‎Do referee officials always have a fair advantage?

[rojan]

It's no longer a secret but it has become a common view that referees favor one team only, usually in fierce derby matches, although not all referees are like that, but it cannot be denied that many referee decisions only benefit one party, I think maybe the referee is betting LOL

And that's bad for referees to be biased by favouring one team but well, they are humans which can also make mistakes or do favouritism because everyone has the right to do whatever thing they want and sometimes being biased can turn out to be a good thing to the opposite team, in which they don't favour. But no matter what one should gamble responsibly as its not profitable and beneficial to them.

This chances of human factor in match officiating is associated with uncertainty thus forcing unexpected losses or gains to one side. There is the certainty that referee subjectivity is an extraneous variable and therefore we do not completely control in any sports bet. Such risks need to be dealt with by employing tough bankroll management. Being aware of the fact that objectivity is not very much in matches, will assist us to be rational and keep our financial situation together, as a group.

Not all referees are on a fair advantage but their ruling is definitely capable of affecting the matches. They are all human and therefore make mistakes, are under pressure, and are subjective particularly when playing a fierce game. Although the accusations of intentional discrimination are usually overstated, the problem of uneven refereeing exists. To betters, this is an inevitable uncertainty and it would be more prudent to consider referees as an external risk. Emotional and financial harm can be minimized through the proper management of bankroll and realistic expectations.

[tread93]

 
‎I have thought about this from top to bottom and I still come to a biased conclusion based on football and other major league tournaments I have seen live and how a particular team just seems to be spotless and the other one is the scapegoat, maybe due to less star players or because they are not as big or popular as the former.
‎
‎Refereeing as an officiate duty is supposed to be objective even with the initiative of VAR/relay technology to make it more efficient and accurate as possible, but we can't rule out the human psychology and systemic factors that can create a perceived advantage.
‎It is strictly forbidden for a referee to consciously favor any team as it could mean the end of the career of such a referee found wanting, still, a well documented scientific researched phenomenon, doesn't rule out the subconscious bias which can interfere in a referee's decision and create the perceived advantage I am talking about.
‎
‎I wanted to know if you have ever seen it the same way that indeed, referee officials have a fair advantage in any game or tournament which of course always favor their favorite team to win or you have a better opinion on the matter?
‎

Today its hard for any referee to give an advantage to another team but in the past it was a lot easier to bribe them to make calls that would favor the other team. But yes today things are watched much more closely! The video camera systems they have in place and the protocols they have in place make it almost impossible for them to lean any which way, which is a great thing of course! Fair games are the best games and nobody likes cheaters. Perhaps though they could get away will very small slim calls that perhaps slightly favored another team depending on circumstance.

[iBaba]

It's no longer a secret but it has become a common view that referees favor one team only, usually in fierce derby matches, although not all referees are like that, but it cannot be denied that many referee decisions only benefit one party, I think maybe the referee is betting LOL

I remember in the past we used to have very controversial referees who would favor one player or team for a reason or the other and they will not budge from their decision. I remember the Hand of God incident where Maradona was favored by the referee despite the protestations and the complaints by the England players and even of recent, the penalty that was blown for Morocco at the last minute despite the protestations by the Senagalese I didn’t expect the Referee would blow a penalty despite the impact not being as much in such a very important game like that but the referee still stood their ground for the Moroccans.

What I think is the case is that referees do have their favorite players and teams in their mind and subconsciously would want them to win, some of these referees do not know how to control their emotions and allow such emotions to influence their decisions. I know that FIFA tries to bring that unbiased environment by not only bringing a professional referee but also someone expected to come from a different country and continent, however you cannot tell what club such referee has in mind because that’s something that’s meant to be his personal secret.

[Achalugo BTC]

This chances of human factor in match officiating is associated with uncertainty thus forcing unexpected losses or gains to one side. There is the certainty that referee subjectivity is an extraneous variable and therefore we do not completely control in any sports bet. Such risks need to be dealt with by employing tough bankroll management. Being aware of the fact that objectivity is not very much in matches, will assist us to be rational and keep our financial situation together, as a group.

Yeah, this will help them to make an informed decision, which will be on the favour of the both team, because without a strict instruction, such as bankroll management can make them to always be baised.
Its good to know in sports, no one can really be in control of the teams and the referees as well, but it will be very kind to make decisions based on strategy rather tha  impulse.

[ralle14]

I've watched games with bad officiating, so I can't say games are mostly fair with the refs because even one wrong call is enough to ruin the whole game.

Sometimes, even the announcers themselves would outright say it's a bad call from the refs, but there's nothing we can do about it since they always have the final say on how much it takes for players to commit fouls or mistakes in the game.

I recall the time when I was actively betting on the NBA. Some bettors would even mention specific referees because certain teams often struggle when these referees are in their games.

[MiF]

This chances of human factor in match officiating is associated with uncertainty thus forcing unexpected losses or gains to one side. There is the certainty that referee subjectivity is an extraneous variable and therefore we do not completely control in any sports bet. Such risks need to be dealt with by employing tough bankroll management. Being aware of the fact that objectivity is not very much in matches, will assist us to be rational and keep our financial situation together, as a group.

Yeah, this will help them to make an informed decision, which will be on the favour of the both team, because without a strict instruction, such as bankroll management can make them to always be baised.
Its good to know in sports, no one can really be in control of the teams and the referees as well, but it will be very kind to make decisions based on strategy rather tha  impulse.

Good point. Referees are involved in the game and the human error or subjectivity will always be present and hence the match results will be unpredictable. Because betters have no control over officials, or even teams, the only actual defense against making a bad decision, or a controversial call, is bankroll management. Embracing this ambiguity keeps bettors in their rationality, not letting them get emotional and concentrate on their long term strategy rather than making impulsive bets based on the consequences that surround the referee. Such an attitude guarantees capital and enhances long term consistency.

[imthegreat]

I think many referees are threatened or bribed, often in very large amounts. Because they are the key variable that can decide the outcome of a match between two teams of equal skill, teams that train extensively and invest money and effort into their game. It turns out that the referee is a weak link, which, if pressure is applied to one team, can tip the match significantly in their favor. And where big money is involved, of course, bribery, threats, and everything else I wrote above can be involved.
After all, everyone loves money, and it's often the end result in almost any process.

[Orpichukwu]

It's no longer a secret but it has become a common view that referees favor one team only, usually in fierce derby matches, although not all referees are like that, but it cannot be denied that many referee decisions only benefit one party, I think maybe the referee is betting LOL

It's very okay to think about them that way, that they are also betting. Even though it's not allowed for them to bet on sports, they are connected with many of them and can still be indirectly betting through other relatives, or they might have taken bribes or other things from the team which they are favoring.