• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Snatchday 1: Nottingham Forest Vs the PGMOL

Redemption

Redemption

Agenda Benda
If you want to see bias in action, you only have to look at Forest fans defensiveness regarding this issue. People are litterally doing mental and lexical gymnastics to make things mean something they do not.

You're either stupid, delusional or an outright liar if you wont accept that the implied intent of the first tweet was to accusse Atwell of not overturning Antony Taylor’s decisions because he is a Luton fan.

The tweet did not complain at Taylor's mistakes, it complained that Atwell did not take the right course of action to correct them because of his allegiances - and reinforced this by stating that PGMOL had been warned he could that.

Why was Atwell allegiance made the scapegoat in this tweet? Why was Taylor’s incompetence absent from the tweet?

There is no other way to read to it. That was the intent of the angry author.

The explict translation: "We're sick of being robbed by officials. Today we were robbed three times by a Luton fan who was the VAR. We warned this could happen."

It was all about Atwell's integrity.

Stop fannying about lads.
 
Captain Sinister

Captain Sinister

Senior doom Monger
Redemption said:
If you want to see bias in action, you only have to look at Forest fans defensiveness regarding this issue. People are litterally doing mental and lexical gymnastics to make things mean something they do not.

You're either stupid, delusional or an outright liar if you wont accept that the implied intent of the first tweet was to accusse Atwell of not overturning Antony Taylor’s decisions because he is a Luton fan.

The tweet did not complain at Taylor's mistakes, it complained that Atwell did not take the right course of action to correct them because of his allegiances - and reinforced this by stating that PGMOL had been warned he could that.

Why was Atwell allegiance made the scapegoat in this tweet? Why was Taylor’s incompetence absent from the tweet?

There is no other way to read to it. That was the intent of the angry author.

The explict translation: "We're sick of being robbed by officials. Today we were robbed three times by a Luton fan who was the VAR. We warned this could happen."

It was all about Atwell's integrity.

Stop fannying about lads.
Click to expand...
… because Atwell has form, was the decision maker. Taylor was the patsy who acted in accordance with the EPL/PGMOL instructions to leave key decisions to VAR.
 
Col Steve Austin

Col Steve Austin

Viv Anderson
Redemption said:
If you want to see bias in action, you only have to look at Forest fans defensiveness regarding this issue. People are litterally doing mental and lexical gymnastics to make things mean something they do not.

You're either stupid, delusional or an outright liar if you wont accept that the implied intent of the first tweet was to accusse Atwell of not overturning Antony Taylor’s decisions because he is a Luton fan.

The tweet did not complain at Taylor's mistakes, it complained that Atwell did not take the right course of action to correct them because of his allegiances - and reinforced this by stating that PGMOL had been warned he could that.

Why was Atwell allegiance made the scapegoat in this tweet? Why was Taylor’s incompetence absent from the tweet?

There is no other way to read to it. That was the intent of the angry author.

The explict translation: "We're sick of being robbed by officials. Today we were robbed three times by a Luton fan who was the VAR. We warned this could happen."

It was all about Atwell's integrity.

Stop fannying about lads.
Click to expand...
Yes, but PGMOL'S own rules accept that there may be an inherent (subconscious?) bias hence refs having to declare who they support etc. Therefore Forest stating that is surely no more alleging bias than PGMOL do themselves.

Therefore all Forest did was point out PGMOL hadn't followed their own rules on avoiding bias, the allegation that a bias might manifest itself in skewed decisions is no more than PGMOL do.

As everyone has been saying, if "There is no way our fine upstanding great British referees would ever allow a subconscious bias to affect their decision making, and how very dare you for even thinking such a thing", why do PGMOL have that process and rule in the first place?
 
M

MC Plantpot

First Team Squad
Col Steve Austin said:
Yes, but PGMOL'S own rules accept that there may be an inherent (subconscious?) bias hence refs having to declare who they support etc. Therefore Forest stating that is surely no more alleging bias than PGMOL do themselves.

Therefore all Forest did was point out PGMOL hadn't followed their own rules on avoiding bias, the allegation that a bias might manifest itself in skewed decisions is no more than PGMOL do.

As everyone has been saying, if "There is no way our fine upstanding great British referees would ever allow a subconscious bias to affect their decision making, and how very dare you for even thinking such a thing", why do PGMOL have that process and rule in the first place?
Click to expand...
The irony being of course is that that’s the thing about unconscious bias, it allows for little conscious oversight
 
R

Red Dog in a Forest

Viv Anderson
Redemption said:
If you want to see bias in action, you only have to look at Forest fans defensiveness regarding this issue. People are litterally doing mental and lexical gymnastics to make things mean something they do not.

You're either stupid, delusional or an outright liar if you wont accept that the implied intent of the first tweet was to accusse Atwell of not overturning Antony Taylor’s decisions because he is a Luton fan.

The tweet did not complain at Taylor's mistakes, it complained that Atwell did not take the right course of action to correct them because of his allegiances - and reinforced this by stating that PGMOL had been warned he could that.

Why was Atwell allegiance made the scapegoat in this tweet? Why was Taylor’s incompetence absent from the tweet?

There is no other way to read to it. That was the intent of the angry author.

The explict translation: "We're sick of being robbed by officials. Today we were robbed three times by a Luton fan who was the VAR. We warned this could happen."

It was all about Atwell's integrity.

Stop fannying about lads.
Click to expand...
Or, it’s as it was written, three separate sentences.

1. You didn’t do your job.

2. You declined our request, even though these are rules that you (PGMOL) pick and choose to follow, thereby putting yourselves up for scrutiny.

3. We are taking action.

I’ll let you decide if I’m delusional, a liar or stupid.
 
PlayedOnGrass

PlayedOnGrass

First Team Squad
vertigored said:
It’s inappropriate because he supports a team that is directly affected by the result of this match. It would be appropriate if he were not in charge of any decisions that could effect the outcome of the match so as to avoid any question on his integrity should he get something massively wrong.

im not sure how this is hard to see? Or am I missing something?

if he gets all the decisions correct to the laws of the game then it ends there, if he doesn’t then it is all left open to accusations.
Click to expand...
Attwell is getting all the shit and rightly so.
However the root cause of all of this is Anthony Taylor. All of these decisions are clear cut and Taylor had a good view of them - if he had made the correct decisions on the pitch then Atwell would not have overruled them
 
RianBrice

RianBrice

Viv Anderson
Red Dog in a Forest said:
Or, it’s as it was written, three separate sentences.

1. You didn’t do your job.

2. You declined our request, even though these are rules that you (PGMOL) pick and choose to follow, thereby putting yourselves up for scrutiny.

3. We are taking action.

I’ll let you decide if I’m delusional, a liar or stupid.
Click to expand...
You’re not, you’re spot on. I’m chuffed that Forest came out swinging and don’t give a shiny shite if it’s upset the apple cart. Im not sure Spurs would be pleased if a Villa fan was the VAR of one of their games in the run in, I just can’t fathom why, if they get refs to declare their allegiances and we’d pointed this out, they didn’t change Atwell to avoid this situation.
 
valspoodle

valspoodle

Steve Chettle
We see it all the time. A statement is made then it's picked apart by all and sundry. No one knows the real meaning except the author, but those who think they know claim to give the correct meaning, whilst others just guess using, as a yardstick, their own prejudices.

That's why lawyers make so much money. They delight in indirect references and vague statements.
 
Redemption

Redemption

Agenda Benda
Red Dog in a Forest said:
I’ll let you decide if I’m delusional, a liar or stupid
Click to expand...
I don't need to decide.

But your argument continues in bad faith.

If there was a "warning", according to the tweet, and the club is reviewing its options (less than your 'taking action'), the inference is clear: Atwell's integrity is being questioned by the tweet.
 
Otis Redding

Otis Redding

Try A Little Tenderness
Redemption said:
I don't need to decide.

But your argument continues in bad faith.

If there was a "warning", according to the tweet, and the club is reviewing its options (less than your 'taking action'), the inference is clear: Atwell's integrity is being questioned by the tweet.
Click to expand...
I'm more than happy for the Tweet to be seen as questioning Attwell's integrity Red, because I definitely do.
 
R

Red Dog in a Forest

Viv Anderson
Redemption said:
I don't need to decide.

But your argument continues in bad faith.

If there was a "warning", according to the tweet, and the club is reviewing its options (less than your 'taking action'), the inference is clear: Atwell's integrity is being questioned by the tweet.
Click to expand...
The integrity of the PGMOL for making the decision.

Atwell just happens to be the unfortunate (widely accepted) incompetent pawn (by virtue of being a Luton fan) who for reasons unbeknown decided to demonstrate either incompetence, unconscious bias, bias or passed down instructions (see Halsey’s admittance of this) to not see what everyone else saw.

The statement:

"Three extremely poor decisions - three penalties not given - which we simply cannot accept.

We warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a Luton fan before the game but they didn’t change him.

Our patience has been tested multiple times. NFFC will now consider its options,"

Or:

"Three extremely poor decisions - three penalties not given - which we simply cannot accept.

We warned the PGMOL that the VAR is a fan of a relegation rival before the game but they didn’t change him.

Our patience has been tested multiple times. NFFC will now consider its options,"

A half-decent journalist would take 5 minutes to figure out its Atwell.

What your implying is paragraph 2 shouldn’t exist at all, with the PGMOL’s general approach on this not highlighted.

So, we would just be blaming Taylor and ignoring the role of VAR entirely?

Sure, just let the PGMOL do what they want.
 
sammy the snake

sammy the snake

Jack Armstrong
Cortez the Killer said:
The choice is - scrap VAR and revert to refs making the decisions, or implement VAR in a way that actually benefits the sport and allows for fewer human errors.
I think a change of rules will also help in this regard, in that the subjectivity should be minimised.

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We’ve got to remember it was the manager association that approved VAR, not the refs.

Trouble is that it’s neither a binary measure (due to the inconsistency) nor is it adding any value to the game.

Total scrap, or totally trust it. The refs have shown they’re prone to human error, but I’d rather have the game flowing, far fewer issues to talk about. Less accusations etc
 
M

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
Redemption said:
If you want to see bias in action, you only have to look at Forest fans defensiveness regarding this issue. People are litterally doing mental and lexical gymnastics to make things mean something they do not.

You're either stupid, delusional or an outright liar if you wont accept that the implied intent of the first tweet was to accusse Atwell of not overturning Antony Taylor’s decisions because he is a Luton fan.

The tweet did not complain at Taylor's mistakes, it complained that Atwell did not take the right course of action to correct them because of his allegiances - and reinforced this by stating that PGMOL had been warned he could that.

Why was Atwell allegiance made the scapegoat in this tweet? Why was Taylor’s incompetence absent from the tweet?

There is no other way to read to it. That was the intent of the angry author.

The explict translation: "We're sick of being robbed by officials. Today we were robbed three times by a Luton fan who was the VAR. We warned this could happen."

It was all about Atwell's integrity.

Stop fannying about lads.
Click to expand...

Agree, and it's a shame we took that angle as it allows others to tell us we're idiots whereas if we simply focused on the *actual decisions* - both Vs Everton and previously, we'd likely have had significantly more public support.
 
H

Harry1982

Grenville Morris
In my eyes everyone is getting their knickers in a twist because we implied he was corrupt, in fairness this 3 decisions for a penalty in one match that the ref hasn't gone to the monitor, we believe there stonewall, quite a few others do aswell. Either it's corruption or its incompetence they can pick either.
 
Flaggers

Flaggers

May not be the best moderator on LTLF, but he's...
LTLF Minion
PlayedOnGrass said:
Attwell is getting all the shit and rightly so.
However the root cause of all of this is Anthony Taylor. All of these decisions are clear cut and Taylor had a good view of them - if he had made the correct decisions on the pitch then Atwell would not have overruled them
Click to expand...
Again - I have to ask...

which teams seem to 'get' the on-field decision in their favour, and which ones don't...?
 
PynchonForest

PynchonForest

John Robertson
magicwoand said:
Keith Hacketts got our back
Click to expand...
I was debating with Mr. Hackett on a facebook referee page (a few years past) and a local ref called him an idiot, in so many words, completely unaware of Mr. Hackett's pedigree. Said referee has been a dick towards me ever since , after I corrected him. Unfortunately he is also one of the circle of people who control things locally, and he has a bad attitude every time he is out on the pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom