Aren’t they the only top team in the VAR era to have a goal disallowed for offside which was actually clearly onside? That’s the opposite of jammy. Or how about their best/most important player having his knee wrecked and missing a year of football after an incredibly violent challenge in the opposition box which wasn’t even a penalty, never mind a red card?
Feel dirty as hell speaking up on their behalf but all this crap about referees being biased for/against specific teams is so fecking cringe.
I think moat teams have had something crazy go against them by now. Sheffield United got relegated because the goal line technology just decided to take a break. Wolves lost to Liverpool in the cup because they scored a valid goal that the linesman inexplicably disallowed for offside, and then we were meant to believe VAR didn't have a camera that could check it, despite us all being able to see it.
The only difference with the incident you're referring to is it's only Liverpool who tried to make it into a national catastrophe and demand the game is replayed. A game in which they'd had two players correctly sent off, which was the principle reason why they lost.
Not that I subscribe to it being a big fix in their favour, but they definitely aren't above thinking they should have special treatment and trying to use VAR to pressure officials into not giving things against them, because they have publicly done this (and faced 0 repercussions for it, btw). They have also under Klopp tried to dictate who should be allowed to officiate their games and insinuate certain referees don't like them.
So I do think questioning it is valid because it's Liverpool who have drawn the attention to it with their repeatedly attempting to gain preferential treatment.
This idea that top teams get more favourable decisions I don't think holds much water either. It's not an exact science due to the amount of it that's subjective, but if you look back over the research people have done into it, it's generally disproven. So if Liverpool are an exception (I have no idea if they are) it's definitely something to question.
There are some very odd and hard to explain stats when you look into the officiating a bit more in depth. Like Mike Dean being the only official booking twice as many United players as their opponents and doing so for year after year.
Every time I say this I have to say I'm sick of repeating it, but it's really naive to think the officiating can't possibly be dodgy with some of what we see with our own eyes, and also with accounts from the likes of Dean and Clattenberg where they've openly admitted to deliberately getting things wrong and in the process manipulating outcomes. It's ridiculous to think they wouldn't be above doing that for petty self preservation or ego reasons, yet would be above it if there was actually an incentive.
Or in other words I don't think these questions go away until we have an actual professionally run officiating system. Even then they won't go away because fans are babies, but they'd have a lot less to go on.
And to clarify I'm with you. I don't think Liverpool are top because of referees. Didn't see anything massively controversial yesterday. Mainly Southampton decided to draft their keeper in from the local circus. I also though don't for a second trust that the officiating is actually honest. I just don't think any agenda would be specifically in favour of one team. More that our officials are unprofessional idiots
