【卫报】裁判，我们被打劫了吗？ Aw, ref! We WAS robbed

本文摘自卫报自由评论板块，作者是一个曼城球迷。他从另一个角度解读了曼城德比中长达七分钟的补时，给球迷们提供了一种思维方式。
曼联在线·球迷地带% v* e4 {7 Y9 w0 L

More time is added at the end of games that Manchester United are losing – so are the referees biased?曼联在线·球迷地带3 u+ V( u" X- u: P5 d$ ]
For a Manchester City supporter of more than 50 years, as I have the misfortune to be, the last minute of last Sunday's game was especially painful. For the first time for years, the good guys matched the red devils kick for kick – until the last one, five and a half minutes into four minutes of extra time. We was robbed, innit?专业曼联球迷网站,曼联球迷的地盘,为广大球迷提供最新曼联新闻与视频资源.3 g. ^) P. n, w1 y; t7 N4 K- O
Usually, when you say that, a still small voice deep inside tells you that it isn't really so. Rules are rules, teams must play until the whistle blows, refs do their best, there is no systematic bias in the game and the best thing to do is to leave those sour grapes to wither on the vine. But, as the Guardian itself has shown, there is an issue to address. There is solid evidence that in recent seasons more extra time has been added at the end of games that Manchester United were not winning. On average, 178 seconds are added when they are in the lead at the end of full time, and 254 seconds when they are behind.曼联在线·球迷地带8 \# g0 ?6 @/ b
How do we explain this phenomenon? Are most premier league referees closet United fans, or in receipt of regular distributions from Sir Alex's famous wine cellar? It is possible, but academics at the LSE have produced a better explanation. Using data from a number of seasons of La Liga, in Spain, Luis Garicano, Ignacio Palacios-Huerta and Canice Prendergast systematically analysed referees' practices in a substantial paper in the Review of Economics and Statistics. They ask if it is true that referees do add more time at the end of games when it might benefit the home team, and if so, why?曼联,曼联BT,曼联在线视频,曼联图片,曼联新闻,曼联论坛1 l% J; t- @9 }1 G
The short answer is that they do. "When the home team is behind in a close game, more injury time is added than when the home team is ahead in an equally close game," they say. On average, in Spain, injury time is about three minutes. But if the home team is behind by one goal, the length of time added is 35% above average, whereas if it is ahead by one goal, added time is 29% below average. So it is demonstrable that "referees use their discretionary power to favour home teams, but only in close games". (My own, one-eyed view is that they don't do this if the home team wears light blue, but their dataset sadly doesn't allow me to prove that contention definitively.)曼联在线·球迷地带" v1 o  V+ ^+ O0 t* [& o7 f- q6 ?
Furthermore, there is evidence of bias related to what goes on during injury time. When visitors score, injury time is 15% longer than when the home team scores. "In other words, referees are more speedy in blowing the whistle for the end of the game if the home team scores, thus giving the visitors less time to respond". It's lucky that Craig Bellamy didn't score the seventh goal on Sunday, or the teams might still be playing.
But how do we explain this phenomenon, if we rule out corruption, as the study's authors do? Their hypothesis is that crowd size and partisanship impose pressures on referees. The title of the paper, Favouritism under Social Pressure, summarises the argument. When crowds are bigger, referees become more biased. So with the biggest ground in the Premier League, United are likely to benefit the most from this pressure-induced bias. QED. So we was, indeed, robbed, and we will be again.
What could be done to correct the position? Fifa did, of course, reduce referees' discretion after the 1998 World Cup, so the minimum amount of added time is now declared by the fourth official. But, as we saw on Sunday, it is a minimum and does not fully resolve the problem. Another option, especially for derby games, might be to increase the number of away fans allowed to attend. The Spanish research shows that where the crowd contains a substantial number of fans supporting the visiting team, the referee's bias in favour of home teams is mitigated. There were more than 3,000 vocal Blues in the crowd, singing Blue Moon for all they were worth, but they were still overwhelmed by more than 70,000 homers.专业曼联球迷网站,曼联球迷的地盘,为广大球迷提供最新曼联新闻与视频资源.  t" j4 U! W5 A
How much does all this matter? In Spain the result was affected in 2.5% of the games studied. That is a small percentage, admittedly, but it is enough to be of significance in a close division. And if referees are influenced by fans in decisions on extra time, where their discretion is heavily constrained, might they not be influenced in other areas too – cards and penalties, for example? It seems highly likely, but I will leave Spurs fans to argue their case for Keane's penalty that never was against Chelsea last weekend. If they want to pay for some more data mining, I'm sure our LSE academics will be happy to oblige.专业曼联球迷网站,曼联球迷的地盘,为广大球迷提供最新曼联新闻与视频资源.3 `; O! P; F) y7 ?# C( I
============================================================================================================================================
曼联在比赛接近尾声并处于不利境况时得到了更多的补时，所以裁判是在偏袒曼联，是这样吗？
对于一个支持曼城超过50年，并正好不幸在现场的球迷，上周末比赛（指曼城德比—译注）的最后一分钟尤其令人痛苦。多年来第一次，这些棒小伙能够与红魔旗鼓相当—直到最后一刻，进入4分钟补时的5分30秒里。我们被打劫了，是这样吗？
　　通常，当你那么说时，在内心深处还有一个小小的声音告诉你情况并不如此。规则就是规则，竞技双方必须踢到哨声吹响，裁判已尽其所能，比赛中并没有系统性的偏向，最好是让那些酸葡萄留在树上烂掉。但，正如卫报统计所显示的，有一个问题需要解释。有充分的证据显示，在最近几个赛季曼联未能获胜的比赛结束时，曼联确实得到了更多的补时。平均来说，在他们领先进入比赛结束时，得到178秒的补时，但在他们落后时，平均补时为254秒。
　　如何解释这种现象？大多数英超裁判都是隐秘的曼联球迷，或者收到了从阿莱克斯爵士著名的葡萄酒酒窖定期送来的货？有可能，但伦敦大学政治经济学系（LSE）的学者们提供了一个更好的解释。通过对几届西班牙联赛的数据分析，Luis Garicano, Ignacio Palacios-Huerta 和 Canice Prendergast在《经济和统计评论》（Review of Economics and Statistics）上发表的一份重要论文中对裁判的行为进行了系统的分析。他们设问：是否裁判在对主队有利时会增加更多的补时？如果是，为什么？ - 专业·专注·曼联中文网站' o/ f- o; w5 s6 ]) ~8 a- j  @& o
　　简短的答案是他们会这么做。“在一场势均力敌的比赛中，主队落后时所增加的伤停补时要多于在同样实力相近的比赛中主队领先情况下的补时，”他们写道。在西甲，伤停补时平均为3分钟。但如果主队落后一球，补时长度会比平均补时增加35%，但如果主队领先一球，补时是平均补时的29%。这就说明了“裁判会使用自由裁量权让主队受益，但只有在势均力敌的比赛中”的说法。[我自己的，有点狭隘的观点是，当主队穿着浅蓝球衣（译注：曼城球衣）时，裁判不会这么做，但遗憾的是他们的资料当然并不支持我的说法。]专业曼联球迷网站,曼联球迷的地盘,为广大球迷提供最新曼联新闻与视频资源.' f0 e" S. V6 Q: M
　　另外，也有与补时阶段发生的事情有关的裁判偏袒的证据。当客队进球，伤停补时会比主队进球情况下多出15%的再次加时。“换句话说，裁判更急于在主队进球后，吹响比赛结束的哨子，这样就给客队更少的时间作出反击”。幸好克雷格-贝拉米在周日进的不是第7个球，否则两个队要继续踢下去。曼联在线·球迷地带& Z: P" Q5 T$ F/ a# D
　　但是，如果排除贿赂的情况，我们如何解释这些学者所研究出的现象呢？他们的假设是观众的规模和倾向性会给裁判施加压力。有一篇题为《社会压力下的偏袒》（Favouritism under Social Pressure）的论文总结出这个观点。当观众更多时，裁判会变得偏向某一方。所以，因为拥有英超最大的比赛场地，曼联很可能从压力诱导下的裁判偏袒获益最多。证明完毕。所以我们，确实，被打劫了，而且会继续被打劫。
　　如何才能改变这种情况呢？1998世界杯后，FIFA确实减少了裁判的自由裁量权，补时的最短时间现在由第四官员来宣布。但是，正如我们在周日看到的，这只是最短补时，它并未完全解决这个问题。另一种方法是，尤其是在德比战中，可以增加进入球场的客队球迷。那个有关西甲的研究指出，在客队球迷大大超过主队球迷时，裁判照顾主队的情况会减轻。上周末，人群里有3000多个蓝军球迷，为他们热爱的球队高唱《Blue Moon》，但他们仍然被淹没在7万多主队球迷中。
　　这种偏袒有多严重呢？经研究，在西甲联赛，有2.5%的比赛会受到影响。不可否认，这是一个小比例，但在势均力敌的对阵中，它所导致的后果就意义重大了。如果裁判在补时问题上受到球迷影响，他们的判断受到严重的限制，那么他们在其它情况下，比如给红黄牌和判点球时，不也会受到影响？似乎极其可能，但我把这个问题留给热刺球迷来分析上周末他们对切尔西时那个永远不会判的基恩点球的案例。如果他们愿意为进一步的数据分析付费的话，我们的伦敦大学政治经济学系的学者们会非常乐意效劳的。