Talk sport owned by Murdoch talking about integrity.TalkSport came out with the same claim and, just like the BBC, conveniently omitted to reveal the source.
The FA use a support VAR as well as an assistant VAR for matches where they use VAR. Don't know why they think they need someone extra and the Prem don't.In the FA Cup commentary yesterday they said there were 3 on VAR duty for the Man U - Coventry game. Presumably 2 to hold the 3rd down if they broke ranks on a decision that went against United.
To be fair, for 23 of the last 25 years we might as well not have existed.I'm hoping so much for a scandal to come out which means we never have to hear Gary Neville's opinion again, and him kissing the boots of his paymasters, managing to turn every post game no matter what game, into a conversation about Man U. Carragher is no better, but at least he doesn't seem to believe his own hype, Neville talks like every phrase that comes out of his mouth is perfect and genius. 'kin el, when he was talking about Clattenburg, he may as well have said "I Sir Neville, do decree that those peasants from Nottingham Forest, should hence forth execute Clattenburg by nightfall, so sayeth Sir Neville! I have spoken!"
And all that bollocks about Forest are ruining their great reputation and class etc, and he speaks about Clough, he talks about us like we haven't existed for the last 25 years, No Gary, the moment a club goes out of the Premier League, they don't stop existing, as much as you and your buddies think they do.
They might call Boris Johnson as a character witnessThey can't, surely? That would really make those who want to stick fingers in ears currently actually consider the "impossible."
Far more likely they get Atwell to record some spiel now and pass it off as legit.
I think it was a trainee.The FA use a support VAR as well as an assistant VAR for matches where they use VAR. Don't know why they think they need someone extra and the Prem don't.
I hear what you're saying.The question over Atwell’s perceived conflict of interest isn’t an issue for me. If it was just Forest in the relegation mix with Luton, then maybe. But both teams are (or were) competing with them and there was no result that very clearly favoured Luton more than the other two possible outcomes.
However, the ratio of big decisions that have gone against/for us this season is too big to just be bad luck. There is clearly an unconscious bias against Forest, there is no other explanation. I don’t know how or why this started (I suspect our complaint after the Old Trafford game) but the more we have complained, the worse it has got.
I have played cricket for years and learnt a long time ago, you get more favourable decisions from umpires if you tell them how good they are rather than pointing out their mistakes. I think this is a similar scenario and we have, to some extent, brought this on ourselves.
Am I the only one that thought that said "there's anal for that"?https://theresanaiforthat.com/ send them the link, it'll save them time looking
Am I the only one that thought that said "there's anal for that"?
I'm with Keith Hackett on this though, PGMOL should have shielded Attwell against any perceived bias by not putting him in that situation.The question over Atwell’s perceived conflict of interest isn’t an issue for me. If it was just Forest in the relegation mix with Luton, then maybe. But both teams are (or were) competing with them and there was no result that very clearly favoured Luton more than the other two possible outcomes.
However, the ratio of big decisions that have gone against/for us this season is too big to just be bad luck. There is clearly an unconscious bias against Forest, there is no other explanation. I don’t know how or why this started (I suspect our complaint after the Old Trafford game) but the more we have complained, the worse it has got.
I have played cricket for years and learnt a long time ago, you get more favourable decisions from umpires if you tell them how good they are rather than pointing out their mistakes. I think this is a similar scenario and we have, to some extent, brought this on ourselves.
There’s life outside the Premier League,Captain-despite what the pri*ks at Sky wouldTo be fair, for 23 of the last 25 years we might as well not have existed.
No...Am I the only one that thought that said "there's anal for that"?
All any Forest supporter needs to do is recall Anderlecht and that should be sufficient to acknowledge that these repeat occurrences shouldn't simply be dismissed as "unconscious bias."The question over Atwell’s perceived conflict of interest isn’t an issue for me. If it was just Forest in the relegation mix with Luton, then maybe. But both teams are (or were) competing with them and there was no result that very clearly favoured Luton more than the other two possible outcomes.
However, the ratio of big decisions that have gone against/for us this season is too big to just be bad luck. There is clearly an unconscious bias against Forest, there is no other explanation. I don’t know how or why this started (I suspect our complaint after the Old Trafford game) but the more we have complained, the worse it has got.
I have played cricket for years and learnt a long time ago, you get more favourable decisions from umpires if you tell them how good they are rather than pointing out their mistakes. I think this is a similar scenario and we have, to some extent, brought this on ourselves.
Haha, you beat me to itI don't know why anyone would question the integrity of referees, it's not on they just wouldn't be corrupted.....except for the one we had against Anderlecht, oh and in Italy, oh and in Spain, oh and in Africa, oh and Greece, oh and Turkey, oh and South America......but except for those I don't know why
Just saw it . There's either a narrative being pushed, complete denial or a major case of cognitive dissonance. I'm yet to make up my mind which yet.Haha, you beat me to it
No they include an assistant referee (linesman)I think it was a trainee.