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

[emitime]

Brighton will be our 29th League game of the season. Tierney will have been Ref or VAR for 9 of them. So an official with a clear issue with Klopp gets just under a third of our League games this season.

On the plus side, after this we'll only have him for Everton away, United away and Villa away.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

On the plus side, after this we'll only have him for Everton away, United away and Villa away.

[Sheer Magnetism]

So clear this up for me please.

Are you attempting with your apparent sarcasm to equate the seemingly mistaken refereeing decision at Nottingham to return the ball to our goalie and us scoring a goal some six and a half hours later with the three so crucial and very possibly season changing officiating abominations, one at Tottenham and two at Anfield? Or have I got that wrong? Are you simply poking fun at the suggestions that the fixture arrangements are deliberately skewed against us. 

If it's the latter then fair enough as I have no problem with your scepticism, albeit I myself clearly see the legitimacy of the views being offered. If it's the former then I'd respectfully suggest you are in dire need of a sobering lesson in perspective.   

It wasn't six and a half hours later though, was it? It was around a minute later, seven minutes into injury time in a must-win game further into the season than any of your 'examples', when the ball was wrongly taken off the other team.

Ultimately, every team believes they're the victims of some kind of grand conspiracy, despite the fact there isn't a shred of evidence or rational logic to support that. You're trying to suggest a disallowed goal six months ago, where there was audio footage that clearly displayed a screw up behind the scenes, was part of some coordinated effort to cost us a title no one realistically thought we'd be competing for this year. Or that the Doku incident, which you refer to as a kung-fu assault rather than a clear attempt to kick the ball, is so clear cut that the only possible reason not to give it is corruption.

Ulimately, show me a sliver of proof and I'll change my mind. Until then, it's just one more baseless conspiracy theory.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It wasn't six and a half hours later though, was it? It was around a minute later, seven minutes into injury time in a must-win game further into the season than any of your 'examples', when the ball was wrongly taken off the other team.

Ultimately, every team believes they're the victims of some kind of grand conspiracy, despite the fact there isn't a shred of evidence or rational logic to support that. You're trying to suggest a disallowed goal six months ago, where there was audio footage that clearly displayed a screw up behind the scenes, was part of some coordinated effort to cost us a title no one realistically thought we'd be competing for this year. Or that the Doku incident, which you refer to as a kung-fu assault rather than a clear attempt to kick the ball, is so clear cut that the only possible reason not to give it is corruption.

Ulimately, show me a sliver of proof and I'll change my mind. Until then, it's just one more baseless conspiracy theory.

It was two minutes later after they'd had the opportunity to clear the ball twice. We scored on our third attack.

A ball was dropped to their keeper in the same way earlier in the game.


In the case of the disallowed goal the 'there's nothing we can do' was a lie - as shown in a similar incident where it was pulled back.

In the case of the FA Cup game, when the player stamped on our players ankle, VAR said that he slipped. That was a lie.

In the case of the League game against Arsenal, VAR said that he'd used his hand and touched the floor as he was falling over. That was a lie.

In the case of the City game, firstly we are told that the defender touched the ball first. This was a lie. Then we were told that they both went in high. This was a lie.

People are just looking at these for, but there have been plenty of shithouse decisions against us all season. And yet we are LiVARpool because we got a dropped ball two minutes before we scored - and while we are on that one that we 'got away with' - their attacker had all his studs in Konates face - which should have been given as a free kick to us and at least a yellow card to them for dangerous play.

[Yorkykopite]

It's difficult to explain why PGMOL would choose Tierney to ref one of our matches again the season. Their plan - if I'm understanding it right - is to stiff Liverpool by using Tierney as a sort of 12th man for the opposition. But it's simply not working. He's refereed us 4 times so far in the Premier League. We've won all four. Our opponents have only scored once in those four games. Surely Tierney has had plenty of opportunity to do better than that. Maybe he's trying to stiff us and just isn't as good as he used to be. But that doesn't explain why PGMOL would keep using him.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It's difficult to explain why PGMOL would choose Tierney to ref one of our matches again the season. Their plan - if I'm understanding it right - is to stiff Liverpool by using Tierney as a sort of 12th man for the opposition. But it's simply not working. He's refereed us 4 times so far in the Premier League. We've won all four. Our opponents have only scored once in those four games. Surely Tierney has had plenty of opportunity to do better than that. Maybe he's trying to stiff us and just isn't as good as he used to be. But that doesn't explain why PGMOL would keep using him.

I still don't get this argument.

You are saying that if we win a game then it's proof that the officials were great? You don't think that you can have a referee that has a shit game and win anyway because we're a good side?

Are you saying that the result is always 100% because of the officials and never anything to do with the teams?

[Yorkykopite]

I still don't get this argument.

You are saying that if we win a game then it's proof that the officials were great? You don't think that you can have a referee that has a shit game and win anyway because we're a good side?

Are you saying that the result is always 100% because of the officials and never anything to do with the teams?

No, I'm not saying that. You can only obviously win a match and still be the victim of either terrible refereeing decisions or a refereeing conspiracy that was designed to stop you winning. To overcome the former is probably easier than to overcome the latter. But I agree, that can be done. Though it's obviously not easy.

I think we can all agree on that.

Where it begins to stretch the conspiracy theory towards breaking point is when four consecutive games end with the conspiracy failing four times. I concede that this too might just be possible (hence my use of the word "towards"). But now I want you to agree with me that though possible, it's a little unlikely. It's difficult to see how a corrupt referee can award four victories to Liverpool when his mission is to disrupt us and stop us. I can think of several incidents in the latter two matches (v Chelsea and v Forest) where Tierney could have served his masters at PGMOL much better and really punished Liverpool. It matters not to the theory whether he would have been "right" to punish us ("right" in a lawful sense). Corruption, after all, involves making "wrong" decisions. But Tierney didn't do it.

And what finally needs explaining about the selection of Tierney for the Brighton game is why his employers keep on picking him. It's possible that he tried his best to "do us in" in all four of the previous games he refereed and simply failed. But if that's true he's clearly not trying hard enough and, in fact, is possibly not "fit for purpose" to serve PGMOL in its mission to kill Liverpool. Surely there are other referees who they could rely on more. I know there are. Because their names have been intermittently posted in this thread.

[Zlen]

Everyone was going bonkers over Tierney ahead of Chelsea at Anfield. Was fine.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

No, I'm not saying that. You can only obviously win a match and still be the victim of either terrible refereeing decisions or a refereeing conspiracy that was designed to stop you winning. To overcome the former is probably easier than to overcome the latter. But I agree, that can be done. Though it's obviously not easy.

I think we can all agree on that.

Where it begins to stretch the conspiracy theory towards breaking point is when four consecutive games end with the conspiracy failing four times. I concede that this too might just be possible (hence my use of the word "towards"). But now I want you to agree with me that though possible, it's a little unlikely. It's difficult to see how a corrupt referee can award four victories to Liverpool when his mission is to disrupt us and stop us. I can think of several incidents in the latter two matches (v Chelsea and v Forest) where Tierney could have served his masters at PGMOL much better and really punished Liverpool. It matters not to the theory whether he would have been "right" to punish us ("right" in a lawful sense). Corruption, after all, involves making "wrong" decisions. But Tierney didn't do it.

And what finally needs explaining about the selection of Tierney for the Brighton game is why his employers keep on picking him. It's possible that he tried his best to "do us in" in all four of the previous games he refereed and simply failed. But if that's true he's clearly not trying hard enough and, in fact, is possibly not "fit for purpose" to serve PGMOL in its mission to kill Liverpool. Surely there are other referees who they could rely on more. I know there are. Because their names have been intermittently posted in this thread.

You're still going on about conspiracies. Your figures might servce you better if you added the times that he officiated in our games and not just reffed.

In the case of the Chelsea game (for instance) we battered them. He gave us very little from what I remember, but we were too strong for them.

I gave four examples (above) Where we have heard the feedback from the discussion from VAR and the ref and then the head of PGMOL - in those four instances, they included five obvious examples where the officials lied.

I'd like you to go through each of those and explain how those lies came about and why they were allowed to stand?

Each couldn't be more blatent and the gaslighting explanation of the last one was breathtaking. I'd like you to explain that as well please.

[Sheer Magnetism]

In the case of the Chelsea game (for instance) we battered them. He gave us very little from what I remember, but we were too strong for them.

You mean this game? The one where we got awarded a penalty, Chelsea had two penalty shouts turned down and also had an appeal for a foul in the build up to one of our goals turned down?

This is why it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation around this subject. Every incident is upgraded from subjective to a certainty, every mistake is adjudged to be a deliberate decision, every appeal for motive is sidestepped and every counterpoint is ignored.

[Fromola]

Brighton will be our 29th League game of the season. Tierney will have been Ref or VAR for 9 of them. So an official with a clear issue with Klopp gets just under a third of our League games this season.

Martin Atkinson chooses the officials. He was always the biggest anti-Liverpool ref going.

No doubt Tierney will be too scared to give us a decision/feel ready to screw us after the mother of all shitstorms after he gave a drop ball in our favour the other week.

[Eeyore]

I still don't get this argument.

You are saying that if we win a game then it's proof that the officials were great? You don't think that you can have a referee that has a shit game and win anyway because we're a good side?

Are you saying that the result is always 100% because of the officials and never anything to do with the teams?

Our last two EFL wins are a perfect example of that. On both occasions, we won the game. However in seasons when we were chasing a quadruple in both games we ended up playing extra time because we had goals ruled out for an offside player allegedly interfering with play. A decision that is ignored week in and week out. Indeed Varane whilst offside threw an opposition player to the ground and wasn't pulled up for it, days after our second final.

[Eeyore]

Martin Atkinson chooses the officials. He was always the biggest anti-Liverpool ref going.

No doubt Tierney will be too scared to give us a decision/feel ready to screw us after the mother of all shitstorms after he gave a drop ball in our favour the other week.

Martin Atkinson the former Yorkshire Police officer who gave us 1 major decision in his last 30 games and none at Anfield.

[FlashGordon]

It wasn't six and a half hours later though, was it? It was around a minute later, seven minutes into injury time in a must-win game further into the season than any of your 'examples', when the ball was wrongly taken off the other team.

Ultimately, every team believes they're the victims of some kind of grand conspiracy, despite the fact there isn't a shred of evidence or rational logic to support that. You're trying to suggest a disallowed goal six months ago, where there was audio footage that clearly displayed a screw up behind the scenes, was part of some coordinated effort to cost us a title no one realistically thought we'd be competing for this year. Or that the Doku incident, which you refer to as a kung-fu assault rather than a clear attempt to kick the ball, is so clear cut that the only possible reason not to give it is corruption.

Ulimately, show me a sliver of proof and I'll change my mind. Until then, it's just one more baseless conspiracy theory.

The real travesty on that occasion was their player getting away with a borderline red card high foot. Luckily we don't have to deal with that too often.

[Fitzy.]

Martin Atkinson chooses the officials. He was always the biggest anti-Liverpool ref going.

No doubt Tierney will be too scared to give us a decision/feel ready to screw us after the mother of all shitstorms after he gave a drop ball in our favour the other week.

Interestingly, I know his daughter. She talked openly about fan bases and said United fans hated him the most due to some high-profile decisions they didn’t like. She said it’s horrible to read strangers’ bile when talking about a close family member.

[Eeyore]

Interestingly, I know his daughter. She talked openly about fan bases and said United fans hated him the most due to some high-profile decisions they didn’t like. She said it’s horrible to read strangers’ bile when talking about a close family member.

There is no excuse for personal abuse.

However, given he is a Leeds United fan and the animosity between Leeds and Man United when he was growing up. Then for me, he shouldn't have been doing Man United games in the first place. 

[Yorkykopite]

You're still going on about conspiracies. Your figures might service you better if you added the times that he officiated in our games and not just reffed.

I only know of 4 occasions where Tierney has been on VAR for Liverpool games this season (there may be at least one more). We won all 4 matches. 

Again, I'm not saying this doesn't mean that Tierney wasn't trying his best to conspire against us in these four victories. What I AM saying is that the figures certainly do not "service" your argument "better" as you seemed to imagine they might.

So that's 8 Liverpool games officiated by Tierney this season and 8 victories for Liverpool. Again, this doesn't prove that there is no conspiracy at PGMOL with Tierney at the very heart of it. But it's not exactly helpful to the theory either.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You mean this game? The one where we got awarded a penalty, Chelsea had two penalty shouts turned down and also had an appeal for a foul in the build up to one of our goals turned down?

This is why it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation around this subject. Every incident is upgraded from subjective to a certainty, every mistake is adjudged to be a deliberate decision, every appeal for motive is sidestepped and every counterpoint is ignored.

I see, so absolutely every single decision in every single game has to go against us all the time, continually to have any kind of case to answer.

But mentioning Chelsea, you have the disallowed Salah goal and the handball where he punched it off for a corner not given in the reverse fixture.


In the home Chelsea fixture, were these decisions controversial or wrong?

[rob1966]

I only know of 4 occasions where Tierney has been on VAR for Liverpool games this season (there may be at least one more). We won all 4 matches. 

Again, I'm not saying this doesn't mean that Tierney wasn't trying his best to conspire against us in these four victories. What I AM saying is that the figures certainly do not "service" your argument "better" as you seemed to imagine they might.

So that's 8 Liverpool games officiated by Tierney this season and 8 victories for Liverpool. Again, this doesn't prove that there is no conspiracy at PGMOL with Tierney at the very heart of it. But it's not exactly helpful to the theory either.

No-one is saying there is a "conspiracy" though, except you. What we are saying is that certain officials referee us differently. A stand out game for me was the Palace game 22/23 season, first home game of the season. From minute 1 the Palace keeper was time wasting, he finally got booked in the 91st minute, Nunez was getting battered by their CB, he deserved his red for nutting the CB, but Tierney could and should have intervened long before the red card. That's how him and Taylor roll, they do stuff that will disrupt our play/disrupt our rhythm.

This season though has shown cases out outright cheating, the audio from the City game is an absolute disgrace, you can hear them ignoring the LOTG and Atwell, with the tone of his voice, basically telling the AVAR to fuck off and keep his nose out of it. And I'm not having that the Spurs game was an onnocent mistake

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I only know of 4 occasions where Tierney has been on VAR for Liverpool games this season (there may be at least one more). We won all 4 matches. 

Again, I'm not saying this doesn't mean that Tierney wasn't trying his best to conspire against us in these four victories. What I AM saying is that the figures certainly do not "service" your argument "better" as you seemed to imagine they might.

So that's 8 Liverpool games officiated by Tierney this season and 8 victories for Liverpool. Again, this doesn't prove that there is no conspiracy at PGMOL with Tierney at the very heart of it. But it's not exactly helpful to the theory either.

I'm not and have never been remotely arsed about the result in these.

If I were then I would just moan when we lost because that would be sour grapes.

When I moan about the refs when we've won by 3 or 4 or 5 goals, why am I doing that? What do you think?

[Eeyore]

I only know of 4 occasions where Tierney has been on VAR for Liverpool games this season (there may be at least one more). We won all 4 matches. 

Again, I'm not saying this doesn't mean that Tierney wasn't trying his best to conspire against us in these four victories. What I AM saying is that the figures certainly do not "service" your argument "better" as you seemed to imagine they might.

So that's 8 Liverpool games officiated by Tierney this season and 8 victories for Liverpool. Again, this doesn't prove that there is no conspiracy at PGMOL with Tierney at the very heart of it. But it's not exactly helpful to the theory either.

Tierney has refereed us at Home to Chelsea and Brentford and away to Burnley and Forest. He has been VAR on the home games versus Bournemouth and Fulham and away to Wolves and Bournemouth.

So that is 8 games with none of them against a top 8 side. Liverpool would have been odds-on in every single one of those games. He is now the VAR for the Brighton game. Brighton are in 8th place but Liverpool are still 1/3 to win that game.

The question should be why has Tierney who clearly has issues with Klopp been selected to officiate 9 of our 29 games. Does the PGMOL not realise that there are twenty teams in the League?

[Yorkykopite]

No-one is saying there is a "conspiracy" though, except you.

Of course they are! They may have recently avoided the word "conspiracy" because the notion has been so effectively destroyed. But they keep on describing conspiracies, no question. And just because they've disowned the word doesn't mean that I have to too. Or anyone else.

The minute someone says Tierney is systematically biased against us and that PGMOL choose him deliberately and inordinately to officiate Liverpool games they are describing a "conspiracy". 

[Yorkykopite]

So that is 8 games with none of them against a top 8 side.

So why don't they choose him "against a top 8 side". That's where he could do the real damage. What on earth is stopping them?

[Fromola]

Interestingly, I know his daughter. She talked openly about fan bases and said United fans hated him the most due to some high-profile decisions they didn’t like. She said it’s horrible to read strangers’ bile when talking about a close family member.

I'm sure Atkinson was a Leeds fan so no love lost there.

I just used to dread him getting our games because he never gave us anything ever.

There's a Yorkshire cabal within PGMOL as well as a Manchester one. Darren England for one, who has literally been struck off our games after several high profile VAR objective errors. Atkinson and Webb - they're all in cahoots.

[Eeyore]

Of course they are! They may have recently avoided the word "conspiracy" because the notion has been so effectively destroyed. But they keep on describing conspiracies, no question. And just because they've disowned the word doesn't mean that I have to too. Or anyone else.

The minute someone says Tierney is systematically biased against us and that PGMOL choose him deliberately and inordinately to officiate Liverpool games they are describing a "conspiracy". 

No Yorky you just created absurd conspiracy strawmen. That is the only thing that has been destroyed. Your daft creations.

Are you suggesting that it is just a coincidence that Tierney has done a ridiculous number of Liverpool games since he fell out with Klopp?

[liverbnz]

How much of that is down to more people not wanting to pay the increasingly ludicrous price and instead using streaming sites, which are getting better and more numerous by the year? Jason on here has cost them a fortune by himself 

Streaming services (or decoding) has been around for decades now. Always readily available if you wanted it.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Of course they are! They may have recently avoided the word "conspiracy" because the notion has been so effectively destroyed. But they keep on describing conspiracies, no question. And just because they've disowned the word doesn't mean that I have to too. Or anyone else.

The minute someone says Tierney is systematically biased against us and that PGMOL choose him deliberately and inordinately to officiate Liverpool games they are describing a "conspiracy". 

Still not answered the questions I see.

As pointed out, there are lots more 'controversial' decisions against Liverpool and few (any?) for Liverpool.

Going to talk me through the scenarios I asked about before or not? Just talking about 'conspiracies' or what not.

I have no idea what's going on with PGMOL or why they act as they do, the reasons for how they are isn't open and public at present.

However, their decisions, the VAR and refs talking and the head of PGMOL addressesing those decisions are. Instead of coming up with stuff that can't (currently) be answered, wouldn't it be more productive to talk about something concrete that is public?

[Cafe De Paris]

Good debate. Questions though are why is Tierney getting the vast amount of our matches when they are aware there is bad blood between the club and him. Why is it we get an inordinate amount of 12:30 KO’s mainly after international breaks. Maybe it is because they (the broadcasters or premier league) know it levels the playing field as we struggle in those games.
But of course there is no agenda going on here. !!

[Eeyore]

Good debate. Questions though are why is Tierney getting the vast amount of our matches when they are aware there is bad blood between the club and him. Why is it we get an inordinate amount of 12:30 KO’s mainly after international breaks. Maybe it is because they (the broadcasters or premier league) know it levels the playing field as we struggle in those games.
But of course there is no agenda going on here. !!

The latest possible kick-off for Fulham away on the Sunday, an away Merseyside Derby on Wednesday at 8pm, and the earliest possible kick-off time for West Ham away is just unfortunate. I am sure it will even itself out and the other clubs will play three tough away League games in less than six days. 

[Yorkykopite]

Good debate. Questions though are why is Tierney getting the vast amount of our matches when they are aware there is bad blood between the club and him. Why is it we get an inordinate amount of 12:30 KO’s mainly after international breaks. Maybe it is because they (the broadcasters or premier league) know it levels the playing field as we struggle in those games.
But of course there is no agenda going on here. !!

And yet we've won all 8 of 'Tierney's games' and we've all won all the 12.30 KOs except the draw at Man City. Despite these facts people like Andy from Allerton are losing their shit over Tierney and 12.30. I don't know what you call that. Chutzpah? Confected outrage? A determination to be dishonoured and wounded? An enjoyment of being wounded?

[JRed]

I've observed this thread become something I never thought it would. I concede that my original post is out of step with many posters' own take on how the game is run. It's quite eye-opening to be honest. Maybe I set the tone with my original post, but I am not overly enamoured by the way some posters address others who don't believe in corruption and a sense of corruption. In some way, my motivation for writing the original post was to take on the sentiment that everything is against us, as I think that this is a very one-eyed perspective that deserves challenging at times. I also get irritated by a poster using a single incident (which might be really enraging) as 'proof'. I simply don't view the world through such a lens. I also don't take a Tomkins article as proof either - I see that as evidence of individual fallibility and a failed system in place to referee games well. Many will disagree with me on that and fair play to them.

In truth, I stand by the notion that an over-wrought system led by untalented individuals is struggling massively to operate in terms competent officiating - especially given the febrile atmosphere that surrounds every match and incident. I'm not even sure that the apparent solutions - eg 'better refs' - are feasible due to the ecosystem that exists in football. Everything is turned up to 11 to the extent that any explanation or qualification for any decision is taken in bad faith from whichever fanbase is on the wrong end of things.

I do not think there's a collective endeavour to 'get' Liverpool. That would be a commercial own goal and I am certain it would be uncovered within a heartbeat - too many actors at play to keep it quiet, not to mention the club themselves being onto it. I do think that there's an emerging cultural shift across the game - including amongst fans - that sees everything through heightened scepticism and shrouded in bad faith. This scepticism is understandable due to how we are led in the west; exposed to bad faith leaders who operate through deceit and obfuscation.

Several factors have contributed to this suspicion that haven't been present throughout the majority of the game's history. Yet within a decade, these factors have created a psychosis amongst the invested parties that has never been in play before. Such factors then conflate to confect an almighty sense of grievance and injustice as the cocktail is too much to contend with. Factors:

- Social media discourse
- Fan media growth
- State ownership
- Non-stop media coverage
- Rampant clickbait
- Immediate access to unjust incidents
- Wider cultural movement in anti-establishment sentiment (for good reason)

Coalescing these contributory factors allows us to bend the world to our will in how we perceive events and how we regard authority and its motivations. We now end up in a situation where we see Forest employ a referee to set a narrative that Forest get badly treated by referees. I regard this as unhinged but understandable in the current climate.

In short, I think a  lot of the discourse in this thread has proven some of my original post as being correct. On the other hand, I do reflect that it could have been written better in how I have expressed my opposition to the prevailing sentiment of corruption.

Not sure if I’ve missed you posting it but how do you explain the absolutely horrendous decisions against us? Just mistakes? Yes, some other clubs have bad decisions too, but they don’t cost them titles.

[Redley]

If some clean cyclist had put in a superhuman effort to beat a drugged up Lance Armstrong, they should have just let him carry on doping

[Kalito]

Good debate. Questions though are why is Tierney getting the vast amount of our matches when they are aware there is bad blood between the club and him. Why is it we get an inordinate amount of 12:30 KO’s mainly after international breaks. Maybe it is because they (the broadcasters or premier league) know it levels the playing field as we struggle in those games.
But of course there is no agenda going on here. !!

As someone mentioned above, that other Yorkshire prick Atkinson's the one who chooses which ref/officials get what games.

[Avens]

Andy, what does the following mean if it isn't the implication of a conspiracy?

Just to reinforce the bias.

Yet another 12:30 away kick off for us after a midweek game.


I'm sure that this is also some kind of strange, but completely explainable 12:30 early kick off on a Saturday after we've been given absolutely shit loads of them all season

Again.


If you aren't thinking this is a pisstake by now then what the fuck ARE you thinking?

[Avens]

Not sure how anyone can disagree with a word of that. They will, of course  just not sure how.

[Wingman]

“In cahoots”
“Agenda”

But nobody is implying a conspiracy?

[Eeyore]

And yet we've won all 8 of 'Tierney's games' and we've all won all the 12.30 KOs except the draw at Man City. Despite these facts people like Andy from Allerton are losing their shit over Tierney and 12.30. I don't know what you call that. Chutzpah? Confected outrage? A determination to be dishonoured and wounded? An enjoyment of being wounded?

You mean like Jurgen Klopp?

Playing games that close together and playing far more 12-30 games than our rivals has a cumulative effect. Having to work harder than you should do has a cumulative effect. Do you think it is fair that we play Fulham last game of the weekend, a midweek Derby and first game the following weekend.

Do you you think that schedule puts us at an unfair disadvantage?

[Eeyore]

Andy, what does the following mean if it isn't the implication of a conspiracy?

It means people doing things for their own benefit with a disregard for the fairness of a situation. An example would be TNT choosing Liverpool for the 12-30 game because it will give them a chance to stir the pot with Klopp. They also know it gives them a better chance of an upset which pleases the majority of their viewers.

Quite clearly last game on one weekend followed by a midweek Derby followed by a third away game in less than 6 days with the earliest possible kick off time isn't fair.

[GreatEx]

And yet we've won all 8 of 'Tierney's games' and we've all won all the 12.30 KOs except the draw at Man City. Despite these facts people like Andy from Allerton are losing their shit over Tierney and 12.30. I don't know what you call that. Chutzpah? Confected outrage? A determination to be dishonoured and wounded? An enjoyment of being wounded?

You are being a bit disingenuous though, by basing your retorts around the notion that Tierney has been assigned the mission of destroying Liverpool's season. I don't think anyone has said that. What we do know is that Klopp has expressed deep displeasure with Tierney's performance in the past, and so making Tierney a disproportionately frequent arbiter of Liverpool matches seems like an attempt to put Klopp and Liverpool in their place, along with the media gaslighting about the monumental drop ball error, "they both went in high / clearly won the ball", etc. Now imagine these events occurring to Manchester United in Ferguson's era. How many trips to Old Trafford do you think Tierney would get? How many reporters do you think would stand there and tell HSS "it's a high bar"?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

And yet we've won all 8 of 'Tierney's games' and we've all won all the 12.30 KOs except the draw at Man City. Despite these facts people like Andy from Allerton are losing their shit over Tierney and 12.30. I don't know what you call that. Chutzpah? Confected outrage? A determination to be dishonoured and wounded? An enjoyment of being wounded?

So those questions are still there. They are known facts - we got the audio and we go the head of PGMOL explaining them.

Talk me through those. As an aside, how many clubs - going from impartial reporting - have the words 'controversial' mentioned about their games. Do any clubs have more 'controversial' mentions than others? I seem to remember there's been a fair few 'controversial' shouts from non-tin-foil normal reporting services this season and others.

Are they part of some conspiracy to suggest that some decisions are controversial while others are not? How deep does that reverse-conspiracy cabal go?