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

[@BluePhil8]

.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

The cookie monster -

Why you avoiding my question? I've asked at least 3 times and cyprustavern has asked you probably the same amount of times whether you believe United benefit more from "incorrect" decisions over the course of a season and if so why you believe that to be the case?

sjk2008 and nijinsky's fetlocks have both had the grace to reply.

Ive answered it on page 40
You need to keep up fella..

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

You admit that bigger clubs benefit from an influence over referee's and their decisions whatever form that may take and United are the biggest club in English football so I presume benefit more than anyone else judging from your philosophy? Whatever the influence the fact any team (United, Chelsea, Arsenal, us, Accrington Stanley, Chaddy Park FC) benefits from "incorrect" decisions in a way that is predictable and happens with such regularity over the course of a decade proves their is a question mark over the integrity of referee's.

Yes, in a way I agree. If some referees haven't got the required minerals to give a decision against a big club because they're afraid of getting it wrong then something does need to change. We either need them to change their ways or get referees in who have got balls to not give a fuck what team it is.

However, I'll make it clear again that whilst I have agreed with the above to a certain extent, it should be in no way manipulated to make me think that the referees are deliberately not giving said decisions for any other reason, which includes instructions from above or from other associates and brown envelopes.

So you're saying referee's favour big clubs and give them favourable "incorrect" decisions because they're afraid of those clubs? Afraid of what exactly?

For the record, I didn't say 'clubs', specific.

Re the whole post: who knows?

Perhaps they don't want to give a decision against a big team (unless they're 100% convinced it's the right call because they don't want to be on the receiving end of a manager's tough words) which, in reality, is pretty coward-like but possible.

Maybe they don't want to be splashed over the papers about how they got a huge decision wrong at such a pivotal moment? Why? Because, if we're honest here, a wrong decision affecting a big club is in the news for a good few days, a wrong decision against, for example, Reading is mentioned in a shitty two paragraph match report on the Sunday and then instantly forgotten.

To an extent, it's human nature to be cautious at first and I imagine even more so in the public eye so, whilst I don't agree with it, it's not right by the laws of the game to think more about a one decision than another decision, simply because of the club at stake.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

sjk2008/Pigeonho/The cookie monster/nijinsky's fetlocks - Do they think United gain points over the course of a season due to incorrect decisions? If so, why do you think this occurs?

Oh I see - you've finally thought of a question to ask me,having completely ignored the twenty or so I asked you about just what form the 'agenda' took,what it's ultimate objective was,and exactly who was involved.
Ok,I at least will answer a straight question.
I believe that there has always been a slight bias/rub of the green/coming down on the side of,the 'big four' teams.
This manifested itself with Liverpool in the 80's,and to a lesser extent Chelski and the Arse later on,and also with manure.
I don't,however,remember talk of 'agendas' and 'conspiracies' when the dippers got the benefit,or either London club.
If,as we very much hope,we retain our position at football's Top Table,we will probably start to get the odd contentious decision in our favour.
And if you think we have a hard time with referees,then I suggest you talk to a mate of mine who has had a Wigan seasoncard for 30 years.
It has always been this way - no conspiracy,no agenda,no top-level corruption,and nothing to see here.
Now that is how you actually answer a question,for future reference.
Oh,and for the record,sjk 2008 is neither a rag nor a wanker - just a decent, reasonable bloke who is a football fan with an opinion which is as valid as your,mine of anyone else's.

So in your own words you say you believe the Top 4 benefit from a "bias/rub of the green/coming down on the side of" however big or small, why is it? Because the law of averages would suggest the "incorrect" decisions would be completely random and spread equally between teams over a period of time and we all know and you admit yourself this doesn't happen.

PS... I never called anyone a wanker so don't reply to one of my quotes with something completely unrelated to me.

Ok fair play - the 'wanker' quote was not yours,and I apologise.
I really don't know why historically the 'big four' have been given the benefit of the doubt so much,but even so I just don't think that referees tendency to favour them on occasion amounts to agenda/conspiracy/Illuminati or whatever going on,(and I know you don't necessarily support these views,although others may well do).
And maybe now were one of the 'big four' we may finally start to see the tide turn in our favour.
Then everyone will start to hate us instead,if they don't already!

 

[Merseyside Red]

<a class="postlink" href="http://diminbeirut.typepad.com/my-blog/2012/10/corruption-and-influence-peddling-in-the-english-game.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://diminbeirut.typepad.com/my-blog/ ... -game.html</a>

That article says all you need to know about the influence McBitters has on the referees in this country.

 

[hgblue]

http://diminbeirut.typepad.com/my-blog/2012/10/corruption-and-influence-peddling-in-the-english-game.html

That article says all you need to know about the influence McBitters has on the referees in this country.

Yep, pretty much how it's done. No brown envelopes, no paper trail, no evidence of corruption to uncover, and the real beauty of it is that anyone that questions the refereeing in this country is labelled a paranoid, bitter, loon. Got to hand it to him though, if he can get away with it why not?

 

[colourmeblue]

To me its perfectly plausible that referees develop a certain mindset while officiating the big teams. I dont think its done intentionally though and I certainly dont think theres an agenda. It just seems like those concepts are too subtle for some people to grasp the difference.

The scum have cajoled, complained and bullied their way into having an air of entitlement about them that refs feed into. Its a way of thinking they have cultivated for years. You only have to look at baconface's temperament to see where its come from.

Refs are human and the scums policy of chipping away at their integrity for years has paid off.

 

[The Future's Blue]

The bottom line for me is, if there was such an agenda in place to help United win the league, they would have done so. This whole 'we were too good for the cheaters' claim, IMO, is nonsense. People behind said organisation wouldn't bust their balls to ensure United were kept near/at the top all season to let that work fall flat on its face in the worst possible way by it being fucked up on the last minute of the last day of the season.

I'm putting this bit in bold to draw proper attention to the point that has been repeated over and over, within this thread and others, when it's missing the point of what most of us believe to be favourable treatment towards United, however that manifest itself.

The favouritism, or 'agenda', is NOT to ensure United win the league.

Of course it doesn't ensure they win the league, or they would always win the league. Any of us with half a brain cell recognise this (If you're arguing against those who don't, and you're older than 12, you should argue with someone your own age ;)).

The argument is that through preferential treatment, favouritism, bullying, however it's done, United get decisions that culminate in keeping them in the mix for the title continuously, regardless of how shit they're playing or how shit their midfield is. It's giving them an artificial advantage to make up the shortfall. There is an obvious element of extra attention given to beneficial United decisions, which amplifies it, for some people enough to think it's nothing more than a fuss over nothing, but plenty of us don't believe this to be the case. And frankly when you see that shit week in week out it can be hard to see why everyone else doesn't think the same.

Eh, wasn't it a United executive who said that they don't have to be winning the league, just challenging for it.

That'll give them a couple of years grace.

As for this 'They would've ensured United win the league' statement, how can you ensure that! How many people envisaged us coming back in the last few minutes?

The reason it was so momentus is because it was just that, so momentus. Any league in the world would take what we done, and lived on it for the next 10 years.

On a side note, this poster reeks of it. He may profess to be an Oldham fan but in my opinon he still reeks of a wannabe winner. How many lower league fans have a second team?

 

[Dethred]

Like i said howard webb helped us win the league
Can do know wrong in my eyes,guys a legend.

What Drugs are you on, and where can I get some?

 

[fatbloke]

The cookie monster -

Why you avoiding my question? I've asked at least 3 times and cyprustavern has asked you probably the same amount of times whether you believe United benefit more from "incorrect" decisions over the course of a season and if so why you believe that to be the case?

sjk2008 and nijinsky's fetlocks have both had the grace to reply.

Ive answered it on page 40
You need to keep up fella..

So you agree the Top 4 get favourable decisions but can't explain why? Surely honest decisions from honest officials would result in an even spread of "incorrect" decisions throughout the league would it not?

Howard Webb didn't send Balotelli off because he didn't see it, unless you're calling him a liar and questioning his integrity too? The penalty was a "correct" decision.