Those who think there's no agenda need to read this...

[Pigeonho]

Do you believe that some referees are conciously/subconsciously biased and lack, in varying degrees, the prerequisite that is surely the cornerstone of honest and therefore competent refereeing: the prerequisite being impartiality?

I think referees are professional as they can be and give decision as they see them in real time, from pitch level. I believe there are some decisions which will go for United and which will inevitably piss people off, and I think there are decisions which will go against United. I think that last night it is very likely that Fleetwood may have got a decision from the ref from their game with Wrexham which their fans could look into as the ref fucking up their promotion party. Not one person on here ould give a toss about that as Fleetwood Town means nothing. If United got a decision which 'assists' them, (or in my eyes as that particular ref saw it at that time), people on here and many other board nationwide think it's because a ref is scared or that a ref has some pro-United agenda. People believe that because they are adamant that the biggest club in the country are assisted by referees in each and every game. Point being ALL clubs get decisions in each game that go both for and against them. Balotelli, in the example in pages before this one, was lucky to not only stay on the field on Sunday but he was also lucky the ref said he saw the incident and therefore is only banned for 3 matches and not the potential 9 he was looking at. If such an agenda was rife then Balotelli would have had the book thrown at him the the pony that is the FA. Because he hasn't though some on here say it is only because the FA don't want to be looked at as having an agenda against us, therefore because it's looking we are out of the title race the decision was made to not punish Balotelli! People are THAT paranoid that they are now saying the FA are going for us so's the anti City/pro United agenda doesn't become too obvious. It' laughable.

Ahem...is there any chance you could answer my question though with regards to the 'impartiality' of 'some referees'? Or are you saying that all referees always give an honest and fair-minded appraisal of all incidents in all circumstances? Do you think this is the case?

Ahem....
Yes I do think that is the case. Example off the top of my head. Atkinson would no doubt be able to justify the extra time given at Old Trafford when Owen scored the winner. He was the ref, afterall and added the time he deemed fit to add. Because Owen went and got the winner, it obviously brought out the conspiracy theorists on here but what if we had gone and got the winner? The time was added for both teams based on that halfs events, not just for United's benefit. If we had gone and won it not one mention of Atkinson being a 'rag' would have been spoke of. Thing is though there wouldn't have been any mention of him being a Blue either, it would simply have been accepted that the time added on was correct.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

Do you believe that some referees are conciously/subconsciously biased and lack, in varying degrees, the prerequisite that is surely the cornerstone of honest and therefore competent refereeing: the prerequisite being impartiality?

I think referees are professional as they can be and give decision as they see them in real time, from pitch level. I believe there are some decisions which will go for United and which will inevitably piss people off, and I think there are decisions which will go against United. I think that last night it is very likely that Fleetwood may have got a decision from the ref from their game with Wrexham which their fans could look into as the ref fucking up their promotion party. Not one person on here ould give a toss about that as Fleetwood Town means nothing. If United got a decision which 'assists' them, (or in my eyes as that particular ref saw it at that time), people on here and many other board nationwide think it's because a ref is scared or that a ref has some pro-United agenda. People believe that because they are adamant that the biggest club in the country are assisted by referees in each and every game. Point being ALL clubs get decisions in each game that go both for and against them. Balotelli, in the example in pages before this one, was lucky to not only stay on the field on Sunday but he was also lucky the ref said he saw the incident and therefore is only banned for 3 matches and not the potential 9 he was looking at. If such an agenda was rife then Balotelli would have had the book thrown at him the the pony that is the FA. Because he hasn't though some on here say it is only because the FA don't want to be looked at as having an agenda against us, therefore because it's looking we are out of the title race the decision was made to not punish Balotelli! People are THAT paranoid that they are now saying the FA are going for us so's the anti City/pro United agenda doesn't become too obvious. It' laughable.

Ahem...is there any chance you could answer my question though with regards to the 'impartiality' of 'some referees'? Or are you saying that all referees always give an honest and fair-minded appraisal of all incidents in all circumstances? Do you think this is the case?

IMO, there's a few refs who may be capable of bottling a big call at somewhere like OT, Stamford Bridge or the Emirates. Whether that be because they want to ref the big games or they don't want to be on the receiving end of a managerial backlash. This should no way be confused with corruption and bias.

 

[mikeyk07]

I think it is highly likely that Fergie has a full dossier on every Premier League referrees.

He will undobtedly know which ones are pedantic, as to the ones that blow for even the slightest of physical contact, to the ones that are more likely to wave play on.

I would not be suprised if he finsihes every team talk... The ref today is....

The key for Mancini, is coming up to speed with all of them.

For example Mason tonight will blow for any physical contact and Roberto should be making all the players fully aware of this.

 

[Nascent Blues]

Do you believe that some referees are conciously/subconsciously biased and lack, in varying degrees, the prerequisite that is surely the cornerstone of honest and therefore competent refereeing: the prerequisite being impartiality?

I think referees are professional as they can be and give decision as they see them in real time, from pitch level. I believe there are some decisions which will go for United and which will inevitably piss people off, and I think there are decisions which will go against United. I think that last night it is very likely that Fleetwood may have got a decision from the ref from their game with Wrexham which their fans could look into as the ref fucking up their promotion party. Not one person on here ould give a toss about that as Fleetwood Town means nothing. If United got a decision which 'assists' them, (or in my eyes as that particular ref saw it at that time), people on here and many other board nationwide think it's because a ref is scared or that a ref has some pro-United agenda. People believe that because they are adamant that the biggest club in the country are assisted by referees in each and every game. Point being ALL clubs get decisions in each game that go both for and against them. Balotelli, in the example in pages before this one, was lucky to not only stay on the field on Sunday but he was also lucky the ref said he saw the incident and therefore is only banned for 3 matches and not the potential 9 he was looking at. If such an agenda was rife then Balotelli would have had the book thrown at him the the pony that is the FA. Because he hasn't though some on here say it is only because the FA don't want to be looked at as having an agenda against us, therefore because it's looking we are out of the title race the decision was made to not punish Balotelli! People are THAT paranoid that they are now saying the FA are going for us so's the anti City/pro United agenda doesn't become too obvious. It' laughable.[/quote]

That's the key for me. I mean, according to many on here, this United bias and corruption bollocks has been going on since about '94 (as that is when they began to win things isn't it)?

This whole thing has gone largely unnoticed and rarely mentioned throughout the years until, coincidentally, City begin to challenge for the biggest prize in English football and all of a sudden Bluemoon has put all the 'evidence' together and uncovered a conspiracy. Noone on here really gave a fuck 10 years ago because you were on different levels. Now you've been elevated to the highest level in such a short time it's like your heads have gone dizzy and the excuses have to come rolling out.

What do you think the FA were discussing in the pre-season conferences a few months after Arsenal & Chelsea were dominating?

"Right gentlemen, the cartel has been upset and looks to be showing no signs of change. How can we get Manchester United back to the top of the league without making it too obvious"?

Quit with the excuses, deal with the fact that they've had some luck this season and go and do what Mourinho & Wenger have done a number of times and win the fucking league. As I keep saying, your squad is capable.

The interview with Micah shows he knows the real reason why United are where they are despite being 2nd best for a large part of the season. Ferguson. That's it.

*awaits comments such as "Well, Micah isn't going to come out and say the FA are corrupt twatzoids are they"?

I agree with the anti-agenda sentiment, and I also think the word 'agenda' is far from helpful and only clouds the issue at hand. The issue I have is one of what can only be described as institutionalized bias.

I used to watch Salford (rugby league) many years ago and it was the same then: any 50/50 or 60/40 in your favour went to Wigan, St Helens or Leeds. Against Featherstone or Widnes is was pretty balanced; put a top team in the mix and the referees, in the main, give them the benefit of the doubt to the detriment of the opposing side.

I don't believe their is an agenda/conspiracy, but I do honestly believe that referees have their favourates and that these favourates reside with the established 'elite' clubs.

Just a quick question: how many times have you witnessed a referee try to eradicate a previous shit decision by awarding another dubious decision to the opposing side soon after the original shit had been made - a dodgy free-kick being awarded to the side defending after a dodgy corner has been given? And before anybody says this question contradicts my own argument (because the referee is trying balance things out) it doesn't because the referee is not being impartial in this situation, merely using his own bias to correct probable mistake.

 

[Bill]

as soon as we score tonight the rags will be notified and a penalty will be given at wigan.

 

[coleridge]

as soon as we score tonight the rags will be notified and a penalty will be given at wigan.

The old ones are always the best. Wigan have already lodged an appeal against tonight's red card, and so on...

 

[Pigeonho]

as soon as we score tonight the rags will be notified and a penalty will be given at wigan.

ABSOLUTE FUCKING BOLLOCKS


there'll be a sending off too ;-)

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

So where's this agenda which could and should have handed Balotelli an additional ban for the Song tackle.

All it took was for the referee to cover his arse, as Webb did in the Parker incident.

Referees subconsciously favour the home team, the bigger team, the winning team.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

So where's this agenda which could and should have handed Balotelli an additional ban for the Song tackle.
All it took was for the referee to cover his arse, as Webb did in the Parker incident.

Referees subconsciously favour the home team, the bigger team, the winning team.

Haven't you heard? The FA have now activated 'Operation Balance'.

This being where the FA now proceed to be lenient towards City and to try and balance the decisions out so they don't come across as 'too bias' because apparently the title is effectively over.

 

[Nascent Blues]

I think referees are professional as they can be and give decision as they see them in real time, from pitch level. I believe there are some decisions which will go for United and which will inevitably piss people off, and I think there are decisions which will go against United. I think that last night it is very likely that Fleetwood may have got a decision from the ref from their game with Wrexham which their fans could look into as the ref fucking up their promotion party. Not one person on here ould give a toss about that as Fleetwood Town means nothing. If United got a decision which 'assists' them, (or in my eyes as that particular ref saw it at that time), people on here and many other board nationwide think it's because a ref is scared or that a ref has some pro-United agenda. People believe that because they are adamant that the biggest club in the country are assisted by referees in each and every game. Point being ALL clubs get decisions in each game that go both for and against them. Balotelli, in the example in pages before this one, was lucky to not only stay on the field on Sunday but he was also lucky the ref said he saw the incident and therefore is only banned for 3 matches and not the potential 9 he was looking at. If such an agenda was rife then Balotelli would have had the book thrown at him the the pony that is the FA. Because he hasn't though some on here say it is only because the FA don't want to be looked at as having an agenda against us, therefore because it's looking we are out of the title race the decision was made to not punish Balotelli! People are THAT paranoid that they are now saying the FA are going for us so's the anti City/pro United agenda doesn't become too obvious. It' laughable.

Ahem...is there any chance you could answer my question though with regards to the 'impartiality' of 'some referees'? Or are you saying that all referees always give an honest and fair-minded appraisal of all incidents in all circumstances? Do you think this is the case?

Ahem....
Yes I do think that is the case. Example off the top of my head. Atkinson would no doubt be able to justify the extra time given at Old Trafford when Owen scored the winner. He was the ref, afterall and added the time he deemed fit to add. Because Owen went and got the winner, it obviously brought out the conspiracy theorists on here but what if we had gone and got the winner? The time was added for both teams based on that halfs events, not just for United's benefit. If we had gone and won it not one mention of Atkinson being a 'rag' would have been spoke of. Thing is though there wouldn't have been any mention of him being a Blue either, it would simply have been accepted that the time added on was correct.

Listen, it's all about opinions, and if you honestly believe that is not one single referee who has/would give a decision based on a personal liking/disliking of a club, player or manager or with the belief that some sort of professional self-preservation or personal promotion will be assisted by giving a particular decision then fair enough. I just happen to believe that that is a ridiculously naive stance to take, especially taking into account the human fallibilities and weaknesses that most people generally succumb to once in a while.