wormy Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I have no idea Wasn't this established during another conversation about overturning decisions? The FA claimed they are tied by FIFA rules, but it turns out FIFA's rules actually allow them to overturn a referees decision? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 This is the most blatant case that i've ever seen of the referees and FA favouring Man Utd. It is a fucking disgrace and, as a previous poster pointed out, is tantamount to corruption. None of us have any faith in the FA to do the right thing any more, but this takes things to a whole new level. Turning a blind eye while Clattenburg more or less admits to being dodgy is a fucking scandal and exposes the FA for what they really are. This should be the catalyst for major investigations and change at the top but it won't be. In a few weeks it'll all be swept under the carpet and Clattenburg will continue to referee Premier League games. The whole thing makes me fucking sick! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wearside 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. The FA can't act though,the referee saw it and acted,their is no choosing about it,they were powerless in this situation.Everyone knows he shoud have been sent off but rules are rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 [ 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. Indeed. I've no problems forgiving referees for their mistakes as long as they are willing to admit them. But it seems like they've acquired a kind of "siege mentality ": Everybody is after us, we gotto protect ourselves, never admitting mistakes, keeping up appearances etc.. By doing so, they're actually making the situation much worse. We get less respect for them. Admitting mistakes on the other hand requires balls, and for that you get respect. 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. The FA can't act though,the referee saw it and acted,their is no choosing about it,they were powerless in this situation.Everyone knows he shoud have been sent off but rules are rules. They can act if they bloody well want to. Otherwise, what's the point of them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Clattenburg said he saw the incident at the time and took appropriate action. If that's the case, and if the FA can't overrule him, then they should sack him. That is within their power Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wearside 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. The FA can't act though,the referee saw it and acted,their is no choosing about it,they were powerless in this situation.Everyone knows he shoud have been sent off but rules are rules. They can act if they bloody well want to. Otherwise, what's the point of them? Yes and then that opens a whole new can of worms whereby every club will be wanting the FA to act on decisions made by referees, by trial by TV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbers Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Crazy but expected, cant upset the big 4 now can we. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Which is probably their excuse for making this decision. My problem is, if it was say Joey Barton and not Rooney, Clattenburg would have conveniently admitted he didn't see the incident entirely and Barton would have been suspended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Which is probably their excuse for making this decision. My problem is, if it was say Joey Barton and not Rooney, Clattenburg would have conveniently admitted he didn't see the incident entirely and Barton would have been suspended. Aye, possibly, if that's true then obviously that's where it becomes dodgy. I agree referees will naturally tend to favour the bigger names, more famous, international players etc. Not sure if anything can really be done about that in principal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 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? Retrospective or Retrospectively Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce True, I guess they could make an exception in cases of violent conduct. Suppose the only problem with that would be how they identified these cases... would it just be whatever makes the news? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_69 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce But if the FA deems that the referee has ignored the incident then they must surely be forced to take action on the referee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce True, I guess they could make an exception in cases of violent conduct. Suppose the only problem with that would be how they identified these cases... would it just be whatever makes the news? Give opposition clubs the opportunity to complain. If they complain within 48 hours of the incident, review the situation. If they don't, ignore it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce But if the FA deems that the referee has ignored the incident then they must surely be forced to take action on the referee. That must depend on the report given by the referee. Referees should be allowed to make mistakes. What people react on is their refusal to admit that mistakes have been done. They may have valid excuses for not catching the incident, eg only viewable from a certain angle etc.. Yeah, either they have to stick to the current rule or they have to routinely review every game. They can't leave the system open to pressure by the media or the clubs. Doesn't need to be so. FA could sanction a rule that enables them to override referees decisions only in situations where serious violations (three match bans or more) were ignored: Eg. assault, two-footed tackles. Those situations tend to be fairly obvious when watched afterwards on TV, Consequently, they are not difficult to enforce True, I guess they could make an exception in cases of violent conduct. Suppose the only problem with that would be how they identified these cases... would it just be whatever makes the news? I don't think it will be hard to identify those cases at all. Just go through our assaults. Barton and Williamson's cases where fairly obvious. And Colo's assault on Elmander would also been easy to identify afterwards , if he escaped the wrath of the referee, which he didn't. Assaults are in other words easy to spot, because its deviant nature on a football pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 This defence that they can't do anything because the referee saw it is such a load of shit. They didn't let that stop them with Ben Thatcher and once precedent has been set, they can't go back on it and keep peddling that as an excuse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliGupter Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 To be fair to Clattenburg he didn't have a great angle, so he could have easily said that he didn't see the elbow (which I don't think he did). He didn't though, and has lied to The FA. The FA can give Rooney a punishment if they really want to, but they can keep bringing out the filth that they do, to make it easy for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie2000 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 the Rugby league rule of putting an incident on review when the referee knows something has happened but may not of seen everything is one of the best rules around. it means that whole matches would not have to be reviewed only the parts where the referee thinks something has happened. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 To be fair to Clattenburg he didn't have a great angle, so he could have easily said that he didn't see the elbow (which I don't think he did). He didn't though, and has lied to The FA. The FA can give Rooney a punishment if they really want to, but they can keep bringing out the filth that they do, to make it easy for them. He hasn't lied to FA, he said that he took appropriate action based on what he saw at the time. I don't think he's allowed to say "based on what I've since seen on TV I've changed my mind" is he? I thought the appropriate action thing was based on what he thought he saw at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 To be fair to Clattenburg he didn't have a great angle, so he could have easily said that he didn't see the elbow (which I don't think he did). He didn't though, and has lied to The FA. The FA can give Rooney a punishment if they really want to, but they can keep bringing out the filth that they do, to make it easy for them. Exactly, you cannot have a good angle all the time. It's natural to miss a couple of situations. It's the pathetic attempt to sweep everything under the rug that pisses me of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 If Clattenburg didn't have a great angle, he shouldn't have given the foul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 To be fair to Clattenburg he didn't have a great angle, so he could have easily said that he didn't see the elbow (which I don't think he did). He didn't though, and has lied to The FA. The FA can give Rooney a punishment if they really want to, but they can keep bringing out the filth that they do, to make it easy for them. He hasn't lied to FA, he said that he took appropriate action based on what he saw at the time. I don't think he's allowed to say "based on what I've since seen on TV I've changed my mind" is he? I thought the appropriate action thing was based on what he thought he saw at the time. Nicely pointed out. And that should be an acceptable excuse for most missed situations, but not for assaults..Hence FA must intervene post match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 If Clattenburg didn't have a great angle, he shouldn't have given the foul. Yeah, this is the real factor that has messed up the whole process. If Clattenberg hadn't given the free kick Rooney would now be facing a ban. (Although, it's not impossible that a referee could see an incident and incorrectly judge it to be a lesser offence than it really is. You would still need video replays for those situations, and a way to trigger a review.) 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