Corruption

[Moonchesteri]

Thanks for sharing edge.

[Original Dub]

Thanks for sharing edge.

Who shared edge?

[RodneyRodney]

Some interesting reading here : sorry it's a bit to long to cut/paste
http://www.sportskeeda.com/slideshow/football-most-biased-referees-top-teams-premier-league?imgid=27812

Interesting read. The common denominator in that is Clattenburg, unsurprisingly. The stats for Mike Dean and Arsenal also stand out. Yet there is no bias from referees?

The club , and we , the fans , need to he a hell of a lot more assertive,demonstrative and ugly ; in the thread I included above , the Toffs got well and truly in Cheatenburgs hair after one memorable game @ Goodison , & he didn't ref there again for several years - the death threats obviously worked. People like Pellegrini or Kiddo need to get angry and bitch & snarl about it on TV or the papers & stop being nice guys . How many trophies have been won by nice guys in the last 20-odd years ? No more Mr. Nice Guy - It seems if you make enough noise about it , the cheats go away . Plus, Our Sheikh needs to pull what strings he can at a higher level . All we are saying is give fair play a chance on the playing field , and If threats , rants, tantrums , coercion, blackmail, bribery and bullying are the way to acheive that , then so be it.

[dave watson's perm]

The facts around Twattenburg are that it is not just us who he "has it in for". It would be interesting to look at all the previously mentioned suspect games alongside the betting patterns of Mr Bloom's organisation (not to mention all those dodgy Asian outlets). It has been happening in cricket for donkeys years - are we seriously kidding ourselves it isn't happening in football when there is clearly a lot of money to be made?

[nottsblue]

Some interesting reading here : sorry it's a bit to long to cut/paste
http://www.sportskeeda.com/slideshow/football-most-biased-referees-top-teams-premier-league?imgid=27812

Interesting read. The common denominator in that is Clattenburg, unsurprisingly. The stats for Mike Dean and Arsenal also stand out. Yet there is no bias from referees?

Some of those stats would raise eyebrows with auditors

Be also interesting to know what bets were laid in those games. Arsenal winning 6% of games with Dean in charge whilst winning 50% - 60% of games under other referees in the same period suggests someone had made a few quid out of this.

Maybe they are being corrupted by gambling syndicates. Especially if bets are being laid for the number of yellow/red cards and penalties awarded as these are things the referees can directly influence

[Hazy2]

Listen to Owen when doing us. Negative from the pre game to the end, Would love to see Pellers or Vinny ask him or the pundits what is your problem with MCFC. So upbeat when Everton scored ill when we battered them second half.

[nottsblue]

Some interesting reading here : sorry it's a bit to long to cut/paste
http://www.sportskeeda.com/slideshow/football-most-biased-referees-top-teams-premier-league?imgid=27812

Interesting read. The common denominator in that is Clattenburg, unsurprisingly. The stats for Mike Dean and Arsenal also stand out. Yet there is no bias from referees?

Some of those stats would raise eyebrows with auditors

Be also interesting to know what bets were laid in those games. Arsenal winning 6% of games with Dean in charge whilst winning 50% - 60% of games under other referees in the same period suggests someone had made a few quid out of this.

Maybe they are being corrupted by gambling syndicates. Especially if bets are being laid for the number of yellow/red cards and penalties awarded as these are things the referees can directly influence

The penalty award yesterday perfectly illustrates the above point. Never a penalty in the memory of man and the award of it had no bearing on the match outcome so was an easy one to give as it wouldn't cause controversy like Clattenburgs the previous week. It could be construed the referee either got it wrong or is on the take from some betting syndicate. He was in a good position and blew very quickly so my money is on the latter.

This was as bad a decision as Clattenburgs IMO. Yet it barely gets a mention in the media after the game. I reckon this is more widespread than we give credit for. Love to see figures for bets for penalties in games and whether they were awarded and whether they justified penalties or not. This is a cancer in the game and needs the perpetrators to be removed

[Wonderwall]

Trabzonspor player sent off for showing referee the red card against Galatasaray. They had 4 sent off, now this is a ref who loves attention!!

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... lih-dursin

[nottsblue]

Trabzonspor player sent off for showing referee the red card against Galatasaray. They had 4 sent off, now this is a ref who loves attention!!

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... lih-dursin

It clearly happens in other leagues as well. Referees are the obvious way in for betting syndicates and no matter where the match is based, they will be open to a bribe/bung/redemption from gambling debt.

Surprised the match finished actually. Thought that less than eight players and the match is abandoned, like at Sheffield United under Warnock a few years ago. Maybe that's just an English FA thing?

[Wonderwall]

Trabzonspor player sent off for showing referee the red card against Galatasaray. They had 4 sent off, now this is a ref who loves attention!!

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... lih-dursin

It clearly happens in other leagues as well. Referees are the obvious way in for betting syndicates and no matter where the match is based, they will be open to a bribe/bung/redemption from gambling debt.

Surprised the match finished actually. Thought that less than eight players and the match is abandoned, like at Sheffield United under Warnock a few years ago. Maybe that's just an English FA thing?

The rules state that 7 is the minimum allowed number, any less and the match is abandoned.

[nottsblue]

Trabzonspor player sent off for showing referee the red card against Galatasaray. They had 4 sent off, now this is a ref who loves attention!!

http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... lih-dursin

It clearly happens in other leagues as well. Referees are the obvious way in for betting syndicates and no matter where the match is based, they will be open to a bribe/bung/redemption from gambling debt.

Surprised the match finished actually. Thought that less than eight players and the match is abandoned, like at Sheffield United under Warnock a few years ago. Maybe that's just an English FA thing?

The rules state that 7 is the minimum allowed number, any less and the match is abandoned.

Just looked it up. Three sent off and two off injured and the ref had to call it off in the 82nd minute with the second injury. WBA were awarded the 3-0 win. Sounds a feisty affair

[cartesr]

didn't get the penalty at all what was the difference between that challenge and the one on Ferna1 against Leics when the commentator/pundit said it was just strong arming,

[Original Dub]

It's just another shit decision in a long line of shit decisions.
If they aren't denying us clear penalties, they making ones up at the other end. Two in a row now.

They obviously don't give a fuck at this stage, because they're not even trying to hide it.

[nottsblue]

It's just another shit decision in a long line of shit decisions.
If they aren't denying us clear penalties, they making ones up at the other end. Two in a row now.

They obviously don't give a fuck at this stage, because they're not even trying to hide it.

OD, I am now really starting to think they are making money out of it, rather than it's just shit decision making. We know Clattenburg had gambling debts, as have a number of footballers as it goes, and giving a few decisions that can reap rewards could be their way out of it.

[Original Dub]

Don't get me wrong mate, when I say "shit decisions" , I'm not inferring they were made by accident.

Merely that they stank of shit.

It's definitely about money.
Everything fucking is.

[Beefymcfc]

Could yesterdays 2nd goal for the Rags be classed as corruption or just incompetence? What makes me laugh is that although there is a specific rule for this kind of offence, dependant on club the media portray it in a certain way and therefore re-write the rules and then trot it out as fact.

Take this one for instance. 3 players stood in an offside position, obscuring the keepers vision. As the FK is taken they rush out but are still 2 yards offside when the ball is kicked. The keeper makes no move whatsoever as he cannot see the ball and the ball hits the back of the net.

Now, in this instance, the rule states that:

Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.

Is that not what they did; can it be seen any other way?

I think a similar thing happened to us this season when Lukaku was stood in an offside position (by a few yards) when the ball was shot from he edge of the box. The ball passes very close to Lukaku and our keeper doesn't know which way to move. Ball hits back of net - goal.

There were a few other decisions that game and I think it was Gollum who tried to argue that some should have been given, including the one mentioned above. Again though, why was this allowed when the offside player was clearly interfering with play?

It's like the 'Preventing a clear cut goal scoring opportunity' or 'Handball' situation, how many times have we heard a completely different line trotted out when a referee gets it wrong?

[Wonderwall]

Could yesterdays 2nd goal for the Rags be classed as corruption or just incompetence? What makes me laugh is that although there is a specific rule for this kind of offence, dependant on club the media portray it in a certain way and therefore re-write the rules and then trot it out as fact.

Take this one for instance. 3 players stood in an offside position, obscuring the keepers vision. As the FK is taken they rush out but are still 2 yards offside when the ball is kicked. The keeper makes no move whatsoever as he cannot see the ball and the ball hits the back of the net.

Now, in this instance, the rule states that:

Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.

Is that not what they did; can it be seen any other way?

I think a similar thing happened to us this season when Lukaku was stood in an offside position (by a few yards) when the ball was shot from he edge of the box. The ball passes very close to Lukaku and our keeper doesn't know which way to move. Ball hits back of net - goal.

There were a few other decisions that game and I think it was Gollum who tried to argue that some should have been given, including the one mentioned above. Again though, why was this allowed when the offside player was clearly interfering with play?

It's like the 'Preventing a clear cut goal scoring opportunity' or 'Handball' situation, how many times have we heard a completely different line trotted out when a referee gets it wrong?

Van Gaal claims that he can't believe it was allowed but the players asked the ref if it was legal before the kick and the ref said they were allowed.

Yes again the officials incompetence is plain to see

[DoomMerchant]

Don't get me wrong mate, when I say "shit decisions" , I'm not inferring they were made by accident.

Merely that they stank of shit.

It's definitely about money.
Everything fucking is.

I love you for your soul. Not your money.

Cheers

[collins88]

It's common knowledge that football's more than the eyes can see and that there are a lot of shady dealings going on.

[Beefymcfc]

Could yesterdays 2nd goal for the Rags be classed as corruption or just incompetence? What makes me laugh is that although there is a specific rule for this kind of offence, dependant on club the media portray it in a certain way and therefore re-write the rules and then trot it out as fact.

Take this one for instance. 3 players stood in an offside position, obscuring the keepers vision. As the FK is taken they rush out but are still 2 yards offside when the ball is kicked. The keeper makes no move whatsoever as he cannot see the ball and the ball hits the back of the net.

Now, in this instance, the rule states that:

Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.

Is that not what they did; can it be seen any other way?

I think a similar thing happened to us this season when Lukaku was stood in an offside position (by a few yards) when the ball was shot from he edge of the box. The ball passes very close to Lukaku and our keeper doesn't know which way to move. Ball hits back of net - goal.

There were a few other decisions that game and I think it was Gollum who tried to argue that some should have been given, including the one mentioned above. Again though, why was this allowed when the offside player was clearly interfering with play?

It's like the 'Preventing a clear cut goal scoring opportunity' or 'Handball' situation, how many times have we heard a completely different line trotted out when a referee gets it wrong?

Van Gaal claims that he can't believe it was allowed but the players asked the ref if it was legal before the kick and the ref said they were allowed.

Yes again the officials incompetence is plain to see

I didn't know that and it makes a mockery of the game. If the fucking ref's don't get, how the fuck does anybody else?

Or was it 'Yeah, do what you want, I have my orders'.