Man U Ref watch - how many points will they gain?

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Agenda thread full of unagendarists. Fuck me, and they thought i was paranoid!

Why do you try so hard boys, it's not your bag remember?

Anti-agenda, I think they are just so scared of being turned. Didn't Newcastle get a penalty once?

I just thought it might be worth a try attempting to persuade the deluded and paranoid that the voices are only in their heads.
Clearly you are all too far gone to help,and even resent us for bringing common sense to the party.
I shall leave you to your bonkers deliberations and insane conclusions,and return only when I need cheering up with a good laugh at the mad people.

SO you really don't see that United get the majority of favourable decisions? Whether through agenda, unconscious bias, fear of Fergie or whatever?

My two best mates are reds and readily admit but say that is what happens when you win so much for so long and have a manager with the clout of Fergie.

As others have mentioned,there has always been a tradition of the 'big four' getting the rub of the green from referees - this I would go along with,and I think we will start to get some of this in line with our new-found status at the top table in due course.
Unless the 'Fergie Factor' really exists,in which case did this bias not exist before him,and will it disappear when he retires?
But where I draw the line is when folk start to see this big club bias as evidence that the whole world is against City and pro-manure.
Some of the conspiracy theories on here are just bonkers,and make the 9/11 loons look rational.
I just can't see a mass campaign of institutionalised,organised corruption with the sole aim of rag supremacy.

 

[Pigeonho]

Are there still 2 goals to score into during injury time? Yes.
Are there still 2 teams capable of scoring goals in injury time? Yes.

Is injury time there because the refs want United to win because they're scared of Fergie?, Closet United fans?. No.

Injury time is there for both teams no matter who is playing.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

Yeah it does happen but how often? Not very.

Sunderland strolled forward with no purpose other than to run down the clock but we left ourselves wide open at the back, they still had 8 men behind the ball and to be honest risking losing a point to gain 3 is a different scenario psychologically. When you're winning already you have nothing to gain and more to lose.

Maybe it is different psycologically, but as you say, the attacking team will leave themselves wide open so any team is more than capable of scoring on the counter, just as Sunderland did to you despite their probable intentional, initially, to run the clock down.

As I said earlier, if it really was as bent as people are saying, the referees wouldn't leave it to chance in stoppage time would they, they'd ensure something was sorted earlier on, and in this case, the Nani penalty that was never given would have been the perfect opportunity. An opportunity to give United a great chance to equalise, in normal time, without the furore in the press because it would have been the correct call anyway.

Yeah they are but if you're already winning what is their to gain from scoring on the counter? Nothing that you'll risk potentially losing 2 points for I imagine.

I'm not saying there is everything to gain from the 'lesser team' to score again. I'm saying whilst stoppage time is given, both teams CAN score from it. Why put a United equaliser down to chance when you can make it much easier/safer by giving them a goal that's offside, or a soft penalty or disallow a legit goal for the opposition in normal time.

Look how many incorrect penalties United get to score the opening goal from (usually for a dive in the first 10 minutes) or soft penalties that get them back in the game (two against Chelsea last year in one game) or put them in front (Valencia's against Liverpool) or stone wall ones that aren't given which would potentially lose them points (Fulham at The Swamp last season)... Yes the Nani one was the perfect opportunity but as you have said in the past referee's do make genuine mistakes too so he may not have seen it. One thing that can't be argued is the amount of "potential game changing" incorrect decisions that go in their favour, it far outweighs the one or two decisions a season that go against them and it's not just one season. You can manipulate stats and try and convince yourself that it's just coincidence or just bad refereeing and that football is whiter than white but I think the majority of people who are genuinely open minded have some doubt and rightly so after what we've seen in other countries.

Yes, there have been some 'dodgy' decisions at big moments. Particularly last season with the Fulham non penalty, the penalties at Stamford Bridge (I actually think Evra's was right, not Welbeck's though) and the joke pens they were given against QPR and Villa. They also had the Newcastle non penalty which would have given them the lead, the incident at Stoke where Woodgate should have been off after 5 mins after bringing Little Flea down as last man, which probably would have been a penalty for United and 85mins against 10 men. There's also the handball at Wigan when they were 1-0 down (which, when taking this conspiracy into consideration, not giving that penalty was a huge moment in the title race).

Big decisions have gone against United too in the past. Noteably the ridiculous offside for Drogba to give Chelsea a 2-0 lead at Old Trafford on a title deciding day (yes, the Macheda one was lucky too but if there was an ever so clear 'Pro-United' bias, the Drogba goal wouldn't have been allowed in the first place, let alone the fact it was about 2 yards offside and as clear as night and day)!

I'm not for one minute saying they don't get the rub of the green on certain occasions, far, far from it. However, decisions do go against them also. Probably more for than against, yes, but I put that more down to certain referees bottling decisions rather than cohersed cheating.

It doesn't matter how much United fucked up that points lead last season, or how well City ended it, IF there was an agenda as serious as people are suggesting here, then there is absolutely no way the league would have been won in the way it was last season. The people behind said agenda would have ensured the league was wrapped up before City played QPR at home because in the eyes of the people at home, the league was already City's by then.

-- Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:03 am --

Agenda thread full of unagendarists. Fuck me, and they thought i was paranoid!

Why do you try so hard boys, it's not your bag remember?

Anti-agenda, I think they are just so scared of being turned. Didn't Newcastle get a penalty once?

I just thought it might be worth a try attempting to persuade the deluded and paranoid that the voices are only in their heads.
Clearly you are all too far gone to help,and even resent us for bringing common sense to the party.
I shall leave you to your bonkers deliberations and insane conclusions,and return only when I need cheering up with a good laugh at the mad people.

SO you really don't see that United get the majority of favourable decisions? Whether through agenda, unconscious bias, fear of Fergie or whatever?

My two best mates are reds and readily admit but say that is what happens when you win so much for so long and have a manager with the clout of Fergie.

-- Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:51 am --

I guarantee you this

After Fergie-scum's pathetic outburst on Saturday moaning that they should have played till f@cking midnight. The next time the rags go into stoppage time losing by the odd goal, there will be a very generous amount of time added on

And that then odd-gal could turn into a 2 goal loss, or indeed it could turn into a draw. Who knows? Unless i've missed something in the rules it doesn't say 'X minutes added time and United are allowed 2 keepers and the opposition have concrete poured in their boots', it merely says 'X amount of added time', where believe it or not both teams could score.

Yes, you've missed the point by a long chalk.

When you are leading by 1 goal going into injury time, the team behind has little to lose and generally swamps the team that are leading. It's basic human nature to defend what you have. Why do you think City have become so good at getting the late goals we need when behind? Name the last time City of Utd went into injury time needing a goal and conceded, now should I list the times they have managed to get the goal (or goals) they need?

Sunderland 1-0 Man City

Yes, I know it was a draw at the time, but City (I think) weren't enjoying the best run of away form) and were chasing that win all game. Sunderland were defending for their lives and would have been delighted for a draw, broke and scored in stoppage time.

The point being?

Did Sunderland need to attack? No
Would Sunderland have been delighted to come away with a draw? Yes
Could Sunderland still grab a stoppage time winner despite the two points mentioned above? Yes

 

[fatbloke]

The above two posts quite clearly show Pigeonho and SJK2008 are on a Clarkie or are so stubborn and narrow minded that it's laughable.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

The above two posts quite clearly show Pigeonho and SJK2008 are on a Clarkie or are so stubborn and narrow minded that it's laughable.

May aswell end this here then.

We think you're paranoid. You think we're stubborn.

Good day.

 

[Pigeonho]

The above two posts quite clearly show Pigeonho and SJK2008 are on a Clarkie or are so stubborn and narrow minded that it's laughable.

Not at all. If someone ever comes up with credible evidence that such a corruption exists, a corruption which puts United in a shining light, i'll happily bow down and apologise foe calling people paranoid. Credible evidence would be someone like Chris Foy or any of the other refs coming out and saying that in July of each year they all receive a document which states they have to favour United where possible, and that they must ensure City do not succeed. That's the basis of the agenda afterall - that United succeed and City fail. Such a document would bring down the English game and discredit the PL in an instant, and would also make the whistleblower one wealthy, wealthy man. I am yet to see anything other than posts on an internet forum that the agenda exists, and for that reason I call bollocks to it and say that there is no agenda. You and many others think otherwise so fair do's.

For the record though, again, added time is there for time wasted during play. 2 teams are playing during that added time - two - and so there is equal opportunity for both teams to take advantage of that time. United take advantage of it very well, which is unfortunate for the opposition.

 

[SWP's back]

Are there still 2 goals to score into during injury time? Yes.
Are there still 2 teams capable of scoring goals in injury time? Yes.

Is injury time there because the refs want United to win because they're scared of Fergie?, Closet United fans?. No.

Injury time is there for both teams no matter who is playing.

Total misrepresentation of human nature and the nature of football.

 

[BigJoe#1]

The above two posts quite clearly show Pigeonho and SJK2008 are on a Clarkie or are so stubborn and narrow minded that it's laughable.

Not at all. If someone ever comes up with credible evidence that such a corruption exists, a corruption which puts United in a shining light, i'll happily bow down and apologise foe calling people paranoid. Credible evidence would be someone like Chris Foy or any of the other refs coming out and saying that in July of each year they all receive a document which states they have to favour United where possible, and that they must ensure City do not succeed. That's the basis of the agenda afterall - that United succeed and City fail. Such a document would bring down the English game and discredit the PL in an instant, and would also make the whistleblower one wealthy, wealthy man. I am yet to see anything other than posts on an internet forum that the agenda exists, and for that reason I call bollocks to it and say that there is no agenda. You and many others think otherwise so fair do's.

For the record though, again, added time is there for time wasted during play. 2 teams are playing during that added time - two - and so there is equal opportunity for both teams to take advantage of that time. United take advantage of it very well, which is unfortunate for the opposition.

Pigeonho... I can understand what you're saying and in part can agree, however, can you answer me this?

What is the criteria for selecting referees?

Why has Mark Clattenburg not had a United game since we beat them (almost a year ago) 6-1? He is after all one of the "top dogs" in the refereeing world.

How many times has Howard Webb officiated over United games in that same period?

There is definately something amiss here and it does need to be investigated.

 

[SWP's back]

Sunderland 1-0 Man City

Yes, I know it was a draw at the time, but City (I think) weren't enjoying the best run of away form) and were chasing that win all game. Sunderland were defending for their lives and would have been delighted for a draw, broke and scored in stoppage time.

The point being?

Did Sunderland need to attack? No
Would Sunderland have been delighted to come away with a draw? Yes
Could Sunderland still grab a stoppage time winner despite the two points mentioned above? Yes

Yes, that was the last time, I shall now put the details of the times City and Utd games have had late goals scored (80 mins plus) when the "losing" team needed goals since then:

Chelsea 3-3 Utd (85)
Norwich 1-2 Utd (90+2)
Blackburn 0-2 Utd (81 & 86)
Southampton 2-3 Utd (87 & 90+2)

City 3-2 Spurs (90+5!!)
City 2-1 Chelsea (85)
City 3-2 QPR (90+2 & 90+4)
City 3-2 Soton (81)
City 1-1 Arse (82)
City 2-1 Fulham (87)

The point being that the team which need a goal (and I am only using City & Unt'd Prem League games) have scored 13 times since the last time a game involving City & Utd took an unexpected turn which the "defending team" going up the other end and scoring.

So for me, that says it is obvious that the longer a game goes on into injury time, the more chance the team gunning for it have got. It is not a case of "well there are two teams and both have the chance the score". That is total rubbish and born out in the results above.

What it has also shown me is that we are fucking brilliant and doing Utd (and before them Liverpool's) trick of scoring important late goals. WHich I am pleased about.

 

[Pigeonho]

The above two posts quite clearly show Pigeonho and SJK2008 are on a Clarkie or are so stubborn and narrow minded that it's laughable.

Not at all. If someone ever comes up with credible evidence that such a corruption exists, a corruption which puts United in a shining light, i'll happily bow down and apologise foe calling people paranoid. Credible evidence would be someone like Chris Foy or any of the other refs coming out and saying that in July of each year they all receive a document which states they have to favour United where possible, and that they must ensure City do not succeed. That's the basis of the agenda afterall - that United succeed and City fail. Such a document would bring down the English game and discredit the PL in an instant, and would also make the whistleblower one wealthy, wealthy man. I am yet to see anything other than posts on an internet forum that the agenda exists, and for that reason I call bollocks to it and say that there is no agenda. You and many others think otherwise so fair do's.

For the record though, again, added time is there for time wasted during play. 2 teams are playing during that added time - two - and so there is equal opportunity for both teams to take advantage of that time. United take advantage of it very well, which is unfortunate for the opposition.

Pigenho... I can understand what you're saying and in part can agree, however, can you answer me this?

What is the criteria for selecting referees?

Why has Mark Clattenburg not had a United game since we beat them (almost a year ago) 6-1?

How many times has Howard Webb officiated over United games in that same period?

There is definately something amiss here and it does need to be investigated.

If you can see it then why can't someone in power? Our once very Bernstein? Why hasn't he launched a review into the referee selection policy and how those referees have been chosen the way they have? For something as complex as making sure one club is more successful than others, documents would have to be drawn up and many many people involved. There would have to be a way of those documents being sent to the ones responsible for ensuring the Mighty Man United remain mighty, yet not one shred of a document has ever been put forward to say 'this is proof of one of the biggest cons in worl football'. Also, and I asked this yesterday bit nobody had an answer for it, what if the next 8 games there are refs who make decision that go against United and those decisions make United tumble down the league? That would be 8 refs as well as Clattenberg and Foy, (who people believe will never ref United again), who, if the theory is correct, won't ref United matches again. Who will ref the games United participate in, or have those refs been told to ensure United win? If that is the case, why haven't they come forward and blown the story up?