One thing I noticed in the Italian sports papers is they would not just grade players for every match but also the referee, which might seem like a tiny detail but when there's a point a referee routinely scores 3/10 questions certainly need to be asked. Of course, the obvious issue with that is that it could lead to a second front of Narrative if the likes of Moronho or Wenger blame the ref for their side's failure to win and the papers just use that as the basis of their grade rather than anything that happened in the match itself.
Clattenburg is an egomaniacal self publicist. It's never good when officials want to be the star. Tw*t. And I don't mean twit.
What his comments have done is thrown the integrity of referees into doubt, and as a consequence, the integrity of the PL.
If Clattenburg had sent off the 3 that he thought should have seen red cards, in all probability Spurs would have lost the game rather than draw it. The 3 players would then be banned so you may have lost more points. So you should be thankful to him as he helped you finish above Arsenal for the first time in 21 years. I see some Spurs posters are saying that Spurs should sue Clattenburg but you should want him knighted
If Clatterf**k had reffed the first 15 mins of the game properly, at least two Chelsky players would have been on yellows and the message would have been loud and clear to all players.
We used to have a situation in sport when the officials were not questioned their decisions were not analysed. Sending offs were rarities We actually saw little football on TV that's why the FA Cup was a big deal because it was shown live initially the only match all year on TV. If you wanted to watch football you had to visit a ground. As a boy I was taken to see Dulwich Hamlet who had crowds of 12,000 quite often. Once commercial TV started everything changed and you started to see more football on TV and then began the questioning of refs decisions. Of course football crowds always questioned him, shouts of "Did you forget your glasses" quite polite barracking but the media presented the game as if from the perspective of the average fan. This was better for their ratings but it changed the game for ever. If you listen to the old commentators mostly they tell you who has the ball and who he has passed it to and when so and so has taken a shot at goal. Now it's like sitting behind two opinionated fans mouthing off with their views. Now TV is more interested in discussing and putting their opinions to the fouls and all decisions as the game progresses. In this climate it's impossible to expect referees to be impartial deliverers of the laws of the game, in fact some of the laws of the game are so vague it's only ever about opinion. Add to that players getting cuter about how to get around these laws, how to make a dive look good or how to put a marker down on a player and it all becomes impossible to have a totally fair game. There is no doubt in my mind that the top teams are favoured with decisions in fact I think the last two seasons Spurs have been better treated than when for example Redknapp was manager. In other words we were starting to be seen as contenders and therefore 'more important' to viewing figures. Sometimes I wish I didn't like football because a lot of it stinks.
Very unprofessional from Clattenburg and it sets a dangerous precedent if he is allowing bias or personal agendas to influence his decision making. If Clattenburg was capable of this it is probably also fair to assume other referees may do similar. Also, Clattenburg`s actions at the Battle of the Bridge probably cost Chelsea 9th place that season, disgraceful.
So much for the world wanting Leicester to win the title, eh? Clattenburg should have sent 3 of your players off and Chelsea would have walked all over you. As it happened he gave you a punchers chance.
He would have given us a better chance if he applied the rules correctly, reducing the Chavs to 9 men before halftime.
Steve Claridge, of all people, has pointed out exactly why Clattenburg's talking utter ****. Ian Wright questioned the entire approach and I can't fault what he's said here: "When you listen to him and that he went in with a gameplan because he didn't want the headline of 'Clattenburg costs Spurs the title', there's something wrong about that." "I can't see how a referee can go into a game thinking about anything other than officiating it in isolation. If people have to be sent off they have to be sent off. It's baffling for me." His colleague then added: "What a load of rubbish." "Say he doesn't send those Tottenham players off, they beat Chelsea and they win the league. How does his masterplan work then?" Doesn't make sense, does it? What does make sense is that Clattenburg's attempting a delayed defence for losing control of the match. He set out to avoid doing his job, basically. Get out of the way and just let things flow, as he was wont to do. His style of refereeing was always like this. Let things blow up and then panic. Bloody awful official.
This is exactly right and what I thought as soon as I heard his recent comments. You lost control of it at the time and the only way to avoid responsibility for that is to reinvent the narrative and make it somebody else's fault. Very cowardly from Clattenberg and I don't know of anyone who is stupid enough to believe it................well, there's always one.
^^^^ This. He is just trying to gain attention coz it always was about him as a referee. If he had a plan then he is a **** as it isn’t his job to have one. Just ref the game properly and do your job - 3 Spurs and 2 Chavs could have gone but none did - so he didn’t ref it correctly
It's worse than that, in my opinion. The game turned into a ****fest because he didn't do his job properly. It started off in an incredibly spiteful and bitter fashion and he failed to do anything about it. That's why it ended up being such a mess. Anyone that watched it knew what was happening at the time, barring him, apparently.
