The table isn't irrelevant if it's having an influence on referees perceptions is it? Care to explain why decisions are consistently going against us otherwise?
If you don't believe us, how about Brian Clough? He knew a little about management, you may of heard of him even...he firmly believed that a well behaved team directly influenced the referee when he had a decision to make.
You're the patent who makes excuses for your child's piss poor behaviour by saying other kids do bad stuff too. Responsibility. Morality. Admirable qualities even if you lack them. It's no wonder so many kids cheat with you as a role model.
IF it is having an influence on referee perceptions. The idea that it is doing so is being offered up by you evidence free.
I don't have the answers as to why it is happening- I can only speculate.
One possibility is that it is just bad luck. We are a fundamentally unlucky club these days. Luck isn't just random of course, it comes to teams who deserve it, etc etc. But whether it is key injuries at crucial points, or just happening to have our only good season in a year where another club became unstoppable, that is our luck. When we were last relegated for instance, our 44 points would have had us safe a year later. When we survived on goal difference, that was the highest points needed for survival in ten years.
We have become an unlucky club, and we are very unlucky in a lot of decisions against us, right down to yellow cards like Colback's.
A second possibility is longevity. You talk about our 'ten year record' but how many teams have been in the Championship for ten years? Exactly three- us, Derby, Ipswich. Birmingham are next, joining in 2011-12. All of the others have been either in League one, often spending several years near the top of it, or in the PL with a totally different set of referees. Other leagues have a very different style of play and refereeing styles do differ, as we found when we came up. There is no reliable 'ten year' comparison. Even just saying that we have been near the top every year for ten years- again, that is a comparison to a lot of different sides and different contexts and a different division each time.
The other possibility of course is that we have been a clumsy side rather than a dirty one. Since 2009-10 we have had 15 changes of manager (including caretakers) and three owners. How many players, including loans, have gone through the club in that time?
Currently the longest serving player is Ben Osborn at about 5 years. Of the current side that played on Friday, seven of the squad of sixteen were here 12 months ago. Go another six months back and that drops to 3/16. Karanka himself must have signed nearly 30 players.
Think about the players who have temporarily come through our ranks in that time. Dumitru. Abdoun. Pereira. So many having to adapt to new countries and a league they did not know. All of them likely to have to adapt to a new manager and new style (because it's a general forest rule never to go for two consecutive managers who play the same style) at some point in their careers. Remember the red card Pereira got for 'over celebrating'? A pathetic, jobsworth decision the referee didn't need to make, but Pereira had no idea that in this country refs could be that petty
So you could argue that the constant disruption and churning of players has understandably made us a clumsy side. Compare to Sheffield United- 3 years with the same manager and largely the core of players that got them promoted. No wonder they get less cards, they all know each other so well!
