Mark Clattenburg had a plan - Chelsea 2 Spurs 2 that game

[Super_horns]

Well it certainly does bring into question the integrity and honesty of other officials... 

 

 

[KingsX]

So what we really needed was a rule against “Successful Deception by a Match Official”.  Definitely with a retroactive ban.

 

It would really be salutary instruction of referees if his Saudi teaching gig turned into a ten-year sentence.

 

[Dan LCFC]

Spurs must be the only fanbase on the entire planet who can turn a referee actively cheating to not send their own players off as a way to screw Spurs over. What a bunch of ****ing weirdos.

[norwichfox]

2 hours ago, Donut said:

Love the way he feels keeping his thuggish players on the field hindered them rather than sending them off.

 

Like chelsea were less likely to get into the game playing against 11 rather than 9

Any decent,honest  refree would have put his body between the camera and Dembele to prevent the any chance of the media getting hold of Conte having his eye gouged thus preventing his extended ban....

[Dan LCFC]

He might have a point about people turning on him. You've only got to look how much people blow smoke up Spurs' arse to realise they're the ultimate media darlings. I'm completely convinced Spurs fans are the way they are because of how pampered they are in the media. Never in my life have I seen a side with so much smoke blown up its arse for achieving so little.

 

Chelsea v Tottenham was a complete last chance saloon. Win that and I reckon they were still enormous outsiders to win the league. Yet the media are making it out as if we were neck and neck. They were nearer in the table to Liverpool in 8th than us  

 

Every time I slowly start to think there's a lot to admire I get reminded of what cvnts they and the weak people who rim them are.

[Donut]

The media just choose targets to make into darlings. Theres no reason to it.

 

Burnley have become one. Its acceptable for them to defend deep, nick goals, play old fashioned football with physicality and crossing because they have an english no frills manager.

 

Theyre in good FORM. theyre not a good team.

 

Likewise spurs. In recent seasons theyve fallen short of many teams and achieved nothing other than one off results against better teams. Every team can do that on their day.

 

Bournemouth are held up as a great footballing side. They blatantly arent. 

 

Some managers and clubs on the other hand arent given any air time whatsoever.

[kushiro]

OK - having just watched the whole game again, everything seems very clear - especially two central points:

 

1) Clattenburg did have a 'game plan' - but it was nothing controversial. It was simply a decision not to go quickly to his pocket in a game he knew might easily finish with several red cards if he started dishing out yellows early on. There was nothing special about this game plan - refs do it all the time in derby games and other big matches, and most players, especially British players, seem to support this approach. In the first 15 minutes, Ivanovic (Chelsea) and Rose (Spurs) are both a bit lucky to escape bookings for wild challenges. Clattenburg makes it very clear at this point with easily understandable gestures that he has seen both challenges, has decided to let them go, but that he'll soon have to show a yellow. Clattenburg's attitude is towards the game itself, not towards Spurs. 

 

2) There is only one decision in the whole game where Clattenburg deliberately decides not to send someone off. It is in the 96th minute, when Dier, already on a yellow, commits an atrocious foul on Fabregas which is obviously a second booking. Clattenburg puts his whistle to his mouth, but then notices that Hazard is in a great position and allows play to continue. Ryan Mason then fouls Hazard, and is booked. The question is will he go back to the Dier challenge and send him off for a second yellow. At this point there are TEN SECONDS of stoppage time left. This is where Clattenburg makes his decision - he decides not to give Dier a second yellow, and then blows the final whistle immediately after Chelsea's free kick is taken.

 

So - basically, Clattenburg is just remembering things wrongly (we all do it) - he did have a game plan, but it wasn't about Spurs, it was about the game. And, with the Dier decision at the end, he might well have thought 'I won't get myself in the headlines by sending off a Spurs player', but that decision had ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE GAME.

 

Dembele would have been sent off for the gouging incident, but of course Clattenburg didn't see it. And Lamela may have been sent off had the linesman thought he deliberately trod on Fabregas's hand. Once again, Clattenburg didn't see it, so it has nothting to do with any 'game plan', but he may now be conflating these incidents in his memory and that's why he refers to 'eight or nine players left on the pitch' in his interview.

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 December 2017 by kushiro

[lifted*fox]

Yeah, it may be the way the article is written but he's not admitting to bias, he's admitting that rather than reaching into his pocket and making it about HIM making Spurs lose he saw they were imploding and let them ruin it themselves. He basically didn't see the point in intervening when they were already nine tenths of the way there to completely ****ing it up by themselves. 

 

A ref who didn't want to make it all about him. About time. 

[Donut]

6 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Yeah, it may be the way the article is written but he's not admitting to bias, he's admitting that rather than reaching into his pocket and making it about HIM making Spurs lose he saw they were imploding and let them ruin it themselves. He basically didn't see the point in intervening when they were already nine tenths of the way there to completely ****ing it up by themselves. 

 

A ref who didn't want to make it all about him. About time. 

Thats complete nonsense.

 

Spurs could have ended up winning the game off the back of his pre meditated lenient refereeing.

 

He was lucky they didnt, lucky no one was injured and absolutely stupid to admit he had a "plan" to deliberately referee the game wrong.

[kushiro]

2 minutes ago, Donut said:

Thats complete nonsense.

 

Spurs could have ended up winning the game off the back of his pre meditated lenient refereeing.

 

He was lucky they didnt, lucky no one was injured and absolutely stupid to admit he had a "plan" to deliberately referee the game wrong.

There is a lot of nonsense around, but not in lifted*fox's post. He was just reacting to what I posted, an maybe you should read it too.

[Donut]

11 minutes ago, kushiro said:

There is a lot of nonsense around, but not in lifted*fox's post. He was just reacting to what I posted, an maybe you should read it too.

No, it was nonsense.

 

So was your post.

 

You cant just not give decisions.

 

Youre on the field because youre supposedly one of the best refs around and youre meant to MAKE the decisions not shy away from them.

 

He had no control over what was going on and has now admitted he refereed the game deliberately wrongly which reflects embarrasingly on him.

 

EDIT: and if he missed all the decisions you mention he wasnt watching properly either.

Edited 4 December 2017 by Donut

[Foxxed]

18 hours ago, Babylon said:

What an idiot, that's all very well Mark but what if they had got a last minute winner?

Agree. I'm sure he wanted to avoid Spurs pointing the finger. But to assume he knew they'd lose the title that day? Bullshit. By admitting to poor refereeing to dodge some misplaced blame he's now claiming he's a hero? Bare faced nobhead.

[weller54]

8 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

Yeah, it may be the way the article is written but he's not admitting to bias, he's admitting that rather than reaching into his pocket and making it about HIM making Spurs lose he saw they were imploding and let them ruin it themselves. He basically didn't see the point in intervening when they were already nine tenths of the way there to completely ****ing it up by themselves. 

 

A ref who didn't want to make it all about him. About time. 

You're totally missing the point! 

He's there to make the big decisions NOT avoid them! 

It's not for him to decide whether the game he's officiating is a crucial one or not,  he should apply the rules exactly the same. 

What a Cretinburg!! 

[Chester Dontlie]

"Some referees would have played by the book (...)"  says it all really. Clattenburg? More like Cluster****!

[KrefelderFox666]

So let me just summarise the key points:

 

1. Leicester City were crowned 2015/16 Premier League Champions

 

END

[sylofox]

9 hours ago, Donut said:

The media just choose targets to make into darlings. Theres no reason to it.

 

Burnley have become one. Its acceptable for them to defend deep, nick goals, play old fashioned football with physicality and crossing because they have an english no frills manager.

 

Theyre in good FORM. theyre not a good team.

 

Likewise spurs. In recent seasons theyve fallen short of many teams and achieved nothing other than one off results against better teams. Every team can do that on their day.

 

Bournemouth are held up as a great footballing side. They blatantly arent. 

 

Some managers and clubs on the other hand arent given any air time whatsoever.

 

I'd rather it be Burnley and Bournemouth. Ffs imagine if it was Watford and stoke The sun printing Deeney masks on Deeney day  

[filbertway]

I'd be livid if I had bet on a red card and was basically cheated out of a win by the ref bending the rules.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

21 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

Google headline above the link to The Mirror's take on this story is:
Clattenberg admits Chelsea bias during infamous clash with Tottenham.

The inability of the Press to read an article / listen to an interview and misunderstand its contents beggars belief.

 

For years I have been saying that referees in PL matches are not making decisions in isolation but ‘managing’ games.

 

They are simply not following the rules of the game in certain instances to suit circumstances. 

 

Here Clattenbergs behaviour was totally unjust and much to the detriment of LCFC. As has been said,  should Spurs have snatched a win rather than being down to 8 men and more than likely loosing that game.

 

This is one example, but Mark Halsey also said that they have been told to favour big teams! 

 

We have independent statements from two very high profile referees confirming that the game is not refereed as it should be. 

 

If it’s not honest and genuine, by definition it’s corrupt.

[Wymsey]

I agree with fellow ex-referee Dermot Gallagher's view in that Clattenburg wanted to make a name for himself by revealing this out of the blue.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

 

[Hammo]

16 hours ago, kushiro said:

OK - having just watched the whole game again, everything seems very clear - especially two central points:

 

1) Clattenburg did have a 'game plan' - but it was nothing controversial. It was simply a decision not to go quickly to his pocket in a game he knew might easily finish with several red cards if he started dishing out yellows early on. There was nothing special about this game plan - refs do it all the time in derby games and other big matches, and most players, especially British players, seem to support this approach. In the first 15 minutes, Ivanovic (Chelsea) and Rose (Spurs) are both a bit lucky to escape bookings for wild challenges. Clattenburg makes it very clear at this point with easily understandable gestures that he has seen both challenges, has decided to let them go, but that he'll soon have to show a yellow. Clattenburg's attitude is towards the game itself, not towards Spurs. 

 

2) There is only one decision in the whole game where Clattenburg deliberately decides not to send someone off. It is in the 96th minute, when Dier, already on a yellow, commits an atrocious foul on Fabregas which is obviously a second booking. Clattenburg puts his whistle to his mouth, but then notices that Hazard is in a great position and allows play to continue. Ryan Mason then fouls Hazard, and is booked. The question is will he go back to the Dier challenge and send him off for a second yellow. At this point there are TEN SECONDS of stoppage time left. This is where Clattenburg makes his decision - he decides not to give Dier a second yellow, and then blows the final whistle immediately after Chelsea's free kick is taken.

 

So - basically, Clattenburg is just remembering things wrongly (we all do it) - he did have a game plan, but it wasn't about Spurs, it was about the game. And, with the Dier decision at the end, he might well have thought 'I won't get myself in the headlines by sending off a Spurs player', but that decision had ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE GAME.

 

Dembele would have been sent off for the gouging incident, but of course Clattenburg didn't see it. And Lamela may have been sent off had the linesman thought he deliberately trod on Fabregas's hand. Once again, Clattenburg didn't see it, so it has nothting to do with any 'game plan', but he may now be conflating these incidents in his memory and that's why he refers to 'eight or nine players left on the pitch' in his interview.

 

 

 

 

Excellent post. You did your research by watching the game again (did you punch the air in joy again when Hazard scored btw???) and cleared up this overblown nonsense with sound evidence. That's the way to do it. Bravo!

[Captain...]

It is just a weird thing for Clattenburg to say and a weird way of saying it.

 

If he had said he didn't want to send anyone off and tried to keep the game flowing then nobody would give a shit. To say he did it with one team in mind, or because of a certain team is just stupid. So is saying he didn't want to be the reason that failed to win the title, that's irrelevent, the problem with the rules of the game is so many rules are down to interpretation of the ref, so he can interpret fouls and yellow cards as he wants.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

On 04/12/2017 at 23:28, kushiro said:

OK - having just watched the whole game again, everything seems very clear - especially two central points:

 

1) Clattenburg did have a 'game plan' - but it was nothing controversial. It was simply a decision not to go quickly to his pocket in a game he knew might easily finish with several red cards if he started dishing out yellows early on. There was nothing special about this game plan - refs do it all the time in derby games and other big matches, and most players, especially British players, seem to support this approach. In the first 15 minutes, Ivanovic (Chelsea) and Rose (Spurs) are both a bit lucky to escape bookings for wild challenges. Clattenburg makes it very clear at this point with easily understandable gestures that he has seen both challenges, has decided to let them go, but that he'll soon have to show a yellow. Clattenburg's attitude is towards the game itself, not towards Spurs. 

 

2) There is only one decision in the whole game where Clattenburg deliberately decides not to send someone off. It is in the 96th minute, when Dier, already on a yellow, commits an atrocious foul on Fabregas which is obviously a second booking. Clattenburg puts his whistle to his mouth, but then notices that Hazard is in a great position and allows play to continue. Ryan Mason then fouls Hazard, and is booked. The question is will he go back to the Dier challenge and send him off for a second yellow. At this point there are TEN SECONDS of stoppage time left. This is where Clattenburg makes his decision - he decides not to give Dier a second yellow, and then blows the final whistle immediately after Chelsea's free kick is taken.

 

So - basically, Clattenburg is just remembering things wrongly (we all do it) - he did have a game plan, but it wasn't about Spurs, it was about the game. And, with the Dier decision at the end, he might well have thought 'I won't get myself in the headlines by sending off a Spurs player', but that decision had ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE GAME.

 

Dembele would have been sent off for the gouging incident, but of course Clattenburg didn't see it. And Lamela may have been sent off had the linesman thought he deliberately trod on Fabregas's hand. Once again, Clattenburg didn't see it, so it has nothting to do with any 'game plan', but he may now be conflating these incidents in his memory and that's why he refers to 'eight or nine players left on the pitch' in his interview.

 

 

 

 

Do not agree.

 

There was at least four red card tackles that were seen by Clattenberg, which he chose not to give the requisite card to.

 

All the rest of your post is window dressing, given that you say some of the decisions didn’t alter the result; which is total codswallop. 

 

Regardless of the significance of the match, he was employed to referee it to the rules of the game which he clearly did not do.

 

Each incident has to be viewed in isolation regardless of what time in the game it occurs, which counters your argument re: Dier’s tackle. A similar example of this which twists outcomes of games was seen when Kompany hacked Vardy down; the consensus was the ref didn’t send him off because it was so early in the game. That is plain wrong, and goes to prove how close we are to these matches being stage managed.

 

Only at the weekend a commentator said of a PL game there had been some heavy tackles going in and ‘credit to the ref for keeping his cards in his pocket’.That’s totally wrong.

 

This episode should make everyone question the veracity of the sport.

 

 

Edited 6 December 2017 by NotTheMarketLeader

[urban.spaceman]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/dec/06/revealed-why-match-of-the-day-biased-insert-club-name

 

Marina Hyde of The Guardian has her say...

[Super_horns]

Had a bit more to say now and I suspect some would say refs are still very much influenced by the big names both in terms of players and clubs!

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/11158671/mark-clattenburg-says-roy-keane-made-him-change-mind-on-corner?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=Direct