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

[Andy82lfc]

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?

I haven’t once said it is clear cut. I have said if people think the possibility corruption hasn’t gone on or at the very least strong bias then they are naive beyond belief in my view.

On the press point since when did they ever report anything they should? FIFA carried on for years and hardly a word was said, Man City haven’t been explicitly called out by any media in this country despite smoking guns all over the shop.

They would have to come across a smoking gun in the hand with pictures and a live stream video for them to even consider anything. Even then it would all be “allegedly”.

[jillcwhomever]

I haven’t once said it is clear cut. I have said if people think the possibility corruption hasn’t gone on or at the very least strong bias then they are naive beyond belief in my view.

On the press point since when did they ever report anything they should? FIFA carried on for years and hardly a word was said, Man City haven’t been explicitly called out by any media in this country despite smoking guns all over the shop.

They would have to come across a smoking gun in the hand with pictures and a live stream video for them to even consider anything. Even then it would all be “allegedly”.

Not true about the media not calling out City. You are doing a great disservice to journalists like Nick Harris who spent years working on the case. Others like Rob Harris and Miguel Delaney have done likewise.

[Eeyore]

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?

From the Athletic. https://theathletic.com/3716649/2022/10/21/mohamed-salah-free-kicks/

Away from domestic duties, Salah has found that more decisions tend to go in his favour. During last season’s Africa Cup of Nations, he was awarded 24 free kicks across Egypt’s seven matches, one every 31 minutes of action.

In the Champions League since the start of last season, he’s been fouled 18 times, once every 70 minutes of football. When Liverpool won Europe’s showpiece club competition in 2018-19 he was fouled 17 times along the way — a free kick every 62 minutes.

Yet in the Premier League it’s a different story. Salah has been fouled a total of 173 times in 190 matches for Liverpool over the past five and a half years in the top flight — fewer than Grealish’s tally in 2019-20 alone.

The numbers just don’t add up.

[Eeyore]

Not true about the media not calling out City. You are doing a great disservice to journalists like Nick Harris who spent years working on the case. Others like Rob Harris and Miguel Delaney have done likewise.

Ask yourself what the media reaction would be if Liverpool faced 115 charges.

115 would be the number of times Neville brought it up in every game. Which would mean opposition supporters attacking the club constantly. A few right-minded journalists calling out City is an absolute drop in the ocean.

[jillcwhomever]

Ask yourself what the media reaction would be if Liverpool faced 115 charges.

115 would be the number of times Neville brought it up in every game. Which would mean opposition supporters attacking the club constantly. A few right-minded journalists calling out City is an absolute drop in the ocean.

Tell that to Nick Harris who had to deal with insults from a vile City forum when he was nursing his dying wife. It's not us with the 115 charges so it's a pretty pointless thing to claim.

[kavah]

... A few right-minded journalists calling out City is an absolute drop in the ocean.

... The numbers just don’t add up

yes and yes

[Andy82lfc]

Not true about the media not calling out City. You are doing a great disservice to journalists like Nick Harris who spent years working on the case. Others like Rob Harris and Miguel Delaney have done likewise.

That’s fair enough but a few good eggs that they are, they are not the media who I mentioned and who have always toed the line.

115 charges, a Der Spiegel investigation with an orgy of evidence later, yet you’ll only hear a whisper of caveats when it comes to expressing Peps ‘genius’ or how they are they greatest treble winning team in modern history.

[Eeyore]

Tell that to Nick Harris who had to deal with insults from a vile City forum when he was nursing his dying wife. It's not us with the 115 charges so it's a pretty pointless thing to claim.

Nick Harris had to put up with those insults precisely because his fellow journalists lacked his courage and decency. If the whole media did their job properly then Harris would not have been singled out.

As for it not being Liverpool just look at how Neville basically blamed Liverpool's owners for the European Super League.

[Jm55]

Ask yourself what the media reaction would be if Liverpool faced 115 charges.

115 would be the number of times Neville brought it up in every game. Which would mean opposition supporters attacking the club constantly. A few right-minded journalists calling out City is an absolute drop in the ocean.

I really don't think referencing Gary Neville as representative of the media is particualrly helpful.

Gary Neville is an ex-Manchester United stalwart who hated our club so much that he ran the entire length of the pitch to celebrate a last minute winner in front of our fans which wasn't even scored by him. Neville is the player that was hated by our fans so much that his every touch was booed. Neville is the outlier, even in this London centric, Brexit loving media who are never particualrly generous on their commentary of Liverpool as a city, as a culture or as a football club.

I 100% take the point that he is in one of the key positions in the football media and therefore all of the above is relevant in a discussion about whether he should be, I've said for ages that at the very least he shouldn't be commentating on Liverpool matches, but it doesn't change the fact that you could meet every person involved in football media and 99% of them wouldn't have the dislike for our football club that he does.

[jillcwhomever]

Nick Harris had to put up with those insults precisely because his fellow journalists lacked his courage and decency. If the whole media did their job properly then Harris would not have been singled out.

As for it not being Liverpool just look at how Neville basically blamed Liverpool's owners for the European Super League.

It's not as simple as that. It's about winning the fight and too many fans are not interested in doing that. I mean I don't especially enjoy twitter but I go on there to back these journalists up as they have a huge barrage of people ridiculing everything they say. If people really care about it then people need to do something about it, instead of being indifferent. I don't know how many times I've put their details on the City thread, but I'm guessing on a few on here have actually read anything at all.

[Knight]

Klopp thinks that there is corruption amongst referees because he's angry that Salah gets fewer fouls than he should? Interesting logic.

[Redley]

Tell that to Nick Harris who had to deal with insults from a vile City forum when he was nursing his dying wife. It's not us with the 115 charges so it's a pretty pointless thing to claim.

You're maybe answering your own question here about why its not picked up on. There's a common denominator, and its not meant to be some crazy Manchester conspiracy theory, but most of the refs in question are from that area. Most British newspaper companies at the very least have offices there, if not headquarters. A lot of media companies too. Sky until recently were owned by Murdoch, and we dont need a history lesson to know what else he has owned. The media is full of ex-United and City players. And as you say, one of the two big clubs in Manchester have a history of pretty vile tactics against people who have said or written something they dont like.

Plus we all saw what happened in lockdown right? I've never seen such a groundswell of fans of different clubs all pushing for one common goal....which was null and voiding the season so Liverpool wouldnt get their league title. If you're a journalist working for the Times or the Guardian or Telegraph I'm pretty sure you'd struggle to put out that sort of piece suggesting Liverpool are being hard done by with refereeing decisions, when you know the only audience which would view it positively would be Liverpool fans and literally every other fanbase would be frothing at the lips with rage. Which is why we end up with people like Tompkins being the main voice for it (and his evidence is pretty damning really). Simply there's not really any appetite for that sort of thing outside Liverpool fans, particularly because most other football fans enjoy Liverpool being hard done by.

[Redley]

Klopp thinks that there is corruption amongst referees because he's angry that Salah gets fewer fouls than he should? Interesting logic.

You seem quite keen to shut down this conversation by using the word corruption. Which of course no-one here could, or could be expected to, prove. What most people are actually talking about is bias against us from certain officials, which doesn't need to involve corruption in the slightest. It feels a little disingenuous to want to shut down any conversation about officials because no-one can prove that money is changing hands. We've unarguably had one title taken away from us by the decisions of some of the officials in question, and we've seen similar this season (we dont need to talk about the Spurs game I assume), so its not surprising that its a hot topic of discussion. And it does seem a bit odd that you keep coming into the thread to try and shut it down with stuff like that ^^^^^

[Knight]

You seem quite keen to shut down this conversation by using the word corruption. Which of course no-one here could, or could be expected to, prove. What most people are actually talking about is bias against us from certain officials, which doesn't need to involve corruption in the slightest. It feels a little disingenuous to want to shut down any conversation about officials because no-one can prove that money is changing hands. We've unarguably had one title taken away from us by the decisions of some of the officials in question, and we've seen similar this season (we dont need to talk about the Spurs game I assume), so its not surprising that its a hot topic of discussion. And it does seem a bit odd that you keep coming into the thread to try and shut it down with stuff like that ^^^^^

You mean the word that's literally in the thread title and which the thread is about? For the avoidance of doubt, I don't want to 'shut down the conversation'.

This is a post Fitzy made,

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 this is Angel's reply.

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

That is, apparently the boss disagree with Fitzy about there not being proof of 'corruption' or that refs are 'corrupt' because he's angry that Salah gets less fouls than he should. Honestly, Redley this WHOLE THREAD is about the fact that people keep jumping to corruption/ cheating etc to explain decisions they don't like. There are loads of examples in this thread and the VAR thread.

[Redley]

Where did WhereAngelsPlay talk about corruption? He said the boss would disagree about it being fallibility, which is correct since he's said before he doesnt understand the problem Tierney has with us.

[Eeyore]

Klopp thinks that there is corruption amongst referees because he's angry that Salah gets fewer fouls than he should? Interesting logic.

Klopp on Tierney.

“We have our history with Mr Tierney. I really don’t know what this man has with us. He always says there is nothing but that is not true. The way he looks at me. It’s difficult to understand.

“Paul Tierney, in a season which was quite important, didn’t give Harry Kane a red card against us (in a 2-2 draw at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in December 2021).”

 “I will not say anything about it. The refs don’t say what is said so I don’t say what is said. My celebration was unnecessary, which is fair, but what he said to me when he gave me the yellow card is not okay.

Klopp was charged and found guilty of accusing Tierney of being biased.

Klopp talking about fouls on Salah.

“It is absolutely crazy how low the number of fouls is against him,” Klopp said. “So he has constant contact [from defenders] and is going down all the time, having to get up again. The statistic is that Mo is the one player who is fouled the least compared to other [top] strikers. Honestly, you have to ask the refs; I don’t know because we constantly think he gets fouled. He gets confronted with the [claim] that someone calls him a diver. That is an absolute shame.

“We don’t get even close to the number of free-kicks that we should have. You must ask other people how that is possible because he is the guy who is constantly with the ball around the box and there is no foul: interesting. How is that? It is just not possible.”

So Klopp is clearly stating that Tierney is biased against him and Liverpool and that referres are biased against Salah over free kicks.

For me the corruption comes in with PGMOLs reaction to the bias.

There is freely available data showing that Liverpool win percentage drops significantly with Tierney whilst City's increases significantly. There are clearly issues between Liverpool and Tierney and his officiating team. I mean Tierneys assist assaults Robertson and the only punishment is a yellow card for Robbo.

So what do PGMOL they give Liverpool Tierney more than any other referee. That is corruption.

Then we get to Salah the data is ridiculous. Salah is such an outlier for getting free kicks that Tomkins had to create a separate chart just so he could include.

So what happens nothing. Then we get propably get the most blatent free kick in the history of Football. Bernardo Silva grabs Mo's shirt and basically cartwheels him to the ground in a ridiculously dangerous manner. The referee and linesman are in a perfect position and the game is stopped so Taylor can send off Klopp.

Then instead of Taylor and his assistant being reprimanded for missing the foul which endangers Salah. Instead that is ignored and they charge Klopp.

That is the corruption the Pgmols reaction to clear and obvious bias.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

This is a post Fitzy made,
And this is Angel's reply.
That is, apparently the boss disagree with Fitzy about there not being proof of 'corruption' or that refs are 'corrupt' because he's angry that Salah gets less fouls than he should. Honestly, Redley this WHOLE THREAD is about the fact that people keep jumping to corruption/ cheating etc to explain decisions they don't like. There are loads of examples in this thread and the VAR thread.

Take it up with the boss & I said fuck all about Mo getting fouled. 

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

I’m not sure the word corruption should be in the title, that said, there has been an interesting debate about what constitutes corrupt.

It’s also patently obvious that we don’t have exclusivity on bad decisions. However, we do get some horrendous ones, ones that break new ground in their ineptitude, and we also are on the receiving end of some highly convoluted explanations from PGMOL and their placemen in the media. We also benefit from fans like Tomkins who do extremely thorough research - which I understand is subject to review from well qualified statisticians, and that research shows some fairly startling anomalies, the Salah one in particular.

I think there’d be less suspicion and less anger, if we take Salahs treatment as a case study and got some explanations for it, using specific footage. Explanations as to why the Bernardo assault was not deemed a foul. Did they not see it? If not why not? Also explanations on why he was penalised v Spurs instead of the other way around. It would be useful to compare why they weren’t given with some of the obvious dives from the usual suspects that are routinely rewarded. Both of the above incidents were the ones that resulted in Klopp being censured by the way, which attracted further moralising from the usual suspects.

Having worked in Manchester, I agree with Rob and others that it is virtually I possible for any ref living and working in that environment not to carry any bias - however subconscious it may be.

To me, a huge amount of this issue being discussed goes away if; a) we don’t get Mancs running our games - as others have said, would they stand for it if it were the other way around? b) the club get clear explanations about decisions such as those mentioned above (if this commitment to transparency became the norm then my suspicion is that the inconsistencies would start to reduce naturally). c) there is proper accountability for officials that continue to make decisions that are plainly incorrect.

As a backdrop, the starting point needs to be that reffing a fast moving game involving players often trying to cheat is fucking difficult and because of that, refs need help in arriving at the correct decision  Rather than having an entire industry bending over backwards to defend the indefensible. It’s a hard job, we know that. But clear and obvious needs to go.

Finally, I’d like the club to take a far stronger line with pundits seeking to drive agendas using our players. The effects of the media driven agenda on Salah are there for all to see, so I’d love us to go in hard on the likes of Shearer for calling Jota a disgrace, instead of admitting they got absolutely battered.

[Eeyore]

I’m not sure the word corruption should be in the title, that said, there has been an interesting debate about what constitutes corrupt.

It’s also patently obvious that we don’t have exclusivity on bad decisions. However, we do get some horrendous ones, ones that break new ground in their ineptitude, and we also are on the receiving end of some highly convoluted explanations from PGMOL and their placemen in the media. We also benefit from fans like Tomkins who do extremely thorough research - which I understand is subject to review from well qualified statisticians, and that research shows some fairly startling anomalies, the Salah one in particular.

I think there’d be less suspicion and less anger, if we take Salahs treatment as a case study and got some explanations for it, using specific footage. Explanations as to why the Bernardo assault was not deemed a foul. Did they not see it? If not why not? Also explanations on why he was penalised v Spurs instead of the other way around. It would be useful to compare why they weren’t given with some of the obvious dives from the usual suspects that are routinely rewarded. Both of the above incidents were the ones that resulted in Klopp being censured by the way, which attracted further moralising from the usual suspects.

Having worked in Manchester, I agree with Rob and others that it is virtually I possible for any ref living and working in that environment not to carry any bias - however subconscious it may be.

To me, a huge amount of this issue being discussed goes away if; a) we don’t get Mancs running our games - as others have said, would they stand for it if it were the other way around? b) the club get clear explanations about decisions such as those mentioned above (if this commitment to transparency became the norm then my suspicion is that the inconsistencies would start to reduce naturally). c) there is proper accountability for officials that continue to make decisions that are plainly incorrect.

As a backdrop, the starting point needs to be that reffing a fast moving game involving players often trying to cheat is fucking difficult and because of that, refs need help in arriving at the correct decision  Rather than having an entire industry bending over backwards to defend the indefensible. It’s a hard job, we know that. But clear and obvious needs to go.

Finally, I’d like the club to take a far stronger line with pundits seeking to drive agendas using our players. The effects of the media driven agenda on Salah are there for all to see, so I’d love us to go in hard on the likes of Shearer for calling Jota a disgrace, instead of admitting they got absolutely battered.

Agree with that.

There are a couple of things. With the Bernard Silva one why wasn't it checked for a possible red card. You only have to look at Kostas shoulder injury to see how dangerous it is for a player to go over like that.

Secondly since 20-21 Tierney has refed 16 Liverpool games but only 5 Everton games. Given that one was a Derby. Then excluding that, Tierney referees Liverpool around four times as often as Everton. Given the clear issues between Liverpool and Tierney that looks deliberate to me.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

First change needs to be a new contract that outlaws them from doing games outside of the UK unless they're European or International.

[Knight]

Where did WhereAngelsPlay talk about corruption? He said the boss would disagree about it being fallibility, which is correct since he's said before he doesnt understand the problem Tierney has with us.

He's literally replying to Fitzy's post, the whole question is whether it's fallibility or corruption.

[Knight]

First change needs to be a new contract that outlaws them from doing games outside of the UK unless they're European or International.

This is absolutely right. Whatever you make of the actual existence or otherwise of match fixing by officials there is no way PL refs should be flying into nations that own PL clubs to ref games in their leagues. This wouldn't be a problem if the PL had done its job and protected the PL from clubs being owned by nation states but it didn't and now we're in this mess.

[Chakan]

He's literally replying to Fitzy's post, the whole question is whether it's fallibility or corruption.

I think there's a step in between there which is bias, which is not fallibility or corruption, but leaning towards corruption more than just a mistake.

[jillcwhomever]

You're maybe answering your own question here about why its not picked up on. There's a common denominator, and its not meant to be some crazy Manchester conspiracy theory, but most of the refs in question are from that area. Most British newspaper companies at the very least have offices there, if not headquarters. A lot of media companies too. Sky until recently were owned by Murdoch, and we dont need a history lesson to know what else he has owned. The media is full of ex-United and City players. And as you say, one of the two big clubs in Manchester have a history of pretty vile tactics against people who have said or written something they dont like.

Plus we all saw what happened in lockdown right? I've never seen such a groundswell of fans of different clubs all pushing for one common goal....which was null and voiding the season so Liverpool wouldnt get their league title. If you're a journalist working for the Times or the Guardian or Telegraph I'm pretty sure you'd struggle to put out that sort of piece suggesting Liverpool are being hard done by with refereeing decisions, when you know the only audience which would view it positively would be Liverpool fans and literally every other fanbase would be frothing at the lips with rage. Which is why we end up with people like Tompkins being the main voice for it (and his evidence is pretty damning really). Simply there's not really any appetite for that sort of thing outside Liverpool fans, particularly because most other football fans enjoy Liverpool being hard done by.

Why is that? For the most part its because those fan's clubs are never going to be able to compete, the gaps between the big and smaller clubs is too big now. It amazes me how people expect these fans to give a toss about the top 6, when basically any success has been taken out of their hands anyway. If you want other people to care than football needs to change and allow everyone to have a stake in the game. But that's not going to happen in a day and age where everybody is being greedy in keeping what they have. If I was a fan from a club outside the top 6, I'm not sure I'd give a toss either.

[alonsoisared]

The reason they all wanted the league voided (it wasn't all by the way but we'll go with that) and that there's no appetite for fans of other clubs to read stories about corruption against Liverpool is probably because they've all got a list of occasions at hand of times they've felt we've got decisions all go our way against them. Like it or not everyone else thinks we get decisions in our favour all the time, as do United and the other "top six" teams. Liverpool are one of the two biggest clubs in the country and we both have the same kind of status, we're one of the most loved which also makes us one of the most hated. It also means that we have an awful lot of ex players and supporters in the media, in roles within footballs governing bodies and presumably amongst referees too.

Which then addresses the first part of Redley's post. Man City fans would be laughing their heads off at the accusation, coming from us, that the media is full of former city players. Who? Micah Richards is the only one isn't he? Off the top of my head we've got redknapp, carragher, Kelly Cates and souness all regularly on sky, crouch and Owen on BT, we've got Danny Murphy on match of the day (formerly lawrenson and Hansen) plus the number of guests they all have in their studios. We're probably the most represented club in English football in terms of the media. And of the ones from manchester about 99% of them represent united, so there's hardly an appetite to talk city up. Listen to what city fans say about the refs from Manchester and they're pretty much all saying that they're all red Mancs and they're out to get them. In terms of the papers there's plenty of reds,both fans and former players, who write for the major tabloids and again we'd be right up there as the most represented. The flip side is of course there are plenty of united in there as well who will despise us.

They aren't putting out articles about how we are especially badly treated because A. There's not enough evidence if any to suggest we are and B because fans of other clubs would see it as absolute bollocks and not bother buying such a biased paper again. The reason that Tomkins is the one banging the drum isn't because he's the brave one raising his head above the parapet, its because he's a Liverpool fan as biased as the rest of us (undeniably) whos gaining lots of helpful clicks from pushing conspiracy theories (probably).

[Redley]

Why is that? For the most part its because those fan's clubs are never going to be able to compete, the gaps between the big and smaller clubs is too big now. It amazes me how people expect these fans to give a toss about the top 6, when basically any success has been taken out of their hands anyway. If you want other people to care than football needs to change and allow everyone to have a stake in the game. But that's not going to happen in a day and age where everybody is being greedy in keeping what they have. If I was a fan from a club outside the top 6, I'm not sure I'd give a toss either.

I'd take a guess that a pretty sizable part of it is because we live in a country where its been bred into people for decades that Liverpool, and scousers, are a good easy target. Maybe because we react. If Man City were in the position we were in at that time, do you honestly think there'd have been the same desperation to void the season?

It all melds together.

Corruption can mean a lot of things. Aside from Darren England going off on a jolly to the UAE two days before the Diaz incident there isn't a person on this forum who could provide even vague evidence of money changing hands in exchange for refereeing favours. But there is CLEARLY a bias with certain referees against us, concious or unconscious. Why that is, I'm not sure. A Manchester thing? Maybe. An Anfield thing, not wanting to be appeared to be swayed by the crowd so go the other way? Maybe...but doesnt explain the shockers we've had away from home. Feeling like they've been disrespected by Klopp and holding a vendetta? Maybe, but he's hardly the only animated manager in the league. But it is quite clearly there, the stats for Tierney in particular just dont make sense if he's not being consciously biased against us. And when you've got an organisation like PGMOL who just close ranks, its meant we're pretty consistently getting shafted and have to just take it. And the media control the narrative, which is why after the shocker Taylor had on Sunday the main talking point is the worst dive in PL history by Jota.

[Pistolero]

I'd take a guess that a pretty sizable part of it is because we live in a country where its been bred into people for decades that Liverpool, and scousers, are a good easy target. Maybe because we react. If Man City were in the position we were in at that time, do you honestly think there'd have been the same desperation to void the season?

It all melds together.

Corruption can mean a lot of things. Aside from Darren England going off on a jolly to the UAE two days before the Diaz incident there isn't a person on this forum who could provide even vague evidence of money changing hands in exchange for refereeing favours. But there is CLEARLY a bias with certain referees against us, concious or unconscious. Why that is, I'm not sure. A Manchester thing? Maybe. An Anfield thing, not wanting to be appeared to be swayed by the crowd so go the other way? Maybe...but doesnt explain the shockers we've had away from home. Feeling like they've been disrespected by Klopp and holding a vendetta? Maybe, but he's hardly the only animated manager in the league. But it is quite clearly there, the stats for Tierney in particular just dont make sense if he's not being consciously biased against us. And when you've got an organisation like PGMOL who just close ranks, its meant we're pretty consistently getting shafted and have to just take it. And the media control the narrative, which is why after the shocker Taylor had on Sunday the main talking point is the worst dive in PL history by Jota.

A double bullseye that Luke Littler would be proud of.....

[Redley]

Which then addresses the first part of Redley's post. Man City fans would be laughing their heads off at the accusation, coming from us, that the media is full of former city players.

They would, which is why I said ex-United and City players

Although if we're classing Danny Murphy as a positive Liverpool influence in the media, you might as well chuck Steve McManaman and Owen Hargreaves in as positive Man City influences (and Danny Mills, lest we forget)

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

^^
Of course Tomkins is biased, but his work tends to be based on stats. The detail he goes into is incredible and is possibly too detailed at times. Critique his work by all means, but one thing it’s not, is pushing conspiracy theories.

As I understand it, he operates a subscription based model, so whilst there’s no doubt some promotional aspect to his stats based work, it’s hardly the sort of click bait that we see all toooften these days.

[alonsoisared]

They would, which is why I said ex-United and City players

Although if we're classing Danny Murphy as a positive Liverpool influence in the media, you might as well chuck Steve McManaman and Owen Hargreaves in as positive Man City influences (and Danny Mills, lest we forget)

Thanks for reminding me about Macca, I just remembered Sturridge too. Two more players who had great Liverpool careers and clearly either support the club in Macca's case or took the club to heart in Sturridge's, that regularly work in the media. Throwing in one positive Man City influence with the dozens of United ones doesn't really work though. You can call it Manchester bias against Liverpool. City fans can call it bias against them from their local rival. Everyone else can call it bias in favour of the traditional top clubs. All things that all those people vociferously argue.

It's a little off topic but the way you talk about Murphy there kind of sums the whole debate up for me. He's a Cheshire born Liverpool fan who played almost 200 times for us and probably would've spent his whole career with us if we'd have wanted him to. But because he's said a few things as a pundit that people don't like he can't really be a Liverpool fan at all. The same way plenty of people on here especially now try to claim Carragher can't be a proper red because he says some things we don't like. What fans want from pundits is for them to always say positive things about the club, the same way that they want referees to give every single decision to us. If they don't, they've got some deep rooted problem with the club and should be treated with suspicion. Every set of fans everywhere behaves the same way and believes the world is out to get them.

The officials got every major call correct on Monday night, including two penalties in our favour and a narrow Newcastle disallowed goal, and you're talking about the referee having a shocker against us and it being covered up by the media. I'm sorry mate but it's bordering on laughable.

On Tomkins, to be fair I really don't know that much about him, other than enjoying his book on Rafa back in the day when he was a regular poster on here. My point with him is more that it is a bit, well, hypocritical to look for every conceivable reason someone could be biased against our club but then hold up his work as the shining beacon of fairness and impartiality. He's a Liverpool fan presumably with almost exclusively Liverpool supporting subscribers. I'm not trying to doubt his intentions or his credibility but there's naturally a very obvious bias there that means you have to take what he says with at least a pinch of salt. Particularly if you are also someone who believes that anyone born in Manchester must automatically hate all scousers and want Liverpool FC to fail at all costs.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

The point about Tomkins work on reffing and salah etc is that it’s quantitative. He goes out of his way to explain his methodology, and from memory often leaves the number crunching to statistical experts.

It’s a very different thing from someone on a forum saying all Mancs hate scousers.

Read some of his statistical work and comment by all means, but it’s a bit reductive to just assume it’s biased because he’s a Liverpool fan. His bias probably motivated him to delve into Salahs treatment in more detail. But again, that’s a very different thing from producing a piece of work which in itself is biased.

They eye test tells you Salah gets a raw deal from refs. Tomkins work confirms exactly how raw that deal is compared with similar players, and uses the same methodology consistently for all players, so it’s difficult to see how it can be biased.

I’m not even a particular fan of Tomkins per se, but he does produce some good quality stuff which seeks to measure and quantify what many fans see with their own eyes.

[Redley]

As with Knight, you seem like you're going to extremes to try and shut the conversation down. Its fine if you dont like talking about it...but then dont talk about it

Thanks for reminding me about Macca, I just remembered Sturridge too. Two more players who had great Liverpool careers and clearly either support the club in Macca's case or took the club to heart in Sturridge's, that regularly work in the media. Throwing in one positive Man City influence with the dozens of United ones doesn't really work though. You can call it Manchester bias against Liverpool. City fans can call it bias against them from their local rival. Everyone else can call it bias in favour of the traditional top clubs. All things that all those people vociferously argue.

I can call it as it is, which is what I said originally, which is 'there's loads of ex-United and City players'. Thats all. Although 'Big Meeks' counts for about 20 pundits anyway since he's on every fucking thing. (Macca is famously an Everton fan btw)

It's a little off topic but the way you talk about Murphy there kind of sums the whole debate up for me. He's a Cheshire born Liverpool fan who played almost 200 times for us and probably would've spent his whole career with us if we'd have wanted him to. But because he's said a few things as a pundit that people don't like he can't really be a Liverpool fan at all. The same way plenty of people on here especially now try to claim Carragher can't be a proper red because he says some things we don't like. What fans want from pundits is for them to always say positive things about the club, the same way that they want referees to give every single decision to us. If they don't, they've got some deep rooted problem with the club and should be treated with suspicion. Every set of fans everywhere behaves the same way and believes the world is out to get them.

See, a little extreme. I'm not claiming he's not a Liverpool fan....he's just not a positive Liverpool influence in the media. You can surely see the difference between him, or people like Richards and Neville? You seem to be conflating two different things, which are how they behave on screen and how they behave away from the screen.

The officials got every major call correct on Monday night, including two penalties in our favour and a narrow Newcastle disallowed goal, and you're talking about the referee having a shocker against us and it being covered up by the media. I'm sorry mate but it's bordering on laughable.

When you say they got every 'major decision' right, what you mean is....they got the penalties and a couple of offsides right. Ignoring foul after foul and booking after booking is just as major if it allows Newcastle to continue their tactical fouling, spoiling play. Which it did. Again though, no need to go to such extremes. I dont think the 'referee having a shocker has been covered up by the media'. The referee was crap, he didnt referee us to the same standard as Newcastle regarding fouls and bookings. I am also aware he gave two penalties (which were penalties). I'm also aware that they disallowed a Newcastle goal for offside. I'm also aware he booked more Newcastle players than Liverpool. I'm aware Liverpool can win football matches where referees have been crap for us. And I'm finally aware that all of these things can be true at the same time and don't contradict one another.

Also...he got the major decisions right?! Woop. He's meant to be one of the top refs in world football. Surely we should have a higher bar for a refereeing performance than being able to spot a couple of stonewall penalties (because he obviously had no impact on the offsides)?

On Tomkins, to be fair I really don't know that much about him, other than enjoying his book on Rafa back in the day when he was a regular poster on here. My point with him is more that it is a bit, well, hypocritical to look for every conceivable reason someone could be biased against our club but then hold up his work as the shining beacon of fairness and impartiality. He's a Liverpool fan presumably with almost exclusively Liverpool supporting subscribers. I'm not trying to doubt his intentions or his credibility but there's naturally a very obvious bias there that means you have to take what he says with at least a pinch of salt. Particularly if you are also someone who believes that anyone born in Manchester must automatically hate all scousers and want Liverpool FC to fail at all costs.

I'm not sure you can cry bias when he mainly just presents stats. He might be biased but I think if you're going to call that then you probably need to disprove what he's presented (I assume you cant and wouldnt even attempt it).

[Gili Gulu]

Per Tomkins and bias, and I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself somewhat but:

I don't see how bias can come into a calculation of the percentage of a team's penalties that are given at their home stadium. The following was from an this article in the Independent,

Since 2003, Liverpool have won only half of their penalties at Anfield. Meanwhile, every other club that has been in the Premier League in that period have won between sixty and seventy-five per-cent of their penalties at home.

This was not formatted as a quote from Tomkins but stated in the article as a fact, which I would assume means the journalist has independently checked the figures. There's no subjective selection of data involved. This is a large data set, over 15 years, and involves all the clubs who have played in the Premier League in this time.

Also, repeating something I posted earlier, when Klopp complained that United have received more penalties in 2 and a half years under Solskjaer than Liverpool had under Klopp in 5 years, the number of penalties given to United reduced to such an extent that Solskjaer complained about it in the press. This is, for me, proof that bias exists.

It also seems to me that we would be wise to bring up some of the stats relating to Mo's fouls not being given. You either want the best players in the world in your league or you don't and the PGMOL are not helping at all.

There seems to a lot of argument in this thread where people are stating there is definitely bias, and this has only been addressed once on one post from someone who has been arguing that there is no proof of corruption.

[Knight]

As with Knight, you seem like you're going to extremes to try and shut the conversation down. Its fine if you dont like talking about it...but then dont talk about it

Yes, the 'extremes' of the thread title, the theme of the thread, and the topic of the conversation that I 'attempted to shut down'. Extreme.

[Eeyore]

Thanks for reminding me about Macca, I just remembered Sturridge too. Two more players who had great Liverpool careers and clearly either support the club in Macca's case or took the club to heart in Sturridge's, that regularly work in the media. Throwing in one positive Man City influence with the dozens of United ones doesn't really work though. You can call it Manchester bias against Liverpool. City fans can call it bias against them from their local rival. Everyone else can call it bias in favour of the traditional top clubs. All things that all those people vociferously argue.

The argument that you should ignore bias against Liverpool because everyone thinks there is bias against their club is bizarre. It is akin to stating you shouldn't investigate miscarriages of justice because prisons are full of people who wrongly claim to be innocent.

What you do is look at the evidence.

It's a little off topic but the way you talk about Murphy there kind of sums the whole debate up for me. He's a Cheshire born Liverpool fan who played almost 200 times for us and probably would've spent his whole career with us if we'd have wanted him to. But because he's said a few things as a pundit that people don't like he can't really be a Liverpool fan at all. The same way plenty of people on here especially now try to claim Carragher can't be a proper red because he says some things we don't like. What fans want from pundits is for them to always say positive things about the club, the same way that they want referees to give every single decision to us. If they don't, they've got some deep rooted problem with the club and should be treated with suspicion. Every set of fans everywhere behaves the same way and believes the world is out to get them.

The thing is Murphy and Carragher are bellends.

Murphy on seeing an Everton fan on crutches at the derby said "He isn't going to get his benefits this week they just caught him". So player who earned his money on the back of scousers was quite happy to play to the disgusting stereotypes of scousers.

Carragher spat at a child.

The officials got every major call correct on Monday night, including two penalties in our favour and a narrow Newcastle disallowed goal, and you're talking about the referee having a shocker against us and it being covered up by the media. I'm sorry mate but it's bordering on laughable.

I would love you to explain mild-mannered Trent having to be held back from confronting Taylor, Diaz being booked for complaining about being fouled, Gomez getting completely wiped out and Klopp complaining to the fourth official about Joelinton committing multiple yellow card offences.

The PGMOL have a technical term for the big decisions they call them 'KMI's. Key match incidents and are the main component on how each official is scored on their performance in each game. Those scores determine who gets the big games and gets put forward for CL games and international tournaments. A good analogy would be if you are going to steal from a till then you leave the £20's and £50's and take a couple of quid a time.

That is what Taylor does. He gives our opponents an abnormal amount of the smaller decisions. He also misses things that should go in our favour. He has refereed three Liverpool games this season. Against Chelsea, he missed Jackson's handball. Against Brighton he missed the Gross DOGSO. Against Newcastle he missed the foul on Diaz, the foul on Gomez and Joelinton assaulting Szobozslai.

However, he blew for a foul for Newcastle at every opportunity. I mean in statistically the most one-sided game in PL history he gave each team 15 free kicks. He booked three Liverpool players Diaz for arguing about being fouled, Trent for kicking the ball away after another foul for Newcastle and Endo for an absolute nothing challenge.

He may have left the twenties and the fifties but he stuffed his pockets with pound coins at every opportunity. 

On Tomkins, to be fair I really don't know that much about him, other than enjoying his book on Rafa back in the day when he was a regular poster on here. My point with him is more that it is a bit, well, hypocritical to look for every conceivable reason someone could be biased against our club but then hold up his work as the shining beacon of fairness and impartiality. He's a Liverpool fan presumably with almost exclusively Liverpool supporting subscribers. I'm not trying to doubt his intentions or his credibility but there's naturally a very obvious bias there that means you have to take what he says with at least a pinch of salt. Particularly if you are also someone who believes that anyone born in Manchester must automatically hate all scousers and want Liverpool FC to fail at all costs.

The thing is Tomkins openly admits he is biased and goes out of his way to use completely independent data and lists his sources. For me, the hypocrisy is attacking Tomkins personally whilst completely ignoring the data. Especially when Tomkins also quotes instances in which his 'bias' about an individual isn't backed up by the data.

For someone who is so obviously biased, it is surprising how he lists when Liverpool has benefited from refereeing decisions.

[Andy82lfc]

Also, repeating something I posted earlier, when Klopp complained that United have received more penalties in 2 and a half years under Solskjaer than Liverpool had under Klopp in 5 years, the number of penalties given to United reduced to such an extent that Solskjaer complained about it in the press. This is, for me, proof that bias exists.

This is why some feel the club need to do more in calling it out. The more you do that it puts more spotlight on the refs and in turn that can have an effect on decisions. Plus it's better than bending over and taking it year after year.

[Knight]

When you say they got every 'major decision' right, what you mean is....they got the penalties and a couple of offsides right. Ignoring foul after foul and booking after booking is just as major if it allows Newcastle to continue their tactical fouling, spoiling play. Which it did. Again though, no need to go to such extremes. I dont think the 'referee having a shocker has been covered up by the media'. The referee was crap, he didnt referee us to the same standard as Newcastle regarding fouls and bookings. I am also aware he gave two penalties (which were penalties). I'm also aware that they disallowed a Newcastle goal for offside. I'm also aware he booked more Newcastle players than Liverpool. I'm aware Liverpool can win football matches where referees have been crap for us. And I'm finally aware that all of these things can be true at the same time and don't contradict one another.

Also...he got the major decisions right?! Woop. He's meant to be one of the top refs in world football. Surely we should have a higher bar for a refereeing performance than being able to spot a couple of stonewall penalties (because he obviously had no impact on the offsides)?

There's a normally agreed standard for what counts as 'major'.

As for the rest of the post, the issue is the discrepancy between what people claimed about the reffing in that game and what actually happened. To hear people talk it was 'blatant cheating' (I can find the receipts if you like), when in reality he fluffed his lines on maybe one or two fouls. That was it. And one of the decisions he apparently got totally wrong and was an example of blatant cheating turned out to have been exactly right according to the actual rules.

[Knight]

Per Tomkins and bias, and I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself somewhat but:

I don't see how bias can come into a calculation of the percentage of a team's penalties that are given at their home stadium. The following was from an this article in the Independent,

This was not formatted as a quote from Tomkins but stated in the article as a fact, which I would assume means the journalist has independently checked the figures. There's no subjective selection of data involved. This is a large data set, over 15 years, and involves all the clubs who have played in the Premier League in this time.

Also, repeating something I posted earlier, when Klopp complained that United have received more penalties in 2 and a half years under Solskjaer than Liverpool had under Klopp in 5 years, the number of penalties given to United reduced to such an extent that Solskjaer complained about it in the press. This is, for me, proof that bias exists.

It also seems to me that we would be wise to bring up some of the stats relating to Mo's fouls not being given. You either want the best players in the world in your league or you don't and the PGMOL are not helping at all.

There seems to a lot of argument in this thread where people are stating there is definitely bias, and this has only been addressed once on one post from someone who has been arguing that there is no proof of corruption.

The Anfield penalty stat is interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if there is an 'Anfield is such a cauldron, I'm not going to be swayed' thing going on. Less a bias against the club and more a mostly sub conscious over correction from refs. That said I'd want to see the stats in more detail. We're very good at finding patterns where there aren't any.

[Gili Gulu]

There's a normally agreed standard for what counts as 'major'.

As for the rest of the post, the issue is the discrepancy between what people claimed about the reffing in that game and what actually happened. To hear people talk it was 'blatant cheating' (I can find the receipts if you like), when in reality he fluffed his lines on maybe one or two fouls. That was it. And one of the decisions he apparently got totally wrong and was an example of blatant cheating turned out to have been exactly right according to the actual rules. 

As regards the fouls, the pull back on Diaz when Luis got booked for dissent was a ridiculous decision. There was also a foul on Gomez later on towards the Anfield end where he got clattered, nothing was given and Klopp was incredulous. The pull back by Joelinton could not have resulted in a yellow card for that single incident according to the rules, but it certainly should have been the final straw that led to a yellow card for persistent fouling. Guimares, who pulled back Diaz, should have been booked for persistent fouling too.

Taylor's attitude led to a flare up at the end of the half where Miley did a terrible foul on Jota which could have seriously injured him. Early in the second half Joelinton finally got booked for a dangerous tackle. It wasn't just the decisions Taylor got badly wrong. of which there were more than one or two, it was the lack of control over Newcastle that led the several dangerous challenges later on.

[Eeyore]

There's a normally agreed standard for what counts as 'major'.

As for the rest of the post, the issue is the discrepancy between what people claimed about the reffing in that game and what actually happened. To hear people talk it was 'blatant cheating' (I can find the receipts if you like), when in reality he fluffed his lines on maybe one or two fouls. That was it. And one of the decisions he apparently got totally wrong and was an example of blatant cheating turned out to have been exactly right according to the actual rules.

The Joelinton one for me he hasn't got right. If it was a foul that only warranted a yellow card because it stopped an advantage then he was correct. The issue is that bringing your two hands down on a player's shoulder and knocking him to the ground whilst making no attempt to play the ball is a yellow card in any situation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/comments/18w6nrk/joelinton_foul_on_szoboszlai_no_yellow_given/

It isn't a shirt pull or holding Szobozslai, not only that but it occurred in the 43 minutes after Joelinton had committed numerous fouls to break up play.