Fulham 3-2 Wolves: Verdict Thread

[Kenny]

Guaranteed we get a dodgy decision in our favour when we're already 0-4 down against Arsenal.

Handy boost just before half time then...

 

[The Dude]

No idea to be honest, as I said I'm not on the conspiracy theory train, but if I had to guess (not believe!) at things

- Maybe they took umbrage at being questioned by us
- Maybe they just don't like wolverhampton
- Maybe there is a personal vendetta somewhere
- Maybe there are geo-politics at play between (although all the big players seem to get on)
- Maybe they don't like some of things GoN said about VAR / officials when he was at b'mouth
- Maybe PGMOL are trying to (or have been asked) engineer a more competitive league and view us as a team who will be comfortable so can give points away and because we're relative no marks there won't be much of a fuss made

The thing about it being official incompetence that I question is that it all seems to be in one direction. This might well be my own bias and relatively small sample size of games I watch, but the media does seem to be reflecting that we're a little hard done by of late.

It is a small sample size, just 13 games. You would expect the dodgy decisions given against us to reflect that small sample size but 38% of our games have involved awful decisions that have cost us points in 5 games equating to between 7 and 9 points lost depending on your viewpoint.

 

[The Dude]

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Okay then, a shop owner who keeps his "penny" sweets on the counter is distracted by kids pushing jars of mayonnaise off the shelves...

He chases them off and clears the mess. When he returns to the counter he notices three containers of sweets are missing...

He checks his CCTV which reveals a gang of masked children stealing the sweets.

Years later, despite the evidence he is none the wiser as to who the perpetrators were!!!

 

[Banjo]

You haven't gone to any trouble as to even hypothesise why someone up high has an agenda against Wolves and what they hope to gain from (on your case) instructing various referees to rule against Wolves unfairly.

 

[Tony Towner]

You haven't gone to any trouble as to even hypothesise why someone up high has an agenda against Wolves and what they hope to gain from (on your case) instructing various referees to rule against Wolves unfairly.

Is it because they like sweets?

 

[Tredman]

 

[Alan]

Is it because they like sweets?

Get Hwang to the oven, ASAP!

 

[AndyWolves]

It is a small sample size, just 13 games. You would expect the dodgy decisions given against us to reflect that small sample size but 38% of our games have involved awful decisions that have cost us points in 5 games equating to between 7 and 9 points lost depending on your viewpoint.

I was more thinking that questionable decisions will happen, because officials aren't infallible. But the way those decisions land, I think, should be more evenly distributed, or at least less prevalent against some (my own) perceived 'norm'.

I guess it's a question of whether this is just some kind of statistical anomaly (like Leon Clarke's scoring spree when we got promoted) or something else.

The something else could include "conspiracy theory" stuff, which I'd put at a chance of somewhere just above 0, but not 0 (because I don't have all the facts in this scenario).

 

[The Dude]

You haven't gone to any trouble as to even hypothesise why someone up high has an agenda against Wolves and what they hope to gain from (on your case) instructing various referees to rule against Wolves unfairly.

Who are you? Jessica Fletcher? Most normal people when they find a body just call the police. They don't draw up a list of suspects and find a motive before they do so.

 

[Quirkafleeg]

This conversation could end up very sticky.

 

[Alan]

Who are you? Jessica Fletcher? Most normal people when they find a body just call the police. They don't draw up a list of suspects and find a motive before they do so.

Except you have given them a motive. That they, for some reason, hate Wolves.

It's nonsense.

 

[Quirkafleeg]

Except you have given them a motive. That they, for some reason, hate Wolves.

It's nonsense.

 

[Banjo]

Who are you? Jessica Fletcher? Most normal people when they find a body just call the police. They don't draw up a list of suspects and find a motive before they do so.

We all know the decisions were wrong. We've all "called the police" in your shit analogy. You're the only one apportioning a motive.

 

[The Dude]

We all know the decisions were wrong. We've all "called the police" in your shit analogy. You're the only one apportioning a motive.

What motive have I apportioned? Quote me...

I've said nothing of the sort, I don't know why decisions are going against us. It's happening so often I find it hard to believe there's no bias against us is all. It's very suspicious.

 

[Jinky]

This thread has got weird.

Those that have said the following are more or less likely to be spot on:

1. There is no conspiracy
2. The officials and VAR are incompetent and as decisions are still subjective, we're regularly seeing dodgy calls
3. There may be an element of bias in some referee's minds because of past experiences (Atwell and Salisbury seem like the most likely candidates) which are likely having a subconscious effect on our matches

 

[Banjo]

What motive have I apportioned? Quote me...

I've said nothing of the sort, I don't know why decisions are going against us. It's happening so often I find it hard to believe there's no bias against us is all. It's very suspicious.

Therefore, you believe there is a bias against us. But whenever you're pushed to back that up, you respond with "I don't know". No, you don't know, yet you keep on throwing around allegations without any foundation. And by engaging in conspiracy, you're letting PGMOL off the hook for their incompetence.

 

[The Bear]

This thread has got weird.

Those that have said the following are more or less likely to be spot on:

1. There is no conspiracy
2. The officials and VAR are incompetent and as decisions are still subjective, we're regularly seeing dodgy calls
3. There may be an element of bias in some referee's minds because of past experiences (Atwell and Salisbury seem like the most likely candidates) which are likely having a subconscious effect on our matches

Atwell definitely doesn't like us from what I've read.

 

[The Dude]

Therefore, you believe there is a bias against us.

It certainly appears that way. Although "believe" is a bit strong and you're putting words in my mouth.

But whenever you're pushed to back that up, you respond with "I don't know".

I have no evidence. I've no evidence in the Maddie McCann case either but I'm not employing Mr or Mrs McCann as a babysitter any time soon.

No, you don't know, yet you keep on throwing around allegations without any foundation.

Since when do you need evidence to suspect something? This forum is not the old bailey.

And by engaging in conspiracy, you're letting PGMOL off the hook for their incompetence.

Not at all. They're either corrupt or inept, I'm not sure which. However the ineptitude is becoming far too frequent for me to "believe" that's all it is.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Not at all. They're either corrupt or inept, I'm not sure which. However the ineptitude is becoming far too frequent for me to "believe" that's all it is.

The get out there is look back to 2017/18 when we had no VAR and they were just as bloody awful, with no possible get out for us when they messed up.

I'd rather watch Steve Martin's entire back catalogue of films than have Steve Martin referee us again. And Steve Martin hasn't made a good film in about 40 years.

 

[Tony Towner]

The get out there is look back to 2017/18 when we had no VAR and they were just as bloody awful, with no possible get out for us when they messed up.

I'd rather watch Steve Martin's entire back catalogue of films than have Steve Martin referee us again. And Steve Martin hasn't made a good film in about 40 years.

Jerk