• 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.


Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
706
Of course it's much more convenient for you to spin that as people saying 'City are not getting any dubious decisions in their favour'. Then all you have to do is point to a single dubious decision. Boom. Those mysterious people whom you can't actually quote have been soundly defeated. Simples.

The alternative might be for you to stop strawmanning the counterpoints raised by others in this thread. :well done:

Anyway, I'm getting very confused at this point. I thought this thread was about anti-LFC bias. Are you saying that extends to giving decisions to City in order to help them beat us to the title, even in games not being played vs. LFC?

'By and large fair'? Or in line with the suggestion that referees are inconsistent, homers, and beholden to not spoiling the televised matchday experience? Meaning referees can still give dubious/bad decisions, but not only for/against the interests of Liverpool Football Club? When is shit refereeing just shit refereeing? When is a mistake a mistake?

(In other words, when is your theory about bias falsifiable? Is it ever? If not, do you not see how that is a problem?)

I'm really not trying to come across like a dickhead with you but it gets very difficult when you distort the arguments that others are making, refuse to answer questions, and then act like people are out of line for not just taking your word on all sorts of different things. It's like pulling teeth getting you to back up the most basic of statements that you make. You cry about other posters coming in here to leave short, snide, bait-y comments after every noteworthy refereeing incident and then you come and do the exact same thing while trying to weasel around owning up to the ridiculous strawman you're attacking.

If you can't stand me and you think the rest of my post is just to attack you, at least address the bold.
Well, the language you use is aggressive so lets agree it is attacking me, but thats fine. I dont understand why, but if it makes you feel better then fine.
City have got a few dubious decisions, which may lead to them winning the title. It may be shit refereeing, but its happening quite a bit over the last ten or so league games. Few dubious pens for them, the Kompany non red card, two possible pens against them today. It could be shit refereeing. But maybe its not. My comment was generalised but, I was told that the City decisions even out. I am not seaching for it. Mysterious person perhaps, not so many people. (Edited... apologies dear readers, should have mentioned at this point the lack of furore in the media when decisions go Citys way, mentioned before.)

Regarding my views on bias against Liverpool, the argument has extended over 40 odd pages, with evidence and support of the fact that these biases exist. You disagree, fair enough. There are a number of forum members who disagree. If you dont see what I see, if you refuse to contemplate that I, or those of a similar view could be correct, what do you want me to say? As far as I am concerned the people you refer to as "biasists" have been consistent enough with their view. From different angles, with different reference points for evidence. As soon as this is produced the "non biasists" require more. Nothing I can do for you there. To me the vias is obvious. To you its not. I doubt you will become enlightened or agree with me without the type of smoking gun evidence you require.
The non biasists will need an autobiography from a referee saying he made a poor call that denied Liverpool because he was afraid SKY would destroy his career. Even then, that wont convince you.
 
Last edited:

Kenny Dalglish LFC Legend

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
573
Get us a copy of the study then? Instead of a page of banners and spangled summaries. And what about the rest of the games? You know the parts where football goes on, missed chances. You cant seriously make a cause and effect analysis of the outcome of a football match, and then simply focus on the officiating decisions. Many other factors contribute to the outcome. Its flawed.
 



Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
706
I find it slightly odd that you don't mention the one that probably should have been given. As @Limiescouse mentioned, it was the tackle on Silva. Could that be because you are showing unconscious bias?
God no. I am totally consciously biased in games like that. I reckon during a game like that its ok to hope Spurs get everything and City get fuck all. But you guys are correct for pointing this out so that it all evens up.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
733
Well, the language you use is aggressive so lets agree it is attacking me, but thats fine. I dont understand why, but if it makes you feel better then fine.
City have got a few dubious decisions, which may lead to them winning the title. It may be shit refereeing, but its happening quite a bit over the last ten or so league games. Few dubious pens for them, the Kompany non red card, two possible pens against them today. It could be shit refereeing. But maybe its not. My comment was generalised but, I was told that the City decisions even out. I am not seaching for it. Mysterious person perhaps, not so many people. (Edited... apologies dear readers, should have mentioned at this point the lack of furore in the media when decisions go Citys way, mentioned before.)

Regarding my views on bias against Liverpool, the argument has extended over 40 odd pages, with evidence and support of the fact that these biases exist. You disagree, fair enough. There are a number of forum members who disagree. If you dont see what I see, if you refuse to contemplate that I, or those of a similar view could be correct, what do you want me to say? As far as I am concerned the people you refer to as "biasists" have been consistent enough with their view. From different angles, with different reference points for evidence. As soon as this is produced the "non biasists" require more. Nothing I can do for you there. To me the vias is obvious. To you its not. I doubt you will become enlightened or agree with me without the type of smoking gun evidence you require.
The non biasists will need an autobiography from a referee saying he made a poor call that denied Liverpool because he was afraid SKY would destroy his career. Even then, that wont convince you.
But you are not consistent in your views at all. @cynicaloldgit says it’s a proper top down conspiracy, @Anfield rd Dreamer says it’s the manifestation of subconscious anti Liverpool bias and you seem to think it’s because refs are afraid of Sky (although you also seem to endorse the @cynicaloldgit conspiracy theory). So the three most prolific advocates of the bias theory have three completely different arguments as to what it is. It’s not a different angle to say it’s an FA conspiracy versus unconscious bias, it’s a different theory. It really would be helpful if you could all agree on what you are actually saying or at least accept that you are not consistent at all.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
706
But you are not consistent in your views at all. @cynicaloldgit says it’s a proper top down conspiracy, @Anfield rd Dreamer says it’s the manifestation of subconscious anti Liverpool bias and you seem to think it’s because refs are afraid of Sky (although you also seem to endorse the @cynicaloldgit conspiracy theory). So the three most prolific advocates of the bias theory have three completely different arguments as to what it is. It’s not a different angle to say it’s an FA conspiracy versus unconscious bias, it’s a different theory. It really would be helpful if you could all agree on what you are actually saying or at least accept that you are not consistent at all.
Again you ask us to neatly package a multi dimensional complex argument into a neat little box for you to fire your arrows at. Not happening. There are many reasons being quoted as to why bias exists. You dont believe them because if you did the world will turn upside down and the age of enlightenment will be another false dream.
We are consistent in the view that bias exists against Liverpool. We have proffered different, at times compatible, at times not so views as to why this is happening. Perhaps one of the views posited is a direct consequence of another.
We have been constantly questioned and attemps made to undermine our beliefs through science, ridicule and dramatic responses.
But the thing is, the people Prolix refers to as biasists are consistent in the knowledge that it exists. No matter how or where it started.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,525
Taking your 3 points;

I said Bread contributed (a “lot of it”) to the bias. It was watched by 21m people every week for 7 years. When I was working in the city I had lots of conversations in the 1980s with potential investors who referred to it as a factor along the lines of “my wife watches that Bread programme, no way she’s ever moving here”. It’s only my experience obviously but I think Carla Lane did more economic damage to the city in the 80s and 90s than Thatcher ever did. Probably another thread in itself.

You seem to think that anti Liverpool sub conscious bias trumps all others in the mind of refs. What about racism and xenophobia ? Much stronger influences. Young black men are the most demonised group in our society. Look at how Sterling and Zaha are treated by refs. In your scenario, if there is a 50/50 decision involving a black foreign player and a white English lfc player, you are saying the anti lfc bias will always prevail in the mind of the ref. Seems unlikely to me.

I am not calling you a liar but I have googled for other studies and can’t find any. Happy to be proved wrong but with the resources of the whole internet at your disposal the argument that you distinctly recall seeing a study but can’t remember where is not very persuasive is it ?
So you understand that unconscious bias can exist and be a factor when it comes to foreign players and players of colour but you still refuse to accept it as a possibility against LFC? Even though you yourself have seen and experienced the way we are viewed as an area by people from other areas of the UK?
 



epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
733
I clearly said that there was no evidence of dominant anti lfc bias amongst the 20 adult males who referee premiership matches. Think through the probability of what you are saying. There are 33 million adult males in the uk. You are saying that the “virus” of sub conscious anti lfc bias is so endemic in the Uk that even in a sample of just 20 people out of a population of 33 million, the majority of the 20 would be infected by it without even knowing. Do you honestly really think that is plausible ? Would you put money on it ?
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
733
Again you ask us to neatly package a multi dimensional complex argument into a neat little box for you to fire your arrows at. Not happening. There are many reasons being quoted as to why bias exists. You dont believe them because if you did the world will turn upside down and the age of enlightenment will be another false dream.
We are consistent in the view that bias exists against Liverpool. We have proffered different, at times compatible, at times not so views as to why this is happening. Perhaps one of the views posited is a direct consequence of another.
We have been constantly questioned and attemps made to undermine our beliefs through science, ridicule and dramatic responses.
But the thing is, the people Prolix refers to as biasists are consistent in the knowledge that it exists. No matter how or where it started.
You have a very annoying habit of misrepresenting what other people are saying. I have never said bias doesn’t exist against the city or the club so to say “you don’t believe the reasons why bias exists” is a straight lie. Please retract and have the decency to apologise.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,525
I clearly said that there was no evidence of dominant anti lfc bias amongst the 20 adult males who referee premiership matches. Think through the probability of what you are saying. There are 33 million adult males in the uk. You are saying that the “virus” of sub conscious anti lfc bias is so endemic in the Uk that even in a sample of just 20 people out of a population of 33 million, the majority of the 20 would be infected by it without even knowing. Do you honestly really think that is plausible ? Would you put money on it ?
What? I seriously am struggling to understand what point you are trying to make here?

In some of your posts you are accepting unconscious bias exists in some ways (unless you are believing in widespread rampant racism amongst officials in which case, if you believe they are that bad, why would you not also accept the possibility of them discriminating against Scousers too?) whilst in other posts you're stating quite categorically over personal experience of the way many in this country act with prejudice against Merseyside.

I think you need to read up a bit more on unconscious bias and how it works. Ignoring what me and others are saying, what you yourself say in your posts, it seems impossible to rule out a possibility of unconscious bias having an effect on officials who impact on LFC's fortunes.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
733
What? I seriously am struggling to understand what point you are trying to make here?

In some of your posts you are accepting unconscious bias exists in some ways (unless you are believing in widespread rampant racism amongst officials in which case, if you believe they are that bad, why would you not also accept the possibility of them discriminating against Scousers too?) whilst in other posts you're stating quite categorically over personal experience of the way many in this country act with prejudice against Merseyside.

I think you need to read up a bit more on unconscious bias and how it works. Ignoring what me and others are saying, what you yourself say in your posts, it seems impossible to rule out a possibility of unconscious bias having an effect on officials who impact on LFC's fortunes.
I am saying that it seems unlikely that the 20 referees who officiate our games all (or at least the majority) have an anti lfc bias. I am not saying it’s impossible just very very unlikely and there is no evidence of it at all.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
706
You have a very annoying habit of misrepresenting what other people are saying. I have never said bias doesn’t exist against the city or the club so to say “you don’t believe the reasons why bias exists” is a straight lie. Please retract and have the decency to apologise.
No, I wont retract and apologise. I will only apologise if I have done something wrong.
If you believe that bias exists, then why are you constantly arguing in this thread?

I apologised for personal insults to you before. Why should I now apologise?? If you are in agreement with the reasons I put forward then why continue arguing with me?

At least one other forum member has accused me of being sensitive. I have taken a few insults in this thread, including from you and I have not demanded an apology.
 



jaffod

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
2,589
I clearly said that there was no evidence of dominant anti lfc bias amongst the 20 adult males who referee premiership matches. Think through the probability of what you are saying. There are 33 million adult males in the uk. You are saying that the “virus” of sub conscious anti lfc bias is so endemic in the Uk that even in a sample of just 20 people out of a population of 33 million, the majority of the 20 would be infected by it without even knowing. Do you honestly really think that is plausible ? Would you put money on it ?
It only takes a few bad eggs. Look at this season's culprits, Taylor and Atkinson. I'd wager neither of them like my football club or city very much. Taylor, a born and bred manc, refereeing our game at City. Has one major decision to make in 90 minutes, has a perfectly clear view of it and gets it wrong. Maybe he was worried about his short walk home to Wythenshaw, that hotbed of Altrincham support. Or maybe he just fucking hates scousers like just about every other manc I've met over the years. It's basically bred into them. Either way it resulted in a possible 6 point swing in City's favour.
And what of Atkinson? Another of those that I view with real suspicion based on what I've seen over the years. Against Leicester, fails to send off Maguire who goes on to score the equaliser and then denies Keita a blatant penalty despite having a clear view of it.

The similarity between those two games and the City and Chelsea games in 2013-14 is fucking stark. 2 more referees, Mason and Webb, who had plenty of previous with us. Mason was a prick who generally gave us fuck all and the ex-South Yorkshire policeman Webb who was quite simply bent as a dog's back leg in my humble opinion.
Just a couple of games over the course of a season, that's all it takes. If we were to win it could City have any complaints? Nah, the decisions in their favour have far outweighed what's gone against them. Yet again it'll be us lamenting 'inept' and 'incompetent' refereeing, just like we were 5 years ago.

Can I prove any of this I hear you ask? No, I can't. It's my gut feeling, based on decades of shit being hurled in our direction and what I've seen with my own eyes. It's the 12 points we were done out of last season, the vilification of our players we see on a regular basis, the 3000 shitheads in the away end and their bigoted abuse every few weeks, the fucking horror consuming a nation at the thought of Liverpool winning a PL title to the extent they'd rather see a fucking vile, corrupt, cheating shower of cunts win it.
 

Bonus

TIA New Signing
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,214
It only takes a few bad eggs. Look at this season's culprits, Taylor and Atkinson. I'd wager neither of them like my football club or city very much. Taylor, a born and bred manc, refereeing our game at City. Has one major decision to make in 90 minutes, has a perfectly clear view of it and gets it wrong. Maybe he was worried about his short walk home to Wythenshaw, that hotbed of Altrincham support. Or maybe he just fucking hates scousers like just about every other manc I've met over the years. It's basically bred into them. Either way it resulted in a possible 6 point swing in City's favour.
And what of Atkinson? Another of those that I view with real suspicion based on what I've seen over the years. Against Leicester, fails to send off Maguire who goes on to score the equaliser and then denies Keita a blatant penalty despite having a clear view of it.

The similarity between those two games and the City and Chelsea games in 2013-14 is fucking stark. 2 more referees, Mason and Webb, who had plenty of previous with us. Mason was a prick who generally gave us fuck all and the ex-South Yorkshire policeman Webb who was quite simply bent as a dog's back leg in my humble opinion.
Just a couple of games over the course of a season, that's all it takes. If we were to win it could City have any complaints? Nah, the decisions in their favour have far outweighed what's gone against them. Yet again it'll be us lamenting 'inept' and 'incompetent' refereeing, just like we were 5 years ago.

Can I prove any of this I hear you ask? No, I can't. It's my gut feeling, based on decades of shit being hurled in our direction and what I've seen with my own eyes. It's the 12 points we were done out of last season, the vilification of our players we see on a regular basis, the 3000 shitheads in the away end and their bigoted abuse every few weeks, the fucking horror consuming a nation at the thought of Liverpool winning a PL title to the extent they'd rather see a fucking vile, corrupt, cheating shower of cunts win it.

or maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, that influences your opinion,

For me, this thread is boring, its like listening to 2 vikki pollards arguing.....

yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but,, yeah but, no but, yeah but, blah blah blah.....
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
733
No, I wont retract and apologise. I will only apologise if I have done something wrong.
If you believe that bias exists, then why are you constantly arguing in this thread?

I apologised for personal insults to you before. Why should I now apologise?? If you are in agreement with the reasons I put forward then why continue arguing with me?

At least one other forum member has accused me of being sensitive. I have taken a few insults in this thread, including from you and I have not demanded an apology.
You should and retract because you knowingly lied about my views, I have never denied the existence of bias against the club and the city and you said I had. That’s a straight lie. Pure and simple. You lied about my posts because it suited your narrative ironically in a thread that is ultimately about the nature of truth. So if you refuse to retract what you said about my views then I finally done with you. It’s always a shame to fall out with a fellow red but you are a liar.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,525
You should and retract because you knowingly lied about my views, I have never denied the existence of bias against the club and the city and you said I had. That’s a straight lie. Pure and simple. You lied about my posts because it suited your narrative ironically in a thread that is ultimately about the nature of truth. So if you refuse to retract what you said about my views then I finally done with you. It’s always a shame to fall out with a fellow red but you are a liar.
Sorry but you've constantly tried to misrepresent what others have said in here for 46 pages in an attempt to pigeon hole people in to specific points, boil down multiple people's wide ranging view points into neat little stereotypes and polarizing people into a group all saying the same thing when they are not. If someone has accidentally given you a taste of your own medicine when poorly summarising your posts I don't think it's anything they need to give an apology for. Maybe this is just a case of the pot calling the kettle black? If you want an apology I suggest you try those Anfield Fairies you offered as a comparison to several people's wide ranging (thought out, mostly logical and all providing reasons in full) beliefs.
 



Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
706
You should and retract because you knowingly lied about my views, I have never denied the existence of bias against the club and the city and you said I had. That’s a straight lie. Pure and simple. You lied about my posts because it suited your narrative ironically in a thread that is ultimately about the nature of truth. So if you refuse to retract what you said about my views then I finally done with you. It’s always a shame to fall out with a fellow red but you are a liar.
Re read my post in which you accuse me of lying. I said..... there are many reasons quoted as to why bias exists but you dont believe them......
So, you conveniently misquoted me, or misrepresented me so that you could call me a liar.
At no point in that post did I say that you had denied the existance of bias against the club or city. I said you would not believe the number of reasons proffered on here. And you dont, you blame Carla Lane for most of what the city suffers.

So, you are wrong. Very emotive language, calling me a liar when all you did was deliberatley misquote me.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,525
or maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, that influences your opinion,

For me, this thread is boring, its like listening to 2 vikki pollards arguing.....

yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but,, yeah but, no but, yeah but, blah blah blah.....
Can you prove him wrong? Unless we have Professor X on here that's the problem. It can't be proven one way or the other. We can look at reasons why bias or impartiality might exist (the local rivalry between Merseyside and Manchester is definitely one reasonable one, an ex South Yorkshire policeman who may well know and have friends tied to our fight for justice is another) and then the evidence of contentious decisions. Jaffod has tried to do so. I think he deserved a bit more respect than you've shown in this post. It's always been said treat this forum like a pub conversation. If someone in the pub took the time to put such a thought out, length explanation to a bunch of people and that was your reaction I think you'd have been knocked out.
 

Barnestormer

Left wing.
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
5,834

Look at this news report on the BBC today, spare Easter Sunday.

Its about most hacked passwords, which in the report is 12345, but the most popular football team password is Liverpool, not mentioned AT ALL in the report, but used as the photo banner. What is the signification here?
 



Kopstar

★★★★★★
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,746

Look at this news report on the BBC today, spare Easter Sunday.

Its about most hacked passwords, which in the report is 12345, but the most popular football team password is Liverpool, not mentioned AT ALL in the report, but used as the photo banner. What is the signification here?
It's mentioned in the BBC report so do you mean the National Cyber Security Centre study itself? Not sure what you're implying here. Do you have a link?
 

Barnestormer

Left wing.
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
5,834
It's mentioned in the BBC report so do you mean the National Cyber Security Centre study itself? Not sure what you're implying here. Do you have a link?
Im not implying anything - I am asking what the signification is here, do you know what that means, or should I explain? I know what it means to me. Im asking what it means to others. So you dont see any contrivance/distortion in it then? Also should have qualified in my opening post, that its not covered in detail, rather than at all.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,092

Look at this news report on the BBC today, spare Easter Sunday.

Its about most hacked passwords, which in the report is 12345, but the most popular football team password is Liverpool, not mentioned AT ALL in the report, but used as the photo banner. What is the signification here?
"Liverpool" is mentioned in the BBC article:
...The most common name to be used in passwords was Ashley, followed by Michael, Daniel, Jessica and Charlie.

When it comes to Premier League football teams in guessable passwords, Liverpool are champions and Chelsea are second. Blink-182 topped the charts of music acts.

People who use well-known words or names for a password put themselves people at risk of being hacked, said Dr Ian Levy, technical director of the NCSC...
So, I'm also confused as to your point.
 

jaffod

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
2,589
or maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, that influences your opinion,

For me, this thread is boring, its like listening to 2 vikki pollards arguing.....

yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but,, yeah but, no but, yeah but, blah blah blah.....
I've had this one before so I'm not going to labour over it again. I'm going on 5 decades of shit being hurled at me and my city from all corners of the country, mancs being the most vitriolic by far.

You think I've got a chip on my shoulder for being offended by that and thinking certain referees might have the same prejudices then you're a fucking prick imo.
 

Barnestormer

Left wing.
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
5,834
"Liverpool" is mentioned in the BBC article:

So, I'm also confused as to your point.
I dont have a central point yet, but I think its a strange article in totality, whereas the main thrust of it is 12345 and other such bad passwords, and various other examples of bad passwords are mentioned, but the BBC deems it fit to attach a photo of Klopp and Henderson to the article, yet Liverpool are only mentioned as ONE example of using obvious passwords. Of all the photographs to be attached to this story, they choose Liverpool. I find that skewed. But I asked what is the signification of the article?
 



Status
Not open for further replies.