Mark Clattenberg

[OldNick]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42219327 A very arrogant man, and surely his job is to adhere to the rules not use it as an experiment.

Should be banned from football

[angelman]

I read it slightly differently. He let them self destruct RATHER THAN sending 3 players off and HIM being the architect of their destruction.

 

Some observations.....

 

1) He was overly lenient that night

2) On hindsight it was the right thing to do and was a great game

3) It was the wrong reason for doing it - he did it because of HIM not the game.

4) He is a ****, a narcissist and thinks it all about him.

5) We are better off that this prima donna is in the Middle East.

[benjii]

He's a good ref when he's not thinking about himself but he does appear to be something of a bell end.

[beatlesaint]

He likes the tv cameras a bit too much and as for treating every player exactly the same ? Yeah course you do Mark

[Sheaf Saint]

It's the referee's job to apply the rules fairly and correctly, regardless of which teams are playing and what is at stake, not to have a 'game plan' before a match begins.

 

What a pr!ck.

[Sheaf Saint]

The stupidity here is that he believes Spurs would have blamed him for costing them the title if he had dished out a couple of red cards. But the only people who would have borne the responsibility of that would be the players themselves who collectively lost their heads on the night. If he had applied the rules correctly there could have been no complaints at all.

[OldNick]

To me it shows that he may have used game plans in other games as well. He admits to this one, but what about othershe has not owned up to that may have cost teams league status or affected his beloved Newcastle???

[Alanh]

Read Howard Webb's biography. He explains how refs have to have game plans for certain matches because they feature particular players, or there is history in the fixture. Essentially refs are never going to officiate inexactly the same way for every match and all refs are a bit different, but in the UK at least we have among the bets in the world.

[mrfahaji]

'They thought the game was out of control, and then I explained it to them, and they go, "oh yeah, yeah, you are the best"'

 

Was pretty much how I read it.

[The Saint]

Think his reasoning is sound and flawed in equal measures.

 

He would have been roasted in the unbiased press that we have in the UK by sending players off, just imagine the endless analysis on TV of every element of every red card. Everyone saw what went on and can make up their own mind.

 

Fair to teams who would have faced weakened sides as a result of any red cards...? Absolutely not.

 

Think his only mistake was revealing his game plan now...

[aintforever]

There is nothing sound in his reasoning at all, he should apply the rules correctly whatever game it is. That Chelsea game was very close and he could easily have cost Leicester the title.

 

No wonder smaller clubs always get the rough end of the stick with referees, if they are thinking about what the press is going to say the next day.

[Sheaf Saint]

The quote from Steve Claridge on the BBC sums it up for me. What if one of those players who shouldn't have been on the pitch went on to score a winning goal and Spurs had taken the title? The Leicester fans would have been rightly p!ssed, and you can bet that Clottenburg would never have made this admission if that had been the case.

[shurlock]

The annoying thing is that we played Tottenham in the next game and we were in the European hunt, trying to fight off Wham and Liverpool. Remember feeling aggrieved that a few more Tottenham players weren’t suspended for our crucial game, given our horrendous record at WHL, though it ultimately didn’t matter as we won the game.

 

In particular, remember Dier escaping a blatant second yellow after Clattenburg played the advantage and then had to deal with another fracas, seemingly forgetting to go back and book Dier.

 

Can see why he tried to protect himself -in the same way refs are reluctant to make a major decisions at the end of games, though no game exists in a vacuum and third parties will invariably be affected. As such better to apply the rules as consistently as possible.

Edited 5 December, 2017 by shurlock

[CB Fry]

The quote from Steve Claridge on the BBC sums it up for me. What if one of those players who shouldn't have been on the pitch went on to score a winning goal and Spurs had taken the title? The Leicester fans would have been rightly p!ssed, and you can bet that Clottenburg would never have made this admission if that had been the case.

 

Well obviously not - everything he says is post-rationalising to make him look clever anyway. He may have had a game plan to make sure he wasn't to blame or under the spotlight but that would apply to any high profile match, I don't think he is saying his game plan for that match was different to all other game plans he's ever had.

 

For that game Spurs could have been two up in the first ten minutes and then its nothing to do with the ref at all.

 

The idea that every ref referees every game and every player in exactly the same way is just naive. The world cup final is a different beast to a relegation six pointer or a checkatrade third round match.

[John Boy Saint]

Should not be a surprise reading that from him, as when he was officiating here he admitted that if one set of fans were giving him grief from the stands, it sometimes influenced his decisions in favour of the opposition.

Just shows how much of a law unto themselves refs are, that having made that statement, or words to the effect that no one came down on him like a ton of bricks.

 

Glad he has left these shores as i saw the most bizarre big team decision probably ever from him last season at SMS v Liverpool. Liverpool had defended a corner and were breaking out one of our players clipped the one of theirs with the ball just outside their box, the ball went to another Liverpool player who launched the ball downfield towards Mane, this is while Clattenburg was signalling for an advantage being played, Mane gets the ball closes in on goal, inside our 6 yard box VVD sprints in robs the ball off Mane and Clattenburg blows his whistle and gives Liverpool a free go at building an attack from where he played the advantage from........................hang on thats gone from the fouled player to another player then punted down field to another player who has had a chance to score from inches but failed advantage over surely.

Decisions like that and the bloke probably wondered why fans were calling him names associated with what he might be up to under his duvet with a torch and a well thumbed copy of Playboy!!

[Pamplemousse]

This man loves the headlines. Up there with Jeff Winter as a very average referee who has a gigantic ego.

 

The best refs are the anonymous ones.

[Turkish]

He was right about Lallana though

[saint1977]

Well obviously not - everything he says is post-rationalising to make him look clever anyway. He may have had a game plan to make sure he wasn't to blame or under the spotlight but that would apply to any high profile match, I don't think he is saying his game plan for that match was different to all other game plans he's ever had.

 

For that game Spurs could have been two up in the first ten minutes and then its nothing to do with the ref at all.

 

The idea that every ref referees every game and every player in exactly the same way is just naive. The world cup final is a different beast to a relegation six pointer or a checkatrade third round match.

 

Exactly - just say the Skates hadn't gone out of the cup in R1 (ha ha) and we'd drawn them in R3. The ref is probably going let a few challenges go and then book the first challenge that looks like escalating matters.

 

That said, Shurlock has a good point about Eric Dier, a lot of comment on here after that match as we had Spurs next. We won anyway and got 6th, so turned out to be a moot point, but was a risk if Clattenburg did do that. Sending Dier off as he should have done wouldn't have cost Spurs anything that late on but it could be more about the fact he was a rubbish ref at times.

[saint1977]

This man loves the headlines. Up there with Jeff Winter as a very average referee who has a gigantic ego.

 

The best refs are the anonymous ones.

 

Didn't WGS once point out that Uriah Rennie had his own agent after a game where his decisions had clearly given WGS indigestion?

 

Agree on the anonymous refs. Durkin was one of the best and had a quiet but assertive quality. Clattenburg isn't the worst I've seen - Steve Dunn (he of the Shipperley disallowed Man U goal and Villa home notriety) and Roger Milford (Oldham) win that award jointly. Trevor Kettle was a shocker. David Elleray could be decent if his ego let him but could lapse into schoolteacher mode and lose control.

[saint1977]

He was right about Lallana though

 

He was. Politically quite shrewd although has cut off his nose with the likes of Keith Hackett.

[shurlock]

He adjusted the rules because of that game. Makes perfect sense and should be encouraged.

 

Doesn't stop him being a bellend though.

 

And if Dier had scored against us in the next game, denying us a Europa spot, you'd have been similarly philosophical?

 

I can see refs applying discretion, giving players several warnings before booking them etc; but Clattenburg lost the plot in that game so much so that the players felt emboldened to lash out because the ref was doing diddly-squat about it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

He adjusted the rules because of that game. Makes perfect sense and should be encouraged .

 

Totally wrong. Football decided a long time ago that there needed to be consistency of refereeing , with mandatory offences and punishments. These weren’t matters of opinion, but a decision to treat offences differently because of the teams playing or situation. Spurs, by his own admission, should have had 3 players sent off. 3 players that should have served bans . The last day of that season and 2 the following. Clattenburg wasn’t to know the situation of those games, the last game was meaningless one, but what about the first 2 the following season, they could play a stronger team than the laws allowed. There’s also the unfairness of sides have blokes sent off, because Clantenberg decides that particular game isn’t deserving of rule adjusting, or sides that have referees that enforce the rules correctly. With bigger clubs playing bigger games, clubs like us won’t get this adjustment, it’ll be the big clubs. Each place in the league is worth X amount of millions, let alone relegation and European qualifying issues.

 

Are you really suggesting that referees should decide whether to enforce the rules correctly or whether not to, based on their assessment of how important the game is, or even worse, how they’ll look in the papers the next day. It’s ****ing scandalous.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Totally wrong. Football decided a long time ago that there needed to be consistency of refereeing , with mandatory offences and punishments. These weren’t matters of opinion, but a decision to treat offences differently because of the teams playing or situation. Spurs, by his own admission, should have had 3 players sent off. 3 players that should have served bans . The last day of that season and 2 the following. Clattenburg wasn’t to know the situation of those games, the last game was meaningless one, but what about the first 2 the following season, they could play a stronger team than the laws allowed. There’s also the unfairness of sides have blokes sent off, because Clantenberg decides that particular game isn’t deserving of rule adjusting, or sides that have referees that enforce the rules correctly. With bigger clubs playing bigger games, clubs like us won’t get this adjustment, it’ll be the big clubs. Each place in the league is worth X amount of millions, let alone relegation and European qualifying issues.

 

Are you really suggesting that referees should decide whether to enforce the rules correctly or whether not to, based on their assessment of how important the game is, or even worse, how they’ll look in the papers the next day. It’s ****ing scandalous.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

No they would have missed the following game which was against us -and we were in the thick of the chase for a Europa spot. As noted before, I would have been livid if those players had an effect on our game, like the jammy c**ts that Spurs are, causing us to miss out on qualification.

[Sour Mash]

Totally wrong. Football decided a long time ago that there needed to be consistency of refereeing , with mandatory offences and punishments. These weren’t matters of opinion, but a decision to treat offences differently because of the teams playing or situation. Spurs, by his own admission, should have had 3 players sent off. 3 players that should have served bans . The last day of that season and 2 the following. Clattenburg wasn’t to know the situation of those games, the last game was meaningless one, but what about the first 2 the following season, they could play a stronger team than the laws allowed. There’s also the unfairness of sides have blokes sent off, because Clantenberg decides that particular game isn’t deserving of rule adjusting, or sides that have referees that enforce the rules correctly. With bigger clubs playing bigger games, clubs like us won’t get this adjustment, it’ll be the big clubs. Each place in the league is worth X amount of millions, let alone relegation and European qualifying issues.

 

Are you really suggesting that referees should decide whether to enforce the rules correctly or whether not to, based on their assessment of how important the game is, or even worse, how they’ll look in the papers the next day. It’s ****ing scandalous.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed.

 

What I always hate is when commentators (often Gary Neville) say the ref can't give a red "this early" or they've based their decision on it being a local derby, so they've let a few tackle decisions go.

 

What probably frustrates fans most with referreing decisions, isn't them getting some wrong, its inconsistency, why is a certain foul a yellow on one occasion and not on another.

[sandwichsaint]

Has he got a book coming out or something? Just when we'd all forgotten about him and moved on, and found the football world keeps turning in a quite satisfactory fashion without him he crawls out from under his self-imposed rock with the biggest load of twaddle you are ever likely to hear. Of course he had a game plan, that’s not the problem; every referee who ever reffed a game has a game plan; I referee (umpire) at a pretty modest level and I have a game plan on a Saturday afternoon.

 

Where he is clearly BS’ing is in coming out now and saying it was all in his game plan not to send anybody off; that’s not in his choice, the rules clearly state which offences attract which penalty and while he has (lots) of room for interpretation he can’t just make it up as he goes along. The reality is he allowed the pot to get hotter and hotter, which arguably is a ‘good thing’ for the neutral and the watching ‘000.000s (but as stated above, not to the point where his actions eg not sending off players, who should subsequently be banned etc starts to impact on the overall sporting integrity of the event he is supposed to be officiating at). He then found, too late, he couldn’t turn the flame back down and it was no thanks to him that a player didn’t suffer serious injury or his actions provoke serious crowd disorder.

 

In reality he ‘lost it’ big time in what was one of the worst refereeing performances we have ever seen in top flight football. By his own admission he missed three red cards (and that was only the worst offences), there were probably another three if you analyse the yellow cards that were given or could have been given; there was also some pretty unseemly scenes with both teams' benches and cards should have gone there too. He was appointed to do a job of work and he failed spectacularly, to now claim that he had a game plan and he stage-managed the whole thing with some sort of parallel rule book and that he allowed Spurs to implode is surely a bit of a **** take to any sports fan.

[OttawaSaint]

So he didn't want the blame if spurs lost due to red cards. Two things.

 

1) What if they then went on to win. That would have had an effect in itself.

 

2) As mentioned above, players would have had suspensions and them not being suspended could also have had a huge effect. Heck perhaps even not sending them off had a knock on effect, who knows?

 

Clattenburg and others need to ref the games they are in according to the rules and not some game plan because other games/teams could potentially be affected through no fault of their own.

 

We have a similar thing in ice hockey here, you hear commentators saying, "oh well Montreal have had 3 straight penalties (meaning they are being penalised), he's not going to give another". If they are breaking the rules then they deserve it, you now have a situation whereby Montreal can cheat without fear of any punishment.

[rooney]

Does he still have the same wig?

[simo]

Never did like the cant!

[badgerx16]

What probably frustrates fans most with referreing decisions, isn't them getting some wrong, its inconsistency, why is a certain foul a yellow on one occasion and not on another.

Like the poor tackles in the penalty area that are waved away, but exactly the same challenges are penalised if they occur in midfield.

[davefoggy]

Just goes to confirm my suspicions, premier league refs are bent. They should only be referring whats in front of them, not have some kind of agenda.

And it still annoys me when certain refs call Liverpool & Man U players etc by their first names

[shurlock]

Like the poor tackles in the penalty area that are waved away, but exactly the same challenges are penalised if they occur in midfield.

 

That's not necessarily inconsistent if its applied to all teams equally.

[badgerx16]

That's not necessarily inconsistent if its applied to all teams equally.

When is it ever ?

[shurlock]

When is it ever ?

 

Ok relative to the application of other rules.

[whelk]

Slow news day

[Avenue_Saint]

W

A

N

K

E

R

[Winnersaint]

W

A

N

K

E

R

 

Alternatively!

 

K

U

N

T

[Sheaf Saint]

Ok relative to the application of other rules.

 

Dunno. Remember the penalty that was given against us at Arsenal a few years back for a tiny little shirt pull that didn't in any way stop the player getting to the ball (Might have been Hooiveld?)

 

You just knew it wouldn't have been given at the other end.

[stknowle]

He adjusted the rules because of that game. Makes perfect sense and should be encouraged.

 

Doesn't stop him being a bellend though.

 

Adjusted the rules because of that game and should be encouraged - no.

 

Bellend - yes.

[SW5 SAINT]

Now we know why so many of the decisions go the way of the big clubs, it's all part of the ref's game plan......

[OttawaSaint]

Dunno. Remember the penalty that was given against us at Arsenal a few years back for a tiny little shirt pull that didn't in any way stop the player getting to the ball (Might have been Hooiveld?)

 

You just knew it wouldn't have been given at the other end.

 

Then that not stopping for head injury and player lying in our 6 yard box, play on, ball pumped in, penalty bulli**** vs Arsenal as well.

 

Every game I’ve seen since then that has had a head injury they have stopped play immediately. ****ing annoying that we got jobbed.

[John Boy Saint]

Then that not stopping for head injury and player lying in our 6 yard box, play on, ball pumped in, penalty bulli**** vs Arsenal as well.

 

Every game I’ve seen since then that has had a head injury they have stopped play immediately. ****ing annoying that we got jobbed.

Not forgetting the fact that whilst "dead" in the 6 yard box the Arsenal player was both offside and interfering with play, then Giroud is alledged to have said to Fonte "oh who gave that away" but none of that would have happened if the Referees and linos hadn't decided amongst themselves previously that Shane Long is a cheating diving little git,

Monreal actually fouls him but "oh it's only Shane Long he's feining that" despite being right in front of the linesman,

[Barry the Badger]

Not forgetting the fact that whilst "dead" in the 6 yard box the Arsenal player was both offside and interfering with play, then Giroud is alledged to have said to Fonte "oh who gave that away" but none of that would have happened if the Referees and linos hadn't decided amongst themselves previously that Shane Long is a cheating diving little git,

Monreal actually fouls him but "oh it's only Shane Long he's feining that" despite being right in front of the linesman,

 

I think it’s fair to say that Long has done more than a little to earn that reputation

[Mystic Force]

Ok I listened to the podcast, and one he is a Wa%^% of the biggest order. Most galling was his repeated insistence that he was the best referee in the premier league. Game plan is fine, figure out who is going where and how certain players try to cheat etc, but to decide how you are going to call a game different to the rules as written is just horrible. He talked about how he was their to keep the spectacle of the game which said to me decisions go the way of the big boys because it is deemed better for the premier leagues image. He talked about fairness in a way that didn't seem very fair to me ie screw the non top 6 clubs. He talked about managing games rather than imposing rules. Your job is to impose the rules not manage a game.

 

If the rules as written are not right, instead of individuals applying them in an ad-hoc fashion the rules should be changed.

 

and secondly he is a Di