Apology to Klatenburg

[BlueHammer85]

At the game yesterday I was well pissed off with the ref. I didn't berate like many about me did but I thought he had a shocker and criticised him.

Having seen the game on sky this morning I admit I was wrong.

He had an excellent game and got every call correct. We must not blame the referee everytime we lose.

Klatenburg got the sending off,the penalty, the bookings correct.

We needto grow up and admit the truth.

For the record I dont blame Boyata, he was put in an impossible position, took a gamble and lost.

Lets move on.

This. You sir are a credit to your club.

agree also.

it was impossible for any ref to manage a game like that

but he was simply brilliant, as Avram stated last week - he's the best ref in the prem

 

[Chippy_boy]

He got most things right yesterday. The sending off was a red if it was a Arsenal player they would of went off as well. They do have leeway on the so called last man

There are no rules regarding the so called last man.

The rules say it's a straight red card for "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick".

Was he moving towards our goal? Yes
Was it "an obvious goalscoring opportunity"? Yes
Was it a free kick? Yes

It really can't be more clear. The only way a red isn't given is if the ref is bent or bottles it.

 

[ali.b]

I kind of agree with arguments for & against but it seemed far too easy for Clattenburg to favour the opposition, as often seems the case. There was definite inconsistency. Did no-one feel that Songs goal was overly celebrated? Booking anyone? I seem to remember last weeks goals being followed with a card - again it was a player who'd already been booked.

Sending off = yes
Penalty = yes
Clattenberg = still a twunt

At the end of the day, we can write this one off. Could we have beaten Arsenal with 11? May-be but we'll never know. Chins up!

 

[Ricster]

The sending off was correct unfortunately. Watch the replays and Chamakh had the ball under control when tackled. It went ahead of him because he was felled. Stop bitching - it was a red pure and simple.

Where you can argue with Clattenburg is over consistency. Yellow cards were givwen for some bad tackles but not others. Song could easily have gone and if he'd given that horrible little cheat Fabregas one for unsporting behaviour and/or simulation every time De Jong looked at him, they could have been down to nine.

I'm sorry PB, but unless Chamakh has a rocket up his arse there is no way he is catching that ball. Have a look again and pause the incident as the challenge goes in. There is no way Chamakh has the ball under control. It went ahead of him cos he over hit the ball.

<a class="postlink" href="http://vodpod.com/watch/4748325-dedryck-boyata-red-card-v-arsenal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://vodpod.com/watch/4748325-dedryck ... -v-arsenal</a>

Also, take into account, as soon as the whistle is blown, Hart stops. Hart would have closed the space down to from the opposite direction. To say Chamakh would get a 2nd touch to put the ball in the net is ludicrous.

Also, please note Cesc waving the imaginary card, something else that is deemed a bookable offence.

 

[Balti]

The sending off was correct unfortunately. Watch the replays and Chamakh had the ball under control when tackled. It went ahead of him because he was felled. Stop bitching - it was a red pure and simple.

Where you can argue with Clattenburg is over consistency. Yellow cards were givwen for some bad tackles but not others. Song could easily have gone and if he'd given that horrible little cheat Fabregas one for unsporting behaviour and/or simulation every time De Jong looked at him, they could have been down to nine.

I'm sorry PB, but unless Chamakh has a rocket up his arse there is no way he is catching that ball. Have a look again and pause the incident as the challenge goes in. There is no way Chamakh has the ball under control. It went ahead of him cos he over hit the ball.

<a class="postlink" href="http://vodpod.com/watch/4748325-dedryck-boyata-red-card-v-arsenal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://vodpod.com/watch/4748325-dedryck ... -v-arsenal</a>

Also, take into account, as soon as the whistle is blown, Hart stops. Hart would have closed the space down to from the opposite direction. To say Chamakh would get a 2nd touch to put the ball in the net is ludicrous.

Also, please note Cesc waving the imaginary card, something else that is deemed a bookable offence.

Surely some common sense can be applied? A good ref uses some discretion. At that stage of the game in such a big game he can either use his discretion and leave Boyata in no doubt that he's off if he transgresses again or he can ruin the game as a spectacle and hand it on a plate to arsenal. The foul in question didn't merit the punishment imo.

There are cynical fouls to stop players from scoring and they deserve a red card of course but this was not one of those. Surely the last defender rule is intended to punish cynical fouls in clear goal scoring situations? No way were they certain or even likely to score and the tackle was badly thought out and ill-executed rather than planned and cynical. Nor was it dangerous and likely to cause injury.

And before anyone says but those is the rules I'll just point out that every week we see refs getting it wrong or choosing their own interpretation of the rules. There is no consistency so Boyata did not have to go simply because a strict interpretation of the text says so. First offence so early in the game and unlikely to score....he could have easily given him the benefit of the doubt for the good of the game.

 

[glen quagmire]

At the game yesterday I was well pissed off with the ref. I didn't berate like many about me did but I thought he had a shocker and criticised him.

Having seen the game on sky this morning I admit I was wrong.

He had an excellent game and got every call correct. We must not blame the referee everytime we lose.

Klatenburg got the sending off,the penalty, the bookings correct.

We needto grow up and admit the truth.

For the record I dont blame Boyata, he was put in an impossible position, took a gamble and lost.

Lets move on.

what a lovely post, i may even cry. the only stopping me is that clattenburg is a fucking cheating twat with a dodgy hair piece.
we knew as his appointment was made he would do all in his power to cost us the game, if this had been a one off maybe some allowance could be made, its not though, he has proper form for ripping us. good job i sit on level 2 otherwise i'd have by passed the ever aging stewards and ran up and booted the fucker right in his bollocks.

Too true, i left on 70 odd mins for the first time ever. I couldn't stand losing my ST due to that ****.

 

[Blue Mooner]

I'm sorry PB, but unless Chamakh has a rocket up his arse there is no way he is catching that ball. Have a look again and pause the incident as the challenge goes in. There is no way Chamakh has the ball under control. It went ahead of him cos he over hit the ball.

<a class="postlink" href="http://vodpod.com/watch/4748325-dedryck-boyata-red-card-v-arsenal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://vodpod.com/watch/4748325-dedryck ... -v-arsenal</a>

Also, take into account, as soon as the whistle is blown, Hart stops. Hart would have closed the space down to from the opposite direction. To say Chamakh would get a 2nd touch to put the ball in the net is ludicrous.

Also, please note Cesc waving the imaginary card, something else that is deemed a bookable offence.

Surely some common sense can be applied? A good ref uses some discretion. At that stage of the game in such a big game he can either use his discretion and leave Boyata in no doubt that he's off if he transgresses again or he can ruin the game as a spectacle and hand it on a plate to arsenal. The foul in question didn't merit the punishment imo.

There are cynical fouls to stop players from scoring and they deserve a red card of course but this was not one of those. Surely the last defender rule is intended to punish cynical fouls in clear goal scoring situations? No way were they certain or even likely to score and the tackle was badly thought out and ill-executed rather than planned and cynical. Nor was it dangerous and likely to cause injury.

And before anyone says but those is the rules I'll just point out that every week we see refs getting it wrong or choosing their own interpretation of the rules. There is no consistency so Boyata did not have to go simply because a strict interpretation of the text says so. First offence so early in the game and unlikely to score....he could have easily given him the benefit of the doubt for the good of the game.

Ricster I'm with you all the way, being the last man is not in itself a reason for sending a man off. The rule book clearly states, its denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, I can only imagine that those who think Chamakh had the ball under control have never played the game. It was a classic case of the striker 'winning' the free kick by getting to the ball first without any consideration as to trying to score.

You only have to see how far Chamakh knocks it to see that Joe would have easily got to the ball first - in fact I would go so far as to say if Chamakh hadn't been brought down it would have been a complete non event. That was my reading of the situation at the time and I stand by it.

Clattenburg under that definition could easily have chosen NOT to brandish a red card under that ruling as much as he chose to brandish a red and that's the point. Clattenburg just couldn't wait to ruin the spectacle and not only that his decisions from that point on demonstrated his intentions to give us nothing.

Quite simply he's a tw*t.

 

[Ricster]

Surely some common sense can be applied? A good ref uses some discretion. At that stage of the game in such a big game he can either use his discretion and leave Boyata in no doubt that he's off if he transgresses again or he can ruin the game as a spectacle and hand it on a plate to arsenal. The foul in question didn't merit the punishment imo.

There are cynical fouls to stop players from scoring and they deserve a red card of course but this was not one of those. Surely the last defender rule is intended to punish cynical fouls in clear goal scoring situations? No way were they certain or even likely to score and the tackle was badly thought out and ill-executed rather than planned and cynical. Nor was it dangerous and likely to cause injury.

And before anyone says but those is the rules I'll just point out that every week we see refs getting it wrong or choosing their own interpretation of the rules. There is no consistency so Boyata did not have to go simply because a strict interpretation of the text says so. First offence so early in the game and unlikely to score....he could have easily given him the benefit of the doubt for the good of the game.

Ricster I'm with you all the way, being the last man is not in itself a reason for sending a man off. The rule book clearly states, its denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, I can only imagine that those who think Chamakh had the ball under control have never played the game. It was a classic case of the striker 'winning' the free kick by getting to the ball first without any consideration as to trying to score.

You only have to see how far Chamakh knocks it to see that Joe would have easily got to the ball first - in fact I would go so far as to say if Chamakh hadn't been brought down it would have been a complete non event. That was my reading of the situation at the time and I stand by it.

Clattenburg under that definition could easily have chosen NOT to brandish a red card under that ruling as much as he chose to brandish a red and that's the point. Clattenburg just couldn't wait to ruin the spectacle and not only that his decisions from that point on demonstrated his intentions to give us nothing.

Quite simply he's a tw*t.

Quite Agree.

I think the title of the thread needs changed to
Apology From Clattenburg Needed

 

[greeny-ctid]

tbh he got the red card / penalty correct but 1. fabragas should of walked and maybe (MAYBE) song but the rest he was okeyy hope we dont get him soon<br /><br />-- Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:15 pm --<br /><br />

I kind of agree with arguments for & against but it seemed far too easy for Clattenburg to favour the opposition, as often seems the case. There was definite inconsistency. Did no-one feel that Songs goal was overly celebrated? Booking anyone? I seem to remember last weeks goals being followed with a card - again it was a player who'd already been booked.

Sending off = yes
Penalty = yes
Clattenberg = still a twunt

At the end of the day, we can write this one off. Could we have beaten Arsenal with 11? May-be but we'll never know. Chins up!

i agree with everything u just said

 

[Ricster]

tbh he got the red card / penalty correct but 1. fabragas should of walked and maybe (MAYBE) song but the rest he was okeyy hope we dont get him soon

-- Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:15 pm --

I kind of agree with arguments for & against but it seemed far too easy for Clattenburg to favour the opposition, as often seems the case. There was definite inconsistency. Did no-one feel that Songs goal was overly celebrated? Booking anyone? I seem to remember last weeks goals being followed with a card - again it was a player who'd already been booked.

Sending off = yes
Penalty = yes
Clattenberg = still a twunt

At the end of the day, we can write this one off. Could we have beaten Arsenal with 11? May-be but we'll never know. Chins up!

i agree with everything u just said

If you are following the letter of the law then the ref got the sending off wrong.

If you are following an interpretation of the law then the referee got it right.