🧑‍⚖️ Referee Analysis⚠️ BIAS DETECTED

G ScottvsReading

Analysis based on 7 matches since 2000

* Note: Detailed card statistics for matches before 2005 may be incomplete.

2
Wins
2
Draws
3
Losses

When G Scott officiates Reading matches, the statistics reveal a notable negative pattern. Based on 7 matches spanning multiple seasons, our comprehensive analysis shows Reading achieves a 28.6% win rate under G Scott, compared to the 45% baseline expected for teams at this level. This negative 16.4 percentage point difference suggests a meaningful pattern worth examining. The data includes detailed card statistics, match outcomes, and historical trends to provide football fans, bettors, and analysts with evidence-based insights into this referee-team dynamic.

⚠️POTENTIAL BIAS

⚠️ POTENTIAL BIAS DETECTED

This team performs notably worse under this referee compared to their overall average.

Bias Score
-16.4%
Matches Analyzed
7
⚠️

Notable Negative Pattern

With a bias score of -16.4%, this ranks among the more significant negative patterns in our database. Over 7 matches, Reading has won 16 percentage points fewer games than expected. For bettors and fantasy managers, this historical trend suggests extra caution when G Scott is appointed.

The Bias Meter™

Bias Level-16.4%
Bias AgainstNeutralFavorable

Match History

7 matches under this referee

DateOpponentScoreResultCardsDivision
27 Jan 2024Leyton Orient(H)1 - 1DRAW
🟨 2
League One
10 Feb 2015Leeds(H)0 - 2LOSS
Championship
22 Feb 2014Blackburn(H)0 - 1LOSS
🟨 3
Championship
15 Sept 2013Brighton(H)0 - 0DRAW
🟨 3🟥 1
Championship
21 Jan 2012Hull(H)0 - 1LOSS
🟨 1
Championship
3 Jan 2011Burnley(H)2 - 1WIN
🟨 1
Championship
21 Nov 2009Blackpool(H)2 - 1WIN
🟨 1
Championship

Frequently Asked Questions

Detailed Statistics

Win Rate (Under Ref)28.6%
Baseline Win Rate45%
Bias Score-16.4%

Cards for Reading

🟨 Yellows / Game1.57
🟥 Reds / Game0.14

Cards for Opponents

🟨 Opp Yellows / Game2.43
🟥 Opp Reds / Game0.14

Share This Analysis

Think your mates need to see this? Share the evidence.