Such bizarre comments from Clattenburg. I hate the use of 'gameplan'. Refs shouldn't have a gameplan. What a turnip.
Such bizarre comments from Clattenburg. I hate the use of 'gameplan'. Refs shouldn't have a gameplan. What a turnip.
I really hope some refs do. Makes the game more interesting.
Merseyside derby in the FA Cup 3rd round. Nice.
Luton Town. They destroyed Gateshead on Saturday.
Clattenburg's quote is literally 'first rule' in action. Don't ref the game start from cowardice and work backwards...
I haven't reffed, but I have officiated in other sports and I just don't get what's so hard and why they are so subjective all the time. Just give what you see. You'll mis-see things sometimes when they happen fast or you don't have a good view, but just give what you see and you won't go far wrong.
None of them do.
Refs probably take more stick in football from managers, spectators, pundits, the press, etc.
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
That's a bit like saying "If I can smack it in off the bar in my Sunday League game, why is it so different when Kane does is!?"
The beauty of football is that it feels the same when anyone plays it on any level, it's just a fuckload slower. So the way you can probably get a good first touch on the pass from your mate (but not from Fabregas when it's 5 times as hard), that way you can probably referee in the same level of Cricket or Korean Men Mud Wrestling or whatever it is you've been refereeing in, but not in top level sports, because it's too fast.
Also, I'm sure the fact that 60.000 people are watching (live) and commenting on your every decision makes a bit of a difference.
It shouldn't do, if you're a professional.
It doesn't matter if it's fast or slow either, just give what you see, you don't need to have a 'gameplan'.
That's ridiculous. It's like saying a professional footballer should never miss-hit a corner because it's a set piece and no real time-pressure to hit it. Yet they do all the time.
If referees were robots, your argument would be valid, but they aren't.
It's a known phenomenon that Referees have to sort of set the bar for what goes and what doesn't in a game, to some extent. And the common consensus in the sport seems to be that so long as you're being consistent in your judgement of what for instance is a foul for shoving or rough play or whatever, then at least it's fair on both sides.
Given that an experienced Referee like Mark Clattenburg probably has a good grasp of what he can make a good call on and what he cannot, he will be able to adjust that bar a little depending on how a game plays out, and might also be able to predict how dirty a game will be and have some sort of predisposition to that in the first place (= gameplan). It won't mean he's going to deliberately allow a bunch of fouls, it just means if he's a little uncertain in some cases, he'll rather let it slide than blow the whistle.
The way he's wording it is a little stupid, mind you, as I think he's making himself out to have been very deliberate in his judgement in certain cases, whereas what I do think he means is just he set the bar in that game low, and that had benefitted Spurs at the end of the day (even though they didn't win the league in the end).
I don't really believe in 'consistency' in that sense. You're never going to have consistency, because football is a fluid game which people are always trying to over-analyse using false equivalence. When one man is tripped it isn't necessarily the same as when another man is, but people are always up in arms because they are hugely biased towards one team (in most cases) which the referee is not.
Every decision is different and should be treated as such.
Yes of course. But if the referee doesn't say a foul for something that was borderline, the kind of thing that you think, yeah alright, I can see how that's a foul but also how it's not really, then he should be as lenient with the other team.
And when taking an approach like that, you're creating this grey-zone where you'll either allow most stuff, or not allow anything - for the sake of fairness and perhaps for fear of making mistakes.
Of course if they were perfect, they would know exactly what was and what wasn't a foul in that grey-zone, but they aren't. So they have to live with that zone existing as a matter of fact and as you grow more experienced, you probably learn better to understand how to approach that during different games.
What you're saying is essentially "the Referees should be better referees" which you can't really argue with logically, but everything is relative and reality isn't that binary.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote