Originally Posted by
Niall_Quinn
If it's simply incompetence in all cases, or even the majority, then why has the FA and other authorities sat on their hands (or each others cocks) and let this incompetence have such an impact? And why on earth would they be content to settle for dismissing it with a claim it all evens out anyway? If they are aware of the issue but do nothing about it then isn't that a form of corruption on their part?
Corruption isn't just taking money to influence results. Ignoring the rules because the home crowd will get angry, in other words choosing to cheat because you are afraid - that's a form of corruption. Saying you saw something when you didn't actually see it, that's lying, another form of corruption. Watching Rooney kick people and turning a blind eye. What's that? Evening the game up after making a bad decision - corruption.
The decision by Jones on the weekend can't be explained away by incompetence. He made a concious decision to act on something he can't have possibly seen and then he tried to justify it by pointing to evidence that simply doesn't exist. If it's not corruption (in the darker sense) then it's corruption in other ways. At the very least he knows he completely fucked up, but he chooses to lie about it. It's like me awarding a penalty for a foul in the centre circle. I say I thought it was in the box and that's the end of it? The FA response to this is to prevent him officiating at the top level for a number of games. But the 3 points still go to the gypos and the league table now stands corrupted as a result. Maybe they would have won it anyway, but who's to say that very obvious goal Newcastle scored and had chalked off won't have a bearing on the final outcome. We beat Liverpool to the title by a couple of goals, glad we didn't have that wanker refereeing or else one of our most glorious moments would have been wiped out.
There are remedies to all this, or at least steps that could be taken to alleviate the problem. But senior authorities in the game are against taking steps. I wonder why and it's legitimate to wonder why. And because there's more than enough evidence already on record to prove these guys are completely corrupt (in the, give them money and they'll influence outcomes, sense) I find it more logical to assume their actions in general are corrupt rather than just a series of innocent mishaps. And because they are responsible for appointing and administering the referees I don't think it is at all unreasonable to suggest their influence can extend onto the pitch itself. I'm not saying this is the case all the time or even most of the time but I'm saying it's a distinct possibility and shouldn't be dismissed so easily.
I tend to think the worst of bad people.
