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

[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.

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.

Ah, that old chesnut!

Genius.

 

[cyprustavern]

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.

For a neutral you dont half have a strong viewpoint on this.If I was on an Oldham forum(unlikely) I really wouldnt care much.

 

[MCFC BOB]

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.

For a neutral you dont half have a strong viewpoint on this.If I was on an Oldham forum(unlikely) I really wouldnt care much.

Go on, just say it! You know you want to. That old 'R-word'.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

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.

Do you believe it could be a case (as I have previously mentioned) that a select few referees are capable of bottling a big decision against the home team at grounds such as OT, Stamford Bridge, Emirates and Anfield? Whether it be due to the want to referee such high profile games in future or to not be in the receiving end of a backlash from said manager in the post match interview?

Also, what is your opinion on the comment Pidge mentioned above (in bold) out of curiosity?

 

[Nascent Blues]

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.

Are, in many situations then, biased?

 

[cyprustavern]

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.

For a neutral you dont half have a strong viewpoint on this.If I was on an Oldham forum(unlikely) I really wouldnt care much.

Go on, just say it! You know you want to. That old 'R-word'.

If i wanted to believe me i would flower.

 

[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.

For a neutral you dont half have a strong viewpoint on this.If I was on an Oldham forum(unlikely) I really wouldnt care much.

I like to discuss football and considering our forum is shite and this forum is arguably the best football forum around, you get a better discussion going on here. It's just unfortunate that because in this case the discussion is about corruption - and me not believing it - that the flipside is people start to think I am a 'rag'.

 

[Pigeonho]

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.

Yeah but everyone says it United who get all the decisions and that we don't! So on that basis then every ref must be a United fan, thus hating City. That is the general opinion on here that United get ALL of the decisions in their favour. That, of course, is complete bollocks. They get decision for and against them like we do and like all of the other clubs do. Thing is though, as said re Atkinson, refs aren't labelled Blues on here when we get decisions for us, it's as though people just need to feel we are hated and that United are loved. Why that would be I have no idea.

 

[cyprustavern]

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.

For a neutral you dont half have a strong viewpoint on this.If I was on an Oldham forum(unlikely) I really wouldnt care much.

I like to discuss football and considering our forum is shite and this forum is arguably the best football forum around, you get a better discussion going on here. It's just unfortunate that because in this case the discussion is about corruption - and me not believing it - that the flipside is people start to think I am a 'rag'.

I dont know if you are a rag or not mate,you`re entitled to your opinion ..theres a lot of city lads that think talk of corruption is insane, cloud cuckoo land apparently.I just doubt i would be that vocal against it if i was on an Oldham forum thats all (just my opinion).

 

[Nascent Blues]

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.

Do you believe it could be a case (as I have previously mentioned) that a select few referees are capable of bottling a big decision against the home team at grounds such as OT, Stamford Bridge, Emirates and Anfield? Whether it be due to the want to referee such high profile games in future or to not be in the receiving end of a backlash from said manager in the post match interview?

Also, what is your opinion on the comment Pidge mentioned above (in bold) out of curiosity?

That's not incompetence though, is it? If you don't want to give a decision that you think should be given because you believe that it may affect your chance to referee in a future high-profile game then that's one - or all of - biased, bent, corrupt, self-promoting, surely?

With regards to Pidge's comment, I think the added time, if we'd have scored, would have been cheered to fuck, even more so if the goal would have come off Beller's hand. But I still would have thought that 7 minutes was a bullshit amount of time to add on, regardless whether we had taken advantage of it, and I would have wound up all the rags I know with that in mind. But the amount of time was bullshit.