Why would there have to be previous grievances for there to be bias? Couldnāt whoever is reffing the game on Sunday not be biased for or against us based on something other than a pre-existing history? Maybe he tends to favour home teams, or teams in red or unconsciously gives the better team preferential outcomes where decisions are tight. Or maybe heās just human and trying his best to be impartial but every decision will be scrutinised to a micro level to show whether he got it right or wrong.
And as for Paul Tierney, well he chose not to send off Jota against Spurs when he perhaps could have done and he scores the winner. If he was biased wouldnāt he have done so? Weāve lost 3 of the 23 games heās refereed us. If heās biased against us heās pretty bad at it. Now, do I think there may be something personal between him and Klopp, itās possible. But Klopp was the one to make it personal and heās not exactly done himself any favours. Now the narrative is Tierney is biased and every decision that doesnāt go our way is being used to support that whilst ones that do go our way are conveniently ignored.
Iāve mentioned a bunch of times now that the stats from Mascot provide interesting reading but donāt prove there is a bias against us. Have a read up the thread and youāll see why as I canāt be arsed typing it all out again.
1 Like
Sorry, but if youāre seriously suggesting all these officials have something against us and only us then itās not worth discussing. Itās bordering on conspiracy theory territory. John Brooks has only reffed us twice this season for crying out loud and because of one decision in not sending off Mings (that VAR also looked at and decided not to send him to review) heās now bias against us. Give over.
You go through every game each of those have reffed for every other team in the league and youād make a list of decisions that have gone against each and every club that theyād feel aggrieved with.
2 Likes
Please tell me you didnāt just compare refereeing of a football match with ingrained institutional racism?
Hold on to your beliefs Rab.
I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything.
You couldnāt be arsed typing out stuff again just above, and I am not arsed reiterating stuff that people like @jaffod has been saying for ages.
You use terms such as conspiracy theory to undermine something you disagree with. You could desist from using that type of terminology. Because its an attempt to reduce the argument against your belief.
Anyway, there is enough evidence for people to question decisions against LFC.
You can choose to ask the questions.
You can quote other supporters as evidence of equity.
You can naively refute the possibilities of bias.
Its up to you.
3 Likes
Beyond the shithousery by Villa and the referee/VAR controversies, I think this was an important game tactically, wrt how a team responded to our tactical change, re TAA as double 6.
Villa essentially collapsed into central areas and were quite aggressive on the press, from where they launched their counters.
I think this exposed two weaknesses.
First was the lack of composure in possession and lack of patience in letting play fully develop with the right intensity, instead of forcing the play. This is an area TAA needs to improve in his new role.
Would be interesting to see how the team develops this role with Thiago in the side.
Second issue is an old one of sorts. The technical limitations of Hendo when he makes the advanced movement high on the right. A more technical player in that role can do a lot more with the time and space the role has afforded him.
If we do sign Mason Mount, would be interesting to see if/how heās used in this roleā¦
One day people will understand that there is truth in this statement.
The ātin foil hatsā title is used to belittle beliefs espoused by posters or suppoters who are seen as contrary or difficult because they think differently than the masses.
Its not conspiracy theory.
Its not crack pot agendas.
Its noticing the subtle and overt biases in the game. A few years ago Man City were lauded as the best club in the league. Its an uncomfortable position now that questions are being asked.
1 Like
I said it because thatās what it sounds like when you say things like āthereās six more refs with agendas against usā. Seven if you include Tierny.
John Brooks has reffed one game of our since Klopp shouted in his face. The āevidenceā of his agenda is a non-sending off which could have been overturned by the VAR but wasnāt. There was also a correct decision to rule out a goal for offside that the VAR referred to Brooks.
Now Tony Harrington isnāt on your list of officials with agendaās but was the VAR that day. Are you now adding him to the list too because in both of these incidents he was as much involved as Brooks. You see where this āagendaā theory starts to fall down?
If you feel the term is undermining then so be it. You have a theory that a large proportion of the PL refs have an agenda against us. That now includes Brooks based on one game where the two main decisions were both reviewed by VAR and one was certainly correct and the other could be argued was correct. Itās almost as if you have a theory and are looking for things to support it rather than being objective.
And as for evidence, at best itās circumstantial and it might be connected but itās non-evidential. And the blind refusal to think that other fans who feel the same as you do about their team are just plain wrong but you are definitely right, well itās got all the hallmarks of those conspiracy theory types. So if the cap fitsā¦
Ok
At no point did I insult you.
Some people are really naive when it comes to football. They have the rather stupid belief that equity and fairness exist.
If the cap fits.
1 Like
I havenāt insulted you. I said it was verging on conspiracy theory and then pointed out why.
I notice you chose not to address whether Tony Harrington needs to go on your naughty list thanks to his involvement in the decisions at the weekend. Guess it doesnāt fit the narrative so weāll skirt over that and shift the conversation elsewhere.
Ultimately your argument boils down to āloads of refs have an agenda against us and fans of other clubs that think refs have an agenda against their club are just wrong. Itās really only us that donāt get a fair rub of the greenā.
And you call me naiveā¦
1 Like
You are naive.
Anyone who sees fit to argue his case by using Brighton and Arsenal supporters views is extremely naive.
Put Harrington on whatever list suits you, I really dont care.
Indeedš and besides that when all the streets in town are soaking wet I donāt have actually seen it rain to know it did, the bias is so obvious by some, it is nauseating.
2 Likes
But you do care. Youāre the one making a naughty list of officials and claiming an agenda against us. I want you to tell me if you think Harrington has an agenda against us too based on the fact he was involved in the two decisions youāre using to claim Brooks now has an agenda against us?
And why are the views of Brighton and Arsenal supporters any less valid than your views when it comes to the way their team is officiated?
Itās not even Brighton fans views, the PMGOL have literally apologised to them three times this season for fucking up, including one against us when Fabinho should have been shown a red.
And who was the ref that day? David Coote, the man atop your naughty list of officials with agendas against us.
Itās all laughable once you pick it apart.
Indeed.
Smoking guns are rare in evidence.
Well said.
1 Like
Just to humour you.
Harrington made inept/biased calls last Saturday.
Brooks should not have been appointed to our match following the incident with Klopp vs Spurs. Anyone who thinks that was a good idea is deluded.
Fabinho should have got a red card vs Brighton.
Brighton got an apology.
Will Liverpool get an apology for last Saturday?
Will they fuck.
The views of Arsenal and Brighton fans may matter to you.
On a Liverpool forum.
If their narrative is the evidence you use, then that is truly laughable, when you pick it apart.
And keep using the word naughty in a trite attempt at humour. Its frankly silly, a work of petulance.
2 Likes
Youāve tied yourself in so many knots youāre not even making sense anymore but at least youāre admitting that decisions could just be ineptitude rather than definitely some kind of bias. Thatās at least some progress.
Good luck with your naughty list. I expect it will continue to grow with every decision that goes against us because an agenda is apparently the only explanation for refs getting things wrong, unless itās ineptitude instead. Funny it only happens to us but hey, there must be a reason everyone has something against just us and no other club. Dunno what that is and youāve failed to offer any explanation so I guess weāre just going to have to believe itās true.
Enjoy Sunday if you can. Hopefully we get one of the non-biased ones in charge 
Enjoy looking at other clubs forums.
Whats your name on the Brighton one?
Enjoy Sunday as well.
It makes no difference on Sunday who we get, the damage is done.
Look me up, Iām @TheRefereeNaughtyList
Nah too easy.
Try
@thenaiveseagull
@thenaivegooner
Suit you better.
Ha, good one.
But I preferred your earlier material about biased refs, much funnier.
1 Like