​As is customary at this time of year, we will take our summer break and return on the 31th of July.

​We hope all our readers have a very enjoyable summer .

By Daragh O'Leary

Fortunately for me, Cork won the Mick Mackey Cup after defeating Limerick in the Munster Hurling Final last weekend. It’s been seven years since the Rebels last won the competition, but much of the talk concerning the final centred on the penalty shootout which was used to decide the game.

After 70 minutes of regulation time and a further 20 minutes of extra time, Cork and Limerick still couldn’t be separated and so a penalty shootout was used as a tiebreaker because scheduling issues meant a replay wasn’t possible. This was the first time a Munster hurling final ended in penalties, and naturally, some purists of the game have suggested that it wasn’t fair to end the final in such a way. Personally, I can’t get my head around why this “issue” has caused so much drama.

Yes, I understand that ideally the game should be decided in play, but if a replay is not an option and two teams can’t be separated after regulation & extra time, what’s wrong with a penalty shootout? It is a widely used as tiebreaker in multiple sports including hockey, Gaelic football, soccer, and rugby.

A point discussed on Off the Ball in the aftermath of the final was that penalties might be seen by some as a lottery. Again, I struggle with this point of view.

Taking penalties is a part of the game which tests a player’s ability the same way taking 65s or frees do. Teams are free to practice penalties the same way they are other aspects of hurling. No one seems to think Darragh Fitzgibbon’s last second 65 to decide the game in extra time was unfair, so why is using penalties in a shootout to decide the game after extra time unfair?

Some may argue that 65s and frees are a result of open play actions, but so are penalty shootouts. A game only ends in a penalty shootout if the open play actions of the match result in a draw. The economic literature relating to competition can provide some further insight into the fairness of penalties in a competitive context.

A key characteristic of fairness in a competitive context in economics is equality of opportunity (Suttle, 2022). Essentially, this means that all agents involved are taking part in the same competition and are free to take part the same way as each other. This is certainly a feature of the penalty shootout; both teams are asked to execute the same task, abide by the same rules, and achieve the same objective. There is nothing unfair about this.

Some of the commentary surrounding the shootout suggested that it was simply too cruel a way to decide such a contest. This is where I think an important conceptual distinction needs to be made. Losing a penalty shootout is cruel. Supporters and players experience misery after a loss, but the victorious team would experience the exact same misery had they lost – which is fair.

Unfairness in the context of competition is the affording of an unlawful advantage to certain agents that better enables them to compete with their rivals. For example, if the referee allowed Cork to take their penalties closer to the goal than Limerick, that would be unfair.

I wonder is the perceived unfairness surrounding last Saturday’s penalty shootout somewhat attributable to the favourites losing. It could be that the unexpected outcome provided a signal to consumers that the result wasn’t correct because it was not what they thought would happen.

By Robbie Butler

At the end of May, horse racing circles on these islands were thrown into the spotlight when jockey Philip Byrnes was unseated at the final hurdle during a race in Wexford. For those unfamiliar with racing terminology, “unseated” means to fall off the horse without the horse actually falling. It happens in races and is not terribly unusual.

The reason this incident garnered so much attention was the manner in which the jockey fell off Redwood Queen while leading the Wexford Claiming Hurdle. Pictures of the fall are below and a video and discussion of the fall can be viewed here.

​As a side note, the horse is trained by the jockey’s father, Charles, and a claiming race is one in which the horses are all for sale at a specified claiming price until shortly before the race.

On the day, the steward on course initiated a stewards’ inquiry, and no further action was required. Case closed.

The reaction was quick and harsh. Many shouted “foul play.” Betting markets were exposed. The eventual winner was the 1/3 favourite. Redwood Queen had drifted badly on the morning of the race, ending up with odds as long as 13-2. In running, however, the horse was reported to be as short as 1/7 prior to the final fence unseating.

The Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board has decided that action is needed and will now review the incident, saying: “We note the position of the raceday stewards following their review of the incident. I can confirm the matter is down for review by an IHRB senior racing official.”

My co-authors and I currently have a working paper that considers such incidents. We find no statistical evidence of non-trying. Judgment of Byrnes’ fall is based on visual cues. Some think it was a deliberate action to fall off, and others do not. Only the jockey knows for sure. In a court of law, one suspects a verdict of “not guilty” would be returned, as enough doubt remains. Whether the IHRB thinks the same remains to be seen.

By David Butler

Brentford’s Nathan Collins holds the honour of being the only outfield player to perform for all 3420 minutes of the 24/25 EPL season. Due to a host of reasons, in particular  injury, it is very difficult to achieve this feat. In his book How to Win the Premier League: The Inside Story of Football's Data Revolution, Ian Graham outlines how difficult it is to achieve transfer market success; getting new signings on the pitch is a success in and of itself.

Graham suggests the 50% rule for transfers as a (low) benchmark for evaluating signings. Just to consider last season (rather than the two suggested) the paid for new signings in the league (excluding loans, goalkeepers and free transfers) played an average 1287 minutes - ~38% of EPL minutes. The median was ~32%. Only about 1/3rd of the 90 paid transfers inward on Transfermarkt get above the 50% minutes threshold.

There seems to be a little less risk when it comes to buying defensive players. These plyers top the list for minutes – Max Kilman, Nikola Milenković, Aaron Wan-Bissaka, Dara O'Shea and Maxence Lacroix. Again, this is not to say these players performed well, but just that they performed.  

Of course, many players are signed as back-ups and some are youngsters. So just looking at the big money spends there was success stories for Dominic Solanke, Leny Yoro and Pedro Neto. The big transfer failures to achieve minutes include Riccardo Calafiori, Ian Maatsen, Joshua Zirkzee and Igor Thiago.

So which player won the transfer window? Considering only minutes and estimated fee’s its probably Nikola Milenković (he did perform very well too this season). He only cost an estimated 15m and clocked up 3330 minutes. Other candidates include Ismaïla Sarr who also arrived for a similar low fee and played almost 80% of the minutes.