Criticism of the referee.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:13 pm

I just want to point out that I think some of the comments made about referees (from all NH sides on here) have been shocking to say the least. The claims that referees are "spoiling" or "killing" the game, the claims that they show bias towards one team over the other, or that they have a vendetta against a certain team, are absolutely ludicrous. I am getting pretty sick and tired of it too.

Yes, referees do make mistakes, some more than others, but they are human and they are there to do a job. They will not be perfect in their job. They will make plenty of mistakes, and plenty of the mistakes they make, you will not like. That is fine, and sometimes it is okay to question a refereeing decision. Referees will obviously evaluate their own performances, and try to have a better understanding of the laws and try to show more consistency. However, the claims that they have "won the game" or "lost the game" for a team, is simply ridiculous. As are claims that they show any sort of bias.

I hope that some people might read this and realise that refereeing isn't such an easy job. If you expect perfection, go watch a different sport. The laws themselves are not perfect. There are a few things I would like to change, particularly at the breakdown, and some players are VERY good at pushing the laws to the limit and getting away with it. However, the referee does not intentionally let them away with it. So please, stop accusing referees of bias, or winning/losing games for teams. They too are professionals just like the players. They want to do the best they can at their job. Give them a chance.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:14 pm

2 + 2 = 4 Rory, no matter how much you attempt to manipulate whats been said!!

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:19 pm

I don't understand what you are talking about. What have I manipulated?

by Jennifer1984 Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:22 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I just want to point out that I think some of the comments made about referees (from all NH sides on here) have been shocking to say the least. The claims that referees are "spoiling" or "killing" the game, the claims that they show bias towards one team over the other, or that they have a vendetta against a certain team, are absolutely ludicrous. I am getting pretty sick and tired of it too.

Yes, referees do make mistakes, some more than others, but they are human and they are there to do a job. They will not be perfect in their job. They will make plenty of mistakes, and plenty of the mistakes they make, you will not like. That is fine, and sometimes it is okay to question a refereeing decision. Referees will obviously evaluate their own performances, and try to have a better understanding of the laws and try to show more consistency. However, the claims that they have "won the game" or "lost the game" for a team, is simply ridiculous. As are claims that they show any sort of bias.

I hope that some people might read this and realise that refereeing isn't such an easy job. If you expect perfection, go watch a different sport. The laws themselves are not perfect. There are a few things I would like to change, particularly at the breakdown, and some players are VERY good at pushing the laws to the limit and getting away with it. However, the referee does not intentionally let them away with it. So please, stop accusing referees of bias, or winning/losing games for teams. They too are professionals just like the players. They want to do the best they can at their job. Give them a chance.

Hear hear, Rory. Well said.

The referee and the decisions he makes must be respected at all times. We can all get frustrated at times when things don't go our way, but let's remember that, when we support our team, it is we who are taking a biased position, not the referee. He has no interest in who wins, only that the game is managed and played according the the laws and spirit of Rugby Football.

What is most disappointing about this thread, to me, is that it has had to be made at all. We're rugby people... we're supposed to be better than this. Of course we want our team to win, but where I come from, the game is more important than the narrow self interest of individuals or clubs.

Let's remember who we are, ladies and gentlemen. Or perhaps you may prefer to go over to the round ball game.

.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:26 pm

I'm still not sure who accused the ref of cheating. There has been a lot of debate over bad calls for both sides, and my continued stance on SH teams gaining an advantage at the breakdowns with SH referee's but there is no witch hunt.

I've spouted a lot of guff during the three wales games, mainly to take the focus off kicking the dog or writing an open letter to the WRU, but if I see similar issues with other games of which I am neutral my point is valid.

I think we should take 10 instances through all the tour games and debate on them on an individual basis, I bet we all disagree, and I guarentee all prof refs disagree, especially a SH, NH divide!

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:28 pm

I didn't say anyone accused the referee of cheating. Doh

You claim that the referees on this tour have shown bias towards the SH sides. I think that is rubbish. Yes, they have their own interpretation of the breakdown, but how is that showing bias? Both sides can play within those interpretations.

People claim the referee shows bias towards a team, or wants a team to win/lose. That is the problem.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:32 pm

But I am really not that bothered by the England score, so where does my bias lie, except that I've seen a number of poorly referee'd games in the last few weeks and am looking for it more!

England and Wales have both suffered at the breakdown, their ball has been slowed massively yet they were both pinged regularly for infringing doing similar things. There were also key decisions made aginst both teams.

In that sense the SH refs bias has given an advantage to the SH teams.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:35 pm

You claimed the entire tour has been a show of bias towards the SH. That involves all of the home nations. How come Scotland were able to deal with the interpretations but not Wales against Australia? How were Ireland able to dominate the breakdown in their first two games (obviously not today though)? There is no advantage given to the SH teams by the referee.

If Wales and England suffer at the breakdown, that is their fault and nobody else. You cannot blame the referee.

by slartibartfast Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:37 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:You claimed the entire tour has been a show of bias towards the SH. That involves all of the home nations. How come Scotland were able to deal with the interpretations but not Wales against Australia? How were Ireland able to dominate the breakdown in their first two games (obviously not today though)? There is no advantage given to the SH teams by the referee.

If Wales and England suffer at the breakdown, that is their fault and nobody else. You cannot blame the referee.

Yes you can.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:40 pm

Scotland werent hammered at the breakdown so much because of the weather and the weakened Aus team.

Ireland had their best game against NZ under who? Owens (not that that would've helped them today)

Wales Aus and England SA were very tight games in which the refs played more of a role, not that I have blamed a single result on the refs, England and Wales were both inferior... FACT.

Wales were very much handicapped today and last week (thouroughly beaten the week before) the very poor 'truck and trailor' decision and the numerous sealing off at rucks (although today Wales played the sealing off game much better too).

I'd go as far as saying although Wales were on the rough end of it, some of Walsh's decisions were worse, shouting at Ashton to shut up as he points out the 2 SA players clearly off their feet playing the ball looking at the ref?!

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:42 pm

slartibartfast wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:You claimed the entire tour has been a show of bias towards the SH. That involves all of the home nations. How come Scotland were able to deal with the interpretations but not Wales against Australia? How were Ireland able to dominate the breakdown in their first two games (obviously not today though)? There is no advantage given to the SH teams by the referee.

If Wales and England suffer at the breakdown, that is their fault and nobody else. You cannot blame the referee.

Yes you can.

Then rugby isn't the sport for you. Do you honestly believe the referee is to blame for the welsh performance on this tour?

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:43 pm

Noone has said that Rory!!!

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:45 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Scotland werent hammered at the breakdown so much because of the weather and the weakened Aus team.

Ireland had their best game against NZ under who? Owens (not that that would've helped them today)

Wales Aus and England SA were very tight games in which the refs played more of a role, not that I have blamed a single result on the refs, England and Wales were both inferior... FACT.

Wales were very much handicapped today and last week (thouroughly beaten the week before) the very poor 'truck and trailor' decision and the numerous sealing off at rucks (although today Wales played the sealing off game much better too).

I'd go as far as saying although Wales were on the rough end of it, some of Walsh's decisions were worse, shouting at Ashton to shut up as he points out the 2 SA players clearly off their feet playing the ball looking at the ref?!

McCaw completely dominated the breakdown today though. He was pushing the laws, but he is clever enough to get away with it. I say fair play to the guy, that is why he is a legend. He didn't do this in the first two games. I don't think that has to do with the referee. Ireland just did very well at closing him down and making sure he was quiet.

Also, please explain to me the difference in interpretations anyway. Between the SH and NH.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:46 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Noone has said that Rory!!!

Let him speak for himself. So far anytime I have ever seen a comment from this guy, it has been directed at the referee.

by mowgli Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:46 pm

Yes of course you can blame the referee, this is professional rugby and lets not be quite so naive as to suggest that referees are not under scrutiny as they should be. The cult of the referee is growing, the inconsistency of refereeing is alarming and some of the decisions they make decide games. What a ridiculous idea that they should not be accountable and somehow untouchable. For example, Joubert's setting fo the scrum - crouch, touch, lengthy intermission to allow you to walk the dog, engage. Utterly ridiculous.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:48 pm

If you would like to read what I posted again, feel free. Otherwise, don't comment.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:49 pm

Who startibartfastblasttast?

Put it this way, refereeintg in the SH is like driving in Ireland, there are no rules, it's more like general guidelines to bare in mind while your making the team that annoys you the least win.

I've watched a lot of Super rugby this season also, and there are a few instances of refs virtually deciding the outcome, you know, like that WC final we all watched with delight... Whistle

by mowgli Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:49 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

If you would like to read what I posted again, feel free. Otherwise, don't comment.

So you are saying if someone disagrees with your opinion they shoudln't comment?

wow, you a referee by any chance?

by anotherworldofpain Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:49 pm

mowgli wrote:Yes of course you can blame the referee, this is professional rugby and lets not be quite so naive as to suggest that referees are not under scrutiny as they should be. The cult of the referee is growing, the inconsistency of refereeing is alarming and some of the decisions they make decide games. What a ridiculous idea that they should not be accountable and somehow untouchable. For example, Joubert's setting fo the scrum - crouch, touch, lengthy intermission to allow you to walk the dog, engage. Utterly ridiculous.

Yes! Compare to Poite who let the engage begin from either team any time from "cr-" onward.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:50 pm

Rory

mowgli has directly responded to your post, why again are you trying to avoid having the real debate?

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:57 pm

mowgli wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:

If you would like to read what I posted again, feel free. Otherwise, don't comment.

So you are saying if someone disagrees with your opinion they shoudln't comment?

wow, you a referee by any chance?

Nope, you just didn't read my comments properly. I said specifically that sometimes criticism of the referee is okay, as is questioning the interpretations of the laws. Your comment ignored that. Your strange perception of referees is also annoying..

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 1:58 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Rory

mowgli has directly responded to your post, why again are you trying to avoid having the real debate?

I seriously do not understand what you mean. If I didn't want a debate, I wouldn't have made this topic. I responded to mowgli, but asked him to read my comments properly (which he clearly did not).

by mowgli Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:00 pm

look I am not getting into a semantic debate with you because being told not to comment on a forum is , in my view, just poor form and bad manners.

Fpr the record you can't have it both ways, either you can criticise the ref or you can't, you are not the arbiter of when that can be done so if you don't like being disagreed with perhaps it is best you don't comment. thumbsup

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:00 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Who startibartfastblasttast?

Put it this way, refereeintg in the SH is like driving in Ireland, there are no rules, it's more like general guidelines to bare in mind while your making the team that annoys you the least win.

I've watched a lot of Super rugby this season also, and there are a few instances of refs virtually deciding the outcome, you know, like that WC final we all watched with delight...

Yes, him.

Can you give me a proper description of the differences in interpretation please? Not a metaphor.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:03 pm

mowgli wrote:look I am not getting into a semantic debate with you because being told not to comment on a forum is , in my view, just poor form and bad manners.

Fpr the record you can't have it both ways, either you can criticise the ref or you can't, you are not the arbiter of when that can be done so if you don't like being disagreed with perhaps it is best you don't comment.

If you can't respond to something properly, without reading what they actually said, it is best not to comment.

Again, you claim that I said a referee should be immune to criticism. Again, please read what I actually said. Shall I put it in bold for you?

EDIT: Try now.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:06 pm

Youve just basically killed your own thread now mate.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:08 pm

How? I just directly asked you a question about the interpretations, and what your problem is with them.

Also, I am allowed to disagree with something too, just as mowgli seems to disagree with me. I disagree with the fact he didn't read my comments, and I disagree with his perceptions of the referee. Comments like "the cult of the referee" leaves a bad taste, and is something that rugby does not need in my opinion. Without a referee, there wouldn't be a game to watch.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:09 pm

And without the fans there would be no game to referee!

by mowgli Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:10 pm

Don't be obtuse rory.

it is so naive to suggest that refs haven't killed games or spoiled games, that they categorically do not show bias etc. Every facet of sport has corruption in it why should rugby absolutely be any different. Their bias may or may not be present or intentional but I have played in games when the ref has clearly favoured a particular side, it happens because refs are human.

Tell me, in what circumstances in rory's world is it ok to criticise the ref?

by anotherworldofpain Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:11 pm

The fans opinion is so partisan is tricky to take the discuss about it seriously.

Nomally is only a topic when the game so close and emotion high.

So is some defacto rule to 606v2 about "not blame the referee" because the result of the discussion is never happy for anybody.

I agree to you that referees will always make some mistake because they like a player is just a human and impossible to be 100% always.

True is that sometimes referee mistakes change the result in the close game as much as player mistakes. But also true is no team in victory want to hear they only won beause the referee make the mistake - because they prefer focus on good things the team did. And is easier for losing fan to focus just on one area not about mistakes they made.

There is also the idea some referee don't like some countries. Is interesting idea but we must trust our sport not so corruption. Could be true some referee style not suiting to some country style and also some players get the bad reputation and encourage more referee looking...

by John Cregan Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:12 pm

Jennifer1984 wrote:

The referee and the decisions he makes must be respected at all times. We can all get frustrated at times when things don't go our way, but let's remember that, when we support our team, it is we who are taking a biased position, not the referee. He has no interest in who wins, only that the game is managed and played according the the laws and spirit of Rugby Football.

What is most disappointing about this thread, to me, is that it has had to be made at all. We're rugby people... we're supposed to be better than this. Of course we want our team to win, but where I come from, the game is more important than the narrow self interest of individuals or clubs.

Let's remember who we are, ladies and gentlemen. Or perhaps you may prefer to go over to the round ball game.

.

Are you being serious?? I've never heard such a condescending contribution. You say "the referee MUST be respected". Not all referees deserve respect...not the ones who haven't the guts to make a fair call (did you see the last 5 minutes of the RWC Final?). Not the referees who are more interested in their own voice than doing their job. Not the referees who allow bias influence their decisions (both personal & bias against particular teams)?? I won't respect them. I WILL RESPECT the majority of referees who do a fair honest job.................

Have you an issue with Football although it so disgusts you that you can't seem to call it "Football"?? There are just as many thugs playing rugby as playing football so down off your high horse............................

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:12 pm

Nor a forum to debate this kind of thing. How can you claim I am moving goal posts and avoiding debate when that is exactly what you are doing though? Are you going to tell me what the differences in interpretations are between NH and SH rugby or not? And why you disagree with them. It is fine to disagree with an interpretation of the law, or the law itself, but to accuse a referee of any form of bias is silly IMO.

by nathan Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:13 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I just want to point out that I think some of the comments made about referees (from all NH sides on here) have been shocking to say the least. The claims that referees are "spoiling" or "killing" the game, the claims that they show bias towards one team over the other, or that they have a vendetta against a certain team, are absolutely ludicrous. I am getting pretty sick and tired of it too.

Yes, referees do make mistakes, some more than others, but they are human and they are there to do a job. They will not be perfect in their job. They will make plenty of mistakes, and plenty of the mistakes they make, you will not like. That is fine, and sometimes it is okay to question a refereeing decision. Referees will obviously evaluate their own performances, and try to have a better understanding of the laws and try to show more consistency. However, the claims that they have "won the game" or "lost the game" for a team, is simply ridiculous. As are claims that they show any sort of bias.

I hope that some people might read this and realise that refereeing isn't such an easy job. If you expect perfection, go watch a different sport. The laws themselves are not perfect. There are a few things I would like to change, particularly at the breakdown, and some players are VERY good at pushing the laws to the limit and getting away with it. However, the referee does not intentionally let them away with it. So please, stop accusing referees of bias, or winning/losing games for teams. They too are professionals just like the players. They want to do the best they can at their job. Give them a chance.

Ref's get paid to do a job, just like the players. If we're allowed to criticise players, we can criticise ref's. Player's do not intentionally play rubbish but we (and you) are allowed to criticise them yet we're not allowed to criticise ref's when there performance is rubbish.

It may be a difficult job, but then are so are many others just as hard that we all freely criticise.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:13 pm

Out of interest AWOP, what did you think of the WC final?

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:16 pm

mowgli wrote:Don't be obtuse rory.

it is so naive to suggest that refs haven't killed games or spoiled games, that they categorically do not show bias etc. Every facet of sport has corruption in it why should rugby absolutely be any different. Their bias may or may not be present or intentional but I have played in games when the ref has clearly favoured a particular side, it happens because refs are human.

Tell me, in what circumstances in rory's world is it ok to criticise the ref?

Right. If a referee is slowing down the game, or making the game unplayable, then obviously that is questionable. The breakdown laws are often questionable, for both sides. As is the scrum. Some of those laws need changing. Or if, like today, the referee doesn't seem to realise there is an offside line, that is poor. However, these are things that would affect BOTH teams.

Personally, I think that anyone who thinks referees are corrupt or show bias are being pathetic. That isn't naivety.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:17 pm

Corrupt is one hell of a word, I wouldn't suggest that in a million years, and the fact we have degraded to that is poor.

by nathan Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:18 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
mowgli wrote:Don't be obtuse rory.

it is so naive to suggest that refs haven't killed games or spoiled games, that they categorically do not show bias etc. Every facet of sport has corruption in it why should rugby absolutely be any different. Their bias may or may not be present or intentional but I have played in games when the ref has clearly favoured a particular side, it happens because refs are human.

Tell me, in what circumstances in rory's world is it ok to criticise the ref?

Right. If a referee is slowing down the game, or making the game unplayable, then obviously that is questionable. The breakdown laws are often questionable, for both sides. As is the scrum. Some of those laws need changing. Or if, like today, the referee doesn't seem to realise there is an offside line, that is poor. However, these are things that would affect BOTH teams.

Personally, I think that anyone who thinks referees are corrupt or show bias are being pathetic. That isn't naivety.

Rory i don't like what your doing here. I've only ever read the bias being used. Your now throwing in words like corrupt?

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:18 pm

nathan wrote:
Ref's get paid to do a job, just like the players. If we're allowed to criticise players, we can criticise ref's. Player's do not intentionally play rubbish but we (and you) are allowed to criticise them yet we're not allowed to criticise ref's when there performance is rubbish.

It may be a difficult job, but then are so are many others just as hard that we all freely criticise.

And like I said, that is fair enough. I think Walsh can be a poor referee, for example. However, if a referee is poor, it affects both teams, and the whole game. If one team can adapt better than the other, good for them. There is no bias or corruption.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:19 pm

Nathan, this comment was made above:

"Every facet of sport has corruption in it why should rugby absolutely be any different."

The word didn't even cross my mind until I read this comment.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:20 pm

nathan

I see what your saying, we are being baited not so subtly!

by nathan Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:20 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
nathan wrote:
Ref's get paid to do a job, just like the players. If we're allowed to criticise players, we can criticise ref's. Player's do not intentionally play rubbish but we (and you) are allowed to criticise them yet we're not allowed to criticise ref's when there performance is rubbish.

It may be a difficult job, but then are so are many others just as hard that we all freely criticise.

And like I said, that is fair enough. I think Walsh can be a poor referee, for example. However, if a referee is poor, it affects both teams, and the whole game. If one team can adapt better than the other, good for them. There is no bias or corruption.

I'm sorry, Do you honestly believe that if a ref has a bad day in the office that it has only ever effected both teams. Not favoured one over the other?

by nathan Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:21 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Nathan, this comment was made above:

"Every facet of sport has corruption in it why should rugby absolutely be any different."

The word didn't even cross my mind until I read this comment.

didnt see that, sorry!

by mowgli Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:21 pm

Now you are polarising the debate into whether refs are corrupt and biased which is of course what i did not write (heaven forbid you didn't read what i wrote)

so you think all human refs are incorruptable?

google corrupt referees you won't find diddly

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:21 pm

Bluesman, I am commenting on how ridiculous it is that someone else used the word corruption.

by nathan Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:22 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:nathan

I see what your saying, we are being baited not so subtly!

i'm on no ones side!

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm

nathan wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
nathan wrote:
Ref's get paid to do a job, just like the players. If we're allowed to criticise players, we can criticise ref's. Player's do not intentionally play rubbish but we (and you) are allowed to criticise them yet we're not allowed to criticise ref's when there performance is rubbish.

It may be a difficult job, but then are so are many others just as hard that we all freely criticise.

And like I said, that is fair enough. I think Walsh can be a poor referee, for example. However, if a referee is poor, it affects both teams, and the whole game. If one team can adapt better than the other, good for them. There is no bias or corruption.

I'm sorry, Do you honestly believe that if a ref has a bad day in the office that it has only ever effected both teams. Not favoured one over the other?

If it ever does favour one team over the other, it is certainly not intentional. There are plenty of factors that come into it. For example, repeat offenders will be watched more closely by the referee. It is about learning how to adapt.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:23 pm

No you were impressing the word on evryone who is willing to criticise refs!

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:26 pm

Sigh. Do you really think that is what I am doing? You are being a bit paranoid here bluesman. I know you did not use the word corruption and I never claimed you did. We have been having a debate about biased referees all day however.

by nathan Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:27 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
nathan wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
nathan wrote:
Ref's get paid to do a job, just like the players. If we're allowed to criticise players, we can criticise ref's. Player's do not intentionally play rubbish but we (and you) are allowed to criticise them yet we're not allowed to criticise ref's when there performance is rubbish.

It may be a difficult job, but then are so are many others just as hard that we all freely criticise.

And like I said, that is fair enough. I think Walsh can be a poor referee, for example. However, if a referee is poor, it affects both teams, and the whole game. If one team can adapt better than the other, good for them. There is no bias or corruption.

I'm sorry, Do you honestly believe that if a ref has a bad day in the office that it has only ever effected both teams. Not favoured one over the other?

If it ever does favour one team over the other, it is certainly not intentional. There are plenty of factors that come into it. For example, repeat offenders will be watched more closely by the referee. It is about learning how to adapt.

eh? It doesnt matter if isn't intentional or not, your thread title is about criticism of refs.

by thebluesmancometh Sat 23 Jun 2012, 2:27 pm

A biased ref is a totally different thing to a ref showing bias IMO!!!

by Sponsored content