Mark Clattenburg

[ivaldo]

To make sure the officials aren't influenced by anyone just before or after matches, I imagine. Makes perfect sense. They're also not allowed to talk to officials from either club without the presence of the rest of their ref-team.

Seems almost childish to me. If you can trust a ref to be impartial in the middle of a pitch surrounded by 22 highly strung players and thousands of fans appealing for every decision, you can trust a manager to be impartial either side of the game.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

Seems almost childish to me. If you can trust a ref to be impartial in the middle of a pitch surrounded by 22 highly strung players and thousands of fans appealing for every decision, you can trust a manager to be impartial either side of the game.

The point is that the referee is completely accountable for what happens on the pitch because everyone can see what is happening. A referee or a manager might say or do something they really really shouldn't if they were alone and behind closed doors, which is why steps are taken to avoid that situation.

 

[Getsme]

Seems almost childish to me. If you can trust a ref to be impartial in the middle of a pitch surrounded by 22 highly strung players and thousands of fans appealing for every decision, you can trust a manager to be impartial either side of the game.

It's to protect the referee against accusations.

 

[ivaldo]

The point is that the referee is completely accountable for what happens on the pitch because everyone can see what is happening. A referee or a manager might say or do something they really really shouldn't if they were alone and behind closed doors, which is why steps are taken to avoid that situation.

It's to protect the referee against accusations.

And once they get home?

 

[Momochiru]

The whole thing sounds fishy. I'd say, let's demote him to the Championship

 

[Getsme]

And once they get home?

Nothing, but it's less likely.

 

[ivaldo]

Nothing, but it's less likely.

Not really.

 

[Getsme]

Not really.

How?

 

[ivaldo]

How?

Why would what amounts to a car ride have any real relevance on how influenced he can be?

 

[Snow]

What is the travel policy in force for exactly?

"Premier League regulations require the referee and his assistants to travel together to and from games for integrity and security purposes."

 

[BorisontheRock]

Why would what amounts to a car ride have any real relevance on how influenced he can be?

The issue isn't really that he went alone, had conversations alone etc, the issue is that he made a decision about what fraud rules apply and what don't. He determined that some rules don't apply to him therefore he should be suspect.

Let's say you work in a bank, a customer gives you £1000 bug you're in a hurry to have beer with a friend, so rather than process it, you pocket it and go. You transfer the money to the customer as you had no intent of doing anything wrong, yet you've deliberately broken protocol and will probably be sacked, clattenberg is no different. He knew the enforced travel arrangements but decided to breach.... He deserves more to be honest.....what if next week he decides the betting rules don't apply to him....

 

[ivaldo]

The issue isn't really that he went alone, had conversations alone etc, the issue is that he made a decision about what fraud rules apply and what don't. He determined that some rules don't apply to him therefore he should be suspect.

Let's say you work in a bank, a customer gives you £1000 bug you're in a hurry to have beer with a friend, so rather than process it, you pocket it and go. You transfer the money to the customer as you had no intent of doing anything wrong, yet you've deliberately broken protocol and will probably be sacked, clattenberg is no different. He knew the enforced travel arrangements but decided to breach.... He deserves more to be honest.....what if next week he decides the betting rules don't apply to him....

My issue isn't that he broke the rules, its that its a ridiculous rule in the first place.

 

[Ducklegs]

What a surprise to find that yet again Mark Clattenburg is involved in some form of controversy.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I was thinking the guy who used to be with Galaxy in the 70s, but it's someone else.

 

[freshibal]

I used to think he was a bit of a calamity ref and then he improved... but lately it feels like he has regressed badly, and makes more mistakes than he used to.

 

[BorisontheRock]

My issue isn't that he broke the rules, its that its a ridiculous rule in the first place.

It's not rediculous at all, in order to preserve and prove the integrity of the position, the referee team travels together, Imagine if they didn't and the linesman was delayed, there will have been lots of opportunities where managers and players were seen approaching the referee with no verification of what happened, similarly after the game, there is lots of opportunity for contact without verification.

 

[ivaldo]

It's not rediculous at all, in order to preserve and prove the integrity of the position, the referee team travels together, Imagine if they didn't and the linesman was delayed, there will have been lots of opportunities where managers and players were seen approaching the referee with no verification of what happened, similarly after the game, there is lots of opportunity for contact without verification.

Yet that magically stops when the referees get home does it? Its about time we actually entrust the referees to do their job without babysitters, that includes allowing them to give their reasons on decisions made too.

 

[Pexbo]

Yet that magically stops when the referees get home does it? Its about time we actually entrust the referees to do their job without babysitters, that includes allowing them to give their reasons on decisions made too.

It's a protocol. Stop being so pedantic.

 

[BorisontheRock]

Yet that magically stops when the referees get home does it? Its about time we actually entrust the referees to do their job without babysitters, that includes allowing them to give their reasons on decisions made too.

Maybe trust bankers to do their job properly, let's not bother with banking regs, oh what, it's 2008 and they feeked up! Who'd have seen that coming.

Protocol exists to limit exposure to the risk of fraud or otherwise shady practice, if you breach protocol your not necessarily doing wrong but your exposed and its a red flag on your character... Don't you think it's interesting that a guy employed solely to ensure things run to the rules, himself decides to break the rules, I mean he has no other job, he doesn't set rules just enforces them yet can't abide by the ones he needs to comply with. He should be kicked out.

 

[ivaldo]

Maybe trust bankers to do their job properly, let's not bother with banking regs, oh what, it's 2008 and they feeked up! Who'd have seen that coming.

Protocol exists to limit exposure to the risk of fraud or otherwise shady practice, if you breach protocol your not necessarily doing wrong but your exposed and its a red flag on your character... Don't you think it's interesting that a guy employed solely to ensure things run to the rules, himself decides to break the rules, I mean he has no other job, he doesn't set rules just enforces them yet can't abide by the ones he needs to comply with. He should be kicked out.

Then why stop there? Why not have a chaperone at all times? Let's hack their phones while we are at it too. Its just petty.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

Then why stop there? Why not have a chaperone at all times? Let's hack their phones while we are at it too. Its just petty.

It serves to show that the FA do everything in their power to sustain the integrity of the sport, and avoid situations where wrongdoing or accusations of wrongdoing could occur. It's as much as they can do, and they should be doing it. Just because it probably won't really stop refs and managers talking in secret if they want to doesn't mean they should just expect it to happen and give up. They have to show that they have done everything they can to prevent it.

 

[ivaldo]

It serves to show that the FA do everything in their power to sustain the integrity of the sport, and avoid situations where wrongdoing or accusations of wrongdoing could occur. It's as much as they can do, and they should be doing it. Just because it probably won't really stop refs and managers talking in secret if they want to doesn't mean they should just expect it to happen and give up. They have to show that they have done everything they can to prevent it.

Alternatively, let's actually allow the refs to be human and we will have a much more honest, open game.

 

[Getsme]

Alternatively, let's actually allow the refs to be human and we will have a much more honest, open game.

What? How are they not allowed to be human, and how would it let us have a more honest and open game?

 

[ivaldo]

What? How are they not allowed to be human, and how would it let us have a more honest and open game?

They can't give an opinion on anything whatsoever. They aren't allowed to speak to managers or to fans, how is that healthy?

 

[Getsme]

They can't give an opinion on anything whatsoever. They aren't allowed to speak to managers or to fans, how is that healthy?

Of course they are allowed an opinion, what the hell do you think they are doing during the game? They have to have a fair and balanced opinion and should have no outside influences trying to change or put pressure on them. As for not speaking to mangers/fans/media, it's protecting them so I'd say it's very healthy.

 

[ivaldo]

Of course they are allowed an opinion, what the hell do you think they are doing during the game? They have to have a fair and balanced opinion and should have no outside influences trying to change or put pressure on them. As for not speaking to mangers/fans/media, it's protecting them so I'd say it's very healthy.

That's not what I said, I said they couldn't GIVE their opinion, very different.

So healthy that referees are constantly criticised for making a decision without being able to give a reason for it.

 

[Getsme]

That's not what I said, I said they couldn't GIVE their opinion, very different.

So healthy that referees are constantly criticised for making a decision without being able to give a reason for it.

They only have to report to the FA and are showing their opinion on the pitch by the decisions they give. As I said, the FA are protecting the referees from speaking to anyone after the game, and rightly so.

 

[Steven Seagull]

Are referees actually prevented by the FA from saying anything after the game?

 

[ivaldo]

They only have to report to the FA and are showing their opinion on the pitch by the decisions they give. As I said, the FA are protecting the referees from speaking to anyone after the game, and rightly so.

Why? Why are managers forced to give an interview after the game where valid opinions are often penalised whereas referees do not have to answer anyone publicly? You look at sports like rugby where referees are mic'ed up and we can hear reasons for their decisions, there's no need to have private conversations with managers then is there? Transparency before, during and after the game is what's needed, football is a spectator sport, why hide it from the people that finance the game?

 

[Getsme]

Why? Why are managers forced to give an interview after the game where valid opinions are often penalised whereas referees do not have to answer anyone publicly? You look at sports like rugby where referees are mic'ed up and we can hear reasons for their decisions, there's no need to have private conversations with managers then is there? Transparency before, during and after the game is what's needed, football is a spectator sport, why hide it from the people that finance the game?

Why? FFS it’s not too hard to work out really, match officials have to meet in a pre-arranged location a few miles from the ground and are then driven to and from the match because it had become unsafe for them to arrive at stadiums in their own cars.

Can you imagine the uproar if a referee admitted making a mistake in a game that had an effect on the result, to then give the team he aggrieved preferential treatment in the next time he officiates? They get enough abuse as it is, why make it harder for them.
Then we have the fans, it’s not exactly uncommon for referees to receive death threats or other acts of violence just for giving a decision against their team, imagine the uproar if he came out in the media and backed his decision or admitted it was a mistake, there would be calls for a replay, for him to be sacked ond yes, even more death threats. Look how Chelsea reacted after getting knocked out of the UCL v Barcelona a few years ago, do you think they would have said ‘ah fair enough’ had the ref came out and spoke to the media?

Referees can give interviews after a game if they so wish, however it is discouraged by the FA and I’ve yet to see a referee go against the FA wishes.

 

[ivaldo]

Why? FFS it’s not too hard to work out really, match officials have to meet in a pre-arranged location a few miles from the ground and are then driven to and from the match because it had become unsafe for them to arrive at stadiums in their own cars.

Can you imagine the uproar if a referee admitted making a mistake in a game that had an effect on the result, to then give the team he aggrieved preferential treatment in the next time he officiates? They get enough abuse as it is, why make it harder for them.
Then we have the fans, it’s not exactly uncommon for referees to receive death threats or other acts of violence just for giving a decision against their team, imagine the uproar if he came out in the media and backed his decision or admitted it was a mistake, there would be calls for a replay, for him to be sacked ond yes, even more death threats. Look how Chelsea reacted after getting knocked out of the UCL v Barcelona a few years ago, do you think they would have said ‘ah fair enough’ had the ref came out and spoke to the media?

Referees can give interviews after a game if they so wish, however it is discouraged by the FA and I’ve yet to see a referee go against the FA wishes.

So hidden preferential treatment is much better than open is it? If he's going to give preferential treatment he's going to do it regardless!!!

You honestly think the backlash would be any different because the referee has explained why he made a decision? At the moment they have no oppptunity to defend anything they do.

Thats just plain wrong, they are not permitted to do so.

 

[Getsme]

So hidden preferential treatment is much better than open is it? If he's going to give preferential treatment he's going to do it regardless!!!

You honestly think the backlash would be any different because the referee has explained why he made a decision? At the moment they have no oppptunity to defend anything they do.

Thats just plain wrong, they are not permitted to do so.

You really are missing the point for some reason, either that or you can’t see what is blatantly obvious. Allegations could be make if a referee gives preferential treatment after admitting to making a mistake? Fans will turn massively on a referee should he admit to making a mistake, the media will bring it up time and time again, the managers and players will remind the referee every time he officiates a game. The pressure would increase on what is an already stressful job.

I’m sure referees would love to defend their decisions but given the World we live in it would be suicide to do so. As I said previously, there is no rule that forbids a referee from speaking to the media.

 

[Steven Seagull]

You really are missing the point for some reason, either that or you can’t see what is blatantly obvious. Allegations could be make if a referee gives preferential treatment after admitting to making a mistake? Fans will turn massively on a referee should he admit to making a mistake, the media will bring it up time and time again, the managers and players will remind the referee every time he officiates a game. The pressure would increase on what is an already stressful job.

I’m sure referees would love to defend their decisions but given the World we live in it would be suicide to do so. As I said previously, there is no rule that forbids a referee from speaking to the media.

You don't know that. I reckon a lot of fans could be placated by an explanation. If a referee just came out and said "I saw the incident but from my angle I couldn't tell whether there was contact with the ball first and therefore couldn't give it" I reckon it could stop a lot of people frothing at the mouth. Simple explanation.

I think it's an option the referee has in Germany and we wank ourselves senseless over their organisation.

 

[GE]

Good, he had it coming. Always seemed a dodgy cnut. I hope they demote the fcuker to the Championship. At least that way we'll get 3 points on the United matches he would've been in charge of.

 

[ivaldo]

You really are missing the point for some reason, either that or you can’t see what is blatantly obvious. Allegations could be make if a referee gives preferential treatment after admitting to making a mistake? Fans will turn massively on a referee should he admit to making a mistake, the media will bring it up time and time again, the managers and players will remind the referee every time he officiates a game. The pressure would increase on what is an already stressful job.

I’m sure referees would love to defend their decisions but given the World we live in it would be suicide to do so. As I said previously, there is no rule that forbids a referee from speaking to the media.

Equally I could say the same of you, I'm not missing anything I just don't agree with it.
Preferential treatment should've be given regardless of the situation, it doesn't stop fans of accusing the ref now anyway! How many times have we heard pundits say the ref was 'evening it up'?
As for the rest of it, well Steven has put it across nicely.

 

[BorisontheRock]

Some of you are really missing the point here.

The refs organisation require their employees to travel to the game and back again as a unit for safety and to ensure they do everything within reasonable power to limit fraud.

For some reason clattenberg decided this rule didn't apply to him and disregarded it. We are not talking about interviews, we are talking fraud prevention and personal safety. He knew the rules, he decided to disobey and is being punished. It's simple.

 

[BorisontheRock]

Then why stop there? Why not have a chaperone at all times? Let's hack their phones while we are at it too. Its just petty.

ok so next time we go to liverpool our team bus shouldn't be given escort, we should run the gauntlet, get delayed and our coach smashed up, because we are all adults right, having an escourt is just petty,

or should we go the other way, give players a bodyguard 24/7 and hack their phones to see if they are doing anything......

Your point is frankly ridiculous and pedantic, it is a reasonable measure to a potentially serious risk that you have twisted for unknown reason. I'm sure you understand the rationale and so just wumming for Thursday night kicks.

 

[ivaldo]

ok so next time we go to liverpool our team bus shouldn't be given escort, we should run the gauntlet, get delayed and our coach smashed up, because we are all adults right, having an escourt is just petty,

or should we go the other way, give players a bodyguard 24/7 and hack their phones to see if they are doing anything......

Your point is frankly ridiculous and pedantic, it is a reasonable measure to a potentially serious risk that you have twisted for unknown reason. I'm sure you understand the rationale and so just wumming for Thursday night kicks.

Some of you are really missing the point here.

The refs organisation require their employees to travel to the game and back again as a unit for safety and to ensure they do everything within reasonable power to limit fraud.

For some reason clattenberg decided this rule didn't apply to him and disregarded it. We are not talking about interviews, we are talking fraud prevention and personal safety. He knew the rules, he decided to disobey and is being punished. It's simple.

Seems like you're missing our point, we know why they've said, we are capable of reading the article ourselves thanks. It doesn't mean we agree with it though hence the discussion?

I'm Wumming because I don't beleive the referee always requires a chaperone to and from the game? I'm sure those crazy Palace and West Brom fans were out for blood after the game.

 

[BobbyManc]

Seems like you're missing our point, we know why they've said, we are capable of reading the article ourselves thanks. It doesn't mean we agree with it though hence the discussion?

I'm Wumming because I don't beleive the referee always requires a chaperone to and from the game? I'm sure those crazy Palace and West Brom fans were out for blood after the game.

Do they need a chaperone? I thought it was just an issue that they had to travel to and from the game together. It's an issue of integrity. It's not anything to do with them being at the risk of attacks from fans. Whose more likely to be approached and influenced before a game by a third party, an official travelling alone or a group of officials travelling together? Common sense would say the former.

 

[ivaldo]

Do they need a chaperone? I thought it was just an issue that they had to travel to and from the game together. It's an issue of integrity. It's not anything to do with them being at the risk of attacks from fans. Whose more likely to be approached and influenced before a game by a third party, an official travelling alone or a group of officials travelling together? Common sense would say the former.

No, its for safety as well apparently. Either way if I were to attempt to influence a referee I wouldn't wait until an hour before the game! Perhaps trust the integrity of the man we are entrusting to ref the game.