Without any bias...

[Nick77]

...can anyone remember in the last 20 years where a controversial refereeing decision went against the Scum? And I'm not talking debatable ones, I'm talking clear-cut ones like Saha's goal on Tues against Arsenal which was so offside it was scary!
Anyone?

[Alex]

They have had 3 penalties this season as opposed to Man City who have had 8.

Point is, its a myth that everything goes there way. I know alot of Manc fans that think we get special treatment.

[dww]

My feeling is that there is a general bias to the bigger teams. United as the most consistently 'big' team have had the most consistent advantage.

I think it is off the pitch that their influence is more pernicious than during games to be honest.

[Arn]

My feeling is that there is a general bias to the bigger teams. United as the most consistently 'big' team have had the most consistent advantage.

I think it is off the pitch that their influence is more pernicious than during games to be honest.

Well, Rafa pointed out one thing. Fergie was allowed to visit the referee in their locker room at half time. He pointed that out and wasn't punished doing it. That points to that it was as he said a fact. I don't know if he is allowed to do it now but that he was allowed to do it and nothing happened is cheating and corruption.

Fergie should have got a long ban and Man U many many points deducted but nothing happened. The biased English media just laughed it off as a rant.

Rafa should have taken his evidence to court to point out how corrupt the English game is. Then no one could have laughed it off.

[Neil Young]

I'm not sure it's a myth but I don't think it's a conspiracy either. I haven't got any stats, it's just an explanation of my impressions of what happens.

I think referees often fill in the gaps, they see what they expect to see. That's not surprising; it's how perceptiion works and is common to us all. I expect they're probably better at looking at events and seeing what is actually happening than most of us. But they still do it, even if they do so less often than others would.

A good example is the penalty given against us for Chelsea a couple of years ago when someone (was it Johnson?) was adjudged to have bundled into Malouda (I think). The ref didn't see it clearly because it wasn't a foul but he gave it anyway. When he saw it later on telly he realised he'd made a mistake and apologised. So why did he see it differently at the time? I think he expected it to be a penalty because Chelsea were a threatening team at that time.

Good teams benefit from referees' mistakes because referees are biased towards good teams. Other examples are how many dubious penalties were given against us when we weren't doing well defensively, towards the end of the Evans period, and in the first year or two under Houllier. Our defence was thought to be weak so if there was a contentious incident then it was probably caused by one of our defenders using foul play on an attacker. Yet when we were regarded as having a good defence, with much the same players in it, then someone like Henchoz could get away with handling the ball three times in a cup final.

Man United have been a top team for twenty years with excellent players throughout. So referees give them the benefit of the doubt. That's why guff in the media about Paul Scholes being "not that kind of player" is important - referees pick up on it and so let him off one dangerous challenge after another.

The other reason Man United don't get too many decisions against them is because they really do have good players. So it's not all referees' bias - quite often it's ours too.