Ref Watch Modern Referees... I've Had It!!

[MustardYellow]

I'm fully aware this may be controversial and many may disagree, but I've officially had it with referees (and officials as a whole).

Not just in league one, but across the English leagues we're seeing games being highly influenced, and too often ultimately decided, by questionable (and sometimes just frankly wrong) refereeing - why is it being allowed to go on unquestioned?

I understand people will say 'it's a really hard job', and to some extent it is, but when you've got a player being mugged and dragged to the floor by a centre half for 90 minutes (for example) and the refs don't notice it, you have to question are these decisions being made/not made due to it being 'difficult', or are officials consciously picking and choosing when, and to whom, they give certain decisions? We've all seen officials give a decision, then a minute later when the same thing happens again it suddenly isn't a foul anymore, as we saw in the two almost identical handballs in the Wycombe game (one given, one wasn't). I know people won't like that suggestion, but I'm all too often left with little other explanation as to why decisions are/aren't being given.

There seems to be a fragility and insecurity within match officials and the bodies that govern them - anyone who questions them must be punished. Is it a power trip? We see this in managers being fined for questioning decisions in interviews, and players being booked for pointing out a referees mistake (as we saw for Rodrigues' first booking on Saturday). It's a culture of no accountability.

I genuinely think the current standard of officiating is ruining football.

 

[Colin B]

I'm fully aware this may be controversial and many may disagree, but I've officially had it with referees (and officials as a whole).

Not just in league one, but across the English leagues we're seeing games being highly influenced, and too often ultimately decided, by questionable (and sometimes just frankly wrong) refereeing - why is it being allowed to go on unquestioned?

I understand people will say 'it's a really hard job', and to some extent it is, but when you've got a player being mugged and dragged to the floor by a centre half for 90 minutes (for example) and the refs don't notice it, you have to question are these decisions being made/not made due to it being 'difficult', or are officials consciously picking and choosing when, and to whom, they give certain decisions? We've all seen officials give a decision, then a minute later when the same thing happens again it suddenly isn't a foul anymore, as we saw in the two almost identical handballs in the Wycombe game (one given, one wasn't). I know people won't like that suggestion, but I'm all too often left with little other explanation as to why decisions are/aren't being given.

There seems to be a fragility and insecurity within match officials and the bodies that govern them - anyone who questions them must be punished. Is it a power trip? We see this in managers being fined for questioning decisions in interviews, and players being booked for pointing out a referees mistake (as we saw for Rodrigues' first booking on Saturday). It's a culture of no accountability.

I genuinely think the current standard of officiating is ruining football.

Agree 100%.

I don't ever remember a time when we had so many refereeing controversies. And VAR is not the answer, they can't get that right either.

I think it's now the exception when I come home from an OUFC game and am not moaning about the referee.

 

[Sarge]

I'm fully aware this may be controversial and many may disagree, but I've officially had it with referees (and officials as a whole).

Not just in league one, but across the English leagues we're seeing games being highly influenced, and too often ultimately decided, by questionable (and sometimes just frankly wrong) refereeing - why is it being allowed to go on unquestioned?

I understand people will say 'it's a really hard job', and to some extent it is, but when you've got a player being mugged and dragged to the floor by a centre half for 90 minutes (for example) and the refs don't notice it, you have to question are these decisions being made/not made due to it being 'difficult', or are officials consciously picking and choosing when, and to whom, they give certain decisions? We've all seen officials give a decision, then a minute later when the same thing happens again it suddenly isn't a foul anymore, as we saw in the two almost identical handballs in the Wycombe game (one given, one wasn't). I know people won't like that suggestion, but I'm all too often left with little other explanation as to why decisions are/aren't being given.

There seems to be a fragility and insecurity within match officials and the bodies that govern them - anyone who questions them must be punished. Is it a power trip? We see this in managers being fined for questioning decisions in interviews, and players being booked for pointing out a referees mistake (as we saw for Rodrigues' first booking on Saturday). It's a culture of no accountability.

I genuinely think the current standard of officiating is ruining football.

Agree 100%.

I don't ever remember a time when we had so many refereeing controversies. And VAR is not the answer, they can't get that right either.

I think it's now the exception when I come home from an OUFC game and am not moaning about the referee.

I agree 100% too - there are few ,that I perceive as decent referees these days

Itd be interesting for a perspective as to why the standard has slipped down to what is generally as low as it it seems, from yf posters who referee games etc

It cant all be down to FA directives can it?

 

[ZeroTheHero]

It certainly seems to be getting worse, although there have always been terrible referees!

It's sometimes quite difficult as supporters to take the emotion out of your view, and there are certainly times when both home and away fans think the ref is favouring the other team. Having said that, some of the inconsistencies we see within games are fairly staggering, never mind how differently the rules/laws/interpretations are implemented from game to game!

There are some things however that players should simply avoid doing (trying to get other players booked, pointing out refs errors, kicking the ball away for example) as while you might get away with them much of the time, you are taking a risk that might come back to bite you and your team on the a**e.

The problem is though - without more people wanting to become officials, and without better training and oversight of existing officials, we are pretty much stuck where we are. Don't get me started about bloody VAR...

 

[Essexyellows]

The problem is though - without more people wanting to become officials, and without better training and oversight of existing officials, we are pretty much stuck where we are. Don't get me started about bloody VAR...

This is it.

Why would a youngster want to START the pathway to being a ref? Parents abusing them, players doing the same at that is at grass roots level.

Go along to your local pitch and there are plenty that give the ref pelters because their precocious brat is the "next Beckham".

Solution is to take a note from Rugby about how ref`s are treated during the game and yes, that includes us as supporters. **

**There are notable exceptions to this.

 

[MustardYellow]

Agree 100%.

I don't ever remember a time when we had so many refereeing controversies. And VAR is not the answer, they can't get that right either.

I think it's now the exception when I come home from an OUFC game and am not moaning about the referee.

I think this is the main issue - too many games aren't even about the football itself anymore, it's about the man in the middle. It makes football unenjoyable and tiresomely predictable. We go into games knowing at some point the officials are going to have a stinker - it's almost a given these days.

 

[MustardYellow]

It certainly seems to be getting worse, although there have always been terrible referees!

It's sometimes quite difficult as supporters to take the emotion out of your view, and there are certainly times when both home and away fans think the ref is favouring the other team. Having said that, some of the inconsistencies we see within games are fairly staggering, never mind how differently the rules/laws/interpretations are implemented from game to game!

There are some things however that players should simply avoid doing (trying to get other players booked, pointing out refs errors, kicking the ball away for example) as while you might get away with them much of the time, you are taking a risk that might come back to bite you and your team on the a**e.

The problem is though - without more people wanting to become officials, and without better training and oversight of existing officials, we are pretty much stuck where we are. Don't get me started about bloody VAR...

I like to think I'm quite fair when it comes to decisions. I very much view it as 'would I want it given if it was my team?'. I'm sure sometimes the bias does occasionally take over though!!

The issue with all the things you mention is those rules are applied seemingly at random - throughout the course of Saturday multiple Cheltenham players got in the refs face, shouted at them etc yet Rodrigues is the only one to get booked? I just don't get it!

We're in a catch 22 - people don't want to become refs because of many fans view of the existing ones, but that view only exists due to the performances of the refs in question.

In my view, the only solution is to improve the standard of refereeing.

 

[Toe knee]

The future officiating, will be all technology in years to come. There be no ball over head height, or heading.
Off side will be from the centre spot, no tackling, Every handball will be a penalty .
No shooting from outside the box, short corner's like hockey....

 

[MustardYellow]

This is it.

Why would a youngster want to START the pathway to being a ref? Parents abusing them, players doing the same at that is at grass roots level.

Go along to your local pitch and there are plenty that give the ref pelters because their precocious brat is the "next Beckham".

Solution is to take a note from Rugby about how ref`s are treated during the game and yes, that includes us as supporters. **

**There are notable exceptions to this.

You're certainly right about the behaviour of some people at grassroots level, but I don't think the solution is a Rugby style attitude.

What people want is accountability and change. If the ref gets a decision wrong, why shouldn't players, fans, or managers be allowed to tell them? I personally believe part of the reason why players are sometimes aggressive with officials is because they're instantly dismissed and met with hostility from referees - it's an 'I've just f****d you over, but go away I refuse to talk to you' type mentality.

Taking away any element of accountability to players and fans, which is essentially what they've already done, does nothing but heighten the anger toward officials.

 

[OxfordYankee]

We’ve always complained about referees. I can’t think of a time where there was a consensus that refs were top notch.

24x7 coverage, using dozens of cameras at 240 frames per second and an ability for us to re-watch over and over again, only serves to give us a huge advantage over the referees, as well as to make us even more unhappy in the days after the match.

Go back 20-30 years and we went to the game, we moaned and we moved on. We don’t get to do that as easily now.

None of that is meant to say that referees are perfect, clearly they’re not. But I think these technology laden times have made their job much harder and the rose tinted glasses are working better than ever.

 

[MustardYellow]

We’ve always complained about referees. I can’t think of a time where there was a consensus that refs were top notch.

24x7 coverage, using dozens of cameras at 240 frames per second and an ability for us to re-watch over and over again, only serves to give us a huge advantage over the referees, as well as to make us even more unhappy in the days after the match.

Go back 20-30 years and we went to the game, we moaned and we moved on. We don’t get to do that so easily now.

None of that is meant to say that referees are perfect, clearly they’re not. But I think these technology laden times have made their job much harder and the rose tinted glasses are working better than ever.

I take your point, but I wouldn't say technology has made their job harder - I just think it's laid bare their incompetence!

I can accept the odd really tight wrong decision, but all too often the 'mistakes' we're seeing aren't those types of decisions. They're often so baffling and blatantly inconsistent that it's hard to find a rational reason as to why they've been given/not given (I again refer to the 2 almost identical handballs vs Wycombe).

This is where the frustration comes from - that it's often hard to even understand why decisions are, or aren't, being made.

 

[m]

I take your point, but I wouldn't say technology has made their job harder - I just think it's laid bare their incompetence!

I can accept the odd really tight wrong decision, but all too often the 'mistakes' we're seeing aren't those types of decisions. They're often so baffling and blatantly inconsistent that it's hard to find a rational reason as to why they've been given/not given (I again refer to the 2 almost identical handballs vs Wycombe).

This is where the frustration comes from - that it's often hard to even understand why decisions are, or aren't, being made.

I think the point is that the technology which has allowed every single person to compare the two handballs re Wycombe is a fairly recent thing.

10 years ago nobody would have known.

 

[MustardYellow]

I think the point is that the technology which has allowed every single person to compare the two handballs re Wycombe is a fairly recent thing.

10 years ago nobody would have known.

I remember spotting it at the time, along with most others in the stadium!!! Seeing it afterward just confirmed my original belief that it was a god awful decision!

 

[SirAndyOfCrosby]

A major factor in the inconsistencies, for me, is to do with when an incident occurs in the course of a match.

Whilst Rob Street's sending off was blatant and would have been given in the 1st minute, would Rodrigues have received 2x bookings for those same offences in the first half hour? Highly unlikely.

I think that's also what we saw with the handball penalty decisions v Wycombe - first half no penalty, second half penalty.

Referees have a propensity to be be overly cautious early on in games, reluctant to get a card out at all - and then seemingly throw caution to the wind as the game progresses with cards and major decisions dished out in increasing volume and with greater abandon late on.

It's almost as though they've been programmed to create drama as a game progresses, as though they believe that late controversy is what we come to expect in football and that the referees role is to administer that.

A quality referee will book a player for the same offence in the 1st minute as in the 90th minute. Indeed, an early (but fair) booking should serve to lay down a marker for the rest of the game.

I'd be interersted to see the timing stats on penalties and cards. I imagine these decisions are massively skewed to later in games, and whilst player tiredness or accumulation of fouls may be a factor, I definitely sense that many referees want to make massive game defining decisions late on.

 

[Ewes]

As a relatively experienced and qualified referee, I feel the problem at the top end of refereeing is that officials just aren’t being allowed to apply ‘common sense’ any more and due to the spotlight on them (assessors, observers, cameras and fans all looking closely at their decisions) we tend to play it safe and stick to the rules.

Some of the current rules are just plain stupid. The offside rule is far too complicated. I favour adding a blue line to each half, 35m from goal. If the attacker is past this line and beyond the second last defender they’re offside. Simple.

The compulsory caution to players kicking the ball away even as little as 2M as they retreat for a free-kick is also not helping the referee/players relationships.

Finally, regional FAs have been using the sin bin for dissent successfully for several seasons. Just introduce it in the PL & EFL also and on-field respect will improve quickly and referees will be more relaxed about making other important decisions.

 

[werthersoriginal]

You're certainly right about the behaviour of some people at grassroots level, but I don't think the solution is a Rugby style attitude.

What people want is accountability and change. If the ref gets a decision wrong, why shouldn't players, fans, or managers be allowed to tell them? I personally believe part of the reason why players are sometimes aggressive with officials is because they're instantly dismissed and met with hostility from referees - it's an 'I've just f****d you over, but go away I refuse to talk to you' type mentality.

Taking away any element of accountability to players and fans, which is essentially what they've already done, does nothing but heighten the anger toward officials.

Are refs actually worse or is there more focus on them and more expectation that they'll get it right, due to technology? Players shouldn't be allowed to question them, even if they are wrong - accept the decision and move on. They have to make a decision, and it's not up for discussion or negotiation.

 

[Twiggy85]

I remember spotting it at the time, along with most others in the stadium!!! Seeing it afterward just confirmed my original belief that it was a god awful decision!

Yeah but before you would have moaned about it afterwards and say - “they were the same thing” now we can all go home and check on the internet and it confirms it which then makes it stand out even more.
Im sure that it was a bad previously but it wasn’t getting reinforced that it was that bad because we didn’t have the means to review and check every decision.

 

[Twiggy85]

Yeah but before you would have moaned about it afterwards and say - “they were the same thing” now we can all go home and check on the internet and it confirms it which then makes it stand out even more.
Im sure that it was a bad previously but it wasn’t getting reinforced that it was that bad because we didn’t have the means to review and check every decision.

 

[Oldman159]

The majority of posts on here seem to sum it up well. These are my own personal opinions

Every week I think Refs can’t get any worse….but they do.

From my elevated seat in the SSU, nine times out of ten I can often predict the performance of the ref before the game even starts by simply by watching his/her demeanour. Add to that, there are some whose physical attributes (and I do not wish to appear be sizest, hairist or indeed racist) scream “….this match will all about me!” Their actions invariably bear that out. Influenced by personal bias? You may think so, I couldn’t possibly comment!

 

[Malc]

The rules change every season lately and the refs have to keep up with it. And as @Ewes says, the rules are just getting more complicated too. No wonder that refs get things wrong, they are not all Albert Einstein.

 

[Sarge]

As a relatively experienced and qualified referee, I feel the problem at the top end of refereeing is that officials just aren’t being allowed to apply ‘common sense’ any more and due to the spotlight on them (assessors, observers, cameras and fans all looking closely at their decisions) we tend to play it safe and stick to the rules.

Some of the current rules are just plain stupid. The offside rule is far too complicated. I favour adding a blue line to each half, 35m from goal. If the attacker is past this line and beyond the second last defender they’re offside. Simple.

The compulsory caution to players kicking the ball away even as little as 2M as they retreat for a free-kick is also not helping the referee/players relationships.

Finally, regional FAs have been using the sin bin for dissent successfully for several seasons. Just introduce it in the PL & EFL also and on-field respect will improve quickly and referees will be more relaxed about making other important decisions.

Cheers @Ewes - gives a bit of an insight
Can you throw a bit of light on the situation regarding the blatant shirtpulling that largely goes unpunished
and also the role of assistant referees ( formerly linesmen) , as in are they there to assist or does the referee have the right to tell them 'only throw ins and offsides0, in which case why arent assistants allowed to actually assist?

 

[MustardYellow]

Are refs actually worse or is there more focus on them and more expectation that they'll get it right, due to technology? Players shouldn't be allowed to question them, even if they are wrong - accept the decision and move on. They have to make a decision, and it's not up for discussion or negotiation.

Whether they're worse now or before the scrutiny of the internet is something that is probably impossible to answer, but even if they aren't worse it doesn't make it any better - the standard is still far too low.

Referees 100% should be questioned - why should they be allowed to make howler after howler without any consequence? Why should a player have to say nothing about being ragged about all game? Rodrigues was booked at the weekend for telling the ref he was wrong (and he was wrong, btw!).

The lack of accountability is part of the problem.

 

[Sarge]

A major factor in the inconsistencies, for me, is to do with when an incident occurs in the course of a match.

Whilst Rob Street's sending off was blatant and would have been given in the 1st minute, would Rodrigues have received 2x bookings for those same offences in the first half hour? Highly unlikely.

I think that's also what we saw with the handball penalty decisions v Wycombe - first half no penalty, second half penalty.

Referees have a propensity to be be overly cautious early on in games, reluctant to get a card out at all - and then seemingly throw caution to the wind as the game progresses with cards and major decisions dished out in increasing volume and with greater abandon late on.

It's almost as though they've been programmed to create drama as a game progresses, as though they believe that late controversy is what we come to expect in football and that the referees role is to administer that.

A quality referee will book a player for the same offence in the 1st minute as in the 90th minute. Indeed, an early (but fair) booking should serve to lay down a marker for the rest of the game.

I'd be interersted to see the timing stats on penalties and cards. I imagine these decisions are massively skewed to later in games, and whilst player tiredness or accumulation of fouls may be a factor, I definitely sense that many referees want to make massive game defining decisions late on.

Theres too many these days who think its all about them - Stockbridge & Purkiss come to mind instantly

 

[ThatSlopesATwelfthMan]

Good thread. A few other factors to throw in the ring when comparing modern refs with the past...

Number of laws, and therefore decisions per game. Refs in the pro leagues are now averaging 200+ decisions per match, rising to 250+ at PL level, with those numbers still rising year on year. Don't know what the figure would have been in the 80s/90s but certainly a lot less. The more laws any game has the more decisions are made and the number of mistakes rises accordingly. Fans *always* notice and remember the mistakes.

New rules are nuanced and subjective
Handball is a classic example. Was never 100% cut and dried but the general rule was a] deliberate (stuck his paw out, whistle) or b] accidental (thumped close range, balancing while jumping, play on). Now? OMG, even at junior level it's a nightmare. If you look at rule changes (or the endless changes to 'interpretation' of rules) over the last couple of decades they nearly all involve more subjective judgements in realtime. A lot of the most obvious inconsistencies we see (ie. the handballs in Wycombe game) are 55/45 level decisions where even a tiny difference in body shape or circumstances can tip the balance based on the hundreds of pages of guidance refs now have to consume. I wonder if tiredness plays a role here too, its fairly well evidenced that tired people remain fairly consistent at simple binary tasks but performance on complex tasks diminishes. Certainly feels like refereeing howlers are more common after the 60/70 minutes mark.

Pace and athleticism
Everything is quicker these days. Not just marginally either. Mainly due to increased fitness but also the impact of rule changes. The distances covered by players and officials with minimal respite are off the scale versus football I grew up with in the 80s. Even at amateur level teams are pressing for 90 minutes, playing from the back and 'transitioning' through midfield rather than lumping it. As anyone who has reffed or even run the line will know the speed of a game is pretty much *the* main challenge.

Which all sounds like a get of jail card for refs. Which it is in some ways. But... I agree there are still far too many who make themselves centre of attention, abuse their positions to interupt rather than enable the game etc. At the higher levels the ridiculous layers of bureaucracy, politics and peacockery are laughable. When Rugby Union professionalised there was an accompanying process to support and help refs adapt to the massively increased levels of physicality, fitness and expectation. Football is a harder game to officiate but has never really had that moment.

 

[werthersoriginal]

Whether they're worse now or before the scrutiny of the internet is something that is probably impossible to answer, but even if they aren't worse it doesn't make it any better - the standard is still far too low.

Referees 100% should be questioned - why should they be allowed to make howler after howler without any consequence? Why should a player have to say nothing about being ragged about all game? Rodrigues was booked at the weekend for telling the ref he was wrong (and he was wrong, btw!).

The lack of accountability is part of the problem.

Refereeing is a quick, first-impressions task, and the ref's decisions are final - they aren't a basis for discussion or negotiation. Referees aren't accountable to players or managers, only to the adjudicators. I know it's annoying sometimes, and we do seem to have had worse ones this season, but that's the basis for how the game works.

 

[MustardYellow]

As a relatively experienced and qualified referee, I feel the problem at the top end of refereeing is that officials just aren’t being allowed to apply ‘common sense’ any more and due to the spotlight on them (assessors, observers, cameras and fans all looking closely at their decisions) we tend to play it safe and stick to the rules.

Some of the current rules are just plain stupid. The offside rule is far too complicated. I favour adding a blue line to each half, 35m from goal. If the attacker is past this line and beyond the second last defender they’re offside. Simple.

The compulsory caution to players kicking the ball away even as little as 2M as they retreat for a free-kick is also not helping the referee/players relationships.

Finally, regional FAs have been using the sin bin for dissent successfully for several seasons. Just introduce it in the PL & EFL also and on-field respect will improve quickly and referees will be more relaxed about making other important decisions.

But isn't it a referees job to understand the rules and apply them fairly and consistently? Players and fans feel aggrieved because refs seem to apply rules differently each week - there's no consistency and a lack of transparency.

I personally think the offside rule should be that as long as part of a players body is onside, they're onside. It will make games more exciting and is easier to apply. Let's face it, a player isn't gaining much of an advantage by being a shoulder or a knee ahead of the defender.

I also actually agree with bookings for kicking the ball away. We've seen so many teams use it to slow down play and prevent quick set pieces (Wycombe used to do it all the time!!).

As an official yourself, do you think refs being more open and transparent about the decisions they make would aid player/fan relations? To me it never seems like officials explain their decisions to players, and fans are just left in the dark which does nothing but breed more annoyance.

I've always believed officials should have a 'post-match interview' style thing like managers do. It would give referees a more 'human feel' and help fans and players alike understand *why* decisions are being made, which for me is one of the main contentious issues.

 

[OUFCGav]

I take your point, but I wouldn't say technology has made their job harder - I just think it's laid bare their incompetence!

I can accept the odd really tight wrong decision, but all too often the 'mistakes' we're seeing aren't those types of decisions. They're often so baffling and blatantly inconsistent that it's hard to find a rational reason as to why they've been given/not given (I again refer to the 2 almost identical handballs vs Wycombe).

This is where the frustration comes from - that it's often hard to even understand why decisions are, or aren't, being made.

The decisions there - whilst they are similar involve some subjectivity, and there may be things in the now overly complicated rules that cover the difference. What would help is explanation for things - whether that is live like rugby, or after.

 

[OUFCGav]

You're certainly right about the behaviour of some people at grassroots level, but I don't think the solution is a Rugby style attitude.

What people want is accountability and change. If the ref gets a decision wrong, why shouldn't players, fans, or managers be allowed to tell them? I personally believe part of the reason why players are sometimes aggressive with officials is because they're instantly dismissed and met with hostility from referees - it's an 'I've just f****d you over, but go away I refuse to talk to you' type mentality.

Taking away any element of accountability to players and fans, which is essentially what they've already done, does nothing but heighten the anger toward officials.

Players during the game, like managers after the game are not always the best judge of what has happened (even if they are not trying it on). As an example in the women's game yesterday, the first goal was set up by Jenna Legg winning a strong tackle in midfield, before passing forward. Afterwards their players were suggesting to the referee (with physical examples) that the tackle was high (more than a foot off the ground), the referee showed (as was the case) that the Legg's heel was on the ground, so couldn't have been high.

 

[OxfordYankee]

Theres too many these days who think its all about them - Stockbridge & Purkiss come to mind instantly

You'll be pleased to know that Mr Purkiss is the referee for tomorrow's game.

 

[MustardYellow]

A major factor in the inconsistencies, for me, is to do with when an incident occurs in the course of a match.

Whilst Rob Street's sending off was blatant and would have been given in the 1st minute, would Rodrigues have received 2x bookings for those same offences in the first half hour? Highly unlikely.

I think that's also what we saw with the handball penalty decisions v Wycombe - first half no penalty, second half penalty.

Referees have a propensity to be be overly cautious early on in games, reluctant to get a card out at all - and then seemingly throw caution to the wind as the game progresses with cards and major decisions dished out in increasing volume and with greater abandon late on.

It's almost as though they've been programmed to create drama as a game progresses, as though they believe that late controversy is what we come to expect in football and that the referees role is to administer that.

A quality referee will book a player for the same offence in the 1st minute as in the 90th minute. Indeed, an early (but fair) booking should serve to lay down a marker for the rest of the game.

I'd be interersted to see the timing stats on penalties and cards. I imagine these decisions are massively skewed to later in games, and whilst player tiredness or accumulation of fouls may be a factor, I definitely sense that many referees want to make massive game defining decisions late on.

I think you may be right, which is concerning in itself - we're basically recognising that officials are consciously picking and choosing when to apply the rules of the game, and whom they are applied to in order to impact the game, and inherently therefore it's outcome.

Isn't this essentially, and dare I say it... corruption...?