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

[Andy @ Allerton!]

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

It means that we've got yet another 12:30 Saturday kick off - far, far more than any other side in the league.

What does that mean? Klopp says it puts us at a disadvantage, affects our training and recovery and freshness.

Is Klopp lying? Does he need to buy a tin foil hat? Why is our club singled out to 'put us at a disadvantage' more than any other club.

Well - that's assuming you don't think Klopp is an arsehole/dickhead/moaning foreigner, of course.

[Yorkykopite]

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?

Can I do the "aside" first?

These are the European figures for the past 12 years. I've used both the national and provincial European press plus the New York Times and Washington Post. Plus the Kamchatka Herald as a 'control'.

Atletico Madrid 1,254
Stuttgart Kickers 1,198
Panathanaikos 987
Blackburn Rovers 986
Zenit St Petersburg 843
Anderlecht 841
Arsenal 786
Liverpool 722
Scunthorpe United 721
Real Madrid 699
Red Star Belgrade 624
Manchester United 621
Queen of the South 620
Bayern Munich 432
Alloa Athletic 427
Chelsea 415
Trabzonspor 402.

There's loads in the 300s. Only 1 club (Forfar Athletic) between 200 and 300 (a real oddity). And then hundreds more between 1 and 200. Only a single club scores zero. Man City interestingly That probably does need more investigating.

[Avens]

It means that we've got yet another 12:30 Saturday kick off - far, far more than any other side in the league.

What does that mean? Klopp says it puts us at a disadvantage, affects our training and recovery and freshness.

Is Klopp lying? Does he need to buy a tin foil hat? Why is our club singled out to 'put us at a disadvantage' more than any other club.

Well - that's assuming you don't think Klopp is an arsehole/dickhead/moaning foreigner, of course.

I don't remember when Klopp implied that it was the result of an anti Liverpool bias though. He just correctly pointed out that we have loads of them and that he doesn't want them. As he would, the moaning foreigner.

Point is, you keep coming in here and saying look at this thing that reinforces the claim that there's a conspiracy (carefully avoiding the word conspiracy). Yorky, Fitzy and others dismantle those claims, to which you and others respond with "who said there's a conspiracy?!"

[Timbo's Goals]

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.

Good response in support of your opening words Fitzy lad and thanks for responding.

As for much of what you say about the way so much on a wider scale has taken a turn for the worse, surely any rational person can only endorse. And I do get your weariness concerning the immediate jumping to conclusions of corruption on social media for every single thing that goes against us. Then again, in fairness we have had for some time now far more than our fair share of glaring shite to endure from officialdom so the frustration at times of so many within this thread  - if not always as warranted as some might maintain - can surely be understood by fellow Reds.

However, despite your admirable polemic in support of your opening words - albeit marginally toned down - you haven't addressed the main thrust of what I posted in my main post above. Namely that none of the three possibly season changing decisions we have suffered this season can be dismissed as mere incompetence by any fair minded football follower, let alone any top flight official, having regard to the circumstances in plain sight pertaining to each one of them. The officiating in question for all three both on field and off it, quite simply did not want to rule in Liverpool's favour despite the clear evidence to do so that any impartial judgement would have concluded.

[GreatEx]

.

Point is, you keep coming in here and saying look at this thing that reinforces the claim that there's a conspiracy (carefully avoiding the word conspiracy). Yorky, Fitzy and others dismantle those claims, to which you and others respond with "who said there's a conspiracy?!"

No, the issue here is that everyone wants to define the "conspiracy" in their own terms. Yorky et al say that Andy thinks PGMOL are engaging in match fixing, but to others Andy's posts read more like some puffed up dickhead thinking "that kraut fucker doesn't like post- international Saturday lunchtimes reffed by Tierney, eh? Well, have another ten of them. Scouse c*nt!" which seems far more reasonable to me.

[Timbo's Goals]

Well, I've said my four pennyworth now. Absolutely no point in trying to reason any further on the subject. The closed minds render it futile. Let's just hope and pray that the points we've very likely been denied - which by my reckoning could be as many as 5 even 7 with the three crucial incidents I've cited - will not cost us the league title we so crave. 

[Timbo's Goals]

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.

Sorry, missed this before opting out and your comments are so crazy they simply demand a specific response.

Short of a signed admission by the protagonists concerned in all three desecrations of refereeing/VAR impartiality I've cited, the visual/subsequent audio evidence revealing such failures to rule impartially is there in all three instances for any reasonably knowledgeable football fan to clearly see the failure to rule impartially and comment accordingly. 

The fact you quote Doku's kung fu challenge to be a mere clear attempt to kick the ball and that you feel Darren England's manifest determination to procrastinate and thereby ignore the pleadings of his colleagues in VAR to act in the so painfully obvious way until he felt it safe enough to utter the words 'it's too late' tells me you are either not a reasonably knowledgeable football fan or you're simply trolling. 

[Fitzy.]

Good response in support of your opening words Fitzy lad and thanks for responding.

As for much of what you say about the way so much on a wider scale has taken a turn for the worse, surely any rational person can only endorse. And I do get your weariness concerning the immediate jumping to conclusions of corruption on social media for every single thing that goes against us. Then again, in fairness we have had for some time now far more than our fair share of glaring shite to endure from officialdom so the frustration at times of so many within this thread  - if not always as warranted as some might maintain - can surely be understood by fellow Reds.

However, despite your admirable polemic in support of your opening words - albeit marginally toned down - you haven't addressed the main thrust of what I posted in my main post above. Namely that none of the three possibly season changing decisions we have suffered this season can be dismissed as mere incompetence by any fair minded football follower, let alone any top flight official, having regard to the circumstances in plain sight pertaining to each one of them. The officiating in question for all three both on field and off it, quite simply did not want to rule in Liverpool's favour despite the clear evidence to do so that any impartial judgement would have concluded.

I was attempting to address the bad decisions more broadly - in that there's a systemic flaw with VAR and how it has infected decision-making processes. The three incidents are certainly egregious - no question. Yet I would say we're not the only one. Do the league want Wolves to go down because their season has almost been ruined with VAR.

I maintain that the system is flawed and the culture around the system isn't suited to making it work.

[thejbs]

Well, I've said my four pennyworth now. Absolutely no point in trying to reason any further on the subject. The closed minds render it futile. Let's just hope and pray that the points we've very likely been denied - which by my reckoning could be as many as 5 even 7 with the three crucial incidents I've cited - will not cost us the league title we so crave. 

I hate when the closed mind fallacy appears. Happens in the UAP thread a lot. Just because someone wants evidence before believing a conspiracy theory doesn’t make them closed minded. If anything, it’s what an open minded person does - follows available evidence to its conclusion. Refusing to believe anything but your own position, even if you cannot prove it, is closed minded.

[nico 8]

Good response in support of your opening words Fitzy lad and thanks for responding.

As for much of what you say about the way so much on a wider scale has taken a turn for the worse, surely any rational person can only endorse. And I do get your weariness concerning the immediate jumping to conclusions of corruption on social media for every single thing that goes against us. Then again, in fairness we have had for some time now far more than our fair share of glaring shite to endure from officialdom so the frustration at times of so many within this thread  - if not always as warranted as some might maintain - can surely be understood by fellow Reds.

However, despite your admirable polemic in support of your opening words - albeit marginally toned down - you haven't addressed the main thrust of what I posted in my main post above. Namely that none of the three possibly season changing decisions we have suffered this season can be dismissed as mere incompetence by any fair minded football follower, let alone any top flight official, having regard to the circumstances in plain sight pertaining to each one of them. The officiating in question for all three both on field and off it, quite simply did not want to rule in Liverpool's favour despite the clear evidence to do so that any impartial judgement would have concluded.

Their bad faith is evident in the way they (Howard Webb et al)wish to defend the indefensible instead of owning up to it as an error of huge magnitude. Of the 3 examples cited by you, the Diaz "goal" is the only one they own up to and yet have not implemented any measures to ensure that it doesn't happen again. The Odegaard basketball incident and the Mcallister kung-fu  strike has been excused / defended as a 50:50 call with statements misrepresenting the facts only for the outside world to see it for what it really is - a lie. Odegaard slipped/ falling down, Doku got a touch of the ball which is an untruth but more importantly irrelevant. They simply change the rules as they go along. These are huge  blatant "errors" which no other team has suffered. Refs make mistakes etc but no other team has suffered as a result of the misrepresentation of the facts..
This in itself brings the integrity of the officials in question. I am amazed that some think that the English Premier League is immune of corruption at the very worst to an entrenched subliminal bias at best.

[spider-neil]

Corruption? Maybe.

Bias? Definitely.

[Sheer Magnetism]

I hate when the closed mind fallacy appears. Happens in the UAP thread a lot. Just because someone wants evidence before believing a conspiracy theory doesn’t make them closed minded. If anything, it’s what an open minded person does - follows available evidence to its conclusion. Refusing to believe anything but your own position, even if you cannot prove it, is closed minded.

Well, exactly. I haven't ruled it out - if evidence appears, I'll change my mind. Until then, you have to go by Occam's Razor, which is that the referees are simply incompetent, something that's borne out league wide practically every week and which has been true since decades before I started watching football. I'm not the one who's going by what I want to be true and shaping everything in the real world around it.

But some people have convinced themselves there's some kind of league wide conspiracy to shaft us and only us, despite there being no logical reason why that would be the case. And no one has produced one beyond 'We're great and intrinsically more honest and morally better than everyone else' - the kind of thing you'd howl with laughter at when you read it on GOT. Timbo's is suggesting 'any rational person could see this', and yet no one outside our fan base agrees. So, the only rational football fans in the country are the section of our fan base that thinks there's a conspiracy afoot?

As for unconscious bias, it wouldn't shock me. But the likeliest place for that to come from would be the determination to 'stay honest' by not giving in to pressure from fans arguing Liverpool should get a fairer whack.

[alonsoisared]

Can't believe this thread is still going.

"It's corrupt"
"People saying it's corrupt are wrong"
"Who is saying it's corrupt?". Rinse and repeat!

More pages than games Tierney has officiated us this season ...although it is close

[Eeyore]

Well, exactly. I haven't ruled it out - if evidence appears, I'll change my mind. Until then, you have to go by Occam's Razor, which is that the referees are simply incompetent, something that's borne out league wide practically every week and which has been true since decades before I started watching football. I'm not the one who's going by what I want to be true and shaping everything in the real world around it.

If it is merely incompetence then you will have no problem showing me the referees who give Salah too many fouls. He has played in excess of 250 games in England now. So that is a sizeable sample size. So surely the incompetent officials who don't give him enough fouls must surely be balanced out to some extent by the officials who give him too many.

The same with Tierney as a referee. If the PGMOL is just incompetent and allocates Tierney too many times to our games one season. Then variance will kick in and we will get seasons when we barely get Tierney. I mean we got Tierney as referee a record 7 times in our first 35 League games last season. I mean if it is just incompetence when Klopp pointed out that Tierney does too many of our games then no matter how incompetent an organisation is they would then spot the error.

So after Klopp points out their incompetent error. Did we get a fairer distribution of officials? I mean in a normal organisation when something like that happens acts. The organisation puts mechanisms in place to correct the error. Quite clearly there is a problem between Klopp, LFC and Tierney. So surely given those enormous red flags, something would happen. Of course, it did. PGMOL doubled down and Tierney has been given even more Liverpool games.

Brighton at the weekend will be our 29th League game of the season and Tierney has been Referee or VAR for 9 of them. He will have been involved in as many Liverpool League games this season as Jarell Quansah and two more than Kelleher. That quite clearly isn't incompetence it has to be deliberate. If you look at the decisions Tierney has given against us including blowing his whistle early with Mane clean through against United. Then it isn't incompetence it is bias. Rewarding that bias by giving Tierney a ridiculous number of games is corrupt behaviour.   

But some people have convinced themselves there's some kind of league wide conspiracy to shaft us and only us, despite there being no logical reason why that would be the case. And no one has produced one beyond 'We're great and intrinsically more honest and morally better than everyone else' - the kind of thing you'd howl with laughter at when you read it on GOT. Timbo's is suggesting 'any rational person could see this', and yet no one outside our fan base agrees. So, the only rational football fans in the country are the section of our fan base that thinks there's a conspiracy afoot?

As for unconscious bias, it wouldn't shock me. But the likeliest place for that to come from would be the determination to 'stay honest' by not giving in to pressure from fans arguing Liverpool should get a fairer whack.

The issue for me is a lack of nuance. Posters illustrate a whole host of different reasons why completely different organisations and individuals would dislike or have a bias against LFC, scousers, Klopp et al. They then seek to lump them all in together and pretend it is a conspiracy so they can argue against it.

[markmywords]

The same with Tierney as a referee. If the PGMOL is just incompetent and allocates Tierney too many times to our games one season. Then variance will kick in and we will get seasons when we barely get Tierney. I mean we got Tierney as referee a record 7 times in our first 35 League games last season. I mean if it is just incompetence when Klopp pointed out that Tierney does too many of our games then no matter how incompetent an organisation is they would then spot the error.

So after Klopp points out their incompetent error. Did we get a fairer distribution of officials? I mean in a normal organisation when something like that happens acts. The organisation puts mechanisms in place to correct the error. Quite clearly there is a problem between Klopp, LFC and Tierney. So surely given those enormous red flags, something would happen. Of course, it did. PGMOL doubled down and Tierney has been given even more Liverpool games.

It is understandable for the PGMOL to not to be seen to be ordered around by Klopp.  Every club has ref's they don't like and the way football is viewed nowadays and analysed on every fan site they will highlight refs who don't give them decisions.  If the PGMOL reduce the amount of games Tierney refs for us, every manager will follow with their own ref's they would like to veto from their games

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I was attempting to address the bad decisions more broadly - in that there's a systemic flaw with VAR and how it has infected decision-making processes. The three incidents are certainly egregious - no question. Yet I would say we're not the only one. Do the league want Wolves to go down because their season has almost been ruined with VAR.

I maintain that the system is flawed and the culture around the system isn't suited to making it work.

Which is fine.

"They both went in high" - people seem to not want to actually talk about the stuff we know as fact - it was recorded and we have seen the pictures

"They both went in high"


Was that a mistake? Could VAR see one guy with his foot at chest height and another guy with both feet on the floor and mistake someone standing on the floor with both feet as having one of those feet at chest height like the other player.

If you can talk me through that please then that would be great thanks.

VAR by the way has 4 or 5 monitors and the ability to rewind.

"The both went in high"

This is the image - or one of them - the other one shows Mac Allister with both feet on the floor, but this one shows that and the contact by the defender.




If you can kindly explain to me why VAR said "They both went in high" then that would be a great start, we can all remove our tin foil hats and get on with our day.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Well, exactly. I haven't ruled it out - if evidence appears, I'll change my mind. Until then, you have to go by Occam's Razor, which is that the referees are simply incompetent, something that's borne out league wide practically every week and which has been true since decades before I started watching football. I'm not the one who's going by what I want to be true and shaping everything in the real world around it.

But some people have convinced themselves there's some kind of league wide conspiracy to shaft us and only us, despite there being no logical reason why that would be the case. And no one has produced one beyond 'We're great and intrinsically more honest and morally better than everyone else' - the kind of thing you'd howl with laughter at when you read it on GOT. Timbo's is suggesting 'any rational person could see this', and yet no one outside our fan base agrees. So, the only rational football fans in the country are the section of our fan base that thinks there's a conspiracy afoot?

As for unconscious bias, it wouldn't shock me. But the likeliest place for that to come from would be the determination to 'stay honest' by not giving in to pressure from fans arguing Liverpool should get a fairer whack.

Are you going to be the first person that actually answers a question that we know about known, published facts.

"They both went in high"

[Eeyore]

It is understandable for the PGMOL to not to be seen to be ordered around by Klopp.  Every club has ref's they don't like and the way football is viewed nowadays and analysed on every fan site they will highlight refs who don't give them decisions.  If the PGMOL reduce the amount of games Tierney refs for us, every manager will follow with their own ref's they would like to veto from their games

So the Met isn't institutionally racist. It is understandable for them to double down on stopping and searching Black people. Otherwise, other groups will complain and veto people from their groups being stopped.

Are you suggesting that if someone has a legitimate concern then you should double down and deliberately appoint an official a completely disproportionate number of times to make a point? I look forward to Liverpool complaining that Salah gets too many fouls, we get too many penalties and we don't get enough 12-30pm kick-offs. That will teach us.

[Fitzy.]

Which is fine.

Yep. Differing opinions. All fine when you think about it.

[tubby]

Are you going to be the first person that actually answers a question that we know about known, published facts.

"They both went in high"

I'm trying to stay out of these threads but whatever.

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

But before I get accused of being a 'ref lover':

Do I think it was a penalty?  Yes.
Do I think that VAR should have given it once they saw the footage?  Yes.
Do I think that the waffle from Webb about it was garbage and just the officials covering for each other as usual?  Yes.

One question I have for you, regarding the below:

The Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has also ruled that the decision was correct. The panel's findings, seen by ESPN, said on a split 3-2 vote that "a genuine attempt to play the ball with both players coming into contact with each other as a result. Doku is just about entitled to challenge for the ball and, despite making contact with Mac Allister's chest, he makes contact with the ball."

The panel also voted 4-1 that there should have been no VAR intervention. The panel has five members, made up of three former players and/or coaches, plus one representative each from the Premier League and PGMOL.

What do you think is going on here?  Are the independent panel looking out for the PGMOL?  Are they biased against Liverpool too?  If so, that looks a lot like a conspiracy to me.

[Eeyore]

I was attempting to address the bad decisions more broadly - in that there's a systemic flaw with VAR and how it has infected decision-making processes. The three incidents are certainly egregious - no question. Yet I would say we're not the only one. Do the league want Wolves to go down because their season has almost been ruined with VAR.

I maintain that the system is flawed and the culture around the system isn't suited to making it work.

Wolves have had three managers who have vented their frustrations regarding the PGMOL and refereeing decisions. Nuno, Lopetegui and O'Neil. As Markmywords says though the PGMOL have to show they will not be ordered around by managers. If they don't then you will get other managers complaining.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Yep. Differing opinions. All fine when you think about it.

So as you have a differing opinion to mine (I've always said, I'm not sure what's going on), it's best to talk about known facts rather than unknown ones.

So "They both went in high" seems like a great place to start.

For me, seeing the game in real time, it looked like Mac Allister was going in to try and get the ball on his chest and then try and make a goal from that. The defender seemed to have a high boot which caught Mac Allister.

I've seen the photo and that appears to show Mac Allister was going in to try and get the ball on his chest and then try and make a goal from that. The defender seemed to have a high boot which caught Mac Allister.

I've seen the videos back (from several angles) which appears to show Mac Allister was going in to try and get the ball on his chest and then try and make a goal from that. The defender seemed to have a high boot which caught Mac Allister.

I've heard the explanation from PGMOL who is backing VAR and the ref.

Then I've heard the VAR say "They both come in high"


VAR has no time limit - several decisisons I've seen have taken five minutes or more. VAR and AVAR can see the angles and replay it - they can see the whole thing and replay it as often as they want. They'll have seen the shot I've posted above.


"They've both come in high"

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I'm trying to stay out of these threads but whatever.

They both went in high, that's factually correct, both tried to play the ball at height.  Doku with his foot, Mac Allister with his chest.

But before I get accused of being a 'ref lover':

Do I think it was a penalty?  Yes.
Do I think that VAR should have given it once they saw the footage?  Yes.
Do I think that the waffle from Webb about it was garbage and just the officials covering for each other as usual?  Yes.

One question I have for you, regarding the below:

What do you think is going on here?  Are the independent panel looking out for the PGMOL?  Are they biased against Liverpool too?  If so, that looks a lot like a conspiracy to me.

"They both went in high, that's factually correct"

Is it factually correct? Are you saying that chesting the ball down is the same as having your foot at chest height?

Can you show me where that is in the rules please.


I've got a mate that used to ref at a decently high level. He said it was an 'old boys club' and they all look out for each other. They recruit from within - it's not what you know, it's who you know.

He told me that in 1991. Doesn't look like it's changed much to me. No accountability since Riley removed that.

[tubby]

"They both went in high, that's factually correct"

Is it factually correct? Are you saying that chesting the ball down is the same as having your foot at chest height?

Can you show me where that is in the rules please.

You're saying something different to me.  Regardless of the incident, is chesting the ball playing it at height?  Yes or no?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You're saying something different to me.  Regardless of the incident, is chesting the ball playing it at height?  Yes or no?

I'm sorry, but that is genuinely the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted in this thread.


A chest-high boot that makes contact with a player is the same as a player trying to control the ball with his chest.

Wow.

[tubby]

I'm sorry, but that is genuinely the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted in this thread.


A chest-high boot that makes contact with a player is the same as a player trying to control the ball with his chest.

Wow.

You've posted asking for people to answer your question, repeatedly.  Now I've asked you a question you're refusing to answer it.

I'll ask again - Regardless of the incident, is chesting the ball playing it at height?  Yes or no?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You've posted asking for people to answer your question, repeatedly.  Now I've asked you a question you're refusing to answer it.

I'll ask again - Regardless of the incident, is chesting the ball playing it at height?  Yes or no?

Is heading the ball playing it at height?

I'm not sure what question you're asking. Is chesting a ball at chest level playing it at height?

Er. No. Chesting a ball at chest level is playing the ball with your chest.

Heading a ball at head level is playing the ball with your head

Attempting to kick a ball above the normal playing height for your feet  and subsequently kicking a player is always a foul. Potentially dangerous play if it's above waist level.

[Eeyore]

I'm trying to stay out of these threads but whatever.

The Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has also ruled that the decision was correct. The panel's findings, seen by ESPN, said on a split 3-2 vote that "a genuine attempt to play the ball with both players coming into contact with each other as a result. Doku is just about entitled to challenge for the ball and, despite making contact with Mac Allister's chest, he makes contact with the ball."

The panel also voted 4-1 that there should have been no VAR intervention. The panel has five members, made up of three former players and/or coaches, plus one representative each from the Premier League and PGMOL.

Sorry but that is quite frankly hilarious.

Do you know who the Independent panel are?

They are former England goalkeeper Robert Green; former England striker Karen Carney; former Republic of Ireland striker Jonathan Walters; his fellow former Ireland international Steven Reid, most recently a coach at Nottingham Forest; and former coach and Wimbledon manager Terry Burton.

The panel meets once a week. It consists of three of the above five plus a PGMOL representative and  Premier League official. So if the PL and PGMOL representatives vote together then you only need one of the three ex-players or managers who are paid to sit on the panel.

What do you think is going on here?  Are the independent panel looking out for the PGMOL?  Are they biased against Liverpool too?  If so, that looks a lot like a conspiracy to me.

From one member of the INDEPENDENT panel.

Jon Walters posting on X about the Diaz dissallowed goal.

‘I’ve got a timeline full of Liverpool fans moaning ‘The game needs to be replayed’ ‘Sign this petition’ … just bore off.

‘Someone made a big error and said sorry. It’s a mistake so move on.

‘There’s been plenty of mistakes this season with red cards, penalty decisions and goals given..nobody has asked for a replay.

‘The game isn’t getting replayed. END of story.

‘The world is not against you. You should try being an Everton fan this season and last season and the season before…it’s not very good’.


Sounds like the very epitome of fairness and independence.

[tubby]

Attempting to kick a ball above the normal playing height for your feet  and subsequently kicking a player is always a foul. Potentially dangerous play if it's above waist level.

I agree!  I'm not disputing that.  I just think you've picked an odd hill to die on with the line about both coming in high.  Whether the VAR official should've phrased it differently is a completely different matter, I think he should've done.  I think he should've clearly communicated to the ref that Doku's boot was raised and caught Mac Allister in the chest.  As I said, it's a pen all day for me.

I'm also still waiting for your answer regarding this:

The Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has also ruled that the decision was correct. The panel's findings, seen by ESPN, said on a split 3-2 vote that "a genuine attempt to play the ball with both players coming into contact with each other as a result. Doku is just about entitled to challenge for the ball and, despite making contact with Mac Allister's chest, he makes contact with the ball."

The panel also voted 4-1 that there should have been no VAR intervention. The panel has five members, made up of three former players and/or coaches, plus one representative each from the Premier League and PGMOL.

Do you think the independent panel is as biased against Liverpool as the PGMOL?

[tubby]

Sorry but that is quite frankly hilarious.

Do you actually know who the Indepenbt panel are?

They are former England goalkeeper Robert Green; former England striker Karen Carney; former Republic of Ireland striker Jonathan Walters; his fellow former Ireland international Steven Reid, most recently a coach at Nottingham Forest; and former coach and Wimbledon manager Terry Burton.

The panel meets once a week. It consists of three of the above five plus a PGMOL representative and  Premier League official. So if the PL and PGMOL representatives vote together then you only need one of the three ex-players or managers who are paid to sit on the panel.

From one member of the INDEPENDENT panel.

Jon Walters posting on X about the Diaz dissallowed goal.

‘I’ve got a timeline full of Liverpool fans moaning ‘The game needs to be replayed’ ‘Sign this petition’ … just bore off.

‘Someone made a big error and said sorry. It’s a mistake so move on.

‘There’s been plenty of mistakes this season with red cards, penalty decisions and goals given..nobody has asked for a replay.

‘The game isn’t getting replayed. END of story.

‘The world is not against you. You should try being an Everton fan this season and last season and the season before…it’s not very good’.


Sounds like the very epitome of fairness and independence.

Are the independent panel biased against Liverpool?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I agree!  I'm not disputing that.  I just think you've picked an odd hill to die on with the line about both coming in high.  Whether the VAR official should've phrased it differently is a completely different matter, I think he should've done.  I think he should've clearly communicated to the ref that Doku's boot was raised and caught Mac Allister in the chest.  As I said, it's a pen all day for me.

I'm also still waiting for your answer regarding this:

Do you think the independent panel is as biased against Liverpool as the PGMOL?

I think the whole thing is run like an old boys club. They appoint from within, are entirely unprofessional, take no critisim or advice. They don't strive to improve and when pulled up, double down on their actions. They also appear to actively troll and take the piss. But those things are subjective.


If Webb had come out and admitted another error had been made, that would have been shite, but at least honest. He doubled-down and said that the VAR and ref calls were correct. The independant panel said it shouldn't have gone to VAR.

One player had his feet on the floor. One player had his feet at chest height and struck the attacker in the chest.

And a penalty wasn't given. I'd like you to talk me through that.

I said before subjective things are things we don't and can't currently know. You are trying to go on about a 'sinister cabal' - we will never, ever agree and neither of us know for sure what's going on or why it's so bad for Liverpool on the whole - there have been other people including universities trawling through the data - not just Tompkins as it's interesting stuff.


So.

You can either keep chucking straw men at me or we can discuss what was said and done that we know for fact.


1. The boot was high and struck the chest of the attacker. This is a clear foul under the rules of the game
2. The VAR said that both came in high
3. The VAR said that the defender got the ball first
4. The referee immediately said 'not for me'
5. AVAR tried to get involved to take some time to review and was told to fuck off by VAR
6. The ref pretty much immediately goes and blows the final whistle
7. The independant revew team agree with VAR not being involved and one of it's members trolls Liverpool fans over the incident
8. The head of the PGMOL backs VAR and the referee despite the decision not adhering the rules of the game


If you can explain what's gone on there and why and relate that to the rules of the game, none of this is subjective - it's all recorded and available.


"They both come in high"

[lgvkarlos]

So many manc refs now it's no wonder we get a lot of fifty fity decisions against us. I honestly think a lot of the refs have an  unconscious bias.
 I don't think I could ref a Manc match fairly even if I wanted to.

[Eeyore]

Are the independent panel biased against Liverpool?

I think it is pretty obvious that Jon Walters is. I think it is pretty obvious that the Independent panel isn't very Independent. 40% of every 5-person panel is the PGMOL and PL representatives. Then you have 3 Football people who are paid by the PL.

Would you be happy with a 12-person jury in a trial with 20% from the Police, 20% from the CPS and the rest being paid every week to be on that jury?

[tubby]

"They both come in high"

What's the point?  It's just going round and round in circles now.  I've explained this to you already but you won't accept it.

But just to clarify:
The PGMOL are biased against Liverpool
The independent panel back up the referee decisions against Liverpool, suggesting they're biased too
The media is biased against Liverpool

But it's not a conspiracy.

[tubby]

I think it is pretty obvious that Jon Walters is. I think it is pretty obvious that the Independent panel isn't very Independent. 40% of every 5-person panel is the PGMOL and PL representatives. Then you have 3 Football people who are paid by the PL.

Would you be happy with a 12-person jury in a trial with 20% from the Police, 20% from the CPS and the rest being paid every week to be on that jury?

Ok, explain then how the independent panel voted 4-1 that VAR should not have interfered in the Doku pen shout?  Take Walters out and that's still 3-1.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

What's the point?  It's just going round and round in circles now.  I've explained this to you already but you won't accept it.

But just to clarify:
The PGMOL are biased against Liverpool
The independent panel back up the referee decisions against Liverpool, suggesting they're biased too
The media is biased against Liverpool

But it's not a conspiracy.

This is about the last kick of the game in possibly the biggest game in the league this year. A potential league decider against arguably the best two teams in the league in front of a world audience.

These are the points;

Which do you agree/not agree with - these aren't subjective - they are all in the public domain - no need to invoke Doctor Evil or an evil cabal. These things are documented.

Which do you agree with?

The argument that it was a 'mistake' is not possible due to the panel and then the head of PGMOL ruling..




1. The boot was high and struck the chest of the attacker. This is a clear foul under the rules of the game
2. The VAR said that both came in high
3. The VAR said that the defender got the ball first
4. The referee immediately said 'not for me'
5. AVAR tried to get involved to take some time to review and was told to fuck off by VAR
6. The ref pretty much immediately goes and blows the final whistle
7. The independant revew team agree with VAR not being involved and one of it's members trolls Liverpool fans over the incident
8. The head of the PGMOL backs VAR and the referee despite the decision not adhering the rules of the game

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Ok, explain then how the independent panel voted 4-1 that VAR should not have interfered in the Doku pen shout?  Take Walters out and that's still 3-1.

Shouldn't you be explaining that?

Was it a foul under the rules of the game?

Let's say it's day one of the new season and none of this happens and - anywhere on the pitch - a player kicks another player in the chest

BEING HONEST would you

1. Say 'that's a foul'
2. Say 'that's not a foul'


Before this season, I think there wouldn't be much controversy to say if someone kicked someone in the chest then it's a foul.

[GreatEx]

I'm sorry, I have never ever in all my years of playing and watching football heard anyone referring to chesting or heading the ball as "coming in high". It was a blatant misrepresentation of the event and I cannot believe anyone would try to defend it with a straight face.

[Eeyore]

Ok, explain then how the independent panel voted 4-1 that VAR should not have interfered in the Doku pen shout?  Take Walters out and that's still 3-1.

I have just indicated why I think the Independent panel aren't very Independent. It is akin to the CPS selecting 14 professional jurors with 7 appearing on every jury. It is in their interest to toe the line in the vast majority of cases.

Do you think Walters should be allowed to sit on a INDEPENDENT panel when he has clearly shown how biased he is against Liverpool?

[Eeyore]

I'm sorry, I have never ever in all my years of playing and watching football heard anyone referring to chesting or heading the ball as "coming in high". It was a blatant misrepresentation of the event and I cannot believe anyone would try to defend it with a straight face.

It isn't an isolated incident though. In the EFL final Brooks told Kavanagh that Caicedo slipped when he crippled Gravenberch. Then we had the Odegaard penalty incident. In all three incidents the VAR has for me lied.