The Discussion Thread for Those Who Sincerely Believe This Will All Even Out

[Chuck Murray]

... because if everything is taken at face value, and honest mistakes are indeed honest and not driven by some sort of bias - conscious or otherwise - officiating errors should be evening out, and some form of basic fairness should exist for ALL clubs, no? For better or worse, I think we've all become way too accustomed to accepting that clubs of a certain stature will get the rub o' the green more often than not, but now it seems that very same rub o' the green is also going the way of similar and smaller clubs, too. Does this mean the breaks that are no doubt eventually coming our way are going to be coming from the small handful of mid-table coasters whose position is neither viable for Europe nor threatened by relegation? Or do our Chinese owners need to sell back to Steve Morgan or a US syndicate??

If you sincerely believe this is all down to bad luck - as even our manager has come to discuss (sarcastically) quite often of late - this is the place for you ... consider it an open challenge for everyone to list the instances this season (or the past 3 seasons) where we've gotten as "lucky" as our opponents have in early 2023 to date.

 

[Bulls the man]

Fortune favors the brave.under nuno we seamed to get the rubof the green especially during the championship ascendancy.I can’t help thinking lackluster displays seem to coincide with these farcical decisions.

 

[Willywolf]

This could be a short thread. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy tbh. I don’t see what anyone would have to gain as any corruption would be outed given the surveillance and scrutiny around us all nowadays. Plus, you can be sure that if that was going on, somebody would crack, or be caught out at some point.

Take Ivan Toney as an example of getting caught. Sure there is a lot of money in the premier league, but I’m not convinced refs/clubs/players would risk their livelihoods and potentially their liberty to keep little old wolves down.

I get the idea of wanting to keep the top six as flag bearers for ‘best league in the world’ status, but I don’t feel it is anything more than downright incompetency that Howard Webb must sort out. I think it’s a mixture of out and out ineptitude and a tiny possibility there is a little unconscious bias against us for daring to complain about the standard of officiating.

Edit: I’m not convinced it’ll even itself out over the course of this season. The number of terrible decisions against us this season would need to be evened out at a laughable rate in our last ten games, which I don’t see happening. It may take 2 years for us to go, ‘ah yes, they got a ****ty decision against us and we got lucky.’

 

[Big Saft Kid]

This could be a short thread. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy tbh. I don’t see what anyone would have to gain as any corruption would be outed given the surveillance and scrutiny around us all nowadays. Plus, you can be sure that if that was going on, somebody would crack, or be caught out at some point.

Take Ivan Toney as an example of getting caught. Sure there is a lot of money in the premier league, but I’m not convinced refs/clubs/players would risk their livelihoods and potentially their liberty to keep little old wolves down.

I get the idea of wanting to keep the top six as flag bearers for ‘best league in the world’ status, but I don’t feel it is anything more than downright incompetency that Howard Webb must sort out. I think it’s a mixture of out and out ineptitude and a tiny possibility there is a little unconscious bias against us for daring to complain about the standard of officiating.

Edit: I’m not convinced it’ll even itself out over the course of this season. The number of terrible decisions against us this season would need to be evened out at a laughable rate in our last ten games, which I don’t see happening. It may take 2 years for us to go, ‘ah yes, they got a ****ty decision against us and we got lucky.’

Toney has admitted well over 200 instances of betting on matches. Why hasn't he been suspended pending his no doubt long ban? Still scoring goals for Brentford

 

[Chuck Murray]

Have I read correctly in the media today that Stuart Beswick (one of yesterday's AR's) is potentially being alleged to have made remarks that incited Matheus' meltdown yesterday?

 

[manchesterwolf17]

Fortune favors the brave.under nuno we seamed to get the rubof the green especially during the championship ascendancy.I can’t help thinking lackluster displays seem to coincide with these farcical decisions.

Definite truth to this. We've had some horrendous errors against us this season, but when you're constantly wanting to be in tight games and play a certain way it relies too much on this not happening.

 

[AndyWolves]

Luiz on Jose Vs arsenal a few seasons back. Pen & red card. Thought the red was harsh but given what luiz had done didn't feel bad at all.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Have I read correctly in the media today that Stuart Beswick (one of yesterday's AR's) is potentially being alleged to have made remarks that incited Matheus' meltdown yesterday?

According to Percy in the Telegraph:-

“Wolves are set to submit video evidence which they believe will prove Nunes did not commit violent conduct. Telegraph Sport understands that Nunes was provoked by a remark made by assistant linesman Gary Beswick.”

If true, that’s a ****ing disgrace and he should be struck off and made to publicly apologise to Nunes, the club and fans.

 

[Chuck Murray]

According to Percy in the Telegraph:-

“Wolves are set to submit video evidence which they believe will prove Nunes did not commit violent conduct. Telegraph Sport understands that Nunes was provoked by a remark made by assistant linesman Gary Beswick.”

If true, that’s a ****ing disgrace and he should be struck off and made to publicly apologise to Nunes, the club and fans.

Best possible outcome ... Beswick is caught running his mouth on audio/video, forcing the FA to drop Matheus' red ... Wolves promise to keep the details quiet ... and with some leverage (blackmail?) then the PGMOL starts treating Wolves fairly.

 

[Chriswwfc]

According to Percy in the Telegraph:-

“Wolves are set to submit video evidence which they believe will prove Nunes did not commit violent conduct. Telegraph Sport understands that Nunes was provoked by a remark made by assistant linesman Gary Beswick.”

If true, that’s a ****ing disgrace and he should be struck off and made to publicly apologise to Nunes, the club and fans.

What on earth must he have said?

 

[lostwolf]

What's all this *******s on here about 'unconscious bias'?! This is a term/concept, of American origin, appropriated from theories attempting to explain racist behaviour amongst people who are not deliberately racist. Without commenting on the validity (or testability) of that theory, how the **** does it apply to us as a Midlands association football club?

If refs don't like us I reckon they know they don't like us! But I suspect most refs don't have feelings either way, as much as that might go against ideas we have about our importance.

An alternative hypothesis: a) some refs are out of their depth with the pace and sophistication of the cheating in the PL; b) some refs are ****; c) bad luck is just that, nothing more; and d) our constant whinging ****es refs off so they're less inclined to give us decisions?

 

[Sussex Wolf]

What on earth must he have said?

I don’t know, but if it suggests he wasn’t impartial, it would be very damning for him, and potentially for other officials involved. Marriner was the fourth official, so must have been close by, and you’d think consulted by Salisbury before he gave Nunes the red. If so, and he heard but ignored what was said, then he’s implicated. Conversely, if Salisbury didn’t consult him, then why not? Best case, it undermines the integrity of the officials involved in the game, and then what?

 

[Contrarian]

Luiz on Jose Vs arsenal a few seasons back. Pen & red card. Thought the red was harsh but given what luiz had done didn't feel bad at all.

If only the crowd had been there. Still regret that, in a way!

 

[Chriswwfc]

I don’t know, but if it suggests he wasn’t impartial, it would be very damning for him, and potentially for other officials involved. Marriner was the fourth official, so must have been close by, and you’d think consulted by Salisbury before he gave Nunes the red. If so, and he heard but ignored what was said, then he’s implicated. Conversely, if Salisbury didn’t consult him, then why not? Best case, it undermines the integrity of the officials involved in the game, and then what?

Interesting.
Doubt it will ever be revealed if he did say something it would be damning.

I do think our Portuguese contingency may be one reason why we’re disliked. The general consensus to every non wolves fan is that all of our 25 match day players are Portuguese. Perhaps it was some sort of slur re nationality?

Not sure how true the incident is though as the Lino was facing away from nunes so he’d have done well to hear him.

 

[Contrarian]

What on earth must he have said?

Purely speculation, something about "cheating forriners" perhaps? I clearly remember Preston manager saying this in Nunos championship season. Alex Neil, I think. Bunch of thugs they were. Hostile atmosphere. The irony was, Alex Neal the genius reckoned our players were time wasting by feigning injury when we were a goal down and desperate for the equaliser! At the time, was surprised he didn't get pulled up for his comments. Anyway...it will be interesting to see what emerges from this latest farce - unless it's all swept under the "no accountability" carpet.

Maybe he just said "Pep was having a laugh when he said you were one of the best players in world".

 

[Contrarian]

What's all this *******s on here about 'unconscious bias'?! This is a term/concept, of American origin, appropriated from theories attempting to explain racist behaviour amongst people who are not deliberately racist.

I think it is more of a "Science" origin than an "American" origin. But maybe the psychologists who have studied it extensively were just exercising their own unconscious bias.

 

[AndyWolves]

What's all this *******s on here about 'unconscious bias'?! This is a term/concept, of American origin, appropriated from theories attempting to explain racist behaviour amongst people who are not deliberately racist. Without commenting on the validity (or testability) of that theory, how the **** does it apply to us as a Midlands association football club?

If refs don't like us I reckon they know they don't like us! But I suspect most refs don't have feelings either way, as much as that might go against ideas we have about our importance.

An alternative hypothesis: a) some refs are out of their depth with the pace and sophistication of the cheating in the PL; b) some refs are ****; c) bad luck is just that, nothing more; and d) our constant whinging ****es refs off so they're less inclined to give us decisions?

I think unconscious bias can apply everywhere. If someone tells me they're a west brom fan, I unconsciously wonder how intelligent they are.

 

[Puregold]

I honestly think the poor decisions we are receiving is down to the fact we had the audacity to complain about the very poor officiating that we have seen, not only in our games, and the good old boys club, officials, have got our card marked!!!

 

[Ned]

I honestly think the poor decisions we are receiving is down to the fact we had the audacity to complain about the very poor officiating that we have seen, not only in our games, and the good old boys club, officials, have got our card marked!!!

I didn’t think this and choose not to but it’s getting tougher and tougher to come to any other conclusion.

 

[lostwolf]

I think it is more of a "Science" origin than an "American" origin. But maybe the psychologists who have studied it extensively were just exercising their own unconscious bias.

Hmm, I think it's both: it's an American construct (in the true sense, not as in it's made up!). It's from social science, so in terms of actual scientific objectivity (as in the application of the scientific method) we could get into many debates there. As a Clinical Psychologist in the NHS myself I don't want to criticise my own too much but we ought to remain curious and open minded when we're talking about psychological constructs.

For me, applying it to our refs is a bit of a stretch. Wolverhampton Wanderers FC do not have the history that the descendants of slaves and those that lived with and oppressed them do.

My point is that some refs might not like us but that's not 'unconscious bias', it's just not liking us. Let's not throw the shroud of mystery over something quite simple.

 

[Mardenboroughs Shoulder]

Even out? Ha, ha, ha

 

[YouGottaRaulWithIt]

I didn’t think this and choose not to but it’s getting tougher and tougher to come to any other conclusion.

I'm sorry, but it's all my fault. I remember now at the Molineux a couple of years ago I made a slanderous comment to the referee about his parenthood, and the look he gave me said 'you will pay for that mate'.

I was right though. He is a *******.

 

[Sammy Chungs Tracksuit]

According to Percy in the Telegraph:-

“Wolves are set to submit video evidence which they believe will prove Nunes did not commit violent conduct. Telegraph Sport understands that Nunes was provoked by a remark made by assistant linesman Gary Beswick.”

If true, that’s a ****ing disgrace and he should be struck off and made to publicly apologise to Nunes, the club and fans.

Both the Traore foul and the alleged incident with the linesman were in close proximity to our old "friend" Andre Marinner and we were shafted us as usual. I hope that there is some microphone footage available.

On the Traore shirt pull, I get it that the ref played on as not every shirt pull gets play stopped however as the shirt pull delayed Adama getting to the ball and the Leeds goal directly resulting from that same passage of play then the VAR review of the 4th goal should have been chalked off and a foul awarded.

There is a parallel with the Jiminez goal at home to Newcastle from a Neto assist. Neto was adjudged to have fouled a Newcastle player in the Northbank half of the pitch, was allowed to play on and delivered an assist for Jiminez to score in the South Bank goal. That goal was chalked off because of the foul where the ref had originally waved play on. Same should have applied yesterday but the PGMOL reinterpret the rules every week.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

Both the Traore foul and the alleged incident with the linesman were in close proximity to our old "friend" Andre Marinner and we were shafted us as usual. I hope that there is some microphone footage available.

On the Traore shirt pull, I get it that the ref played on as not every shirt pull gets play stopped however as the shirt pull delayed Adame getting to the ball and the Leeds goal directly resulting from that same passage of play then the VAR review of the 4th goal should have been chalked off and a foul awarded.

There is a parallel with the Jiminez goal at home to Newcastle from a Neto assist. Neto was adjudged to have fouled a Newcastle player in the Northbank half of the pitch, was allowed to play on and delivered an assist for Jiminez to score in the South Bank goal. That goal was chalked off because of the foul where the ref had originally waved play on. Same should have applied yesterday but the PGMOL reinterpret the rules every week.

There is a link to the Nunes incident on the other thread now. It’s a farce. “Violent conduct” is ridiculous.

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

These threads were ****ing tedious 2 or 3 months ago; they're just beyond boring now. If people seriously believe there is a group of officials who want to relegate us by giving us bad decisions then that's also beyond bonkers. We've had, is it 4 atrocious decisions go against us recently - that's 4 different refs + 4 VAR refs. So have these 8 individuals all colluded, for whatever reason, to ensure we lose each game? Lost Wolf has it right above, some refs are out of their depth, some refs are just **** and bad luck plays a part. Wolves are just too insignificant in the scheme of things to merit any special attention by refs.

 

[VancouverWolf]

The only way to make a reasonable post is if we have some credible info or data on this topic.
Has any independent media organization, university, sports group etc ever taken the time or money to take a real hard look at this?
If not then we’re just spinning our wheels.

BTW, if there was bias to the top 5 clubs, why would the other 15 club owners not make a fuss over it? Maybe Guo and Jeff think that whilst refs make inaccurate calls from time to time, there is no bias towards Wolves.

 

[wwbug]

You make your own luck .
Now coincidences that’s up for discussion.

 

[Fenrir_]

Fortune favors the brave.under nuno we seamed to get the rubof the green especially during the championship ascendancy.I can’t help thinking lackluster displays seem to coincide with these farcical decisions.

Definitely had the rub of the green at Ashton Gate, The Riverside and The Cardiff City Stadium that season...

 

[Sussex Wolf]

These threads were ****ing tedious 2 or 3 months ago; they're just beyond boring now. If people seriously believe there is a group of officials who want to relegate us by giving us bad decisions then that's also beyond bonkers. We've had, is it 4 atrocious decisions go against us recently - that's 4 different refs + 4 VAR refs. So have these 8 individuals all colluded, for whatever reason, to ensure we lose each game? Lost Wolf has it right above, some refs are out of their depth, some refs are just **** and bad luck plays a part. Wolves are just too insignificant in the scheme of things to merit any special attention by refs.

Words fail me reading your posts. Do you even watch the games, or do you just come on here for fun?

 

[SuperGran]

that's 4 different refs + 4 VAR refs.

The same ref made two blatant mistakes Andy Madely that two apologies for the same ref.

 

[oldgolded]

No doubt in my mind that the 'big' clubs get decisions that the medium to smaller ones do not. It was not always this way, but since the inception of the premier league I feel most referees are now star struck and in awe of the top managers and star players.

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

Words fail me reading your posts. Do you even watch the games, or do you just come on here for fun?

And what is your point Sussex?

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

The same ref made two blatant mistakes Andy Madely that two apologies for the same ref.

Ok, 7 officials colluded together, for some unexplained reason, to ensure the big decisions went against us? Why would they do that if that is what you believe?

 

[oldgoldheart]

Definitely had the rub of the green at Ashton Gate, The Riverside and The Cardiff City Stadium that season...

Batth sending off? Nuno sent off?

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Ok, 7 officials colluded together, for some unexplained reason, to ensure the big decisions went against us? Why would they do that if that is what you believe?

To protect their agendas whatever they are

 

[Chuck Murray]

OK, so I'm starting to make some sense of it all ... the non-PK award on the Traore incident yesterday is helping me to figure this all out ... Adama being SO fast and SO big, the match officials figure there is no one who can keep up with him, and furthermore even if they were to be within touching distance for the fleetest of fleeting moments, there is no way possible anyone else could be strong enough to bundle him over. Hence, if Adama appears to get his shirt tugged OR is hauled down in the opponent's box, then he is either not trying hard enough or is downright guilty of simulation. Am I getting closer to understanding this now?!?

And just so Adama doesn't feel too hard done by, we will award some fouls in his favor, so long as they are in neutral areas or situations, or when his team is down by a goal or two. Preferably both, correct?!?

In other news ... after remaining mum in the aftermath of numerous other Wolves-related controversies, presumably on the basis that the on-field officials/PGMOL and/or VAR have handled all appropriately, the beloved FA is apparently going to take a second look at Podence's alleged spitting incident, which neither the on-field officials/PGMOL nor VAR have chosen to penalize after more than ample review.

As distasteful as the incident may have been if proven, I'll be relieved when the FA issues an apology to Notts Forest for anything the other folks may have missed. I mean, certainly, if an apology from above is good enough for Wolves, it should be good enough for those poor Forest folks. Fair is fair, and I am not an unreasonable man.

 

[glorybox]

OK, so I'm starting to make some sense of it all ... the non-PK award on the Traore incident yesterday is helping me to figure this all out ... Adama being SO fast and SO big, the match officials figure there is no one who can keep up with him, and furthermore even if they were to be within touching distance for the fleetest of fleeting moments, there is no way possible anyone else could be strong enough to bundle him over. Hence, if Adama appears to get his shirt tugged OR is hauled down in the opponent's box, then he is either not trying hard enough or is downright guilty of simulation. Am I getting closer to understanding this now?!?

And just so Adama doesn't feel too hard done by, we will award some fouls in his favor, so long as they are in neutral areas or situations, or when his team is down by a goal or two. Preferably both, correct?!?

In other news ... after remaining mum in the aftermath of numerous other Wolves-related controversies, presumably on the basis that the on-field officials/PGMOL and/or VAR have handled all appropriately, the beloved FA is apparently going to take a second look at Podence's alleged spitting incident, which neither the on-field officials/PGMOL nor VAR have chosen to penalize after more than ample review.

As distasteful as the incident may have been if proven, I'll be relieved when the FA issues an apology to Notts Forest for anything the other folks may have missed. I mean, certainly, if an apology from above is good enough for Wolves, it should be good enough for those poor Forest folks. Fair is fair, and I am not an unreasonable man.

The scary thing is I don’t think your comments about Adama are funny or incorrect.

 

[Contrarian]

OK, so I'm starting to make some sense of it all ... the non-PK award on the Traore incident yesterday is helping me to figure this all out ... Adama being SO fast and SO big, the match officials figure there is no one who can keep up with him, and furthermore even if they were to be within touching distance for the fleetest of fleeting moments, there is no way possible anyone else could be strong enough to bundle him over. Hence, if Adama appears to get his shirt tugged OR is hauled down in the opponent's box, then he is either not trying hard enough or is downright guilty of simulation. Am I getting closer to understanding this now?!?

I think there's some truth in this. It seems like he has to be fouled a lot harder than anyone else to get a free kick. Imagine if he was at Liverpool or Man Utd! He would win 10 more free kicks a match and a penalty every 2 or 3 matches. You know, the decisions he never gets for us.

A Leeds supporting friend, hence unbiased , has also said when watching us, he's noticed that refs have a higher bar for fouls on Traore. So it's noit just our Wolves bias.

And just so Adama doesn't feel too hard done by, we will award some fouls in his favor, so long as they are in neutral areas or situations, or when his team is down by a goal or two. Preferably both, correct?!?

In other news ... after remaining mum in the aftermath of numerous other Wolves-related controversies, presumably on the basis that the on-field officials/PGMOL and/or VAR have handled all appropriately, the beloved FA is apparently going to take a second look at Podence's alleged spitting incident, which neither the on-field officials/PGMOL nor VAR have chosen to penalize after more than ample review.

As distasteful as the incident may have been if proven, I'll be relieved when the FA issues an apology to Notts Forest for anything the other folks may have missed. I mean, certainly, if an apology from above is good enough for Wolves, it should be good enough for those poor Forest folks. Fair is fair, and I am not an unreasonable man.

VAR decisions can't be overturned for any club. Unless their name begins with a W, ends with an S and has an OLVE in the middle. It's the law, so fairs fair.

For anyone who hasn't figured it out yet: that they are making it all up as they go along. Interpretations change week by week. Contact is needed and not needed. Handball is both accidental and deliberate, unless the attacker is a defender and the lines can't be adjusted without it being too obvious they are bent. Bent being the operative word.

 

[Contrarian]

The only way to make a reasonable post is if we have some credible info or data on this topic.

How about this (from Loughborough University of Sports Science) :

League Table of Players Sent off For Running at Ref in Past 4 seasons
1. Wolves 1

(no other entrants. Incidents unknown for any other club)

Number of times VAR ignored blatant Shirt Pull in Build up to Goal
1. Wolves 1

(no other entrants. Though 10+ goals against other teams have been disallowed for shirt pulls in the build up)

Formal Apologies for Penalties Denied that should have been given by VAR
1. Wolves

(no other entrants.

Has any independent media organization, university, sports group etc ever taken the time or money to take a real hard look at this?
If not then we’re just spinning our wheels.

No. Though bias towards home teams has been studied and proven to happen. I would love their to be a study on bias towards big clubs in the Premier League as I know it would have only one outcome, the bias is so obvious if you watch enough matches over time. The problem is: is it actually a problem? 90% of those watching Premier League football globally, follow one of those big clubs. They don't want Fulham in the Champions League instead of Man U. Those bars in faraway countries change channel when its Wolves v Brighton. (understandable, that one!) . They would be happy with the big 6 playing each other every week. 30 times a season.

If referees kept giving "contentious" decisions to the underdogs, that study would have been done already. No expense spared. But they don't. So it isn't.

BTW, if there was bias to the top 5 clubs, why would the other 15 club owners not make a fuss over it? Maybe Guo and Jeff think that whilst refs make inaccurate calls from time to time, there is no bias towards Wolves.

Because as soon as you make a fuss, you get players sent off for running towards the ref and blatant penalties denied.

 

[VancouverWolf]

How about this (from Loughborough University of Sports Science) :

League Table of Players Sent off For Running at Ref in Past 4 seasons
1. Wolves 1

(no other entrants. Incidents unknown for any other club)

Number of times VAR ignored blatant Shirt Pull in Build up to Goal
1. Wolves 1

(no other entrants. Though 10+ goals against other teams have been disallowed for shirt pulls in the build up)

Formal Apologies for Penalties Denied that should have been given by VAR
1. Wolves

(no other entrants.

No. Though bias towards home teams has been studied and proven to happen. I would love their to be a study on bias towards big clubs in the Premier League as I know it would have only one outcome, the bias is so obvious if you watch enough matches over time. The problem is: is it actually a problem? 90% of those watching Premier League football globally, follow one of those big clubs. They don't want Fulham in the Champions League instead of Man U. Those bars in faraway countries change channel when its Wolves v Brighton. (understandable, that one!) . They would be happy with the big 6 playing each other every week. 30 times a season.

If referees kept giving decisions to the underdogs, that study would have been done already. No expense spared. But they don't. So it isn't.



Because as soon as you make a fuss, you get players sent off for running towards the ref and blatant penalties denied.

I can’t believe what you said in your last sentence.