The worst thing about farcical officiating

invisibleandalone said:
So Dermot Gallagher statement saying var couldn't intervene as it's not a factual error and it's a subjective decision as to whether Rashford interfered with play. What a pile of shite. Every tackle , every shout , which way you spit is subjective, but var looks at these.
I was also under the belief that every goal was checked by var , especially where a player is yards offside chasing a ball down with the linesmans flag raised . Talk sense you stupid old ****
Click to expand...
Why the Fook do the ask the opinion of someone whose probably good mates with the wankers who have fooked it up .............. I’ve been out for a few with lads I know and not one of them said it should have been onside yet somehow we are to take the word of a bunch of Khoonts who simply ain’t got a clue ........... ffs is it so hard to not get it right ???? As soon as Rashford goes after that ball he becomes active and I couldn’t give a shite want any of these bent bastards say ............. but I can guarantee that something along the same lines will happen to United and magically the decision will go there way
 
MadchesterCity said:
Why has the issue not been raised by City management team and a request to replay the match made to the FA?
Click to expand...

I guess we will never know if any official complaint has or will be made by the club, but it appears that we don't make such complaints regarding these type of incidents.


whether that is the right of wrong approach is out of the hands of us supporters.
 
SebastianBlue said:
I think you and I are talking about very different types of match manipulation, incentives for such manipulation (i.e. protection and enhancement of the “product”, which leads to revenue generation), and who is orchestrating the manipulation.

And you are being incredibly naive if you think the UK top flight are the only top tier leagues in the world (and, more broadly, the only enterprises in the world) to be free of match manipulation. It has been proven to exist everywhere else where it is largely fractionally as lucrative to manipulate outcomes. This is a very exceptionalism view of football in the UK and one that I am sure the likes of the PL and FA would be very happy to hear you hold.

As far as the wiki entry you linked to and whilst it is very interesting, I would strongly argue that the sort of match manipulation I and others (including former officials and players) argue occurs the UK top flight—and, indeed, elsewhere—is at a completely different level to what is described there, protected by many, many layers of obfuscation, built up over decades, and incentivised via vast sums of money and power.

That’s the irony of corruption at higher levels: it does get more difficult to pull off due to much more stringent scrutiny, but it also becomes much easier to cover up for longer periods of time (though, not indefinitely) because of the more robust mechanisms that enable and hide it, often including the regulatory bodies meant to prevent it in the first place.

You have spoken about multi-millionaires being difficult to pay off to manipulate outcomes but that is based on a false premise that more money is used to coerce compliance and/or complicity, rather than the threat of less money or the use of blackmail (which can include threat of exposure of past misdeeds).

That is the case across industries and something I have quite a bit of professional experience with. Multi-millionaires are regularly coerced in to taking certain ethically dubious and/or illegal actions based on the threat of loss of wealth, reputation, life, or all of the above.

Some would argue blackmail is actually easier with the wealthy because of the nature of their lives and the complexity inherent in the structure of their wealth (I.e. more often than not, there are many more people threatened by one person’s dubious history being exposed than would be the case we a less wealthy person, which strengthens the power of coercion). These are simple, discrete manipulation schemes. Many people stand to lose quite a lot, from the top to the bottom, by having them exposed.

But the truth usually comes out eventually, as we have seen before in England, Italy, Spain, Portugal, America, China, and elsewhere.

All of this is to say: from a professional perspective, after years of working in the financial data analytics and fraud prevention sector, I think you are being exceedingly naive with your assessment.
Click to expand...

Fantastic post mate.

Also the factor that according to the UN report here

Amount staked legally on sports per year ~$40 billion
Amount staked illegally on sports per year ~ $340 billion - $1.7 trillion
 
hammocity said:
There are plenty of Pro punters across Europe with access to UK betting sites but there’s little illegal activity that gets past bookmakers. There is probably some minor infringements at lower level but have a look at this and the amounts involved and how easily the “culprits” were caught.

Courtsiding - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Psst, Ivan, Ivan , is that you ?
 
SebastianBlue said:
I think you and I are talking about very different types of match manipulation, incentives for such manipulation (i.e. protection and enhancement of the “product”, which leads to revenue generation), and who is orchestrating the manipulation.

And you are being incredibly naive if you think the UK top flight are the only top tier leagues in the world (and, more broadly, the only enterprises in the world) to be free of match manipulation. It has been proven to exist everywhere else where it is largely fractionally as lucrative to manipulate outcomes. This is a very exceptionalism view of football in the UK and one that I am sure the likes of the PL and FA would be very happy to hear you hold.

As far as the wiki entry you linked to and whilst it is very interesting, I would strongly argue that the sort of match manipulation I and others (including former officials and players) argue occurs the UK top flight—and, indeed, elsewhere—is at a completely different level to what is described there, protected by many, many layers of obfuscation, built up over decades, and incentivised via vast sums of money and power.

That’s the irony of corruption at higher levels: it does get more difficult to pull off due to much more stringent scrutiny, but it also becomes much easier to cover up for longer periods of time (though, not indefinitely) because of the more robust mechanisms that enable and hide it, often including the regulatory bodies meant to prevent it in the first place.

You have spoken about multi-millionaires being difficult to pay off to manipulate outcomes but that is based on a false premise that more money is used to coerce compliance and/or complicity, rather than the threat of less money or the use of blackmail (which can include threat of exposure of past misdeeds).

That is the case across industries and something I have quite a bit of professional experience with. Multi-millionaires are regularly coerced in to taking certain ethically dubious and/or illegal actions based on the threat of loss of wealth, reputation, life, or all of the above.

Some would argue blackmail is actually easier with the wealthy because of the nature of their lives and the complexity inherent in the structure of their wealth (I.e. more often than not, there are many more people threatened by one person’s dubious history being exposed than would be the case we a less wealthy person, which strengthens the power of coercion). These are simple, discrete manipulation schemes. Many people stand to lose quite a lot, from the top to the bottom, by having them exposed.

But the truth usually comes out eventually, as we have seen before in England, Italy, Spain, Portugal, America, China, and elsewhere.

All of this is to say: from a professional perspective, after years of working in the financial data analytics and fraud prevention sector, I think you are being exceedingly naive with your assessment.
Click to expand...
30 years experience in the UK gambling industry, I know what goes on, I’ve got an empirical view of it as well as hard data. I doubt you have any evidence other than what you have read.

Go into your local betting shop and try and get £50 on a greyhound running at a track not being televised, you won’t get it on. That’s the very base level of risk liability, the more sophisticated irregularities are met with equal resistance built on years of experience. These are blue chip businesses that manage their risk. Suffice to say I’m sure there’s a small level of corruption at lower levels but that’s a minor level which would involve relatively small sums and if bets were winning consistently it would be flagged and action taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.