Clattenburg Again
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 JRW2  Dulwich 12 Feb 17 2.25pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
I see that my contribution, above, has been merged with the point to which I was replying.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| eagleheath Burgess Hill 12 Feb 17 2.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
If Clattenburke was to apologise to Palace for every mistake he has made against us we would be here all night. Absolute bellend of a referee and China is welcome to him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
chateauferret  13 Feb 17 9.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Dan Theolmesdaleroad
Clattenburg’s ‘apology’ reminded me of Snodgrass’ after Hull’s game with Palace last December. Both seemed rather disingenuous and were of course completely futile as the damage had already been done. With the plight Palace are in at the moment though, we need the clubs around us to drop as many points as possible so should maybe be grateful for yesterday’s injustices. Had a more competent or less biased official been in charge, Hull might have been a point or three further ahead of Palace by now and a little bit closer to safety. Every little helps! Butcwhat about Atkinson's performance in our game against Stoke? He was a f****** t***. No big calls to get in the papers but still a dreadful and biased performance. Allowed Stoke defenders to foul Wilf over and over again and wind him up but the moment Wilf so much as frowned he booked him. Gave minor decisions their way all the time. Stoke fouled and fouled and he ignored them, including a total clearout of Benteke when he looked through on goal. Booked Delaney and Puncheon at the first opportunity. Referees' allowing teams to nullify Zaha by just fouling him over and over again is really starting to pi$$ me off. His temperament could do with some work but why should he have to put up with this?
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 13 Feb 17 10.24am |
 |
|---|---|
|
I think people have to give Clattenburg credit for apologising. And I don't think it was really his mistake - the Sanchez handball was entirely obscured from his view. The linesman *has* to see it and it's his failure. The argument about whether it would be a foul elsewhere on the pitch is irrelevant. The rules state you can only score a goal with a part of your body that you are allowed to play the ball with, so accidental contact with your hands that results in the ball crossing the line is a free kick, irrespective. The last man incident is a clear red card and he has got it spectacularly wrong - nothing new there. He's still a tw@t anyway.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 13 Feb 17 12.48pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
Originally posted by JRW2
I see that my contribution, above, has been merged with the point to which I was replying. Yup....because you messed up the quoting system by putting your text before (not after) the /quote box. Which also messes up any future associated posts like this one! Edited by Hoof Hearted (13 Feb 2017 12.49pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 13 Feb 17 8.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Yup....because you messed up the quoting system by putting your text before (not after) the /quote box. Which also messes up any future associated posts like this one! Edited by Hoof Hearted (13 Feb 2017 12.49pm) I never doubted that it was my fault. But as Mr W has declined to answer my question, I suppose it's all academic.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 14 Feb 17 10.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
I think people have to give Clattenburg credit for apologising. And I don't think it was really his mistake - the Sanchez handball was entirely obscured from his view. The linesman *has* to see it and it's his failure. The argument about whether it would be a foul elsewhere on the pitch is irrelevant. The rules state you can only score a goal with a part of your body that you are allowed to play the ball with, so accidental contact with your hands that results in the ball crossing the line is a free kick, irrespective. The last man incident is a clear red card and he has got it spectacularly wrong - nothing new there. He's still a tw@t anyway.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| paperhat croydon 14 Feb 17 10.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Go to China mate, stop whining and just go. you wont be missed, we've plenty more useless refs to step into your shoes. How this man does not get a charge now i do not know. Goes into the Hull dressing room at HALF TIME to apologise. does he not know how that would affect the players. they already have the ump thinking it shouldnt have been a goal and now you apologise and agree. absolute fool. Edited by paperhat (14 Feb 2017 10.45am)
Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| palace chick South Croydon 14 Feb 17 10.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
I must be one of few that didn't think it was a sending off. Yes, he got clouted Gibbs but the ball was up in the air at the time and the Hull player had no control of the ball. For me a yellow card was the correct decision. Don't normally stick up for Clattenburg but on this occasion I thought he got it correct?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| alaneagle1 Dunstable,Bedfordshire.England 14 Feb 17 11.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Just shows you how difficult refereeing is.
Palace 13th 2017/18. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
collier row eagle  romford essex via another galaxy 14 Feb 17 11.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by alaneagle1
Just shows you how difficult refereeing is. Maybe al, but would Palace have got a decision like that? Nah
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chateauferret 14 Feb 17 5.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
So he's going on the chicken run because he's fed up with having his "high profile" decisions scrutinised. Got some news for you, Mark. Your decisions aren't being pulled to pieces because they're high profile. They're being pulled to pieces because they're s***e. Edited by chateauferret (14 Feb 2017 5.48pm)
============ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.