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

[Fitzy.]

Nope just anything to help city. Arsenal getting fucked over too.

What about the disallowed City goal against Liverpool - pretty soft. Or the fact Hwang could easily have had 2 yellows against City in September? Or the very late Palace penalty against City? Or sending Rodri off for a three game ban?

If it’s about helping City, the refs also skilled at throwing in outliers. Is this to keep us off the scent? Or was this just good refereeing?


A problematic narrative to steer.

[Fitzy.]

The refs are obviously incompetent. That’s a given.
To those saying they are not also corrupt. I understand it’s a hard job, and mistakes can be made. However, the introduction of VAR has shown that a lot of these incidents are not mistakes. They are decisions that you can only get wrong if you want to. In other words, they are decisions you can only get wrong if you are corrupt.
I really wouldn’t be surprised if it was connected to far east gambling. Maybe that picture of them all with the ladies was showing part of their payment.

To counter this, is the fact many fans don’t fully understand the role of VAR and how it’s used or not, as is sometimes the case.

Proof of this is the extremely good Monday morning explainer from Dale Johnson as he deconstructs the decision making process when VAR is used. He’s well-educated in this area so offers dispassionate insight and analysis of why VAR did what it did.

Fans lineup to tweet abuse at Johnson as he disappoints them with rational explanations.

This isn’t me saying VAR is actually good - nor is Johnson saying this - it’s just an observation of how fans have the capacity to misunderstand VAR’s role under the current laws. This then leads to wrong shouts of corruption when VAR doesn’t behave as they wish.

The system is so over-complicated that the average fan (me included) becomes disillusioned with how laws are enforced.

[CowboyKangaroo]

I do not believe in a conspiracy against Liverpool. However, there is accepted corruption within the refereeing of a game. It should simply not ever be acceptable for a referee to accept money from the de facto (and internationally, the de jure) owners of a football club. Ever. Under any circumstances.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Have a look at how many titles City have actually been gifted, then come back and be honest.



Some of you fuckers would be first across the picket line.

[flyingcod]

Reminds me of the 84-85 Serie A season when out of nowhere Hellas Verona went and won the scuddetto for the first (and only) time.

From wiki:

Hellas finished the year with a 15–13–2 record and 43 points, four points ahead of Torino with Internazionale and Sampdoria rounding out the top four spots. This unusual final table of the Serie A (with the most successful Italian teams of the time, Juventus and Roma, ending up much lower than expected) has led to many speculations. The 1984–85 season was the only season when referees were assigned to matches by way of a random draw. Before then each referee had always been assigned to a specific match by a special commission of referees (designatori arbitrali). After the betting scandal of the early 1980 (the Calcio Scommesse scandal), it was decided to clean up the image of Italian football by assigning referees randomly instead of picking them, to clear up all the suspicions and accusations always accompanying Italy's football life. This resulted in a quieter championship and in a completely unexpected final table.

In the following season, won again by Juventus, the choice of the referees went back in the hands of the designatori arbitrali. In 2006, a major scandal in Italian football revealed that certain clubs had been illegally influencing the referee selection process in an attempt to ensure that certain referees were assigned to their matches.


For the record I am not a Matt LeTissier conspiracy mentalist but you do wonder with some of the odd refereeing/VAR decisions recently.

fc

[JackWard33]

People can be very selective when it comes to bad decisions. Why does nobody ever remember the decisions that went in our favour?

Everyone is quick to mention the Rodri handball but are you seriously suggesting Man City didn’t have any decisions go wrongly against them in that same season? If Paul Tierney is so corrupt why didn’t he send Milner off against City at Anfield in the same season for what was a clear second yellow card offence? Perfect opportunity to give City an advantage over us.

Look at our games a bit more closely and you’ll see there are a lot of decisions that could be given against us that aren’t - some quite big ones. It’s easy to forget these but they do happen - and they go for and against everyone else too.

The obsessive corruption shouts are getting a bit much now, it’s far too Everton for me. The refs are awful and there is likely unconscious bias at play in some cases but the suggestions of a conspiracy is wide of the mark - there can’t be a conspiracy against every club!

‘it’s far too Everton for me’ is a great line and sums up how I feel about it

[Keith Lard]

I think some of you find it too painful to admit that the world is full of self interest, bias and corruption.

Take a step back and just contemplate how Man City have gotten to where they are. Biggest beneficiaries of financial doping in the history of the game. Corruption in officiating is funded through the financial doping. They put Abramovich’s Chelsea in the shade.

Why are people so blind to this? Like pissing in the wind trying to make people see sense. Man City are the most plastic, soulless entity the game has ever seen.

[stockdam]

I stated a series of pieces of observations without strict evidence that give me an extremely strong sense that there is serious corruption in the game (on many levels),

I stand by my previous post. I stated what I think and can’t do much more than that. If I had thousands of hours to spend researching and pursuing evidence, then I would. Unfortunately the system is very well organised to obfuscate the truth, and the pursuit of justice is not as straightforward as your previous post demands.

It is bloody obvious, for example, that the game is deeply corrupt when it comes to financial doping.

It is bloody obvious that human beings are easily corrupted with financial incentives. This is why you even have technology such as trustless blockchain to try and eliminate human beings from decision making (think decentralised daos - decentralised autonomous organisations for trust less governance) and financial management (trustless banking). It’s because humans can’t be trusted not to be corrupted.

Everything I see indicates corruption and bought intentional incompetence is rife in the game and upper echelons of power.

Everything you see might indicate corruption but that isn’t clear evidence.

It would be much better to minimise the chances of corruption. It’s very hard to stop one person being corrupt (eg taking a bribe for kicking the ball out of play on the 23rd minute but then make it illegal to make such bets…….except it would still be legal in China etc). If we are solely talking about corruption involving VAR then change the system so that one person cannot make the call or make the decision making process transparent so that clubs can complain if a suspicious decision is made).

VAR makes it harder for one corrupt person to affect a match but introduce more transparency so that weird decisions can be isolated and discussed.

[Fitzy.]

I think some of you find it too painful to admit that the world is full of self interest, bias and corruption.

Take a step back and just contemplate how Man City have gotten to where they are. Biggest beneficiaries of financial doping in the history of the game. Corruption in officiating is funded through the financial doping. They put Abramovich’s Chelsea in the shade.

Why are people so blind to this? Like pissing in the wind trying to make people see sense. Man City are the most plastic, soulless entity the game has ever seen.

I’d be genuinely interested in seeing actual evidence of corruption in officiating related to financial doping. Otherwise, it’s guesswork.

[tray fenny]

Crazy that some of our supporters believe that a club so hell bent on financially cheating off the pitch wouldnt actually explore doing the same on the pitch, theyre not even football people.

[Fitzy.]

Crazy that some of our supporters believe that a club so hell bent on financially cheating off the pitch wouldnt actually explore doing the same on the pitch, theyre not even football people.

True. But you have to have evidence rather than just connecting the dots-type logic.

[MonsLibpool]

Crazy that some of our supporters believe that a club so hell bent on financially cheating off the pitch wouldnt actually explore doing the same on the pitch, theyre not even football people.

At the end of the day, things will only improve if we shine a light on them. Just like how Jurgen complained about the penalties United were getting. If he didn't,  the pristine refs would have continued awarding them one PK per game.

But I'm sure some on here said it was a coincidence out of pride.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Crazy that some of our supporters believe that a club so hell bent on financially cheating off the pitch wouldnt actually explore doing the same on the pitch, theyre not even football people.

And also think that the Boss & players are all conspiracy nuts.

[Eeyore]

True. But you have to have evidence rather than just connecting the dots-type logic.

I would say the PGMOL allowing its officials to be paid large sums of money by nation-states to officiate games when those nation-states own Premier League clubs is creating a conflict of interest. Facilitating that conflict of interest is a form of corruption.

It wouldn't be allowed in other industries. 

[newterp]

Look at Dermott calling the shove of Salah a "nudge"...no bias there.

They will tie themselves in knots to support their mates as needed.

[Ipcress]

I would say the PGMOL allowing its officials to be paid large sums of money by nation-states to officiate games when those nation-states own Premier League clubs is creating a conflict of interest. Facilitating that conflict of interest is a form of corruption.

It wouldn't be allowed in other industries.

Even if not done deliberately, a split second subjective decision that may upset someone giving you invitations to 3 £20,000 pay days a year may have been influenced without the ref even thinking about it. Better to avoid such things and instead send the refs on extra VAR protocol training days.

[Ipcress]

Look at Dermott calling the shove of Salah a "nudge"...no bias there.

They will tie themselves in knots to support their mates as needed.

Weirdly enough would a pull on a shirt with the same force be regarded as equally not a penalty? To be fair I've seen TAA get away with 2 handed pushes in the past.

[So… Howard Philips]

Even if not done deliberately, a split second subjective decision that may upset someone giving you invitations to 3 £20,000 pay days a year may have been influenced without the ref even thinking about it. Better to avoid such things and instead send the refs on extra VAR protocol training days.

I worked in local government and if we were on an all day factory inspection it was quicker to have lunch in the factory canteen.

We had to log this with the Director’s office within 24 for reasons of transparency.

Referees should be like Caesar’s wife “those holding positions of importance should avoid even the appearance of wrong”.

However we live in a society where a whole range of minor corruptions are accepted practice.

[Keith Lard]

Everything you see might indicate corruption but that isn’t clear evidence.

It would be much better to minimise the chances of corruption. It’s very hard to stop one person being corrupt (eg taking a bribe for kicking the ball out of play on the 23rd minute but then make it illegal to make such bets…….except it would still be legal in China etc). If we are solely talking about corruption involving VAR then change the system so that one person cannot make the call or make the decision making process transparent so that clubs can complain if a suspicious decision is made).

VAR makes it harder for one corrupt person to affect a match but introduce more transparency so that weird decisions can be isolated and discussed.

I think I addressed in my previous posts the challenges of providing strict evidence.

But yes, I agree with the overall theme of your post.

Unfortunately, humans are like rats up a drain pipe when it comes to finding ways to circumvent new systems, rules and regulations. There are wealthy, corrupts people and entities going out their way to get the results and outcomes they desire in sport. Their methods keep changing to adapt (only human nature)

[Redbonnie]

I am looking forward to reading this thread again in 10 years time. An investigation by City of London Police will have uncovered widespread betting fraud in the Premier League, fuelling the  launch of the super league. The surprise hero will be Bobby Madley who had returned to PGMOL as a police informant exposing his brother in a brilliant revenge sting.

[Fitzy.]

I would say the PGMOL allowing its officials to be paid large sums of money by nation-states to officiate games when those nation-states own Premier League clubs is creating a conflict of interest. Facilitating that conflict of interest is a form of corruption.

It wouldn't be allowed in other industries. 

It does seem like a conflict of interest. What’s less clear is any notion that this then directly contributes to decisions on a football pitch. Look forward to a whistleblower or good journalist telling us of payment and bribes. Nothing yet.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

It doesn't seem like a conflict of interests, it IS a conflict of interests.

[Eeyore]

It does seem like a conflict of interest. What’s less clear is any notion that this then directly contributes to decisions on a football pitch. Look forward to a whistleblower or good journalist telling us of payment and bribes. Nothing yet.

Is it necessary though to demonstrate that payments directly contributed to decisions being made.

From the Barca case.

A judge charged Barcelona football club and two of its former presidents with bribery on Thursday for making around €7.3 million ($7.7 million) in payments to one of the country’s top referees.

Spanish police also raided the offices of Spain’s football federation to find more evidence related to the payments to Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira.

From 1993 to 2018, Negreira was vice president of Spain’s Technical Committee of Referees, which forms part of Spain’s football federation.

Barca is accused of bribing the head of the referee body from 2001 to 2018.

The judge handling the case said it is logical to assume that the payments Barca made to Negreira “produced the arbitration effects desired by F.C. Barcelona, in such a way that there must have been inequality in the treatment of other teams and the consequent systemic corruption in Spanish arbitration as a whole.”

The judge, Joaquin Aguirre, said Thursday’s raids may help confirm the corruption.

Barca and those related to the case had already been indicted with corruption, but the charge of bribery is new.

“The crime of bribery was committed when the payment was made, whether or not the systemic corruption of Spanish arbitration is demonstrated,” said Aguirre

[Red Beret]

We only have circumstantial evidence that the game on the pitch in England is outright corrupt (plenty of evidence for corruption off the pitch mind). But when you consider Italy has had multiple referee scandals and that Barcelona is currently embroiled in such a scandal, it's hard not to conceive that the PL, rife with sportswashing clubs, wouldn't dabble in such affairs - confident that the PL doesn't have the balls to take any meaningful action (and can be dragged through the courts for years if they do).

You would think the investigation into City would turn up at least the suggestion of game tampering, if it has been going on - certainly as others have said, no English refs should be taking busman holidays to the countries of sportswashed owned clubs. But we need some very brave people to expose any potential links as right now it seems people are following the maxim that committing crimes out in the open somehow makes them unpunishable.

[Huyrob]

It does seem like a conflict of interest. What’s less clear is any notion that this then directly contributes to decisions on a football pitch. Look forward to a whistleblower or good journalist telling us of payment and bribes. Nothing yet.

The figure of £20k plus first class flights 5 star accomodation has been mentioned for one match …..do you not think this payment suggests a bribe , particularly given the promise of further trips?

[CS111]

Need one of those undercover stings to happen. Though prob near impossible to pull that off these days, youd need to have your feet under the table for years to create some sort of trust in the business before exposing them for what they are.
Its like a sort of 'open secret'. You can see it happening, just cant prove it, yet ..

[Red Beret]

That’s an interesting perspective. Other fan bases on the other hand think Liverpool is one of the three media darlings, that the press is shit scared to paint LFC in anything but a balanced light, that LFC complains the most and loudest when any wrong decision goes against them, and that Klopp is the most vocal and outraged about perceived injustice, to the point where he has been fined nearly every year for it.

To be fair, I was reading something today where the general sentiment (this was from Chelsea of all clubs) was the above - but good on LFC, this is how change is effected, and they wish CFC complained more as well since their last manager to raise the issue of bias was Mourinho, and every manager since has been too diplomatic to raise it.

As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

The irony is that our fanbase complains that FSG and the club isn't complaining enough about our apparent mistreatment. Bias is a two way street - the same rival fans who complain they are being mistreated also complain about whinging scousers getting special treatment. This is the club that won the fair play award something like six seasons on the bounce. An award seemingly about as much use as a decaff espresso.

I guess we could look at it from this perspective - a few weeks after we're sent down to 9 against Spurs, they themselves find themselves reduced to nine men. Where an Arsenal fan plays basketball against us, West Ham get the rub of the green against them in return. I'm not saying bad decisions even themselves out, and if it's hard evidence people are after then I don't have it, but there does seem to be something odd going on this season, although I can't say if it's a trend.

At the end of the day, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. There is circumstantial evidence showing something is definitely up and it is getting worse, or at least more pronounced. There's just not enough to say definitively what it is, or what the root cause is.

[Bobinhood]

If you are not paranoid by now it may be too late.

[JP!]

For each mad raving 'conspiracy theorist' there's the opposite - a good little soldier who will be 'fair and balanced' and ignore what's in front of their eyes to gain the cache of other, non-Liverpool supporting people.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. We get some crap decisions, probably more than most, but the refereeing standard isn't great for anyone.

[Historical Fool]

The irony is that our fanbase complains that FSG and the club isn't complaining enough about our apparent mistreatment. Bias is a two way street - the same rival fans who complain they are being mistreated also complain about whinging scousers getting special treatment. This is the club that won the fair play award something like six seasons on the bounce. An award seemingly about as much use as a decaff espresso.

I guess we could look at it from this perspective - a few weeks after we're sent down to 9 against Spurs, they themselves find themselves reduced to nine men. Where an Arsenal fan plays basketball against us, West Ham get the rub of the green against them in return. I'm not saying bad decisions even themselves out, and if it's hard evidence people are after then I don't have it, but there does seem to be something odd going on this season, although I can't say if it's a trend.

At the end of the day, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. There is circumstantial evidence showing something is definitely up and it is getting worse, or at least more pronounced. There's just not enough to say definitively what it is, or what the root cause is.

Maybe an explanation is that new rules were implemented to cut down on dissent and card waving, referees were over-zealous in applying them (probably due to handed down directives at the start of the season) and players weren’t caught up yet with the rules. As the season goes on the referees and players both adjust to something more reasonable while maintaining the spirit of the directive. That could explain the spate of random sending offs and bookings.

[Cafe De Paris]

Going back to the push on Salah. Interesting that they, the var, also didn’t consider the push on the arsenal defender for the Newcastle goal. I have no interest in arsenal but that decision showed that they are not for the time being at least punishing for a player getting shoved in the penalty area.

[RayPhilAlan]

I would say the PGMOL allowing its officials to be paid large sums of money by nation-states to officiate games when those nation-states own Premier League clubs is creating a conflict of interest. Facilitating that conflict of interest is a form of corruption.

It wouldn't be allowed in other industries.

That's definitely true, Al. It's clearly wrong, and it needs to stop.

No one's explained yet why the refs are all out to get Wolves though. Why is Onana allowed to punch two of them in the head, unpunished? Why are their opponents awarded penalties for falling over untouched?

Unless someone can come up with a reason why Wolves should be so fiercely targeted this season, you have to assume it's just bad luck that they're getting so many inept decisions against them. And if they have bad luck, so can other clubs. Even us.

My take on it is that it's a VAR problem. On-field refs are always concerned about making the wrong decision. Now they're being told that if they get it wrong, there's a corrections process, and the VAR will sort it, so they can relax and just make a call one way or the other. But VAR, instructed to not re-referee the game, will find reasons to back up the onfield ref - "Yes, there's a tiny slip by Odegaard, so he couldn't help but swing his arm in an effort to regain his balance. Stay with your onfield decision."
 

[Eeyore]

That's definitely true, Al. It's clearly wrong, and it needs to stop.

No one's explained yet why the refs are all out to get Wolves though. Why is Onana allowed to punch two of them in the head, unpunished? Why are their opponents awarded penalties for falling over untouched?

Unless someone can come up with a reason why Wolves should be so fiercely targeted this season, you have to assume it's just bad luck that they're getting so many inept decisions against them. And if they have bad luck, so can other clubs. Even us.

My take on it is that it's a VAR problem. On-field refs are always concerned about making the wrong decision. Now they're being told that if they get it wrong, there's a corrections process, and the VAR will sort it, so they can relax and just make a call one way or the other. But VAR, instructed to not re-referee the game, will find reasons to back up the onfield ref - "Yes, there's a tiny slip by Odegaard, so he couldn't help but swing his arm in an effort to regain his balance. Stay with your onfield decision."
 

Wolves managers and even their Sporting Director have had run-ins with match officials. Nuno Esprinto was charged with misconduct in 2019 and 2020. Lopetegui and Hobbs this season.

You have a go at match officials and they close ranks as Liverpool have found out.

[JRed]

Wolves managers and even their Sporting Director have had run-ins with match officials. Nuno Esprinto was charged with misconduct in 2019 and 2020. Lopetegui and Hobbs this season.

You have a go at match officials and they close ranks as Liverpool have found out.

This is definitely part of it.
There is zero accountability for them so they know they can do whatever they want.

[RayPhilAlan]

Wolves managers and even their Sporting Director have had run-ins with match officials. Nuno Esprinto was charged with misconduct in 2019 and 2020. Lopetegui and Hobbs this season.

You have a go at match officials and they close ranks as Liverpool have found out.

*Doffs cap*

Disagree, but should have known better than to take you on, even when I'm right! Now, why were Wolves allowed to beat Man City this season? And in several recent ones?

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

*Doffs cap*

Disagree, but should have known better than to take you on, even when I'm right! Now, why were Wolves allowed to beat Man City this season? And in several recent ones?

Well, if there is corruption, it won't be widespread, and those officials who are corrupt would have to do it in a way that wasn't absolutely blatant, over time, to tip the balance in the way they are being paid for. Sometimes other officials (VAR/Refs/Linesmen) will overrule them or at least make cheating difficult.

Generally, I think there's a lovely mixture of incompetence, institutional bias, paid bias (hi Darren), and quite probably a wee bit of outright corruption too. That makes it hard to tell which turd is which.

[MonsLibpool]

What some are completely missing is that a biased ref is corrupt. Why? Because refs are meant to be unbiased.

It's like a biased judge. The thread is just going round in circles based on semantics. Their Bias has (had) a massive sporting and financial impact. I'm honestly baffled at the attempts to explain it away as if it's nothing.

We waited 30 years to win the league again so getting screwed out of two titles is a big deal and shouldn't be explained away. We lost out to financial cheats and we "unlucky" with inexplicably bad decisions made by "biased" referees and key points of the season.

It's fine I guess.

[KevLFC]

I dont agree its corrupt. There are a few games where we got the rub of the green so to speak. There are decisions that went in our favour in the derby for example. Correct or not but a corrupt one would not award a penalty for us and would send Konate off for 2 yellows. Against Palace There was a harsh red for Ayew and Man Utds Dalot getting sent off for 2 yellows against us for disent was odd.

I don't think it is corrupt in City's favour either or the officials do a good job of hiding it as they had decisions go against them like v Spurs and Chelsea. They don't half look a real angry mob when the decision doesn't go there way, maybe refs are intimidated the way they where in the 90s with the other mancs?

It can't be corrupt in Arsenal's favour as they had dodgy goals scored against them when they played Newcastle and West Ham.

[Eeyore]

*Doffs cap*

Disagree, but should have known better than to take you on, even when I'm right! Now, why were Wolves allowed to beat Man City this season? And in several recent ones?

The Wolves game was refereed by Pawson who has had several run-ins with Guardiola.

City's record in games refed by Pawson P 26  W17 D4 L5  win% 65%

City's record in games refed by Tierney P 29 W25 D2 L2 win% 86%

That is a remarkable difference.

Unsurprisingly the opposite happens with Tierney and Liverpool.

Liverpool with Tierney P 27 W15 D8 L4 win% 55%

Liverpool with Pawson P 37 W26 D5 L6 win% 70%.


So City's chance of winning with Tierney is 21 percentage points better than with Pawson. Whilst Liverpool's chances drop by 15 percentage points with Tierney in charge instead of Pawson.

It is not just Liverpool though with Tierney. Arsenal's record since they became competitive and started threatening City is quite interesting since 21/22 Arsenal's record with Tierney in charge is P7 W0 D2 L5.

[jepovic]

Is it necessary though to demonstrate that payments directly contributed to decisions being made.

Nope, not at all, not for public servants and not at most major corporations.
Most would lose their job for getting such payments