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.

Are, in many situations then, biased?

No, human.

Prone to coercion, pressure, irrationality, impulsiveness, subconscious, the crowd, error.

Now if you're asking me whether the bigger teams, the successful ones, are still the main beneficiaries of that, I would say yes.

Just built up over time, the human psyche.

 

[Dubai Blue]

This talk could be dismissed if only there was a city fan in a position of influence at English footballs governing body. Surely he'd be able to see through all this corruption.
Until then, the FA are in united's pocket.
Oh.

Nonsense.

How can that be nonsense?

The man who runs the organisation you're all accusing of being corrupt to the core and doing all in its power to aid Manchester United to title after title is not only a lifelong Manchester City supporter but an ex-chairman of the club.

I'm sure we can agree that if this conspiracy really exists then the man at the top of the organisation peddling said conspiracy would know all about it. So I'm expected to believe that David Bernstein has suddenly decided to ditch his morals and just go along with it? Now that really is nonsense.

 

[cyprustavern]

This talk could be dismissed if only there was a city fan in a position of influence at English footballs governing body. Surely he'd be able to see through all this corruption.
Until then, the FA are in united's pocket.
Oh.

Nonsense.

How can that be nonsense?

The man who runs the organisation you're all accusing of being corrupt to the core and doing all in its power to aid Manchester United to title after title is not only a lifelong Manchester City supporter but an ex-chairman of the club.

I'm sure we can agree that if this conspiracy really exists then the man at the top of the organisation peddling said conspiracy would know all about it. So I'm expected to believe that David Bernstein has suddenly decided to ditch his morals and just go along with it? Now that really is nonsense.

There you go pretending theres an organised conspiracy with secret handshakes again,its not quite so obvious as that .

 

[friend]

Its just obvious enough for you to see it, but not the chairman of the FA.

Ok.

 

[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.

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.

This is where I disagree. I posted in another thread about how if you lost 10 quid on the 1st of January you wouldn't expect to find exactly 10 quid over the following year. To actually assume that decisions even themselves out is totally fucking illogical - why would they? I also mentioned in an earlier post about Salford (and other small rugby league teams),over many years, getting relatively fuck all, because the top teams invariably get the rub of the green. It has been, is and will be the same in football. To say that the top, established teams, don't come up trumps with regards to decisions over an entire season just doesn't bear out what I witness on a weekly basis.

 

[Pigeonho]

Its just obvious enough for you to see it, but not the chairman of the FA.

Ok.

I can hear you typing in the hole in the sand next to mine. Cosy in here eh?!

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

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.

I'm just listing IMO, more realistic possible reasons as to why some decisions favour the big home side. There's no saying that's true obviously as many a referee has given similar bad decisions to the bigs sides and sometimes on their home patch.

I think if there is any truth in 'wrongdoings' at all, then it's more likely down to the odd individual who may, on occasion, let his heart rule his head (albeit not all the time) when making a big call. At the end of the day its human nature to sometimes put yourself first in any situation.

I think that is far more believable (whilst not definitely true) as opposed to the scale of corruption that's been banded about on here for month on end.

 

[Blue Mooner]

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 b miecause 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.

Its all about 'context' and that is the thing you are missing. The time added on in the game you mention was clearly to and for the benefit of united. We were happy with a draw away at OT united were not, united were dominating in this particular period of the game and hence the added time, more than likely, was to benefit the rags, and not us, and so it proved.

Had it been clearly obvious at the time that 6 minutes was more than justified then you wouldnt have heard a complaint from me but no one at the time could understand where the extra minutes when there had been no injuries, came from - that was the first time i had heard substitutions used to justify extra 'injury' time.

Clearly wrong decisions are made by all referees but this in no way justifies the amount of times the rags seem to benefit from in some cases outrageous decisions and how few times they are seemingly on the end of wrong ones.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Nonsense.

How can that be nonsense?

The man who runs the organisation you're all accusing of being corrupt to the core and doing all in its power to aid Manchester United to title after title is not only a lifelong Manchester City supporter but an ex-chairman of the club.

I'm sure we can agree that if this conspiracy really exists then the man at the top of the organisation peddling said conspiracy would know all about it. So I'm expected to believe that David Bernstein has suddenly decided to ditch his morals and just go along with it? Now that really is nonsense.

There you go pretending theres an organised conspiracy with secret handshakes again,its not quite so obvious as that .

If it's not then I really don't know what the fuck you're all prattling on about because you all change your minds on a daily basis to suit whatever has just happened.

Yesterday the 'agenda-ists' were up in arms saying how it was a disgrace that nothing had been done about Ivanovich when Balotelli was certain to be banned. Now that the opposite has happened, it's all some sort of intricate plot to make it look like they're not that biased after all.

If just one of you conspiracy theorists had predicted that before the event, I might be able to take you a bit more seriously. But none of you did. You've just all decided to change your tune because the wind happens to be blowing in a different direction today.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

This talk could be dismissed if only there was a city fan in a position of influence at English footballs governing body. Surely he'd be able to see through all this corruption.
Until then, the FA are in united's pocket.
Oh.

Nonsense.

How can that be nonsense?

The man who runs the organisation you're all accusing of being corrupt to the core and doing all in its power to aid Manchester United to title after title is not only a lifelong Manchester City supporter but an ex-chairman of the club.

I'm sure we can agree that if this conspiracy really exists then the man at the top of the organisation peddling said conspiracy would know all about it. So I'm expected to believe that David Bernstein has suddenly decided to ditch his morals and just go along with it? Now that really is nonsense.

Like I said earlier.......Murdoch's empire have Bernstein's wife & kids locked in a dungeon somewhere so he has no choice but to let it slide......<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:56 pm --<br /><br />

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).

That's a fair point mate. Each to their own I suppose.

Can you understand how I find it frustrating to find 'rag' insults being thrown at me just because I oppose the majority on said topic though? Apologies if my last post give you the impression I thought you were on of the ones insinuating such a thing.