He hasn't done anything wrong this time but will work as an expert for Tv2 Sport Premium in Norway. Will be interesting to see what he has to say.
Mark Clattenburg
- Thread starter Catt
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
He was on Bt Sport yesterday and said they would see him throughout the season. When I first heard him speak I thought it was Hargreaves putting on a Geordie accent.
Probably what Howard Webb has been doing for BT sport, they'll ask him about refereeing decisions and he'll say what was right or wrong about them.
Yeah probably. Doubt he will exclusively work for Tv2.
He has a truly horrible voice, had no idea thats what he sounded like. Not the right voice for a pundit, thought he was awful yesterday.
Didn't he go off to work in Qatar or somewhere? Or am I mixing up my refs completely.
I thought the same.
Saudi Arabia, iirc. Which is even worse (lifestyle wise).
Wasnt he offered a role there? Took it and then did a u-turn?
Wonder if a 'Tv2 Sport Premium logo' tattoo would look great next to that Champions League final tattoo
Massive twat
What?!
What I thought.
Isn't he done with reffing in England now? Please say he hasn't done a U-turn? Easily worth 5-6 points not having him in the league.
No he'll just berate us on Noggie TV now.
Did anyone catch him on the Men in Blazer's podcast? There's a thread on reddit it right now, and in the podcast he covers various topics, one of which is the Chelsea vs Tottenham 2-2 draw in Leicester's game-winning season. I haven't had time to listen to the entire podcast myself, but one user posted a transcription where Clattenburg discusses his decisions in the game, and if it's correct it really is mind-boggling how unprofessional and irresponsible he is.
So, instead of actually doing his fecking job he essentially tries to make sure that the game is played out the way his mind believes it should play out. Not only does he let 'what he think should happen' into account, but if we are to take his words at face value, he seems fecking worried about what the media headlines will be while the game is being played out! Unbelievable.
Again, cannot verify that the transcription is 100% correct, but no users in the thread called it out as wrong.
Clats: There's one game in particular, which was the "Battle of Stamford Bridge." It was Chelsea vs. Tottenham, if was the famous that year Leicester win the title, it was theater. I went in with a gameplan that I didn't want Tottenham Hotspur blaming Mark Clattenburg that they were gonna lose the title. It should've been 3 red cards to Tottenham; I allowed them to self-destruct so all the media, all the people in the world went, "Tottenham lost the title." If I sent 3 players off from Tottenham, what's the headlines? "Clattenburg lost Tottenham the title," and it was pure theater that Tottenham self-destructed against Chelsea and Leicester win the title.
Rog: In that game, were the Chelsea players not screaming bloody murder, they're like, "Clattenburg what are you doing we're getting massacred here!"
Clats: It was the first game where Diego Costa never got cautioned (laughs). It was so crazy when you look back at the game but, when Hazard scored to equalize to make it 2-2 I've never felt an atmosphere in a stadium before like that before, because of Chelsea had stopped one of the enemies winning the title.
Rog: In a way you scripted it.
Clats: ...I helped the game, I certainly benefited the game by my style of refereeing. Some referees would have played by the book and Tottenham would have been down to 7 or 8 players and probably lost, and Tottenham would've been looking for an excuse but I didn't give them an excuse, because me gameplan was let them lose the title.
Rog: Listening to this, I was like, "Wow, Mark Clattenburg, even crazier than Diego Costa" (Clats laughs) that is saying something, but you've said, "I want games to be a spectacle," and hearing you talk about the Battle of Stamford Bridge, is that the referee's job or is it really down to the players?
Clats: I think we're all part of theater. That's why the Premier League is the best league in the world. Its assisted by the best players, the best referees, the best coaches, and we've all got a duty to make sure the game's enhanced. The English style of refereeing is different; I had to referee differently when I went into Europe than I did in the Premier League because none of the top players in Europe would accept some of the physical contact that went on in the Premier League - but that was the theater, that's what people loved. They love a tackle, they don't want it punished.
Rog: You pride yourself on man-management, its a phrase that comes up in conversation with you over and over, talking to the players rather than cautioning them, as you've said, you occasionally famously called them "mate" on the field. How do the players react to that? Do they really want to reciprocate and get on with the referee?
Clats: Gotta know the right time, that what's experience. Some young referees will try to speak to players too much and players sometimes don't want them to speak. I remember refereeing Ashley Cole. Speaking to Ashley Cole at the wrong time when he was going through things with his head (garbled) doing some tactics. But there were good times to speak to Ashley Cole, when he was calm and he was ready to get on with. Speaking to the player at the wrong time can have a bad effect.
Rog: In that game, were the Chelsea players not screaming bloody murder, they're like, "Clattenburg what are you doing we're getting massacred here!"
Clats: It was the first game where Diego Costa never got cautioned (laughs). It was so crazy when you look back at the game but, when Hazard scored to equalize to make it 2-2 I've never felt an atmosphere in a stadium before like that before, because of Chelsea had stopped one of the enemies winning the title.
Rog: In a way you scripted it.
Clats: ...I helped the game, I certainly benefited the game by my style of refereeing. Some referees would have played by the book and Tottenham would have been down to 7 or 8 players and probably lost, and Tottenham would've been looking for an excuse but I didn't give them an excuse, because me gameplan was let them lose the title.
Rog: Listening to this, I was like, "Wow, Mark Clattenburg, even crazier than Diego Costa" (Clats laughs) that is saying something, but you've said, "I want games to be a spectacle," and hearing you talk about the Battle of Stamford Bridge, is that the referee's job or is it really down to the players?
Clats: I think we're all part of theater. That's why the Premier League is the best league in the world. Its assisted by the best players, the best referees, the best coaches, and we've all got a duty to make sure the game's enhanced. The English style of refereeing is different; I had to referee differently when I went into Europe than I did in the Premier League because none of the top players in Europe would accept some of the physical contact that went on in the Premier League - but that was the theater, that's what people loved. They love a tackle, they don't want it punished.
Rog: You pride yourself on man-management, its a phrase that comes up in conversation with you over and over, talking to the players rather than cautioning them, as you've said, you occasionally famously called them "mate" on the field. How do the players react to that? Do they really want to reciprocate and get on with the referee?
Clats: Gotta know the right time, that what's experience. Some young referees will try to speak to players too much and players sometimes don't want them to speak. I remember refereeing Ashley Cole. Speaking to Ashley Cole at the wrong time when he was going through things with his head (garbled) doing some tactics. But there were good times to speak to Ashley Cole, when he was calm and he was ready to get on with. Speaking to the player at the wrong time can have a bad effect.
So, instead of actually doing his fecking job he essentially tries to make sure that the game is played out the way his mind believes it should play out. Not only does he let 'what he think should happen' into account, but if we are to take his words at face value, he seems fecking worried about what the media headlines will be while the game is being played out! Unbelievable.
Again, cannot verify that the transcription is 100% correct, but no users in the thread called it out as wrong.
Last edited:
@autopilot shocking if true. Explains why refs are so hesitant to show red cards in big games.
This basically describes the mentality of not just Clattenburg but all other referees of EPL, or at least the famous ones of them.
Like ive always said, one of worst referees the country has every produced.
Reading that now, you can understand some of the decisions that shit head made when he refereed us.
That leicester game for instance, not sending their fullback off and the dodgy penalty against Rafeal all for “theatre”.
So there we go all you who go around defending referees, proof positive they dont enforce the laws of the game, they arent impartial, they absolutely make it up as they go along.
He's the type to give a decision to make the game interesting. fecking shitbag cnut.
I dont like his mindset at all. He doesnt understand a ref plays no part in how good a game is, hes there to do his job. If that meant sending off spurs players so be it. Everyone remembers the game as spurs turning into dirty thugs, if he did his job properly rather than letting things slide a bit then spurs may have changed their approach.
Suppose he has a point about people wanting a spectacle and he didnt want to ruin it but hes theres to do a job. The mane red card against city is a good example, its a clear red card yet gary nevile decides to say he ruined the game because of it.
In a way the game is a spectacle, a theatre. But exactly as you say, it's not on Clattenburg or any other ref to decide who takes center stage, or even worse - claim it for themselves. I'm actually a bit baffled that he admitted how he reasoned. It would've been one thing if he said something along the lines of 'in the context of the game I feel that the tackles, although hard, weren't enough to send players off', because it was a title decider and a derby and people would say it's a shit performance by the ref, but at least understandable. Instead he has actually said (and I'm paraphrasing here): 'I don't hand out red cards when it doesn't fit my narrative.'
In my opinion it probably comes down to his own ego. If he had said that he didn't think they were red cards, we would simply say it was a shit refereeing performance and question his ability to be a top level referee. By admitting that he thought there were some red cards at the time he has ironically proven to be something FAR more damning when it comes to perhaps the cornerstone of all sports - a partial referee. If he had still been employed by the Premier League this would've been, in my opinion, grounds for a sacking, and it definitely makes you raise doubt concerning how other referees view the game as well.
No he’s the type who probably would have sent all the Spurs players off if his beloved Newcastle were the team that could win the title.
Yeah you tell them Mark, would've been an even better spectacle if one of the Spuds' players broke Chelsea player's leg, or if Dembele actually gouged whoever the feck he was trying to gouge back then. For a better 'theatre' lions should be let loose and players should be equipped with swords and shields.
Never has Twattenburg seemed like such an appropriate epitaph
Sums up referees and why they're so shite.
No wonder the PGMOL is asking for more money.
Last edited:
say what?
To be honest, I don't know if it's TV money they want but I've read, they want more money.
Exactly what I thought when I was reading it. The immediate incident that springs to mind was the gift of a penalty he awarded Vardy vs Rafael. He certainly helped create theater that day!
What he says is flawed anyway as if he sends one player off it makes the other players far less likely to commit bookable challenges.
This reads so so bad. Imagine how bad it'd be having Atkinson explaining himself who's by far the worst of the lot.
Jesus, worryingly you make a good point there!
Given his thought process, you have to wonder about other suspect decisions.
My other gripe with him is his comments regarding reffing in europe, he gives off the impression he is happy to make theater in the PL, but he'll do his job properly when it comes to reffing in europe.
Good to know the rules are up for debate as the ref can apply his own agenda to a game as he pleases..
That actually tells us a lot about why some rules apply for some players and not others (Di Maria v Hart anyone?)...
That actually tells us a lot about why some rules apply for some players and not others (Di Maria v Hart anyone?)...
Need to verify if this is true because if it is then its nothing short of a scandel
Beside being wrong in so many ways, it's also extremely stupid - what would the headlines be if Hazard did not score and Chelsea lost the game after he (deliberately) failed to send Spurs players off? "Clattenburg won Tottenham the title"?
Last edited:
I wouldn't be surprised if refs are advised to "make theater" of EPL. Making controversies, sensations, all for the sake of big money, TV rights...
I'm pretty sure this is the definition of match fixing, he should be banned from refereeing the game, I wonder how many people bet on a certain number of red/yellow cards that day?
If that's true it's absolutely shocking and pure arrogance. A referee should have absolutely no impact on the game and certainly shouldn't guide the narrative they think is the right one. What if Spurs went on to win that and people ask why the feck he didn't give those red cards. I can guarantue you the answer will not be what he just revealed there.
Shocking, but not surprising at all.