I notice as we speak that there are other threads pertinent to penalty decisions, so my article is not out of context. People are starting to ask questions, and this article was in defence of that. Funny really that it's being passed off as a WUM.

(It's entitled Mike Riley)


They're got Liverpool fans running the line at Chelsea, and people here are telling me that refs do not allow personal thoughts to intervene with their decision-making....

"comment by Wessie Road (U10652)
posted 16 seconds ago
What, in front of the Liverpool fans? Can't think why
==============================================
Nine of the 12 penalties Liverpool have been awarded were away from home….are you arguing that Liverpool fans have more influence on the referee at away games than the home fans do?"

Yes, point taken, What I'm saying is that I think it's common knowledge (especially to everyone who said United get easy pens and all the decisions - unless this opinion has miraculously changed overnight?) that some pens get given and some don't, and generally to the "bigger clubs". The managers are always going on about it, so are the fans.

Why is it suddenly heresy to mention it now???

They're got Liverpool fans running the line at Chelsea

------
Have they?

Were Liverpool genuine contenders? Well I'd say we were considering very few teams top at Christmas have failed to go on to win the league. These decisions knocked us back to fourth or fifth I believe and we had to go on a run of eleven wins to get back to where we were.

Yes those stats are based on opinions but unlike you, they actually provide the incident and back up their opinions. Obviously it's not concrete but it's certainly a guide to how teams were treated in those two seasons, with Arsenal topping the table last season and United many the seasons before. Perhaps this was due to attacking more, getting more decisions and there being more chances for the referee to make mistakes in the area? I don't know but it's certainly not due to some psychological affect on the referee due to him having a heart and being afraid to affect the title.

Now if you're unable to provide these occasions when Liverpool were awarded soft and generous penalties, then I'm just gonna leave you to it, as you can't be taken seriously.

What, in front of the Liverpool fans? Can't think why
==============================================
Who said it was heresy? If it's common knowledge, it's just banal. It's your dingbat theory that the refs were thinking about Hillsborough that's amusing.

Even if I'd never seen the incidents, people are clearly discussing it, blaming the ref for this and that, blaming the FA, etc. My article was basically trying to give a little more balanced reasoning.

But if you'd rather go on the board where they are discussing Mike Riley and that Chelsea have been robbed and the FA are out to get JM, be my guest.

This was a genuine article, even if you don't agree with its content.

I'm sure stoke got awarded a pen in the first game of the season v Liverpool.

They are not exactly an attacking team, I demand a full investigation as to why at that stage they had an average of 1 penalty per game.

That's a full match fixing and psych eval of the referees.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by PenaltySpot (U19494)
posted 15 seconds ago
Even if I'd never seen the incidents, people are clearly discussing it, blaming the ref for this and that, blaming the FA, etc. My article was basically trying to give a little more balanced reasoning.

But if you'd rather go on the board where they are discussing Mike Riley and that Chelsea have been robbed and the FA are out to get JM, be my guest.

This was a genuine article, even if you don't agree with its content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be fair enough if you didn't say you thought they were soft and generous penalties despite not knowing if they were or not, having not seen them and therefore having no evidence to back up your opinion. For good measure you could have left out your theory that referees were affected by the anniversary of Hillsborough, despite us not being awarded far more penalties that should have been than the two awarded that shouldn't have been.

My article was basically trying to give a little more balanced reasoning.
===============================================
…the refs were thinking about Hilllsborough…."balanced reasoning"

I would rather people were discussing the article than whether I'm being a WUM or not.

Just to clarify, I do not think that the referees are thinking about Hillsborough.

But would you want to be the one who awarded (for example) a penalty against Liverpool in the last minute of the season, which ended up costing them the title after all this time, on the a poignant anniversary, only to discover when you got home and watch MofD that you'd made a howler??

In all likelihood, they wouldn't have the bottle to award it. And neither would I.

And that goes for any club challenging for the title.

"Just to clarify, I do not think that the referees are thinking about Hillsborough."

So why did you say it in the article?

the refs were thinking about Hilllsborough….

-----
Balanced? That's a wholly imbalanced victim like mentality concerning refs from the OP

Just to clarify, I do not think that the referees are thinking about Hillsborough…."on the poignant anniversary"
===============================================
You're all over the place….

Let's put it to the test....
Today is the Hillsborough memorial game..

So the ref will certainly be thinking about Hillsborough, and both teams are Liverpool.

So...

Either teams should get a pen every time the ball goes in the penalty area.

If they don't, the op's case is disproven... let's watch..

I just think you'd have to be careful not to deprive them of the title by a stupid decision, in this of all years.

It must play on their mind? It doesn't mean that they go into the game thinking about the disaster, but none of them are going to want to be the ones that make a howler that costs Liverpool, because they'll live to regret it forever.

I'll say it again: Referees are human

"comment by Redinthehead - At least we didnt finish 13th! (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Let's put it to the test....
Today is the Hillsborough memorial game..

So the ref will certainly be thinking about Hillsborough, and both teams are Liverpool.

So...

Either teams should get a pen every time the ball goes in the penalty area.

If they don't, the op's case is disproven... let's watch.."

What's at stake?

comment by PenaltySpot (U19494)
posted 42 seconds ago
I just think you'd have to be careful not to deprive them of the title by a stupid decision, in this of all years.

It must play on their mind? It doesn't mean that they go into the game thinking about the disaster, but none of them are going to want to be the ones that make a howler that costs Liverpool, because they'll live to regret it forever.

I'll say it again: Referees are human
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why didn't they give the stonewalls at the Etihad and Stamford bridge the two games which were two of the most important in regards to the title?

You're going nowhere with this. You're flip-flopping all over the place.

It must play on their mind?
===========================================
Why must it? It's just psychobabble. Have you researched whether United get a lot of penalties on the 50th anniversary of Munich, or are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

"So why didn't they give the stonewalls at the Etihad and Stamford bridge the two games which were two of the most important in regards to the title?"

I don't think anybody thought they would be title contenders. And some are saying that the only reason they are is because of the referees. I am refuting that, and have outlined some of my thoughts in the article.

Early season, it probably was easier to give decisions for CFC and City. Goodness, Chelsea have been getting them for years. That was nothing new.

Won't be happening at the weekend though....

"Why must it? It's just psychobabble. Have you researched whether United get a lot of penalties on the 50th anniversary of Munich, or are you just making this stuff up as you go along?"

A lot of it is made up as I go along. But the rest is true

"I don't think anybody thought they would be title contenders."

It wasn't early season though and people had to think we were title contenders, considering there have been very few occasions when a team have been top at Christmas and haven't won the league, which we were.

You've demonstrated again that you've no idea what you're talking about and are just throwing out opinions based on nothing, so why these opinions? Perhaps a bitterness towards Liverpool? Seems to be the case.

Because of the sheer volume of penalties. If it was another team, I would try and explain that, too. Or at least share my theories.

It's easy to knock teams at the top, but if Crystal Palace had twenty penalties this year, people would still discuss the reasons, even if the penalties do not affect the destination of the PL.

They'd talk about style of play, tricky strikers, etc etc, all the usual stuff. It would still get discussed.

I am not offering an over-arching conclusion to the saga, but just one viewpoint.

"I don't think anybody thought they would be title contenders."
============================================
So when did the refs decide we were title contenders, and how many of the penalties were after that?

comment by Wessie Road (U10652)
posted 1 minute ago
"I don't think anybody thought they would be title contenders."
============================================
So when did the refs decide we were title contenders, and how many of the penalties were after that?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
good point.