pinkeye Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Following our recent two incidents that resulted in pothumous bans for Newcastle players, Barton and Williamson, for incidents in games that would have been red cards had the referee seen them blah blah! Wayne Rooney has escaped a posthumous red card for his amazing elbow attack on a Wigan player at the weekend. Mark Clattenburg wrote in his post match report that he had seen the incident and deemed it only worthy of a quiet word in the players ear! Unbelievable! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 There needs to be an independent review panel for violent conduct and diving. Made that point loads of times. They would routinely review every Premier League and maybe Championship game regardless of what is in the media or on Sky that week. TBF to the FA, I can understand that they don't want to go around undermining their referees by reversing a load of decisions. Problem is that everyone already knows Clattenberg was totally wrong... so that argument doesn't really stand up any more. Also, doesn't posthumous mean after death? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 it smacks of double standards once more where there is one rule for the top teams and another rule entirely for the remaining teams. Same goes for the players pulling out of friendlies rule, Ranger was only excused a ban because a united player did exactly the same and they even announced that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkeye Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Posthumous probably does mean after death but, I couldn't think of a word that meant after the event or something... Did you not know what I meant? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's just another case whereby the FA choose not to act because their referee saw and acted upon the incident. Just goes to show how stupid a rule it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Posthumous probably does mean after death but, I couldn't think of a word that meant after the event or something... Did you not know what I meant? Yes, I just used your minor error to make myself feel superior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkeye Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I am good at giving people the chance to do that! It is what I come on here for! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm glad he got off, we need to keep the big teams big and make sure the likes of manu have their best players available at all times. Tbf Manu have suffered enough this season, it would be wrong to punish them further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 What did Ferguson say on MOTD about the incident.... Oh i forgot he still gets away with not talking to the BBC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'm glad he got off, we need to keep the big teams big and make sure the likes of manu have their best players available at all times. Tbf Manu have suffered enough this season, it would be wrong to punish them further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 What did Ferguson say on MOTD about the incident.... Oh i forgot he still gets away with not talking to the BBC. That Phelan character sort of fudged the issue on MOTD and said he hoped there wouldn't be a 'witch hunt because it's Wayne' or some other total bollocks. Fergie has since come out with some equally astounding shit about it being nothing to worry about etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 This is actually corruption. Man U without Rooney for 4 matches would have seriously dented their winning chances. I'm without words and furious. How is this possible? Clattenburg could impossibly have seen the situation properly, because if he had, he would be forced to give him the red card. The rules are obvious regarding assault. When it comes to assault on the pitch, FA must intervene REGARDLESS of the referees. And referees that obviously fail to react on horrific tackles or assault should be punished themselves. The obvious conclusion is that the who you are and which team you play for(most importantly) have serious outcomes for any reactions from the men in black. In mind I have 3 episodes that could have cost Man U a total of 9 points if the referees had done their obvious duty: * Neville's was not awarded a clear cut 2nd yellow against Wolfes. * Blackpool was up 2-0 against Man U, and was denied a CLEAR CUT penalty * Rooney should have been sent off against Wigan. The situation happened in the 1st half, and could have changed the match outcome. * Rooney absence would have dented their league chances.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 By the letter of the law it's correct though, if the referee says he took action then the FA have no powers to act. I know it's stupid, but I wouldn't call it corruption. An interesting question would be, if Clattenberg said something like "during the game I took appropriate action because I thought it was just a 'coming together', but after seeing video footage I now think it was an elbow", could the FA act? I'm guessing not as that would be to allow referees to change their decisions after seeing video. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 This is actually corruption. Man U without Rooney for 4 matches would have seriously dented their winning chances. I'm without words and furious. How is this possible? Clattenburg could impossibly have seen the situation properly, because if he had, he would be forced to give him the red card. The rules are obvious regarding assault. Regarding assault on the pitch, FA must intervene REGARDLESS of the referees. And referees that obviously fail to react on horrific tackles or assault should be punished themselves. The obvious conclusion is that the who you are and which team you play for(most importantly) have serious outcomes for any reactions from the men in black. In mind I have 3 episodes that could have cost Man U a total of 9 points if the referees had done their obvious duty: * Neville's was not awarded a clear cut 2nd yellow against Wolfes. * Blackpool was up 2-0 against Man U, and was denied a CLEAR CUT penalty * Rooney should have been sent off against Wigan. The situation happened in the 1st half, and could have changed the match outcome. * Rooney absence would have dented their league chances.. How long have you been a football supporter? And you're just coming to this conclusion now!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinkeye Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Newcastle United should write a letter of complaint that we have been dealt with in a completely different manner to that how Man Utd were treated. While I don't disagree that both Barton and Willi should have been red carded for their offences, I also think Rooney should have been. If Clattenberg did see it properly, he would surely have red carded him. If the FA accept that he saw it and acted in a way he deemed to be appropriate he should be given a couple of weeks in the lower leagues as a punishment. As should the useless lines man who gave Bowyer offside in the first few minutes of the Carling Cup Final! Officiating standards seem to be getting worse all the time! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Bent as fck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fried Chicken Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It's well known referees & the FA let the 'Big Clubs' & prominent England players away with everything short of murder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Clattenberg fucked it up by giving a free kick for something he hadn't seen properly. Now he's forced to say that he took appropriate action, or he'll look like he gives free kicks for no reason. Hence under the current laws the FA have no power to do anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattypnufc Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 By the letter of the law it's correct though, if the referee says he took action then the FA have no powers to act. I know it's stupid, but I wouldn't call it corruption. Thing that gets me, is that when Williamson got banned, the referee spoke to Williamson after the challenge off the ball, after the ball had went out for a goal kick. Surely by the letter of the law, that could have been classed as action. I imagine the FA panel would have been something along these lines: "...and now onto the Wayne Rooney incident" Plasma screen replay starts "...as you can clearly see, Wayne elbows the Wigan player with intent in an off the ball incident" "Mr Clattenburg halts play then, whilst attempting to cross language barriers between Geordie and Scouse, remembers his place not to award Rooney with a yellow card." "Mr Clattenburg, care to explain yourself?" "Well, I saw it in full view, then I remembered my training. 'Do not upset Sir Alex or England Internationals'. In my defence my only mistake was to even think that I'd seen it. I can't believe I didn't give the other player a yellow card for being a soft puff." Murmers of agreement in the FA's main meeting room. "Well it's settled then...he plays for England and Man U...he can't be banned!" "Next on our agenda - Ryan Taylor's challenge and his forever crying face but first, who's for a twos up on the tea lady in the S&M room?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Clattenberg f***ed it up by giving a free kick for something he hadn't seen properly. Now he's forced to say that he took appropriate action, or he'll look like he gives free kicks for no reason. Hence under the current laws the FA have no power to do anything. The FA were the ones that made the stupid law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 By the letter of the law it's correct though, if the referee says he took action then the FA have no powers to act. I know it's stupid, but I wouldn't call it corruption. I know that FA is tied in this matter. But my point is that there's a difference between believing that you saw the situation, and actually having complete oversight. It is obvious that Clattenburg could not have seen the elbow, if he's done that, he must give Rooney a red. Accordingly, Clattenburg did not see what REALLY did happen. He judged on what he THOUGHT happened. And that's fine in as a main rule: referees must take split decisions, under pressure from both fans and players. Players may block the view, or the referees themselves are far away, due to a counter attack for example. But when dealing with serious violations like the case of Rooney, the FA must have an opportunity to intervene anyways, independently of the referees' report about the situation. It's lack of that rule that frustrates me. Clattenburg made a call based on his perception of what happened, not the FACTS. We on the other hand watched the reality unfold on telly, and could see what really went down. And FA should therefore have the power to step in and make Rooney pay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Clattenberg f***ed it up by giving a free kick for something he hadn't seen properly. Now he's forced to say that he took appropriate action, or he'll look like he gives free kicks for no reason. Hence under the current laws the FA have no power to do anything. The FA were the ones that made the stupid law. Its a FIFA directive isnt it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I have no idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 By the letter of the law it's correct though, if the referee says he took action then the FA have no powers to act. I know it's stupid, but I wouldn't call it corruption. I know that FA is tied in this matter. But my point is that there's a difference between believing that you saw the situation, and actually having complete oversight. It is obvious that Clattenburg could not have seen the elbow, if he's done that, he must give Rooney a red. Accordingly, Clattenburg did not see what REALLY did happen. He judged on what he THOUGHT happened. And that's fine in as a main rule: referees must take split decisions, under pressure from both fans and players. Players may block the view, or the referees themselves are far away, due to a counter attack for example. But when dealing with serious violations like the case of Rooney, the FA must have an opportunity to intervene anyways, independently of the referees' report about the situation. It's lack of that rule that frustrates me. Clattenburg made a call based on his perception of what happened, not the FACTS. We that watch telly, see what really went down, and FA should therefore have the power to step in and make Rooney pay. I totally agree, the problem is that Clattenberg can't admit that he gave a freekick for something he didn't see. Therefore he has to tow the "I took appropriate action" line. You're right there should be independent review of the video footage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest schmuck Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 If they're taking the view that Clattenburg saw it and so their hands are tied, then surely Clattenburg should face some sort of action for either failing to recognise blatant violent conduct or, as I suspect, being a creepy and shameless little starfucker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now