The decision was utterly outrageous. A superb, match winning goal was struck off by the idiot with the whistle.
Avram was very diplomatic after the game but Clattenbugger should be called before a disciplinary panel to explain how he thought he was in a position to make that decision. The assistant referee, in a far better position to see, didn't flag, so what exactly was Clattenbung up to? To make that call and rule out a legitimate goal with the very last kick of the match, is tantamount to cheating.
How could Clattenburg be arrogant enough to make that decision? I don't think we will go down, but if we do, and are relegated by two points or less, then the repercussions of this will be enormous. Referees get things wrong, they are, as Avram says, human. But it is the arrogance that infuriates me. There is no way in the world that he was in a position to judge whether or not the ball had been handled, so why was he making the call?
Shocking, disgraceful, incompetent...all those words are appropriate. But, given Clattenburg thinks he can call somebody a cheat when he isn't cheating, I will settle, by Clattenburg's own standards, for cheating. He booked Piquionne for cheating, for a deliberate handball, even though the ball wasn't handled. Who is going to bring Clattenburg to book for that decision, a decision that he was not in a position to make, a decision that cost us a certain victory? He called Piquionne a cheat incorrectly. So, why can't we call him a cheat when he makes an absurd decision that handed a draw to Wolves in a game that they had fairly lost?
Some will say, "Suspend him! Strike him off! Investigate payments into his bank account!" This is one dodgy decision too many from Clattenbung in my book, and maybe it is time he was shown a red!
16 comments:
Four exclamation marks in one paragraph? Did you forget to take your medication tonight, HF? And, no, Clattenburg wasn't cheating - he made a mistake. There's a big difference, and if you can't recognise it you really are the knobhead that your detractors make you out to be.
So what does that make Clattenburg. He booked Piquionne for cheating even though he didn't handle the ball. Certainly makes him a knobhead by your definition! You miiss the point completely. As I said, referees make mistakes, but that mistake was more than a mistake. Clattenburg could not possibly see a hand ball given he was looking at Piquionne's back, so why did he make the call? A referee should, at least, be 51% certain before he makes a decision like that. Clattenburg's position made it IMPOSSIBLE to be even 1% certain. That isn't a mistake, that is gross arrogance and it is contrary to the rules of the game. Referees have to give what they SEE. Clattenburg could not SEE a handball given his position, even if there had been one!
Why didn't he consult the linesman in the least, as it was certainly impossible for him to be able to detect any handball, let alone a deliberate handball from where he was standing? Once again the ref has destroyed the game.
Game against Newcastle who look pretty shaky is a must win.
Wouldn't have really been fair on wolves if it was given - could and perhaps should have been 3 or 4 nil to wolves at ht.
0855, are you on this planet? The game is about putting the ball in the net! Wolves mananged it once thanks to a terrible Green error. We did it twice. That's football. We deserved to win! We also hit the bar, had the bulk of the possession over 90 minutes and had more shots on target by the way.
HF, you say that a ref has to be at least 51% certain before he makes a decision. Yet clearly Clattenburg was certain in his own mind that it was handball - just as Ralph Bone was certain the ball had crossed the line in that famous game against Boro which may well have begun Steve's McClaren's eventual descent into madness (you're not related to the wally with the brolly by any chance?). So, was the wonderfully named Mr Bone cheating when he awarded Riggott's og (he obviously couldn't SEE whether or not the ball hadn't crossed the line), or is it only cheating when the decision goes against us? These dodgy decisions even themselves out over the season ... let it go man, let it go.
I can't remember the Riggot incident so I cannot make a comparison. Presumably, however, the referee THOUGHT he had a sight line. That was IMPOSSIBLE in Clattenburg's case. He was standing directly behind Piquionne and so would have needed X-Ray vision to make the call. It may be that Bone was as much in the wrong, I don't know. What I do know is that Clattenburg DID NOT see a handball because there was no handball and he WAS NOT in a position to make the call so SHOULD NOT have made the call. To do so displayed, at best, gross arrogance.
As for this "even themselves out over a season" nonsense, how do you know? Have there been any scientific tests on this? Do they "even themselves out" so that dodgy calls in favour of the away team balance out dodgy calls in favour of the home team? Of course they don't! Do 72000 baying fans at Old Trafford influence the referee? Of course they do! If it was Wolves scoring in the final minute yesterday, would the goal have been disallowed? Of course not!
Cricket is mired in spot fixing scandals. Tell me, how do we know that a far eastern syndicate didn't have a lot of money on yesterday's game finishing 1-1? Can you prove that isn't the case?
NO. Can you PROVE it is?!? A ref made a mistake, shock horror. This is so reactionary. No one needs to prove someone isn't fixing matches. If you believe it then go through every televised game and compile evidence or shut up.
We was robbed. Its a standard of football when you have human authority over decisions
There's a world of difference between arrogance and cheating - you, of all people, should know that. And as for who can prove what, you are the one making the accusations about Mr Clattenburg and therefore the burden of proof lies with you. The implication of your last paragraph is that the ref might have been tapped up by a match-fixing syndicate which had bet the farm on 1-1 at Molineux. You cannot, in all seriousness, really be suggesting that? (At least I do hope not - a libel action like that could be quite costly.) Oh, and you dismiss the "even themselves out" theory on the basis that the overwhelming majority of questionable decisions go the way of the home side. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we play as many league games at home as we do away? The Riggott decision was at Upton Park - I'm sure it wouldn't have gone our way if it had been at Boro. I do hope you're not going to spend all season banging on about "if only we'd got those two extra points at Wolves we'd be 17th/11th/4th" (delete where not applicable).
No you can't prove it can you? Nor can you ascertain whether or not a bet was placed on a 1-1 draw in a betting shop in Gosforth sometime last week. Clattenburg made two major decisions to secure a 1-1 draw yesterday. If he was a Pakistani umpire, there would be uproar! But he's not. He's a Brit. He's human. But he thinks he is superhuman, he thinks he has X Ray vision!
Battenburg was suspended after the Merseyside derby for "incompetence". Everton could have missed the two penalties they should have been awarded and the dismissal of Kuyt may have had no bearing on the match, had Clattenbung produced the red for that hideous two footed lunge. There's no proof he fixed the result, none at all.
There are no ifs and buts about the effect on yesterday's result, however. It was the LAST KICK of the match. The three points were ours. All the 1-1 correct score forecasts had lost. The far eastern betting syndicates were loading their pistols, sharpening their Samari swords...and then Clattenbung intervened, using his super human X Ray vision powers!
Wasn't Clattenbung suspended from refereeing following an investigation into his personal life and business debts? No connection of course, no reason to suspect a fire when you sniff smoke. But, just imagine if it was a Pakistani umpire who had been suspended and then made two calls in a game that secured a specific result!
We have to KNOW that our game is clean, we have to KNOW that our officials are officiatingly fairly and honestly. Yesterday again proved the need for technology to be used, as it is in cricket and tennis. But, in the meantime, when a referee makes that sort of "mistake", there needs to be an investigation to satisfy everybody that it was simply down to gross incompetence!
And to clarify, I am not saying that Clatenburg took a bung to fix the result, but I am saying that if he was a Pakistani umpire, that would be the conclusion everybody would leap to. I think Clattenburg should be called upon to explain both his decision and his failure to consult with his assistants.
We cannot have games decided in this way without an investigation, otherwise the possibility of a fix hangs in the air - rather like Kuyt hung in the air in that Merseyside derby before he came down two footed in one of the most hideous challenges I have seen in over 40 years of watching football. But Clattenburg saw it differently, just as he saw the two penalty claims differently from everybody else who watched that game.
The answer is simple of course - technology.
You clearly know less about cricket than you do about football. No Pakistani umpire has been accused of being involved in match-fixing, it's the players who face the allegations. And the suggestion that there is some hidden racist agenda in all this (no uproar because he's a Brit?) is simply laughable. But these are secondary issues. You want an investigation "otherwise the possibility of a fix hangs in the air"? You're having a giraffe, mate. And as for the question of debatable decisions, we have an answer to the problem already contained within Rule 5 of the laws of the game - what's more, it's a solution that can be applied at Molineux, Old Trafford, Upton Park, the Nou Camp or on Hackney Marshes. It's that the referee's decision is final. Now just accept that and get on with your life while I go and have a Sunday lunchtime pint!
Clattenburg was way back and directly behind the incdident and obviously could not see whether Piquionne handled the ball or not so was not in a position to make a decision either way and there for should not have made himself vulnerable to a mistake. Under such circumstances a ref should consult with his linesman who in this case could see exactly what happened. The fact that he failed to take this obvious action makes the man a cheat makes the club and supporters feel cheated and raises questions about his honesty.
You take things far too lliterally 1159, I was quoting Pakistani umpires as an example because of the recent spot fixing scandal. However, I probably know far more about cricket than you do sir. You seem to have forgotten the Shakoor Rana affairs both with Gatting (Rana wore a Pakistan jumped as he stood in the test!) and New Zealand over a failure to give out Miandad (who was NEVER given out LBW by a Pakistan umpire in his whole test career - more than a statistical anomaly!). Rana's "incompetence" was a driving force behind the move to neutral umpires. Previously, the home nation in tests supplied the umpires.
That should read Pakistan JUMPER!
John, you have to wonder if a Wolves fan is contributing to this thread! Or Mr Clattenburg himself! This guy must be great fun on the terraces when the cry goes up, "The referee's a bastard." Cue soap box and megaphone, "In point of fact, I have seen his birth certificate and can verify that he was born to two parents with a father who was married to his mother at both the time of conception and birth"!
Post a Comment