Referees by Ken 1945
After the revelation regarding Mike Dean, can we now say that those of us who said that some referees were corrupt, have been proved correct?
Let’s just reflect on what Dean admitted doing when he was the elected referee for VAR decisions.
He said that, although he clearly saw a hair pulling incident (violent play – immediate red card) he decided he would not notify the match referee.
Why?
Because Dean thought that the match referee (“his friend “) had had a tough enough game and he wanted to “protect” him from any further confrontational decisions – that, in essence, is what he admitted.
Let’s just think about that for a second and ask these questions:
- Was it a human error?
- Was Dean a rookie referee?
- Was it within the rules of the game?
The answers to the above have to be NO!!
That was confirmed when PGMOL rushed out a statement condemning Dean and his actions, but why wasn’t he condemned after the game?
Is there no check after a match, no sitting down as a group analysing, questioning and punishing such corrupt behaviour?
Obviously not… why not?
As a club, we have been on the wrong end of many of Dean’s decisions, which led many fans to challenge the PGMOL for being so secretive and not subject to the same scrutiny as clubs, managers and players… only to be told by some that ‘those decisions even themselves out’, or ‘referees are only human’, or that’ they were simply poor referees’
But here’s the sucker punch for all football fans – PGMOL have not learnt any lessons, not become transparent, or ensured that people like Dean never have the chance to corrupt our game again.
How do I know that?
They have reemployed Lee Mason!!! The guy who failed to do the basic VAR check, drawing lines to see if there was an offside situation in the Arsenal vs Brentford match.
He was sacked within days and PGMOL issued yet another apology.
So where is accountability, the explanation, the transparency and the punishment?
It’s time for the PGMOL to agree on the following, regarding their referees:
- Answerable by interview.
- Interviewed after the game.
- Miked up during the game so fans can hear their reasons for decisions.
- Permanently banned when incidents such as those of Dean and Mason emerge.
Now I’m sure there will be the usual cries of “what about this or that” or ‘decisions even themselves out’ over the season, but that does not hold water after Dean’s statement and the Mason re-employment.
If the PL referees actually refereed as those lower league referees are instructed to do, things might just improve.
ken1945
CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, please contact us through this link…
There a difference between being corrupt and being stupid and incompetent! In my mind corruption is doing something for money or personal gain. He was wrong, but I wouldn’t use the term corrupt.
That gain could be for another team that the referee wants to see succeed or that they simply take pleasure in particular sides or individuals losing
Titles have been decided on goal difference in the past so any one biased decision can have a huge impact.
He benefited emotionally because his action or inaction kept him and his friend in good mood.
GB, one can be either morally corrupt or bankrupt or even both. Money as a tangible reward is not the only bases of being corruption; intangible reward can still create room for pecuniary rewards.
How could anyone not see the corruption of officials despite obvious evidencstrengthen my belief that we live in a world where the reality of most is that of make believe.
With the entirety of information and knowledge of the world in our pockets how ironic people have become dumber and dumber.
The ability to observe, analyze and thinking for ourselves instead of letting certain influential figures think for us is something fading with every passing day.
It is my personal belief that officials incompetence or corruption is something bigger than it seems on the surface just for the fact that it goes unquestioned, unpunished and no accountability whatsoever.
It you think deeper what does that tell us?
And speaking of observing the obvious, there were some with sound mind and ability to think for themselves who questioned the treatment of some of our ex players chief among them being Ozil and Guendouzi that there were no football reasons behind it.
Because they were controversial figures their treatment unfortunately was met with celebrations and messages of farewell and good riddance.
How ironic that the sword did not stop there and until it has reached to Tierney for some to wake up to what was obvious from the start.
How can a human lose that natural born ability imbeded in our DNA to spot the obvious? How strange!
Guendouzi and Tierney weren’t/aren’t being mistreated. That’s nonsense. Sometimes the manager doesn’t want a player – it could be the wrong decision, but it doesn’t make it unethical, unless you really think it’s not for footballing reasons. It’s a very common story for any pro to have had a manager that just didn’t “fancy” them. For different reasons, that’s all that’s happened here and neither player has any right to be picked.
Ozil was a different case – I think he would have been treated the same as guendouzi except that we’d given him a huge contract and he had no incentive to leave the club. Arsenal was in the wrong imo, and they’d really created the problem for themselves with the contract. I’m happy Ozil is gone but I’m not happy with what went on at all, as there was a political element to it that makes me very uneasy.
Davi, it is unethical if a coach doesn’t want a player for non-footballing reason. GUENDOUZI was just but a victim of a coach who is trying his best to get rid of all players signed by previous coaches. We know for a fact that it even cascade to who the players agent is the relationship the agent has with the manager. come on
I watched him on Sky when he was given the chance to explain his “mate” and others comments.this was painful,it was like watching a car crash.i actually think he made things worse with his explanations/digging himself a hole.
The author is barking up the wrong tree. I doubt anyone has said there are no corrupt officials.
There may well be corrupt officials. However, unless you have proof, attribution of incorrect decisions to corruption is still inappropriate and unhealthy for the game.
It is important to note that this does not mean that such egregious decisions should not be scrutinized. They need to be looked into and an appropriate penalty applied.
Mr Dean’s comments were inappropriate, poor and have seriously damaged the reputations of referees.
David, you obviously have not read the comments of such well known JA contributers as Dan or Jon Fox.
There have even been sections of the media and pundits trying to defend his actions and allowing him to try and spin his way out of this scandal.
Of course the PGMOL are still hiding behind the secrecy that Mike Riley set up and refuse to let their members explain their controversial decisions – imagine what would have happened if Dean had to explain his actions immediately after the game he corrupted because of his cheating actions!
That’s why the referee in the United game had no pressure to explain why the assault by the United keeper went unpunished and why the VAR referee was not called upon to explained why he didn’t refer the incident to said match referee….. could it have been another “friend helping out another friend” scenario?
Can you think of another reason?
Ken,I am with DAVID, not you, on your constant accusation of refs being corrupt. I do not and never have thought as you and so many others do on this matter.
I DO THINK THE STANDARD, IN GENERAL, IS ABYSMAL AND WE NEED ALMOST ALL FAR BETTER REFS.
BUT INEPTNESS DOES NOT EQUATE TO CORRUPTION
However, Deans comment was an admission of him showing bias and that was plain and obvious. As such and as he is now retired and will not be a VAR official, anyway by choice, there is little that can be done to punish that foolish and idiotic comment and the decision he made.
Even so KEN, what he admitted to doing does not amount to “corruption” but to human weakness which must never again be allowed with ANY ref or VAR official.
Were Dean still actively involved and had still said what he did say, he would deserve a full years demotion. At least!!
Jon, his decision CORRUPTED the outcome of the game and his personal weakness was showing contempt for all the paying fans, the players and two clubs involved.
Explain to me why Lee Mason has now been welcomed back into the arms of the PGMOL.
Should he now be activally involved in any further PL games?
KEN , at your advanced age you really ought to know what the definition of “corrupt ” means.
I will now give my dictionarys own definition of “CORRUPT;as follows:tainted,depraved, perverted by bribery,not genuine, to make unpure or unwholesome, to seduce, to debauch, to falsify, to bribe.
I agree that his decision DID show contempt but that does not equate to bribery. Wrong use of English Ken , simple as that! Unpleasant, foolish, cavalier even, but NOT corrupt.
Remember please, I have a first class degree in English language. Do you?
On LEE MASON I have no idea about why, but I think that is a foolish decision too but also not a corrupt one.
Jon. I didn’t use the words “debauched” “perverted by bribery” or “depraved”
as part of my article did I?
I’m afraid you skipped over the words (1) “not genuine” (2) “tainted” and (3)”falsify” but did include “contempt” which does not appear in your dictionary… strange that!!
Now, his decision was (1) not genuine (2) “tainted” and (3) “false” … hence my use of the word corrupt is correct, according to your dictionary, so I’m correct in my use of this much misunderstood word.
Goodness gracious Jon, even someone with a first class degree in English should know that.
I find that some people who have degrees are lacking in common sense.. dare I suggest that, by not digesting ALL the different meanings when discussing the article, you have fallen into that trap?
Dean’s decision was (1) not genuine (2) therefore tainted and (3) completely false…. therefore CORRUPT.
Not having a first class degree in English, hasn’t stopped me from seeing the bleeding obvious!!
In other words, Jon, you cannot win the argument, as the “evidence” you produced (in the form of your dictionary) shows that you cannot understand that the word corruption can have both monetary and moral meanings.
Mike Dean was morally wrong in his decision and was, therefore, morally corrupt.
Jon Fox was wrong because he didn’t understand that simple fact.
I have just looked at the several definitions of “corruption” I found on the internet.
The first says, “dishonest and illegal behaviour by people in positions of power.”
The second says, “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”.
The OED calls it, “dishonest or illegal behavior (sic), especially of people in authority.”
A simple search on Google reveals several other similar definitions.
Irrespective of which definition one chooses to apply, Dean was certainly dishonest and he was certainly in a position of power. It was also an act deliberately covered up by the PGMOL, a body in a position of power who were also, by definition, dishonest.
Yes ineptitude and or incompetence is certainly present amongst match officials, but dishonesty also plays a part as clearly demonstrated by this example.
Exactly Mikey, it just needs common sense to see that Mike Dean was a corrupt official, who broke the rules of the game to protect a fellow referee.
Exactly. Refs have long been corrupt under the non financial gain definition of the word. As long as I can remember certain teams have received downright wrong decisions in their favour, and not just once or twice, every game, year on year out. As the liverpool fan joked at Luton (liverpool were 0-3 down) ‘not even George courtney can save us now’. It would be funny but for the fact that it was true. As a famous ex player put it, “playing liverpool at Anfield in the 70’s was a joke. Penalties that dropped out of nowhere, bizarre offside, and goals ruled out that only the kop and the ref knew why’. He was not alone in that view. This was not due to crowd pressure, billy bs from the media aside, I’ve been to far more intimidating grounds than Anfield. Utd received the same, um, generosity from refs from the 80’s onward. It’s not just an English thing either. Fans all over Europe are complaining that VAR is just being used to rubber stamp the same rotten to the core decisions the likes of Real, Barca, Bayern, Juventus and co have enjoyed for decades. The refs may not being bribed, but there is clear pressure from the football establishment for the ‘right’s teams, ie the biggest and richest, to get the ‘right’ decisions. Not to mention of course that virtually every major league now has seen some sort of scandal where money has been involved in recent years and refs caught in the middle of it. One investigator said, and I quote, “what’s been uncovered is just the tip of the iceberg”…
How right you are Ken, PGMOL condemning and not acting or even letting us know how and what they will do to eradicate “errors” made by referees.
I think ken there are biased refs, i think there are poor refs but corrupt? My questions are. Who are they corrupt against? What are their self gains? Who gains and who loses in their corruption? What is their motivation? What clubs are involved in this corruption?
Reggie, can I answer your questions last to first?
My article is about referees and not individual clubs.
As far as I am aware, no club has done a favour for another club.
The motivation, according to Mike Dean anyway, was to help out a fellow referee who he deemed was having a difficult time – can’t find that anywhere in the rule book.
Who wins? Inept referees who are earning upwards of £65,000 a year, so covering for each others mistakes ensures the corruption continues.
Who loses? Clubs, players, managers and the fans who are led to believe that PL referees are the cream of the crop, when in fact and thanks to Dean, we now know they are corrupting the game with their biased and totally false decisions.
What are their self gains? Keeping their positions as “top” referees – take a look at what they earn Reggie.
Who are they corrupt against?
You, me, every football supporter, individual players, managers and clubs.
They are paid to be squeeky clean and unbiased – Dean has proved their not AND the re-employment of Lee Mason, after the PGMOL sacked him for his incompetence shows they will tolerate anyone, no matter how bad they are – were…. in other words, a closed shop with no responsibility whatsoever.
No ken im on about referees or clubs benefitting off either or. I dont see corruption if there isn’t a link somewhere. And ken, what you have described is not corruption. Who are they corrupting, they are probablylooking after one another. BUT The referees need a benefactor or beneficiary between a club and a referee, otherwise, i dont see a corruption or a reason. You are on about referees and decisions against clubs, which clubs are benifitting, which aren’t and why. I dont see how referees being corrupt in their decision making, protecting each other (as you put it) is being corrupt. They are protecting themselves, yes but surely corruption has to involve a club, or clubs, otherwise there is no reason for corrupt decisions.
I dont dispute some refs are poor, i dint dispute, some may look out for others but giving a wrong decision is not meaning they are corrupt. It means they were wrong. Dean protecting his friend was wrong but he wouldn’t be the first or last to lie to protect a friend. Its wrong but its not corrupt.
Of course it’s corrupt Reggie.
He decided to turn a blind eye in order to protect a friend.
He decided to turn a blind eye to the rules of the game.
He decided not to do what he was being paid to do and, in doing all of the above (of which there can be no argument about as he has admitted it) he corrupted the outcome of the game, mislead the fans, the players and, in fact, affected the outcome of the PL.
Corruption is not just money based, as Jon’s well thumbed dictionary points out in graphic detail.
He just didn’t give a wrong decision, he willfully and knowingly gave a decision that he knew was wrong – it was not a genuine mistake, it was a premeditated decision that went against the laws of the game… so it was a corrupt decision.
I really don’t understand why you feel there needs to be a link between a referee’s decision in favouring a club to make it a corrupt decision.
Referees have been found to be corrupt by betting on results etc etc that benefit no one but themselves.
By covering for another referee who has had a hard game and feeling sorry for a friend has no place in football. He had VAR, saw a blatant act of dangerous play and refused to act upon it.
He is a corrupt individual with no morals and my use of the word is absolutely correct.
Then who are they favouring and to what end. Somebody has to be benefitting, if you say they are making corrupt decisions. And why? Who is organising this corruption as you put it? Why are they corrupting? I dont get it. Dishonesty, lieing and covering up is not corruption.
There has been pressure placed on refs from above to give certain decisions to certain clubs for decades. Dont get caught up in the money changing hands aspect, although scandals in Europe and elsewhere have shown this is the case – but hard to prove without whistleblowers. There are plenty of other ways refs can be induced into doing the powers that be, bidding. On a very basic level, ‘do you want to keep on reffing top games? Then make sure every decision goes (fill in big clubs name) way.’. If said ref opens his trap, just do what all establishment figures do, deny and smear. So they keep shtum. As, unfortunately, the health service (both nhs and private) has shown, dodgy practices in institutions can go on for decades without anyone saying anything. Until it’s too late…
To accue someoneof coruption is a serious and dangerous charge to make unles you have absolute proof and I say that KEN, as ever , has only his own asumptions and lets be honest his natural human fan bias to go on -shared, IF WE ARE HONEST, with almost all of us on here and pretty muchall fans everywhere.
It uis not my life principe to blithely call anyone acheat unless i have actula proof as I DI WATCHING ozil regularly CHEAT his profession his club w efans and the sport he was stupidly paid to play so half heartedly, almost all matches inhis last fiveyears here. THAT is mora cheating though still not cheating as defined in actula law It is a dangerous and ill conceived charge to choose rto use thr word “cheat” against any ref esp considering they are supposed to be avove corruption.
I do NOT, obviously, claim that NO ref ever has cheated That would be foolish and patently not true. But it is exceedingly rare in my estimation and not a word I WOULD EVER CHOOSE TO USE, UNLESS I HAD ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE PROOF.
And Ken does not have such proof , plainly! Unless he cares to share something he knows for a fact, but which we do not know.
Jon, please explain to me what Mike Dean did, when he didn’t call the match official over to show what he saw as the VAR official?
That is the proof that had the PGMOL scrambling over themselves to condemn Jon… it’s very simple really.
Violent conduct is an automatic red card – he saw it – didn’t report it – covered for a friend.
Geez Jon, what more proof do you want?
Ken see my answer to your other post, which also covers this post of yours.
Dean’s statement simply means he was being stupid and dishonest in trying to help out a friend. His actions were not corrupt in my view.
Cambridge Dictionary definition of the adjective ‘corrupt’: DISHONESTLY USING YOUR POSITION OR POWER TO GET AN ADVANTAGE ESPECIALLY FOR MONEY.
I just happen to think that refereeing in the EPL is at an all time low, incompetent, inconsistent and even biased at times. But corrupt in general? Not in my view.
Sorry Ken don’t agree with you on this one.
Andrew, see Jon’s dictionary description of the word “corrupt” and my answer to him.
Would you say that Dein’s decision was tainted, not genuine and false?
If you do, then he was corrupt wasn’t he?
Being corrupt isn’t just about monetary value.
For better analysis and understanding of corrupt/incompetent reffering,it is.. important to look at controversial decisions of individual referees for matches officiated and against which opposition. (For example Mike Dean performances in matches involving Man Utd Against other big six opposition teams), number of yellow cards brandished for and against man utd. Also number of games won and lost amidst on field controversies. As for for VAR offside disallowed goals those given controversially and those not given. Plus tight offside goals given for each team. Also var calls for individual referees. They should check for controversial redcards and penalties for and against each team. We could also check inaction by referees for certain occurrences on the field. Otherwise these figures should also count in referee scrutiny of corruption, incompetence and biasness.
As for me in general. The only reliable on field referee currently could be Michael Oliver.
As for Mike Dean he was and is a Man utd sympathiser and any other team playing against Arsenal. (You don’t need rocket science to detect that.)
Ken I believe you’re right. Most people intentionally do not want to believe this, because it’s easier to blame clubs, managers and players and still be interested in watching the game. Accepting that there is corruption among some referees will definitely affect majority’s interest in watching football. Just like WWE wrestling.. some don’t even realize that it’s just script acting, but as soon as they realized, they instantly lose interest in watching it… So for the good of the game I think it’s best not to push the agenda of corruption among the refs for now, because that will definitely push the football world to a sad destination.. Eventually if this bias, mistakes,incompetence an all thses nonsense continue without improvement football will sooner or latter lose it’s value and respect.
Spot on. Not only that, but English football fans are notorious for refusing to accept our game can be in any way tainted. I say ‘English’ because the Scots have long accepted there have been long standing dodgy goings on with the Old firm. If everyone went around saying there is nothing untoward going on until they’re blue in the face, the ref scandal in Germany would never have been uncovered, Italys numerous scandals would have never been exposed, and Peter Swan would not be a notorious name in English football. But there you go.
Words in the English language often have more than one meaning so there is an overlap.
In most cases, corrupt suggests monetary gain is involved whereas I don’t know of our referees being in the pay of a particular club or illegal betting syndicate.
Bias seems more appropriate but it doesn’t make Dean’s actions any better and such ‘interpretations’ for VAR as he made did make a difference. It’s shocking to think that he thought that he should stick up for another fellow referee rather than do the right thing which is what he was paid to do.. He was supposedly beyond reproach.
I’ve had my suspicions for a while that the whole VAR set up is bent, too many dodgy decisions since it was introduced, someone is making a nice few quid somewhere.
I’ve lied, in my employment, to protect a colleague, who might have been disciplined &n dismissed as a result of her error, so I suppose that might make me corrupt.
Mike Dean obviously didn’t consider the implications of his action, not just on this one game, but the overall points/results etc of the Premier League that season.
I think the worst that can be said about Dean is that he’s a complete TWAT.
Jax, he’s a completely corrupt twat, as you so delicately put it.
If, while covering for your friend, you ignored the facts in front of you and it influenced a decision that affected others, then you WERE corrupt.
And would you believe Ken, she eventually became my manager. Must be a moral somewhere in there.
It tells me that the world is corrupt Jax – but we knew that didn’t we?,, 😊
The whole way VAR has been implemented means its open to manipulation. “Clear and obvious mistake” can and often is interpreted as “how can I avoid saying the referee got it wrong ?”. I’ve always felt Rugby is refereed much better. The refs are miked up and explain their actions, in football there’s a code of secrecy. As one ex rugby player said in rugby you may not always agree with a refs decision but at least you understand why he made it.
Ken, you need to keep calm and understand that no matter how obvious it is some people will do like the ostrich and keep denying it or worse defending the undefendable.
No matter the amount of proof be it be an actual confession like dean or the litany of videos and image one can find online that clearly indicate deliberate bias officiating as one cannot be that much incompetent. This has always been the way human nature works e.g the mason greenwood debacle, it was nauseating to see so many people defending him online.
Ken, you are saying they make wrong decisions on purpose, that is a corruption. Well why do referees deliberately give a wrong decision. What are they gaining out of it. If they are deliberately cheating, who is organising it and why?
Explain why Lee Mason didn’t put the lines down when Brentford scored against us last season?, plenty more issues as well, what they gain is they have cheated out a team they simply do not like, Mike Dean in his crass statement shed the light on what refs do for each other as mates, there should be a over haul of the corruption in ref standards today.
But that isn’t corruption.
Yes it is, the word corrupt isn’t just for gain in money but other factors as well
Reggie, firstly you have to realize (something that also applies to Jon Fox) that the word “corrupt” is not just about financial gain.
Without having to keep repeating myself, I suggest you read again Jon’s dictionary example of the word, along with other supporter’s examples of the word.
Instead of asking ME why they make these decisions, read what Mike Dean himself gave for deliberately ignoring clear video evidence of dangerous play, that should have seen a red card issued – resulting in a minimum three game ban.
By doing what he has admitted to doing and saying why he did it, you can see what and why he did it for.
Going back to my article, I asked why there was no follow up by the PGMOL and suggested that they should have looked into it.
Were they covering up to protect Dean, or do they not even bother to check anyway?
If it’s the former, there’s your answer to the last question – if it’s the latter, what the hell is going on?
I wonder why, in the United / Wolves game, there was no on the pitch action when the manure g/k assaulted two wolves players… only for the PGMOL to issue an apology the following day?
Was that yet another incident where one official was protecting another and ignoring the rules?
Maybe, it was bad refereeing ken, i dont know but what you are quoting is not corruption. Negligence or incompetence but it is not corruption.
It IS corruption as verified by the numerous dictionaries cited above.
If you don’t want to accept that fact, then so be it.
An excellent and in particular, A HIGHLY PERTINENT point Reggie. KEN, for obvious reasons has no answer to your question that asks what do refs get from making so caled “deliberately wrong decisipons”.
Were someone able to prove that such refs made personal gain, than in that hypothetical case and that only,such refs would be corrupt.
But that, of course, does NOT apply and refs are NOT corrupt, even though most are disgracefully inept, as I HAVE LONG ARGUED IS THE CASE.
. So has Ken, but where he and I differ is in his false assertion that some refs are corrupt.
IF bias IS corrupt Reggie, you would have to go a long way to meet a non corrupt club fan, ANYWHERE!
Jon, you are obviously not reading my explanation!!!
Dean was protecting his fellow referee – THAT’S WHAT HE HIMSELF SAYS!!
Now, by doing that (and who knows how many other instances have occurred?) he was (again in his own words) trying to help a friend.
By doing so, that “friend” was going to keep his PL status was he not?
That meant he KEPT his position as a PL referee and all that goes with that position… what is so HARD to understand about that?
I haven’t checked if you replied to the correct use of the word “corruption” that your personal dictionary explained so thoroughly, but the word is NOT just used for monetary gains is it?
It is also used for ethical reasons – so you are completely wrong and I’m surprised your degree in English language hadn’t taught you such a basic explanation.
Ken, calling someone corrupt can be construed as defamation of character. For example, if you were to go public and accuse Dean of corruption and he were to sue you in a civil court you would lose based on the ‘evidence’ you quote. However, if you provided a photo of him in a car park after the match taking money you would probably win.
My example of corruption would be someone in a council planning department giving planning permission to a developer in exchange for a brown envelope full of cash.
Let’s agree to disagree on this one.
Sorry Andrew, but I have to reply to you.
The word “corruption” does not indicate financial gain – it could be used in that way, but it was obvious Dean didn’t gain any monetary award.
However, what he did do, was to deliberately ignore factual evidence (which would be used in a court of law) in order to help a friend (using Dean’s own words in a court of law) thereby corrupting the outcome of, not only that game, but the PL itself.
Why do you think the PGMOL acted so quickly and condemned Dean the way they did?
This is an enormous admission that has rocked the PGMOL and cast a shadow over their organisation – so isn’t it time they stopped hiding behind the rules of Mike Riley and had their members explain their controversial decisions?
Do you ever feel, you are just banging your head against a wall with some of the replied posts you have had?
Indeed I do, especially when someone gives me a dictionary definition of the word but then argues against their own evidence – corrupt is not just a word used to describe monetary issues and why that can’t seem to sink in to people is beyond me!!
Bravo Andrew for putting the overrreacting Ken right and, IN PARTICULAR, for giving a correct example – unlike KEN himself – of what constitutes corruption and what, in contrast , is mere human frailty and a wrong decision, based upon good intentions to a colleague.
Ken, if you are reading this post, you really ought to give up on this false assertion of what is and what is NOT corruption.
I am on your side completely and all the way, UNTIL you go TOO far and use INCORRECT
language to describe Deans weakness and wrong decision . A decision which I repeat, were he still an active ref, should mean he is demoted for at least a full season.
But as he is now retired, lets be glad he cannot make that wrong decison ever again and leave it at that!
EH KEN?
Finally KEN , I find it hugely ironic that in a sport in which virtually all elite level players cheat as much as they think they can get away with and where almost all fans are plainly biased towards their own team, you and I included, that you seem not to notice the irony of biased fans incorrectly claiming that refs who do not openly favour that fan’s team, are apparently ” cheating”!
Its NONSENSE AND GROSS HYPOCRISY.
Jon, you are showing your ignorance and failure to accept what your dictionary is telling you!
Dean’s actions were “false” , “tainted” and “not genuine” so, once again going by your dictionary, his actions were corrupt were they not – unless you’re now arguing against the “evidence” you produced in the first place… your dictionary!!
Good article Ken, and one that I totally agree with you. For many a year I’ve said that refs have been biased/corrupt, especially towards the home teams. I was hoping that the introduction of VAR would put an end to it, but sadly it hasn’t. The powers that be, be it the FA, the PL or the PGMOL, really need to sort the mess out.
That hair pulling incident was so obvious to people watching that game, and it was scandalous that VAR never asked the ref to go to the monitor to see the replay.
Thank you HD and, like you, I have used the word corrupt correctly, despite others trying to say otherwise.
No amount of CAPITAL LETTERS will change that fact.
So you have never heard of EMPHASIS in speech AND in written speech then!?
Herr Drier, Biased is different to corrupt. Ken is not saying the refs are biased, he is saying they are corrupt.TO WHAT END ARE THEY CORRUPT? WHAT ARE THEY GAINING? There has to be a reason why they are corrupt. What is it for?
Here’s a simple question Reggie – why was Dean being biased when he refused to call over the referee, after witnessing a red card incident?
Who was he being biased to?
Ken avoids answering that obvious and pertinent question Reggie.
KEN SIMPLY PLAYS THE CLASSIC DEFLECTION TACTIC USED BY ALL WHO LOSE AN ARGUMENT .
Jon, I have not lost the argument and I note that you, like Reggie cannot answer the question : Who was Mike Dean showing biase too?
I also have noted that you haven’t responded to the words “tainted” “not genuine” and “false” used to describe the word corrupt in your dictionary that I believe cover the actions of Mike Dean – do you therefore believe his actions were genuine, not false and not tainted then Jon, or are you going to ignore this question as well?
KEN using my far greater knowledge of the construction of English words, wider rmeanings, also phrases, sayings and sentences, compared with you, I have to advise you that in humna life, many things and instances of tainting, being not genuine and of falsehoods exist and the vast majority of these are NOT .
There are many other perfectly possible reasons, beside your claimed “corruption” why humans make decisions that are wrong, undesirable , even tainted, false and not genuine.
But to PROVE actual “corruption” without definite evidence is nearly impossible and certainly so in law. You have merely your own incomplete interpretation of those words, tainted, false, not genuine, to go on.
Many English words -and other languages too- have many different nuances and meanings.
Just because a dictionary lists those words(in this case) as possible links to corruption, does NOT mean they ARE corrupt.
But I realise I AM ONCE AGAIN WASTING MY TIME IN TRYING TO EDUCATE AN INTRANSIGENT MAN.
“and the vast majority of thes are NOT CORRUPTION”.
Who needs a deity when you have jon fox?
I would suggest he needs a dictionary, as his spelling is atrocious.
Also, as I don’t believe he was being biased to anyone, but rather corrupt in his actions (which I have said repeatedly) how do you want me to respond further?
Now answer my questions, if you can.
Reggie, corruption isn’t just for monetary gain, as a person can corrupt a computer for other reasons. A ref could corrupt games so that his favourite team has a better chance of winning things/finishing in the top 4.
Jon, I fully agree with your comments about widespread cheating which seems to be in all modern footballers’ DNA. By the way, your recent article on this subject was spot on.
The irony regarding Mike Dean’s action was him being grounded for 2 months following his article on the subject in The Mail about a year ago. He actually lost money by admitting his wrongdoing and probably embarrassed his friend in the process. Definitely not the sharpest tool in the toolbox!!
Thanks a lot Andrew. Now I have returned from holiday JA can expect my PART TWO of the “cheating article” by the weekend coming.
This is a false equivalency. Fans and players can be bias all they want. They are not pay to be bias. Referees by definition are paid to leave there bias aside and be fair to both teams. The word corruption is heavily charged for sure. But the action is certainly corrupt. I followed the comments and seem to be moving the goalposts.
Ken i totally agree with your article. Absolutely spot on. I think with Jon & Reggie you are dragging ‘2 horses to a river bt unfortunately you cannot force them to drink’.
The meaning of the term corrupt is blatantly obvious that i feel they are corrupting its meaning hence being corrupt themselves.
The ignorance of Reggie i understand because i fear he is intellectualy delinquent. After the teams COMMUNITY SHIELD victory he used an oxy-moron to describe its importance. He claimed it was a “competitive friendly”.
As for Jon, perhaps he should tell us where he did his studies so we can keep our children away from that institution. There are so many diffirent synonyms to corruption, i will only use 3. DISHONEST, LAWBREAKING & WRONGDOING.
If any of these terms applies to what Dean did than i rest my case. Furthermore any legal steps taken against you in court Ken will be abruptly tossed out of court as Dean himself admitted to it and you just termed it.
Nice one Ken!!
BangBang, while agreeing with you 100% regarding the use and meaning of the word “corrupt” I find it difficult, no impossible, to support your views on Reggie (I’ll come to Jon later!!).
I believe that he and I agree on, what, 95%+ regarding all things Arsenal and I have the highest regard for him as a fellow true Arsenal supporter, who is both educated and respected on this site.
On to Jon, who clashes with me on many things to do with The Arsenal, but that is what makes this site so appreciated – opinions count.
What I can never understand though is why he demeans anyone who disagrees with him.
Make no mistake, he is a highly educated gentleman, but, unfortunately, just SHOUTS when proven wrong, as is the case here.
I have used Mike Dean’s words to describe his actions and Jon very kindly gave me his personal dictionaries description of the word “corrupt”, but failed to notice that within that description lay the answers to why Dean’s actions that day can and would be described as “corrupt”… not for money, but for being morally corrupt and that is what happened.
NOW I COULD USE CAPITALS TO EMPHASIS THIS, but I believe that we are all capable of reading between the lines.
The most important thing to remember though, is we all support The Arsenal… except Mike Dean of course!!!
Ok Ken!! respect your views as always.
For me its just about if one does not understand the definition of a word that oneself explained makes me doubt ones intellect. Or if someone uses a fork tongue in defining a triumph makes me doubt their loyalty. Hope you understand where im coming frm.
ALWAYS LOVE YOUR ARTICLES. NEVER SHY TO BACK DOWN & SAY IT AS IT IS!!!
👍👍
Corrupt meaning as adjective (Merriam Webster dictionary)
corrupt
a : morally degenerate and perverted : DEPRAVED
b: characterized by improper conduct
Let’s hope Reggie and Jon read this one Sean, especially point B!!
Ken see my post above timed at 8.02 pm today You understanding of language is incomplete and far too simple. Corruption cannot be simply proved by a persons assertion and incomplete understanding of “tainted false, not genuine” aas they all are subject to various nuances of meaning.
English works that way, which is just one , among many reasons, why it is so rich and so precious and should not be misused to support any persons own personal bias.
And you are conflating bribery and corruption. Bribery is just one form of corruption. Another form of corruption is abuse of power/discretion. Dean openly admitted that he abused his power to protect a friend, which is corrupt.
Your arrogance is astounding. You know nothing of me or my qualifications, yet somehow know that I am less qualified than you?
Let’s take a look at the actual quote by Dean:
“I said to Anthony afterwards: ‘I just didn’t want to send you to the screen after what has gone on in the game’. I didn’t want to send him up because he is a mate as well as a referee and I think I didn’t want to send him up because I didn’t want any more grief than he already had.”
He admits that he abused his power to protect a friend. This can certainly be classified as corruption. Whether it meets the legal requirements to form a case is a completely separate question.
As for being “educated” by you, I’d rather be a Tottenham fan.
Jon, what a complete load of hogwash!!
Of course I’m not surprised in the slightest, as your arrogance has been displayed many times before and it still continues as can be seen by your replies to Argooner.
I have no need or desire to be educated by yourself – no need, as I, for example, knew that the word “corrupt” had more than one meaning – no desire, as I wouldn’t want to turn into the prig that your “education” has turned you into.
Let me enlighten you, Jon, to the fact that I use JA to read and converse with every type of Arsenal supporter, regardless of sex, class, colour, religion, education or political views.
That’s what I believe the site was set up to do – a platform for everyone to visit and converse in.
The problem is, you fail to understand that simple ideology and try, unsuccessfully, to browbeat anyone who might have a different opinion to you.
I have always despised bullies, whether they be using physical, mental or the might of the pen to try and cower others.
I have no time for such turds and the BS that they use to try and intimidate others… you are a prime example of that type.
That is all I want to say to you and I’m sure that JA will be better off if you do the same.