Referees Union gives Clattenburg full support...

[Paul Marin]

...now...who among you expected anything different? Raise your hands...don't be shy now. Are they wrong? To me, no different than what Liverpool did for Suarez or Chelsea did for JT...so no problem with it until the man is proven guilty. That's fair.

HOWEVER!! The BIG DIFFERENCE this time is that I *predict* that all three assistant referees will say they heard nothing, Clattenfergie will be spared and the "kangaroo court to the world" that Sass did big up, will work its magic one more time...this time against us. Who wants to bet? I've been telling you all that the shytstem is broken from long time, start wid FIFA and come right down. They can put JT and Suarez to the sword, (the latter falsely), but you won't see them do it to anyone in the administrative ranks...the higher up you go...the more immune you become. :kissteeth:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/mobile/football/20122742

P.S. I truly hope I am wrong and Clattenfergie if found guilty (fairly) never gets to ref again. That would be sweet justice indeed. But...mi nah go hol' mi breath.

[Assasin]

You full of too much emotions. It hasn't even reach Kangaroo court yet and you decide judgement, just like how you say Terry nah go get charge and Suarez was poster boy.

What exactly was Clattenburg suppose have said???

[Mosiah]

As they would!

[Paul Marin]

You full of too much emotions. It hasn't even reach Kangaroo court yet and you decide judgement, just like how you say Terry nah go get charge and Suarez was poster boy. What exactly was Clattenburg suppose have said???

Whoooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! Let's set the record straight. I TOLD YOU ALL that JT would get off IN COURT! I never said he would get off in the FA's investigation. Let's get that one totally clear. I also submit that had Suarez been tried in court, he would have been not guilty as well. The reason is the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, whereas the lesser standard of "balance of probabilities" was used in the FA (kangaroo) tribunal.

Secondly, if my predictions are correct, my assessment of the Suarez story will be "proven", i.e. that Clattenfergie will get off. They will skewer the players, managers and other members of teams (e.g. assistant managers etc.), but the higher up you go, the more protected you are.

Clattenslurgie allegedly called Mata a "Spanish tw*t" and Mikel a "monkey". And to underscore what I'm saying so you don't misinterpret (again), emotional or not, the likelihood of Clattenburg getting found guilty is somewhere between zero and naught because the assistant referees will all say they heard nothing. And of course, their evidence/statements will be given more credibility than that of the players. But I may be wrong. Let's wait and see.

[Paul Marin]

Sass, read this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...ed-monkey.html

Note they say:

"David Luiz speaks very good English, Ramires less so. They are both adamant they heard the slur [i.e. Mikel being called "Monkey"], although Clattenburg denies the claims and is supported by his two assistants."

Who do you think the FA is going to believe, the players or the assistants?

[Paul Marin]

And more utterly shocking...Graham Bean (former FA Compliance Officer) said in an interview on SKY, "I believe Chelsea will rue the day, even if the allegations are true, (and yest they should be investigated) because its clear the referees are sticking together..." -- unbelievable. He's basically saying the refs are going to f___ chelsea no matter what. And there is no corruption in the English game. LOL!!!

[Dunny]

My two cents on this is i wouldn't believe anything Chelsea say, i doubt the ref abused anyone and i believe if Chelsea had won the game and didn't have those refereeing decisions go against them we would not have heard anything about this!

[Assasin]

that is going to be one very hard case to prove, even in Kangaroo court.

[Sir X]

You say that after watching the game with so many questionable calls? it all came down to in your mind, If Chelsea won ? not the questionable calls that even the most die hard man u fans will admit di ref tief !

[Paul Marin]

that is going to be one very hard case to prove, even in Kangaroo court.

Kangaroos don't find other kangaroos guilty. THERE IS ZERO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS CASE'S BODY OF EVIDENCE (so far as I know anyway) AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE SUAREZ CASE...i.e. if this is "one very hard case to prove", then the Suarez case was at least just as hard as both come down to one person's word (actually, Chelsea have two people's word, so they have a theoretically stronger case than there was against St. Suarez.)

What is pretty clear to me is that everyone was quick to accuse Suarez (media, etc.) of guilt even before the FA's tribunal published its findings...no one is as quick this time round...I hope that it's because people realise the seriousness of accusing a man of being racist. I dismiss the JT case because there is ZERO QUESTION that JT used the words he was accused of using, so there is no parallel between that case and the Clattenburg/Suarez cases.

By the way - does anyone know what Kick It Out has had to say on this one?

PM

[Karl]

It is fact that in the football world, matters not where incidents occur, the FAs and referees' associations are - and I dare say of necessity - geared to 'code of silence' and 'circling of the waggons' mode.

Refs are humans and do make on average same number of mistakes as 'normal humans' - whatever 'normal human' is - do.

The real fact is in every match a ref makes a number of mistakes. Usually there are 3 officials managing the match and thus the mistakes could very well be x3 - 'normal human' mistakes.

As fact the best referees are defined by some football administrators as those who make least mistakes and by others as those who make the least mistakes that could be termed/seen as having affected the outcome of matches.

The authorities work overtime to present referees on the field who are prepared as best as possible - physically, mentally...with optimum facts on Laws, Rules and Regulations and with good management ability. ...but all referees who undergo the rigorous training do not react similarly to situations presented during games and high pressure situations cause some to raise performances and others to collapse. (We had a high profile referee in Jamaica during my time who was simple magnificient in low pressure situations but would hyperventilate in the glare of the spotlight and literally froze in some matches. We had another referee - and here I gladly call his name - Neville McLaren - who was average in low pressure matches (but extremely firm) and who always...never one time did he not rise...rose to the occasion in high pressure situations.

Personalities also played a part in how each ref reacted. The best referee I judged as my ever seeing manage a match was World Cup referee Abraham Klein (retired). He was in his match 'never seen'...but he seemed to never have management situations in matches that presented him problems or ended in controversy.

Then there are the flashy refs...always being 'the star'. These latter types seem to too often end up having huge upheavals in some matches. I am not saying that some good refs do not at times have poor matches...but the flashy refs seem to more often find themselves in matches that create 'firestorms'.

One thing we can say about Clattenberg's Chelsea v BoyU match is he had a horrible match. ...but it is/was always on the cards that the Refs group/association and the FA will do everything to protect 'referees' and 'the game' and that equals protecting Clattenberg to maximum ability. That protection may even include removing him from handling some matches and may go as far as including running him through suspension, retraining courses or whatever and if he does not take it on himself to retire...bring him back as 'brand new 2nd hand' top flight ref. This is football as some refs have 'godfathers'.

[Assasin]

there is no parrellel between the squarez case as he admitted using the WORD AT LEAST ONCE.

IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

[Paul Marin]

there is no parrellel between the squarez case as he admitted using the WORD AT LEAST ONCE.

IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE.

Yes, but they found him *guilty* of using it SEVEN times - ALL ON EVRA'S WORD ALONE!! Once okay (although the barrister will tell you that context - very different from ignorance - matters), but SEVEN!! Give me a break.

[Karl]

...and it is, I think, highly that the players making the charges will be punished in some form (even if the punishment is as light as to heap scorn on their integrity).

[Assasin]

Suarez admitted saying it at least once. You can't change that part.

Regardless of what you think it means.