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

[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.

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.

Ok then, so what did Martin Atkinson have to gain from adding that time 'clearly for the benefit of United'?

1. So's he didn't get shouted at off Fergie? (that regularly gets said on here, that grown men fear being shouted at off another grown man)

2. Because 'he's a rag ****'

3. So he gets another United game because he won't have been shouted at off Fergie

4. Because he needs/wants/has been told to make City fail?

5. So he can sleep well at night knowing Sky will shove a few grand into his account for keeping their cash cow up top?

6. Any of the above?

7. Any other reason?


Oh, and what if we had scored? What would have happened then?

 

[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?

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.

Exactly, although I would have also included the word prejudice.

Without getting into the semantics of your first sentence, I would suggest that all those things you listed, added together, pretty much equates to the same thing as bias - one team, more often than not, getting favourable decisions to the detriment of the other, less fashionable, established and powerful team. I also think that on many occasions referees make a conscious decision that they believe, in the general context of a game, or particular moment of a game, is fair and proper, even if the decision is by the law incorrect.

 

[Blue Mooner]

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.

Absolutely not, it merely proves the point that by making a seemingly favourable decision, albeit nonsensical in the context of what happened previously to balotelli, that it gives fuel to those who think we are not unfairly treated.

It is merely reasonable to point out that the decision has not benefited us in any way as Mancini had no intention of playing him anyway, any challenges we were making have virtually been decided, therefore the positive advantage to us is zero. All it has done is provide some very weak ammunition that we are not unfairly treated and those naysayers couldnt wait to buy into it and now object to us pointing out that this has not benefitted us in anyway, in the same way that punishing balo at this stage of the season would have had little impact on the outcome of the season.

 

[cyprustavern]

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.

I dont change my mind its been made for a long time,Marios ban is neither here nor there for me..hes banned for 3 games anyway so 3 ..or ..6 ..or 9 we will have to deal with it,im sure there has been similar tackles this season that havent warranted the witchhunt though.You see the media are a huge part of the problem here...they are hugely responsible for what the FA does or doesnt do(in essence they are influential in running things).Huge pressure on Webb to adhere to public / media outcry regards the Parker incident,he duly buckled)..the only way to start to overcome it is by winning games with style etc,that is where the team and manager (no one else to blame) has fucked up big time in about 6 of the last 8 games.

 

[fathellensbellend]

surely in the interests of the game, technology needs to be used where possible to restore faith in the game.

the 4th official need not get involved in minor problems, but when a goal is scored or created from a clearly offside situation, then wheres the problem.

i certainly dont think it would undermine the match ref because the 4th officials are in effect "top referees".

the 4th official only need intervene where absolutely required, thus resulting in more correct decisions.

 

[Gary James]

From the Football Is Fixed blog Link

The three core referees whose match performances exhibit (obviously unintentional) bias in favour of Manchester United continue to be utilised in favour of the Red Devils despite the retirement of Red Walton.

Having been given Howard Webb as referee or dominant 4th official to a very junior referee in the last three Premier League games, the EPL have made Chris Foy the 4th official for the next match at Eastlands versus West Bromwich Albion.

This is key for two reasons.

Firstly, even though Fred Done has paid out on a United triumph, the combination of Arsenal away and Foy on the Albion should neatly terminate interest.

Secondly, any sendings off or players reaching the level of a ban for bookings will mean such individuals miss the Manchester derby. Ferguson wants more revenge and continues to be willing to bring the game into disrepute in so doing. In 2012, City have not won any match where one of the Old Trafford Three are in charge.

What a weird fluke!

And on 25th March Link:

Why Manchester City Will Not Win The Title

Since Man Utd lost to Blackburn and Newcastle, things have changed...

We have previously blogged that Peter Walton, in the last 22 matches where he has refereed City or United, has produced 0 City victories and 0 United defeats, but there are two (possibly three) other PGMOB referees with a marked bias in decision making in favour of the Old Trafford club - Chris Foy, Howard Webb and Anthony Taylor are the men in question.

In the 11 league matches since Newcastle/Blackburn (including the City/Utd FA Cup tie as it is pertinent to the argument), Manchester United have been given Walton, Webb, Foy or Taylor (WWFT) as referee/4th official for 8 of those matches.
WWFT gives United 6 wins 1 draw 0 defeats with Fulham to come!!!

We list these matches, results and match decisions at the end of this blog. In the same period, Manchester City have won 8 out of 9 league matches when not subjected to any of the WWFT team.

On the three occasions where WWFT have intervened, City lost at Everton, drew at Stoke and were mugged by Foy in the FA Cup match.
City 8 wins 0 draws 1 defeat without WWFT versus City 0 wins 1 draw 2 defeats with WWFT!!!

This is not normal. And the match decisions merely enhance our case that the 2011/12 Premier League title is a sham.

Man Utd Matches Refereed By WWFT Since Newcastle/Blackburn

Man City Won (Sending Off in Favour of United) Foy - referee.
Bolton Won (Penalty in Favour of United) Walton - referee.
Stoke Won (2 Penalties in Favour of United) Foy - 4th official to junior referee.
Chelsea Drew (2 Penalties in Favour of United) Webb - referee.
Liverpool Won Taylor - 4th official.
West Brom Won (Sending Off and Penalty in Favour of United) Foy - 4th official to junior referee.
Wolves Won (Sending off in Favour of United) Taylor - referee; Webb - 4th official.
Fulham on Monday night - Webb - 4th official to junior referee.

I have to say that as someone who tries to see all sides to an argument, the longer this season continues the more I lose my faith in referees. I truly hope they are impartial, but I'm finding it more difficult to believe they act impartially.

It worries me enormously that whether they know it or not they are acting in a way that does give certain clubs an advantage. I questioned their consistency earlier in the season and expressed my desire to see proper use of video technology in games - I cannot see any logicaly reason why any football manager would not want this.

They could have a proper tennis like appeal system which allowed a manager to raise a set number of challenges per game (1 per half?). If they are proved correct the original decision is reversed and they get the opportunity for further appeals. If they are wrong, then they lose their appeal and play continues as planned (or with a free kick to their opponents).

This could easily have been accomodated in Utd's last game and would have proved the penalty should not have been given because of the offside.

City and similarly minded clubs should push for this now.

 

[fathellensbellend]

From the Football Is Fixed blog Link

The three core referees whose match performances exhibit (obviously unintentional) bias in favour of Manchester United continue to be utilised in favour of the Red Devils despite the retirement of Red Walton.

Having been given Howard Webb as referee or dominant 4th official to a very junior referee in the last three Premier League games, the EPL have made Chris Foy the 4th official for the next match at Eastlands versus West Bromwich Albion.

This is key for two reasons.

Firstly, even though Fred Done has paid out on a United triumph, the combination of Arsenal away and Foy on the Albion should neatly terminate interest.

Secondly, any sendings off or players reaching the level of a ban for bookings will mean such individuals miss the Manchester derby. Ferguson wants more revenge and continues to be willing to bring the game into disrepute in so doing. In 2012, City have not won any match where one of the Old Trafford Three are in charge.

What a weird fluke!

And on 25th March Link:

Why Manchester City Will Not Win The Title

Since Man Utd lost to Blackburn and Newcastle, things have changed...

We have previously blogged that Peter Walton, in the last 22 matches where he has refereed City or United, has produced 0 City victories and 0 United defeats, but there are two (possibly three) other PGMOB referees with a marked bias in decision making in favour of the Old Trafford club - Chris Foy, Howard Webb and Anthony Taylor are the men in question.

In the 11 league matches since Newcastle/Blackburn (including the City/Utd FA Cup tie as it is pertinent to the argument), Manchester United have been given Walton, Webb, Foy or Taylor (WWFT) as referee/4th official for 8 of those matches.
WWFT gives United 6 wins 1 draw 0 defeats with Fulham to come!!!

We list these matches, results and match decisions at the end of this blog. In the same period, Manchester City have won 8 out of 9 league matches when not subjected to any of the WWFT team.

On the three occasions where WWFT have intervened, City lost at Everton, drew at Stoke and were mugged by Foy in the FA Cup match.
City 8 wins 0 draws 1 defeat without WWFT versus City 0 wins 1 draw 2 defeats with WWFT!!!

This is not normal. And the match decisions merely enhance our case that the 2011/12 Premier League title is a sham.

Man Utd Matches Refereed By WWFT Since Newcastle/Blackburn

Man City Won (Sending Off in Favour of United) Foy - referee.
Bolton Won (Penalty in Favour of United) Walton - referee.
Stoke Won (2 Penalties in Favour of United) Foy - 4th official to junior referee.
Chelsea Drew (2 Penalties in Favour of United) Webb - referee.
Liverpool Won Taylor - 4th official.
West Brom Won (Sending Off and Penalty in Favour of United) Foy - 4th official to junior referee.
Wolves Won (Sending off in Favour of United) Taylor - referee; Webb - 4th official.
Fulham on Monday night - Webb - 4th official to junior referee.

I have to say that as someone who tries to see all sides to an argument, the longer this season continues the more I lose my faith in referees. I truly hope they are impartial, but I'm finding it more difficult to believe they act impartially.

It worries me enormously that whether they know it or not they are acting in a way that does give certain clubs an advantage. I questioned their consistency earlier in the season and expressed my desire to see proper use of video technology in games - I cannot see any logicaly reason why any football manager would not want this.

They could have a proper tennis like appeal system which allowed a manager to raise a set number of challenges per game (1 per half?). If they are proved correct the original decision is reversed and they get the opportunity for further appeals. If they are wrong, then they lose their appeal and play continues as planned (or with a free kick to their opponents).

This could easily have been accomodated in Utd's last game and would have proved the penalty should not have been given because of the offside.

City and similarly minded clubs should push for this now.

i am not convinced those in power would advocate this, they have everything to lose.

 

[Dubai Blue]

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.

Absolutely not, it merely proves the point that by making a seemingly favourable decision, albeit nonsensical in the context of what happened previously to balotelli, that it gives fuel to those who think we are not unfairly treated.

It is merely reasonable to point out that the decision has not benefited us in any way as Mancini had no intention of playing him anyway, any challenges we were making have virtually been decided, therefore the positive advantage to us is zero. All it has done is provide some very weak ammunition that we are not unfairly treated and those naysayers couldnt wait to buy into it and now object to us pointing out that this has not benefitted us in anyway, in the same way that punishing balo at this stage of the season would have had little impact on the outcome of the season.

My point is that yesterday everyone was wailing and stamping their feet because Balotelli was going to be banned for 9 games and nothing was going to happen to Ivanovich. The conspiracy theorists were absolutely certain that we were going to get the book thrown at us because we're Manchester City.

None of you said, "You know what, we're not a threat anymore this season so they'll throw us a token gesture in a vain attempt to prove that they're not so bent after all."

You seem so certain that this is the agenda at play today, yet nobody even gave it a second thought yesterday. As I said, your theories change with the direction of the wind.

 

[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.

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.

From where I'm reading he has not said that. He's just sad that team get decision for and against them. He's not mentioning numbers.

I don't buy into the 'it evens itself out over a season' nonsense either.

What baffles me is how there's always a 'sly' reason why decisions are given against United.

1. To even things out which have happened earlier in the season
2. Because it has happened a time in the game which gives the opposition no time to bounce back
3. Because the ref knows he's already given a bad decision in favour of them, he preceeds to give small, irrelevant decisions against them to make it look fair.

There always seems to be a reason why they've been awarded decisions against them instead of just saying, unlucky.

 

[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.

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.

Ok then, so what did Martin Atkinson have to gain from adding that time 'clearly for the benefit of United'?

1. So's he didn't get shouted at off Fergie? (that regularly gets said on here, that grown men fear being shouted at off another grown man)

2. Because 'he's a rag ****'

3. So he gets another United game because he won't have been shouted at off Fergie

4. Because he needs/wants/has been told to make City fail?

5. So he can sleep well at night knowing Sky will shove a few grand into his account for keeping their cash cow up top?

6. Any of the above?

7. Any other reason?


Oh, and what if we had scored? What would have happened then?

This has been answered several times. It's not about a conspiracy or agenda, it's about referees succumbing to external pressures, imaginary or not, such as: the media, fans, managers, importance of a match to a particular club, status of a particular club etc coupled with internal pressures such as: not wanting to fucking up on a big stage; wanting to referee high-profile matches; knows that he can give a decision against a particular player and if it's wrong then, so what, there are no repercussions, see Barton, Balotelli, Shawcross et al.