And people pointing out these obvious biases never use the word conspiracy.
Some use the term corruption, and in some instances the big questions surround corruption. I hope its not corruption, but if lets say a club sponsored by unimaginable wealth were to cloud their financial records to achieve victory, would they resort to other stuff?
The biases are there.
Its often media fuelled, and your examples are apt.
Its a hangover of the Murdoch driven media, and the anti Liverpool narrative that developed post the rag being binned by supporters. Add the rise of United and the narrative grows.
Refs like Tierney, Kavanagh have serious form when it comes to Liverpool. Tierney refs us too often…Brooks being awarded the Villa match is to say the least bizarre?
There is no grand conspiracy, I hate the word being used to demean any argument (not in this instance btw)…but there are biases by specific refs, which have cost Liverpool dearly.
There is no basis for completing the disciplinary process and delaying the start of the ban. This only seems quick because the disciplinary process was wrapped up quickly. But honestly, that’s in our favour. I’d rather it cover the game it did than the process drag on so the ban kicks in next season.
Ball hit directly into his side, arm by his side (‘natural’ position), ironically wouldn’t even have the whole handball discussion at all if his arm were in an ‘unnatural’ position and hit his ribs instead; outside his silhouette, above his head etc.
I would really dislike it if becomes normal for players to punt the ball at oppositions’ arms and get handball calls.