View attachment 107613
View attachment 107614
An old List from 21/22 season. Struggling to find an updated one.
I'd hope professionality would come into play over allegiance to football teams but you can see how it might subconsciously affect some.
For example.
Stuart Attwell gets an Everton game which could impact Luton.
A few years ago Kevin Friend was removed from a match for that reason.
So it wasn’t corruption, it was a shit referee executing a personal vendetta for his own shits and giggles.My last post on this issue with you as you obviously just want to prolong a pointless debate.
If someone on here was a ref and sent off a player for no reason and knowing that was a bullshit decision then it's cheating and corrupting the game.
In my eyes if you deliberately break the rules it's cheating and if that cheating changes a game then it's corrupt.
He said he sent Bellamy off because he didn't like him but who is to say that he didn't financially benefit from that decision..he's admitted he's a rule breaking **** and it's no beyond the realms of possibility that he gained a financial incentive,
Probably easier to do something like that in a game with little at stake so less scrutiny.
Given the chance I'd have a coming together with Crappenbent. Use your imagination.Sorry mate, if I misunderstood your thoughts. There is a tendency to exaggerate contact on the modern game, and I despise it from all players, including City players. I watched Sterling in the clip, and he is just genuinely trying to get the ball. There was no guile at all in his play. He's definitely an honest player, and it would have been very harsh to penalise him for that. Correct decision for me.
Walker initiates the contact. It's one of those where Clattenburg would have done that 'coming together' thing with his hands.
It wasn't my intention to wind you up, I do it to mirror my annunciation, I only put the 'disclaimer' in as a friendly sort of prod.Not sure that was necessary, but it failed to get a reaction as you showed it was literally for WUMming purposes.
The players gain an advantage if it changes the result in their favour. That’s blatant result manipulation!
I don’t believe that 99.9% of refs are corrupt. Some are easier to be led by crowds and players than others. The top ones should be less swayed though.
Fair enough. I guess that’s what the ignore button is for.It wasn't my intention to wind you up, I do it to mirror my annunciation, I only put the 'disclaimer' in as a friendly sort of prod.
Not to worry, in the future I'll make a mental note to refrain from attempting to be friendly to you.
Why does there need to be a similar example? It was like a basketball move and, no, I can't think of one as blatant as that. It wasn't only handball it was also a shirt pull. Right in front of the referee.
Have you called the dictionary companies so they can update to the AHT editionI bet all referees have made decisions based on dislike of a player.
What would most people on here do if they were refereeing Bruno Fernandes? Would that be corruption?
Clattenburg is the referee with the most question marks around him. Rightly so as he’s run his mouth off admitting he made decisions based on his inability to be totally professional. It defines him as a shit referee and a bad egg.
I see corruption as someone gaining financial or power reward in exchange for making incorrect decisions to change results. I don’t see any proof of that.
My last post on this issue with you as you obviously just want to prolong a pointless debate.
If someone on here was a ref and sent off a player for no reason and knowing that was a bullshit decision then it's cheating and corrupting the game.
In my eyes if you deliberately break the rules it's cheating and if that cheating changes a game then it's corrupt.
He said he sent Bellamy off because he didn't like him but who is to say that he didn't financially benefit from that decision..he's admitted he's a rule breaking **** and it's no beyond the realms of possibility that he gained a financial incentive,
Probably easier to do something like that in a game with little at stake so less scrutiny.
My last post on this issue with you as you obviously just want to prolong a pointless debate.
If someone on here was a ref and sent off a player for no reason and knowing that was a bullshit decision then it's cheating and corrupting the game.
In my eyes if you deliberately break the rules it's cheating and if that cheating changes a game then it's corrupt.
He said he sent Bellamy off because he didn't like him but who is to say that he didn't financially benefit from that decision..he's admitted he's a rule breaking **** and it's no beyond the realms of possibility that he gained a financial incentive,
Probably easier to do something like that in a game with little at stake so less scrutiny.
There are different definitions of corruption. Your definition makes the vast majority of people corrupt, and makes it meaningless as a term in this context.Have you called the dictionary companies so they can update to the AHT edition
I’m going back to work. It’s easier than arguing with you. Is that your job?1. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
2. the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.
There is little proof of 1 and lots of proof of 2 in this thread, ironically around the word itself.
Because you said, “Play in red and it goes in your favour every time”
So I assumed you’d have at least one example to back that claim up?
But anyway. Enough work for one day. Time for the pub I think.
Having a debate on social media isn’t a job. Repeatedly telling me that I’m wrong without proof doesn’t get us anywhere.I’m going back to work. It’s easier than arguing with you. Is that your job?
Especially when it's a known fact that you are never further than 6 feet away from a raggy fan at any stage of your life as there are so many of them.Personally, I think this whole "who do you support thing" is nonsense. It's wide open to deception (who really believes that stuff) and the PL / PGMOL should be able to ensure impartiality whilst having the best referees refereeing the most high profile games, through training, monitoring, review and, if required, correcting action. Those lists don't help at all. It's superficial nonsense that doesn't do anything.
Especially when it's a known fact that you are never further than 6 feet away from a raggy fan at any stage of your life as there are so many of them.
Yet not one ref has the bollocks to admit they are rodent lovers.
What are the odds on this occurance?
I know what you are getting at, but it's a little disingenuous to ask for actual examples, imho, from a City fan who hasn't the time or the inclination to track all disputed incidents other than through perception. I am a little busy next few days but I will look through all the disputed handballs this season on Johnson's articles (they all have photos I think) and see what I can find.
As an aside, I used to like his articles until the Rashford/ Fernandes goal and the mental gymnastics to give the "official" view. I suppose it's normal. He gets input from the PL and PGMOL, he wouldn't if he went against the grain. To me he is just an intellectual Gallagher. Useful archive, though. I will have a look.
To be clear.
My original post was wondering if Johnson was right, more than claiming the poster on here was wrong.
I was surprised at his claim. Which if you didn’t see my original post, I’ll repeat.
He claims there have been only five penalties this season for handball that have been called by the VAR after no penalty on field. And every one of them has been when an arm has been well away from the body. Every single incident where the ball has struck an arm/ hand close to the body, like on Saturday, has stayed with the on field decision.
Right, and now I really am off to the pub.
Like I said mate I can't be bothered trying to debate to someone who really can't see the wood for the trees...It's never ending isn't it? The definition that was asked for clearly states corruption requires a position of authority. The players don't have that position of authority over the game. Referees do.
A process is corrupted if it produces the wrong results for the process owner, happens regularly and is not corrected.
It's as easy as that.
(Oh never mind. I see we have made up our own definition of corruption now the dictionary definition was a little inconvenient).
Edit: As you were, it was dictionary.com and said "conduct by people in power" anyway, which rules out players and most of us but not, noticeably, referees, PGMOL and the PL in the refereeing process.