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

[Les-TA-Jon]

It’s largely irrelevant because we won the title comfortably. 

 

The real story here is that we’ve got a referee admitting that he goes into matches ‘with a gameplan’ 

 

That can’t be right and brings the entire integrity of it all into question. If other referees also share that line of thinking then it confirms all the longstanding  suspicions of bias. 

 

For instance, the Kompany red card that wasn’t, the other week - you’re telling me that had we been playing West Brom or whatever the decision would have been the same? 

[Milo]

Guy comes across as an absolute tool. 

 

I don't know know what he hopes to achieve by saying what he's said. He's only going to make life even more difficult for his former colleagues. 

 

Has he got a book coming out, or something? 

[Matt]

I'm amazed how so little of this has been made by the media or questions being asked of The FA and their referees, the integrity of them and how little question are being asked of Clattenburg (Suppose he's come and gone now so nothing could be done).

 

It certainly does put even more doubt in my mind about referees, their decisions and trust.

 

More needs to be done, more has to be done to get the correct decisions in games.

[foxinsocks]

Yes it turned out we won it at the swansea game coz arsenal never exceded the points we had after that.

 

I am afraid i agree with wrighty.... this is all about clattenburg.  If spurs players had got sent off then they would have "done it to themselves "   .... suppose he let them stay on and they went on .. and injured someone. He has a duty of care to other players to remove violent maniac spurs players and ensure they are banned

[Dan LCFC]

Nothing gets made of it because it all supplements this manufactured entertainment we have now. That's why the shittest refs get some of the biggest games - inevitable controversy and talking points as a result. Shame how little faith in football as a sport these people have.

[kushiro]

14 hours ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

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.

 

 

 

 

Three things to say about this:

 

1) Why do you so blatantly misquote me?

 

You say:

 

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. 

 

But I didn't say some of the decisions didn’t alter the result, I said that one decision - the decision not to show Dier a second yellow in the 96th minute - had no impact on the game. The phrase some of the decisions didn’t alter the result is a product of your own imagination. So - why not address the point I actually made - do you think the decision not to send someone off with only five seconds of the match remaining had an impact on the game? 

 

2) You say There was at least four red card tackles that were seen by Clattenberg. I watched the whole game again and spotted only that Dier incident. Which incidents are you referring to - which challenge, by which player, in which minute of the match?  

 

3) (This is a general point not directed just at you)   It's ironic that people who criticize Clattenburg's egotistical refereeing style are not willing to countenance the possibility that he is now exaggerating his own role in events.  He now says that Spurs might have finished the game with only eight players left on the field, and when you think of the Dembele gouging and the Lamela stamping this seems reasonable. But of course those were off the ball incidents that Clattenburg didn't see. Now he looks back and attributes everything to personal agency (his 'game plan') rather than external contingency, which is a classic tendency of a narcissistic personality. 

Edited 7 December 2017 by kushiro

[NotTheMarketLeader]

10 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Nothing gets made of it because it all supplements this manufactured entertainment we have now. That's why the shittest refs get some of the biggest games - inevitable controversy and talking points as a result. Shame how little faith in football as a sport these people have.

That’s a very good word you have used there; manufactured.

 

That is exactly what is happening. There is an obvious theme going on, which one can see in the most basic of ways.

 

If the ‘big 6/7’ are playing and there is a continuous decision anecdotally 90% are in their favour. 

 

It happens multiple times every week.

 

Basically the game is crooked.

Edited 7 December 2017 by NotTheMarketLeader

[Bourbon Fox]

Is it so much to ask that the referee applies the laws of the game, consistently and regardless of what else is going on in the league? 

 

It's not up to the ref to create drama and entertainment - that's for the players. Just ref the game in front of you ffs

[NotTheMarketLeader]

6 hours ago, kushiro said:

 

 

Three things to say about this:

 

1) Why do you so blatantly misquote me?

 

You say:

 

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. 

 

But I didn't say some of the decisions didn’t alter the result, I said that one decision - the decision not to show Dier a second yellow in the 96th minute - had no impact on the game. The phrase some of the decisions didn’t alter the result is a product of your own imagination. So - why not address the point I actually made - do you think the decision not to send someone off with only five seconds of the match remaining had an impact on the game? 

 

2) You say There was at least four red card tackles that were seen by Clattenberg. I watched the whole game again and spotted only that Dier incident. Which incidents are you referring to - which challenge, by which player, in which minute of the match?  

 

3) (This is a general point not directed just at you)   It's ironic that people who criticize Clattenburg's egotistical refereeing style are not willing to countenance the possibility that he is now exaggerating his own role in events.  He now says that Spurs might have finished the game with only eight players left on the field, and when you think of the Dembele gouging and the Lamela stamping this seems reasonable. But of course those were off the ball incidents that Clattenburg didn't see. Now he looks back and attributes everything to personal agency (his 'game plan') rather than external contingency, which is a classic tendency of a narcissistic personality. 

Ok.

 

 

Dier: the one he was booked for could have been a red; knee high on Hazard.

 

The one he did later on Fabregas were nothing was given was the most blatant red card you will ever see.

 

 

Walker kicking Pedro who was on the floor early in the game.

 

Rose’s forearm to Willians face which started the melee.

 

I actually could go on.

 

 

 

 

[hackneyfox]

13 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

Yes it turned out we won it at the swansea game coz arsenal never exceded the points we had after that.

 

Sunderland away 

[kushiro]

41 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

Ok.

 

 

Dier: the one he was booked for could have been a red; knee high on Hazard.

 

The one he did later on Fabregas were nothing was given was the most blatant red card you will ever see.

 

 

Walker kicking Pedro who was on the floor early in the game.

 

Rose’s forearm to Willians face which started the melee.

 

I actually could go on.

 

 

 

 

OK - now we've got something to talk about. I had a look at the incidents again and here's the verdict:

 

1) Dier's first booking.  

 

You don't do yourself any favours by exaggerating. It wasn't knee high. Dier's foot made contact with Hazard's heel, about 6 inches off the ground. A bad tackle, but you can see why it was just a yellow. 

 

2) Walker kicking Pedro.

 

Not a red card, though could easily have been booked for stupidity / petulance. Clattenburg presumably took no actionat all  because the kick was about as violent as a pat round the face from a kitten.

 

3) Rose's forearm.

 

Once again, you're exaggerating. There's no way that was 'to the face'. Rose's arm hits the back of Willian's neck. He was booked, as was Willian for retaliation, and that seemed about right.

 

 

Feel free to add those other examples you say you've got up your sleeve, but at this stage I'm sticking with the same conclusion.

 

 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

21 minutes ago, kushiro said:

OK - now we've got something to talk about. I had a look at the incidents again and here's the verdict:

 

1) Dier's first booking.  

 

You don't do yourself any favours by exaggerating. It wasn't knee high. Dier's foot made contact with Hazard's heel, about 6 inches off the ground. A bad tackle, but you can see why it was just a yellow. 

 

2) Walker kicking Pedro.

 

Not a red card, though could easily have been booked for stupidity / petulance. Clattenburg presumably took no actionat all  because the kick was about as violent as a pat round the face from a kitten.

 

3) Rose's forearm.

 

Once again, you're exaggerating. There's no way that was 'to the face'. Rose's arm hits the back of Willian's neck. He was booked, as was Willian for retaliation, and that seemed about right.

 

 

Feel free to add those other examples you say you've got up your sleeve, but at this stage I'm sticking with the same conclusion.

 

 

Three words:

 

In your opinion.

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

Three words:

 

In your opinion.

Isn't that pretty much every post on here?

[Countryfox]

4 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Isn't that pretty much every post on here?

 

In your opinion perhaps peaky ...  

[sacreblueits442]

So...... if Spurs had scored at the end of the game he would not have allowed it? I f Hazard had cleared a shot off the line by diving and patting  the ball away with his hands, he would not given a penalty or if he did give a penalty would he disallow every kick taken until Tottenham missed.

 Wouldn't these scenarios result in the one thing he said he was trying to avoid!!

[purpleronnie]

Just more attempts by clattenburg to become the celebrity he's always wanted to be.

[theessexfox]

4 hours ago, kushiro said:

OK - now we've got something to talk about. I had a look at the incidents again and here's the verdict:

 

1) Dier's first booking.  

 

You don't do yourself any favours by exaggerating. It wasn't knee high. Dier's foot made contact with Hazard's heel, about 6 inches off the ground. A bad tackle, but you can see why it was just a yellow. 

 

2) Walker kicking Pedro.

 

Not a red card, though could easily have been booked for stupidity / petulance. Clattenburg presumably took no actionat all  because the kick was about as violent as a pat round the face from a kitten.

 

3) Rose's forearm.

 

Once again, you're exaggerating. There's no way that was 'to the face'. Rose's arm hits the back of Willian's neck. He was booked, as was Willian for retaliation, and that seemed about right.

 

 

Feel free to add those other examples you say you've got up your sleeve, but at this stage I'm sticking with the same conclusion.

 

 

You ignored the second Dier tackle on Fabregas which could've been a red on its own let alone a yellow, plus there was a third Dier tackle which was at least a booking.

 

https://twitter.com/eunanjack/status/929030966395506688

[TheUltimateWinner]

27 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

You ignored the second Dier tackle on Fabregas which could've been a red on its own let alone a yellow, plus there was a third Dier tackle which was at least a booking.

 

https://twitter.com/eunanjack/status/929030966395506688

****ing hell that last one is outrageous, I forgot how bad it was.

 

What a shitshow 

[ian_marshall]

I don't believe for one second that referee's take a neutral stance on their decision making and only judge what is in front of them.

 

I was at a dinner evening over at Burton Albion where Gary Rowett and Mark Halsey were guest speakers and both were telling stories about about situations that they had faced over their careers.

 

Mark Halsey had no issues whatsoever in telling a room full of several hundred people about a top flight match in which he'd had a disagreement with a player earlier in a game, and how he spent the rest of the game looking for any opportunity possible for said player to make the slightest bit of contact with an opposition player in his own personal penalty area so that he could award a penalty and "put the player back in his box", which he eventually did. Came across as being very egotistical, and really made me question the ethics of our referee's in the modern game. 

[pleatout]

I've avoided commenting on this up to now.  And maybe I shouldnt, but to hell with it.

 

EVERY ref goes into EVERY game with a game plan.  It may be to stamp on one or both teams early on because they are thugs or it may be to let it go for a bit.

 

If you throw cards out early, you've got no where to go and you end up with 7 a side.  Sunday morning (my level) that's no biggie but top of the prem... hmmmm.

 

I've posted before and caused a small meltdown and I'll post again, don my tin hat and wait for the backlash but the LAST thing anyone wants is consistency and "the letter of the law".  Free flowing football  and an invisible referee means letting a hell of a lot go unpunished.  Some of you may have heard this particular blind fat idiot that doesnt know the "rules" tell you "just because I didn't give it, doesn't mean I didn't see it.  Don't do that again!" 

 

Clattenburg is the best ref we've seen in the prem for a long time.  Any young refs out there would do well to look at the way he handles players and the game.  He kept it at 11 v 11.  No one moaned about the ref.  It could have been one of the others (a rolling stone gathers no .....) and the game gets abandoned as spuds go down to 6 and they have to play it again etc etc.

 

At my level I've done games where my game plan was to get to 90 mins and blow for time before they managed to maim or kill each other.

 

Oh and if you think the letter of the law is the way to go, be my guest.  Get out there on sunday morning.  22 players and a manager or two will have no problem offering you their unbiased and unedited opinion.  You soon realise that a game plan and game/player management are the most important things, more than "the letter of the law"

 

Anyway I'm on western park sunday morning 10.30 (snow permitting) come and see how it's done - very badly most weeks and shockingly the rest of the time.

[Rogstanley]

http://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/42299897

 

Clattenburg has now said his original comments were misinterpreted, before going on to make pretty much the exact same comments as he made before.

 

I don't get it. Either he's utterly thick and doesn't understand that by not sending spurs' players off he was giving them an advantage that could have cost us the title, or he's just so totally desperate for attention he's willing to make himself look like an absolute bellend to get it. I suspect the latter.

Edited 10 December 2017 by Rogstanley

[foxinsocks]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

http://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/42299897

 

Clattenburg has now said his original comments were misinterpreted, before going on to make pretty much the exact same comments as he made before.

 

I don't get it. Either he's utterly thick and doesn't understand that by not sending spurs' players off he was giving them an advantage that could have cost us the title, or he's just so totally desperate for attention he's willing to make himself look like an absolute bellend to get it. I suspect the latter.

suppose that emboldened by not being sent off a spurs player continued to be reckless ..and injured a chelsea player.  he had a duty to send of players... he should return his match fee.