ALLEGING BIAS IS ONE THING : PROVING IT IS ANOTHER....... ( Follow up article by Carp ) 

Bias by definition is subjective : it reflects a person's state of mind. Even when a person is guilty of deliberate bias the chances of an apology, or a confession, are nil. However, the majority of us will deny accusations of bias simply because we believe in ourselves to be impartial and objective people. And no only that.....but we will certainly deny being in self-denial.

As one eminent Law Lord remarked "... bias is, or may be, an unconscious thing and a man may say he was not actually biased, and that he did not allow his interest to affect his mind, although, nevertheless, he may have allowed it unconsciously to do so. The existence of bias can only be determined upon the probabilities to be inferred from all the surrounding circumstances of the case. " 

If a player is to allege bias by a TD in favour of his opponent, or to the detriment of himself,  then he has a very difficult task ahead of him. Clearly it is almost impossible to get into ( or discover ) the TD's state of mind at the relevant time, not to mention establishing all the prevailing circumstances that support the allegation. 

Moreover, bias cannot automatically be presumed, because the correct starting point must be one of presumed innocence. In order therefore to rebut this presumption,  evidence to the contrary has to be both substantial and sufficient.  Nevertheless, the presumption can be rebutted if one can show a " pattern of conduct ", which is sufficient to dislodge the presumption of impartiality, replacing it instead with a reasonable apprehension of bias. 

Indeed, it is vitally important that the person who apprehends bias, and the apprehension itself, are both considered as reasonable.  Only if this two-fold requirement is met can the weight of the burden of alleging bias or its appearance,  be removed.

If a TD is accused of bias, then the apprehension of bias must be reasonably entertained. This is the first stage. In the second stage, the apprehension must be one which even the hypothetical reasonable player would have held, being someone who has no interest in the outcome of the matter, other than a general interest. The fulfilment of this general interest or concern should be restricted to a pre-occupation with fair administration or justice : a concern that justice is not only done but is manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done. 

Regretably not all TD rulings are recorded, and therefore patterns of conduct can never be established. This means proving bias based on a one-off ruling becomes almost impossible. Players of course may successfully appeal against the decision, showing the TD to be in error. Whether that error was down to ignorance of the rules, or a poor judgement call or just plain simply bias, no one will never know for sure.