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

[Eeyore]

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

Exactly. For me the match officials and VAR act as judge and jury.

Imagine a scenario in which just before a major court case a competitor employs the judge, massively overpays, arranges first-class flights and a five-star hotel.

The irony is that when Webb was head of the Saudi Arabia refereeing federation he wanted to stop the use of foreign match officials. 

[BoRed]

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

Never mind payments, most would lose their job for being as shit at their job as PGMOL's finest are.

So if you limit "corruption" to mates covering up for mates, you don't need to look far for the evidence, the fact that they're all still in their jobs after this many acknowledged fuckups and apologies (without even going into the non-acknowledged ones) is all the evidence you need.

Darren England at Spurs was the equivalent of an airline pilot crashing a plane into the airport building because he was too busy pouring himself a drink to notice it. Can you imagine that pilot (assuming he survived ) being given another plane to fly ever again, never mind a week later (regardless of how "honest" his mistake was)?

[MiddleMan]

The Spurs game - oh the Spurs game. This was the game where I felt most like there is some sort of conspiracy. In the moment, it felt as if the referees, VAR, and the broadcasters were conspiring against us. Perhaps they were not specifically conspiring against us, but in some way, conspiring for a reason that is not sporting.

Don't know exactly how to describe it, it was mostly a sense of the Sky Sports broadcast being 'off' in some way. The flow just didn't go as I would usually expect having watched thousands of games before. There was a fixation on the freeze frame on the Jones red card, the only full speed angle given to the ref was from behind the goal for some reason? The absurd ruling out of the Diaz goal, no lines shown, the broadcast moves on expediently and hardly questions the call. I believe Sky at half time didn't even discuss the call (have heard this, I don't watch half time shows). The VAR allegedly not communicating this to the referee, and no sense of righting the wrong. The soft yellows for Jota, the second coming off what I consider to be a dive from Udogie. Udogie mimes a card to urge the ref to give it; ref doesn't give Udogie a second yellow for this. There was also a potential penalty for us where our player was wiped out in the box (akin to the Quansah one), no VAR review, no replay by Sky, no commentators noting it. Just, once again, move on and act like nothing happened.

This is leaving out, of course, the PGMOL saying that VAR did not intervene before having to change their stance as Neville revealed the 'check complete' occurred. The dodgy travel to the country of our team's owner whereby they are getting paid well above market rate, traveling back the day before. The way Sky pressured Neville to calm his criticism.

Personally, I think it is corrupt, and this game was just the poster child for it. Those who disagree can look down at those who see conspiracy, but that doesn't make conspiracy less likely. A million incompetent, unlikely and inconsistent decisions through the season can drown out the signal of corruption within all of the noise. This is the strategy I see being employed; and it is as likely as a scenario as the assertion that referees are simply incompetent. As if referees have never been swayed by monied or otherwise self-interest.

[Son of Spion]

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.

But the actual sport itself is corrupt in Abu Dhabi's favour. As it stands today, they've been allowed to break hundreds of rules. They've been allowed to financially dope for over a decade. A nation state has demolished fundamental rules of the game by owning a football club in the PL then basically sponsor themselves with deals that make Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool and Manchester United look like paupers.

Anyone with a pair of eyes can see the sport is riddled with corruption. The only real debate left is whether or not that corruption has filtered all the way down to what happens on the field of play, and if so, to what extent.

The game itself is skewed towards Abu Dhabi success, and they certainly didn't get there legally or organically. They got there by cheating the sport and its rules on an industrial scale. There are plenty of people in the sport that waved that through too.

Same process is now ongoing with the Saudis. Another nation state waved through by a corrupt government and a PL seemingly unwilling to enforce its own rules when the purchaser has a bottomless pit of cash to wave about. In time, the game will be skewed towards Saudi 'success' too.

How do known murderers become owners of PL football clubs if everything is above board? That's exactly what's happened at the club formerly known as Newcastle United. They only got waved through because they are stinking rich and the British government wants them onside. It's mutual back scratching for gain of one sort or another. It's corrupt.

[Son of Spion]

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

How is the ordinary football fan who sits in the stands every other week to watch his/ her team supposed to gather such evidence, though? That's one hell of an ask.

This is a very murky world we are talking about here. The 90 minute game is just the glossy face of it. We can never know the depths and details of what goes on behind the scenes. We just see the shambolic mess the game has descended into and we see the charlatans and scumbags running the game and owning clubs. We know some clubs are now owned for highly political, not sporting, purposes. We know what those people are proven to be capable of.

Sometimes, all you have to go on is the dots. And sometimes, when you join them up you do get a reasonably accurate picture. Sometimes, when it looks like a turd, smells like a turd and tastes like a turd, it is actually a turd.

Just to add. I don't see every bizarre decision made by a referee or VAR as corrupt. There is definite bias at play though at times. There is also staggering incompetence too. Micro examining each decision just muddies the waters. What really matters is trends. Trends that sway outcomes when the titles are won and lost. Yes, Abu Dhabi will get a few shit decisions go against them, but they won't get screwed over week after week after week. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but ten thousand of them probably do. It's the overall trends that matter. The bigger, overall picture.

[Historical Fool]

But the actual sport itself is corrupt in Abu Dhabi's favour. As it stands today, they've been allowed to break hundreds of rules. They've been allowed to financially dope for over a decade. A nation state has demolished fundamental rules of the game by owning a football club in the PL then basically sponsor themselves with deals that make Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool and Manchester United look like paupers.

Anyone with a pair of eyes can see the sport is riddled with corruption. The only real debate left is whether or not that corruption has filtered all the way down to what happens on the field of play, and if so, to what extent.

The game itself is skewed towards Abu Dhabi success, and they certainly didn't get there legally or organically. They got there by cheating the sport and its rules on an industrial scale. There are plenty of people in the sport that waved that through too.

Same process is now ongoing with the Saudis. Another nation state waved through by a corrupt government and a PL seemingly unwilling to enforce its own rules when the purchaser has a bottomless pit of cash to wave about. In time, the game will be skewed towards Saudi 'success' too.

How do known murderers become owners of PL football clubs if everything is above board? That's exactly what's happened at the club formerly known as Newcastle United. They only got waved through because they are stinking rich and the British government wants them onside. It's mutual back scratching for gain of one sort or another. It's corrupt.

A whole sport can’t be labelled as corrupt though? Everyone plays by the same rules in the localised sporting competition, and there isn’t a law of the game that explicitly favours City, or teams from Manchester, at all.

Yes, there are allegations against City that will need to be proven in due course. You may very well be correct - but equally so, you may not. Perhaps it’s premature to proceed on the basis that they have cheated, albeit I am with you that it is likely they did, I just find myself unable to assert this with any certainty.

Does the ownership test need to be more stringent? Yes, potentially. Are there external considerations in the application of the ownership test? More than likely. But the idea of disparity in earning capability, and therefore the disparity in wages, ability to spend, and attractiveness of clubs, has always been an issue in England for as long as I can remember. With freedom of movement and loosening of borders through the EU came the consequence of freedom of cross-border finance and capitalism. Football clubs, especially depressed ones, have a remarkable ceiling for improvement on initial investment and so are attractive to a whole host of actors globally in the last decade or two at least.

It’s just more visible now because of the ever increasing numbers in football finance, the disconnect from reality of regular people, the stream of information easily available on the internet, and the pricing out of those who used to regularly attend matches. But all of this was inevitable in a model where fan ownership is not statutorily guaranteed and working class fans have no presence on the board.

If a single thing can be pinpointed as the cause of this rat race, for me, it’s when football gate receipts stopped being shared.

[Keith Lard]

How is the ordinary football fan who sits in the stands every other week to watch his/ her team supposed to gather such evidence, though? That's one hell of an ask.

This is a very murky world we are talking about here. The 90 minute game is just the glossy face of it. We can never know the depths and details of what goes on behind the scenes. We just see the shambolic mess the game has descended into and we see the charlatans and scumbags running the game and owning clubs. We know some clubs are now owned for highly political, not sporting, purposes. We know what those people are proven to be capable of.

Sometimes, all you have to go on is the dots. And sometimes, when you join them up you do get a reasonably accurate picture. Sometimes, when it looks like a turd, smells like a turd and tastes like a turd, it is actually a turd.

Just to add. I don't see every bizarre decision made by a referee or VAR as corrupt. There is definite bias at play though at times. There is also staggering incompetence too. Micro examining each decision just muddies the waters. What really matters is trends. Trends that sway outcomes when the titles are won and lost. Yes, Abu Dhabi will get a few shit decisions go against them, but they won't get screwed over week after week after week. One swallow doesn't make a summer, but ten thousand of them probably do. It's the overall trends that matter. The bigger, overall picture.

Wholeheartedly agree with your last 2 posts. Very well said.

[macmanamanaman]

I suspect there is corruption but via the betting syndicates, not always backing any one team.

So, specific scores and scorers,  number of corners and penalties  freekicks, etc.
Having the ref steer the match to a "target" outcome might explain some of the shocking casss of "incompetence " one sees. Seemingly averaging out over a season but, in reality, just meeting more betting targets.

I refuse to believe a professional referee,  with the help of video replays can be as bad at interpreting the rules of football as most pgmol refs seem to consistently be. Its a racket. Gotta be.

[Fitzy.]

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.

You could surmise from this that Pawson is pro-Liverpool and anti-City, right?


Do Liverpool pay Pawson?

[Redbonnie]

Never mind payments, most would lose their job for being as shit at their job as PGMOL's finest are.

So if you limit "corruption" to mates covering up for mates, you don't need to look far for the evidence, the fact that they're all still in their jobs after this many acknowledged fuckups and apologies (without even going into the non-acknowledged ones) is all the evidence you need.

Darren England at Spurs was the equivalent of an airline pilot crashing a plane into the airport building because he was too busy pouring himself a drink to notice it. Can you imagine that pilot (assuming he survived ) being given another plane to fly ever again, never mind a week later (regardless of how "honest" his mistake was)?

This is spot on.  We the public see inexplicable errors being made for which there are no consequences. In fact  their boss uses mental gymnastics to excuse and minimise or even justify these errors on TV, gaslighting the fans.

Has anyone yet got to the bottom of whether or not the VAR officials were correct in saying they couldn’t have stopped the game? I don’t mean by our interpretation of the rules has PGMOL come out either way yet?

This obfuscation and arse covering by a male, pale and stale closed shop is starting to undermine sporting integrity, and the Premier League as a product.

Howard Webb should do the following,

Break up ref teams through the introduction of randomisation of official selection for fixtures.

Introduce a referee code of conduct around avoiding influence ( such as accepting club hospitality)

Veto moonlighting jobs under said code

Require financial transparency and investigate living beyond means,

Diversify the referee pool ( which he seems to have started)

He should do this via asking an independent regulator to make recommendations  and then follow their advice.

It is not enough for justice to be done justice must be seen to be done for us to have faith in the reffing system. When they stopped being headmasters from harrow and took the professional coin, they should accept the same scrutiny we all have in our jobs through regulation whether you are a taxi driver, builder, or work in the city.

[rob1966]

You could surmise from this that Pawson is pro-Liverpool and anti-City, right?


Do Liverpool pay Pawson?

There is only a 5% difference so it suggests Pawson referees both clubs in roughly the same manner, whereas there's a 31% difference with Tierney.

Of course a lot can be explained if Tierney refs us more in the seasons we are shit, 20/21 or 22/23, but Stevie Wonder can see the bias when Tierney does us. It's shit from letting Harry Kane off with a leg breaker, not giving us a stonewall pen, to subtle stuff like last season where he allowed the palace keeper to timewaste for 89 minutes before saying a word.

The man's a cheat

[Eeyore]

You could surmise from this that Pawson is pro-Liverpool and anti-City, right?


Do Liverpool pay Pawson?

The difference is that Pawsons win% for both teams is around normal compared to the win averages of Ped and Klopp. Whereas Tierney is just a complete outlier for both teams.

Here is another one David Coote.

Man City have a 100% win ratio with Coote as referee.

Liverpool have a 40% win ratio with Coote as referee.

Liverpool have a 42% win ratio with Coote as VAR not surprising because he thought Odegaard didn't handle the ball against us.

Liverpool have a 0% win rate with Darren England as VAR again not surprising watch the Spurs game again.

These arent slight anomalies at play or statistical variance they are huge outliers that for me simply can't be explained away.

[Red Beret]

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.

That's my view too. The evidence that something is off might be circumstantial, but it's also overwhelming. Unfortunately there's just no definitive smoking guns, and for many they need absolute proof to be convinced.

Nothing wrong in holding that perspective either, but I think to dismiss these concerns as being baseless, or conspiracy thinking, is wide of the mark. You don't need to identify the source of the smell to know something stinks.

[macmanamanaman]

The difference is that Pawsons win% for both teams is around normal compared to the win averages of Ped and Klopp. Whereas Tierney is just a complete outlier for both teams.

Here is another one David Coote.

Man City have a 100% win ratio with Coote as referee.

Liverpool have a 40% win ratio with Coote as referee.

Liverpool have a 42% win ratio with Coote as VAR not surprising because he thought Odegaard didn't handle the ball against us.

Liverpool have a 0% win rate with Darren England as VAR again not surprising watch the Spurs game again.

These arent slight anomalies at play or statistical variance they are huge outliers that for me simply can't be explained away.

That is....remarkable.

[Yorkykopite]

Excellent opening post Fitzy. I agree with practically every line...though not the last. ("Good enough" could easily read "Lucky enough" for me).

Conspiracy thinking - in football, in life - would be just laughable were it not for one thing, which you mention. It encourages people to take their gaze away from the real problems. So, understanding exactly how capitalism works and how its injustices operate is very difficult and time-consuming. Much easier to blame everything on the Bilderberg Group or 'Zionists'. The same in football. There are really serious problems with global football governance and the impact of MONEY on the evolution of the game. But they are hard to think about and organise against. It's much easier to say that the football authorities are conspiring against your team.

The standard of referring is probably the best it has ever been. But it's pretty lousy. VAR is an excellent innovation but it has exposed just how lousy most refs are because it has opened up fresh vistas of controversy while extending the range of decision-making for referees. All teams suffer, in the sense that stupid decisions are made against them. All teams benefit, in the sense that stupid decisions are made for them. I sense that Liverpool have been particularly unlucky and suffered more than most this season. But, like you, I'm aware that other fans feel the same about their clubs.

There's a real discussion to be had at the end of the season about the quality of referring. I'd like to see certain officials weeded out. Not necessarily the ones with Greater Manchester postal addresses, but the ones who are demonstrably proven to have no feel for the game. The ones who think it's ok to freeze-frame the action in order to show a 'bad foul'. Or the ones who permit a player to handle the ball because they got dizzy. I'd also like to see a training programme which fast tracks recently retired footballers into match officiating. And I'd like to see a separation of powers so that VAR is administered by a separate body.

[Barrow Shaun]

Some interesting info here, and a hell of a lot of stats.

Personally, I go with gut feeling and if WE shouldn't have had a decision I pride myself on thinking so, honestly. (Jota at Palace was never a penalty and Wolves were ripped off twice in the FA Cup at Anfield, for example.)

But my gut feeling had me turn off the telly v Spurs and I immediately had the thought that what I was seeing was bent. I also instinctively expect dodgy-looking marginal decisions to always go Man United's way, especially at OT. (Rashford not offside, Rashford not interfering, Onana not fouling the Wolves lad....)

And out of them all, I can't stand seeing the name David Coote anywhere near our games. And I'd probably accept the 'Odergaard slipped' argument more readily if it hadn't been him on VAR, but even then, one replay shows he deliberately moves his arm toward the ball to intercept it...

One thing I know for sure - if it is all bent then I love this team even more for competing so well against it.

I think the OP is also correct (great post btw mate) in highlighting the bigger issues and problems around the game, not least the dodgy ownerships, conflicts of interest all over the place and the massive prevalence of the betting industry.

[markmywords]

There is only a 5% difference so it suggests Pawson referees both clubs in roughly the same manner, whereas there's a 31% difference with Tierney.

Of course a lot can be explained if Tierney refs us more in the seasons we are shit, 20/21 or 22/23, but Stevie Wonder can see the bias when Tierney does us. It's shit from letting Harry Kane off with a leg breaker, not giving us a stonewall pen, to subtle stuff like last season where he allowed the palace keeper to timewaste for 89 minutes before saying a word.

The man's a cheat

If he is a rouge cheat why wasn't he over ruled by VAR on those 2 incidents, or why did he not send off jota in the game against spurs at anfield for a high boot.  Classic one eyed recall, when it comes from decisions made that benefit LFC some fans have either forget or " use the mental gymnastics to explain away  these errors" in behaviour similar to that they accuse Neville/dermot gallagher of using for decisions that harm LFC

[Son of Spion]

A whole sport can’t be labelled as corrupt though? Everyone plays by the same rules in the localised sporting competition, and there isn’t a law of the game that explicitly favours City, or teams from Manchester, at all.

Yes, there are allegations against City that will need to be proven in due course. You may very well be correct - but equally so, you may not. Perhaps it’s premature to proceed on the basis that they have cheated, albeit I am with you that it is likely they did, I just find myself unable to assert this with any certainty.

Does the ownership test need to be more stringent? Yes, potentially. Are there external considerations in the application of the ownership test? More than likely. But the idea of disparity in earning capability, and therefore the disparity in wages, ability to spend, and attractiveness of clubs, has always been an issue in England for as long as I can remember. With freedom of movement and loosening of borders through the EU came the consequence of freedom of cross-border finance and capitalism. Football clubs, especially depressed ones, have a remarkable ceiling for improvement on initial investment and so are attractive to a whole host of actors globally in the last decade or two at least.

It’s just more visible now because of the ever increasing numbers in football finance, the disconnect from reality of regular people, the stream of information easily available on the internet, and the pricing out of those who used to regularly attend matches. But all of this was inevitable in a model where fan ownership is not statutorily guaranteed and working class fans have no presence on the board.

If a single thing can be pinpointed as the cause of this rat race, for me, it’s when football gate receipts stopped being shared.

A very reasonable reply there. I'm a bit short on time just now so will just quickly comment on the first paragraph. I think the whole sport can indeed be labelled corrupt at this point. Of course, that doesn't mean everyone in the sport is corrupt. But, for me, it means that many of those that hold the power within it are rotten to the core. We all know that FIFA and UEFA are absolutely rancid.

We all know that PGMOL are at best unfit for purpose and riddled with bias. We all know these nation state owners are in it for political purposes rather than sporting. Sadly, our sport is infested with pure self-interest. Do the rules of the game favour the likes of Abu Dhabi FC? No, not in their written form. Thing is, by all accounts they don't play by the rules anyway.

On the pitch, they have been the beneficiary of utterly inexplicable decisions that have won them league titles. The rules (handball rule in that case) were interpreted in a way there that handed them a title. Literally. So no particular rule favours them, but how those rules are interpreted certainly seem to when it comes to critically crucial moments.

Was that sinister, or was it simply gross incompetence? Did bias play a part? Who knows? This cesspool is full of different kinds of turd. As another poster suggested, it's difficult to know which turd is which at times, but we still know it's a turd.

Anyway, can we call the sport overall as corrupt? I suppose we have to draw our own conclusions because no one is going to provide us with definitive proof one way or the other. Personally, I'd call it corrupt. Not everyone in it is corrupt, of course. In the war, not every German was a Nazi, but the significant players were. In football, many of the significant players are dodgy at best.

There is plenty of parties with mutual self-intetest. A clearly corrupt British government stepping in to usher a nation state into our sport at Newcastle shows it goes right to the very top. Many of the significant players (in ownership etc) are extremely dodgy people with incredible power and influence. Such influence has the power to shape things. Shape attitudes, shape approaches, shape outcomes. Saudi pressure shaped British government approach to sportswashing in this country. Let that sink in for a moment. The British government waved actual murderers into football club ownership here. We know this is true. That's no conspiracy theory. It's happened in plain sight and without apology. We clearly witness just how much sway these people and their money have, yet some draw the line at the suggestion that this influence might just be making its presence felt in significant moments on the field of play.

You know, I hope I'm completely wrong and talking through my arse. Honestly, I don't want to be right on this at all. I'd prefer it all to be down to human fallibility and incompetence, because at least they can be addressed and improved. But looking at who the significant players in football these days actually are - UEFA, FIFA, Premier League, despot nation states etc, I think my, and millions of other people's, fears do have real foundation.

Ah, that took a while and I'm late now.  . I'll leave it there.

[Pistolero]

Excellent couple of wee-small-hours posts Al.....nailed it with them I think 👍

[marmite]

to be honest the lore some fans moan the more they look the more they look the more they think they find  .... we dont need this us and them attitude ... i agree its seems sometimes that everyone in football is against us but i dont belive it to be a fact ...there have been some really shocking decisions this season and others but over all i think every club will feel theyve been done too .

time to stop the moans the oh poor us the more we moan the more we feed them ...we just need to be us and try and win and play great football and stick to the rules allbreak them the rules and just hope those that break them clubs refs/var and the people that run football are found out


alot of fans wanted var alot of players / managers wanted var imagine using var on lots of old football matches of the past we would be taking about just how crap refs were and today with var they now have to answer .... in years to come we will look back and say how on earth did we ever play football without var we need to now get it working right the whole pitch need covering like in tennis so there can be no doubt and to make it compleatly fair game time needs to be managed but a independent clock keeper just like rugby where they stop the clock only then will football work the var way...

anyway of to take my tablets lol as i know by writing this that the snowflakes will be along as im not part of the ''click'' and they normally hate liverpool fans who have opinions

[marmite]

oh and im not saying turn a blind eye ... if theres a clear cut problem by all means call it out the correct way make the answer for there mistakes and that will be all clubs not just liverpool

[paisley1977]

You could surmise from this that Pawson is pro-Liverpool and anti-City, right?


Do Liverpool pay Pawson?

Doesn't like Dubai is a Southport sort of guy.

[Jm55]

Decent thread from Dale Johnson on the recent VAR controversies.

To summarise, he states that the handball vs Arsenal was the VAR ‘looking for a reason not to give the penalty’ whereas he felt that the two decisions vs Burnley were correct, albeit the Nunez one probably shouldn’t have been given in the first place (but the footage isn’t clear enough to conclude it’s definitely not a foul).

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/39203024/the-var-review-why-west-ham-goal-stood-liverpool-offside-odegaard-handball

[Original]

The difference is that Pawsons win% for both teams is around normal compared to the win averages of Ped and Klopp. Whereas Tierney is just a complete outlier for both teams.

Here is another one David Coote.

Man City have a 100% win ratio with Coote as referee.

Liverpool have a 40% win ratio with Coote as referee.

Liverpool have a 42% win ratio with Coote as VAR not surprising because he thought Odegaard didn't handle the ball against us.

Liverpool have a 0% win rate with Darren England as VAR again not surprising watch the Spurs game again.

These arent slight anomalies at play or statistical variance they are huge outliers that for me simply can't be explained away.

Absolutely wild that

[rob1966]

If he is a rouge cheat why wasn't he over ruled by VAR on those 2 incidents, or why did he not send off jota in the game against spurs at anfield for a high boot.  Classic one eyed recall, when it comes from decisions made that benefit LFC some fans have either forget or " use the mental gymnastics to explain away  these errors" in behaviour similar to that they accuse Neville/dermot gallagher of using for decisions that harm LFC

VAR chose not to even review the decision as they claimed Robbo jumped so mitigated the lunge, even though Klopp said it was a leg breaker and Keith Hackett said it should have been a red, he then sent Robbo off. They all back cover, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that VAR chose to back his decision, they've admitted they pull shit like that.

Jota was lucky to not get a red, made up for it with other dodgy decisions including when Mo got dragged to the ground

[Yorkykopite]

Absolutely wild that

With Darren England, do we know how many times he has been VAR for Liverpool games? Is it just the Tottenham match?

[markmywords]

Jota was lucky to not get a red, made up for it with other dodgy decisions including when Mo got dragged to the ground

Not sure how Salah not getting a free kick makes up for jota not getting a red, for kicking someone in the head and drawing blood, I guess it's RAWKconomics

[ianburns252]

Corruption conjures up images of brown envelopes being passed or shady payments into offshore accounts.

That only scratches the surface though. It is akin to professionals turning a blind eye to racism or sexism even though they know it is completely wrong. It is about members of an organisation closing ranks and protecting each other even though they know a colleague has made a mistake or is biased.

As Klopp has stated, no matter how incorrect a decision is the refereeing community closes rank and protects whoever made the mistake or protects referees who have a bias against a particular side.

Mike Dean sums it up.

"I think I knew if I did send him to the screen... he’s cautioned both managers, he’s had a hell of a game, it’s been such a tough game end to end. I said to Anthony afterwards, 'I just didn’t want to send you to the screen after what has gone on in the game'.

"I didn’t want to send him up because he is a mate as well as a referee and I think I didn’t want to send him up because I didn’t want any more grief than he already had.

"Anthony, he is big and bald and ugly enough to know if he is going to the screen he is going to the screen for a reason. If someone pulls their hair now it’s dead easy. It’s just a brainwave by me, a really bad call by me, and it kind of affected me as VAR going forward."

Doing something that you know is completely wrong to protect a colleague, yourself or the organization you work for is corruption.

That for me is why I think the correct term is institutionalised bias and that going along with it, and then doubling down is when it becomes corruption. There seems to be the misconception that corruption has to involve personal gain.

The reality is that most corruption involves self preservation or more commonly protecting the organisation. You look at most miscarriages of justice and it is rarely for financial gain but usually to protect an organisation.

That is where PGMOL is at now they are far more interested in closing ranks and protecting themselves and the organisation. Than in whether a decision is correct or not. They are far more interested in closing ranks than rooting out the bad apples. That is why they are no longer fit for purpose and need disbanding and a fair and accountable refereeing organisation being created to replace them.

Following on from your point re: Mike Dean's comments - I'd say it is a safe bet that most in here, in their professional lives, have either covered for someone or been covered for and haven't thought twice about it other than "they are my mate at work and have had a rough time of it so I don't want them getting reamed out"

It is a perfectly normal thing to do.

Similarly, there has probably been someone at work who has rubbed you up the wrong way and so you may have been harsher with (subconsciously hopefully) or maybe a client who is a prick and so you don't try as hard for them.

The difference being that thousands if not millions aren't heavily invested in what we do and the decision we make usually isn't as wide ranging or have as much money riding on it.

Similar to politicians - I know I have selected people to do audits for me in part because I got on with them as much as their ability but the impact of that is slightly different than the situation with the Mone's and PPE

What is going on is for the most part natural human behaviour (make mistakes, have inherent biases etc) but due to the scale of the industry it is within it is not acceptable/is too impactful

This doesn't also mean that there aren't more "traditional" issues with corruption within refereeing but I think for the most part the underlying errors are human errors and the issue I think needs resolving through greater transparency (mic them up like in rugby) and better quality control in terms of training and error review - maybe a totally independent panel to review decisions?

[Eeyore]

With Darren England, do we know how many times he has been VAR for Liverpool games? Is it just the Tottenham match?

He was VAR for the 3-2 defeat by Arsenal. The game in which he couldn't find a camera angle for the Saka offside. When it was pointed out the the TV pictures showed an angle it became that camera isn't calibrated for offsides. He decided that the Gabriel hand ball wasn't and then allowed the penalty when Jesus kicked Thiago and then threw himself to the floor.

[Historical Fool]

Following on from your point re: Mike Dean's comments - I'd say it is a safe bet that most in here, in their professional lives, have either covered for someone or been covered for and haven't thought twice about it other than "they are my mate at work and have had a rough time of it so I don't want them getting reamed out"

It is a perfectly normal thing to do.

Similarly, there has probably been someone at work who has rubbed you up the wrong way and so you may have been harsher with (subconsciously hopefully) or maybe a client who is a prick and so you don't try as hard for them.

The difference being that thousands if not millions aren't heavily invested in what we do and the decision we make usually isn't as wide ranging or have as much money riding on it.

Similar to politicians - I know I have selected people to do audits for me in part because I got on with them as much as their ability but the impact of that is slightly different than the situation with the Mone's and PPE

What is going on is for the most part natural human behaviour (make mistakes, have inherent biases etc) but due to the scale of the industry it is within it is not acceptable/is too impactful

This doesn't also mean that there aren't more "traditional" issues with corruption within refereeing but I think for the most part the underlying errors are human errors and the issue I think needs resolving through greater transparency (mic them up like in rugby) and better quality control in terms of training and error review - maybe a totally independent panel to review decisions?

Been thinking about this. An independent panel overseeing PGMOL and referee decisions. Who will staff it? The jurisdictionally most qualified in their profession are already on the PGMOL.

[ljycb]

I've never been interested in discussions on referees, but this thread has been a good one to follow in fairness. I have a question - was it the Premier League (as in the clubs via a vote) or the PGMOL who declined semi-automatic offsides? That seemed to work really well at the World Cup - seems like it would be of great benefit to all involved.

[Risto]

1899 FA cup anyone?

Clearly Liverpool have pretty much always had just about the best team in the world, but various events etc... have often gone against us?

[Bastion Of Invincibility]

The English referees are pro-establishment and money unless there is an extreme narrative which counteracts that. Eg. In 2013/14, Ferguson was no longer around and it was seen as Gerrard's last go, so we got a lot of penalties. Having English players do the diving (eg. Sterling, Kane) helps, unless the press has decided it's no longer acceptable and then they stop giving them pens for a while.

I've been watching the Premier League for 30 years and Liverpool and Everton have always been treated worse than other comparably sized clubs. No coincidences as it's the most anti-establishment city in the UK.

English referees have no renown on the European or World stage. It's quite clear why.

[rob1966]

Not sure how Salah not getting a free kick makes up for jota not getting a red, for kicking someone in the head and drawing blood, I guess it's RAWKconomics

That was just one of many dodgy decisions in that game, but you keep believing that Tierney is 100% honest and does hate LFC

[jillcwhomever]

I definitely agree it can cut both ways. Not everything is down to corruption. Just because the game itself is deeply corrupt does not mean that every decision is also corrupt.

Thing is though, fans just don't know what's what anymore. The waters are so muddy now. Because the game is so chaotic with rules that seemingly change daily, we can see bogeymen around every corner rather than at just the corners he's really standing behind.

There is one way we could make that happen though, is by the wiring up the referees and allowing the crowd to hear the conversations via the VAR calls. It would be very simple to do as well, as other sports manage it. It might also stop the insanely crass way that the players behave when they rush around the referees as well. It's going to have to happen sooner or later if football wants to seem more balanced.

I thought the opening post by fitzy was excellent by the way and I am glad a thread has been opened to discuss this. I'm not of the opinion that every referee is corrupt by any means but I think certain decisions need to be explained, otherwise the corruption calls will get worse.

[Pistolero]

They're not all out to get us......but some most definitely are

[Redbonnie]

Steven Gerrard seemed to have a great relationship with the refs, especially when he was England Captain. He’s not soft our Stevie, and he will have been glad handling with signed England shirts and the like I bet.  At times he had a charmed life with the things he got away with. The fellani accidental elbow for example. Evidence of bias which we are very much on the wrong side of now, especially after the booing of the national anthem at Wembley.

[Eeyore]

Not sure how Salah not getting a free kick makes up for jota not getting a red, for kicking someone in the head and drawing blood, I guess it's RAWKconomics

It was probably more REFconomics.

Tierney probably knew that sending Jota off for a foul on Skipp would have highlighted Skipp getting away with doing Diaz earlier in the game.




Tierney may hate Liverpool but that was probably overridden by his sense of self-preservation.

[rob1966]

It was probably more REFconomics.

Tierney probably knew that sending Jota off for a foul on Skipp would have highlighted Skipp getting away with doing Diaz earlier in the game.




Tierney may hate Liverpool but that was probably overridden by his sense of self-preservation.

Somehow I'd forgotten about that, (the joy on my lads faces as they got jumped all over and hugged is still my main takeaway from that game) straight red all day that one.

[jillcwhomever]

I'd like to broaden this a bit and instead of just blaming referees bring the linesmen into it as well. It seems to me that you cannot expect a referee to see everything that goes on in a game, it's too fast now for that to be possible. But sometimes as I watch games I think linesmen become almost like statues rather than being the second eye of the referee. The number of times you watch players of all teams (including us!) take throws in having ran a good few yards down the touchline, is just bizarre. This has happened right in front of a linesman who rarely even signal it to the referee. Is this something that has changed suddenly, are they only there now to judge offsides (very late) or foul play? It just seems to me that the point of having two other officials there should mean that all times they are helping the man in the middle see the things, that he can't always see.