Giving decisions that mean he isn't blamed for the officiating teams mistakes is not the same as 'effectively fixing' a match, he even says himself in the same interview that the penalty he awarded for Torres was 50/50 and 'not one which you'd want to decide a game on'.
Clattenberg allowing a goal he knew was offside to stand is altering the course of the game though. As for the penalty when he says 'not one which you would want to decide a game on', what he means is he wouldn't have given it normally. He wouldn't have given it because if that was the going to decide the game then his head would be on the block.
He has altered the course of the game to protect his reputation and to help him get further high-profile games. That is corrupt.
Now don't get me wrong, he shouldn't be doing that in a match which he's refereeing, two wrongs don't make a right and if you wanted to argue that him making decisions to avoid getting the blame is corrupt then I think you'd have a fair case to argue that. What it isn't, however, is Clattenburg giving a decision in order to make a certain result in the match liklier to happen, it's for his own, personal, selfish reasons.
I've said this several times but if the point that is being made is that referees have their own bias', their own agendas and that decisions on the pitch sometimes reflect them, then I'd agree, human beings inevitably try to cover their mistakes and the referees are like the police in that they'll close ranks and protect one another. I can absoltuely believe that decisions are made based on how likely a referee is to get called up on make the wrong one, I'm sure there's a huge element of self-preservation and that is totally wrong, it should be dealt with and the fact PGMOL are the way they are makes doing so very difficult. If, however, the argument is being made that referees are somehow deliberately trying to influence the result of a game in order to favour certain teams then I don't see much evidence of that.
The Tomkins data though categorically shows there are bias issues. Things like the decisions we get with Manchester-based officials or even more glaringly the treatment Salah gets is clear bias. We are talking about huge sample sizes that show huge deviations.
Given that data then what are PGMOL doing about it. They either need to work with the officials to ensure the bias is eradicated or bring in new officials. People talk about tribalism but data doesn't do tribalism. So how do posters explain the disparity in outcomes?
You simply cannot explain decisions like Salah getting clotheslined by Bernardo Silva right in front of the official and nothing being given. You cannot explain Robbo being assaulted by an official. You cannot explain Diaz's goal being disallowed, Jones's red card, Jota's red card and Udogies waving of the yellow card in the Refs face being ignored. You cannot explain away Odegaard's handball or Salah having a perfectly good goal ruled out against Burnley without a VAR check.
Taylor has done three Liverpool games this season. Newcastle in which he kept the score line respectable, Chelsea in which he ignored a stonewall handball
and Brighton in which he failed to send off a Brighton player.
Apparently, this wasn't a denial of a goalscoring opportunity.
Add in normally mild-mannered Trent having to be held back from confronting Taylor and Dunk being sent off for calling him a cheat and there is clearly an issue with Taylor.
You could argue that in a tight title race Taylor could easily have cost us 4 points and a shit load of goal difference in three games.