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

[Yorkykopite]

You're talking about a man that you, yourself, said didn't take any action on a team that was out of control and kicking another team up and down the park to the extent that a football team could no longer engage in the football game any more in order not to be seriously injured.

Yes he a poor ref. Always said it.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Yes he a poor ref. Always said it.

But there are just so many 'interesting' stats about Liverpool in relation to other teams.

If there was one or two stats, you might say 'that's odd' or 'that's interesting' but if there are stacks and they all seem different from other teams, then what does that say?

Part of my job over the years has been a data analyst involving various analysis around gathering, metrics, support, alerting and variance tracking. You sort and adjust data so that anomolies shift out and by their uniqueness and variance, this actually shows you stuff that is happening within the system which then lets you use outlying data to detect issues and problems and to fix those issues and problems before they affect your data or processes.

Most systems are self-adjusting and self-validating once you have enough data. Outliers that can last several cycles rarely are 'normal' or 'usual', they usual show a bias or intolerance that needs to be addressed in the system. Football is essentially a closed-loop system as all the components should be adhering the the same rules and all the sub-components should generate this data evenly over a limited or larger set of cycles.

[Bastion Of Invincibility]

Paul Tomkins had posted some time ago that Liverpool had gone 300 games at one stage without an opponent getting a 2nd yellow card. That's almost 8 seasons of Premier League football. It's scandalous and to me the main reason, bar 115 FC, we haven't won as many league titles as deserved. If you're arguing against those kind of stats, I'm afraid you're a wind up merchant.

[rob1966]

Haha come on Rob you couldn’t get two more different places, if Taylor is a Utd fan he’s defo in the prawn sandwich brigade.

Still plenty of knobheads there, I wouldn't drink in Goose Green for example.

[Eeyore]

Yes he a poor ref. Always said it.

It really is something to behold the way cling on to two absolutely diametrically opposed arguments. You label referees as poor, terrible, incompetent and inept to explain away 'mistakes' they make against Liverpool week in week out.

Whilst at the same time claiming that they have super human levels of professionalism and an incredible desire to be the best they can be. Those qualities completely rule out any possibility of conscious or subconscious bias in their decision making process.

It really is an incredible position to take.

[Yorkykopite]

It really is something to behold the way cling on to two absolutely diametrically opposed arguments. You label referees as poor, terrible, incompetent and inept to explain away 'mistakes' they make against Liverpool week in week out.

Whilst at the same time claiming that they have super human levels of professionalism and an incredible desire to be the best they can be. Those qualities completely rule out any possibility of conscious or subconscious bias in their decision making process.

It really is an incredible position to take.

You've exaggerated what I've said as you usually do. But, still, the fact that you see a contradiction between aspiring to professionalism and being poor at one's job says everything about your powers of reasoning.

[Redley]

This thread is going to be quite something at about half five on Sunday!

[Eeyore]

You've exaggerated what I've said as you usually do. But, still, the fact that you see a contradiction between aspiring to professionalism and being poor at one's job says everything about your powers of reasoning.

No referees in your opinion haven't merely aspired to professionalism. They have managed to attain levels of professionalism at which normal human frailities like subconscious bias are ruled out.

I would say that if you are going to be able to keep subconscious or conscious bias at bay and make decisions that are fair. Then one of the prerequisites for that is an ability to do your job well.

Your argument is that they are poor at decision making but fantastic at making unbiased decisions. That is quite frankly ludicrous.

[Yorkykopite]

Again, you're inventing things. I didn't say they were "fantastic". I said their drive to being 'the best referee they can be' (which I think they all probably have) is a more forceful ingredient in their make-up than bias. It effectively neutralises any bias they might have. The fact that they perform in front of huge audiences every week (unlike most other professions) also provides another sheet anchor if you like. Then you look at the stats - eg Man United's absolutely rotten run of form when Taylor referees them - and (if you're sane) you have to conclude that, as poor as these referees often are, they are almost certainly not biased or corrupt.

Enough anyway. This really is going round in circles and I sense your capacity to keep revolving is far, far superior to mine. 

[Andy82lfc]

Again, you're inventing things. I didn't say they were "fantastic". I said their drive to being 'the best referee they can be' (which I think they all probably have) is a more forceful ingredient in their make-up than bias. It effectively neutralises any bias they might have.

That, in effect, is impossible. Unconscious bias, at the very least, can not be controlled.

Then you look at the stats - eg Man United's absolutely rotten run of form when Taylor referees them - and (if you're sane) you have to conclude that, as poor as these referees often are, they are almost certainly not biased or corrupt.

So you're telling us there is a chance! He's finally cracked! 

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Again, you're inventing things. I didn't say they were "fantastic". I said their drive to being 'the best referee they can be' (which I think they all probably have) is a more forceful ingredient in their make-up than bias. It effectively neutralises any bias they might have. The fact that they perform in front of huge audiences every week (unlike most other professions) also provides another sheet anchor if you like. Then you look at the stats - eg Man United's absolutely rotten run of form when Taylor referees them - and (if you're sane) you have to conclude that, as poor as these referees often are, they are almost certainly not biased or corrupt.

Enough anyway. This really is going round in circles and I sense your capacity to keep revolving is far, far superior to mine. 

"Then you look at the stats - eg Man United's absolutely rotten run of form when Taylor referees them - and (if you're sane) you have to conclude that, as poor as these referees often are, they are almost certainly not biased or corrupt."

I still don't understand what you mean with this - if a referee was clearly biased through a game against team X, sent off three of Team X's players for absolutely nothing, gave three ludicrous penalties to tream Y, but somehow Team X still won, then that means that the ref wasn't biased and didn't give ludicrous penalties and sent players off for nothing?

You seem to be still equating the two..? This argument still doesn't make sense to me. What has a team winning or losing games got to do with whether an official is biased or not - certainly bias might affect a performance or a result, but if you have a great team playing a shite team then even if the officials is biased towards the shite team, there is still a probability that despite this bias, the stronger team has more of a chance to win.

[Eeyore]

Again, you're inventing things. I didn't say they were "fantastic". I said their drive to being 'the best referee they can be' (which I think they all probably have) is a more forceful ingredient in their make-up than bias. It effectively neutralises any bias they might have. The fact that they perform in front of huge audiences every week (unlike most other professions) also provides another sheet anchor if you like. Then you look at the stats - eg Man United's absolutely rotten run of form when Taylor referees them - and (if you're sane) you have to conclude that, as poor as these referees often are, they are almost certainly not biased or corrupt.

Enough anyway. This really is going round in circles and I sense your capacity to keep revolving is far, far superior to mine. 

FFS how many times. United did not have a rotten run of form in Taylor's last 10 games. They did exactly as you would expect. They lost or drew the games they played away from home against the sides that were better than them. Lost at home to Liverpool who finished 35 points ahead of them and beat the teams you would expect them to beat Wigan in the Cup and Forest at home.

The only two outliers were at home to Southampton which ended 0-0 after the VAR intervened and turned Taylors yellow for a shocking Casemiro challenge into a Red. The only other one they were expected to win was home to Boro. They didn't because Ronaldo missed a penalty that Taylor awarded after a Boro player slipped.

You know that so why keep bringing it up as an example of Taylor not being biased. In those two games he gave inexplicable yellow cards for Pogba's horror challenge on Keita and Casemiro shocker against Southampton. They were so bad the VAR's deemed them to be clear and obvious mistakes. You have been pulled up for trying to use those incidents as examples of Taylor being unbiased when they show the exact opposite.

You have admitted that Taylors' stats in those games mean fuckall. Yet a couple of posts later you are bringing them up again. That is the clearest example of arguing in bad faith you will get.

Again you are using totally illogical arguments. You are using 'trying to be the best referee they can be' neutralises bias which is laughable but then basically argue that despite striving to be the best they can be they are poor. It frankly implausible that all the referees in the League have levels of professionalism that rule out bias but such low levels of professionalism that they are poor, terrible, incompetent or inept.

It isn't a circular argument that is the issue it is you are trying to argue diametrically opposed concepts at the same time. 

[Red Beret]

I think it's important to note that we are where we are despite referees, not because of them. 20 pens a season Ole was definitely where he was because of referees - as we saw the instant those pens stopped.

[Eeyore]

I think it's important to note that we are where we are despite referees, not because of them. 20 pens a season Ole was definitely where he was because of referees - as we saw the instant those pens stopped.

Exactly we beat Bournemouth despite Macca being wrongly sent off, we beat Newcastle away despite VVD being sent off. I mean we were seconds away from getting a point at Spurs despite having Jones and Jota wrongly sent off and Diaz having a goal wrongly disallowed. We won the EFL Cup despite VVD having a goal ruled out for an offence that was fine when Varane threw an opponent to the floor days later.

To me that suggests we are an elite side with an incredible mentality and a manager who makes inspired subs and in game changes. To Yorky they prove Referees aren't biased because we managed to win three of those games and almost got a point at Spurs.

[Yorkykopite]

The only two outliers were at home to Southampton which ended 0-0 after the VAR intervened and turned Taylors yellow for a shocking Casemiro challenge into a Red.

Final thought on Casemiro's red card. Was it that "shocking" and was it obviously a red card?

I think you'll probably answer 'yes' to both. But you might want to see video of the challenge rather than the still you posted earlier (Don't we all agree that stills can be misleading?). Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxCEsZ0Nm_c

Personally I think it's an arguable case whether that was a yellow card or a red card. It has similarities with the Curtis Jones red card v Spurs this season in that Casemiro makes contact with the ball first and then with his opponent's shin. The differences are that both of Casemiro's feet were off the ground whereas Curtis only had one foot off the ground. Against that Casemiro got a lot more of the ball than Curtis did. The still photograph was enough to condemn Jones of course. And the still photograph of Casemiro you've now posted several times makes that challenge look worse too.

The other thing to note is something we see a lot when Dermot Gallagher is invited to give his opinion. He backs up the referees. This is the real bias at PGMOL. It's a paranoid organisation that primarily protects itself. I've made that point many times, but this is a good illustration. At one point Gallagher even says that Casemiro didn't win the ball. But he clearly did. It's as plain as day. Then his follow through caught his challenger. Gallagher may be saying that Casemiro didn't win the ball because he hates Man United and has a bias against them. But I don't believe that for a second. I think he says it because he's a) not a good referee b) Biased towards PGMOL.

[SmallwoodRed]

Did anyone see the Brentford v Brighton game last night? A minute before half time Brentford were defending a corner and Dunk and Wissa got in a tangle. Its important to note that the tangle was exactly that - both players holding each other and pushing and they eventually ended up in a heap just inside the penalty area. This is one of the most normal things seen on set pieces and generally ignored by refs and var and fans alike. Last night though VAR sent the ref to the monitor to review. After several looks at the screen the ref stayed with his on field decision and spoke to Dunk and Wissa and play continued. No penalty. No arguement

Why mention this? If you look at Howard Webbs explanation for why VAR did not intervene on the Doku challenge he said that VAR should not be re-refing the game and that there is a high bar for reviewing a decision. The Doku incident was apparently below that bar and as such it was right not to send the ref to the monitor. Webb was criticised for this as firstly it implies that apart from rank incompetance it would in effect mean that no decisions would be challenged by VAR. Secondly it would mean that VAR would not by definition be there to challenge the ref but instead back him up. This is exactly what happened with Doku i.e. the VAR team were looking to support the ref not challenge his decision based on the view he had obscured by Maccalister.

Webbs explanation seems illogical at best and at worst gas lighting in order to avoid culpability in an awful decision by both VAR and the ref. This is bad enough, but then you see the process in place last night there is a complete reversal of the policy that apparently Webb says is in place.
The Dunk/Wissa tangle was well below the high threshold set by Webb. Also we saw VAR challenging the ref and then the ref happily review and reject VAR analysis. This is in fact how the process should work but not how Webb says it works.
We all knew that the Doku decision was wrong at the time and that Webbs explanation was nonesense. The process in place last night shows he was willfully misleading people about the process in place.

[Dr. Beaker]

Indeed. It would have been the winner too. But, no, Clive knew to the exact second when to blow his whistle.

You must remember two famous retired footy refs from the 60s and 70s. One was a Labour government minister (Denis Howell) who doubled up as the Minister for Drought in that hot summer of '76. The other was Arthur Ellis who used to 'referee' on 'It's a Knockout' where, if my memory is correct, he constantly got the scores wrong. Very reassuring. Apparently he once refereed a San Lorenzo game and came away with this pearl of wisdom:

"Those people" - I think he meant Argentinians - "must learn sportsmanship and we must teach them. South Americans are more excitable and more passionate than we are. They do crazy things, impulsively, then a few minutes later they are genuinely and deeply sorry." Pure racism of course. Having said that, have you ever seen footage of Atletico's European Cup semi-final v Celtic in 1974 (Kenny was playing for the Hoops)? Check it out. It's a gob-smacking watch. There are several Argentinians in the Atletico team, including the great Ruben Ayala. And they "do crazy things, impulsively, then a few minutes later they are genuinely and deeply sorry." Weird, but true.

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpxoTiKkvw8

And shortly to become the Minister for Floods, as I remember it.

[Yorkykopite]

And shortly to become the Minister for Floods, as I remember it.

Yes, it all got very Old Testament. I forget the Book - Genesis? Leviticus? - where God sends the Great Drought and then the Great Inundation and finally sends a retired football referee to deal with the consequences.

I feel there's a moral in there somewhere.   

[Kloppage Time]

Not the best analysis ever with poorly titled tables, but interesting nevertheless

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38196464/how-var-decisions-affect-premier-league-club-2023-24


VAR - NET SCORE (Decisions for V Decisions against?)

Fulham +4
Nottm Forest +4
Brentford +3
Everton +3
Aston Villa +2
Manchester City +2
Burnley +1
Chelsea +1
Luton 0
Tottenham 0
AFC Bournemouth -1
Arsenal -1
Brighton & Hove Albion -1
Newcastle -1
Crystal Palace -2
Manchester United -2
West Ham -2
Liverpool -3
Wolves -3
Sheff United -4

Liverpool -3 (overview of Var decisions)

Overturns: 9
Leading to goals for: 1
Disallowed goals for: 3
Leading to goals against: 2
Disallowed goals against: 1
Net goal score: -3
Subjective decisions for: 2
Subjective decisions against: 3
Net subjective score: -1
Penalties for / against: 1 / 0
Red cards for / against: 1 / 1

Game: Chelsea (A; Aug. 13)
Incident: Mohamed Salah goal disallowed for offside, 29 minutes - AGAINST
Incident: Ben Chilwell goal disallowed for offside, 39 minutes - FOR


Game: Tottenham (A; Sept. 30)
Incident: Curtis Jones sent off for serious foul play against Yves Bissouma, 26 minutes - AGAINST

Game: Everton (H; Oct. 21)
Incident: Penalty awarded (scored by Mohamed Salah) for handball by Michael Keane, 72 minutes - FOR

Game: Nottingham Forest (H; Oct. 29)
Incident: Cody Gakpo goal disallowed for offside, 90+3 minutes - AGAINST

Game: Fulham (H; Dec. 3)
Incident: Kenny Tete goal allowed after incorrect offside, 45+3 minutes - AGAINST

Game: Crystal Palace (A; Dec. 9)
Incident: Penalty cancelled, foul in the buildup by Will Hughes on Wataru Endo, 29 minutes - FOR
Incident: Penalty awarded (scored by Jean-Philippe Mateta) for foul by Jarell Quansah on Mateta, 53 minutes - AGAINST


Game: Burnley (A; Dec. 26)
Incident: Harvey Elliott goal disallowed for offside against Mohamed Salah, 55 minutes - FOR

Other tables:

VAR - MOST IN FAVOUR

Aston Villa 8
Chelsea 7
Everton 6
Brentford 5
Burnley 5
Fulham 5
Nottm Forest 5
Tottenham 5
Brighton & Hove Albion 4
Crystal Palace 4
Manchester United 4
AFC Bournemouth 3
Arsenal 3
Liverpool 3
Luton 3
Newcastle 3
Sheff United 3
West Ham 3
Manchester City 2
Wolves 0


VAR - MOST IN AGAINST

Sheff United 7
Aston Villa 6
Chelsea 6
Crystal Palace 6
Liverpool 6
Manchester United 6
Brighton & Hove Albion 5
Tottenham 5
West Ham 5
AFC Bournemouth 4
Arsenal 4
Burnley 4
Newcastle 4
Wolves 3
Everton 3
Luton 3
Brentford 2
Fulham 2
Nottm Forest 1
Manchester City 0

[Redley]

Game: Crystal Palace (A; Dec. 9)
Incident: Penalty cancelled, foul in the buildup by Will Hughes on Wataru Endo, 29 minutes - FOR
Incident: Penalty awarded (scored by Jean-Philippe Mateta) for foul by Jarell Quansah on Mateta, 53 minutes - AGAINST

That just demonstrates what a pointless 'stat' it is. As if in that game we were 'net equal' on VAR decisions.

[Eeyore]

Final thought on Casemiro's red card. Was it that "shocking" and was it obviously a red card?

I think you'll probably answer 'yes' to both. But you might want to see video of the challenge rather than the still you posted earlier (Don't we all agree that stills can be misleading?). Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxCEsZ0Nm_c

Personally I think it's an arguable case whether that was a yellow card or a red card. It has similarities with the Curtis Jones red card v Spurs this season in that Casemiro makes contact with the ball first and then with his opponent's shin. The differences are that both of Casemiro's feet were off the ground whereas Curtis only had one foot off the ground. Against that Casemiro got a lot more of the ball than Curtis did. The still photograph was enough to condemn Jones of course. And the still photograph of Casemiro you've now posted several times makes that challenge look worse too.

The other thing to note is something we see a lot when Dermot Gallagher is invited to give his opinion. He backs up the referees. This is the real bias at PGMOL. It's a paranoid organisation that primarily protects itself. I've made that point many times, but this is a good illustration. At one point Gallagher even says that Casemiro didn't win the ball. But he clearly did. It's as plain as day. Then his follow through caught his challenger. Gallagher may be saying that Casemiro didn't win the ball because he hates Man United and has a bias against them. But I don't believe that for a second. I think he says it because he's a) not a good referee b) Biased towards PGMOL.

It doesn't have similarities with Jones though. Casemiro launches himself into the challenge with two feet off the ground. The very definition of being out of control. He also makes contact with the top of the ball so contact with the player is inevitable. Jones's challenge is different he goes in low and is in control. It is the fact that he and Bissouma both make contact with the ball that means his foot goes over the ball. In the Casemiro challenge he starts off high and ends up high.

Gallagher can't be biased though according to you. Surely his professionalism and wanting to be the best pundit he can be would neutralise any bias towards the PGMOL. In effect what you want us to believe is that Gallagher is only biased because he wants to protect the organisation. However you completely rule out the notion that referees don't let their bias towards the organisation play out against managers who criticise the PGMOL.

I suppose it is just a coincidence that the very managers who have complained about the PGMOL are the ones who have suffered VAR errors this season. From ESPN.

ESPN can reveal that Premier League leaders Liverpool have been most affected in the 2023-24 campaign, with four VAR errors against them. Brighton & Hove Albion and Wolverhampton Wanderers have each suffered three mistakes, with Arsenal two and eight other clubs on one each.

So the only clubs that have had more than one VAR mistake this season are managed by Klopp, De Zerbi, O'Neil and Arteta. The managers who just happen to have been the most critical of the PGMOL. The amazing one is Brighton when they were managed by Potter they had the most VAR overturns in their favour including Stuart patsy Atwell giving them multiple penalties as VAR.


Then we get to the funniest bit your next example of using the same thing to back up contrasting opinions. You tell us that the scrutiny of the TV cameras prevents referees from exhibiting their bias. Now you are telling us biased Gallagher has gone on TV and lied about Casemiro playing the ball to protect the PGMOL. You have done that weeks after Webb went on the TV and gaslit us regarding the Doku challenge on Macca.

[Kloppage Time]

That just demonstrates what a pointless 'stat' it is. As if in that game we were 'net equal' on VAR decisions.

That would suggest you were in favour of the decision that went for and not in favour of the one that went against, however the fact that VAR awarded one decision for and one against does imply impartiality, unless you feel there were FOR incidents that VAR ignored, which is more to do with tribalism (speak to a Palace fan directly after the game for their view and they will have an opposite opinion)

[Yorkykopite]

No, Curtis Jones goes in "high" as well. His foot is actually higher on the ball than Casemiro's was, and he gets much less of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODzxfWJQZuI

I didn't think this was a red card. But I'm not sure Casemiro's was either. I already conceded that Casemiro had two feet off the ground. But I wouldn't trust any observer who said that one incident was obviously a red card and the other obviously wasn't.

[Redley]

That would suggest you were in favour of the decision that went for and not in favour of the one that went against, however the fact that VAR awarded one decision for and one against does imply impartiality, unless you feel there were FOR incidents that VAR ignored, which is more to do with tribalism (speak to a Palace fan directly after the game for their view and they will have an opposite opinion)

No it doesn't imply impartiality. Do you even know what the table is showing?

A penalty was disallowed for us for a stonewall foul on Endo, and a penalty was given against us for a ridiculously soft 'foul' by Quansah. Thats not decisions 'evening themselves out'.

[Eeyore]

No, Curtis Jones goes in "high" as well. His foot is actually higher on the ball than Casemiro's was, and he gets much less of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODzxfWJQZuI

I didn't think this was a red card. But I'm not sure Casemiro's was either. I already conceded that Casemiro had two feet off the ground. But I wouldn't trust any observer who said that one incident was obviously a red card and the other obviously wasn't.

That isn't going in high.



Casamiro jumps into the tackle and goes onto the ball with in effect a stamping motion.

[Yorkykopite]

That isn't going in high.

I appeal to you to look at it in motion, not as a still. Curtis's foot is higher on the ball than Casemiro's was.

[Eeyore]

I appeal to you to look at it in motion, not as a still. Curtis's foot is higher on the ball than Casemiro's was.

Come off it, half of Jones's foot is obscured by the ball. That shows how low his foot was. Both of them play the side of the ball. It is the sweeping motion of Bissouma's tackle from right to left that pushes the ball under the front of Jones's boot. That is why Jones's foot goes in an upwards direction.



Casemiro's challenge is completely different he jumps into the challenge two-footed and is coming down on the ball. That is reckless and out of control.



The reason you cannot jump into challenges is because you are putting your full body weight into the challenge.

[lobsterboy]

The outlier is just how competently they manage to be incompetent when it comes to negatively affecting our games compared to every other big club.
That's not incompetence, it's just corruption.

[Lee1-6Liv]

The outlier is just how competently they manage to be incompetent when it comes to negatively affecting our games compared to every other big club.
That's not incompetence, it's just corruption.

Of course they could never be corrupt, they are lead by ex South Yorkshires finest!

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Come off it, half of Jones's foot is obscured by the ball. That shows how low his foot was. Both of them play the side of the ball. It is the sweeping motion of Bissouma's tackle from right to left that pushes the ball under the front of Jones's boot. That is why Jones's foot goes in an upwards direction.



Casemiro's challenge is completely different he jumps into the challenge two-footed and is coming down on the ball. That is reckless and out of control.



The reason you cannot jump into challenges is because you are putting your full body weight into the challenge.

I believe that Yorkie has checked Casimero's stats and, in fact, he can fly - thus despite jumping in and being in the air, he still had full control of his body.

Jones on the other hand, because he's gone in low is adjudged to have kicked his opponent in the chest. The same way Jota not touching his man at all is worthy of a deserved yellow card before the deserved red card seconds later.

[wah00ey]

No, Curtis Jones goes in "high" as well. His foot is actually higher on the ball than Casemiro's was, and he gets much less of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODzxfWJQZuI

I didn't think this was a red card. But I'm not sure Casemiro's was either. I already conceded that Casemiro had two feet off the ground. But I wouldn't trust any observer who said that one incident was obviously a red card and the other obviously wasn't.

That's gaslighting as bad as Webb's the other week.  Jones' foot is very obviously coming in from nowhere near as high as Casemiro's.  I've just watched both videos before you ask.

[Yorkykopite]

That's gaslighting as bad as Webb's the other week.  Jones' foot is very obviously coming in from nowhere near as high as Casemiro's.  I've just watched both videos before you ask.

I didn't say that. Read again. I said it was "higher on the ball". If you look at the video of both incidents you will accept that.

And, yet again for the hard of hearing, I'm saying neither was a red card.

[Eeyore]

I didn't say that. Read again. I said it was "higher on the ball". If you look at the video of both incidents you will accept that.

And, yet again for the hard of hearing, I'm saying neither was a red card.

So jumping into a challenge with both feet off the ground, with studs up, going over the ball and catching your opponent halfway up his lower leg like this.



Is not a red card. Thank fuck you aren't the referee on Sunday.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

So jumping into a challenge with both feet off the ground, with studs up, going over the ball and catching your opponent halfway up his lower leg like this.



Is not a red card. Thank fuck you aren't the referee on Sunday.

Perhaps he is.

Perhaps he's really WythenshawKopite

[Andy @ Allerton!]

This is the link for the video for the red card btw (Sly Sports, sorry)

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/12832254/casemiro-which-games-will-manchester-united-midfielder-miss-after-second-red-card-of-season

[rob1966]

I didn't say that. Read again. I said it was "higher on the ball". If you look at the video of both incidents you will accept that.

And, yet again for the hard of hearing, I'm saying neither was a red card.

Yes, he might land lower on the ball, but he starts from 2ft in the air

[Yorkykopite]

As I say it's far better to look at the moving footage. If the referee had seen the video of the Curtis Jones incident rather than the still image he wouldn't have sent Jones off. The same applies to Casemiro.

This 'tackle' didn't get a red card - or a yellow one - and it's a bit scruffier than the other two. Andy would say he was 'learning to fly'. The Cup Final might have been a bit trickier if the referees had been as anti-Liverpool as you guys think they all are:

https://twitter.com/LiamFlood17/status/1525528973001859073

Well done to Mason Mount by the way. It's rare to see a footballer these days not milk the opportunity to get someone sent off.

[Peabee]

That, in effect, is impossible. Unconscious bias, at the very least, can not be controlled.

So you're telling us there is a chance! He's finally cracked! 

Especially in split-second decisions such as those made by a referee.

This is regarding healthcare professionals, but the research e.g. around split-second decisions, or judgement calls, translates to other areas. I wonder if the PGMOL is as rigorous in unconscious bias training as the healthcare industry?

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-92762-6_2

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Casemero jumping into the challenge - Gif

[Eeyore]

Yes, he might land lower on the ball, but he starts from 2ft in the air

Exactly.

This sums up the Jones one. 



That is two players coming in at the side of the ball from similar heights. Bissouma gets there probably milliseconds before Jones. Both players are in control and have one foot on the ground. The only reason Jones foot goes high is because Bissouma gets there a millisecond earlier and his impact with the ball rotates the ball which forces Jones's foot upwards.

If you are going by the strictest letter of the law, which never happens then you could just about possibly make a case for a very harsh Red. Casemiro's lunge is in a different league.

For me the reaction of the players is very telling. Jones is laughing at how stupid the decision is. Casemiro busts into tears for me because he knows he has let his team mates down AGAIN.