Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

TinFoilHat said:
Its been a decent thread to be honest.

Lots of back and forth. And refreshing were not all calling each other cunts. Saving that for downstairs.
Click to expand...
Yeah, since the heat has been removed, we can at least discuss things relatively freely.

I‘m painted as some kind of sympathiser because I stick my head above the water and suggest all refereeing isn’t corrupt.

The corruption=woke has clarified it for me in my mind. People have bastardised what corruption means and it’s now a catch all term to describe all decisions that don’t go the way they think they should.
 
Paladin said:
Clattenburg is a fool. He should have cautioned Bellamy for dissent, and dismissed him if he gave dissent again. Criticising Bellamy for being obnoxious doesn't wash when in the same breath you admit that you deliberately bent the laws when dealing with him.
Click to expand...
Clattenburg is shady as fuck.

Still allowed to ref despite being in court for threating behaviour in his outside business life. (Dealt with Thaksin Shinawatra - no conflict of interest there)

Then fucked off to Saudi which has no extradition treaty. Now he's back in a shady job at Forest and being cuddly on Gladiators.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
An official knowingly making an incorrect decision with potential game changing consequences, in a £Multi-Billion industry isn't corruption?

If it was unconscious bias then you might have a point, but Clattenberg made a conscious decision to fcuk the player over because he didn't like him... and he ADMITTED so.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't think I was replying to the Clattenburg revelations, just generally. Also, it seemed we were talking about corruption in terms of bribery, which as I say, is difficult to prove. I don't think there is that level of corruption in our game. There may be, or may have been instances of it, but I don't think we have Italian style match fixing on our hands.

I've made a separate comment detailing my thoughts on Clattenburg.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Could you define corruption for me and explain why a City vs Bolton game would be the match for him to use this?
Click to expand...
Why not look it up as you seem not to know the definition. It doesn’t have to be all about helping a team or taking money. He was in a position of power and he was dishonest - that’s corruption
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
In 2009, where we hadn’t ever challenged for anything in the league. Why would Clattenburg choose that game to fix?

The easy answer is that he didn’t and made a decision based on personal dislike, rather than manipulating the result.

Similar to someone accusing me of being a Putin sympathiser because they don’t like what I post. People make snap decisions all the time based on their own bias.
Click to expand...

No-one is talking about that incident affecting the result, they are talking about a referee being able to make decisions based on personal prejudice, not based on the laws of the game, presumably without any scrutiny or correction (although who knows, it's all so opaque). That is a corruption.

There is no equivalence with someone calling you a Putin sympathiser. That person is not in a position of authority over you in the way referees, PGMOL as a whole or the PL are over the football environment and its processes. If that person was a mod, and he was misusing his position, then yes he would be corrupting the process of moderation.
 
Paladin said:
Clattenburg is a fool. He should have cautioned Bellamy for dissent, and dismissed him if he gave dissent again. Criticising Bellamy for being obnoxious doesn't wash when in the same breath you admit that you deliberately bent the laws when dealing with him.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Roberto Mancini questions Mark Clattenburg's role in Gareth Barry ban

Roberto Mancini has questioned Mark Clattenburg for reporting comments by Gareth Barry that led to the midfielder accepting a Football Association charge
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

This incident, in the derby game City were losing and in the last few minutes the ball went out of play and there was an exchange of words between Clattenburg and Barry, apparently initiated by Clattenburg. Rather than call the referee’s attention to it at the time he waited until after the game and made a complaint under the bringing the game into disrepute regulations. Barry was suspended for one game, which just happened to be against Clattenburg’s beloved Newcastle.
 
Paladin said:
Sorry, I didn't think I was replying to the Clattenburg revelations, just generally. Also, it seemed we were talking about corruption in terms of bribery, which as I say, is difficult to prove. I don't think there is that level of corruption in our game. There may be, or may have been instances of it, but I don't think we have Italian style match fixing on our hands.

I've made a separate comment detailing my thoughts on Clattenburg.
Click to expand...
I think there is, but not in the traditional sense.

The PL was set up to make money from the game, alongside a very lucrative TV deal (BSkyB). Viewers were promised an 'entertaining' competition, without which the 'product' would be come stale and uninteresting, therefore not realising maximum profits.

People are naive in thinking certain situations aren't being manipulated in order to keep things interesting for the worldwide paying customers.
 
dronefromsector7G said:
Why not look it up as you seem not to know the definition. It doesn’t have to be all about helping a team or taking money. He was in a position of power and he was dishonest - that’s corruption
Click to expand...
I’ve given my view on it. If you want to lower the bar to that extent, everybody, everywhere is corrupt and it becomes meaningless.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I’ve given my view on it. If you want to lower the bar to that extent, everybody, everywhere is corrupt and it becomes meaningless.
Click to expand...
Im not lowering the bar and it doesn’t mean everyone is corrupt unless everyone is in a position of power and dishonest. This is from Cambridge dictionary so they must be lowering the bar

IMG_9816.jpeg
 
Paladin said:
There was nothing wrong with Walker's reaction. He just showed disappointment that he didn't get the penalty.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the mad breakdancing flip thing, that's understandable, he's frustrated.
I'm talking about his actions as they hit the deck.
Have another watch of the incident (if you can bear to put yourself through it again), he seems to be solely focused on making sure that his final position after the fall is clearly ahead of Sterling. Whilst looking over at the ref he tries to sort of 'swim' across the turf.

If you've read my other posts you'll see that I'm in agreement with you on pretty much all the points you made, the post you quoted was me simply accepting that I could now see the possibility of why this decision possibly didn't go in our favor.

I'm more concerned about this modern interpretation that "bear hugging at a corner and then forcibly throwing an opponent to the floor in the penalty area isn't a foul if the ball gets cut out before it reaches where you were". It's utter bollocks!
 
dronefromsector7G said:
Im not lowering the bar and it doesn’t mean everyone is corrupt unless everyone is in a position of power and dishonest. This is from Cambridge dictionary so they must be lowering the bar

View attachment 107611
Click to expand...
That's the generally accepted definition, I guess. Then there are further definitions within that for political corruption, for example, or, more relevant to what we are discussing, corruption of processes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top