Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
The clearest proof that the whole thing was bent was that united's entire game plan was based on Riley doing exactly what he did.

People will happily tell you these days that united were simply muscling us out of the game because we don't like it up them. This completely ignores the fact that that Arsenal side were a handful and were not the sort to be intimidated.

The truth is unted's game plan was based on kicking us as hard and as often as possible to disrupt the game, injure players and hopefully to get us to retaliate, knowing full well that their players would not get punished whatever they did (see Neville, Rio, van nistelrooy) whereas if a single Arsenal player had reacted badly they would have been sent off.

United constructed their entire game plan on the ref giving them everything they wanted. That is a hell of a risk unless you KNOW you can rely on it.
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.