A question for those who think corruption is happening.

[wanderer72]

That's not necessarily true. I am no fan of Pullis, but if I was a Stoke fan I'd be really pissed off with the refereeing this far this season, and primarily against other "small" clubs.

Do you watch 90 minutes of Stoke every week to actually give your opinion some relevance or did you just miss the initial point?

On average, every other, lately third week. Have seen all the controversial moments he mentioned, though. A disgrace, if you ask me, and I could't even care less how well Stoke does this year.

Those "human errors' have cost them several points this year.

 

[Damocles]

Do you watch 90 minutes of Stoke every week to actually give your opinion some relevance or did you just miss the initial point?

On average, every other, lately third week. Have seen all the controversial moments he mentioned, though. A disgrace, if you ask me, and I could't even care less how well Stoke does this year.

Ok, the initial point was that teams will lose some decisions which everybody will bring attention to, and they will gain decisions that only people like Bruce or formerly guys like Southgate or Coleman would point out.

The "smaller clubs" are seen as small because they are struggling and don't have top class players. If they are struggling, the ball will spend more time out of their possession than, let's say, Chelsea which gives them a greater period of time to foul. It will also spend lots of time in their half, which gives greater opportunity to concede a goal scoring penalty or freekick. Also, teams who play the long ball game can actually negate this somewhat, as they can play the direct route up to the big man and penalties happen most when hit on the counter as the defender isn't positioned well and has to take a chance.

This means that there are more incidents to get right or wrong, generally.

Finally, the lack of attention from clubs on incidents that they do get favoured for results in means that the viewpoint gets span out of reality and into point scoring. How many times a night do we here of a "controversial decision"? Do we remember all of these and find trends? Of course not, we remember the big ones or the ones that negatively affected us.

The very idea that a professional referee will favour a club that is bigger is foolish. Who exactly decides who is bigger? Is Liverpool a big cub? Leeds? If they are getting favourable decisions, why did they struggle so much?

This whole argument is full of confirmation bias and very little real thoughtful analysis.

 

[wanderer72]

On average, every other, lately third week. Have seen all the controversial moments he mentioned, though. A disgrace, if you ask me, and I could't even care less how well Stoke does this year.

Ok, the initial point was that teams will lose some decisions which everybody will bring attention to, and they will gain decisions that only people like Bruce or formerly guys like Southgate or Coleman would point out.

The "smaller clubs" are seen as small because they are struggling and don't have top class players. If they are struggling, the ball will spend more time out of their possession than, let's say, Chelsea which gives them a greater period of time to foul. It will also spend lots of time in their half, which gives greater opportunity to concede a goal scoring penalty or freekick. Also, teams who play the long ball game can actually negate this somewhat, as they can play the direct route up to the big man and penalties happen most when hit on the counter as the defender isn't positioned well and has to take a chance.

This means that there are more incidents to get right or wrong, generally.

Finally, the lack of attention from clubs on incidents that they do get favoured for results in means that the viewpoint gets span out of reality and into point scoring. How many times a night do we here of a "controversial decision"? Do we remember all of these and find trends? Of course not, we remember the big ones or the ones that negatively affected us.

The very idea that a professional referee will favour a club that is bigger is foolish. Who exactly decides who is bigger? Is Liverpool a big cub? Leeds? If they are getting favourable decisions, why did they struggle so much?

This whole argument is full of confirmation bias and very little real thoughtful analysis.

Sorry, mate, but I'm not buying it. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing really wrong or incorrect in your argumentation, but you just picked one very limited aspect of the game to develop your theory within, and you did that based on your pre-existing opinion.

The really funny thing here is that, 10 years ago, I would be making the very same argument and probably be as pissed off with anyone saying differently as you appear to be. I have, thankfully, learnt better in the meantime.

 

[Damocles]

Right, so everything I said is correct in my argument, and I have only picked one part of the argument (you know, the actual football bit) to develop a theory (that wasn't pre-existing until I bothered to research it, a good year ago) but you disagree because you just happen to be 10 years ahead of me in thought but won't actually argue your point?

That about cover it?

 

[wanderer72]

The problem there is that "the actual football bit" is unfortunately the less important bit of the game. All the shirts and "club" merchandise, softdrinks, Nikeys vs Adidases, Skys vs ITVs vs ESPNs, just to name a few are far, far, more important these days.

Not to mention that refs are people too, as I tend to repeat all too often, with mortgages to pay. Big "clubs" are corporations these days, football is just what they do to pay the heating bills and the shareholder (or private owners, regardless) dividends, or be sold over the next, more optimistic speculator.

FAs, UEFAs, FIFA are simply their meta-bureaucratic mechanisms in front.

 

[CBlue]

However, I don't see it happening here, because I don't believe the myth that United get better decisions than others.

You're kidding, right?

I do believe that the top four do, but this is down to better players getting in more attacking positions than anyone buying anyone.

Interesting theory. Does that hold true for City or Tottenham too? Just to prove that you're talking bollocks - how does the attacking team argument come into play when we are talking about decisions not given in their defensive areas? A penalty & two stonewall sending offs? How does that work? "We can't give a penalty against you because you attack too much"? You give decisions based on the facts, not on prejudice.

 

[Paladin]

It is a conspiracy of incompetence borne out of fear of Ferguson. Make a mistake against United and get criticised by him for days. Then your refereeing CV says you can't handle the big teams / games. None of them want that so they go out of their way not to upset him, inadvertently giving United every advantage they don't deserve.
Receive some stick from Holloway and everyone laughs and forgets a day later when he goes on air singing a song to one of his players.
How many points have they gained (I nearly said 'won' there) this season from dodgy decisions? Well three on Tuesday as they would have found it hard to come back from 3-0. Plus those Neville decisions. Rooney getting away with foul and abusive language every game ad infinitum. How many lost? Just two - Birmingham away.
Maybe the refs aren't being paid off, but they live in fear of Ferguson and that affects their performance.

 

[friend]

Does anyone think City have ever benefited from any of these 'corrupt' decisions/FA?

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

It is a conspiracy of incompetence borne out of fear of Ferguson. Make a mistake against United and get criticised by him for days. Then your refereeing CV says you can't handle the big teams / games. None of them want that so they go out of their way not to upset him, inadvertently giving United every advantage they don't deserve.
Receive some stick from Holloway and everyone laughs and forgets a day later when he goes on air singing a song to one of his players.
How many points have they gained (I nearly said 'won' there) this season from dodgy decisions? Well three on Tuesday as they would have found it hard to come back from 3-0. Plus those Neville decisions. Rooney getting away with foul and abusive language every game ad infinitum. How many lost? Just two - Birmingham away.
Maybe the refs aren't being paid off, but they live in fear of Ferguson and that affects their performance.

Very good post and I think this is closest to the truth.

It still doesn't explain FA panel decisions on suspensions though which go United's way every time. The FA have no reason to be scared of Ferguson.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Does anyone think City have ever benefited from any of these 'corrupt' decisions/FA?

We've benefited from poor refereeing decisions yes, but generally not from FA hearings. The only one I can think of was Tevez after last season's derby, but they let both him AND Neville off.

Off the top of my head,

Evans, Vidic, Scholes, Rooney, Neville, Ferdinand, Rafael have all escaped nailed on 3 match bans because the FA, after studying video evidence, with Fergie presumably on conference call, have decided to take no action.