So let’s take a step back and look at Mr Oliver’s performance in one SPECIFIC area – his determination to stop time wasting, especially during the games he referees concerning The Arsenal.
Let me take you back to early in the Chelsea game, when Raya wanted to take a quick free kick.
The Chelsea defender, Colwill, deliberately walked across his path, thus preventing this from happening.
Mr Oliver did not caution the player, unlike the time he yellow carded Trossard for time wasting, resulting in the sending off against City115.
in action during the Premier League match between Chelsea FC and Arsenal FC at Stamford Bridge on November 10, 2024 in London, England. (Photo by Mike Hewitt/Getty Images)
Of course, apart from understanding that Mr Oliver didn’t want to “spoil the spectacle” in this particular game, I waited with baited breath to hear what another “expert referee” would make of it in the sky studio… a certain Mr Mike Dean.
His explanation was that he suspected Mr Oliver was doing what he used to do during games – let the first one go with a warning to the player.
Of course, the pundits in the studio were amazed at this, with Neville asking where this was in the rule book?
Just as Dean was asked where, in the rule book, it was stated that he should not use VAR correctly in order to protect another PGMOL member.
Likewise there is nowhere in the rule book that says Mr Oliver was correct in keeping Kovacic on, during our home game with city115 for entertainment value, while sending Trossard off via two yellow cards (one for delaying a free kick remember) and not worrying about the entertainment side of the game when we played city115 in our away game.
Neither can I find anywhere in the rule book that a player can be yellow carded twice in one incident…. yes, Mr Oliver, once again against The Arsenal!!
Now, am I right in saying that both of these gentlemen from the PGMOL are/were corrupting the game, by their refusal to follow the rules and inviting, in Mr Oliver’s case, a definite bias against The Arsenal?
Should either Mr Oliver or Mr Dean even be in a position to decide and preach about refereeing, let alone the PGMOL knowing that this is going on – are they not corrupt as well?
Ken1945
ADMIN COMMENT
So here are some simple rules which I must insist commenters follow….
You agree not to give any personal abuse to other Arsenal fans. Everyone is allowed to hold their own opinions even if you disagree with them. It COSTS NOTHING TO BE POLITE TO OTHER ARSENAL FANS.
CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, please contact us through this link…
I think it’s daft to link this with “corruption” (the definition of which is “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery”).
I expect that you could well find “evidence” against other officials adjudicating other teams in other games if you looked hard enough. Poor refereeing with inconsistent application of the rules (very) possibly – there’s never been a time of course when the rules of football have been uniformly applied in every game – but “corruption”? I don’t think so.
But why was Oliver paid by Man City to ref in a foreign country, free flights and free 5* accommodation and why was that allowed? Given his record against us and for CIty does that seems at best insanely naive?
His record is 7 reds for Arsenal (most of any club) and 0 for Man City.
He did yellow card a Chelsea player though for slowing down a restart so not just us
He also yellow carded the player later on in the game, which should have resulted in a subsequent red card…. as was the fate of Trossard.
Ken1945,
Even though Trossard got a second yellow card against City for kicking the ball away, I don’t have a problem with it.
Because the challenge that Trossard put in on Silver just before kicking the ball away warranted a second yellow card.
And Trossard knowing he was already on a booking was daft on both fronts in that instance, and deserved all he got.
Fair point regarding Trossard.
Now let’s examine Mr Oliver’s decision when Kovacic tackled Odegaard – how do you see that “decision” when he was on a yellow card as well?
not to mention there is an argument there that both were reds individually certainly orange which means 100 yellow
also add in the context because the challenges were close together the martinelli double yellow (still the only time that has happened) that we suffered without stoppage which by the way was guess who! MICHAEL OLIVER.
Well Ken1945,
It just shows the blatant inconsistencies of these referee’s at times.
And then when you hear him say he didn’t act so as not to spoil the game that just compounds the decision made.
A bookings a booking regardless of the game situation.
How many times do we see a referee book a player, and later in the game the player commits a foul, and you can almost see the cogs in the referee’s head thinking I’ve already booked him, and then bottles the decision to rightly give a second yellow, and therefore a red.
God bless you, Even Arsenal fans are against the club, and will defend any decision that goes against her
I don’t agree with any corruption accusations at all, or the use of the term in this article, but I do think he’s a fairly poor and inconsistent ref. I vividly remember when he first started, thinking he was excellent and it gave me hope that the refereeing was improving through these younger refs – so disappointing, maybe it was a one off haha
So tell me why you don’t agree with the word “corruption” then Davi?
I’ve not seen any evidence of *intentionally* acting in favour of or against a club – I can’t see how you can say someone is unintentionally corrupt, in the sense we all think of the word when talking about referees. Plenty of times Oliver could have hurt us more or helped city or whoever, but didn’t. In our game against city, he could have disallowed calafiori’s goal and forced us to bring the play back, but he didn’t.
You can say he couldn’t because of some rule, but if he was corrupt he could have, quite easily, and almost certainly would have. It might not have even been controversial because he would have stopped it before calafiori even shot, because it was “unfair” that walker was dragged out of position.
Similarly with Gabriel’s goal – easiest excuse in the world to spot some infringement in the box if you want to find it. That likely would have been more controversial, but not overly so.
I disagree with his sending off trossard (funnily enough I think I’m a minority on that) but i don’t necessarily put that down to Oliver trying to help city or hurt arsenal – just a bad decision, imo.
Davi, what your saying is that, because he could have made some decisions that would have been seen as corrupt, but he didn’t – then it proves he isn’t, is that correct?
If it is, then I give you this example:
For instance, a bank robber could rob bank A, but cover his tracks by not robbing bank B in the same day, ensuring that it would cover the fact that he did rob bank A…. in other words he’s covering his actions, because he’s not stupid!!
Maybe my explanation hasn’t quite come over as I wanted it to, but I hope you get the gist of it?!
If a referee was as blatant as you want him to be (before you believe he’s corrupting the game) he wouldn’t last one single game would he?
Give them some credit at least!
Going back to the Califiori goal, Mr Oliver had blown his whistle to restart the game and both teams acted upon that – what rule are you proposing where he could overturn his own decision?
Of course, he might ensure he would even it up before half time, or play until the opponents equalised couldn’t he?
Like I said, he doesn’t need a rule or reason to call the game back – he could have just said he made a mistake restarting the game too quickly (had he done so quickly after realising walker was out of position, not after calafiori had already scored, of course, as there was a large time gap after that).
And then he allowed the Gabriel goal when he didn’t necessarily need to – if I were trying to help city over arsenal, I’d be focused on what’s happening in the box, looking for any excuse (eg blocking the goalkeeper – would have been a bad call, but we’ve seen worse). Like I said, I don’t think either decision would have been overwhelmingly controversial.
This is how all conspiracy theorists think – they have the end point already, and everything can be twisted to fit. When the ref does something or doesn’t do something that suggests they’re not helping city, well actually that fits perfectly because they’re cleverly covering their tracks.
I would say it’s the referee who are cleverly covering their tracks, by not doing what you expect them to do, if that would irove they are corrupting the game of football!!
I’m saying: whatever they do is twisted to fit the conspiracy theory – if they get it wrong in a way that hurts arsenal or helps city, it fits the conspiracy; if they get it wrong in a way that helps arsenal or hurts city, it still fits the conspiracy because those dastardly refs are just so clever – obviously they’re just covering their tracks! Nothing can convince a conspiracy theorist they are wrong, because everything can be used as evidence with that mindset.
Likewise, someone who doesn’t believe there are certain referees, like Dean and Oliver, who ignore the rule book in one game, while enforcing it to the umpteen degree in another, and aren’t actually corrupting the game to the detriment of ALL referees.
No matter how much evidence is presented to them, they choose to, either ignore it, or hide behind the incompetent word.
If an official is competent enough in one game to referee by the book, but chooses not to in the next game, what would be your solution and how would you describe his actions over the two games?
Is he competent in one but not the other for instance and would you say that that kind of action is good enough for a PL referee earning, on average, £90,000 a year?
I think we’re on different tracks again – I agree with your first paragraph, it’s just the usage of the term “corrupt” I’m focusing on- it’s the idea of l intent, the idea of them doing it on purpose for some nefarious reason (ie because they’re being paid or blackmailed or something) that bothers me. If you’re only saying their inconsistency corrupts the game by making each game different, inevitably leading to different standards teams must meet (I don’t believe it all evens out over a season – over 10 seasons, maybe), completely agree – I’d just avoid the term, personally because of what it leads one to think.
And I wouldn’t say that inconsistency makes Oliver corrupt – that’s a more serious accusation. You could say he’s having a corrupting influence on the game because of it (which maybe you did – if so, apologies for misunderstanding)
That’s EXACTLY what I’m saying as I don’t have the proof that he’s a corrupt official… yet!!
But I certainly have the evidence to show that, by his deeds and actions, he certainly is corrupting the game by not using the rule book as it should be used.
This subject can drive any sane person potty
If referees decide to use discretion rather than the letter of the law when making decisions on the clear and obvious, then they should be censured by Webb and told to play by the rule book.
There are just too many situations that arise where their impartiality could be called into question if the laws aren’t being enforced correctly. I don’t think that it is too difficult for the referee to remind the players and the manager before the start that there will be no nonsense and then stand by the laws of the game.
I liked discretion- playing on after a foul if it’s advantageous for example- but such is the scrutiny via the tv screen then it’s difficult to do anything other than play by the rules
When it comes to a mistake or ‘I didn’t see it situation’ isn’t that what VAR is supposed to clear up?
I also see great value in “playing on” if it is advantageous to the aggrieved party.
But that doesn’t stop the referee from then booking the player who committed the offence and I would like to see more of this happening, especially as the rule book says that can happen.
such as when Oliver gave martinelli a double yellow after playing on after the 1st yellow. It’s infuriating.
Actually, I don’t think it is that difficult to use “discretion” for many of the situations that have become so controversial.
The game of football requires the use of discretion and the referee should be able to use their good judgement to make decisions.
The scrutiny should not be a reason for referees not to use their judgement sensibly, and many decisions are inevitably subjective.
Personally I don’t see him as corrupt, but certainly incompetent. Giving a free pass so to speak. A foul is a foul, regardless if it is the first or last.
He is also inconsistent with calls and time wasting, less corrupt just incompetent.
Would never have him as a ref in a CL semi final or finals of CL. An important match ruined by his incompetence.
The athletic “In that context, allowing a group of PGMOL officials to fly to the UAE last week to take charge of a match between Sharjah and Al-Ain — Oliver as referee, Stuart Burt and Cook as assistants, England as VAR — looks inadvisable in the extreme. Not because of doubts about integrity among the officials or the authorities in the UAE, but because having referees on the payroll of another league, with close links to the ownership of Premier League clubs, inevitably brings an extra level of scrutiny that match officials really could do without.”
Durand:
How proud you are having one of the worst referees on earth officiating in one of the most prestigious leagues on earth.
I need a favour from you.
When you know of another fixed match:
please, let me know where to wager on.
Watch out for the next Arsenal versus city115 he’s given and bet on the latter getting no red cards, no yellow cards for time wasting and controversy with VAR.
This time next year you’ll be a millionaire, just like Mr Oliver – lovely jubbly!!
hahaha 🙂🙂
Nice
The mirror “The officials at the heart of Liverpool’s VAR fiasco Darren England and Dan Cook worked at a game in the United Arab Emirates less than 48 hours before the controversial encounter with Tottenham.
England, who was on VAR duty for the game at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, and assistant Cook, were at the centre of the offside debacle which left Jurgen Klopp and Liverpool fans fuming. Luis Diaz thought he had given the Reds the lead, only for the offside flag to go up. VAR had a brief look at the incident and did not overrule the initial decision, even though replays showed the Colombian was onside.”
Actually Angus, it wasn’t a brief look and the shambles in the VAR centre was the cause of the wrong decision being made.
But it was stated that, once the decision was made and play continued, the mistake couldn’t be rectified.
But lo and behold, a similar incident occurred in either Belgium or the Nederlands (I can’t remember which) and they DID bring it back and made the right decision.
I’ll leave everyone to decide what to make of that!!!
I know I just wanted the media take to avoid people arguing whether it happened.
Check out dans article for where im happy leaving it to everyone else to decide for themselves after.
I believe that there are too many decrepancies in the reffing during a game. If the ref was consistant in each of his decisions good or bad equally for both teams fans would possibly accept them. However they are not.
Seeing some games it would appear that at crucial times match official’s conviently apply rules to suit the outcome they want.?? Does spread betting come into it ??
I also see great value in “playing on” if it is advantageous to the aggrieved party.
But that doesn’t stop the referee from then booking the player who committed the offence and I would like to see more of this happening, especially as the rule book says that can happen.
Sorry about the double reply, my fault!!
. We’re now being told that the VAR officials made a mistake, when they awarded WHU a penalty against manure!!
I believe this was after the referee was called over and then reversed his decision.
Now THIS I see as incompetence and NOT corruption by an official – but let me ask you this :
When will PL referees learn how to use VAR correctly, as they do in other sports?
Football ideally needs a review system where clubs can challenge the decisions. 2 reviews per team, like in cricket. Where the decision is validated against the book and it either stands or is overturned.
Personally I think in today’s world corruption is so ingrained it’s naive to think otherwise . How many gambling entities sponsor sports ? We are well away from being a threat to city this season so you can rest assured we will not get constant dodgy calls go against us . Liverpool will get the bad calls from here on in . If we get in a scrap with Newcastle for top 4 we could start getting laughably bad calls go against us . It’s not a conspiracy it’s just professional sport
Can understand where you gunners are coming from, I follow M.U. my heart sinks every time we get him, rarely do we get a big decision out of him unless it is glaring obvious. Maybe officials like him should have their finances checked along with the rest of the charges about M.C.
Too much grammer is the reason some things will never be fixed.
Fraudulent refereeing should be called out for what it is – criminality.
It is criminal. Criminal. Criminal.
” Inconsistent, controversial, a bit harsh, a bit too soft, in a game of such magnitude ” – those are some catch they use to defend criminality.
You can cut the referees some slack for errors, yes, they are human. Human products are subject to human operations and errors.
But, sometimes, when you see a game on TV: watch the referee and its assistants; watch how some replays are made or not made; listen to the commentary; listen to the analyst; listen to the broadcast team; listen to the management and organisers… You see, clearly, a well orchestrated error by beneficiaries of fraud.