|
Post by davejohnno1 on Sept 5, 2016 12:36:43 GMT
I doubt we'll see much evidence of corruption (in the sense of money changing hands in exchange for favourable treatment) because I don't think English referees are corrupt in that sense - certainly nothing on the scale we have seen in some foreign leagues in recent years. But bias is a different kettle of fish. For example - a national newspaper a few years back, in the days when Fergie managed Man Utd, produced some stats showing the amount of time added on at the end of Man Utd home games (over several seasons) when they were losing at the end of 90 minutes compared to games where they were drawing or winning at the end of 90 minutes. The stats were a real eye opener! Not that they prove bias but you'd scratch your head to think of how they could reflect anything other than bias in favour of Man Utd. During their period of dominance under Ferguson did they not go years without having a penalty awarded against them at Old Trafford? I seem to remember when they actually conceded the first one for ages there was mayhem with most of the Man Utd players surrounding the referee in disbelief! Ditto Liverpool at Anfield when they ruled the roost during the 80s. Big club bias isn't new but I think it's worse than its ever been. Of course it is worse than it's ever been. There is more money involved these days and with more money comes more bias. Mark Clattenburg is a great example because he's arguably the best ref we have. Mark Clattenburg is a professional in a sport where previously referees were amateur. Mark Clattenburg, being at the top of his profession, earns somewhere in the region of 100k per year + expenses just for being a referee. He has minor celebrity status in reality and in his own mind, he's a top celebrity. You can bet your life, with other earnings, he's a millionaire and by the time he retires will be one several times over. You don't get to the top of your profession by pissing off the big wigs in your organisation. When the Chief Executive of the Premier Leagues openly admits that its bad for the brand to see Manure, Chelsea and Liverpool struggling, do you really then expect referees to risk alienating the big wigs of your own organisation, not to mention the biggest clubs who most likely will be competing for league titles and domestic cup competitions? Piss them off and you miss out on the showcase occasions. Piss of Stoke City, Burnley, Bournemouth, Swansea or Hull City and no-one bats an eyelid. What proof does Geoff123 need? He doesn't need any. Sat in his ivory tower from a position of complete impartiality, all is rosy with the refereeing fraternity. If a referee, current or retired, came out and said that it would harm his career if he pissed off Jose Mourinho, it still wouldn't be evidence enough. Referees subconsciously favour the big club. To give a crucial decision against them, they have to be absolutely certain that it is the right decision. If it is wrong, the ramifications will go on for weeks on end. Get a decision wrong against a big club and you'll be reffing in League 1 the following week. Get one wrong against Stoke and it doesn't even get discussed beyond the "Stoke were unlucky not to get a penalty there". You only have to look at that spineless wanker on SSN on a Monday, Dermot Gallagher, justifying (or at least attempting to) why the ref couldn't possibly have given the decision against Aguero and also why Dean and the linesman were right not to give the penalty on Joe Allen.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 5, 2016 12:47:32 GMT
When it comes to claims that refs are biased and favour the big clubs I have only ever seen anecdotal evidence on here, if people want to make such claims they should be prepared to back it up with hard facts and statistics. It was a fact that a panel of 3 adjudicated that Nzonzi should've been sent off compared to 1 person who didn't. It is a fact that Stoke did not benefit from the decision to ban Nzonzi. Regarding the Neville & Ethers incident - do you think it should've been 2 yellows? Referees have a tough job but for Halsey to make these claims is outlandish. If it's as widespread as he claims it to be then there are serious questions that need to be answered in terms of when else ha this happened and who benefitted.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 5, 2016 12:48:12 GMT
Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs dave are contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 5, 2016 13:11:27 GMT
I don't doubt JJ that there are controversial decisions, that refs make serious errors, that they bottle decisions, that they are swayed by aggressive crowds, that they can be pressured by managers etc, etc, but in gerneral do they take the field intending to favour certain clubs, not in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Sept 5, 2016 13:14:54 GMT
During their period of dominance under Ferguson did they not go years without having a penalty awarded against them at Old Trafford? I seem to remember when they actually conceded the first one for ages there was mayhem with most of the Man Utd players surrounding the referee in disbelief! Ditto Liverpool at Anfield when they ruled the roost during the 80s. Big club bias isn't new but I think it's worse than its ever been. Of course it is worse than it's ever been. There is more money involved these days and with more money comes more bias. Mark Clattenburg is a great example because he's arguably the best ref we have. Mark Clattenburg is a professional in a sport where previously referees were amateur. Mark Clattenburg, being at the top of his profession, earns somewhere in the region of 100k per year + expenses just for being a referee. He has minor celebrity status in reality and in his own mind, he's a top celebrity. You can bet your life, with other earnings, he's a millionaire and by the time he retires will be one several times over. You don't get to the top of your profession by pissing off the big wigs in your organisation. When the Chief Executive of the Premier Leagues openly admits that its bad for the brand to see Manure, Chelsea and Liverpool struggling, do you really then expect referees to risk alienating the big wigs of your own organisation, not to mention the biggest clubs who most likely will be competing for league titles and domestic cup competitions? Piss them off and you miss out on the showcase occasions. Piss of Stoke City, Burnley, Bournemouth, Swansea or Hull City and no-one bats an eyelid. What proof does Geoff123 need? He doesn't need any. Sat in his ivory tower from a position of complete impartiality, all is rosy with the refereeing fraternity. If a referee, current or retired, came out and said that it would harm his career if he pissed off Jose Mourinho, it still wouldn't be evidence enough. Referees subconsciously favour the big club. To give a crucial decision against them, they have to be absolutely certain that it is the right decision. If it is wrong, the ramifications will go on for weeks on end. Get a decision wrong against a big club and you'll be reffing in League 1 the following week. Get one wrong against Stoke and it doesn't even get discussed beyond the "Stoke were unlucky not to get a penalty there". You only have to look at that spineless wanker on SSN on a Monday, Dermot Gallagher, justifying (or at least attempting to) why the ref couldn't possibly have given the decision against Aguero and also why Dean and the linesman were right not to give the penalty on Joe Allen. If you think about it, the FA's approach of promoting the "big" 6 or 7 clubs is pretty small minded and very short-sighted. A lot more money would change hands, and greater wealth created if the cash were distributed among a larger number of teams. I understand the US is a much bigger country but the systems in the major sports (NBA, NFL and MLB) are designed to create parity between the teams - salary caps, lowest teams get the best draft picks, etc. - so everyone wins.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 5, 2016 13:15:34 GMT
It's far easier to ban a player retrospectively by getting the ref to lie and say he missed it as opposed to make him look foolish by saying he made a mistake.
If the rules said that players could get done for violent conduct If the ref had been too lenient there would be no need to get refs to lie. The refs association are far more concerned with hiding their mistakes rather than put their collective hand up and admit we are human we got it wrong.
Cricket umpires and tennis umpires make wrong desvisions every game. They are big enough to accept the review and move on. Surprising as football refs don't have this benefit they should be even more willing to admit mistakes
Refs are important but they are there to make the game flow. A good ref shouldn't really be noticed. As such I have always been against any referee sponsorship, branded kit etc. As refs have bigger part in today's football it's all about money.
The FA are as much to blame as they have allowed the referees organisation to be untouchable.
A minor point but we all seen referees call high profile players by their name/nickname but refer to others by surname or shirt number. This really grates and could be accused of bias and favouritism.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Sept 5, 2016 13:35:38 GMT
Just remove if the ref see's it rule and say hey you made a mistake and act on it!
|
|
|
Post by TinkerT on Sept 5, 2016 17:19:54 GMT
The only way we will change this is if we have some kind of appeal rule with a video ref which can be used say twice a half like tennis if the manager feels the decision is not correct. Something has be done with the ££ in today's game.
|
|
|
Post by BuzzB on Sept 5, 2016 21:16:18 GMT
Did anyone have Talksport on tonight, apparently he is on as a guest and ready to explain himself? On about TS, tuned in at work to listen to Colin Murray only to realise he packed it in on Friday! They only went and replaced him with Jim bleedin White, he is even trying to sensationalize a radio show!
|
|