So Mr. Clattenburg has been talking about how he refereed the new battle of Stamford Bridge a couple of seasons back, and how he went into it with a definite game plan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42219327
It's an interesting read, full of talking points about the whole idea and purpose of refereeing. I would think that thorneyfox in particular will have a view on it.
What it boils down to though is this: His plan, from the start, was to allow Spurs to lose any chance of the title on their own. He didn't want to be the lasting excuse for anyone. He says now that he could have sent about 3 players off, but didn't for that reason.
Quite what should be made of this, I'm not sure. On one hand, he's admitting being over-lenient and giving them every chance to continue. On the other hand, he's been proven right - but only because the result was what it was. In a way it's ancient history now and a chance to move on, but it's a fascinating interview because A: It shows that the whole story around the title that season was having an effect on people way outside our bubble to the point where the best official in the country was deciding to go into another match with a game plan, and B: It suggests that officials in general may well not apply the same laws to different teams depending on their situation. Is that entirely fair or just practical?
Mark Clattenburg tells all
posted on 4/12/17
And Harry Kanes goal last Tuesday was offside!!!
posted on 4/12/17
I'm afraid I have to disagree with most of the comments here. A good referee should absolutely not take into account anything other than the match in hand, he should apply the rules consistently match by match whether or not there is anything big at stake for one team or another. Of course each ref will differ slightly from another one in that some are stricter than others, but that's not the point- they need to be consistently true to themselves.
I actually think what Clattenburg has admitted is disgraceful, and amounts to corruption. Think of a snooker referee, for example. They apply the rules exactly the same for every match no matter who is playing. The whole point about a ref or umpire is that they are impartial, and to take any notice whatsoever of any factor other than that there is team A vs team B is corruption my opinion. Rant over.
posted on 4/12/17
KPF,
Not entirely sure who you're disagreeing with here. Isn't consistent application of the rules what everyone wants? Also you seem to be advocating that consistency isn't important when one referee is stricter than another, but this is surely part of the problem and contradicts your first point? The less room for interpretation the better.
As stated previously I do favour a referee who only blows the whistle when he has to: i.e. plays advantage and isn't pedantic. I also prefer a referee who only makes game changing decisions (sending offs/penalties) when he's fairly sure or who has been advised with some certainty from his assistants. In this situation then if in doubt - don't give the decision - or, as Thorney would say, "don't guess"!
I do, however, agree with your main point that Clattenburg should have applied the laws appropriately irrespective of the situation.
posted on 4/12/17
Basically clattenburg is absolutely admitting he is influenced by the back page headlines and avoided making the CORRECT decisions on red cards because he didn't want to be blamed
Shameful
posted on 4/12/17
BS - The big worry to me is just how many others would be influenced to do something similar. Just like we saw against Man City when Kompany should have gone and the ref bottled it. He saw the headlines: "Man City's great unbeaten run comes to end due to [adjective] refereeing decision".
posted on 4/12/17
The bottom line of this is that all former referees should shut up and that goes for any current ones too. Shut up because they’re digging a hole for themselves. Shut up because they’re not helping an already difficult situation that is getting worse not better.
Shut up all of you.
posted on 4/12/17
Actually, despite the stain upon his character, I'm glad this has been brought up. If this is indeed happening often then a light needs to be shone upon it. Some of what he says, i.e. letting a game go if possible, is correct. But you can't have different rules.
posted on 5/12/17
Already getting wound up by the fact that it is being reported that this was the match that 'lost Spurs the title' and also on SSN, the match that 'handed Leicester the title'. Spurs lost second place, they never had the title and Leicester, imo, earned the title with a consistent series of results over the whole season, nobody 'gave' it to us especially not Mark Clattenburg! Small gripe I know but hate the inference that little old Leicester could never have managed it otherwise.
On Clattenburgs admission? Just confirms what most people new already, referees predetermined game plans and worries over bad press for making (or not making) decisions, rightfully or wrongly are costing lesser teams big money and the only way I personally think it will ever be solved is by introducing video refs.
posted on 5/12/17
*knew....sorry
posted on 5/12/17
So now we know what we all knew anyway.
That refs dont referee games according to the rules of the game.
It all worked out lucky for Clattenburg because the game ebded a draw. What if Chelsea hadnt equilized and Spurs had won. Clattenburg would have had to live with that result because he geliberately didnt ref the game correctly. Coming out with this now , to get himself in the headlines ( when he is no longer reffing) is hardly going to help those reffing now ( though nothing is going to help Jon Moss, another clanger on Sunday).
How much is Clattenburg getting paid for this carp.
No wonder fans replaced the CL witha TW when discussing him.
UTF