tcj_jones Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I have had this debate with my friends on many, many occasions and it always seems to go the same way. I argue that, all too often, the big four in the Premiership, and sometimes whoever the home side might be, are given a clear advantage, at the expense of the smaller, or away side, through the decisions of officials. My friends call me a fool for thinking so. One is a Manchester United fan and another an Arsenal, so you can expect it from them, but another is a West Ham fan! One of their main arguements is that the bigger teams get more penalties, because they get in more goal scoring positions and get the ball in the box more than their opponent. Because there are more penalty shouts and decisions to be made, there are more controversial decisions and more penalties awarded than there should have been. This is also why the top sides are generally given infinately more penalties. I actually agree with this, although I firmly believe that the top four would, quite often, be given a decision when any other team wouldn't, unless it was in front of a large and aggressive crowd. I think that a fair few bad decisions in fornt of a particularly large, motivated crowd are just down to human error - if a ref doesn't see something clearly, or even if he does, he is naturally going to be influenced by the sound of 20 - 70,000 fans screaming in his ear. The prerssure is immense, and I can sometimes understand this, especially if the ref does not appear to be a particularly strong character. (I remember a ref in my college league that gave the one team a free kick and after the opposition yelled at him, he blew his whistle and gave it the other way - against me!) However, when it comes to giving big decisions against the top four, refs will all too often, with want for a better term, "wuss out" because of the uproar a mistake might create. If Chelsea had have been defeated in Extra Time by a penalty, even if it were legit, there would probably still be uproar! If it turned out to be a mistake from the ref, Mourinho would have complained and complained and complained to every member of the press he could find until the headlines all carried the story of how Chelsea were cheated out of the cup. The ref's reputation amongst the fans and his respectability within football and liklihood of him reffing a big game in the future would be lessened and he'd probably find himself reffing a load of Championship games for the next few weeks. Contrast that with Blackburn being knocked out by a dodgy penalty and I don't think anything would come of it at all. We wouldn't get any press exposure whatsoever. The point I am making here, is that refs do not want to risk what is their profession by giving the smaller sides decisions against the bigger teams, because of the possible ramifications. What I really struggle to understand though, is how the ref can seemingly wish to influence the entire game, decision by decision by being so shockingly biased against the smaller side. It is as if the result has been predetermined and he is there to make sure it happens. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that this was the case with us, but yesterday, I thought that Chelsea got almost every decision going, while we were stopped for some, frankly, bizare decisions. A fair few times when we would try to break, the ref would bring play back for a foul that had happened previous, but I never once saw any reason why one should be given. It wasn't crowd pressure, because we were by far the more vocal of the two sets of supporters, and because we outnumbered the Chelsea fans. Was I too far away from the pitch to see things clearly yesterday, or is what I am saying how things went? I will never stand down in my general arguement, but I could accept that maybe yesterday I was seeing things somewhat distortedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.