Dori Flouti

🚨 NEW YOUTUBE VIDEO 🚨 YOU LOVE KOBBIE! HE STARTS FOR ENGLAND BUT IT'S MY DECISION! 😤 | Ruben Amorim | Wolves v Man Utd WATCH HERE 👉 youtu.be/OX_KdxOfLRo

Does @HenryWinter and the other fancy pundits have "plausible deniability" in relation to the alleged bias of Michael Oliver towards Manchester United? And some thoughts on why things go wrong in our society. "Plausible deniability" is a legal concept referring to (a) how credible a claim must be, (b) of lack of knowledge of some wrongdoing, (c) by someone in charge of something, -- (d) for that person to not be held accountable of the wrongdoing. Lets apply this standard, on the journalists who don't cover Michael Oliver's alleged bias against MUFC. Background: Being a referee in football is a tough job. Most of us are probably not even close to being suitable for the task, even if we trained for it for years. To become a referee in the PL, it will take many years of refereeing to rise through the ranks, and the competition to get a well paid PL job is tough. Hence, there is a strong assumption that persons unfit for the task, will be caught along the way before getting to the PL. Should someone like you and me, who are unfit to be a PL referee, still manage to become a PL referee, it is up to the PGMOL to supervise us and kick us out. If the PGMOL doesn't do its job -- in our society -- "media" has a special role, in certain ways even protected in the law, as a supervising body. Hence, it is at times referred to as the "fourth estate" (next to the courts, police and legislator). Almost all "fancy" journalists ridicule any claim that Oliver is biased towards Manchester United, and does not cover any of the issues fans have with the referee. Is this stance well-founded? Lets look at the indisputable evidence: The last two seasons, Michael Oliver has on three occasions as VAR, sent the on-field referee to the screen to review a penalty. The latest, resulting in a penalty against De Ligt for a handball, is very controversial in light of Oliver's previous record, but its still a penalty that can be called. The other two sticks out tremendously in relation to the established norm that a non-calls by a referee must be a "clear and obvious error", for VAR to intervene and award a penalty. In the first one, Rasmus clearly use his arm to slow up Rodri's advancement towards the ball on a corner. Whether this is a foul or not according to the rule book is irrelevant, since everyone watching football knows that these things go on every single corner. Oliver's intervention on VAR, awarding a penalty for this little pull, really stands out. On the second occasion, when Oliver stepped in and called the referee to the screen in a game between West Ham and United, there is also a unanimous view that something went very wrong, including statements to that effect from Webb and even Dermot Gallagher. But we are dealing with humans here, and everyone make mistakes? True and true. But lets put these mistakes in the right context. According to Howard Webb, the reason Oliver made the mistake against West Ham was because he got "hyper-focused" on De Ligt's leg. What he really is saying is that Oliver lost focus on the proper context, that he was VAR, the 'clear and obvious-error' threshold -- and made his decision solely on the fact that he could see that there probably was contact between one United player and one West Ham player in the penalty area. Is this credible? Objections like this can be credible or not credible. Someone accused of shoplifting will often claim that they put something in their pocked by accident, meant to pay for it, but forgot to pay for it. If there is video evidence of someone on multiple occasions going to a shop and putting 5 lbs of beef tenderloin in their inner pocket "forgetting to pay for it" while paying for other cheaper products -- the 'I forgot' defense will not be paid attention to. If the accused is a pensioner with dementia claiming to accidentally have forgot to pay for a product, perhaps its more credible. Michael Oliver has been the VAR on 34 occasions the last two seasons. In those 34 games, he has on -- four (4) -- occasions sent the on-field referee to the screen, resulting in a penalty that wasn't called on the pitch. On three (3) times, it has been done against Manchester United. Statistically, United should account for 1/20 of 4 VAR penalty interventions, i.e. 0.2. The fact that the club accounts for 3 means that its a statistical deviation of no less than 1,500%. Before this season there was a lot of focus on a 6 point plan implemented by PGMOL to improve VAR. At the core of this 6 point plan was the idea that 'Clear and obvious' remains the key test, and a higher bar for intervention was reaffirmed. A claim that Oliver on two occasions completely lost track of the fact that he was the VAR and that a clear and obvious threshold exist -- against the same team -- is just not of the credible sort. Like why should he on these occasions completely lose track of his role and rules? In a court of law, it would clearly not even give rise to 'reasonable doubt'. Some more context: Statistically, if we look at the broader picture, in fact, it looks much much worse. If we look at the average the last 3 years in the PL: *About 25% of all penalties Oliver has awarded (including on VAR) over this period has been against Manchester United -- which is a statistical deviation of 500% (benchmark should be 1/20 or 5%). No penalty has been awarded for United. This is not entirely a coincidence, Oliver is the ref that basically gives the fewest penalties in the PL the last two years. He has only given one in 6% of the games this season. *About 14.3% of the red cards Oliver has given, has been given to players of Manchester United, which is a statistical deviation of app. 285.7%., no red card given to the opponent. *He has given 57% more yellow cards to Utd than its opponent, and Utd (2.63) is the team he has given the 3rd highest amount of yellow cards per game behind Chelesa (2.65) and Sheffield Utd (3 in 1 game, so very small sample size). United is not a team that takes an unusual amount of yellow cards when reffed by other referees, ranking 6th this season and 8th last season. *From start of 23/24 to February 2024 -- 70% of all cards he gave for "dissent" was given to United players, which is a statistical deviation of app. 3,500%. During 22/23 and 23/24 about 33% of all yellow cards for dissent was given to United players, which is a statistical deviation of about 600%. This season he has given out a very high number of yellow cards for dissent to everyone, and probably brought down the deviation quite significantly. Other relevant circumstances: Much has been made of the fact that Michael Oliver is a Newcastle fan. But that is what it is, finding referees that has no affection towards any top English club in England is going to be hard. PGMOL must work with it, but it is not something that in itself can be persumed to cause issues. What -- indisputably -- is very suspect however is that Michael Oliver has accepted well paid side-gigs from the owners of Manchester City and Newcastle. Is it really OK for a referee in the PL to work on the side for owners of PL clubs? If not, how could it have happened? Is there really any questionmarks whether a = should be put between the owner of City and/or Newcastle and the UAE and the Saudi regime respectively? Seems very odd. And I can only speak for myself, but I don't like it at all. A very strict standard should be applied in this regard, not the opposite. But if anything -- this should of course clearly warrant further scrutiny from the media of the people involved. Conclusion: A claim from someone like Henry Winters that all referees are unbiased, including Michael Oliver, is from my viewpoint on par with a serial shoplifter caught with 20 lbs of tenderloin in his/her pant legs. We have not only seen very disappointing behavior from current and former referees of the PL, giving rise to 'tip of the ice berg' concerns. PGMOL has been concerned with issues concerning racism, and is purely objectively speaking -- the type of "organism" that often get very big governmental and functional issues. No real third party supervision, buddy corruption would be hard to detect, but almost required to rise in the ranks, the referees as a group are very exposed and must be protected and so forth. What does this mean? Why is it relevant to think along the lines of the above? From my point of view, you kind of make your own bed as a society. In this case you got a referee who seems to have gone rouge and is trying his best to impact the outcome of the Premier League through his position as a referee, everyone can see that something is going on. The "establishment" is sweeping it under the carpet, you get zero brownie points from covering it. It is someone else's problem. Its a free world and everyone can do what they want. But nothing is happening in a vacuum, and everything that happens has side effects, creates rings on the water. You can't as a journalist like Henry Winter enable something like this, and then jump on a high horse and complain about some immoral behavior and expect everyone to listen. What will the result be? Since referees in the PL clearly are not impartial, can you compete without refs in the pocket of a club? What actions will owners with dubious morals take? Will there be a young lad or girl out there who is a Manchester United fan, who will become a referee in the PL and then exercise their influence to decide the outcome of the league? Perhaps that is what drives Michael Oliver, maybe he saw some injustice during his youth and in his world he is just balancing the books. But two wrongs don't make one right. And the impact on our society from what goes on in the football world should be assumed to be high -- given the reach the sport have. I can only speak for myself, but one way of putting it is that I am personally invested in the PL, and I think its a darn shame that people don't take better care of the game of football. And, no, you can't watch Oliver's body of work without acknowledging that there is some real concerns, we are way past the point of "plausible deniability". Counter claims like 'fans of all teams say the same', 'it evens out', 'under Fergie it was the opposite' -- etc. -- are just nonsense.