Is English officiating corrupt?

I'm not sure what your argument is. "Coming together" can certainly be adjudicated to be a foul or not a foul based on the rules that are in place. There is no gray area. You must have Stockholm Syndrome from so many years of inconsistency by referees. Has nothing to do with whether what happens affects the game, it obviously affects the game because any given or not given foul has an effect on the flow of the game. That's just elementary.

I can't quite tell if you're being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of it or whether you are genuinely...I'll be kind...not that bright. Your first and second sentences are contradictory.  A referee judges an incident, a lot of incidents are unclear* they may be, or may not be, a foul...it is by any definition a grey area. He the ref has to make a decision...he can't say I don't know or I don't have an opinion...No, what he will say is one of two things; he calls it's a foul or he calls it's not a foul....he can't be certain either way. The incident could be so trivial he says play on. If there are 5 or 6 similar incidents, all trivial, I contend that he balances them out. It's got nothing to do with the rules, or the flow of the game...or the result; it's how they deal with uncertainty.
* If they were all clear, we wouldn't spend days arguing the toss about them.

You're conflating 2 different things. You're right there can be grey areas. And if a ref gives a "50/50" decision one way and then a minute later there's another 50/50 and he gives it the other way to kind of balance it up then I don't have a problem with that.

And that was what Shearer basically meant when he mentioned "well he won't give that one cos he didn't give the other one". No big deal. But then Clatters jumps in with - he needs to even it up to quiten the crowd down! Er, no. It is not the refs job to quiten the bloody crowd down! To state the obvious. That is not a reason for making ANY decision.

So I'm sitting thinking haha he's let the cat out of the bag there, and expecting him to start trying to back out of it. But instead he doubles down on it a minute later and starts saying the refs got to give Milan a decision cos they're starting to get upset!

That is not him saying he should even up a 50/50. He was literally saying the ref should be influenced by the crowd, and then by the club. He wasn't even saying "it's human nature, refs sometimes do that". He literally said they SHOULD do it.

[The ref on the pitch was actually very good. A lot better than Clattenberg and the PGMOL troop of clowns.]

Remember we are talking about trivial, 50/50 incidents...like a little push in the back...all that sh*t that happens in every game. With big important judgements referee's usually make the correct call, or if they are unsure, then VAR intervenes.

It's impossible to say a 'small' foul is inconsequential. It could lead to nothing or the opposite. Ditto with giving nothing when he blew 2 minutes earlier for an almost replica challenge. Obviously refs should not be influenced by the crowd or by leveling up. But I'm sure it does happen.

Clatter was being honest in a sense. The pundits very rarely look at a refs performance so unless it's a major incident we don't get to look at their overall performance. As the saying goes, if you don't notice the ref then he's having a good game.

What every fan wants is for the Ref or VAR to get the big calls right. In that sense we have been let down badly and we or I still feel the injustice.

Scott is a good guy, like the Planes Trains And Everything, pity he supports the black & white sh*te. My Scottish team is their nearest rivals Greenock Morton, and they are really sh*te this season.

Doing well enough in the Championship. Brechin won away 3-1 at Banks O' Dee...gawd knows where that is..

Scott is a good guy, like the Planes Trains And Everything, pity he supports the black & white sh*te. My Scottish team is their nearest rivals Greenock Morton, and they are really sh*te this season.

PT & E is seriously boring. Scott getting on and off planes, trains and drinking endless cups of coffee..but it's entertainingly boring if there's is such a thing. Watch the odd one now and again..if it was me I'd end up in Timbuk2 with no luggage, with only one shoe and about £3 quid left..

It's impossible to say a 'small' foul is inconsequential. It could lead to nothing or the opposite. Ditto with giving nothing when he blew 2 minutes earlier for an almost replica challenge. Obviously refs should not be influenced by the crowd or by leveling up. But I'm sure it does happen.

Clatter was being honest in a sense. The pundits very rarely look at a refs performance so unless it's a major incident we don't get to look at their overall performance. As the saying goes, if you don't notice the ref then he's having a good game.

What every fan wants is for the Ref or VAR to get the big calls right. In that sense we have been let down badly and we or I still feel the injustice.

I don't know that anyone is saying a small foul is inconsequential, rather sometimes it's impossible to be sure if something qualifies as a foul.....Referees have to basically make a guess...this is OK in the main for minor incidents...as I say Big, game changing calls go to VAR...not that they do, or even can always get the right outcome.

I can't quite tell if you're being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of it or whether you are genuinely...I'll be kind...not that bright. Your first and second sentences are contradictory.  A referee judges an incident, a lot of incidents are unclear* they may be, or may not be, a foul...it is by any definition a grey area. He the ref has to make a decision...he can't say I don't know or I don't have an opinion...No, what he will say is one of two things; he calls it's a foul or he calls it's not a foul....he can't be certain either way. The incident could be so trivial he says play on. If there are 5 or 6 similar incidents, all trivial, I contend that he balances them out. It's got nothing to do with the rules, or the flow of the game...or the result; it's how they deal with uncertainty.
* If they were all clear, we wouldn't spend days arguing the toss about them.

I'm not being obtuse, and calling me not that bright...well do so if that makes you feel superior in some way but I can assure you that's far from the truth. The point is, every coming together either is a foul or it isn't by the standard of the rules. If a referee can't be certain, that doesn't change whether it was a foul or not. Saying an event is trivial is denying that a foul (by the rules) has occurred altogether. So instead of saying it's "trivial", just say that it's not a foul. Because if it's a foul, it should be called, plain and simple. The minute you have referees trying to judge whether a coming together should be a foul based on whether it "matters" to the flow of the game, is the minute that you then bring in all sorts of other issues (bias, corruption, etc..).

Call the game by the rules, period. If the referees do that, there can be no claims of corruption, no claims of bias, no claims of ineptitude. If they miss something because they just didn't see it, that's fine, it happens, but you don't then go and "even it out" by calling something later that wasn't a foul.

I'm not being obtuse, and calling me not that bright...well do so if that makes you feel superior in some way but I can assure you that's far from the truth. The point is, every coming together either is a foul or it isn't by the standard of the rules. If a referee can't be certain, that doesn't change whether it was a foul or not. Saying an event is trivial is denying that a foul (by the rules) has occurred altogether. So instead of saying it's "trivial", just say that it's not a foul. Because if it's a foul, it should be called, plain and simple. The minute you have referees trying to judge whether a coming together should be a foul based on whether it "matters" to the flow of the game, is the minute that you then bring in all sorts of other issues (bias, corruption, etc..).

Call the game by the rules, period. If the referees do that, there can be no claims of corruption, no claims of bias, no claims of ineptitude. If they miss something because they just didn't see it, that's fine, it happens, but you don't then go and "even it out" by calling something later that wasn't a foul.

I didn't say you were obtuse, nor did I say you were not that bright. I said I couldn't quite tell which of the two you were/are....I still can't tell.
You seem to me to have missed my point. My point is that referees can't always be certain whether a specific action of play was a foul or not...Let's say two players holding each others shirt....He doesn't know who grabbed either shirt first...it happened too fast for him to make a definitive call.
If he deems he has seen enough for it to have been a foul...he should and does give a free kick.....Always, always, always...he should never repress his judgement that it was a foul(or not) for the flow of the game. I'm talking exclusively about instances were it's vague, unclear..50/50 and so his call is an informed guess....these they even out.
 
 

I didn't say you were obtuse, nor did I say you were not that bright. I said I couldn't quite tell which of the two you were/are....I still can't tell.
You seem to me to have missed my point. My point is that referees can't always be certain whether a specific action of play was a foul or not...Let's say two players holding each others shirt....He doesn't know who grabbed either shirt first...it happened too fast for him to make a definitive call.
If he deems he has seen enough for it to have been a foul...he should and does give a free kick.....Always, always, always...he should never repress his judgement that it was a foul(or not) for the flow of the game. I'm talking exclusively about instances were it's vague, unclear..50/50 and so his call is an informed guess....these they even out.
 
 

That's not what you said....

"In any game of football a referee will almost always call a number of things incorrectly...they will be mostly incidents of little consequence, if any at all...for example a push in the back near the halfway line....it could have been a foul but ref doesn't give it. Five minutes later the other side pushes a player in the back in a similar incident, perhaps a tad more forcibly...it could be a foul...but it is of so little importance to the result of the game, that the ref would likely decide no foul...It prevents any sense of injustice for the players and the crowd."


There's one person being obtuse in all of this....and it isn't me.

And stop with the little childish bullshit "I didn't say you were...I said I didn't know if you were".

Ok...I can play that game too...I can't tell if you are being an ass or a dickhead...and I still can't tell.

That's not what you said....

"In any game of football a referee will almost always call a number of things incorrectly...they will be mostly incidents of little consequence, if any at all...for example a push in the back near the halfway line....it could have been a foul but ref doesn't give it. Five minutes later the other side pushes a player in the back in a similar incident, perhaps a tad more forcibly...it could be a foul...but it is of so little importance to the result of the game, that the ref would likely decide no foul...It prevents any sense of injustice for the players and the crowd."


There's one person being obtuse in all of this....and it isn't me.

And stop with the little childish bullshit "I didn't say you were...I said I didn't know if you were".

Ok...I can play that game too...I can't tell if you are being an ass or a dickhead...and I still can't tell.

Grow up cowboy..... Can you not refrain from being constantly obnoxious? ...It's obvious you don't like anything I post...that's fine I genuinely don't give a F*ck...I don't post on here to be liked, I post because I have formed an opinion, an opinion which might be of interest to others....again I care not a jot if if they are or not.

Grow up cowboy..... Can you not refrain from being constantly obnoxious? ...It's obvious you don't like anything I post...that's fine I genuinely don't give a F*ck...I don't post on here to be liked, I post because I have formed an opinion, an opinion which might be of interest to others....again I care not a jot if if they are or not.

I don't like or dislike your posts as a rule, I'm simply debating a point you attempted to make. It seems you want people to just take what you say as gospel when in fact, like you said you have a formed opinion. My formed opinion on this particular topic is that your formed opinion is not as airtight as you believe it to be. It happens, no need to get butt hurt and I'm sure at some point in the near future I'll wholeheartedly agree with some other opinion you have. Also, if you are going to try to insult me, you may want to pick something that holds the same intended negative connotation in the states where I reside. Cowboy really isn't a bad thing over here. In fact it could be construed as quite a compliment. Cheers.

You call the game as you see it rightly or wrongly irrespective of the crowd and how it might affect them

Even when they do, they then get criticised by the "experts" for certain incidents. "We don't want to see red cards given for that" or "if that's a penalty then they'll be 50 penalties a game" etc etc.

Declan Rice getting sent off the other day because he kicked the ball away. It's a bookable offence, so the ref called it and got F***ing slaughtered for it. Maybe because it was the darling of Declan more than anything but the ref gets sh*t for calling the game correctly. And gets even more sh*t for not booking Joao Pedro for the same thing.

As sh*t as refs are in general due to their inconsistency they're also damned if they do and damned if they don't in some cases.

I don't like or dislike your posts as a rule, I'm simply debating a point you attempted to make. It seems you want people to just take what you say as gospel when in fact, like you said you have a formed opinion. My formed opinion on this particular topic is that your formed opinion is not as airtight as you believe it to be. It happens, no need to get butt hurt and I'm sure at some point in the near future I'll wholeheartedly agree with some other opinion you have. Also, if you are going to try to insult me, you may want to pick something that holds the same intended negative connotation in the states where I reside. Cowboy really isn't a bad thing over here. In fact it could be construed as quite a compliment. Cheers.

It's a fairly generic term for an American male, it seems you like it....so no harm done.
When it comes to opinions I generally subscribe to the verifiability principle as advanced by the philosopher A J Ayer: According to which an utterance is meaningful only if it can be proven and verified as true or false.... opinions (including opinions on aspects of the game of football and how it is perceived), metaphysical talk of God etc....are all essentially meaningless....which is why I don't get overly "butt hurt" when my opinions are challenged.
Hope your puppy dog is on the mend.

Even when they do, they then get criticised by the "experts" for certain incidents. "We don't want to see red cards given for that" or "if that's a penalty then they'll be 50 penalties a game" etc etc.

Declan Rice getting sent off the other day because he kicked the ball away. It's a bookable offence, so the ref called it and got F***ing slaughtered for it. Maybe because it was the darling of Declan more than anything but the ref gets sh*t for calling the game correctly. And gets even more sh*t for not booking Joao Pedro for the same thing.

As sh*t as refs are in general due to their inconsistency they're also damned if they do and damned if they don't in some cases.

They are human and all humans make mistakes...on the whole they get a lot more right than wrong. (we just notice and highlight the ones that go against us)

It's the continued debate over a decision. The decision the ref makes is his judgement and right or wrong it should remain. We still get many inconsistencies even with VAR so what's the point and wtf is going on with offside decision

https://x.com/PapaPincus/status/1838674219124822068?t=N14k6MYbB8bEabkfam2Ltw&s=19

Michael Oliver on the Manc115 payroll. Who'da thunk it... 

https://x.com/PapaPincus/status/1838674219124822068?t=N14k6MYbB8bEabkfam2Ltw&s=19

Aye. Abit like the manchester brigade tierney kavanagh and taylor , all from manchester gave horrific decisions for city and against liverpool , costing us 2 titles.

As for oliver in the uae, officials involved in the tottenham debarcle last season, 9 men, clear diaz goal disallowed, 11 mins injury time, were also in the uae prior to that, were also paid by citys owner and 'coincidentally' the day before spurs city had lost 2-1 away at wolves so it was very handy for city that these officials on the payroll of the their owner and in the uae just days before, ensured liverpool lost at spurs with alot of 'mistaaaaakes' they just made a mistaaaake.

City and their dirty money run this league in everyway, as hard as it is for people to even think about because all they know is football and they really want to keep telling themselves theres no corruption and its all a level playing field. Yeah yeah.

Arsenal fans are becoming rhe most entitled bunch of cu*ts

Refs F**k up

There is no bias , no corruption just sh*t refs

Arsenal fans are becoming rhe most entitled bunch of cu*ts

Refs F**k up

There is no bias , no corruption just sh*t refs

All conscious human beings are subject to bias....However I think referees try to suppress any conscious bias they may have, but by definition they can't suppress unconscious bias. I've seen no evidence of corruption, nor have I watched a game of football where the referee hasn't made an incorrect call.

Oliver was the Ref when Pep went spare...turned down 2 penalty appeals, Pep does his manic Bazil Faulty routine..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK5R8h7zIn0&ab_channel=SkySportsPremierLeague

I just feel some refs have an agenda for or against some clubs or their managers and fans. Some are straight. Their repeated bias to some clubs needs to be mapped by officials and acted upon 🤷‍♂️
Always a bad apple in every barrel.

I don't doubt there are refs out there who will be influenced by a bias view as they must've had at least some connection with a particular club until the time they became an official and recognised member of IFAB.

When determining whether a ref is incompetent, bias or part of a wider corruption scheme you really have to look at his body of work over a number of years and really study every decision of every game they're involved in....including ones not featuring your own club, it's almost an impossible task.

Personally the thought it could be corruption or some conspiracy has never entered my mind and would break in down as 70% incompetence and 30% biasness.....led to believe it's more incompetence after listening to the in game coms which PGMOL have released over the last 12 months.....particularly the Diaz goal at Spurs, not an ounce of professionalism on show.