Referees/Officials

[BurnCK]

Which is the equivalent of saying that sometimes cops in America pull over black people, but they pull over white people too, and sometimes they don't pull over black people.

Hence it's paranoia / conspiracy theories to believe that cops may be biased against black people there, even if you present evidence that on average a black person is much more likely to suffer a stop and search.

Does that make sense?

Indeed, fully appreciate where you're coming from, except that I don't see a disparity between decisions for them and decisions against them, certainly not these days. Do they get that many more decisions in their favour? Whereas in your example there probably is a huge difference in numbers.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Ie there can be an agenda only if EVERY single decision goes against the manures.

No! It's got to look, as far as PiGMOL, Scudamore and the PL, and our own dear FArce are concerned, fairly 'balanced'. They've got to have something to point to if the finger is pointed at beneficial refereeing and the favourable treatment when something Rag gets in front of a 'independent' video cabal! If they got everything then the whole game in this country would collapse because the crowds would be down to hundreds at grounds at clubs which had no chance of competing regardless of squad quality!

 

[manchester blue]

Ie there can be an agenda only if EVERY single decision goes against the manures.

This is most naive thing I've ever read. They have to be reasonably subtle about it or they would soon get called out.

How would you do it? I would look to stop breakaways after a foul by not playing advantage when we were attacking but not for the other team. I would deny penalties safe in the knowledge that they would not be debated on TV but not for the other team. I would not flag for offside even when there is clear daylight between players but not for the other team. I would book players for two footed reckless tackles, safe in the knowledge that it cannot be looked at due to a law the FA refuse to changes, but send off players from the other team.

I would offer penalties when the game is already won and start referring fairly once my influence ons the game had ended due to the scoreline. That's how I would do it. That's how Mason, Taylor, Clattenburg etc operate. And it's bent, there is an agenda and the whole thing stinks of Scudamore needing a strong United for his product.

 

[meltonblue]

For my sins, I've seen the last few United games and the West Ham one aside, it's not as if they've not had decisions go against them either. There is a bit of selective viewing here, with some of our own challenges too.

The standard of refereeing over the last few days has been shocking but I still believe that is down to incompetence and potentially a small amount of unconscious bias rather than anything overtly corrupt.

I read an article a few years ago about the Italian match fixing scandal and the main way that refs influence the game is by decisions on 50/50s in the middle of the pitch and use of the advantage rule, and it is around ensuring overall control is kept by one team. It wasn't ever something as blatant as a dodgy red card or penalty that was outside the realms of interpretation as that would be too scrutinised post the event.

There's been a few games where I thought that could be a possibility. I tend to err more on the side of incompetence though and the difficulty of interpretation nowadays, particularly with red card offences.

 

[SWP's back]

The rags had quite a few decisions go against them at the beginning of the season. Bravo's first game springs to mind

Fuck Off. It was a fair challenge and never a foul.

Not surprised you're going with Jose's version.

And fwiw, learn the rules, a penalty there isn't a sending off either.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

For my sins, I've seen the last few United games and the West Ham one aside, it's not as if they've not had decisions go against them either. There is a bit of selective viewing here, with some of our own challenges too.

The standard of refereeing over the last few days has been shocking but I still believe that is down to incompetence and potentially a small amount of unconscious bias rather than anything overtly corrupt.

I read an article a few years ago about the Italian match fixing scandal and the main way that refs influence the game is by decisions on 50/50s in the middle of the pitch and use of the advantage rule, and it is around ensuring overall control is kept by one team. It wasn't ever something as blatant as a dodgy red card or penalty that was outside the realms of interpretation as that would be too scrutinised post the event.

There's been a few games where I thought that could be a possibility. I tend to err more on the side of incompetence though and the difficulty of interpretation nowadays, particularly with red card offences.

.. and the odd early card for a centrehalf never goes amiss to deter a later challenge.

I'd be interested to see a full listing of how many clear and obvious errors occur for/against teams, and how many affect the game (i.e. not a penalty at 4-0 in the 85th minute). They could then add in the more nebulous area of arguable decisions. The table that's occasionally produced of winners/losers doesn't really tell everything, but is a start.

It would take ages to do though, but it's the only way of seeing if there is evidence.

 

[meltonblue]

Yep agree with that. It would be good to see that against both teams and against individual refs as I'm sure some are more likely to be influenced than others (usually for the home team, but Burnley was the opposite the other day!)

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

DT now calling Dean's Rag largesse aka Wiiiiiist Hiiiim sending off a 'mistake'. Not read the article so can't say whether they say it was an 'honest' mistake. Wonder why Dean didn't put his hand to his earpiece instead of his codpiece and seek fourth official advice. Wonder why it's the Rags from the contenders who get an hour versus ten?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

DT now calling Dean's Rag largesse aka Wiiiiiist Hiiiim sending off a 'mistake'. Not read the article so can't say whether they say it was an 'honest' mistake. Wonder why Dean didn't put his hand to his earpiece instead of his codpiece and seek fourth official advice. Wonder why it's the Rags from the contenders who get an hour versus ten?

I think the linesman told him, the same linesman who can't see offside players!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Is that not debatable / open to interpretation? I've seen plenty state it was a foul too (not just rags). My point was that if there's a pro-Utd / anti-City agenda, surely it would have been given?

That's a bit of a simplification, and requires everything possible to be given to hold up.