Mark Clattenburg

[Batch]

Along with the above it would be good to have rugby style refs explaining decisions as they are made with ref links available to the crowd.

[jonny72]

As others have pointed out there are simple solutions to the abuse referee's receive;
- Raised voices, abusive / aggressive / foul language, aggressive body language to be a yellow card.
- All audio to be recorded from the officials mics. Initially for internal use but eventually to be used at games / on TV.
- Stricter controls on interviews and press conferences to stop pressure being applied to officials and unfair criticism.

I reckon the madness would last no more than 45 minutes the first week it was applied. Then the only aggression we'll see is the managers shouting at their players to shut the fuck up and get away from the officials.

The stupid thing is that I don't think anyone is actually opposed to this kind of change and the yellow cards wouldn't even need a rule change - just a reinterpretation of the current rules (which they do all the time). Though strangely it only seems to be fans that call for it to be done.

Rugby is a perfect example which football should follow. Always amuses me to see a 6 foot 6 brick shit house talking in a quiet and apologetic voice to a stick insect referee. If we get the same attitudes in football it will be a far better game.

[reeves4england]

I wish MOTD would occasionally feature a referee or ex-referee as one of its pundits - it could educate fans in the Laws of the Game, and they could explain the pressure refs get from players and how little leeway they're allowed by the assessors.

Didn't they do this once last season? Or perhaps it was football focus?

[jonny72]

Didn't they do this once last season? Or perhaps it was football focus?

MOTD2 have had referee's on occasionally, might only be retired ones though.

[carbonwhite]

Refs get more abuse from fans than players. Its part of the game nothing will change just like diving.

[kerry red]

I think Chelsea are going to be in the shit big time over this.

Man Utd have stated their players heard nothing.

If it boils down to Chelsea players just backing up others who said they did hear something, they have previous about lying through their teeth in the John Terry case.

Cant imagine future refs in their games are ever going to be over sympathetic towards them.

[Notts red]

If this was supposed to of happened during  the game Sky haven't shown a reaction from either Mikel or Mata. surely at least one of these players would of gone mad if they were racially abused by Clattenburg. Just don't stack up to me.

[jonny72]

I think Chelsea are going to be in the shit big time over this.

Man Utd have stated their players heard nothing.

If it boils down to Chelsea players just backing up others who said they did hear something.

Seems to be a lot of confusion over which Chelsea players heard what, as well as whether they actually heard what they thought due to English not being their first language and Clattenburg's accent. Even Chelsea seem to be questioning whether anything happened and if there is a case to answer.

As you say, there could be a whole world of hurt heading Chelsea's way over this.

[Arriba]

Think Chelsea are bitter about not getting decisons and with all the recent racist shit they have been guilty of and are trying the gain some sort of higher ground now. It will be a few of their words(which have been proven to not be trusted-cashley)against the accused and his officials. Without knowing what the alleged comments were meant to be cannot currently see Chelsea gaining anything from this and are just dragging a referee through all sorts of shit in the process.

the only way this can be stopped is for refs to use a rule of the game and send off players for foul and abusive language. Even if Clattenburg did say anything it would have been in retaliation at dogs abuse from the players.

[ghanimah]

To accuse a ref of such a serious allegation would mean you would need concrete evidence and then some. It looks like Chelsea don't...if the allegations are proved untrue Chelsea need the book thrown at them

[Reg Smeeton]

To accuse a ref of such a serious allegation would mean you would need concrete evidence and then some. It looks like Chelsea don't...if the allegations are proved untrue Chelsea need the book thrown at them

Relegation by 2 divisions would be fair enough...

However I see the FA book to be thrown as looking something like this..

[url width=300 height=274]http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/424599.jpg[/url]

[ghanimah]

Relegation by 2 divisions would be fair enough...

However I see the FA book to be thrown as looking something like this..

[url width=300 height=274]http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/424599.jpg[/url]

  Sadly, you've got it about right...

[Dozno9]

Chelsea have seen a teeny, tiny gap left open by the FA and have decided to rip it open with huge force and vigour to try and make something out of nothing in order to get back at them at what they deem to have been unfair and aggressive behavour towards them from the FA.

Clattenburg is the innocent victim in this.*


*maybe

[jonny72]

My take;
- a few Chelsea players thought they may have possibly heard something.
- they didn't, due to; the noise, emotions, not speaking English fluently, Clattenburg's accent.
- Chelsea players and staff are annoyed after the game, viewing their loss as being caused by the referee.
- it kicks off in their dressing room, a few off the cuff comments get turned in to allegations and they turn in to a lynch mob.
- they confront the referee and it kicks off.
- emotions continue to run high, feel they're being picked on by the FA and officials, so they make an official complaint.
- once they'd calmed down they'd realised they'd made something out of nothing and fucked up big time.
- they're now working on an exit strategy.

Which is more likely? That Clattenburg called him a monkey, or that he said Mikel and they misheard him? I also find it hard to believe that anyone in the UK would use the term monkey racially as it just doesn't get used in that sense. Unless he said cheeky monkey in which case he should get sacked for stupidity.

[[email protected]]

I've just read his thread, and thought I'd throw a couple of points in.

1. Refs being interviewed after the game and explaining decisions/apologising.
The PGMOL (FA body who supplies refs to professional games) do not allow this.  Personally I think hey should, perhaps 24 hours after the match, but a wall of silence does nobody any good.

2. Bad language not being tolerated at lower levels, but accepted higher up.
Difficult one this.  In a nutshell, refs at park level and have no problem sending players off because at the end of the day they only have to control the environment of 22 players and a handful of subs etc.  At premier league level, sending someone off and having 40,000 people potentially kick-off because they did not hear it could make things difficult.  Coupled with the argument that it is players livelihoods and therefore are more highly strung...  I would like to see all premier league refs mic'd up like David Ellary and then hear them on MOTD.

3. Being allowed into the dressing room after the final whistle.
The higher up you go, the more this comes into play.  I don't know the exact details, but I believe in the premier league players and management cannot go in for 30 mins after the match unless invited in.   The rationale is that this gives everyone time to calm down after the match.  I can't see why Clattenburg would invite them in "Minutes after the match" after all that went on, so this strikes me as a little strange.

4. Referee microphones
These can only be heared between the 4 officials, and are "always open" with no recording allowed.  Personally I would like these to be recorded and subsequently available to explain contentious decisions.

5. Refs on MOTD etc...
Sky tried this when they first won the premier league rights, but it only lasted for about 4 weeks.  At the end of the day it doesn't make "good television" to calmly explain why the ref made a decision.  Presenters and pundits from BBC, Sky and ITV are regulary invited by the FA to attend session where the laws of the game are discussed and taught, but they have never attended.  Much better to show slow motion replays from 10 different angles and then still argue about it!  The premier league do have an ex-ref go through major decisions on Yahoo on a Monday morning though to explain why decisions went the way they did. 

6. The whole Clattenberg/Chelsea thing
IF Clattenberg did use racially abusive language, and it is a big IF, then the FA should throw the book at him.  Forget Suarez and Terry, referees are expected to uphold not just the letter of the (footballing) law, but also the spirit.  However, if it transpires that Chelsea are just causing problems out of bitterness, then I would hope they do the same to them.