Mr Clattenburg / The FA {merged}

[bluethai]

Oh too many Rags wum revealed themselves here, that's why Rag's related topics always bump to first page but quality City threads been left out to dry on page 10.

 

[scorer]

Of course and that time he lied that he didn't see it.

All he had to do this time was say he saw a 'coming together' but has since seen it on TV and would like it reviewed as he didn't see the elbow. This is exactly what happened with the Thatcher incident and would have allowed the FA to take action.

By saying he saw the incident in full (complete fabrication) then that ties the hands of the FA. This is 90% down to Clattenburg. It stinks.

the highlight vid clearly shows him following the ball and not watching the incident some 15 yards to his right hand side

... and you have to also acknowledge that there is no way he would have seen the offence eben if he had been looking toward Rooney. The actual offence happened on thye blind side for Clattenburg, so unless he has xray vision and can see through people he would not have seen the elbow... no way.

 

[laserblue]

The Premier league is a worldwide "Brand" and one of the biggest sellers of the brand are the Scum as most of their fanbase is in asia it's a huge market to tap ergo to protect the "brand" a few dodgy decisions here or there give them a minimum 10 point start on everyone else. IF we had a fair league with fair officials the rags would be fighter dipperpool for the last europa spot.

As much as I agree that a fair ammount of decisions definitely do go in favour of them, what you just said, is bullshit.

no it's not. he's bang on the money. the same applied to brand gerrard when he assaulted michael brown & brand terry when he rugby tackled jo. rooney, fletcher, vidic & scholes rotinely get away with red & yellow card offences as tranny did before he jumped ship. it's a clear policy to keep their biggest brand club fielding their name players.

unless you've got an alternative explanation?

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Can you add Martin Atkinson onto this email, too.

Cheers.

well martin has certainly gone up in my estimation. :)

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

As much as I agree that a fair ammount of decisions definitely do go in favour of them, what you just said, is bullshit.

no it's not. he's bang on the money. the same applied to brand gerrard when he assaulted michael brown & brand terry when he rugby tackled jo. rooney, fletcher, vidic & scholes rotinely get away with red & yellow card offences as tranny did before he jumped ship. it's a clear policy to keep their biggest brand club fielding their name players.

unless you've got an alternative explanation?

No further explanation is needed beyond the simple one that Crappenberg lies through his teeth. The most repellent character to set foot on a pitch armed with a whistle.

 

[quiet_riot]

Had a typically cop-out reply from the FA.

Dear Pete,



Thank you for contacting The Football Association.



The FA are only able to use retrospective action in incidents that are ‘not seen’ by referees. In reference to the Wayne Rooney incident this was clarified as having been ‘seen’ by the referee - who awarded a free-kick at the time - therefore ruling out the potential use of retrospective action. The guidance for this is issued by the world governing body FIFA. The FA apply this rule consistently across all levels of the game for which we are responsible.



Exceptional circumstances apply to, in the main, incidents that you will have been unlikely to have ever witnessed on a football field before, or would be unlikely to ever see again. The charge against Ben Thatcher, following an incident involving Pedro Mendes, was considered as an exceptional case because The FA contends that the challenge was sufficiently serious that had Thatcher been sent off, an additional sanction would have been merited.



Whilst we appreciate that this may not alleviate your concerns we hope that this clarifies the issue.





Kind regards



Rebecca Budd | Customer Relations

The FA Group
Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London, HA9 0WS

Postal address: Wembley Stadium, PO Box 1966, London, SW1P 9EQ

T +44 (0) 844 980 8200 | F+44 (0) 844 980 8201

Failed to address whether or not Clutterberg would face action for 'seeing' the incident and deeming it worhty of just a FK

 

[laserblue]

Had a typically cop-out reply from the FA.

Dear Pete,



Thank you for contacting The Football Association.



The FA are only able to use retrospective action in incidents that are ‘not seen’ by referees. In reference to the Wayne Rooney incident this was clarified as having been ‘seen’ by the referee - who awarded a free-kick at the time - therefore ruling out the potential use of retrospective action. The guidance for this is issued by the world governing body FIFA. The FA apply this rule consistently across all levels of the game for which we are responsible.



Exceptional circumstances apply to, in the main, incidents that you will have been unlikely to have ever witnessed on a football field before, or would be unlikely to ever see again. The charge against Ben Thatcher, following an incident involving Pedro Mendes, was considered as an exceptional case because The FA contends that the challenge was sufficiently serious that had Thatcher been sent off, an additional sanction would have been merited.



Whilst we appreciate that this may not alleviate your concerns we hope that this clarifies the issue.





Kind regards



Rebecca Budd | Customer Relations

The FA Group
Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London, HA9 0WS

Postal address: Wembley Stadium, PO Box 1966, London, SW1P 9EQ

T +44 (0) 844 980 8200 | F+44 (0) 844 980 8201

Failed to address whether or not Clutterberg would face action for 'seeing' the incident and deeming it worhty of just a FK

that's the standard reply they always generate in cases like this.

 

[Soulboy]

Can I just stick up for Clattenburg?

Here's a man who clearly has defined and planned his career path to perfection, a man who knows what is needed to succeed at the very highest levels of officiating.

Only 35 years of age, he's already reffing all the big games in England, the World Cups await.

He has obviously followed Graham Poll's career-path to the letter, as after his retirement from the game, Poll admitted that he knew what he had to do to keep his position in reffing the big games... Rule 1... don't fall out with the managers of the Big 4.

And Clattenburg is following that philosophy as well.

So well done to him that he has cheated, lied and manipulated his way to the top. Where no barriers cannot be overcome. Where nothing will stop his inevitable rise to the very top of the game.

Surely no one was surprised at what he did? The Referee's Association certainly weren't.

Had they been so appalled by his decision, they would have banned him for a number of games... and the fact that that hasn't happened suggests that they too know what side their bread is buttered on.

Let's not condemn the man who failed as a business man, but who has resurrected his ego, profile and bank balance to such effect.

Bravo Clattenburg!

You cannot but admire the drive and tenacity of the man...

 

[blueinsa]

The PL is a global brand. The FA uses the England team to make millions from, again mainly from tv deals around the globe.

Those paying punters are tuning in to see Rooney, Rio, Lampard, Terry, Gerrard etc etc etc.

What governing bodies in their right minds would ban its own players, thus upsetting its income stream?

 

[friend]

Did you know.....

United have had less penalties awarded to them than the top 9 PL teams this season?

And also, they have had 50% or less than the other teams in the top 5 in the PL.

Just sayin.