When is the club going to call out this corruption?

[bosnian_red]

It's called confirmation bias.

When Liverpool, City, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea...down to Rochdale fans make the exact same claims (and they do, all the time), that should be a pretty clear indication.

And no, the idea of media (ABU media, that whole concept) pressure being a significant factor isn't much more sound than the pure tinfoil "corruption" one.

I don't think there's any conspiracy or corruption but it's undeniable IMO that referees get influenced by media and other managers talking about it. Since the backlash of the Fernandes incident, we've gotten feck all from the refs. Ten Hag and the players need to talk about it because inevitably when you talk about it, refs subconsciously think about it. It averages out over a season typically, but media and public pressure on refs impacting decisions is real.

 

[MF1138]

Dermot Gallagher on Sky Sports Ref Watch when asked to compare the Casemiro tackle to the tackle on Jao Felix v Leicester on Saturday, that was not even a yellow card. “Consistency is only possible one man in 90 minutes. It’s very very difficult for us if we were both referees to be as consistent as each other in different games because they throw up different challenges”
Does that suggest that they make it up as they go along?? I think so….

Gallagher had to lie about the incident to even make his point anyway. Said Casemiro didn't win the ball that he only skimmed it.

 

[cyberman]

The ball being out against West Ham was very marginal, strange that VAR didn't review it though.
I missed the Leeds game so didn't see that particular incident
Casemiro vs Palace...I have seen them given, especially because everything looks worse when slowed-down on VAR
Casemiro vs Southampton...see above...I was right behind this in the Stretford End and several people immediately said 'he's in trouble if they VAR that'.

The real howler for me in the PL was the McTominay penalty vs Palace. That's a stonewaller and I see no redeeming feature or excuse for not giving that. That cost us two points. The free-kick not being taken from the right position is on the players, they should be on at the referee constantly to make sure it's taken from where the foul happened.

In Europe, we've twice had what I feel are very soft penalties given against us, the Sociedad one in particular was a disgrace...but surely we're not suggesting Europe-wide corruption?

In terms of incidents that have gone in our favour, I would add the Eriksen foul in the build-up to the Arsenal goal that chalked-off their opener. I feel that was marginal and could not have been given on another day.

As I mentioned to another poster, I think referees are over-correcting for some sort of 'big club bias'. It seems to me that referees are so desperate not to be seen given a soft decision to United that they actually go too far the other way.

What I don't agree with is that there is any sort of conscious bias or deliberate corruption...it's just incompetence and human fallibility

The Casemiro red v Palace had a Palace player do the exact same thing in the very frame they kept reviewing and did nothing.
Casemiro may have been in trouble if they went to VAR but the fact is they shouldn’t have gone to VAR in the first place! It’s the exact same situation as Eriksen, they’re not supposed to send refs to the camera for instances they’ve already clearly seen.
I’ll never get an answer but where did Taylor think Casemiros foot landed when he gave the yellow?
West Ham ball is just out. It clearly looks out even from the tv angle used.
The problem being the decision was made using an imaginary camera above the line that may have the ball touching the line and since we didn’t have that it couldn’t be overturned. What should have happened is using the angle that shows it clearly out and going by that since no contradictory camera angle exists
It never made sense.

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

Why? If you read the thread, you will see most, if not all posts are saying its a form of bias. The idea that the word RAWKish is way to dismiss a thread is lazy on the post and person reading it.

Like reading the headline and then making a judgement in the comments.

Late night I watched a lot football commentary on the red and the game, Alan Shearer actually said Ten Hag was talking nonsense, I think its the first first time I've ever heard a pundit speak about a manager like that.

Ten hag is right the inconsistency is very real.

My point yesterday, none of uk pundits are impartial and now it seems perfectly fine for them too show that they are not. Jamie Carragher, Graeme Souness, Alan Shearer, Ian Wright, Gary Lineker are in no way impartial they can't be. Alan Shearer has a UTD song about him for feck sake.

Now we are starting to refs seemingly influenced by public opinion, that's why I didn't like MOTD situation this weekend. It puts the opinions of pundits outside of football in the in the spotlight, moving away from football.

I'd have have youtube football commentators from each team commentating on the matches - feck em.

Referring to all the berks calling out ‘an agenda’ from the officials.

Don’t give a t0ss about the opinions of commentators, either the professional ones or the internet warriors.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

All you would need is data on the amount of attention,air time,column inches a contentious decision in Uniteds favour gets relative to other teams.

I don't think there's any conspiracy or corruption but it's undeniable IMO that referees get influenced by media and other managers talking about it.

I don't think there's any conspiracy or corruption but it's undeniable IMO that referees get influenced by media and other managers talking about it.

Sorry, but this is not evidence of media influence having an actual impact on results over time, and being specifically detrimental to one team in particular. This reads like something a Manchester United fan would say - and, yeah, that's what it is. Again, fans of other teams say the exact same thing - and have done so for as long as I can remember.

Like I said above, United benefited from VAR decisions over the full course of a season not long ago.

You need to explain that first.

(Unless your argument is - bizarrely, I would say - founded on this phenomenon being something entirely new. And even then, I'm not sure if it holds up statistically - I haven't done the numbers, and it would obviously be premature to do so for this season anyway, since we still have a dozen rounds to go.)

 

[Drizzle]

I don't think there's any conspiracy or corruption but it's undeniable IMO that referees get influenced by media and other managers talking about it. Since the backlash of the Fernandes incident, we've gotten feck all from the refs. Ten Hag and the players need to talk about it because inevitably when you talk about it, refs subconsciously think about it. It averages out over a season typically, but media and public pressure on refs impacting decisions is real.

Yes. Said it earlier, but refs are very aware of the pile-on that will ensue if they give 50/50 decisions to United. It's not corruption it's risk aversion and self-preservation.

And the solution is to absolutely go in on this really hard. Petitions to PGMOL. Comments from ETH. Media briefings. Get in their heads. It cannot be the easier decision for the referee in the moment to go against United. It has to be balanced and objective, that's all. And it clearly isn't at the moment.

 

[Anustart89]

It's called confirmation bias.

When Liverpool, City, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea...down to Rochdale fans make the exact same claims (and they do, all the time), that should be a pretty clear indication.

And no, the idea of media (ABU media, that whole concept) pressure being a significant factor isn't much more sound than the pure tinfoil "corruption" one.

Has any decision in the PL been more debated this season than the Bruno goal
? Would you say that the media outrage over that decision was proportional to the incorrectness of the decision? And wouldn’t you agree that decisions have largely gone against us starting immediately after that decision?

We’ve had less discussion on decisions where players actually got injured than when someone had the audacity to exploit a loophole in the law, which according to some (not me, in fairness) actually meant that the correct decision was made.

Regardless of what you think of the actual calls, it’s pretty obvious that if you make a debatable call for United then your name’s in the media, but if you wave away multiple legitimate shouts for United they’re glossed over and like last night, not even included in any highlights packages. To suggest that referees aren’t aware of this is wilful ignorance at best.

 

[antk]

Casemiro may have been in trouble if they went to VAR but the fact is they shouldn’t have gone to VAR in the first place! It’s the exact same situation as Eriksen, they’re not supposed to send refs to the camera for instances they’ve already clearly seen.
I’ll never get an answer but where did Taylor think Casemiros foot landed when he gave the yellow?

Other posters have already said things like that but that's just untrue. This isn't how VAR works or has worked since its introduction in 2018.

 

[The Brown Bull]

It's not corruption, just incompetence

Which is corruption.

 

[Problem-free Philosophy]

Sorry, but this is not evidence of media influence having an actual impact on results over time, and being specifically detrimental to one team in particular. This reads like something a Manchester United fan would say - and, yeah, that's what it is. Again, fans of other teams say the exact same thing - and have done so for as long as I can remember.

Like I said above, United benefited from VAR decisions over the full course of a season not long ago.

You need to explain that first.

(Unless your argument is - bizarrely, I would say - founded on this phenomenon being something entirely new. And even then, I'm not sure if it holds up statistically - I haven't done the numbers, and it would obviously be premature to do so for this season anyway, since we still have a dozen rounds to go.)

The explanation is simple in that they benefitted because at that stage VAR was at its most objective. If there was contact evident in the replays it was being given as a foul and we got a number of penalties as a result, almost all of them justifiable based on the rules and the application of them at the time. Now instead of that we have 'Clear and Obvious' which reintroduces the subjective element and thus bias and hey presto here we are again.

And the difference between United fans complaining about a decision not going their way and other fans doing the same is fans of seemingly every other club complain when a decision goes in United's favour regardless of opposition. That is what sets us apart from most teams, even the other top teams such as Liverpool/City/etc. It's a circus when one goes our way a la Fernandes vs City.

 

[cyberman]

Other posters have already said things like that but that's just untrue. This isn't how VAR works or has worked since its introduction in 2018.

It is how it works. If the ref clearly sees an incident he isn’t supposed to be sent to VAR to be shown a clear pic of an incident he already clearly saw. Nothing new is being added. VAR is clear in that it shouldn’t be made to re-referee incidents.
The EPL confirmed this with the Eriksen foul v Arsenal. It was a foul but they said the ref shouldn’t have been sent over.
Taylor is in the perfect position for the foul and booked him.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

The explanation is simple in that they benefitted because at that stage VAR was at its most objective. If there was contact evident in the replays it was being given as a foul and we got a number of penalties as a result, almost all of them justifiable based on the rules and the application of them at the time. Now instead of that we have 'Clear and Obvious' which reintroduces the subjective element and thus bias and hey presto here we are again.

And the difference between United fans complaining about a decision not going their way and other fans doing the same is fans of seemingly every other club complain when a decision goes in United's favour regardless of opposition. That is what sets us apart from most teams, even the other top teams such as Liverpool/City/etc. It's a circus when one goes our way a la Fernandes vs City.

exactly

 

[That_Bloke]

Hmm, you didn't answer my question though did you?

I actually did. Read my post again.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

I actually did. Read my post again.

Yeah, you didn't! I asked "If a ref makes a wrong call leading to an undeserved goal for Leicester City do you think that decision gets more, less, or the same amount of coverage as one made in favour of United?'

 

[Redlyn]

You're clutching at straws.

I understand your frustration and for what it's worth, I do think that you were robbed of a penalty (the handball one). However and I'm sorry disappoint you, there's no conspiracy against your club, nor any club for that matter. PL refereeing is just shit and it's up to the FA to make something about it. That's it.

Funny how you did not answer the question though (re media attention of man united incident vs one at Leicester) It is quite relevant. There is definitely no conspiracy, as in deliberate ploy to impact united. However I do think there is some psychology at play because we are dealing with humans and not robots. If man united is extensively in the media for a certain contentious decision you will find that it will be automatically harder to get a 50/50 important call for a while. Not because of a conspiracy but rather the ref will be too careful to not make a mistake and in so doing tip the balance. If you say nothing that happens in the media has any bearing on anything in any match then I would say, you definitely think robots are involved. That's more a general observation. vs Southampton it was just incompetence.

 

[antk]

It is how it works. If the ref clearly sees an incident he isn’t supposed to be sent to VAR to be shown a clear pic of an incident he already clearly saw. Nothing new is being added. VAR is clear in that it shouldn’t be made to re-referee incidents.
The EPL confirmed this with the Eriksen foul v Arsenal. It was a foul but they said the ref shouldn’t have been sent over.
Taylor is in the perfect position for the foul and booked him.

There are no official statements from the PL supporting that. I can't find anything online beyond "the goal should have stood" (which isn't even from the PL but from an independent panel).

And the PL VAR rules are stated as follows:

If the evidence provided by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes they have seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn.

Which clearly implies that a ref can see a challenge, assess it and still be asked to review it if the judgment does not match the footage and the rules (because supposedly if it had been seen properly, it should have been judged differently).

 

[The Firestarter]

We didn't appeal? Joke.

 

[RedDevil@84]

The suggestion that refs are not influenced/biased by media reports and manager talks is outright hilarious. One must have been living under a rock to believe that.
Clattenburg (FA's top man at one time) even went public saying he allowed Spurs/Chelsea game to be rough and looked the other way for fouls on Chelsea players because he had an image in mind about how the game should be. The Spurs players, who saw ref was turning a blind eye, went for it. Some of the Chelsea players could have been sidelined for months or worse in that game, all because the ref had an agenda he wanted to execute.

 

[cyberman]

There are no official statements from the PL supporting that. I can't find anything online beyond "the goal should have stood" (which isn't even from the PL but from an independent panel).

And the PL VAR rules are stated as follows:

Which clearly implies that a ref can see a challenge, assess it and still be asked to review it if the judgment does not match the footage and the rules (because supposedly if it had been seen properly, it should have been judged differently).

Why would they admit Eriksen was a VAR mistake if the second part of your post is true?

 

[Lost bear]

Corruption a bit much but ten hag and the players should be blunt about how shit the refereeing was and that they costed us the points.

It may not be corruption- in the sense of bribes and payoffs- but if it’s incompetence you’d expect it to even itself out. I’m not sure that it does, so I think there’s an element of anti- Utd bias there. It’s probably as others have said, a hangover from referees’ perceived fear of Ferguson and general Utd domination. There is almost definitely something going on, whatever it is. It’s too stark and obvious, and too regular, for it all to be in fan’s’ imagination.

 

[dove]

We didn't appeal? Joke.

Has the appeal ever been successful to overturn a decision made with the help of VAR? It made sense for before the VAR era when the ref could simply miss something but I just can't see them overturning a red card now as it would make them basically admit that the refs are absolutely incompetent at their job.

 

[antk]

Why would they admit Eriksen was a VAR mistake if the second part of your post is true?

"They" in the sentence isn't the PL, and you said in your previous post that the PL stated something they haven't.

I don't know why the independent panel seems to think the Eriksen situation was a mistake (and I don't understand why we can't find their statement or report online anywhere) but saying the VAR rules are now interpreted this specific way is a pretty big leap.

As it stands, nothing in the written rules or in official statements indicates that the VAR protocol do not encompass the challenges the ref has already "seen", whatever that means.

 

[Lentwood]

The Casemiro red v Palace had a Palace player do the exact same thing in the very frame they kept reviewing and did nothing.
Casemiro may have been in trouble if they went to VAR but the fact is they shouldn’t have gone to VAR in the first place! It’s the exact same situation as Eriksen, they’re not supposed to send refs to the camera for instances they’ve already clearly seen.
I’ll never get an answer but where did Taylor think Casemiros foot landed when he gave the yellow?
West Ham ball is just out. It clearly looks out even from the tv angle used.
The problem being the decision was made using an imaginary camera above the line that may have the ball touching the line and since we didn’t have that it couldn’t be overturned. What should have happened is using the angle that shows it clearly out and going by that since no contradictory camera angle exists
It never made sense.

I don't think that's correct though is it? I have seen the line about 'incidents that have been seen' a few times and I'm not sure this is the case.

I think VAR has the power to intervene on serious foul play, penalties, offsides and to review all goals whether the referee has seen the (potential) incident(s) or not

 

[cyberman]

"They" in the sentence isn't the PL, and you said in your previous post that the PL stated something they haven't.

I don't know why the independent panel seems to think the Eriksen situation was a mistake (and I don't understand why we can't find their statement or report online anywhere) but saying the VAR rules are now interpreted this specific way is a pretty big leap.

As it stands, nothing in the written rules or in official statements indicates that the VAR protocol do not encompass the challenges the ref has already "seen", whatever that means.

It’s not a Leap. Literally the only reason it could have been a mistake is due to being asked in the first place, not the decision that was made.
Unless there could be another logical reason for it being 1 of 6(!)mistakes?

 

[antk]

It’s not a Leap. Literally the only reason it could have been a mistake is due to being asked in the first place, not the decision that was made.
Unless there could be another logical reason for it being 1 of 6(!)mistakes?

Once again, I don't know why an independent panel review would be presumed to act as a precedent for future situations.

In any case, I think this is the end of the road for this argument - we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes the rules the refs should stick to, so we can't agree on their application.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

And the difference between United fans complaining about a decision not going their way and other fans doing the same is fans of seemingly every other club complain when a decision goes in United's favour regardless of opposition.

Er...did you read the original post?

Or the multiple other posts saying the same thing?

You're delusional, mate.

It's okay, sort of - you're a football fan. Just separate it from other things, you know. If you apply the same sort of "logic" to other aspects of life, you should seek help.

 

[Chairman Steve]

I see nothing but rank incompetence. Based on that, the referee body isn’t smart enough to carry out such an elaborate operation for this long.

 

[M16Red]

Referring to all the berks calling out ‘an agenda’ from the officials.

Don’t give a t0ss about the opinions of commentators, either the professional ones or the internet warriors.

My post has not even spoken about agenda's my post is about impartiality and how it's impossible for most to be impartial.

Also how the media effects peoples minds, you only have to 1420 do a few street interviews to see the extremes of this - much like people that hand over life saving to a false tech expert.

Thanks for letting all know that @Herschel Krustofsky doesn't care about Internet warriors, professional ones or commentators.

While we're at it, please let every know I don't give a t0ss about Cats. Who do they think are sleeping all day, shagging about at night and looking all upper'd.

 

[RedRocket9908]

There seems to be an inconsistancy around how we are treated by the refs compared to our rivals who seem to be treated with more leniency, our players seem to get booked for every little thing and we have had 58 bookings so far this season while Liverpool despite having some dirty players in their team have only had 34 and City who regularly use delibrate tactical fouls to stop opposition counter attacks have only had 33 with only Brighton having less than those 2 with 32.

 

[Abraxas]

They won't because I doubt there is corruption, and they probably don't believe there is either. A club the size of our operation won't be going on gut feeling and feeling "hard done by" like fans do.. they'd need conclusive evidence to put forward to state a case for corruption.

Imagine you accuse something like this with zero to back it up apart from a few replays. You'd look foolish, ruin your credibility as a club and it wouldn't be worth the PR you'd get. So it will only ever happen if there is something substantive, not Anthony Taylor sending a player off for a high tackle or a even a seasons worth of unfortunate outcomes. i.e. evidence someone has actually been paid off.

However, it's true refs don't operate in a vacuum. They're human. So there are two aspects to that. The first is that the level of perfection some fans and pundits seem to expect is totally unrealistic from a body of refs. We waffle on and on about consistency like decisions are black and white. They ain't, they usually have interpretation attached to all of them and all of them are on some kind of line, even "similar" incidents. So until robots make decisions that can analyse at a depth the human eye can't, yes you're getting inconsistency. The second is yes they can probably be affected by media narratives, constant barrages of criticism, managers pressuring them etc. This isn't corruption, but it's something that can impact them. The irony is we analyse these guys to within an inch of their lives and then cry when they are affected by that. Well duh.

 

[GwilDor]

Has the appeal ever been successful to overturn a decision made with the help of VAR? It made sense for before the VAR era when the ref could simply miss something but I just can't see them overturning a red card now as it would make them basically admit that the refs are absolutely incompetent at their job.

Balbuena red card against Chelsea was VAR -assisted, and decision was overturned after West Ham appealed. Was a strange decision in the first place though(i.e. incompetent).
Sky Sports source

 

[Herschel Krustofsky]

My post has not even spoken about agenda's my post is about impartiality and how it's impossible for most to be impartial.

Also how the media effects peoples minds, you only have to 1420 do a few street interviews to see the extremes of this - much like people that hand over life saving to a false tech expert.

Thanks for letting all know that @Herschel Krustofsky doesn't care about Internet warriors, professional ones or commentators.

While we're at it, please let every know I don't give a t0ss about Cats. Who do they think are sleeping all day, shagging about at night and looking all upper'd.

I can’t even remember reading your post mate.

Was commenting about all the whiny posts questioning the integrity of match officials.

You crack on though

 

[glasgow 21]

Marriner was the actual on-field ref in the Leicester - Chelsea, game. Graham Scott was the VAR.

You could argue that Marriner didn't see the Leicester - Chelsea incidents.

Before you ask, he also wasn't the VAR on Newcastle - Wolves, Tony Harrington was VAR for that game.


Maybe i didnt explain it properly,.
Marriner was involved in both Casemiro sending off as on field ref V Palace and 24hr after missing loads i.e Felix , as on field ref at Chelsea game.
He recommends sending Casemiro off v Southampton on var so yes he knee deep in all of this.

As for Harrington he isn't free from criticism as off field Var V Palace who out of all the melia decides to ignore Ayew and ask Marriner to send off Casemiro. Now Harrington clearly ignores Wolves claim for penalty.

We are now without VDB , Ericksen and now Garnacho with the opposing team not even spoken too never mind a card. Felix seems to be out now aswell.

To top it off Taylor was giving southampton fouls for their players falling over without contact and not even considering our clear 2 penalty shouts. There can be clear ramifications of these poor decisions. Namely us loosing top 4 and the likes of Wolves loosing their position in the league.

PGMOL head in the sand blindly backing each other "nothing to see here".
Look ,even retired refs like Dermot Gallagher back them to the hilt even when they clearly wrong.

Guy walk out of pub , and guy no.2 outside, turns and punches guy no.1. Dermot Gallagher is interviewed by police and finds out guy no.2 is an off duty ref. Dermot tells police yeah the guy ran out of the pub and instigated the contact with guy no.2 who's hand was closed as it was a cold day and was hailing a taxi.

 

[Problem-free Philosophy]

Er...did you read the original post?

Or the multiple other posts saying the same thing?

You're delusional, mate.

It's okay, sort of - you're a football fan. Just separate it from other things, you know. If you apply the same sort of "logic" to other aspects of life, you should seek help.

I'll stick with my logic over baseless claims and petty insults.

 

[georgipep]

Maybe i didnt explain it properly,.
Marriner was involved in both Casemiro sending off as on field ref V Palace and 24hr after missing loads i.e Felix , as on field ref at Chelsea game.
He recommends sending Casemiro off v Southampton on var so yes he knee deep in all of this.

As for Harrington he isn't free from criticism as off field Var V Palace who out of all the melia decides to ignore Ayew and ask Marriner to send off Casemiro. Now Harrington clearly ignores Wolves claim for penalty.

We are now without VDB , Ericksen and now Garnacho with the opposing team not even spoken too never mind a card. Felix seems to be out now aswell.

To top it off Taylor was giving southampton fouls for their players falling over without contact and not even considering our clear 2 penalty shouts. There can be clear ramifications of these poor decisions. Namely us loosing top 4 and the likes of Wolves loosing their position in the league.

PGMOL head in the sand blindly backing each other "nothing to see here".
Look ,even retired refs like Dermot Gallagher back them to the hilt even when they clearly wrong.

Guy walk out of pub , and guy no.2 outside, turns and punches guy no.1. Dermot Gallagher is interviewed by police and finds out guy no.2 is an off duty ref. Dermot tells police yeah the guy ran out of the pub and instigated the contact with guy no.2 who's hand was closed as it was a cold day and was hailing a taxi.

None of them are free from criticism, just wanted to clarify who did what. And the on-field ref could be excused not seeing a specific situation in real time.

 

[KanieKaned]

Corrruption? No. Incompetence and a lack of consistency? Yes.

 

[croadyman]

Sometimes I wish we had drawn that City game because then we get that penalty against Palace

 

[Utd heap]

Sometimes I wish we had drawn that City game because then we get that penalty against Palace

So weird. Win the derby, every year.

 

[Daydreamer]

Y’all have gone full RAWK.

Never go full RAWK.

 

[dazjoe]

It's not corruption by the definition of the word but it is certainly suspicious. Twice now this has happened to us in the last couple of seasons.
We had a lot of penalties being, rightly, awarded for fouls and Bruno scoring a lot of them; the only one I can remember thinking wasn't a pen and we got lucky was against Villa. Klopp came out and waffled on about how strange it was how many penalties United got compared to them, and suddenly the exact same fouls were being waved away. Anyone really think that's coincidence?
And now, so far this season decisions were pretty much 50/50 for and against, some went our way and some didn't. Then Bruno scores that goal against City, it's talked about for weeks after (again, just because of who United are; if that's Southampton scoring against Brentford no one gives a shite) and suddenly every single decision is against United. Red cards, pens, etc.
Refs are clearly seeing these incidents and thinking "Oh I can't give it, it's United'. And that is corruption.