Aston Villa Vs Arsenal | Saturday December 9 1730

[Letters]

Yeah, it's always incompetence. In sport, in politics, in commerce. Just a series of mishaps by the same crowd of well-intentioned yet inept individuals. And they all get to keep their jobs, so they can be incompetent again, and again. It's all perfectly reasonable.

I don't think it's reasonable at all, but it does seem to be the way of the world.

Come on, dude. You work, right? You have colleagues, probably people you're accountable to. Is the organisation you work for a hive of competence? Are your colleagues beacons of aptitude and good decision making? Are the people who rise to senior positions the most competent?
Because that's a hard no to all the above questions in my organisation.

I'm in a very bureaucratic organisation where senior people routinely make terrible decisions. And, weirdly, there's no consequence. If anything that incompetence seems to be actually rewarded, or they leave for an even more highly paid job elsewhere. Getting into senior positions seems to be based mostly on the ability to speak the right way and network with the right people, and a confidence in their ability which is baffling given their record. The people who sit on high have no idea what's happens on the ground and that leads them to make poor decisions.

From the people I know who have left this organisation, things aren't better elsewhere. They see incompetence everywhere they look too. So incompetence isn't really a theory. It's most people's experience of the world. You can hear it in the Liverpool disallowed goal at Spurs. You can hear it all unfold, the lack of communication, the frustration when they realised what an utter mess they've made of it. Now maybe they're just very good actors, but I'd suggest a more plausible explanation is that they made a mistake.

And no, that doesn't mean there is no corruption, why does everything have to be so absolute with you?
But I'd suggest it's much less prevalent than you imagine. It's clear that money was exchanged before the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar, I've no doubt that sort of stuff goes on all the time. But I don't buy that all the VAR chaps have earpieces linked to their paymasters in Asian betting cartels.

But as I said, if you think you can interpret betting odds to predict results to demonstrate collusion or corruption then let's see the results.

I have an issue with such reliably incompetent individuals prospering instead of being held to account, if we take the perpetually naive angle on their behaviour.

I have an issue with it too. The lack of accountability is maddening. I'm not sure what can actually be done about it though.

[WMUG]

Counter-intuitively, I think the way to improve refereeing competence is to massively increase penalties for dissent.

The reason referees are so shit at the moment is because so many would be refs are hounded out of the game at the grass roots level because they can't hack the abuse. I know that's why I stopped doing it, how many talented refs have we lost because of that?

If, at the top of the game, we started giving anybody but the captain for talking to the referee without being asked a yellow card, we'd see about 2 weeks of (very fun to watch) chaos, then dissent would be essentially eliminated.

They've started giving refs at grass-roots the ability to sinbin players for dissent which I'm fully behind, but the whole culture needs to change from top to bottom in order to get to a place where the refs are the top are the best at the job, not the best at dealing with abuse.

[Letters]

Counter-intuitively, I think the way to improve refereeing competence is to massively increase penalties for dissent.

The reason referees are so shit at the moment is because so many would be refs are hounded out of the game at the grass roots level because they can't hack the abuse. I know that's why I stopped doing it, how many talented refs have we lost because of that?

If, at the top of the game, we started giving anybody but the captain for talking to the referee without being asked a yellow card, we'd see about 2 weeks of (very fun to watch) chaos, then dissent would be essentially eliminated.

They've started giving refs at grass-roots the ability to sinbin players for dissent which I'm fully behind, but the whole culture needs to change from top to bottom in order to get to a place where the refs are the top are the best at the job, not the best at dealing with abuse.

This is definitely a big problem in the game. One of my dad's mates back in the day reffed to quite a high level. Possibly did some games in the lower leagues. He gave it up in the end for the same reason. Even in some of the amateur games he was getting a level of abuse he just couldn't be doing with.

[Niall_Quinn]

I don't think it's reasonable at all, but it does seem to be the way of the world.

Come on, dude. You work, right? You have colleagues, probably people you're accountable to. Is the organisation you work for a hive of competence? Are your colleagues beacons of aptitude and good decision making? Are the people who rise to senior positions the most competent?
Because that's a hard no to all the above questions in my organisation.

I'm in a very bureaucratic organisation where senior people routinely make terrible decisions. And, weirdly, there's no consequence. If anything that incompetence seems to be actually rewarded, or they leave for an even more highly paid job elsewhere. Getting into senior positions seems to be based mostly on the ability to speak the right way and network with the right people, and a confidence in their ability which is baffling given their record. The people who sit on high have no idea what's happens on the ground and that leads them to make poor decisions.

From the people I know who have left this organisation, things aren't better elsewhere. They see incompetence everywhere they look too. So incompetence isn't really a theory. It's most people's experience of the world. You can hear it in the Liverpool disallowed goal at Spurs. You can hear it all unfold, the lack of communication, the frustration when they realised what an utter mess they've made of it. Now maybe they're just very good actors, but I'd suggest a more plausible explanation is that they made a mistake.

And no, that doesn't mean there is no corruption, why does everything have to be so absolute with you?
But I'd suggest it's much less prevalent than you imagine. It's clear that money was exchanged before the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar, I've no doubt that sort of stuff goes on all the time. But I don't buy that all the VAR chaps have earpieces linked to their paymasters in Asian betting cartels.

But as I said, if you think you can interpret betting odds to predict results to demonstrate collusion or corruption then let's see the results.


I have an issue with it too. The lack of accountability is maddening. I'm not sure what can actually be done about it though.

No, no, no, don't be silly. Yes I do work. But with "colleagues" - are you kidding me? What made you think I work with "colleagues"? That's a pretty severe insult, right? How the hell would you ever get things done if you worled with "colleagues" - by "colleagues" I assume you mean rivals?

I did that when I was young and figured things out pretty quickly. So I changed the landscape. I get the argument you are making and I don't dispute it on the surface. But you are also making another argument, when you look beneath the surface.

Take your own life. If you make a string of terrible decisions, what happens? Do you end up getting rewarded? Say you rack up your credit card, cheat on your wife, let your kids run riot, become an addict, what's the outcome? A better life?

So you have ACTUAL experience in the reality of life, yes? Put the effort in, get something back. Put no effort in, get fucked. Would that be fair?

Now tell me how and why the reality of life suddenly changes when you get a title attached to your name. What's different - in terms of reality?

You just defined corruption - didn't you? A different set of rules for one class. Regardless of their performance.

Now tell me, what's to stop that privileged class abusing their position? Do we just assume they are always virtuous? Let me ask you, if you COULD rack up your credit card, cheat on your wife, let your kids run riot, become an addict - and there were no consequences, what would stop you doing it? Your character, right? You'd know it was wrong. You'd have the self-respect and desire for personal dignity that defined the boundaries. Of course you have to be a moral person to exercise such restriant.

But if you aren't a moral person?

Coincidentally - not - it's easier for immoral people to get to the top because they are prepared to do things that moral people would never do.

Assuming you are a moral person, is it possible you can't even conceive just how fucking abhorrent and immoral people can be?

[Niall_Quinn]

Certain people, by no means all people. Most people are moral. If not fucked up in other ways.

[Niall_Quinn]

Counter-intuitively, I think the way to improve refereeing competence is to massively increase penalties for dissent.

The reason referees are so shit at the moment is because so many would be refs are hounded out of the game at the grass roots level because they can't hack the abuse. I know that's why I stopped doing it, how many talented refs have we lost because of that?

If, at the top of the game, we started giving anybody but the captain for talking to the referee without being asked a yellow card, we'd see about 2 weeks of (very fun to watch) chaos, then dissent would be essentially eliminated.

They've started giving refs at grass-roots the ability to sinbin players for dissent which I'm fully behind, but the whole culture needs to change from top to bottom in order to get to a place where the refs are the top are the best at the job, not the best at dealing with abuse.

If the players were actually professional there would be no dissent. But they aren't. They are a bunch of cunts - let's face it. With the few exceptions. Wasn't like that in the past. In fact Arsenal has a great history of sportsmanship, though they are not alone. Once it was the norm. The players are total cunts. You give a bunch of little shits a ton of money, or the prospect of making a ton of money if they trample over everything in their path. You think a ref is going to curb their cuntishness?

You could make the rule change but it wouldn't stop the modern player being a bone fide, fully paid up, piece of shit.

However, this could be one good rule change along with a thousand rescinded rules and the application of a few more obvious rules.

This should be a sport, not an industry. That's where you have to begin with your revolution.

[Niall_Quinn]

Oh, and the orange card is the shittiest idea of the lot. We've opened our throats to more American sewage than can be swallowed. Why do we need second helpings?