Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

Players don’t get grilled on their mistakes though do they? Which is basically what people are calling for with referee interviews post match.

Winning players get smoke blown up their arse. And losing players get a quick couple of vague questions about “What went wrong today?” in a respectful hushed tone.

No player gets shown a clip of them missing an easy interception and asked to explain what the fuck they were up to there ? Which is pretty much the equivalent of how a referee interview would go.
So what about managers?
 
Don't think too many of them would notice anything from this site to be honest
True, unless they look at the officiating thread on the general forum where they are announced on a Monday and described as shit and corrupt consistently for the week before the game even kicks off.

Then looking in the matchday, post match and this thread, there will be no hint of anyone suggesting that they are corrupt and listing decisions they’d got wrong.
 
I think some are mistaking my blowback of conspiracy theories for full support of referees. Of course they can be better and make less mistakes.

Quoting decisions that go against a team isn’t proof of corruption.

I think we’re on a slippery slope with refs and it’ll get worse the more they are hammered.

VAR should be used differently. I think we all agree in that. I think where we don’t is that referees go into games deliberately going to favour one side over the other.

I think many of us have argued there is a bias / risk reward. They want to get the decisions right & will but then you ask us for evidence…..

I say balance of probability is evidence. If it happens a few times in favour of X but loads in favour of Y then it looks dodgy.

1 penalty in the premier league versus countless for the Rags & then you look at those given for them & refused for us is more than a coincidence. My opinion is it’s down the fear of scrutiny.
 
I think many of us have argued there is a bias / risk reward. They want to get the decisions right & will but then you ask us for evidence…..

I say balance of probability is evidence. If it happens a few times in favour of X but loads in favour of Y then it looks dodgy.

1 penalty in the premier league versus countless for the Rags & then you look at those given for them & refused for us is more than a coincidence. My opinion is it’s down the fear of scrutiny.
It’s definitely circumstantial evidence. I’d need more to convict someone of corruption though. Maybe my bar is too high. Maybe others’ is too low.

Who knows? I just don’t see how it benefits anyone to repeatedly shout corruption.
 
Yes. And not with players running at 35kph. They're making split second decisions under extreme pressure and then forensically pulled apart in slow motion.
But it's their job. It's what they're paid for. It's what they train to do. Being honest isn't a crime. And yes, I 100% believe some referees are dishonest to get themselves up the ladder.
 
But it's their job. It's what they're paid for. It's what they train to do. Being honest isn't a crime. And yes, I 100% believe some referees are dishonest to get themselves up the ladder.
Nobody is perfect at their job though and not many will have more scrutiny applied in the media than them.

You could well be right that some embellish their CVs to go up the ladder quickly. It happens everywhere else. Whether they are dishonest is unknown as they don’t referee the clubs that get the perceived balance until they reach the top. How do they prove their worth to these manipulators? By relegating Rotherham from the Championship when they shouldn’t have?
 
You could well be right that some embellish their CVs to go up the ladder quickly. It happens everywhere else. Whether they are dishonest is unknown as they don’t referee the clubs that get the perceived balance until they reach the top. How do they prove their worth to these manipulators? By relegating Rotherham from the Championship when they shouldn’t have?
By saying they support(ed) clubs like Altincham ?

They're all into football if they are referee's, which means that they will likely have a club they support, it doesn't have to be corruption, it can simply be bias, or even simply media influence.
 
So what do we think the refereeing team will be like tonight? I will make some predictions:

Less skillful team won't be allowed to kick more skillful team around the park
First yellow card for Copenhagen
No yellow card for Rodri
No yellow card for Guardiola
No controversial VAR decisions
No two minute delays for VAR offside calls
After the game we will be saying the ref was good, who was he?

And for the weekend:

Chelsea's cloggers will be allowed to kick City around the park
First yellow card for City
Yellow card for Rodri
Yellow card for Guardiola
Two controversial VAR decisions
Two minute delays for VAR offside calls
After the game we will be saying the ref was corrupt
 
By saying they support(ed) clubs like Altincham ?

They're all into football if they are referee's, which means that they will likely have a club they support, it doesn't have to be corruption, it can simply be bias, or even simply media influence.
Not sure how that equates to corruption/dishonesty. Mike Dean was called a scouse supporter for decades and he really was a Tranmere fan.

Taylor may well be an Altrincham fan. Nothing has ever been proven otherwise barring his family’s allegiance.

My brother is a rag. That doesn’t make me one.

Taylor referees in the same way every match. His weakness is controlling emotional games. He loses control.

I‘m saying this, despite the 3-1 Chelsea defeat that still annoys me to this day, as I don’t believe he goes into games ready to change the outcome. He’s made high profile mistakes. All refs do. All fans believe it is mostly against their own team.
 

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.