Racism in football

[DubblyDubblyDubbly]

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/welbeck-racist-monkey.png

 

Hi, I'm an idiot...

 

He's been identified...

 

http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404584_10151269985913489_1895197226_n.jpg

 

Quality photoshop.. I didn't recognise him first look

[Ameritoon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/02/sir-alex-ferguson-mark-clattenburg-innocent

 

United's manager said: "I don't believe Mark Clattenburg would make any comments like that. I refuse to believe it. I think it is unthinkable in the modern climate. I just don't believe it – simple as that. There is no way a referee would stoop to that, I am convinced of that."

 

This seems to be the general argument, but I find it just as unlikely that Chelsea would go through all this chaos knowing the repercussions if nothing racist was said. Seems a lot more likely to me that one man, in a charged environment would snap for a moment and say something, as opposed to all the people this had to clear at Chelsea, to even make the decision to report it, all being sure something happened that didn't.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

But you'd have thought that the recipient of the language alledged would go mad if a ref said it, On Mikel's booking he is pretty calm, and even seems to accept what the ref has said.

 

Its likely to be someone mishearing something

[Ameritoon]

Yeah, there's a lot of factors, that's why I don't understand why people, especially managers, are making conclusions on something they have very little idea about. There's no use picking sides right now, at least wait until we find something out.

[nuneaton]

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/welbeck-racist-monkey.png

 

suprised they havent nicked this clown yet.

[Fenham Mag]

Fucking incompetent pigs mate.

[NG32]

Chelsea have made a massive shyte sarnie for themselves and will have to chow down on it.

 

Their solicitors want shot for advising them to go ahead with this..bad crack, especially after the Terry lark and now this arse clown pulling the monkey arms gesture.

 

Stupid fucking tin pot club.

[nuneaton]

f***ing incompetent pigs mate.

 

[Cronky]

But you'd have thought that the recipient of the language alledged would go mad if a ref said it, On Mikel's booking he is pretty calm, and even seems to accept what the ref has said.

 

Its likely to be someone mishearing something

 

As I understand it, Mikel didn't hear the alleged comments. They were heard by some other player or players. That led to Mikel storming into Clattenburg's dressing room after the game, which in itself is an offence.

 

It seems to me that the point was then reached whereby either Clattenburg or Mikel would end up in trouble. If so, I imagine it would then be difficult for the players who 'overheard' the comments to retreat by saying that they weren't completly sure that they'd heard what they thought. They would have to back their man.

 

It all looks dodgy. They've already decided not to go ahead with complaining about the alleged comments about Mata, on the grounds that the evidence wasn't sufficiently clear. I'd be surprised if, by contrast, there's no doubt at all about the 'Mikel' comments.

[Dave]

http://i.imgur.com/1KzLH.png

 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Impossible to read that without getting that song in your head.

[Incognito]

Impossible to read that without getting that song in your head.

 

Aye aye aye.

[flyingscotsman]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/8220894/Chelsea-boycott-considered-as-Mark-Clattenburg-row-pushes-referees-to-brink

 

 

Referees are considering a boycott of Chelsea games in support of Mark Clattenburg, according to one former Premier League official.

 

Clattenburg is the subject of Football Association and Metropolitan Police investigations after Chelsea alleged he made a racist comment to John Obi Mikel during Sunday's game against Manchester United.

The Gosforth official has the backing of his union and employers, while United boss Sir Alex Ferguson has also come out in support.

 

And ex-referee Clive Wilkes told The Sun: "I keep in touch with a lot of the lads and there is such a strength of feeling about what is happening to Mark.

 

"I keep in touch with a lot of the lads and there is such a strength of feeling about what is happening to Mark. I know a few referees who are even talking about boycotting Chelsea games because of all this.

"

Clive Wilkes

Quotes of the week

"I know a few referees who are even talking about boycotting Chelsea games because of all this.

 

"It's no exaggeration to say the refs in this country have never felt lower. They are so disillusioned. They feel vulnerable, feel that they are getting no backing.

 

"They want to speak out themselves but are too frightened, they fear they will be sacked if they go public with their grievances. There have even been murmurings about strike action, but that is very much a last resort."

 

 

 

WOW. Maybe there is a God?

[Skeletor]

Clattenberg incident aside the referees should feel vulnerable. The standard of refereeing in this country is appalling.

[nuneaton]

Clattenberg incident aside the referees should feel vulnerable. The standard of refereeing in this country is appalling.

 

anyone shit at their job should feel vulnerable, particularly if you earn over a thousand quid for a days work.

[hakka]

Clattenberg incident aside the referees should feel vulnerable. The standard of refereeing in this country is appalling.

 

Is the standard of refereeing really that poor? or is it time to accept that this is the best they can do without support from goal-line technology and from another official with the benefit of being able to see a TV replay and feedback details to the referee of major incidents?

 

The way we talk about refereeing these days is as if it's either corrupt so bad decisions are made on purpose or we have blind/incompetent refs doing a bad job. Was it any different in the 80's, 90's or 00's? Seems to me that as the game gets more critical through big money and heavy media attention from various channels, we review and criticise referring far more than ever before.

 

Is referring amazing around rest of the world compared to ours?

[henke]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/02/sir-alex-ferguson-mark-clattenburg-innocent

 

United's manager said: "I don't believe Mark Clattenburg would make any comments like that. I refuse to believe it. I think it is unthinkable in the modern climate. I just don't believe it – simple as that. There is no way a referee would stoop to that, I am convinced of that."

 

This seems to be the general argument, but I find it just as unlikely that Chelsea would go through all this chaos knowing the repercussions if nothing racist was said. Seems a lot more likely to me that one man, in a charged environment would snap for a moment and say something, as opposed to all the people this had to clear at Chelsea, to even make the decision to report it, all being sure something happened that didn't.

 

It's strange, i don't recall Fegie coming out in defense of John Terry.

[loki679]

The media attention makes referees look much worse than they are.  Obviously there are a few shocking decisions from time to time or just plain poor games (Atkinson you twat) but on the whole refs do an ok job.

 

It's easy to look like a genius and call the correct decisions when you've got slow motion replays and 9 different camera angles in a nice comfy studio but not one single one of these pundits who castigate the refs on a regular basis could ref a game.

[newsted]

[Ishmael]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/02/sir-alex-ferguson-mark-clattenburg-innocent

 

United's manager said: "I don't believe Mark Clattenburg would make any comments like that. I refuse to believe it. I think it is unthinkable in the modern climate. I just don't believe it – simple as that. There is no way a referee would stoop to that, I am convinced of that."

 

This seems to be the general argument, but I find it just as unlikely that Chelsea would go through all this chaos knowing the repercussions if nothing racist was said. Seems a lot more likely to me that one man, in a charged environment would snap for a moment and say something, as opposed to all the people this had to clear at Chelsea, to even make the decision to report it, all being sure something happened that didn't.

 

It's strange, i don't recall Fegie coming out in defense of John Terry.

 

Because the Terry allegations were entirely believable - video evidence or no video evidence

[Cronky]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/02/sir-alex-ferguson-mark-clattenburg-innocent

 

United's manager said: "I don't believe Mark Clattenburg would make any comments like that. I refuse to believe it. I think it is unthinkable in the modern climate. I just don't believe it – simple as that. There is no way a referee would stoop to that, I am convinced of that."

 

This seems to be the general argument, but I find it just as unlikely that Chelsea would go through all this chaos knowing the repercussions if nothing racist was said. Seems a lot more likely to me that one man, in a charged environment would snap for a moment and say something, as opposed to all the people this had to clear at Chelsea, to even make the decision to report it, all being sure something happened that didn't.

 

It's strange, i don't recall Fegie coming out in defense of John Terry.

 

For sure, Fergie should keep his nose out, but I suspect he's voicing the general feelings of many professionals within the game.

 

There seems to have been a lot of backpeddaling since the initial story broke. Firstly, Clattenburg isn't being accused of racist language -  it's 'inappropriate' language, whatever that might mean. Then the accusation concerning Mata was dropped.

 

The story I've read is that a lot of the players weren't happy about any accusation proceeding, but by then a lot of momentum had built up. Chelsea then called in lawyers to check out what elements of the accusations were likely to stick, and ended up with their eventual final complaint. That doesn't feel quite right to me. There's a fine line between getting advice from a lawyer and using legal advice to devise the most powerful version of events in order to 'win'. I think many people in the game suspect that Chelsea have crossed that line, and that's why they're uneasy. At the end of the day, referees and players have to work together, and there has to be a bit of trust and 'give and take' for the relationship to work.

[hakka]

The media attention makes referees look much worse than they are.  Obviously there are a few shocking decisions from time to time or just plain poor games (Atkinson you twat) but on the whole refs do an ok job.

 

It's easy to look like a genius and call the correct decisions when you've got slow motion replays and 9 different camera angles in a nice comfy studio but not one single one of these pundits who castigate the refs on a regular basis could ref a game.

 

Exactly what I was trying to refer to in my earlier post. I know how annoying it is, we all do, when a refereeing decision goes wrong and against the club you support.

 

Ref's need support, use TV replays and an extra official and use goal-line technology. Even just trial it for a season to see if it's better.

[Cronky]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/how-terry-storm-led-to-chelsea-pursuing-mikel-monkey-claim-8280550.html

 

Interesting article by Mihir Bose (usually reliable) in the Independent. Basically saying that Chelsea felt they had no choice but to put forward the complaint once it had been made by Mikel, due to their legal obligations as an employer, and the need to show that they were not lax on racism issues following the Terry episode.

 

An implication of the story is that the club itself may have had doubts about pursuing the complaint for one reason or another.

 

The offending word does seem to be 'monkey', but if they are making a complaint then it rests on them establishing that Clattenburg was using the word in a racist sense, rather than in the other sense of 'mischievous' or 'cheeky'. So why have they termed the language 'inappropriate' rather than 'racist'? To me, there's a tacit admission in there that there's another possible interpretation, in which event they've weakened their own case.

 

It also looks like part of their case is the suggestion that Clattenburg may have covered up his mike to prevent his assistants from hearing. With cameras all over the place and lip readers on call, that seems a very stupid and unlikely thing for the ref to do. It's even harder to believe that Clattenburg covered up both his mouth and his mike.

[hakka]

Let's say he did say 'monkey' and he meant purely in the sense of 'cheeky', what a fucking joke of a complaint that is in that sense. Referee's get called every single swear word you can think of in every match probably every minute.

[Dave]

The media attention makes referees look much worse than they are.  Obviously there are a few shocking decisions from time to time or just plain poor games (Atkinson you twat) but on the whole refs do an ok job.

 

It's easy to look like a genius and call the correct decisions when you've got slow motion replays and 9 different camera angles in a nice comfy studio but not one single one of these pundits who castigate the refs on a regular basis could ref a game.

 

Good post.