What you describe sounds exactly like corruption.
He profits from continuing to get big games. He was dropped for a short while, then in the Premier League soon after, so you can hardly say it damaged him, it didnt.
So what other impact does it have? Maybe keeping title races close? Possibly. After all, that's what the Premier League wants, along with a "new winner every six years". How can refs help deliver that?
One other example I'd suggest was Anthony Taylor's in our 1-0 defeat at Anfield last year. There was the var decision to rule out Foden's goal, but I'll ignore that. It happens, could go either way, there was a pull.
What he did though was referee evenly. He applied the law equally to both sides. BUT he basically gave nothing, barely gave a freekick and it ended up as a free for all. Liverpool thrive on winning the second ball and quick transitions. We thrive on control. Well his refereeing performance meant that any chance of control went out the window and we had to play them at their game. That to me was a rigged refereeing performance, despite both sides being treated equally.
Anything that helps provide specific results due to influence, is corrupt. The gain doesn't have to be someone handing over cash in a brown envelope to the ref in question.
I agree with most of what you are saying. Maybe there's a fine line between corruption and incompetence, but proving corruption is very hard to do.
I don't believe anyone seriously can think Attwell's allowance of the ghost goal was a corrupt act. It did absolutely nothing to enhance his reputation or career or, as far as we know, bank balance. Also, he acted on the advice of his assistant referee. This is just pure bad refereeing for not being in a position to see how the ball crossed the line.
In my view, Attwell is just a poor referee and shouldn't be at this level.
Taylor on the other hand is extremely suspect. The Liverpool game you accurately observe, is a perfect example of how a referee can devise a plan to referee according to the rules, yet in a way that will benefit one team.
The infamous Luis incident. His first instinct was to give a foul, and the world saw him change his mind. Later on, he allowed City's frustrations to boil over. He could have easily stepped in to keep players apart and avoid sending off either or both of Aguero and Fernandinho. He didn't, but his refereeing of that game has never been questioned outside of this forum.
The penalty against Arsenal, from a collision. Yes there was contact, so he can technically be correct. But look at 100 other similar incidents he has refereed, and not one penalty had been given.
The Delph dismissal. He made no allowance for the conditions.
There is a growing body of evidence against Taylor to suggest he does not referee us evenly. I genuinely can't bring to mind one single marginal decision from him that has directly benefited us.
