Is English officiating corrupt?

If they were just rubbish then the decisions would be made across the league, we get more than our share of bad decisions, thus they are corrupt.

Pretty much where I've always been on this debate as well.

I personally believe there is room for it to be some refs are good, some are bad (or incompetent) and some are possibly or likely corrupt.

If they were just rubbish then the decisions would be made across the league, we get more than our share of bad decisions, thus they are corrupt.

No we dont

Most of the VAR reviews for offsides will go though a number of phases 🤷‍♂️

If the bloody linesmen put their flags up right away when someone was offside we wouldn't be waiting 3 hours for VAR to go through hundreds of phases.
Put the flag up, blow the whistle and save players from potential injury - if the call is wrong in the first place the call is wrong. We lived with it before so why we have to put up with all this crap whilst they go back 10 minutes to find a foul/offside/their menus for the chippy I don't know 

If the bloody linesmen put their flags up right away when someone was offside we wouldn't be waiting 3 hours for VAR to go through hundreds of phases.
Put the flag up, blow the whistle and save players from potential injury - if the call is wrong in the first place the call is wrong. We lived with it before so why we have to put up with all this crap whilst they go back 10 minutes to find a foul/offside/their menus for the chippy I don't know

Annoyingly both the var decisions the linesman’s got it right

Just watch Taylor book Gravenbach knowing he will miss the United game

I personally believe there is room for it to be some refs are good, some are bad (or incompetent) and some are possibly or likely corrupt.

That's a fair point and I don't think anyone can rule out a ref being corrupt but it's made out that's it's done widespread corruption that's only against us which I don't believe is the case

Jota and Jones getting sent off, Oldergarrd handling the ball in the goal area, City player handling the ball against Everton, Slott getting a touch line ban, Macallister getting sent off and then rescinded , Diaz goal not given. Refferee openly saying he hates Liverpool, need I say more

https://x.com/dxrrp2/status/1873455456842289460?s=46&t=_4uI6CiVRqge8WqM7F37Iw

For anyone thinking we are the only club on the receiving end of shocking desicions

That's a fair point and I don't think anyone can rule out a ref being corrupt but it's made out that's it's done widespread corruption that's only against us which I don't believe is the case

There's proof that some referee's are plain bad, there's also evidence that some are half decent....usually there's a mixture of both. What there isn't any evidence of; is that there is any systematic corruption...again this doesn't mean it doesn't exist..it just means we haven't seen proof of it.

I wouldnt say the refs are corrupt, they are F***ing rubbish though.

I watch a lot of football and the standard of refereeing differs from team to team.

Just tonight Timber had hold of an Ipswich player, ref played advantagebbut never went back and booked him. Guarantee that same ref will book someone else next week for exactly the same foul

Every single game in every single league at every single level, has inconsistent refereeing decisions, with or without VAR use. It doesn't amount to corruption.

If the bloody linesmen put their flags up right away when someone was offside we wouldn't be waiting 3 hours for VAR to go through hundreds of phases.
Put the flag up, blow the whistle and save players from potential injury - if the call is wrong in the first place the call is wrong. We lived with it before so why we have to put up with all this crap whilst they go back 10 minutes to find a foul/offside/their menus for the chippy I don't know 

I don't know why you think we have to go back 10 minutes or 3 hours, to check if a goal that could be the difference in May, is valid or not, when that never happens. Checks are usually completed in 60-90 seconds.

The flag is kept down because linesmen often get offside decisions wrong. It's not that difficult to understand. Even then, the ref doesn't have to blow his whistle. You play to a whistle, not a flag.

And as for inconsistent frame rates used to determine marginal offsides, I would trust a frame to be accurate much more over a flimsy flag.

Another game with a controversial decision, both managers comment on it just after the game, Get the ref on as well and explain that !

I found the ref announcing the offside over the stadium speakers a bit cringey and weird.

I'm used to it being an NFL watcher but often this decisions can be a bit more intricate than just a simple 'the player was offside '

So why wasn't there a yellow fort the tackle on Tsimicas ? It had to be the worst tackle of the game or very close. Forget the advantage played, that should have been called back once it was clear Tsimicas was off the field, and if that wasn't called back, the yellow should still have been retrospecfully shown after the play stopped. and consequently the red. Then the goal disallowed. That's bias if not corrupt.  They don't do anything else do they. They're not part time anymore, it's all they do. surely they can see the obvious and all the possible consequences should be at the forefront of their mind, as incidents occur.
Surely they can't be that consistently bad at their one job, and still stay employed in that role.  It's an absolute farce, and something more needs to be done or introduced, to rectify the inadequacies.

So why wasn't there a yellow fort the tackle on Tsimicas ? It had to be the worst tackle of the game or very close. Forget the advantage played, that should have been called back once it was clear Tsimicas was off the field, and if that wasn't called back, the yellow should still have been retrospecfully shown after the play stopped. and consequently the red. Then the goal disallowed. That's bias if not corrupt.  They don't do anything else do they. They're not part time anymore, it's all they do. surely they can see the obvious and all the possible consequences should be at the forefront of their mind, as incidents occur.
Surely they can't be that consistently bad at their one job, and still stay employed in that role.  It's an absolute farce, and something more needs to be done or introduced, to rectify the inadequacies.

Big thing on the bbc website about yellow cards after playing the advantage,  all absolute bollocks and a cop out

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwyxyw1nrglo

I found the ref announcing the offside over the stadium speakers a bit cringey and weird.

I'm used to it being an NFL watcher but often this decisions can be a bit more intricate than just a simple 'the player was offside '

Agree ....it's totally superfluous.

Big thing on the bbc website about yellow cards after playing the advantage,  all absolute bollocks and a cop out

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwyxyw1nrglo

I've just read that and it's clear the referee was in error, error as in not applying the rules. Although the rules are pathetically written in flowery language, they are still clear. If the referee allows play to continue, (so-called advantage) then if the foul was deserving of a card, then the ref has to go back and caution that player when the ball next goes dead....In this case the player would have been sent off.

Blimey that law is stupid. It means that the refs error, according to the law, was in playing the advantage in the first place, since you're not supposed to do that if it's a second yellow offence. Why the F**k not? Refs should be able to play advantage and then go back and book.

And if refs do play advantage, they aren't supposed to go back and book unless it's a clear goal scoring opportunity. Who knew? Clearly refs ignore this law all the time, cos they almost always go back and book players after playing advantage, even if it's not a clear goal scoring opportunity as bizarrely required by the rules.

Blimey that law is stupid. It means that the refs error, according to the law, was in playing the advantage in the first place, since you're not supposed to do that if it's a second yellow offence. Why the F**k not? Refs should be able to play advantage and then go back and book.

Clearly refs ignore this law all the time, cos they almost always go back and book players after playing advantage, even if it's not a clear goal scoring opportunity as (bizarrely) required by the rules.

As I understand it, If the ref waves play on and the game continues AFTER he has seen a foul which merits a card, he then is obligated by the rules to go back and caution that player when the ball next goes out of play....regardless of goal scoring opportunity

So inept or corrupt the outcome is the same we where robbed.

As I understand it, If the ref waves play on and the game continues AFTER he has seen a foul which merits a card, he then is obligated by the rules to go back and caution that player when the ball next goes out of play....regardless of goal scoring opportunity

I think technically if the player is on a yellow and this is the possibility of a second he has to stop play to caution him. That’s what I’ve read. Either way, it’s pretty easy to see it was a F**k up (among others) in that game. Spuds crying about Virgil kicking the back of Solanke’s leg and he should have been off.  Probably a yellow for me but never a red.

As I understand it, If the ref waves play on and the game continues AFTER he has seen a foul which merits a card, he then is obligated by the rules to go back and caution that player when the ball next goes out of play....regardless of goal scoring opportunity

Not according to that BBC article -

"The International Football Association Board's Laws of the Games state: "If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play.

However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goalscoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned."

And if the ref wants to give a second yellow, and it wasnt a clear goal scoring opportunity, he's not supposed to play advantage, he has to stop play -

"But the laws also state "advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal."

It's a completely stupid rule that puts refs in a no win situation. Either they must stop play, thus stopping the attack, or not issue the second yellow. They're not allowed to do both. So they can't win, cos either way the attacking team will feel hard done by. Ridiculous they can't just do both.

Not according to that BBC article -

"The International Football Association Board's Laws of the Games state: "If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play.

However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goalscoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned."

And if the ref wants to give a second yellow, and it wasnt a clear goal scoring opportunity, he's not supposed to play advantage, he has to stop play -

"But the laws also state "advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal."

It's a completely stupid rule that puts refs in a no win situation. Either they must stop play, thus stopping the attack, or not issue the second yellow. They're not allowed to do both. So they can't win, cos either way the attacking team will feel hard done by. Ridiculous they can't just do both.

If the tackle was a cynical tackle then the ref should go back and book the player

And it was a cynical tackle no doubt