Clattenburg
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 topcat  Holmesdale / Surbiton 28 Oct 19 10.30am |
  |
|---|---|
|
The ref got it wrong, it was clearly a foul and a penalty. No idea why Clattemburg thinks otherwise. The Arse 3rd goal looked fine to me.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| eagle184 Sutton 28 Oct 19 10.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
With the greatest of respect, I fervently disagree. Clattenburg writes with great authority based on his experience as one of the top referees in the world. This is my last comment on this thread as I have no desire for it to evolve into one of those dastardly Willo threads. And there it is he couldn't resist it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 28 Oct 19 12.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
With the greatest of respect, I fervently disagree. Clattenburg writes with great authority based on his experience as one of the top referees in the world. This is my last comment on this thread as I have no desire for it to evolve into one of those dastardly Willo threads. Defending your son again with utter tripe
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 28 Oct 19 12.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ginger Pubic Wig
Their third should have stood. Too many things happened simultaneously to say their player alone committed a foul. For our penalty, I think the fact Wilf got booked was helpful. Was there contact? Clearly. It had to be given or a really unjust yellow would have stood. Clattenburg shouldn't be allowed a platform. How quick was Atkinson to book Wilf? Even if the contact did not warrant a penalty (I think it did) it could not be considered a dive. Ref going by player's reputation not by on-field action
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 28 Oct 19 12.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Helmet46
I’m sorry but that “Willo thread” stuff is cobblers. You are allowed to debate a different view. However I am firmly of the opinion that his experience would be better used commenting on the flaws of VAR in general, rather than, once again commenting on a specific decision, pointing to a specific player - who he has, in the past, made poor decisions against and especially in a weekend full of them. He sets himself up. Sets himself up for what... more publicity? He cannot be serious about that decision and therefore is surely only trying to draw attention. Doesn't deserve it, was only ever interested in self promotion as a referee, which is the worst possible type of person to have in that role, and apparently still is now. On a separate note, I am still bemused as to why they ruled out Arsenal's third which quite frankly has made my week now
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
. Slimey Toad  Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 28 Oct 19 12.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
With the greatest of respect, I fervently disagree. Clattenburg writes with great authority based on his experience as one of the top referees in the world. This is my last comment on this thread as I have no desire for it to evolve into one of those dastardly Willo threads. So why enter the debate? With the greatest respect, it must have been bleedin' obvious you would stir up a hornet's nest when you could have kept quiet just once about Clutters.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| pompeyeagle Relocated to Shropshire 28 Oct 19 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The decision to rule out Arsenal’s third goal was an absolute shocker and the fact that the decision was left in the hands of someone with extremely limited experience needs to be looked at. I wonder what the referee thoughts were about having his decision overruled? Fuming I would imagine.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Painter Croydon 28 Oct 19 1.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Clattenburg has to justify his fee from writing an article. He is no stranger to controversy and likes the limelight. His views are pretty much an irrelevance, nothing to do with the referee set up, after he chased the oil money. He cuts a quiet pathetic character, now his whistle has been taken away. Edited by Painter (28 Oct 2019 1.14pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dynamicdick Dormansland 28 Oct 19 1.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
With the greatest of respect, I fervently disagree. Clattenburg writes with great authority based on his experience as one of the top referees in the world. This is my last comment on this thread as I have no desire for it to evolve into one of those dastardly Willo threads. 'Mark' was as you say Willo one of the World's greatest referees and it is a crying shame that he decided to leave the PL for financial pastures new. I will always remember both Palace and West Ham fans singing in unison 'It's all about you...It's all about you...Mark Clattenburgh it's all about you' which quite aptly sums him up.
Bring back Brolin |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Plumpton eagle East Sussex 28 Oct 19 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I detested Clattenburg as a referee. It seems to me that he was (and is) an attention seeking narcissist. Have you ever heard him speak? Intellect and articulacy are not his strong suits. He is yesterdays man and probably hoping for the salvation of "Strictly" or "I'm a celebrity". His only hope of attention now is to be controversial. Why else mention that the VAR official was an Australian? I guess any attention is better than no attention.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
thai-eagle  chiang mai 28 Oct 19 1.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pompeyeagle
The decision to rule out Arsenal’s third goal was an absolute shocker and the fact that the decision was left in the hands of someone with extremely limited experience needs to be looked at. I wonder what the referee thoughts were about having his decision overruled? Fuming I would imagine. Probably therefore the ref only showed yellow for the rugby tackle on Wilf in the dying minutes. BTW, it was Atkinson who awarded us the penalty (Wilf again) in that glorious playoff final against Watford all those (wonderful) years ago.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
taylors lovechild  28 Oct 19 2.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Dermot Gallagher disagrees with Clattenburger over the penalty call [Link] I don't really see any debate in that decision as in the replay Chambers clearly sticks his foot out after the ball has gone past impeding Wilf's path and tripping him. He did say Arsenal's goal probably should have stood though, which I think most of us probably (albeit reluctantly) agree with.
|
|
| 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.