• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

Conspiracy? Bias? Dumb luck? Why do LFC get shit decisions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
I don’t think you’re a crackpot but.....
I think the problem with the Murdoch bias argument is the prevalence of ex LFC players employed by Sky. If they were pursuing an anti LFC agenda at Rupert behest, why employ carragher, Thommo and Souness all three of whom are notoriously partial in favour of LFC. Doesn’t make sense to me.
they still need a product to draw people in and make money. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Funny how those three are always highlighted and made fun of for being biased anytime they say anything positive About Liverpool though.
 


sms1986

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
2,004
they still need a product to draw people in and make money. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Funny how those three are always highlighted and made fun of for being biased anytime they say anything positive About Liverpool though.
They are? I know some of our fans don't like it when they try hard to not look biased, though.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
823
I don’t think you’re a crackpot but.....
I think the problem with the Murdoch bias argument is the prevalence of ex LFC players employed by Sky. If they were pursuing an anti LFC agenda at Rupert behest, why employ carragher, Thommo and Souness all three of whom are notoriously partial in favour of LFC. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Would it be absolutley weird if there were no ex Liverpool players acting as pundits? If that is your only argument against Murdoch style bias it is pretty weak.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
957
You originally reckoned the Murdoch and corruption arguments are being used to explain why we have not won the league. You retracted that when naming 3 members, myself included. But I dont understand why you made the original statement. I dont think anyone is saying that. Its a little unfair to corall our argument into nonsense, even if you revisited it later?

Regarding conclusion.......
No. Not going to just lay down arms to come to a conclusion for convenience. This thread is designed for debate on the biases that exist. It has thus far fulfilled its purpose insofar as the cheap jibes regarding so called conspiracy theorists are not derailing other threads.

Liverpool have not won the league because they have not been good enough. Thats not the debate from my viewpoint. I am lucky enough to have watched football from the seventies on, when we were great. The demise has been horrendous, despite some peak periods when we dared to dream again. But good enough? No.

Now, all that said the media bias continues. Like it or not Murdoch has fuelled the media narrative for a couple of decades now, including SKY. Loads of references to it in this thread.
Its been explained before, and I am fed up explaining the points over and over. So, I have offered argument with examples, perhaps without proof per say, but with what could be seen as reasonable evidence. What proof can you offer that I am wrong? Just more opinion maybe? Please dont use the argument from Blue Moon or other fan sites. That doesnt equalise the issue.

Food for thought?
Is it not slightly worrying that we are concerned about a fair game on Sunday next, particularly after Kane and the officials show at Anfield last year. Arguably two decisions in Spurs favour that made little sense. Particularly how they were handled.
I hope fairness prevails, but the fact remains, that visit of Spurs was hardly a level playing pitch.
I hope your "conclusion" comment isnt an attempt to close the debate?
I think you are saying that there is bias but you cannot prove it and equally I can’t prove that there isn’t bias so both arguments have equal validity. This is known in philosophy as “appeal to ignorance” i.e your assertion must be true because I cannot prove it isn’t. You could use the same argument to say the Queen is made of prawns and because I can’t provide evidence she isn’t, your argument is valid.

It’s a subtle point but key to this whole debate. If you are putting up an assertion that the UK media is routinely biased against LFC and this influences referees you should really back it up with factual evidence not rely on the lack of evidence for the counter argument. That’s how debates work.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
823
I think you are saying that there is bias but you cannot prove it and equally I can’t prove that there isn’t bias so both arguments have equal validity. This is known in philosophy as “appeal to ignorance” i.e your assertion must be true because I cannot prove it isn’t. You could use the same argument to say the Queen is made of prawns and because I can’t provide evidence she isn’t, your argument is valid.

It’s a subtle point but key to this whole debate. If you are putting up an assertion that the UK media is routinely biased against LFC and this influences referees you should really back it up with factual evidence not rely on the lack of evidence for the counter argument. That’s how debates work.
I am unable to provide the kind of evidence that you require, obviously. I can only provide my side of the debate, which I have done with what I would constitute as evidence throughout the discussion. And at no point ealier in the exchanges have I requested proof from those disagreeing with me. My point a few posts back is that just because I cant provide documentary evidence that I must be wrong? This is circular in this instance. I have argued the point of the Murdoch agenda against the club and city. Your proof that it doesnt exist is that SKY employ ex Reds?
 



epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
957
I am unable to provide the kind of evidence that you require, obviously. I can only provide my side of the debate, which I have done with what I would constitute as evidence throughout the discussion. And at no point ealier in the exchanges have I requested proof from those disagreeing with me. My point a few posts back is that just because I cant provide documentary evidence that I must be wrong? This is circular in this instance. I have argued the point of the Murdoch agenda against the club and city. Your proof that it doesnt exist is that SKY employ ex Reds?
I think we’re done. By your own admission you have no factual objective evidence of bias against LFC by the media, only your own assertions that it exists. This despite the fact that the premiership is one of the most televised, scrutinised and analysed games in the world. There are 1000s of hours of punditry, acres of newspaper articles and hours of radio phone ins so plenty of places to look for evidence but you can’t find anything tangible to back up your argument ?

It’s been fun debating this with you and I am genuinely sorry for being a snidey git immediately after the Fulham game but I think the gif of the little dog chasing its own tail sums it up.

Let’s agree to differ. Thanks
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
823
I think we’re done. By your own admission you have no factual objective evidence of bias against LFC by the media, only your own assertions that it exists. This despite the fact that the premiership is one of the most televised, scrutinised and analysed games in the world. There are 1000s of hours of punditry, acres of newspaper articles and hours of radio phone ins so plenty of places to look for evidence but you can’t find anything tangible to back up your argument ?

It’s been fun debating this with you and I am genuinely sorry for being a snidey git immediately after the Fulham game but I think the gif of the little dog chasing its own tail sums it up.

Let’s agree to differ. Thanks
Fair enough. I offered argument that you cannot agree with, and I accept that. I know what I see in decisions etc, but I understand that you can counter argue.
And we are not done, in a few years a ref or two will write about the pressure SKY had them under, and their dodgy decisions. You will scratch your head and remember this discussion.

Apology accepted, no fall outs just different people. Probably celebrate the same way in May.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
Wait, can I just clarify that there are people who don't believe Murdoch has created an anti Liverpool slant in his media? Because somebody else can't post an article on it or something this is supposed to be proof?

You would literally need to do a study of thousands of hours of media footage, radio phone ins and reading written articles for Liverpool related media controlled by him (just on us) and then make a JUDGEMENT call on whether you believed it was slanted positively (which, I know I'm biased but let's face it, it actually should be) or negatively.

After that, you would need to do the same process for each of the other top clubs as well as Everton (at the very least) then make another JUDGEMENT decision on each of those to determine if the slant was negative or not. Only AFTER doing all of those studies (several thousand hours of research) would you be able to put together some form of evidence that was still heavily weighted on the opinion of those doing the research as towards whether LFC are shown negatively or positively and whether that reflects how other teams are shown on those platforms (including one LFC fans would never touch in the first place).

All to prove what seems common sense to me and many Liverpool fans and many neutrals too.

Murdoch has a strongly defined feud with the people of Liverpool and the supporters of LFC in particular. I can't believe there are people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (unless near impossible to collect evidence is presented), seemingly so it can help them win an argument on the internet.
 



epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
957
Wait, can I just clarify that there are people who don't believe Murdoch has created an anti Liverpool slant in his media? Because somebody else can't post an article on it or something this is supposed to be proof?

You would literally need to do a study of thousands of hours of media footage, radio phone ins and reading written articles for Liverpool related media controlled by him (just on us) and then make a JUDGEMENT call on whether you believed it was slanted positively (which, I know I'm biased but let's face it, it actually should be) or negatively.

After that, you would need to do the same process for each of the other top clubs as well as Everton (at the very least) then make another JUDGEMENT decision on each of those to determine if the slant was negative or not. Only AFTER doing all of those studies (several thousand hours of research) would you be able to put together some form of evidence that was still heavily weighted on the opinion of those doing the research as towards whether LFC are shown negatively or positively and whether that reflects how other teams are shown on those platforms (including one LFC fans would never touch in the first place).

All to prove what seems common sense to me and many Liverpool fans and many neutrals too.

Murdoch has a strongly defined feud with the people of Liverpool and the supporters of LFC in particular. I can't believe there are people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (unless near impossible to collect evidence is presented), seemingly so it can help them win an argument on the internet.
So you could do hours of work to test for bias but there’s no point because we all know it exists and if you don’t adhere to this party line then you’re not a proper fan. I feel like I’m back on RAWK.
 

steveee

TIA Reserve Team
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,313
Nobody disagrees that there is bias, it’s just not organised bias against particular teams.
it's not that.. it's pressure from home stadium and fans and players when they influence the ref decision at times.... I personally never watch football thinking a ref is ever biased in their calls for some specific teams.. if anything the refs are heavily influenced by the Anfield atmosphere over the years helping us. I have seen many aggressive tackles at Anfield this season alone from the likes of hendo and milner the ref will let go when we are gegenpressing that might be a little foul but when we are away from home we don't usually get away with that as much like we do at Anfield and that is pretty obvious and clear to me... we clearly have an advantage at home gegenpressing not only because of the atmosphere of the crowd but also because it usually influences the ref decisions.
 
Last edited:

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
So you could do hours of work to test for bias but there’s no point because we all know it exists and if you don’t adhere to this party line then you’re not a proper fan. I feel like I’m back on RAWK.
Ok let me make it simple for you as you seemed to miss the point;

You're saying you can't be convinced without evidence. To gather that evidence would take thousands of hours. After it is gathered it would still boil down to a JUDGEMENT call. But you're saying you won't accept judgement calls others have made over years. So why would you accept the evidence IF anyone was ever crazy enough to attempt to put it together. It will still only be that person's opinion.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
957
Ok so let me be clear what you are saying
There’s no factual objective evidence of bias against LfC
To compile this would take thousands of hours of reviewing footage etc
Nobody can be bothered to do this
Even then it would still be a judgement not factual evidence
But we all know bias exists and that’s why refs give decisions against us
Have I understood ?
 

jaffod

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
2,665
it's not that.. it's pressure from home stadium and fans and players when they influence the ref decision at times.... I personally never watch football thinking a ref is ever biased in their calls for some specific teams.. if anything the refs are heavily influenced by the Anfield atmosphere over the years helping us. I have seen many aggressive tackles at Anfield this season alone from the likes of hendo and milner the ref will let go when we are gegenpressing that might be a little foul but when we are away from home we don't usually get away with that as much like we do at Anfield and that is pretty obvious and clear to me... we clearly have an advantage at home gegenpressing not only because of the atmosphere of the crowd but also because it usually influences the ref decisions.
Yes, this is true.

Over the last few years the amount of dodgy decisions we get at Anfield due to referees caving in to the Anfield atmosphere has been almost embarrassing.
Penalties in our favour, penalties refused to the opposition, clear fouls by our lads not penalised, opposition fouls punished 100%, it's been a one way street.
Atkinson, Taylor and Moss the main culprits. I reckon we gain 10-12 points a season because of their cowardly displays. Good job they don't fold at Old Trafford or the Emirates in the same way is all I can say.
 



Incognito

The Normal One
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
2,715
This thread will be very interesting after this Sunday. Our advantage at Anfield would become clear, how it did in the corresponding game last season :-(
 

Alex

since 2004
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
2,732
My thoughts about this whole topic:

I don't think there is an organised anti lfc lobby working somewhere. Refs are not corrupt (they are just shit at their jobs).
As for the media I don't know how it is in english. I watch the matches broadcast by french tv canal+ and they absolutely love us.

However some matches that we should be winning easily seem to be " rigged" by refs. Intentionally or not i don’t know. I just qualify it as shit refs who do not have to answer for bad calls.

For example against smaller teams like last match i noticed that every 50/50 balls the fulham players went all in with no fear of being carded or injured or injuring the opposing player. This is something that our players can't afford to do because of our end of season sprint. We as fans complain about losing the midfield etc... but it only happens because the ref allows dangerous 50/50. Our players after 15mins of game stop challenging for these balls.

On another level of shit reffing we have had our share of double standards. I hate to see opposing habitual criminals do the neymar roll as soon as our players win the ball. Kills our gegenpressing and gives soft free kicks and cards everytime. It's like the ref thinks "lfc style is gegenpress and fast counters. The other team style is about physical challenges. I'll just let them play their game". When we match them physically we get penalised.
 
Last edited:

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
823
I think a few people on here are worried about the Spurs game. Huge match in the context of the season. I think its worrying enough, as to hiw our season pans out, without the niggling doubts we have over decisions.

The last time was a farce. The linesmans uncertainty, the awkwardness of the decisions. Spurs were handed a point by ineptitude/bias/call it what you like, on a grand scale.

Hopefully faieness prevails on Sunday.
 

redaderry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
2,418
I think a few people on here are worried about the Spurs game. Huge match in the context of the season. I think its worrying enough, as to hiw our season pans out, without the niggling doubts we have over decisions.

The last time was a farce. The linesmans uncertainty, the awkwardness of the decisions. Spurs were handed a point by ineptitude/bias/call it what you like, on a grand scale.

Hopefully faieness prevails on Sunday.
Hopefully the we'll batter the wankers and the ref will be irrelevant
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
Ok so let me be clear what you are saying
There’s no factual objective evidence of bias against LfC
To compile this would take thousands of hours of reviewing footage etc
Nobody can be bothered to do this
Even then it would still be a judgement not factual evidence
But we all know bias exists and that’s why refs give decisions against us
Have I understood ?
Ok ask yourself two questions.

1st What kind of objective, factual, evidence could possibly exist to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt (and not relying on opinion) that Murdoch controlled media has an anti LFC slant?

2nd Is that evidence even remotely possible? Can it actually exist?

I believe this is a situation when you have to make a decision based on the balance of probability.

Motive; Yes he has one.
Means; Yes he has them.
Past form; Yes he has orchestrated his media empire in unethical ways in the past.
Evidence; Will always be heavily weighted on opinion and interpretation. But there are certainly examples such as the inconsistent reporting on "diving" and contentious decisions.
 



Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
823
1st What kind of objective, factual, evidence could possibly exist to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt (and not relying on opinion) that Murdoch controlled media has an anti LFC slant?
I think this is a hugely important question in the discussion. From my perspective it is as clear as day that Murdoch et al are biased and create bias against Liverpool, club and city. But just the club in our argument.
People who disagree may seek documentary proof, but maybe that just doesnt exist in the form desired. As you said earlier it would take an amount of research to prove, and even at that its still a judgement.
That is proven by the derision cast on a piece of research which showed an 18 point swing between LFC and Mancs last season. Nice piece of quantitative research with relevant criteria derided because it wasnt robust enough or took in too many variables. Proof offered and spurned. Even if they were only 50% correct that still constitutes a 9 point swing, again derided as it wasnt benchmarked with other seasons.
So, proof existant still open to judgement.

If we undertook a piece of research to trawl media, print and television, with 500 research assistants and a trailer load of money, for a couple of years we would produce a document with a grand title like "Murdoch: The Evidence. A club sinned against". When that piece of exhaustive fact driven work would be completed people would still "decide for themselves".
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
If we undertook a piece of research to trawl media, print and television, with 500 research assistants and a trailer load of money, for a couple of years we would produce a document with a grand title like "Murdoch: The Evidence. A club sinned against". When that piece of exhaustive fact driven work would be completed people would still "decide for themselves".
As a piece of scientific research it's pointless to even attempt it. You can't control the unconscious bias element of any human researchers as they embark on the project or any that they will develop during the period. The results would still be able to be refuted with a simple "in your opinion"!
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,084
1st What kind of objective, factual, evidence could possibly exist to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt (and not relying on opinion) that Murdoch controlled media has an anti LFC slant?
By him coming out and say "I hate Liverpool the city and everything associated with it, minus Everton". I guess those don't believe in the bias theory is looking for.... cold hard facts like that. :)
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
957
As a piece of scientific research it's pointless to even attempt it. You can't control the unconscious bias element of any human researchers as they embark on the project or any that they will develop during the period. The results would still be able to be refuted with a simple "in your opinion"!
Ok so here’s an example of factual evidence of bias. The Football Writers Association’s player of the year award is a confidential survey of 400 journalists reporting on the English game. In the last 10 years a Liverpool player has won it 3 times which is more than any other club. In the last 20 years, only man united players have won it more (5). No Man City player has ever won it since the award was created in the 50s. If the media was systematically bias against LFC you would expect that this anonymous poll would reflect that and we would never win. In fact it suggest quite the opposite that despite our lack of success in the last 10 years our players have won the award more than any other club.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
Ok so here’s an example of factual evidence of bias. The Football Writers Association’s player of the year award is a confidential survey of 400 journalists reporting on the English game. In the last 10 years a Liverpool player has won it 3 times which is more than any other club. In the last 20 years, only man united players have won it more (5). No Man City player has ever won it since the award was created in the 50s. If the media was systematically bias against LFC you would expect that this anonymous poll would reflect that and we would never win. In fact it suggest quite the opposite that despite our lack of success in the last 10 years our players have won the award more than any other club.
Any other club apart from United you mean? The players that have won it for us, maybe you can go review those players and those seasons and determine whether there was really any other choice than to award it? You keep falling into an all or nothing stance on this.
 



Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
Ok so here’s an example of factual evidence of bias. The Football Writers Association’s player of the year award is a confidential survey of 400 journalists reporting on the English game. In the last 10 years a Liverpool player has won it 3 times which is more than any other club. In the last 20 years, only man united players have won it more (5). No Man City player has ever won it since the award was created in the 50s. If the media was systematically bias against LFC you would expect that this anonymous poll would reflect that and we would never win. In fact it suggest quite the opposite that despite our lack of success in the last 10 years our players have won the award more than any other club.
Of course at that time they've also acted independently without the input of their bosses.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
957
Any other club apart from United you mean? The players that have won it for us, maybe you can go review those players and those seasons and determine whether there was really any other choice than to award it? You keep falling into an all or nothing stance on this.
Ok I think we are getting somewhere in my attempt to find this mystery media bias. So far we have established that :

The majority of 400 football writers favour LFC over other clubs when they get the chance to vote in an anonymous poll. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that Liverpool players have won this award more than any other club including united in the last ten years despite our comparative lack of success.

Of this 400, I estimate about 10 write for Murdoch owned newspapers and the other 390 work for other newspapers, magazines etc.

However outside the safety of the anonymous polling booth, either the 10 or all 400 are told by “their bosses” to write anti Lfc bias. They meekly acquiesce because a) they couldn’t possibly get a job on another paper that wasn’t anti Lfc (unlikely) or b) all of the UK newspaper bosses are bias against LFC so they have no alternative.

Referees read the anti Lfc copy produced by the journalists (against their will) and like sheep routinely give decisions against us.

Have I understood you ?
 

Irishanfield

Internet Terrorist
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
4,737
By him coming out and say "I hate Liverpool the city and everything associated with it, minus Everton". I guess those don't believe in the bias theory is looking for.... cold hard facts like that. :)
When did he say that Ed?
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
@epsomred no you haven't. You have to make everything so over the top the top, set in stone, black and white, all or nothing in your reasoning. It isn't. This is a slant against LFC when there is no reason for there to be anything other than a pro LFC slant. It's Carragher being allowed to be a respected commentator on all football matters but ALWAYS highlighted how biased he is when he has something positive to say about us. It's Harry Kane and other top players having their blatant dives glossed over but when Salah embellished on a foul it's all over Sky and the papers for days/weeks. It's Milner offside in the lead up to our goal being discussed over and over but similar contentious decisions not in our favour never being brought up. It's some of the bile spewed out on talk sport over the years. It's the fact Liverpool gets mentioned every time unemployment or poverty are discussed when the evidence and statistics don't support us being so prominent in those stories anymore. It's thousands of little things that cast us as not to be taken seriously and not very nice over several decades. This creates a stereotype within our society. It's why so many don't want us to win it and would prefer cheating City to buy another.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.