Topic: The corruption fallacy - they’re all out to get us!

[Eeyore]

Giving decisions that mean he isn't blamed for the officiating teams mistakes is not the same as 'effectively fixing' a match, he even says himself in the same interview that the penalty he awarded for Torres was 50/50 and 'not one which you'd want to decide a game on'.

Clattenberg allowing a goal he knew was offside to stand is altering the course of the game though. As for the penalty when he says 'not one which you would want to decide a game on', what he means is he wouldn't have given it normally. He wouldn't have given it because if that was the going to decide the game then his head would be on the block.

He has altered the course of the game to protect his reputation and to help him get further high-profile games. That is corrupt.

Now don't get me wrong, he shouldn't be doing that in a match which he's refereeing, two wrongs don't make a right and if you wanted to argue that him making decisions to avoid getting the blame is corrupt then I think you'd have a fair case to argue that. What it isn't, however, is Clattenburg giving a decision in order to make a certain result in the match liklier to happen, it's for his own, personal, selfish reasons.



I've said this several times but if the point that is being made is that referees have their own bias', their own agendas and that decisions on the pitch sometimes reflect them, then I'd agree, human beings inevitably try to cover their mistakes and the referees are like the police in that they'll close ranks and protect one another. I can absoltuely believe that decisions are made based on how likely a referee is to get called up on make the wrong one, I'm sure there's a huge element of self-preservation and that is totally wrong, it should be dealt with and the fact PGMOL are the way they are makes doing so very difficult.  If, however, the argument is being made that referees are somehow deliberately trying to influence the result of a game in order to favour certain teams then I don't see much evidence of that.

The Tomkins data though categorically shows there are bias issues. Things like the decisions we get with Manchester-based officials or even more glaringly the treatment Salah gets is clear bias. We are talking about huge sample sizes that show huge deviations.

Given that data then what are PGMOL doing about it. They either need to work with the officials to ensure the bias is eradicated or bring in new officials. People talk about tribalism but data doesn't do tribalism. So how do posters explain the disparity in outcomes?

You simply cannot explain decisions like Salah getting clotheslined by Bernardo Silva right in front of the official and nothing being given. You cannot explain Robbo being assaulted by an official. You cannot explain Diaz's goal being disallowed, Jones's red card, Jota's red card and Udogies waving of the yellow card in the Refs face being ignored. You cannot explain away Odegaard's handball or Salah having a perfectly good goal ruled out against Burnley without a VAR check.

Taylor has done three Liverpool games this season. Newcastle in which he kept the score line respectable, Chelsea in which he ignored a stonewall handball






 and Brighton in which he failed to send off a Brighton player.


 

Apparently, this wasn't a denial of a goalscoring opportunity.


Add in normally mild-mannered Trent having to be held back from confronting Taylor and Dunk being sent off for calling him a cheat and there is clearly an issue with Taylor.

You could argue that in a tight title race Taylor could easily have cost us 4 points and a shit load of goal difference in three games.

[Fitzy.]

Well if a Raith Rovers fan is calling it bent then close the thread. Close RAWK. Close the internet. Close football.

[Fitzy.]

These examples - which are exhausting - are evidence of fallibility. Imperfect men being flawed. Writing hundreds of words isn’t, in itself, evidence of corruption.

Now do a post showing favourable decisions…incredibly one-eyed.

[Eeyore]

Well if a Raith Rovers fan is calling it bent then close the thread. Close RAWK. Close the internet. Close football.

Scottish football is bent though. They allow ringers to pretend to be keepers and then smash half volleys in from 35 yards.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/13039907/sub-goalkeeper-scores-screamer-whilst-playing-as-striker

[Eeyore]

These examples - which are exhausting - are evidence of fallibility. Imperfect men being flawed. Writing hundreds of words isn’t, in itself, evidence of corruption.

Now do a post showing favourable decisions…incredibly one-eyed.

There are two problems with that. How do explain huge deviations in the exhaustive data set Tomkins has provided. I mean the Salah one is just obscene.



Secondly, Anthony Taylor is ranked as one of the best referees in the World. He was the first official to get 2 FA Cup finals for a hundred years. he officiates in the Champions League and European and World Cup tournaments. He is one of the best of the best.

So either he saves his unintentional bloopers for our games or he is biased.

[MD1990]

i hope they are not listening to Gary Neville when he commentates on Liverpool.
Sounded like he was trying to influence VAR at times vs Newcastle

[tubby]

There are two problems with that. How do explain huge deviations in the exhaustive data set Tomkins has provided. I mean the Salah one is just obscene.



Secondly, Anthony Taylor is ranked as one of the best referees in the World. He was the first official to get 2 FA Cup finals for a hundred years. he officiates in the Champions League and European and World Cup tournaments. He is one of the best of the best.

So either he saves his unintentional bloopers for our games or he is biased.

But the Tompkins data says Taylor is actually one of the decent refs for us.  If he's not, and the Tompkins data isn't capturing more nuanced information, then you can't use it to prove anything.

You have to pick one or the other, either the Tompkins data is correct, or Taylor is biased against us, can't have it both ways.

[jillcwhomever]

There are two problems with that. How do explain huge deviations in the exhaustive data set Tomkins has provided. I mean the Salah one is just obscene.



Secondly, Anthony Taylor is ranked as one of the best referees in the World. He was the first official to get 2 FA Cup finals for a hundred years. he officiates in the Champions League and European and World Cup tournaments. He is one of the best of the best.

So either he saves his unintentional bloopers for our games or he is biased.

I am sorry Al but this has to be said. There isn't a football fan following any team in the country that won't claim that referee have "got it in for them." Ask a number of fans who follower clubs from outside the top 6 and they will all claim that referees favour the bigger clubs. Nothing you or even Paul have written is proof of any bias. Referees make errors, yes we've all seen that in a number of games this season. But it doesn't prove they are working against particular football clubs. It's just the fact that the system of refereeing is poor generally. We need a bigger pool of referees, perhaps some who've played football in the past and can read the situation better about what occurs on the pitch.

[Son of Spion]

I hate this assumption that people are on the take, the bottom line is you have to actually prove this by seeing them accepting money. Just because referees work abroad doesn't necessarily mean they are on the take. It's so dangerous that people say this openly without any facts to back them up.

My view on that one is not that they are 'on the take' as such. It's more about how such trips can subtly bring about an unconscious bias or even a conscious bias.

If you go anywhere and are well looked after. Your 'expertise' is seen to be sought after and prized, it makes you feel good. It also has the effect of often leaving you with warm and sympathetic feelings towards those who did the looking after of you.

So it's nothing to do with brown envelopes exchanging hands under tables. The concern, for me at least, is that such jaunts can very easily create subtle bias. It's quite a normal, natural process actually. It's very easy to feel a kinship and warmth towards those who appear to value you and look after you.

A rather outlandish example here, but remember the Krays. Utter scumbags, but many who knew them defended them to the hilt simply because they were ok to them individually. Being 'looked after' by the big bad wolf creates sympathy and loyalty towards the wolf. Feeling approved of by the predator often sees you approving of him right back and defending him wherever and whenever. Again, it's normal human behavior really. It probably stems from basic survival and growth instinct.

The bottom line is that people are often influenced by things other than money in brown envelopes. Referees should not be hosted by nation states who own sportswashing operations in the Premier League. It creates a conflict of interests.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

How's the holiday going Andy? You sound like you're having a nice, relaxing time.

Great thanks - not been online much.

Voodoo Taylor dummies selling like hotcakes!

[Son of Spion]

I'm very suspicious of bias amongst refs, but this was not a game that you'd present as a smoking gun. There were several incidents where we could have been done over, but weren't.

It's funny how that game plays into both extremes of the debate.

I've seen numerous comments in different places about how so many Liverpool fans thought the refereeing was a disgrace against the Saudis and how that referee is ''bent''. People have given examples here so I won't labour the point on those.

But I've also seen numerous comments suggesting that the fact he gave us a "dodgy" penalty was cast iron proof of either his fairness or indeed his bias towards Liverpool.

As you said, it wasn't a game to hold up as the smoking gun.

There's so many ways you could look at it and fit it into any narrative you like. To some, the ref was biased towards the home side and ' gifted them dodgy pens'. To others, a highly dodgy ref threw Liverpool a bone in a game they were steam-rollering anyway, just to throw the suspicious off his scent.

For me, more telling things are long term trends such as some already posted in the thread. They are more concerning.

[jillcwhomever]

My view on that one is not that they are 'on the take' as such. It's more about how such trips can subtly bring about an unconscious bias or even a conscious bias.

If you go anywhere and are well looked after. Your 'expertise' is seen to be sought after and prized, it makes you feel good. It also has the effect of often leaving you with warm and sympathetic feelings towards those who did the looking after of you.

So it's nothing to do with brown envelopes exchanging hands under tables. The concern, for me at least, is that such jaunts can very easily create subtle bias. It's quite a normal, natural process actually. It's very easy to feel a kinship and warmth towards those who appear to value you and look after you.

A rather outlandish example here, but remember the Krays. Utter scumbags, but many who knew them defended them to the hilt simply because they were ok to them individually. Being 'looked after' by the big bad wolf creates sympathy and loyalty towards the wolf. Feeling approved of by the predator often sees you approving of him right back and defending him wherever and whenever. Again, it's normal human behavior really. It probably stems from basic survival and growth instinct.

The bottom line is that people are often influenced by things other than money in brown envelopes. Referees should not be hosted by nation states who own sportswashing operations in the Premier League. It creates a conflict of interests.

I don't disagree with the last lines, but even the explanation above doesn't prove anything overall. We just have a bad system in football generally for dealing with any of these issues.

[Red_Rich]

i hope they are not listening to Gary Neville when he commentates on Liverpool.
Sounded like he was trying to influence VAR at times vs Newcastle

I'd be very surprised if they have SKy commentary on in the VAR room.  But what doesn't surprise me is that Neville might think they do and is trying to influence them with his 'expertise'.

[Pistolero]

Excellent posts Al and SOS....interesting reading with a coffee and <sigh> my final mince pie of the season....

[Son of Spion]

I don't disagree with the last lines, but even the explanation above doesn't prove anything overall. We just have a bad system in football generally for dealing with any of these issues.

It doesn't prove anything, but none of us here can prove anything either way.

My concern is that the bit you agreed with can easily lead to the other bit potentially being quite real.

Basically, it's adding human nature to what we agree already is bad practice.

[rob1966]

I hate this assumption that people are on the take, the bottom line is you have to actually prove this by seeing them accepting money. Just because referees work abroad doesn't necessarily mean they are on the take. It's so dangerous that people say this openly without any facts to back them up.

I don't think anyone is saying they are deffo on the take, but I'd be bloody gobsmacked if at least one ref hasn't taken a brown envelope full of cash at some point, but unless they are caught taking money, then we have to give them the benefit of the coubt. What does bring things into question, is being taken to the Middle East by the owners of a PL club and paid to referee a game - at my work, staff cannot even accept a bottle of wine from a customer, never mind an all expenses paid trip to the Middle East, this will always raise the question of "what are they doing in return?". Then we see the absolute shit show of a performance in the Spurs game.....

My belief and we do see it with our own eyes, if that referees fail to put personal prejudice aside in games, not just involving us, but other teams too. My big issue is that there are certain refs from Utd families, who grew up in Manchester, with all the Anti Scouse shite they spout every day, yet they're supposed to be impartial and these always get our games, as they are classed as the best by PGMOL so get the big games and if you watch them closely, you can see them doing subtle stuff that costs us. Awarding blatant penalties doesn't disprove it, but its things like not allowing play on when its to our advantage to do so, allowing a play on so Joelinton doesn't get booked, Joelinton even being on the pitch. At the away game, he committed something like 10 fouls in 7 minutes and didn't get a card. Kloppo has said himself Tierney has an issue with LFC and with him.

[Eeyore]

I am sorry Al but this has to be said. There isn't a football fan following any team in the country that won't claim that referee have "got it in for them." Ask a number of fans who follower clubs from outside the top 6 and they will all claim that referees favour the bigger clubs. Nothing you or even Paul have written is proof of any bias. Referees make errors, yes we've all seen that in a number of games this season. But it doesn't prove they are working against particular football clubs. It's just the fact that the system of refereeing is poor generally. We need a bigger pool of referees, perhaps some who've played football in the past and can read the situation better about what occurs on the pitch.

That would be akin to saying that the Met isn't institutionally racist and the criminal justice system as a whole isn't biased against black people because prisons are full of people of all races who claim they are innocent.

Once you have data that shows something then it is up to the organisation to show there isn't something amiss.

Just because bias is almost impossible to prove doesn't mean it don't exist. For me it is up to the authorities to show why Salah is such an outlier in terms of getting free kicks.

[Jm55]

That would be akin to saying that the Met isn't institutionally racist and the criminal justice system as a whole isn't biased against black people because prisons are full of people of all races who claim they are innocent.

Once you have data that shows something then it is up to the organisation to show there isn't something amiss.

Just because bias is almost impossible to prove doesn't mean it don't exist. For me it is up to the authorities to show why Salah is such an outlier in terms of getting free kicks.

I 100% agree with you on Salah but I don’t think it’s because he’s a Liverpool player, I think it’s because of his country of origin and possibly his religion, as well as the media campaign that was issued against him in 2019 because he dared to go over (when there was contact) a bit easily on Boxing Day against Newcastle.

Drogba I believe was treated similarly at Chelsea, albeit he genuinely did sometimes go down quite easily from what I remember.

The above is of course terrible and needs to be addressed but it won’t be whilst the country is the way it is, with senior politicians describe deporting people to Rwanda as a ‘dream’.

[Yorkykopite]

The Tomkins data though categorically shows there are bias issues.

You keep on citing this. And you call it "categorical."

Has the article containing the data been 'peer-reviewed'? This is not a flippant question. I genuinely wonder if it has.

If it hasn't, would that concern you?

[Eeyore]

You keep on citing this. And you call it "categorical."

Has the article containing the data been 'peer-reviewed'? This is not a flippant question. I genuinely wonder if it has.

If it hasn't, would that concern you?

Why would it need to be peer reviewed when it is readily available data. For me if Tomkins or Beesley were providing the data then questioning the veracity of the data would be completely correct.

They aren't the data comes from OPTA. I think it is completely fair to question their conclusions but don't really see how you can question 3rd party readily available data.

The big one is the rate Salah gets a foul at. He is a complete outlier.

[Gili Gulu]

Kloppo has said himself Tierney has an issue with LFC and with him.

Here's some more snippets about Tierney from a Paul Tomkins article:

*As either ref or VAR, Tierney has done 23% more Liverpool games since 2019 (When VAR was introduced) than any other official*

After accounting for the strength of opposition, Liverpool win less often under Tierney, look at the table below:





I wonder how long a referee would have continued officiating at Old Trafford under Alex Ferguson with these kind of figures? What's weird is, not only do the PGMOL not let the unhappiness of LFC with Tierney deter them from appointing him to our games, it seems to have the opposite effect and makes them more likely to appoint him.

[Andy82lfc]

Here's some more snippets about Tierney from a Paul Tomkins article:

*As either ref or VAR, Tierney has done 23% more Liverpool games since 2019 (When VAR was introduced) than any other official*

After accounting for the strength of opposition, Liverpool win less often under Tierney, look at the table below:





I wonder how long a referee would have continued officiating at Old Trafford under Alex Ferguson with these kind of figures? What's weird is, not only do the PGMOL not let the unhappiness of LFC with Tierney deter them from appointing him to our games, it seems to have the opposite effect and makes them more likely to appoint him.

People don't like facts these days you know 

I think Rob put it well above, lots like myself and others are not saying they are defo on the take, but to not think there is a good probability they have taken money (especially with ridiculous trips to Abu Dhabi ffs) or are using bias against us (and others at times of course) then you have to wonder why some are so entrenched that it is all just wild coincidence, incompetence and lullabies.

It is way way beyond naive for me to think corruption and/or the use of bias to impact games has not gone on in some form, basic evidence and the power of sight will show that. It makes it very easy for the refs and also incredibly hard to ever know though when or where it happens, mainly due to so much incompetence mixed in along with so many subjective and garbage laws that allow them to do as they wish.

[Eeyore]

I 100% agree with you on Salah but I don’t think it’s because he’s a Liverpool player, I think it’s because of his country of origin and possibly his religion, as well as the media campaign that was issued against him in 2019 because he dared to go over (when there was contact) a bit easily on Boxing Day against Newcastle.

Drogba I believe was treated similarly at Chelsea, albeit he genuinely did sometimes go down quite easily from what I remember.

The above is of course terrible and needs to be addressed but it won’t be whilst the country is the way it is, with senior politicians describe deporting people to Rwanda as a ‘dream’.

Then why is Algerian Muslim Riyadh Mahrez bang on the median line.

[tubby]

Then why is Algerian Muslim Riyadh Mahrez bang on the median line.

I'll ask it again because I think it got lost in the thread.  Tompkins proves Taylor is actually a good ref for us and that he refs us fairly evenly.  But you think that Taylor is biased, right?

So if the data Tompkins is providing isn't capturing the fact that Taylor is secretly anti-Liverpool and subtly influences matches when he refs us, then how can you trust the rest of his data?

Either the research from Tompkins is fool proof and shows a bias against us (but Taylor is even-handed), or Taylor is biased against us.  It can't be both.

[Eeyore]

I'll ask it again because I think it got lost in the thread.  Tompkins proves Taylor is actually a good ref for us and that he refs us fairly evenly.  But you think that Taylor is biased, right?

So if the data Tompkins is providing isn't capturing the fact that Taylor is secretly anti-Liverpool and subtly influences matches when he refs us, then how can you trust the rest of his data?

Either the research from Tompkins is fool proof and shows a bias against us (but Taylor is even-handed), or Taylor is biased against us.  It can't be both.

I haven't seen the specific Taylor date  from Tompkins have you got a link mate.

[vicar]

Slightly off topic, but still around referees. I had a bizarre conversation with an Arsenal supporter earlier.... basically convinced that refs are intimidated when the come to Anfield and we get all the decisions. I presume based on the Newcastle game as he referred to the pens.

This is the problem really all fans are pretty myopic. I would argue its almost the opposite. Taylor was desperate not to appear a home biased ref.
Anyone watching that game could question the pens (not legitimately imo, certainly compared to others given for English players), but to say the ref folded to the crowd, particularly after that game is mad. Other than the pens he pretty much gave them everything.

Then looking at the two goals disallowed against Burnley, Odegaard playing basketball and the infamous Diaz goal would dispute any favouritism of refs home or away. I reminded him of those but just shrugs.... I guess it gives an insight into the fact that most fans have spectacularly biased opinions and are influenced by pundits on other games they dont watch and build their views from that.

[tubby]

I haven't seen the specific Taylor date  from Tompkins have you got a link mate.

Yip.

https://tomkinstimes.substack.com/p/homer-sapiens-refs-vars-and-proving

The best two referees via my Objective Ref Rater coefficient are Michael Oliver and Anthony Taylor; the two referees generally described, subjectively, as the best. This pair are very close to the expected norm, and I had no idea who would emerge as the top two.

[Son of Spion]

That would be akin to saying that the Met isn't institutionally racist and the criminal justice system as a whole isn't biased against black people because prisons are full of people of all races who claim they are innocent.

Once you have data that shows something then it is up to the organisation to show there isn't something amiss.

Just because bias is almost impossible to prove doesn't mean it don't exist. For me it is up to the authorities to show why Salah is such an outlier in terms of getting free kicks.

That's a really fair point.

Even if there is nothing dodgy in the Salah thing it's still a very interesting anomaly. We all know he gets battered from pillar to post in games and often gets nothing for it.

I'd also be interested to know how much worse this got, if at all, after that concerted campaign there was against Salah's supposed diving. After that, it sort of felt he could get machine-gunned down in the box and it would be waved on.

These sorts of things do have an effect. Remember how Abu Dhabi were committing tactical foul after tactical foul until Klopp blew it up in the media and it faded for a good while afterwards. I wonder if Salah has truly recovered from when the media were on his back for 'going down too easily'? Not being English, he never benefited from the ''he's just being clever'' defence the likes of Sir Harold of Kaneshire was blessed with in the media.

[Jm55]

Then why is Algerian Muslim Riyadh Mahrez bang on the median line.

Because there hasn’t been a media campaign called Mahrez a diving cheat as there was with Salah.

[Son of Spion]

Slightly off topic, but still around referees. I had a bizarre conversation with an Arsenal supporter earlier.... basically convinced that refs are intimidated when the come to Anfield and we get all the decisions. I presume based on the Newcastle game as he referred to the pens.

This is the problem really all fans are pretty myopic. I would argue its almost the opposite. Taylor was desperate not to appear a home biased ref.
Anyone watching that game could question the pens (not legitimately imo, certainly compared to others given for English players), but to say the ref folded to the crowd, particularly after that game is mad. Other than the pens he pretty much gave them everything.

Then looking at the two goals disallowed against Burnley, Odegaard playing basketball and the infamous Diaz goal would dispute any favouritism of refs home or away. I reminded him of those but just shrugs.... I guess it gives an insight into the fact that most fans have spectacularly biased opinions and are influenced by pundits on other games they dont watch and build their views from that.

Opposition fans cannot have it both ways. On the one hand the consensus amongst most that I hear and read is that after YNWA, Anfield is like a library and severely lacking in any kind of atmosphere. I see this written time after time after time. I hear it said often. Apparently, we only rarely turn it on and we offer poor support.

Yet, despite that, we also get this rubbish trotted out that referees are intimidated by a red hot, febrile atmosphere which apparently turns them to jelly. Now which is it? A boring, apathetic library? Or a seething mass who pile the pressure on with the atmosphere?

My own take (could be right, could be wrong) is that Anfield has got a reputation, and referees these days go out of their way to show it doesn't affect them. This, at times, sees them not giving decisions in our favour when they really should have.

[LuverlyRita]

My own take (could be right, could be wrong) is that Anfield has got a reputation, and referees these days go out of their way to show it doesn't affect them. This, at times, sees them not giving decisions in our favour when they really should have.

The guy who refereed the Barca 4-0 game looked like he was just enjoying the experience rather than allowing the atmosphere to influence him one way or the other. I used to think the foreign refs were inferior to our own - blowing the whistle every 5 minutes and falling for play-acting. Now they seem like a breath of fresh air and it's no coincidence that UK refs are failing to get called up for major tournaments. What VAR has done is highlight how poor some of our officials are because even with the benefit of technology, they still get the decisions wrong 

[Eeyore]

Yip.

https://tomkinstimes.substack.com/p/homer-sapiens-refs-vars-and-proving

That just shows that the two best referees gave a pretty equal number of big decisions to each side in the top 4 games. That is perfectly normal and what you would expect.

As the Clattenberg piece illustrated referees are very reticent to make big decisions in the big games. Again as Tomkins stated the date did not include big decisions not given in the top 4 games. So the Odegaard, Jackson and Gabriel handballs wouldn't be included neither would the Saka offside.

 

 

[vicar]

Opposition fans cannot have it both ways. On the one hand the consensus amongst most that I hear and read is that after YNWA, Anfield is like a library and severely lacking in any kind of atmosphere. I see this written time after time after time. I hear it said often. Apparently, we only rarely turn it on and we offer poor support.

Yet, despite that, we also get this rubbish trotted out that referees are intimidated by a red hot, febrile atmosphere which apparently turns them to jelly. Now which is it? A boring, apathetic library? Or a seething mass who pile the pressure on with the atmosphere?

My own take (could be right, could be wrong) is that Anfield has got a reputation, and referees these days go out of their way to show it doesn't affect them. This, at times, sees them not giving decisions in our favour when they really should have.

Agree completely. Which is why I was slightly surprised to get the pens. But was sat close to the Diaz one and it was such a clear pen I can't see how he could not give it.

Personally I dont think Taylor is a bad ref, but he tried his hardest to change that perception this week.

The only variation is Tierney (see all the posts above) he is just plain biased.

[tubby]

That just shows that the two best referees gave a pretty equal number of big decisions to each side in the top 4 games. That is perfectly normal and what you would expect.

So Taylor refs us fairly in top of the table clashes?

[Eeyore]

So Taylor refs us fairly in top of the table clashes?

The data shows that the top teams get a pretty equal number of big decisions given in their favour in the big games when refereed by the top four officials.

That doesn't mean he referees us fairly. Look at the three games he officiated this season. If you use Tomkins criteria of penalties, Red Card and second yellow then you would say Taylor was a Liverpool supporter.

Chelsea neutral no Pens, reds or 2nd yellows.

Brighton +1 LPL, 1 Pen, no reds or 2nd yellows.

Newcastle +2 LPL 2 pens, no reds or 2nd yellows.

The thing is big decisions given doesn't give the whole story.

In the Chelsea game Taylor ignored an absolute stonewall penalty against Jackson. Against Brighton he failed to send Gross off for a clear DOGSO. In the Newcastle game, he continually made bizarre decisions against Liverpool the foul on Diaz, Gomez being cleared out and the fact that Joelinton managed to avoid being sent off.   

[LuverlyRita]

I don't follow rugby closely but do their referees ever get called out as corrupt? There seems to be a million reasons for stopping play in the game of rugby (both codes) and yet there never seems to be the dissent or confusion you get in football. Perhaps it helps that the officials are obliged to give a clear reason for their decisions - to the players and the fans - whereas in football, if a manager questions a refereeing decision, they just end up getting fined and PGMOL close ranks. Openness and transparency would help enormously.

[Eeyore]

I don't follow rugby closely but do their referees ever get called out as corrupt? There seems to be a million reasons for stopping play in the game of rugby (both codes) and yet there never seems to be the dissent or confusion you get in football. Perhaps it helps that the officials are obliged to give a clear reason for their decisions - to the players and the fans - whereas in football, if a manager questions a refereeing decision, they just end up getting fined and PGMOL close ranks. Openness and transparency would help enormously.

The big thing for me is that you don't get Rugby commentators criticising referees and accusing certain players of cheating.

Give Gary the gobshite Neville a few months as a Rugby commentator and that would probably change. In real time without seeing a replay he declared that Odegaard slipped for the handball, that he knew what Diaz was doing and that Jota had dived.

As Mark Twain said a lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on. Neville has changed the narrative around a decision before he has even seen a replay.

Sky is a massive contributor to this. Every decision that goes against a smaller side playing Liverpool is blown up out of all proportion. Whether it is a correct decision or not. Liverpool get a decision and it is micro analysed looking for an angle to create controversy.

[tubby]

The data shows that the top teams get a pretty equal number of big decisions given in their favour in the big games when refereed by the top four officials.

That doesn't mean he referees us fairly. Look at the three games he officiated this season. If you use Tomkins criteria of penalties, Red Card and second yellow then you would say Taylor was a Liverpool supporter.

Chelsea neutral no Pens, reds or 2nd yellows.

Brighton +1 LPL, 1 Pen, no reds or 2nd yellows.

Newcastle +2 LPL 2 pens, no reds or 2nd yellows.

The thing is big decisions given doesn't give the whole story.

In the Chelsea game Taylor ignored an absolute stonewall penalty against Jackson. Against Brighton he failed to send Gross off for a clear DOGSO. In the Newcastle game, he continually made bizarre decisions against Liverpool the foul on Diaz, Gomez being cleared out and the fact that Joelinton managed to avoid being sent off.   

That's my point though.  You can't use the Tomkins data as cast iron evidence if there's all these holes in it.

[Eeyore]

That's my point though.  You can't use the Tomkins data as cast iron evidence if there's all these holes in it.

You look at the whole dataset though instead of cherrypicking one aspect and then trying to use that to discredit the overall data.

The point of the Tomkins article that you linked is that there are four referees who are balanced in big decisions for and against Liverpool in top 4 games. All the rest are massively biased against Liverpool.

What you would expect is for the top 4 refs to be close to giving an equal number of decisions for and against Liverpool in the big games. That is perfectly normal.

What you would also expect is for the rest of the referees to be split. With around half favouring Liverpool and half favouring the rest of the top 4. That simply isn't the case. It is so skewed against Liverpool it is untrue.

[jillcwhomever]

I don't follow rugby closely but do their referees ever get called out as corrupt? There seems to be a million reasons for stopping play in the game of rugby (both codes) and yet there never seems to be the dissent or confusion you get in football. Perhaps it helps that the officials are obliged to give a clear reason for their decisions - to the players and the fans - whereas in football, if a manager questions a refereeing decision, they just end up getting fined and PGMOL close ranks. Openness and transparency would help enormously.

I think it's a huge part of it the accountability of certain decisions. I've always said wiring up refs is the way to go, but it's not going to solve all the problems if you still get players going down too easily. I agree with Al insomuch as there is an appalling lack of honesty from the pundits/media in not admitting that certain English players dive as well. If we really want to improve football as a spectacle then everyone has to change their way and come together on it. As you say it's too much of a closed shop at the moment, we need new referees and perhaps some need to have been involved in playing the game as well.