to prove they are the ones being harshly treated.

Click to shrink...

The penalty anomaly being one stat would make sense as a rebuttal if it existed in complete isolation. It doesn’t though. As I’ve said and will repeat again, that’s the point you keep skating past. And the penalty graph you’re dismissing isn’t even a one-off season snapshot, it’s been shown across a three-season span, so the idea it’s just random noise from a single year doesn’t really hold.

And on the cards point, saying it changes season to season doesn’t really disprove anything either. Human bias is not a fixed mathematical formula. Different refs, different narratives, different atmospheres and different instructions each season all affect it, and the same pattern has already been provided across the season before last as well. The point is Spurs repeatedly seem to land on the wrong side of these subjective swings more often than others.

You’ve also only focused on last season because it suits your argument. The season before Spurs were top five for yellow cards received and around one place off top for fouls-to-yellow-card ratio as well. So this idea there’s no trend isn’t really accurate.

As for Chelsea, nobody is saying “so what”. The point is Chelsea are one place below us on that specific foul-to-card metric, not sitting mid-table miles away from Spurs. And while that might look like a small gap on paper, it isn’t negligible in context when we’re talking about marginal thresholds that decide games. On top of that, Chelsea are also consistently near the top for penalties awarded relative to touches in the box and sit around the top end of VAR decisions going in their favour rather than against. So they are benefiting in other major subjective outcome categories, not just struggling in isolation. Spurs meanwhile are bottom for the penalties-to-box-touch metric and near bottom on VAR ruling in our favour. That’s the difference.

And yes, of course other fans complain too. That doesn’t magically invalidate every concern. The point isn’t Spurs fans feel hard done by therefore it must be true, it’s that the eye-test frustration is being backed up by actual statistical patterns across multiple seasons in key, game-defining areas like penalties, cards and VAR interventions.

But inconsistency itself does not rule out bias. In fact it almost supports it, because subjective officiating means perception, pressure, reputation and game narrative all influence decisions. Former referees have openly admitted that.

The problem with these discussions is people hear “bias” and immediately jump to match fixing or refs taking bribes. Most people aren’t claiming that. They’re talking about unconscious bias, reputation bias and threshold bias. Big difference.

And yes, of course other fans complain too. That doesn’t magically invalidate every concern. The point isn’t just that the eye-test exists, it’s that it’s being backed by statistical patterns across multiple seasons in key, game-defining areas like penalties, cards and VAR interventions, not just opinion. And you may disagree with it, but that doesn’t invalidate what Spurs fans are seeing every week or the stats that keep getting churned out which broadly support that pattern.

If Spurs were just mid-table across all these metrics nobody would care. But being bottom for penalties relative to box touches over years while also repeatedly ending up on the wrong side of subjective decisions is obviously going to raise eyebrows.

 

[dudu]

The penalty anomaly being one stat would make sense as a rebuttal if it existed in complete isolation. It doesn’t though. As I’ve said and will repeat again, that’s the point you keep skating past. And the penalty graph you’re dismissing isn’t even a one-off season snapshot, it’s been shown across a three-season span, so the idea it’s just random noise from a single year doesn’t really hold.

And on the cards point, saying it changes season to season doesn’t really disprove anything either. Human bias is not a fixed mathematical formula. Different refs, different narratives, different atmospheres and different instructions each season all affect it, and the same pattern has already been provided across the season before last as well. The point is Spurs repeatedly seem to land on the wrong side of these subjective swings more often than others.

You’ve also only focused on last season because it suits your argument. The season before Spurs were top five for yellow cards received and around one place off top for fouls-to-yellow-card ratio as well. So this idea there’s no trend isn’t really accurate.

As for Chelsea, nobody is saying “so what”. The point is Chelsea are one place below us on that specific foul-to-card metric, not sitting mid-table miles away from Spurs. And while that might look like a small gap on paper, it isn’t negligible in context when we’re talking about marginal thresholds that decide games. On top of that, Chelsea are also consistently near the top for penalties awarded relative to touches in the box and sit around the top end of VAR decisions going in their favour rather than against. So they are benefiting in other major subjective outcome categories, not just struggling in isolation. Spurs meanwhile are bottom for the penalties-to-box-touch metric and near bottom on VAR ruling in our favour. That’s the difference.

And yes, of course other fans complain too. That doesn’t magically invalidate every concern. The point isn’t Spurs fans feel hard done by therefore it must be true, it’s that the eye-test frustration is being backed up by actual statistical patterns across multiple seasons in key, game-defining areas like penalties, cards and VAR interventions.

But inconsistency itself does not rule out bias. In fact it almost supports it, because subjective officiating means perception, pressure, reputation and game narrative all influence decisions. Former referees have openly admitted that.

The problem with these discussions is people hear “bias” and immediately jump to match fixing or refs taking bribes. Most people aren’t claiming that. They’re talking about unconscious bias, reputation bias and threshold bias. Big difference.

And yes, of course other fans complain too. That doesn’t magically invalidate every concern. The point isn’t just that the eye-test exists, it’s that it’s being backed by statistical patterns across multiple seasons in key, game-defining areas like penalties, cards and VAR interventions, not just opinion. And you may disagree with it, but that doesn’t invalidate what Spurs fans are seeing every week or the stats that keep getting churned out which broadly support that pattern.

If Spurs were just mid-table across all these metrics nobody would care. But being bottom for penalties relative to box touches over years while also repeatedly ending up on the wrong side of subjective decisions is obviously going to raise eyebrows.

Click to shrink...

I don't deny it should raise eyebrows if those statistical patterns exist over multiple seasons, but you have not shown me any statistical patterns over multiple seasons. Please show me them?
You have shown me one pattern - penalties to touches in the box - that does raise eyebrows - I'm very interested in this.

I don't see any direct correlation that shows more touches should = more penalties. Brentford top for penalties, bottom half for touches - City top for touches, bottom half for pens.

Obviously Spurs' lack of penalties given is an outlier - would love to know more about why

You also say near the bottom for x or y - but if near the bottom is by a statistically insignificant amount and well within the expected average for all teams over the course of a season, then it does not make the point you say it does.

And if the patterns occur for other teams too then that is critical data to understand the bias. It is absolutely critical

If other teams have similar amount of bad decisions go against them - then that shows it's not just a Spurs thing.

I have said multiple times that I think bias exists.

This whole thread is asking if it is match fixing, so not bias.... so I am assuming you are saying no its not??

 

[Kosher Kid]

I don't deny it should raise eyebrows if those statistical patterns exist over multiple seasons, but you have not shown me any statistical patterns over multiple seasons. Please show me them?
You have shown me one pattern - penalties to touches in the box - that does raise eyebrows - I'm very interested in this.

I don't see any direct correlation that shows more touches should = more penalties. Brentford top for penalties, bottom half for touches - City top for touches, bottom half for pens.

Obviously Spurs' lack of penalties given is an outlier - would love to know more about why

You also say near the bottom for x or y - but if near the bottom is by a statistically insignificant amount and well within the expected average for all teams over the course of a season, then it does not make the point you say it does.

And if the patterns occur for other teams too then that is critical data to understand the bias. It is absolutely critical

If other teams have similar amount of bad decisions go against them - then that shows it's not just a Spurs thing.

I have said multiple times that I think bias exists.

This whole thread is asking if it is match fixing, so not bias.... so I am assuming you are saying no its not??

Click to shrink...

Premier League football is looking increasingly bent.

Only a child would think otherwise.

It's as bent as the concept of NGO's being given tax payer's money while countries infrastructure falls apart.

Know what I mean?

 

[STF]

 

[Beni]

I don't deny it should raise eyebrows if those statistical patterns exist over multiple seasons, but you have not shown me any statistical patterns over multiple seasons. Please show me them?
You have shown me one pattern - penalties to touches in the box - that does raise eyebrows - I'm very interested in this.

I don't see any direct correlation that shows more touches should = more penalties. Brentford top for penalties, bottom half for touches - City top for touches, bottom half for pens.

Obviously Spurs' lack of penalties given is an outlier - would love to know more about why

You also say near the bottom for x or y - but if near the bottom is by a statistically insignificant amount and well within the expected average for all teams over the course of a season, then it does not make the point you say it does.

And if the patterns occur for other teams too then that is critical data to understand the bias. It is absolutely critical

If other teams have similar amount of bad decisions go against them - then that shows it's not just a Spurs thing.

I have said multiple times that I think bias exists.

This whole thread is asking if it is match fixing, so not bias.... so I am assuming you are saying no its not??

Click to shrink...

You’re still zooming in on individual points and then acting like it cancels the wider pattern, which is where this keeps going round in circles. I’ve pointed to multi-season trends across different referee-influenced metrics: yellows per foul (bottom two in 2 of the last 3 seasons), penalties per touches in the box (consistently bottom end across 3 seasons), and VAR swing outcomes (repeatedly near the bottom for decisions going in our favour vs against). Taken separately you can argue noise, but across multiple seasons and different datasets it starts to look like a consistent directional pattern rather than coincidence.

No one serious is saying touches should directly equal penalties, so that’s a straw man. The point is we are repeatedly an outlier in the same direction across different officiating-related stats over time. And I’m not talking about brown envelopes or organised corruption, so framing it as match fixing misses the point. Bias doesn’t need to be deliberate or coordinated to exist, but it still shows up in outcomes. You can accept bias exists in theory while still dismissing the actual statistical patterns where it may be showing through in practice, which is the contradiction here.

 

[FightingIllini]

You’re still zooming in on individual points and then acting like it cancels the wider pattern, which is where this keeps going round in circles. I’ve pointed to multi-season trends across different referee-influenced metrics: yellows per foul (bottom two in 2 of the last 3 seasons), penalties per touches in the box (consistently bottom end across 3 seasons), and VAR swing outcomes (repeatedly near the bottom for decisions going in our favour vs against). Taken separately you can argue noise, but across multiple seasons and different datasets it starts to look like a consistent directional pattern rather than coincidence.

No one serious is saying touches should directly equal penalties, so that’s a straw man. The point is we are repeatedly an outlier in the same direction across different officiating-related stats over time. And I’m not talking about brown envelopes or organised corruption, so framing it as match fixing misses the point. Bias doesn’t need to be deliberate or coordinated to exist, but it still shows up in outcomes. You can accept bias exists in theory while still dismissing the actual statistical patterns where it may be showing through in practice, which is the contradiction here.

Click to shrink...

If I may respond to galaxy-brained conjecture with a bit of galaxy-brained conjecture of my own, it definitely strikes me that for different reasons (Lloris stuck back in goal, Sonny the nicest most polite man on earth, Romero can barely speak English) we have for a long time lacked a captain really able to litigate our case to the referee in the moment, something that I definitely believe has an effect psychologically.

Fortunately, we also employ one of the league's top banter artists, and that's where I'd be putting the armband starting Sunday.

 

[Wight_Ranker]

If I may respond to galaxy-brained conjecture with a bit of galaxy-brained conjecture of my own, it definitely strikes me that for different reasons (Lloris stuck back in goal, Sonny the nicest most polite man on earth, Romero can barely speak English) we have for a long time lacked a captain really able to litigate our case to the referee in the moment, something that I definitely believe has an effect psychologically.

Fortunately, we also employ one of the league's top banter artists, and that's where I'd be putting the armband starting Sunday.

Click to shrink...

I thought the same about Son until I saw some player cam footage of him screaming at opposition players in korean as he was closing them down, I was quite surprised

 

[dudu]

You’re still zooming in on individual points and then acting like it cancels the wider pattern, which is where this keeps going round in circles. I’ve pointed to multi-season trends across different referee-influenced metrics: yellows per foul (bottom two in 2 of the last 3 seasons), penalties per touches in the box (consistently bottom end across 3 seasons), and VAR swing outcomes (repeatedly near the bottom for decisions going in our favour vs against). Taken separately you can argue noise, but across multiple seasons and different datasets it starts to look like a consistent directional pattern rather than coincidence.

No one serious is saying touches should directly equal penalties, so that’s a straw man. The point is we are repeatedly an outlier in the same direction across different officiating-related stats over time. And I’m not talking about brown envelopes or organised corruption, so framing it as match fixing misses the point. Bias doesn’t need to be deliberate or coordinated to exist, but it still shows up in outcomes. You can accept bias exists in theory while still dismissing the actual statistical patterns where it may be showing through in practice, which is the contradiction here.

Click to shrink...

Mate - you are in the 'is it matching fixing?' thread - how is that missing the point in this thread?

Your answer, its not match fixing?

And we are not an outlier in 2 of the 3 stats you are saying we are - your whole premise is that we are but we arent which is why im zooming in on those - because if we arent an outlier there, then your whole theory falls apart.

Show me - statistically - how we are an outlier in cards to fouls and VAR swing outcomes? I have seen the data - we aren't an outlier excpet in the penalties to touches in the box.

Also, just because some bias exists, it doesn't mean we are more affected by it than others - and the bias you speak of, also goes for us sometimes - so again - show me the bias data - show it me?

 

[scarletjim]

But inconsistency itself does not rule out bias. In fact it almost supports it, because subjective officiating means perception, pressure, reputation and game narrative all influence decisions. Former referees have openly admitted that.

Click to shrink...

Sorry to jump in (and I'll happily jump out again and continue just reading this very interesting discussion from afar if appropriate), but on the above point, don't you both agree? If I'm understanding both of you correctly, you both agree that there does appear to be a bias against us amongst referees, but you also both agree that this doesn't equate to brown envelopes and a formal secret agenda from on high etc, so not 'match fixing' as it would normally be understood. Is that fair? (I should ask dudu too to be fair).

EDIT: Perhaps you simply disagree on the extent of any bias, Beni believing it is more significantly against us than other teams, and Dudu believing it is not. (?) I'm just trying to pinpoint exactly what it is that you ultimately disagree on (in terms of conclusions I mean, as opposed to data leading to those conclusions).

EDIT2: FWIW (which is probably very little in the context of your debate), my gut feeling is that we do suffer from ref bias more than other teams, but I've not done the research to back that up or refute it, and I rarely watch other teams, so I'm just going on what I see in our games (though I would say that I'm probably far more objective than most fans).

 

[dudu]

Sorry to jump in (and I'll happily jump out again and continue just reading this very interesting discussion from afar if appropriate), but on the above point, don't you both agree? If I'm understanding both of you correctly, you both agree that there does appear to be a bias against us amongst referees, but you also both agree that this doesn't equate to brown envelopes and a formal secret agenda from on high etc, so not 'match fixing' as it would normally be understood. Is that fair? (I should ask dudu too to be fair).

EDIT: Perhaps you simply disagree on the extent of any bias, Beni believing it is more significantly against us than other teams, and Dudu believing it is not. (?) I'm just trying to pinpoint exactly what it is that you ultimately disagree on (in terms of conclusions I mean, as opposed to data leading to those conclusions).

Click to shrink...

Nail on the head.

Thanks mate -

 

[scarletjim]

Very basic hypothesis: Given that there are only, what, 20 PL referees, could it simply be that there just happen to be more who hate Spurs than who hate other teams? In Beni's view of the data, that leads to very significant disadvantage, in Dudu's eyes it doesn't, but isn't that the simplest and most plausible explanation?

 

[dudu]

Very basic hypothesis: Given that there are only, what, 20 PL referees, could it simply be that there just happen to be more who hate Spurs than who hate other teams? In Beni's view of the data, that leads to very significant disadvantage, in Dudu's eyes it doesn't, but isn't that the simplest and most plausible explanation?

Click to shrink...

I think the most plausible thing for me is - Spurs fans watch Spurs with unconscious bias - as do other fans for their teams.

Honestly, we could go on most fan forums and see exactly the same claims of bias against them.

I have seen on Chelsea, Everton, West Ham forums, especially this season - Villa too have had no penalties this season and are wondering why?

 

[Beni]

Mate - you are in the 'is it matching fixing?' thread - how is that missing the point in this thread?

Your answer, its not match fixing?

And we are not an outlier in 2 of the 3 stats you are saying we are - your whole premise is that we are but we arent which is why im zooming in on those - because if we arent an outlier there, then your whole theory falls apart.

Show me - statistically - how we are an outlier in cards to fouls and VAR swing outcomes? I have seen the data - we aren't an outlier excpet in the penalties to touches in the box.

Also, just because some bias exists, it doesn't mean we are more affected by it than others - and the bias you speak of, also goes for us sometimes - so again - show me the bias data - show it me?

Click to shrink...

I’m only posting in here because it seems the most relevant place to pick up the VAR angle, that’s all. It’s not really a separate match fixing claim, and I think that’s where this keeps getting misframed.

To be clear, I’m not talking about brown envelopes or any organised fixing. I agree with you there. But bias, in the real world, is still a form of influence on outcomes. It’s not malicious fixing, it’s human interpretation, thresholds, reputation effects, and how decisions are escalated or not. That still changes games, sometimes massively.

And I think we probably agree more than it looks on the surface. I do think bias exists across refereeing in general. Where we differ is I think it’s been more consistently detrimental to Spurs over the last few seasons, and particularly this season. I can’t prove intent, and nobody realistically can, because you’re not measuring thoughts or internal decision-making. All anyone can go on is outputs: stats, patterns, and the decisions themselves.

That’s why I keep coming back to the same thing. It’s not one cherry-picked incident or one stat. It’s the combination of penalties relative to box entries, card thresholds over time, VAR intervention outcomes, and repeated high-profile incidents where similar challenges are treated differently depending on context.

And it’s those individual decisions that drive the frustration. For example, a minimal push on one attacker gets punished with a disallowed goal (Romero against West Han) while a near-identical contact in another game is waved on (Elitike goal against us). Or where a goal is disallowed for us on borderline contact (Muani push on Gabriel) but the same type of contact in the box against us is ignored. Same with red cards. The Xavi situation is a good example of how quickly thresholds change, and with Romero in particular there’s a clear perception that he is refereed differently to players like Gabriel or Virgil van Dijk. He makes mistakes, and has been rash, no argument there, but the consistency of sanctioning isn’t there in the same way.

On VAR specifically, the below is what I obtained



But equally, I think it’s too easy to say we’re not an outlier in 2 of 3 therefore the idea collapses. That assumes all metrics are independent and equally weighted. They’re not. Penalties, reds, VAR goals, those are high-impact, low-frequency decisions that swing points. Fouls-to-cards is a different mechanism, but still part of the same broader officiating environment.

And on the bias applies to everyone point, yes, I agree. Of course it does. No team is immune. But that doesn’t automatically mean it’s evenly distributed in practice. Random distribution doesn’t always look clean in small samples like 1–3 seasons of football data.

So my position isn’t Spurs are uniquely targeted in a conspiratorial sense, It’s that when you look at the combination of outcomes that directly affect matches, there is a consistent lean in the wrong direction more often than would reasonably be expected, and the stats people keep posting are broadly reflecting what fans are already seeing live week to week.

Hope that’s clear, and if ok with you will leave it there. Appreciate your debate.

 

[dudu]

I’m only posting in here because it seems the most relevant place to pick up the VAR angle, that’s all. It’s not really a separate match fixing claim, and I think that’s where this keeps getting misframed.

To be clear, I’m not talking about brown envelopes or any organised fixing. I agree with you there. But bias, in the real world, is still a form of influence on outcomes. It’s not malicious fixing, it’s human interpretation, thresholds, reputation effects, and how decisions are escalated or not. That still changes games, sometimes massively.

And I think we probably agree more than it looks on the surface. I do think bias exists across refereeing in general. Where we differ is I think it’s been more consistently detrimental to Spurs over the last few seasons, and particularly this season. I can’t prove intent, and nobody realistically can, because you’re not measuring thoughts or internal decision-making. All anyone can go on is outputs: stats, patterns, and the decisions themselves.

That’s why I keep coming back to the same thing. It’s not one cherry-picked incident or one stat. It’s the combination of penalties relative to box entries, card thresholds over time, VAR intervention outcomes, and repeated high-profile incidents where similar challenges are treated differently depending on context.

And it’s those individual decisions that drive the frustration. For example, a minimal push on one attacker gets punished with a disallowed goal (Romero against West Han) while a near-identical contact in another game is waved on (Elitike goal against us). Or where a goal is disallowed for us on borderline contact (Muani push on Gabriel) but the same type of contact in the box against us is ignored. Same with red cards. The Xavi situation is a good example of how quickly thresholds change, and with Romero in particular there’s a clear perception that he is refereed differently to players like Gabriel or Virgil van Dijk. He makes mistakes, and has been rash, no argument there, but the consistency of sanctioning isn’t there in the same way.

On VAR specifically, the below is what I obtained



But equally, I think it’s too easy to say we’re not an outlier in 2 of 3 therefore the idea collapses. That assumes all metrics are independent and equally weighted. They’re not. Penalties, reds, VAR goals, those are high-impact, low-frequency decisions that swing points. Fouls-to-cards is a different mechanism, but still part of the same broader officiating environment.

And on the bias applies to everyone point, yes, I agree. Of course it does. No team is immune. But that doesn’t automatically mean it’s evenly distributed in practice. Random distribution doesn’t always look clean in small samples like 1–3 seasons of football data.

So my position isn’t Spurs are uniquely targeted in a conspiratorial sense, It’s that when you look at the combination of outcomes that directly affect matches, there is a consistent lean in the wrong direction more often than would reasonably be expected, and the stats people keep posting are broadly reflecting what fans are already seeing live week to week.

Hope that’s clear, and if ok with you will leave it there. Appreciate your debate.

Click to shrink...

Good back and forth

 

[1882]

The penalty anomaly is one stat.

The cards thing, as you've said is different season to season so that is non conclusive and no trend to speak of that I can see.

What else you got.

You have said multiple stats over consistent years?

I also dont think you can ignore other teams experiences.

Such as Chelseas for example with the foul to card. You juat dismiss it as so what?

To see a target of one team you have to show that it is only happening to one team.

Unless the premise is that match fixing is occurring to cause issues for multiple teams?

I never said unconscious bias doesnt exist it does for refs, players and shockingly even fans.... you only have to go to any fan forum to see them saying rhe same stuff you are, with their own set of stats and video evidence to prove they are the ones being harshly treated.

Click to shrink...

I think the most plausible thing for me is - Spurs fans watch Spurs with unconscious bias - as do other fans for their teams.

Honestly, we could go on most fan forums and see exactly the same claims of bias against them.

I have seen on Chelsea, Everton, West Ham forums, especially this season - Villa too have had no penalties this season and are wondering why?

Click to shrink...

According to this, we're the FILTHIEST team in the league, and guess who are the "Angels of Islington"???

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/stats/_/league/ENG.1/view/discipline

 

[Matt1882]

It shame doesn't have the option of yes, we have been shit, but the ref's and especially VAR have also been against us. And they have made a bad situation worse.

As both statements can be true at the same time.

Click to shrink...

I left it out, as, IMO, if we were just shit and there was no fixing, we'd still be probably a comfortable 10th-14th
IMO, the reffing has taken that and made us relegation fodder.