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

[Historical Fool]

I think it's a huge part of it the accountability of certain decisions. I've always said wiring up refs is the way to go, but it's not going to solve all the problems if you still get players going down too easily. I agree with Al insomuch as there is an appalling lack of honesty from the pundits/media in not admitting that certain English players dive as well. If we really want to improve football as a spectacle then everyone has to change their way and come together on it. As you say it's too much of a closed shop at the moment, we need new referees and perhaps some need to have been involved in playing the game as well.

Wouldn’t playing the game make it worse? In two ways - an ex United player reffing Liverpool games? And second, are we asking for more common sense decisions or letter of the law, because my view is that ex players will veer more towards ‘flow of the game’ and ‘letting things go’ but in some cases people will interpret that as bias or not following the letter of the law.

[jillcwhomever]

Wouldn’t playing the game make it worse? In two ways - an ex United player reffing Liverpool games? And second, are we asking for more common sense decisions or letter of the law, because my view is that ex players will veer more towards ‘flow of the game’ and ‘letting things go’ but in some cases people will interpret that as bias or not following the letter of the law.

The idea would be you'd use impartial ones not one who have played for either club though. The best thing they could do is get away from the small group of referees they use at the moment, they need to widen the group instead of relying on the usual ones. Some of them can barely keep up with play, never mind take correct decisions.

[Eeyore]

Wouldn’t playing the game make it worse? In two ways - an ex United player reffing Liverpool games? And second, are we asking for more common sense decisions or letter of the law, because my view is that ex players will veer more towards ‘flow of the game’ and ‘letting things go’ but in some cases people will interpret that as bias or not following the letter of the law.

Ex-players aren't allowed to referee games involving the teams they played for.

[jillcwhomever]

Ex-players aren't allowed to referee games involving the teams they played for.

So why are referees from Manchester allowed to referee our games with City/United? That's the point in having a bigger group to work with. Ideally you'd have a referee from somewhere else entirely reffing the biggest game of the season.

[johnny74]

If this was a post trying to say that there's no specific agenda against Liverpool I find that weird considering that there is some reasonable evidence around if you look for it that suggests that there is absolutely plenty of corruption in one of the richest sports in the world. And if there wasn't corruption then it would be really quite remarkable.

Probably the onus is on those that think there might not be corruption to make their case since Occam's razor suggests the most likely scenario is usually right.

Has the OP any actual evidence that the Premier League is remarkably corruption free?

[rob1966]

The data shows that the top teams get a pretty equal number of big decisions given in their favour in the big games when refereed by the top four officials.

That doesn't mean he referees us fairly. Look at the three games he officiated this season. If you use Tomkins criteria of penalties, Red Card and second yellow then you would say Taylor was a Liverpool supporter.

Chelsea neutral no Pens, reds or 2nd yellows.

Brighton +1 LPL, 1 Pen, no reds or 2nd yellows.

Newcastle +2 LPL 2 pens, no reds or 2nd yellows.

The thing is big decisions given doesn't give the whole story.

In the Chelsea game Taylor ignored an absolute stonewall penalty against Jackson. Against Brighton he failed to send Gross off for a clear DOGSO. In the Newcastle game, he continually made bizarre decisions against Liverpool the foul on Diaz, Gomez being cleared out and the fact that Joelinton managed to avoid being sent off.   

Someone said it on here the other day, the top officials are all competing with each other for Cup Finals/ Big games/ UEFA finals and Internationals, so they HAVE to get the big decisions right. As has been said loads of times, Taylor lets stuff go against us and this affects the games. He look an hour to book Joelinton, he should have been booked long before then, of the 5 yellows he gave them, 2 were in the last 2 mins, the pen and Longstaff twatting Jota, he let loads go before that

[Fitzy.]

Has the OP any actual evidence that the Premier League is remarkably corruption free?

Not how proof works.

Burden of Proof rests with the person making a positive claim - eg PL is corrupt. Until there’s proof, it’s reasonable to argue it isn’t true. My ‘proof’ is that there is currently no evidence of referee corruption. At best, we have patterns of behaviour that can be plausibly explained as fallibility.

[Chakan]

Quick poll type question.

1. Do you think the refs are incompetent and not fit for purpose.
2. Do you think refs are biased to certain teams (positive or negative)
3. Do you think refs have been influenced by outside forces (money/gifts from certain clubs i.e corruption)
4. Do you think the whole league has been corrupted by certain teams.

Be interested to see the results of this myself.

[Fitzy.]

Quick poll type question.

1. Do you think the refs are incompetent and not fit for purpose.
2. Do you think refs are biased to certain teams (positive or negative)
3. Do you think refs have been influenced by outside forces (money/gifts from certain clubs i.e corruption)
4. Do you think the whole league has been corrupted by certain teams.

Be interested to see the results of this myself.

Not sure any of these actually contend with what’s causing problems.

1. We have a very forensic footballing ecosystem, where every aspect of a decision is dissected like never before.
2. Post-match analysis from the punditry-class is preoccupied with referee decisions, often ignoring anything remotely interesting about the game, which ensures all focus remains on the ‘controversy’ - fermenting resentment.
3. Social Media is tribal where decisions become a story for days - fermenting resentment even further.
4. VAR has added to the resentment as fans no longer accept mistakes as a system is in place to prevent them. This despite the majority of fans not understanding VAR’s role. This is exacerbated by the punditry-class misunderstanding VAR’s limitations.
5. In this environment, referees are not allowed to be imperfect. Indeed, they’re now demonstrating human fallibility by second guessing themselves for fear of the post-match space being dominated by a decision they’ve made (see the Jota pen for widespread disgust at Taylor).
6. Referees have never been liked nor rated. There’s never been a golden era.
7. We have a perfect storm filled with persecution complexes and one-eyed fanatics who are all absolutely ‘in the right’.

[CowboyKangaroo]

Quick poll type question.

3. Do you think refs have been influenced by outside forces (money/gifts from certain clubs i.e corruption)

Be interested to see the results of this myself.

I can't speak for whether they have actually been influenced in their decision making by the receipt of money, but the receipt of a significant sum of money from the owner of a premier league club is prima facie corruption.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Not how proof works.

Burden of Proof rests with the person making a positive claim - eg PL is corrupt. Until there’s proof, it’s reasonable to argue it isn’t true. My ‘proof’ is that there is currently no evidence of referee corruption. At best, we have patterns of behaviour that can be plausibly explained as fallibility.

The boss doesn't seem to agree with you, he understands fallibility & stats well enough for it to make him angry.

[Eeyore]

Not how proof works.

Burden of Proof rests with the person making a positive claim - eg PL is corrupt. Until there’s proof, it’s reasonable to argue it isn’t true. My ‘proof’ is that there is currently no evidence of referee corruption. At best, we have patterns of behaviour that can be plausibly explained as fallibility.

It doesn't work like that when you have data showing there is clearly something wrong then it is up to the organisation involved to demonstrate how the anomalies have occured.

Unless you are suggesting that the Met isn't institutionally racist and that is just officers being fallible.

As for evidence Dean confessed to being corrupt when he failed to send his mate to the monitor. Likewise Clattenberg showed he was corrupt when he failed to disallow a Madrid goal he knew was offside. He was corrupt when he gave Atletico a penalty to even things up.

Allowing officials to moonlight for Nation states is corrupt.

[Yorkykopite]

Has the OP any actual evidence that the Premier League is remarkably corruption free?

Can you supply proof you've never murdered anyone?

[Son of Spion]

Not how proof works.

Burden of Proof rests with the person making a positive claim - eg PL is corrupt. Until there’s proof, it’s reasonable to argue it isn’t true. My ‘proof’ is that there is currently no evidence of referee corruption. At best, we have patterns of behaviour that can be plausibly explained as fallibility.

...and, in some cases, bias?

[Chakan]

Another question then, how often must something occur to move from the realm of fallibility to deliberate?

[Fitzy.]

It doesn't work like that when you have data showing there is clearly something wrong then it is up to the organisation involved to demonstrate how the anomalies have occured.

Unless you are suggesting that the Met isn't institutionally racist and that is just officers being fallible.

As for evidence Dean confessed to being corrupt when he failed to send his mate to the monitor. Likewise Clattenberg showed he was corrupt when he failed to disallow a Madrid goal he knew was offside. He was corrupt when he gave Atletico a penalty to even things up.

Allowing officials to moonlight for Nation states is corrupt.

We have actual proof of police corruption. We have judicial inquiries showcasing Met malfeasance. We have police officers in prison for crimes committed while on duty. Can you serve up equivalent evidence for the referees or the PL as a body?

[Eeyore]

Can you supply proof you've never murdered anyone?

Have you got data to suggest he has.

[Yorkykopite]

Have you got data to suggest he has.

Leicester has a lot of unsolved murders.

[Eeyore]

We have actual proof of police corruption. We have judicial inquiries showcasing Met malfeasance. We have police officers in prison for crimes committed while on duty. Can you serve up equivalent evidence for the referees or the PL as a body?

We have proof of corruption amongst match officials. Numerous referees have been banned.

We currently have Barca being charged for bribing an official. What you are suggesting is that no one in your local Police station can be corrupt because no one in that nick has been convicted of an offence.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Can you supply proof you've never murdered anyone?

Would depend on the date.

[Fitzy.]

We have proof of corruption amongst match officials. Numerous referees have been banned.

We currently have Barca being charged for bribing an official. What you are suggesting is that no one in your local Police station can be corrupt because no one in that nick has been convicted of an offence.

So you have a straw man. I need more.

[Eeyore]

Leicester has a lot of unsolved murders.

In that case ask the Organisation involved to explain why they aren't solving murder cases.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

So you have a straw man. I need more.

The Boss would say that if you can't see it, he can't help you.

[Eeyore]

So you have a straw man. I need more.

I will make it very simple please come up with a rational explanation to why Salah is such a ridiculous outlier when it comes to getting free kicks.

An explanation that doesn't involve biased officials and a corrupt body failing to root out that bias.

[Fitzy.]

This circular debate is bringing us no closer to any proof. I’m out for a bit.

[Yorkykopite]

In that case ask the Organisation involved to explain why they aren't solving murder cases.

It's difficult. Plus many of the police officers aren't very good.

There's no evidence of corruption though.

[Redley]

I’m not sure someone on an Internet forum not being able to provide a referees bank statements should necessarily shut down a debate on if certain ones are biased to the detriment of certain teams

[Son of Spion]

The debate is a good one. Thing is, no one here can prove anything one way or the other.

[jillcwhomever]

I’m not sure someone on an Internet forum not being able to provide a referees bank statements should necessarily shut down a debate on if certain ones are biased to the detriment of certain teams

No one is actually doing that, though are they?

[Eeyore]

It's difficult. Plus many of the police officers aren't very good.

There's no evidence of corruption though.

The problem with your argument Yorky is that if the data showed there was a disparity between Leicestershire constabulary and it's contemporaries. Then there would be an investigation and measures would be put in place to rectify the disparity in murder cases being solved.

So why hasn't the PGMOL investigated why Salah isn't getting free kicks and put measures in place to rectify the officials bias.

Perhaps we should be thankful that the PGMOL were not in charge of Shipman and Letby.

[Kennys from heaven]

Quick poll type question.

1. Do you think the refs are incompetent and not fit for purpose - Yes. Unequivocably - the PGMOL is utterly farcical, so what chance do the refs themselves have? VAR has heavily contributed to the decline of the official as on-field referees a) don't need to make their own decisions and b) are no longer the sole and main arbiter of the match.
2. Do you think refs are biased to certain teams (positive or negative) - I think this is on the whole an unconscious bias, but both ways, yes.
3. Do you think refs have been influenced by outside forces (money/gifts from certain clubs i.e corruption) Hard to dispute given that some have gone elsewhere to "guest" referee. Does anyone really believe that these sojourns comprise of the official getting off the plane, staying in a hotel room on their own, rocking up to the groun, refreeing the game and then departing to come home without ANY events, gatherings, etc?
4. Do you think the whole league has been corrupted by certain teams. Not teams, but individuals associated with certain teams most definitely.

Be interested to see the results of this myself.

[Andy82lfc]

This circular debate is bringing us no closer to any proof. I’m out for a bit.

I think eeyore’s question should be answered in all fairness unless you do agree there is at least times where the refs are bias, not sure what your stance is?

Otherwise a bit unfair to duck out soon as you get cornered if that’s what you did.

[jillcwhomever]

I think eeyore’s question should be answered in all fairness unless you do agree there is at least times where the refs are bias, not sure what your stance is?

Otherwise a bit unfair to duck out soon as you get cornered if that’s what you did.

If everything is a clear cut as you are arguing how come it's not been already been picked up by someone in the press? Or better still sent to the footballing authorities?

[Son of Spion]

Quick poll type question.

1. Do you think the refs are incompetent and not fit for purpose.
2. Do you think refs are biased to certain teams (positive or negative)
3. Do you think refs have been influenced by outside forces (money/gifts from certain clubs i.e corruption)
4. Do you think the whole league has been corrupted by certain teams.

Be interested to see the results of this myself.

1)
Not all, but many are. The PGMOL itself is wholly unfit for purpose and needs disbanding.

2)
Some certainly seem to be. Bias is normal and natural, but needs to be put to one side in a professional setting. Sadly, the PGMOL is unfit for purpose and rife with poor practice and lack of accountability. That environment emboldens further poor practice and let's any bias flourish.

3)
It's difficult to say. There are many ways to sway and influence people that doesn't necessarily involve fat brown envelopes. I believe that goes on. In a sport with as many dodgy dealers and pariah states pulling the strings as football in this country has, it would be a major surprise to me if officials weren't being influenced in some way. I think officials being looked after by countries that own sportswashed clubs here is horribly bad practice open to abuse.

4)
I'm not sure if corrupted is the right word here, but the game certainly has been hijacked and used by some extremely shady people and countries. Helped along the way by a British government we all know is corrupt and unfit for purpose. There's a lot of pigs rolling in the shit they've created.

Corrupted may or may not be the right word. The league has certainly been compromised and ruined though.

[Eeyore]

If everything is a clear cut as you are arguing how come it's not been already been picked up by someone in the press? Or better still sent to the footballing authorities?

Tomkins is a sportswriter and Klopp has brought up the treatment of Salah on numerous occasions.

[Crosby Nick]

Ex-players aren't allowed to referee games involving the teams they played for.

Spare a thought for Darren Bent’s attempts to become a top flight ref.

[jillcwhomever]

Tomkins is a sportswriter and Klopp has brought up the treatment of Salah on numerous occasions.

Yes, but very few inside the media are taking this serious. Journalists like David Lynch talk about referees quite often and he has dismissed the idea of them being corrupt. He would say they are inconsistent in how they referee on certain things. But a lot of the rules don't help them especially the one about letting the game flow. I  think that is a good example of heaping uncertainty on refs as it's such a vague ruling. How much do you let the game flow? In doing that is that putting more risk on the players themselves, as fouls are then ignored by some? I just think the whole thing is such a mess, there is very little clarification. And then when it does go wrong no clear way of dealing with it in a transparent light, which encourages people to think suspiciously of all things. I do accept some referees are not at all good, and certainly the PGMOL need to makes things clearer. But I have no idea how you really improve the situation.

[Eeyore]

Spare a thought for Darren Bent’s attempts to become a top flight ref.

  .

The thing is Bent earned enough money at an early age not to need to referee. The likeliest ex-players to become referees would be mid to late-20s players who were basically journeymen. They need to be young enough to gain enough experience as a referee.

Players who don't eventually make it tend to flit from club to club, especially in the lower divisions. You have players having numerous loans and short-term deals. So how do you get them to learn their trade in the lower leagues? 

[Eeyore]

Yes, but very few inside the media are taking this serious. Journalists like David Lynch talk about referees quite often and he has dismissed the idea of them being corrupt. He would say they are inconsistent in how they referee on certain things. But a lot of the rules don't help them especially the one about letting the game flow. I  think that is a good example of heaping uncertainty on refs as it's such a vague ruling. How much do you let the game flow? In doing that is that putting more risk on the players themselves, as fouls are then ignored by some? I just think the whole thing is such a mess, there is very little clarification. And then when it does go wrong no clear way of dealing with it in a transparent light, which encourages people to think suspiciously of all things. I do accept some referees are not at all good, and certainly the PGMOL need to makes things clearer. But I have no idea how you really improve the situation.

Firstly there is very little investigative journalism anymore.

Secondly, it is about knowing your audience. There is almost no appetite among newspapers to publish a piece showing that there is bias against Liverpool or that foreign players like Salah don't get free kicks.

Imagine if that was the other way around and Salah was getting a free kick every 20 minutes whilst Grealish got one every 120 minutes. I imagine there would be right-wing outlets queuing up to publish that one. 

[Yorkykopite]

I do think - always have done - that the Mo Salah free-kick statistic is strange and needs explaining. This is not the same as saying there's a conspiracy against him, mind. But it seems clear something is happening.

Do we have a European comparison to help us? Does Mo get noticeably more free kicks awarded in the Champions and Europa Leagues?

And do we know what the proportions were when he played in Serie-A?