|
Post by andyl on Feb 15, 2016 11:46:27 GMT
It hits him on the elbow and the contact is in the penalty area. Clattenburg and Kane both saw the former and TV confirms, the latter is clear enough on TV. TV replays would have ratified the decision re those points and there was no evidence to overturn.
Re the accuracy and wisdom of the decision see above.
Clattenburg gave a fine example of refereeing v Eastleigh and this was all the more obvious contrasted to what we had to suffer in the championship a few days later. All referees make mistakes. All make errors of judgment. Yesterday's is definitely not a factual mistake. But the judgment is questionable. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 15, 2016 17:50:09 GMT
Here are just 6 posts taken from 72 on another BWFC site, all arguing the same thing. Note: not a Man City site. Imagine what it might say there!! 1. Still a ****** stupid &&&&&&& of a referee it seems, but maybe it'll finally cost him now that he's cocked up at City's expense as opposed to the umpteen times he screwed us over. Don't miss Match of the Day 2 folks for the most ridiculous penalty decision you'll see perhaps all season. I really hope we don't hear the end of this for a good week or two.
2. Never a pen.
3. Not even in the area either. It hit's Sterlings back so how can Clattenburg give it as a pen?
4. a nonsense decision from an arrogant clown- and it's not the first by a long way. Clattenburg needs to be suspended and sent for retraining as his decisions are affwcting the outcomes of games an therefore of league positions and the economic outcomes for clubs. One bad decision (like this one) can cost club millions in future revenues
5. Premier League refs are on about £5,000 per game and as (Name) says, it's not the first time Clatters has dropped a clanger.
6. I would wager that pretty much everybody watching that game yesterday immediately went: "How's that a penalty? He had his back to the ball when it hit him!" as soon as the whistle went, signalling the penalty.
Do you need me to go on, Andy?
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 15, 2016 21:06:52 GMT
You have misunderstood my post,Joanna. Maybe I wasn't clear. I think the award of the penalty was an error of judgment. David asked me to explain. I did.
In general fans and and players do not understand the laws or think as referees. They react as you quote- How's that a penalty.
I have studied the pictures. The ball strikes him on back but mainly elbow. It strikes him in the penalty area. Kane saw the former. It was very hard for Clattenburg or Kane to judge whether it was in the penalty area but TV pictures prove it to my satisfaction.
Most people as you correctly say stop at the notion of deliberate handball. He turns his back so how could it be deliberate.
Clattenburg though cannot do that. He has to take a decision on proximity and Sterling is too far away for that. Then he has to judge arm position. And he sees the one oustretched because Sterling being a forward has jumped carelessly. He thinks not natural. And so the definition or rather FIFA interpretation is tripped and he is technically correct to give a penalty by current refereeing criteria.
However he has not applied commonsense. He could perfectly well have given the benefit of doubt re both location and natural movement. I think he should have and am not arguing that point as you seem to think. I am explaining as best I can the considerations that will have presented themselves to Clattenburg. I have also argued that because he is as athletic and clearsighted as he is he was on the spot and saw the location too well. I think a commonsense non decision was the better option but by the laws he did not make a mistake! And as a rider to that he knows and implements those laws to a far higher standard than I ever did but I do understand how he acted as he did. And Sterling was at fault!
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 15, 2016 21:26:46 GMT
As a rider to that debate personally I give little credence to the sort of forum posts you argue from. Clattenburg is obviously a top referee. He is given many pressure games. Pundits and players will argue him to be the best around. For example I heard Carragher say that earlier.
What I like is the way he plays advantages and refuses to be conned. If he can play on he will. His Eastleigh game was a masterclass way better than anything we have seen otherwise this year. Some refs would have disallowed Madine ' s goal for example. . Under Clattenburg games tend to flow well and be entertaining. He is quick,a clear communicator, friendly and personable with players and very decisive. He gets excellent assessments. Like any referee he will not get everything right. He gets one sight and no playbacks.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 15, 2016 22:17:24 GMT
.....And yet you want us to give credence to your forum post, whilst dissing all others! Because you know better! Dougie has rubbed off on you!
Everyone I have spoken to and every account I have read is in agreement that this is the latest in a long line of Clotandberk errors involving the big decisions.
I don't agree with your summary of what you say happened in the incident (Specsavers for you!), and certainly don't agree with the guesses you make about what went through Clotandberk's mind in the split second of deliberation before whistling. The commentators on Sky and the Beeb were astonished as all viewers were, apart from staunch Spurs fans. I am amazed you give any credence to Kane! Good grief!
You won't change your mind, I know, so we will have to agree to differ.
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 15, 2016 23:16:10 GMT
We'll I'd like to think that my three posts above are more reasoned and balanced than some of the ones you quote,Joanna. But if not then perhaps I should cease. posting because I have no desire to be perceived similarly.
I remember a harsh decision in a Liverpool derby, a questionable Rooney incident at Wigan and of course the Fulham incident at the Reebok. There was a Gerrard. Incident, the Mikel saga and an argument about Bellamy. He was a FIFA ref quite young and gets many difficult decisions spot on. This long list of errors of which you speak is in fact very short. But he is high profile and attracts attention outside the game. He is a celebrity. Maybe that's not quite the image of the bank clerk schoolmaster referees are supposed to favour.
He's a very good referee who gets the vast majority of on field decisions commendably right and many are big decisions. Any evaluation that aspires to balance would acknowledge this.
There are no guesses above. I was explaining as best I could the thought processes he ought to have followed according to the laws of the game and current interpretations of themIf he didn't only he knows. The incident is described according to camera and witness evidence. I'm not sure what there is to agree with or disagree with.
I repeat that I disagree with the decision but understand it. I'm not going to change my mind and say that I thought it was a good decision. It may have been technically correct but for me it was not a good call.
|
|
|
Post by OohMac on Feb 16, 2016 8:47:03 GMT
I've seen a few examples this season of a defender either jumping backwards or towards a ball with their body shape in an "unnatural" position. The ball strikes the hand or arm and more this season the ref waves it away. Example was Davey Blind vs Chelsea but there are loads more examples. With that one the shot was on target and that stopped a clear goal. Same with us against Blackburn, believe it was Vela.
Now I don't mind that. So long as it's consistent. What Clattrap did wasn't. The ball was not going on target, it was a speculative cross at best, sterlings hands aren't raised. The only thing he could have done different is jump facing the crosser and took one in the gut or below like Danny Rose did in the first half but even then there's no guarantee that the ball might not strike his arm.
Arguing the rules of the game is like Ryainair referring you to their T&Cs when they enevitabely mess up. It covers their backs but it's common sense out of the window.
As a neautral, or even siding with Spurs, I thought it was pathetic and always ask the question what would my response be if this happened to Bolton?
I don't want TV replays for this thing I'd just ask the ref to consider a.) could sterling have done more b.) was it an obvious goal scoring position and c.) does a penalty absolutely need to be given here?
Giving an underserved penalty or wrongfully sending off a man ruins the game far more than letting the game go on and a one last warning.
I honestly think with sterlings that if the ball was in the Spurs Half on the byline and Rose or Alderiweld are lumping it up and it hits sterling and goes out for a throw the linesman signals and throwing and Clattenberg gives a throw. As I've said though that was a good opportunity for Mark to get a bit of face time on Sky. How you can argue that he must be the best because he gets the biggest jobs? Two words Mike Riley!
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 16, 2016 10:08:01 GMT
OohMac, I think I love you. Excellent stuff! Spot on.
Andy, please don't cease to post. You're sane enough and intelligent enough to deal with those who disagree with one or two of your often excellent pronouncements. We rely on you for good match reports on the games that we might not be able to attend.
A bit like Clats, you can't always get it right.....but please don't turn into Dougie, making assertions that may imply that you have superior understanding compared to the masses, and "know best".
Your everloving wife, Joanna.......
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 16, 2016 10:14:02 GMT
I actually agree with much of that. Your three questions seem to me to be commonsense. And I have already said that I disagree with Mark Clattenburg ' s decision on those grounds ie on a matter of opinion rather than technical accuracy.
My argument that he is an excellent referee is based a)on personal observation and the experience of 30 years off and on of trying to be a referee and b)on the assessments of clubs , professional assessors and his peers when quoted.
Since we were relegated I haven't seen many premier league referees live. I think Michael Oliver is good.
In the period I have watched I have enjoyed seeing live the likes of David SmithJack Taylor,George Courtney, David Elleray ( whom I have been refereed by, run a line for once and been appointed to matches by)Paul Durkin, Howard Webb. They are perhaps the most memorable to me of many good referees. In my opinion for what it's worth Mark Clattenburg is on a level with all of them on the field. Off - I'm not so sure. I do see why his matey style can irritate.
Having said all that I think he ought not to have given that penalty
In passing although you are right re incidents all round the field when a ball strikes the hand in the penalty area players and fans are less thoughtful. They scream for handball whatever the contact. Referees are trained to block that out but it is quite difficult not to see things as others do and not to have doubts. Imagine how we are wired to see incidents in BWFC ' s' favour .
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 16, 2016 10:28:48 GMT
A difficult challenge ,Joanna. Don't we all sometimes think we know best? Are we obliged to agree with everything we hear or read. You seem to me to have strong opinions about managers,players,incidents and don't you sometimes think you know better than say me for argument's sake?
Occasionally experience and training should bring authority. For example a friend and fellow BWFC fan when I argue for different strategies away from home asks if I think Neil hasn't already considered and rejected every option and knows the players best and picks the best system for them. It's difficult to argue back because at one level he's right..but then if he is right then we would never have criticised Dougie or Owen reasonably?
All in all I think it's just best if we argue reasoned opinions or indeed assert convictions and allow everyone else the right to do so.
There then arises a que stion re whether argument evidence, reason or authority can persuade? Or indeed whether mass opinion should determine truth? For my part I try never to claim that an opinion advanced is representative of a majority view. It probably isn't! I'm not sure it much matters.
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 16, 2016 10:37:53 GMT
Also Joanna.. If you love OoooMac and are 'married ' to me I see why you are a fan of Neil Lennon?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 16, 2016 11:00:22 GMT
Andy, have you ever wondered if this Joanna is actually the same person as your wife, Joanna, and just secretly teasing you?
And I "love" everyone, though the heartless Call me Dave and George Osborne are pushing their luck again!
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 16, 2016 12:15:47 GMT
No!
|
|
|
Post by andyl on Feb 16, 2016 12:40:07 GMT
For light relief I've been trying to imagine Feeney and Madine trying the Messi Suarez penalty.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Feb 16, 2016 13:14:32 GMT
Just to keep the debate going a bit longer.
Andy, what do you think of this:-
"Mark Clattenburg is to be investigated over claims he has joined the same agency as some of the players he referees, according to reports"?
Why do refs need an agent?
|
|