This Wenger charge for calling into question the integrity of the referees

[redgunamo]

I've said this for a long time. Given that it's the world's biggest game, its laws are a fücking joke and leave far too much to the referee's opinion.

Of course, there is the argument that this ambiguity is part of what makes it so popular, but even so.

There cannot really be any "even so", can there.

[Sir C]

I am unsure how dodgy affairs in Italy over a decade ago coincide with the incompetence of Mike Dean which is the primary issue here.

You're not listening. Dean is not incompetent, he is corrupt.

[Burney]

There cannot really be any "even so", can there.

I think so. There is certainly an odd reluctance to introduce things that would remove some of the subjectivity, such as video replays. These have been shown to be effective in other games (indeed, to add another level of tension and excitement) and yet football continues to resist them. Why? I suspect there's an attachment to the antiquated in football that is at odds with its modern image.

[Ash]

I am unsure how dodgy affairs in Italy over a decade ago coincide with the incompetence of Mike Dean which is the primary issue here.

It is to indicate that corruption is football is possible. Referees, for whatever reason, can display bias, and bias is corruption. To believes that Dean is merely incompetent, and not biased, is a reasonable position to take. It is not reasonable, however, to automatically rule out any possibility of foul play as childish or paranoid fantasy, when foul play can happen, and has happened.

So we have to examine the evidence. For example: Does Dean consistently think that a ball striking the arm from a yard away while held in front of the body is a handball? Apparently not, according to the decision he made in a game involving Leicester.

Who is Dean's boss?
Has Dean's boss ever suggested gross incompetence in his own refereeing career?
Was he rewarded or penalised for this?
Why is this relevant?

[Burney]

You're not listening. Dean is not incompetent, he is corrupt.

There have always been shít refs. Clive Thomas springs to mind. He was utterly incompetent, but - and this is crucial - he was even-handedly incompetent. Dean is not.

[SWv2]

You're not listening. Dean is not incompetent, he is corrupt.

I see and note evidence of incompetence, I am aware of none of corruption.

Simple really.

[Ash]

I've said this for a long time. Given that it's the world's biggest game, its laws are a fücking joke and leave far too much to the referee's opinion.

Of course, there is the argument that this ambiguity is part of what makes it so popular, but even so.

This is why VAR might not resolve problems. Instead of a referee making an arbitrary decision in real time, he'll make an arbitrary one based on multiple slow-motions.

[Luis Anaconda]

I think so. There is certainly an odd reluctance to introduce things that would remove some of the subjectivity, such as video replays. These have been shown to be effective in other games (indeed, to add another level of tension and excitement) and yet football continues to resist them. Why? I suspect there's an attachment to the antiquated in football that is at odds with its modern image.

Partially that was Blatter holding the game back - he refused to countenance the idea of technology and his word was law. No coincidence that we will have VAR at the World Cup and everywhere from next season now he is out of the way. Though it is still a pretty flawed system at the moment from what I have seen in the German game.

And the laws will remain the same regardless, despite some of them being ridiculous. I mean in the cold light of day, we can admit that Hector "probably" fouled the cheating little Belgian **** the other night, but in what insane system should that equate to almost an automatic goal (or with Cech in nets, an dead-cert goal). Makes very little sense

[Sir C]

I see and note evidence of incompetence, I am aware of none of corruption.

Simple really.

Open your mind. Not with LSD. With reason, with curiosity, with a passion for truth.*

*Warning: such a course may require a moment of sobriety.

[Pokster]

Partially that was Blatter holding the game back - he refused to countenance the idea of technology and his word was law. No coincidence that we will have VAR at the World Cup and everywhere from next season now he is out of the way. Though it is still a pretty flawed system at the moment from what I have seen in the German game.

And the laws will remain the same regardless, despite some of them being ridiculous. I mean in the cold light of day, we can admit that Hector "probably" fouled the cheating little Belgian **** the other night, but in what insane system should that equate to almost an automatic goal (or with Cech in nets, an dead-cert goal). Makes very little sense

It will never take away the ref's opinion... who is to say when contact becomes a foul? Are we going to have 4 or 5 pens every game from shirt pulling at corners?

In Cricket there is little scope for opinion, there is Umpire's call but apart from that there isn't much of a grey area (there are obvious ones that could be questioned, but these are few and far between)