wanderer72 said:
There are different types of corruption, Lloydie just gave you an excellent recap of one that I was also suggesting in my post above. There is no money changing hands (actually there is, as they get to keep and extend their contracts or whatever, but that's very indirect), there is no conspiracy as there is technically no explicit agreement of any sort. Just "the rules of the game" and "wink wink", to which you adopt and potentially make it, or you don't and at best keep ref-ing matches no one's ever heard of, but you keep your backbone intact... Depends on what you find more important, your backbone or your mortgages, and people in general (not only refs) tend to choose, what?
Surely though, if it's a stonewall penalty which for me it was. A ref would get marked down for making a wrong decision? Clattenberg for example, the fiasco with Nani vs Spurs, how is it possible he'd get a good review at the selection board after that performance.
I know what people are saying decisions go sometimes in your favour sometimes they don't. Fact is though a team should focus on playing the match and not the referee. Yes it was a penalty and he didn't give it but they were winning 2-0, if they defended properly Blackpool would of won.
If United had been given 3 penalties i'd understand maybe something dodgy was going on but i'm not a subscriber to the view that referees are in any way lenient to any particular set of teams. Blackpool were in pole position to win that game but their stupid manager decided to go for the 3rd and it cost them the game! I've seen decisions go against them this year i've seen them go for them. It's just how you deal with it that matters, they got on with the game and Blackpool came apart and there was the end result unfortunately....
