Big club bias

Waz afcb said:
Have you?

If contact continues inside the box then a penalty must be awarded. It clearly did. You’re in the minority here.
Click to expand...
Just as happened at Newcastle when Smiths shirt pull started outside the box. (forgetting of course the offside which should have disallowed it !!)
 
It is a well established fact that the tops six 'big hitters' are being 'looked after' by the cronies that haunt the corridors of the PL and the Sky TV entourage. The top six 'big hitters' are the ones that generate all the revenue. I am sure the referees look after these clubs also.

It is interesting as to why Man City have not been punished for the FFP rules. Personally, I feel that the reason for this is because Man City are a massive club who will employ the the top barristers to get them off the hook. Subsequently, the PL will lose the case and then have the court financial implications awarded against them. This is why the PL will not take action against them. It far, far easier to hit the smaller clubs who cannot afford these top barristers etc

One can almost guarantee that if the Christie penalty incident had happened the other way around, the penalty would have been given without question.
 
Last edited:
Reality and Realism said:
It is a well established fact that the tops six 'big hitters' are being 'looked after' by the cronies that haunt the corridors of the PL and the Sky TV entourage. The top six 'big hitters' are the ones that generate all the revenue. I am sure the referees look after these clubs also.

It is interesting as to why Man City have not been punished for the FFP rules. Personally, I feel that the reason for this is because Man City are a massive club who will employ the the top barristers to get them off the hook. Subsequently, the PL will lose the case and then have the court financial implications awarded against them. This is why the PL will not take action against them. It far, far easier to hit the smaller clubs who cannot afford these top barristers etc

One can almost guarantee that if the Christie penalty incident had happened the other way around, the penalty would have been given without question.
Click to expand...

not sure you understand the meaning of the word "fact"
 
Reality and Realism said:
It is a well established fact that the tops six 'big hitters' are being 'looked after' by the cronies that haunt the corridors of the PL and the Sky TV entourage. The top six 'big hitters' are the ones that generate all the revenue. I am sure the referees look after these clubs also.

It is interesting as to why Man City have not been punished for the FFP rules. Personally, I feel that the reason for this is because Man City are a massive club who will employ the the top barristers to get them off the hook. Subsequently, the PL will lose the case and then have the court financial implications awarded against them. This is why the PL will not take action against them. It far, far easier to hit the smaller clubs who cannot afford these top barristers etc

One can almost guarantee that if the Christie penalty incident had happened the other way around, the penalty would have been given without question.
Click to expand...

Yes have to agree, with last para. As said before, not sure theres some kind of unspoken rule amongst officials to 'finesse' things in certain clubs favour, but I'm almost certain a bias (unconcious) which comes into effect making decisions, depending on stature, size, 'power' of club involved. 'Upsetting' big clubs carries much more criticism, stress, spotlight and worry than smaller clubs...imo.
 
As you may recall I was a National List referee for many years, and it is clear to me that there is some mis-understanding amongst members on this forum. It is easily remedied by looking at Law 12 - Fouls and Infringements though.

Offenses committed outside the penalty area result in a free kick from the place that the offense was committed.

Only the offense of Holding, if it continues into the penalty area, is punished with a penalty kick, If a player starts to hold an opponent outside this area yet continues holding inside the area, it becomes a penalty kick restart.
Here is the wording from the FA; If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.

As we now understand, the referee awarded a free kick to Bournemouth because of Tripping, hence the free kick outside the penalty area.

Sometimes, and rightly so, we let our emotional desire to win the game, cloud our objective knowledge. In the end this refereeing decision was correct even if it was not what we all desired.

Have a great day guys.
 
OntarioPhil said:
As you may recall I was a National List referee for many years, and it is clear to me that there is some mis-understanding amongst members on this forum. It is easily remedied by looking at Law 12 - Fouls and Infringements though.

Offenses committed outside the penalty area result in a free kick from the place that the offense was committed.

Only the offense of Holding, if it continues into the penalty area, is punished with a penalty kick, If a player starts to hold an opponent outside this area yet continues holding inside the area, it becomes a penalty kick restart.
Here is the wording from the FA; If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.

As we now understand, the referee awarded a free kick to Bournemouth because of Tripping, hence the free kick outside the penalty area.

Sometimes, and rightly so, we let our emotional desire to win the game, cloud our objective knowledge. In the end this refereeing decision was correct even if it was not what we all desired.

Have a great day guys.
Click to expand...
That may be so but to me it was actually a body check rather than a trip. Christie sees a gap, goes for it and is blocked out. So is a body check (or obstruction as they used to call it) a trip or holding or a bit of both. Because the block carried on into the area as Christie tried to get through.
 
As we now understand

Who understands what based on what information?

A clear and obvious trip is a yellow card offence surely.

More evidence that the preferred clubs benefit from an interpretation of the rules not applied to other lesser clubs
 

redharry said:
That may be so but to me it was actually a body check rather than a trip. Christie sees a gap, goes for it and is blocked out. So is a body check (or obstruction as they used to call it) a trip or holding or a bit of both. Because the block carried on into the area as Christie tried to get through.
Click to expand...
Now that is a very good question RedHarry, and I agree with you. I thought it was holding, and suspect that the later admission of a Trip was to justify the non-award of a penalty kick. Conspiracy abounds!

No, not necessarily so, JIMNNINA. If it was deemed a, CARELESS foul,, that is not a cautionable offense in itself. If it was to Stop a Promising Attack (SPA), then a caution is warranted. Again the pressure to get the decision right, precedes all else, Does anyone know if the opponent doing the holding, had already been cautioned, and this would have been a Send-Off?

You know, if you haven't officiated at an elite level of the game, it is so difficult to understand all the stresses that the match official experiences, and all in such a very short time, and knowing that everyone in the ground and watching on television is second-guessing you.
Most of the time, these men and women get it right, and we ought to credit them for that. Having said that, the energy which 60,000 home supporters can create is an influence of a match official, much more so that 10,000 people typically generate.
I don't believe in any conspiracy to reward the top seven teams over a lower-placed team, but they often seem to receive the benefit of any doubt in a decision. For that I usually credit the fan base.
 
OntarioPhil said:
You know, if you haven't officiated at an elite level of the game, it is so difficult to understand all the stresses that the match official experiences, and all in such a very short time, and knowing that everyone in the ground and watching on television is second-guessing you.
Most of the time, these men and women get it right, and we ought to credit them for that. Having said that, the energy which 60,000 home supporters can create is an influence of a match official, much more so that 10,000 people typically generate.
I don't believe in any conspiracy to reward the top seven teams over a lower-placed team, but they often seem to receive the benefit of any doubt in a decision. For that I usually credit the fan base.
Click to expand...
Well most people on here think the ref got it right. It is the faceless official watching from a far, the one that the crowd can not hold accountable, that changed the decision.
 
OntarioPhil said:
Now that is a very good question RedHarry, and I agree with you. I thought it was holding, and suspect that the later admission of a Trip was to justify the non-award of a penalty kick. Conspiracy abounds!

No, not necessarily so, JIMNNINA. If it was deemed a, CARELESS foul,, that is not a cautionable offense in itself. If it was to Stop a Promising Attack (SPA), then a caution is warranted. Again the pressure to get the decision right, precedes all else, Does anyone know if the opponent doing the holding, had already been cautioned, and this would have been a Send-Off?

You know, if you haven't officiated at an elite level of the game, it is so difficult to understand all the stresses that the match official experiences, and all in such a very short time, and knowing that everyone in the ground and watching on television is second-guessing you.
Most of the time, these men and women get it right, and we ought to credit them for that. Having said that, the energy which 60,000 home supporters can create is an influence of a match official, much more so that 10,000 people typically generate.
I don't believe in any conspiracy to reward the top seven teams over a lower-placed team, but they often seem to receive the benefit of any doubt in a decision. For that I usually credit the fan base.
Click to expand...
It was clear and obvious SPA

One moment it is deemed holding then it is deemed tripping.

Where does having been previously cautioned get a mention in law 12?

Defending the indefensible maybe needs the VAR evidence....
 
JIMNNINA said:
It was clear and obvious SPA

One moment it is deemed holding then it is deemed tripping.

Where does having been previously cautioned get a mention in law 12?

Defending the indefensible maybe needs the VAR evidence....
Click to expand...
Perhaps mate, but with two defenders and a goalkeeper to beat, and Christie not having complete control of the ball, litigates against SPA - in my opinion.

I mention the second caution possibility only to understand whether a second caution here would have resulted in a Send-Off. Law 12 goes into detail regarding Cautions and Dismissals. Maybe this was an influencer in the decision - just putting that out there.
 
MB1980 said:
Yes have to agree, with last para. As said before, not sure theres some kind of unspoken rule amongst officials to 'finesse' things in certain clubs favour, but I'm almost certain a bias (unconcious) which comes into effect making decisions, depending on stature, size, 'power' of club involved. 'Upsetting' big clubs carries much more criticism, stress, spotlight and worry than smaller clubs...imo.
Click to expand...
Spot on how I see it. I don't think there is deliberate bias but an unconscious one does seem to exist. Just a human pressure reaction I suspect.
 
Let's be honest, if there was an England Midfielder with the kind of stats Lewis has put up this year playing for man city, most of his detractors on here would be calling for him to play for England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;