Corruption in English football?

just how I see it. The corruption card gets thrown about so often that it just becomes tedious. All fans are saying it about opposition teams they hate getting awarded a decision they disagree with.
Yes, but you should know by now that I continue to discuss a pattern of officiating, not simply individual decisions I disagree with.
 
The strangest thing about tonight's game was how Bazunu never got carded. After the referee gave him a good talking to (wasting another minute) he just continued on in the same path. If Ederson had used the same tactics in a game he'd have been sent off after 10 minutes.
It is quite interesting how quickly Eddie gets carded in comparison to opposition keepers in our matches that often start time wasting from kickoff and rarely ever get carded.

And he has only actually wasted time on a few occasions, and I think all but once he was immediately carded. I may be misremembering, but I think each time it was early in the second half, as well.

I can’t recall which game it was but I do remember him being carded for time wasting, then we conceded, and the other keeper began time wasting but was never carded himself.
 
I don’t think the goalies do themselves any favours by taking the piss over every goal kick. The ref went up and had a word with him earlyish in the second half and was presumably telling him he was going to add it all on. But he carried on. Probably end up getting more time added on than they waste.

Inconsistent then
 
Had they gave Arsenal a penalty = corruption

No penalty = this how corruption really works - it would look too obvious.

I think there’s corruption mistaken with influence. Conscious bias or the occasion. Think back to our last game last year after we were 3:2 up the bare minimum was added last night the max was added.

I think there’s corruption in football but that’s another story.
 
They were all pretty obvious dives. Giving any of them would have been far too obvious, drawing even more problematic attention.

People tend to have this false notion that unless they are deciding everything in favour of a team, they aren’t attempting to influence the outcome of a match.

Anyone that is familiar with how this sort of corruption is carried out, especially over long periods of time, will know that it is not how it works.

In this case, Hooper used booking Soton players, not booking Arsenal players, ignoring some pretty clear fouls on Soton players in dangerous areas (some prime Ward-Prowse territory), and extending added time, in hopes that would be enough to help Arsenal along.

And just because it was not successful, doesn’t mean they weren’t doing it.

Was anyone booked for an obvious dive?
 
just how I see it. The corruption card gets thrown about so often that it just becomes tedious. All fans are saying it about opposition teams they hate getting awarded a decision they disagree with.

And that is exactly why it is so successful. You get the two extremes: one set arguing about how every decision goes against their team and that proves corruption, the other arguing that every decision really doesn't go against their team so that proves there is no corruption. Whereas those of us who know something about procedural or financial corruption, who have experience investigating it, recognise that the whole process is more insidious than that. In football, there are myriad ways matches can be influenced over the course of a season to reach a desired outcome at the end of the season. It's not just about giving penalties for people falling over in a particular match.

Cue the anti-corruption element saying, well if their job is stop City, they aren't doing it very well are they? That really isn't the point.
 
Last edited:

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.