OFFICIALS SLAGGING OFF OUR TEAM AT HALF TIME - ITK

[DTeacher]

dont know what esp is

shame

It is a shame, but not really surprising ;o)

 

[blumoonrisen]

1) "he's a right bastard"..."No, fucking Bellamy".

2) "...other argentinian bloke u we're on about?"..."The fuckers on the bench, keep an eye out"

Comment (1) intimates the referee has an issue with Bellamy and therefore potentially, impartiality is out of the window.

Comment (2) suggests Zabaletta would possibly suffer the same lack of impartiality as Bellamy.

Both comments intimate there will be no benefit of the doubt for either player.

Now, we do not know (a) if those things were genuinely said or if they were (b) in what context they were said. A referee can like and dislike any player, that's his prerogative. Clearly, the whole point of refereeing a football match is to do so with impartiality and that conversation suggests there would be no impartiality for either of those two players. That is why I'm disappointed with today's referee and shows the sending off up for what it was.

If I was in Hughes' shoes, then I would be seething and would want to take the matter further, particularly if Wigley would be willing to stand up and be counted.

This^^^^ is exactly what I am saying, and I cannot for the fuckin life of me, understand how any blue, regardless of how they feel bout Hughes, can even begin to think that if the claims are true...it is not a problem...
are you that obsessed with your dislike of our manager, that you are prepared to be so blinkered, to what would be such a disgrace that even neutrals would be appalled.

 

[mat]

sorry if link has already been posted


<a class="postlink" href="http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/manchester_city/635665/Referee-accused-of-deliberately-targeting-sent-off-Craig-Bellamy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/m ... llamy.html</a>

By Jeremy Butler, 12/12/2009

FURIOUS Mark Hughes faces an FA rap after claiming controversial referee Mark Clattenburg deliberately targeted Craig Bellamy for a red card.

The Durham official sent off the Manchester City striker for diving during yesterday's 3-3 draw at Bolton.


But City boss Hughes insisted Clattenburg told his backroom staff at half time there were a number of their players he did not like. Hughes said: "I do not appreciate it when a referee makes comment to my staff on who they do and don't like in my team.


"He could have been having a laugh and a joke, I don't know, but I have to be careful here as we are talking about integrity." Clattenburg had booked Bellamy for dissent and then dismissed him for diving in the second half - although TV replays clearly showed he was clipped by Paul Robinson.


Hughes, who refused to deny that Bellamy was one of the names Clattenburg had listed, added: "Craig doesn't dive.

"I've known him for a hell of along time.

"My assistant manager has knocked on the referee's door and wasn't too impressed what was said and the excuses given.

"We are really frustrated with his performance and the performance of the other officials.

"Bolton's first goal is clearly offside. Why they found it difficult to get that one right I have no idea.

"Then the decision to send off Craig was laughable. It is quite clear Robinson has taken him out.

"Craig is running at full pelt and has knocked the ball past him. At that pace he has knocked him out of his stride and it is clearly a foul.

"But for some reason Mr Clattenburg thought Craig was looking to deceive him and decided to send him off.

"Apparently he had booked him after the third goal for dissent. Craig was frustrated about the throw-in before the goal.

"It wasn't just Craig, a number of players questioned that decision at the time. He felt he had to book Craig, though.

"To give a second yellow for what has happened and send off the guy, well, a few questions have to be asked.

"We are going to miss Craig and we are going to have key games coming up. He is not available."

It is not the first time Clattenburg, 34, has been at the centre of a major storm.

He was suspended by the Premier League for the majority of last season following an investigation into his personal life and business debts.

He also received death threats in 2007 in the wake of his controversial performance during the Merseyside derby at Goodison Park when he sent off Everton's Tony Hibbert and awarded two penalties to Liverpool.

He was also dubbed "Clottenburg" after disallowing a Pedro Mendes goal for Tottenham against Manchester United at Old Trafford in 2005 - despite TV pictures showing the ball TWO YARDS over the goal-line.

Bolton boss Gary Megson also felt Bellamy was unlucky to see red.

He said: "I thought it was a bit harsh. He did not seem to be looking for it as he has gone past our full back.

"I did not realise he had been booked earlier."

He'll get a 6 match stadium ban and a £500,000 fine "as an example to fellow managers".

We are incorruptable, the FA and premier league know it and will do everything to fuck us up.

 

[adelaidecity]

hi guys,just woke after a heavy night on the piss,no the score,but what has happened as far as the ref

 

[Marvin]

Re: Battenburg: Likes And Doesn't Like Our Players. S/H Chat...

Whatever you say about Hughes' managerial skills, he's the master at deflecting away from the team after a game with his PR bollocks

Should be proud of the team.

You know nothing about football. Of course we shoul;d hae beaten little old Bolton

 

[moomba]

1) "he's a right bastard"..."No, fucking Bellamy".

2) "...other argentinian bloke u we're on about?"..."The fuckers on the bench, keep an eye out"

Comment (1) intimates the referee has an issue with Bellamy and therefore potentially, impartiality is out of the window.

Comment (2) suggests Zabaletta would possibly suffer the same lack of impartiality as Bellamy.

Both comments intimate there will be no benefit of the doubt for either player.

I would have thought that you'd get a similar sort of conversation at every ground in the league. Calling them fuckers and bastards? Just part of football language really I would have thought.

Are refs pre-judging players, and is that a good thing? It's not a bad discussion point, I would have thought (for example) that refs would discuss someone like Drogba and his tendancy to cheat, and overact. I'm not sure I have a problem with it to be honest.

Now, we do not know (a) if those things were genuinely said or if they were (b) in what context they were said. A referee can like and dislike any player, that's his prerogative. Clearly, the whole point of refereeing a football match is to do so with impartiality and that conversation suggests there would be no impartiality for either of those two players. That is why I'm disappointed with today's referee and shows the sending off up for what it was.

The difficult thing to prove is that Bellmay (for example) was sent off because Clattenburg thinks he's a bastard. Pretty much impossible I would have thought.

 

[DTeacher]

It is clear that something went on - that much is evident from Hughes's comments post-match.

If we are to break into that Top 4, we will have to do it the hard way.

However, we CAN defeat the inept (possibly corrupt) officials, the extra effort that teams put in against us, the minority of obnoxious so-called fans who have NOT got City's best interests at heart and contrive to pursue their own warped agenda, the jealous and bitter rival fans who point to our new found wealth, the despicable, biased media whores (bar a handful of fair minded ones) etc etc.

Not only CAN we defeat them all, each and every one of them, we WILL defeat them.

It may be this season.

It may be next season.

We WILL be rewarded.

You can rest assured of that.

CTID.

 

[bizzbo]

1) "he's a right bastard"..."No, fucking Bellamy".

2) "...other argentinian bloke u we're on about?"..."The fuckers on the bench, keep an eye out"

Comment (1) intimates the referee has an issue with Bellamy and therefore potentially, impartiality is out of the window.

Comment (2) suggests Zabaletta would possibly suffer the same lack of impartiality as Bellamy.

Both comments intimate there will be no benefit of the doubt for either player.

Now, we do not know (a) if those things were genuinely said or if they were (b) in what context they were said. A referee can like and dislike any player, that's his prerogative. Clearly, the whole point of refereeing a football match is to do so with impartiality and that conversation suggests there would be no impartiality for either of those two players. That is why I'm disappointed with today's referee and shows the sending off up for what it was.

If I was in Hughes' shoes, then I would be seething and would want to take the matter further, particularly if Wigley would be willing to stand up and be counted.

This^^^^ is exactly what I am saying, and I cannot for the fuckin life of me, understand how any blue, regardless of how they feel bout Hughes, can even begin to think that if the claims are true...it is not a problem...
are you that obsessed with your dislike of our manager, that you are prepared to be so blinkered, to what would be such a disgrace that even neutrals would be appalled.

they were shocking decisions, but I can't see this as part of some conspiracy against us. he could easily have sent off sylvinho and be done with it. they fucked it up. the comments were inappropriate, but hardly proof of them victimising him.

we have had some dreadful decisions, but we've got away with a few as well. it's just too easy to say, ahh the ref's are all bent, that's why we aren't winning anything. hughes is upset, and rightly so. still should have done better in the game tho.

we're a good team and I hope we stop shipping goals left right and centre. when we do, we'll rocket up the table.

 

[blumoonrisen]

It is clear that something went on - that much is evident from Hughes's comments post-match.

If we are to break into that Top 4, we will have to do it the hard way.

However, we CAN defeat the inept (possibly corrupt) officials, the extra effort that teams put in against us, the minority of obnoxious so-called fans who have NOT got City's best interests at heart and contrive to pursue their own warped agenda, the jealous and bitter rival fans who point to our new found wealth, the despicable, biased media whores (bar a handful of fair minded ones) etc etc.

Not only CAN we defeat them all, each and every one of them, we WILL defeat them.

It may be this season.

It may be next season.

We WILL be rewarded.

You can rest assured of that.

CTID.

Agreed... for sure

But I have to say again, I'm appalled that any so called blue cannot be fuming big style if this is true, and would actually be attempting to justify the Refs comments as acceptable and somehow normal...and to be more concerned with using it as a pop against Hughes for also finding it unacceptable...

 

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't say there is a conspiracy either bizzbo. In this example, I'm disappointed as the conversation suggests the potential for a lack of impartiality.

I also agree with moomba there are probably a lot of conversations about different players up and down the country and it is quite right that refs should be aware of what they are likely to be up against in terms of being conned etc. However, the words (allegedly) used in this conversation suggest two of our players were not going to have their conduct/performance scrutinised rather they would more than likely suffer poor decisions due to dislike of said players.