[Albion] We are top of the league, say we are top of the league!

[Triggaaar]

No, agreed. But fans of every other club will also have their own list.

Each season is different. This season I think it's quite accurate to say that on balance, poor officiating has cost us quite a few points. We also have plenty of 'fans' on NSC who like to criticise the club when the chance arises and they're happy to point out when a decision goes our way. Whilst I recognise that we have blue tinted specs, we're also quite a fair bunch. We don't mind admitting we got lucky on the occasions we do.

There is no evidence of bias. There is mounting evidence that it's a bit rubbish.

Firstly, we don't have the data to make that judgement. ESPNs list is looking at what VAR has done, and who has gained/lost, but it is not looking at when clubs have been wronged by decisions like those we saw at Spurs.

I would say it's almost certain there is bias. Some of it is accidental - when Liverpool were on fire a couple of seasons ago officials believed the hype and thought that if Salah and co went down it simply had to be a foul, because the donkeys they were facing could not possibly be good enough to win the ball fairly. It happens with captain of England Kane a lot. It's probably happened most over the years at Old Trafford, where officials have felt under pressure to give the benefit of any doubt to Untied.

As for Saturday's game - it's difficult to watch that in it's entirety without being convinced there was bias. Has anyone got any footage that shows the ball hit MacAllister's arm? The angle on MOTD makes it look like it's below his arm and misses it. Can anyone explain how Lenglet stretching his arm across his opponent and touching the ball isn't handball? And we already know no one can explain why the foul on Mitoma was ok.

Obviously the decision at Selhurt Park was criminal, but it was only one decision, so you take a deep breath and shake your head. But the 3 decisions above stink of corruption, let alone bias.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Maybe it could never be proven, or maybe there is evidence of Officials being encouraged to favour one side in certain games, there was evidence in Spain and Italy.

Yes but they are not even proper countries.

I don't think there's a bunch of guys sat round in the proverbial smoke filled room making sure that Brighton don't get any decisions on the field. That would be ridiculous. But there's all kinds of conscious and unconscious bias, some of which there is evidence for and some of which is just a feeling or outcome.

I posted a Guardian long read article about Premier League refereeing a week or two ago where they followed Darren England and Andre Mariner. Both admitted to preparing by analysing previous decisions featuring the clubs they were about to referee. Should Atwell have looked at us and thought that there's a chance that Mitoma goes down too easily and that De Zerbi does stuff that warrants a red card then he already has that in his head and he has played the past and not the decision in front of him in both cases. He might admire Kane as an England captain. He might be annoyed about the treatment of Kane for what was a letter of the law red card at Everton. He might feel personally that Spurs are a better fit in the Champions League than little ole Brighton. If he does, he carries that bias into the game. You can't prove that with data. But the alternative is that he was incompetent. In which case, WHY are the Premier League appointing an incompetent ref to a game that will probably decide a Champions League place?

As for VAR I've never wanted it. It's ruined the game I love utterly. Get rid. I don't CARE that it won't happen. It SHOULD.

First part, yes, all that is wrong in my view. Deliberately introducing bias against players and clubs rather than judging play on merit can be summarized in one word. Prejudice. That should not be allowed.

I don't think you can argue that some refs are not incompetent on the grounds that if they were they would not get an EPL reffing gig. That is akin to the Denning gambit*. Consider, thresholds....there are thresholds of competence. The shit show at the weekend is likely to not trigger a judgement of incompetence by the powers that be. They does not mean that that the decisions were competent. If you refute that then you are concluding either that the decisions were fine, honest judgement issues that could have gone either way, or that the decisions were wrong, not the product of incompetence, and therefore deliberate. Conspiracy.

My view is incompetence, perhaps facilitated by unconscious bias, certainly facilitated by poor use of VAR and the poor VAR rubrics that have been approved to appease the referees.

*When considering the first appeal of the Birmingham six, Denning stated "Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

 

[5Ways Gull]

Hope you are correct but I'm not confident. The only time I can recall the club really showing some balls is when they stood firm on the Caicedo club move issue. There are probably other examples but I can't think of them.

There was that time that northern club wanted to take Ben White off our hands for a set of away shirts and £5k. Lots of "esteemed" pundits agreed with them. Not only did the club stand firm, they took the piss with his squad number!

Whatever happened to them, how are they doing?