Yes I imagine that will cause a few raised eyebrows on this board considering the infamous goal that was not in 2005 at Old Trafford when Mendes hit a long range shot that Roy Carroll fumbled over the line by about a metre only for Clattenburg not to award the goal. We will NEVER forget that, or the Nani 'Goal' when he 'nicked' the ball off Gomes who thought it was a free kick; two infamous occasions that any Spurs fan will rightfully feel sore about. I don't believe, as some do, that these decisions were anything other than mistakes, maybe I'm wrong but I trust Clattenburg's integrity, having watched him ref. a number of games I think he just made mistakes. No I believe Clattenburg is a good referee simply because he tries to let the the game be played in the right way. You will see him use the 'play on' advantage more then the average ref. I also think he tries to differentiate between the cynical and the accidental foul for example, whereas as many refs. seem unable or unwilling to do this.I like to see the players allowed to express themselves and use hard but fair contact. I don't like the modern cynical use of the so called 'professional foul' and I think Clattenburg is of a similar mind,.If you try to let the game flow and make a distinction between the cynical and genuine tackle you are IMO more liable to make mistakes, you are reffing by the seat of your pants for the good of the game, I'll support that! It would seem that Clattenburg is out of favour atm,http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ee-been-cast-into-the-wilderness-9959203.html so perhaps a good time to consider our Refs, their standards, and the FA and it's position on this subject. The FA and FIFA,as in many areas, have often made the life of referees very difficult with their rule changes and 'philosophical' revisions and much of the cheating is down to this IMO. Anyway enough from me, what's your view on this controversial subject?
I think that he's awful and biased, to be honest. He utterly tainted himself by running to Ferguson when he was accused of racism against Chelsea, too. I agree with what you're saying about the governing bodies making life hard for the officials, though. Take West Ham's second goal against us yesterday. No matter what they did, somebody would have had a dig at them. Too many of the laws of the game are now vague and left open to interpretation, which means that people often disagree even after the event. That can't be right, can it? As I've said before, the whole thing needs to be cleaned up and sorted out. Rules need to be clarified, respect needs to be given, cheats need to be punished and more youngsters need to be attracted to the role. I think that the current lot are of quite poor quality, but they're up against a crap system and who'd want to do their job, anyway? They're constantly pulled to bits, both on the pitch and off it, with players, managers and pundits all getting in on the act.
Best referee? That's an award that's up there with Cleverest Person on TOWIE, Happiest Character in Eastenders or Best England ODI Player - nothing to brag about.
Would you be prepared to pick out one of the current Refs as being the best that we have PNP? Or do you think none are worthy of such an accolade?
Here, here. Start again from scratch with rules that are clearly and concisely written, and optimized for consistent interpretation. Then add a reasonablly limited video challenge system. I’ll bet it wouldn’t cost too much to use computer vision for offside calls as well. I’m convinced that the current miasma exists at least partly to create the wiggle room needed to send important results certain teams’ way. As to Clattenburg. I’ve never liked him, but I take the opinion of Spurf and the other Spurs posters seriously, and plan to watch and evaluate Clattenburg the next chance I get. Quite aside from the famous gaffes, I think I remember an article singling him out as a wannabe celebrity. To tell the truth, I haven’t started keeping a book on referees in my head. "They’re all crap," is the state of my evaluation at this point.
I don't remember the good refs, but i tend to remember the bad ones (in terms of Spurs games). Typically: Battenburg, Foy, Webb
No idea, honestly. My general reaction to hearing who's in charge of one of our games tends to be one of two things. Either "Oh no, not that twat", or, "Who?", which isn't great. Looking at the Select Group list, those that I'd instantly flag up as problematic would be Dowd, Clattenburg and Foy. I wouldn't say that any of the rest are exceptional, though. There's no Collina in there, is there? Dean, Marriner and Swarbrick are the only ones with experience and a relatively decent level, but they've all made massive **** ups, too.
Are referees taking the flack for the players, managers and officials? Are we shooting the messenger? I just don't believe the common complaint that refs are biased. The people who are clearly biased are us fans and I think this colours our view of the ref and pretty much always has.
I think that some refs are easily influenced and that they're selected for certain games for that reason. Ferguson was superb at getting the officials that he wanted and using his power to put them under pressure. Mourinho's trying to replicate that with his latest campaign of bullshit, but he's always been at it to some extent. Other officials are simply homers, bowing down to crowd reactions, rather than making the correct decision. Human nature, on some level, but it's not something that should be happening in the Premier League. I don't actually blame the refs for these problems, though I'll vent at individual errors and crap games. The issue is that they're put in the firing line, treated like crap and given no respect. That's not the way to attract good people to the job or get the best out of those that are doing it.
This is a problem that existed in kids football in the mid-90s, trust me. But fixing it in the most watched leagues would filter down i'm sure. You would not believe some of the abuse i got refereeing U13 games from the parents. Not to mention threats of physical violence. I should say i was 14-15 at the time.
Technology would help, but is rejected. When a huge German goalkeeper runs full pelt and throws himself across the path of the England captain, who instantly goes down, the instinctive reaction of any referee watching that in real time from 20, 30, 40 yards away is to call a foul. What Dowd needed on that occasion was to be able to ask a video ref to look at what happened (as in rugby) or to have access to TV images himself before he made a decision.
I tend to like any devil’s advocate position. But I disagree with you about this.No ref gets out of bed in the morning planning to be biased. Not too frequently, anyway. But bias still exists. I can’t find the link, but there is good data to suggest refs are strongly influenced by crowds. This may be the one real prejudicial factor for refs, since it would account for both home team and big team bias (bigger teams tend to have more supporters.) My own guess (and it’s no more than that) would be that there is a big player bias as well, best expressed in the words, "If it was a third strike, Ted Williams wouldn’t have taken it." Big players, if they manage their relationships with officials intelligently, tend to receive favorable treatment, partly due to a tendency to hero-worship, and partly because the big player is a kind of higher master of the game. Finally, big team bias exists as well, though I would guess it is not as strong a factor as crowd or big player bias. I’ve noted my hometown Steelers tended to get more calls than they should, though the fact that they’ve been one of the most popular teams makes it explicable as crowd bias. Finally, I have to wonder about "special circumstances bias" or "season-fixing bias" in the PL. The year when Chelsea finished two points above Spurs while getting the equivalent of 15 extra pens is hard to forget. The jury is still out for me on that one, but given the amount of match fixing in football (especially in Serie A), the chances that it exists at some level or in some form are decent. Which reminds me that proven match fixing is another well established cause for (some) referee bias. No doubt I do watch games with my Spurs’ shaded lenses on. But I also do my best to compensate for them as well as I can, and am interested in any good information on the subject, regardless of its content.
So far we have no support for the refs (apart from myself) so I am going to see if they do get any support from other posters before I chip in again.
I would. I remember playing the most meaningless refereed games in existence, and having one team mate who spent all game every game whining at the ref. I should have but did not find the words to explain to him that he wasn’t good enough, and the game wasn’t important enough, to merit complaining about calls. Ever. People are idiots.
I agree with this. FIFA under Blatter have prevaricated too long. Most cases would be settled in seconds with an instant replay. Better to get it right than stubbornly stick to the, clearly increasingly divisive, methods currently in place. , IMO.
Alan Wiley had a remarkable talent for ****ing us over, while we've had two shockers from Jon Moss this season.
As well as using video technology only captains should be allowed to approach and speak to the referees unless called over by the referee. This has to be strictly enforced by all referees. Suitable punishment would be yellow cards for all the offenders and the opposition given the option to move the free kick forward by up to 10 metres (or back by up to 10 metres if they feel that would be more beneficial). I'm sure that after a few weeks the message would get home to all players and would allow the referee to do his job without unnecessary pressure. This can be used at all levels of the game and would mean that children will not see and copy the harassment currently experienced by refs from FIFA elite level down to schoolboy level. It may also persuade more people to become refs and the bigger the pool the more likely it is that the quality of refereeing will improve. However, with all the old farts at the FA, EUFA, FIFA and all the other governing bodies, I'm won't be holding my breath
If there were use of video technology, there would be no point in the Terrys of the world trying to intimidate officials. The evidence would be final, and end any arguments.
It will take some time for suitable video technology to be available, and almost certainly will initially only be used for factual calls, not judgement calls. Keeping players away from the ref, however could be introduced in time for this weekend, if the governing bodies had the cojones.
