Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
Dunno. If players see a referee isn't going to punish them to commit fouls, it will embolden them to commit more and worse fouls. I think United got that sense after a couple of the early 'reducers' on JAR went unpunished and it got worse from there. Equally, linesmen will take their lead from the ref.

In short, I don't believe the game was bent because 'cui bono?' I do, however, believe that Riley was biased (consciously or unconsciously) against Arsenal and refereed accordingly. Still disgraceful, but not 'bent' in the sense of there being a conspiracy.

What I did find extraordinary, though, was the determination of the media to largely ignore the appalling refereeing of such a big game. I can only conclude that this was because they realised most of their audience (and football more widely) wanted Arsenal to lose and so they didn't want to question the legitimacy of that result by pointing out that it was probably the most dreadfully biased and incompetent refereeing display in the history of the Premier League.
In those days it was clear to me that The Arsenal were being punished because they hired a "Frenchman" and he had a team with the temerity to challenge "one of our own", AF and MU. AW was monikered "The Frenchman" in every news article. NOt so much any more, but it was very real then.