Referees Union gives Clattenburg full support...

[GazX]

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!

You really believe that?
If a referee aim abuse at you using what is alleged by PM to have been said, you seriously wouldnt make any official compliant just because you win the match?

[Dunny]

And you come to this conclusion (that the ref did not abuse anyone) based on what evidence?

Paul i could've been the one writing this article, so true my friend!!

No Chelsea player heard Terry abuse Ferdinand... now they're blessed with the hearing of a piano tuner

By Des Kelly

PUBLISHED:00:00, 3 November 2012| UPDATED:08:58, 3 November 2012

• Comments (67)
• Share
• 
  
• Listen and you might be able to hear the sound of Chelsea’s credibility crashing down around their ears.

The wild accusation that referee Mark Clattenburg hurled racist abuse at John Mikel Obi appears to be coming apart and it is taking the club’s reputation along with it.

For unknown reasons that seem to defy any true appreciation of justice, Chelsea rushed into the public domain with claims that this experienced match official had racially abused two of their players during Sunday’s defeat by Manchester United.

They claimed Juan Mata was called a ‘Spanish t***’ and — staggeringly — that the referee told Mikel to ‘shut up, monkey’.

Quiet, please: Mark Clattenburg gestures to John Mikel Obi

They are charges so disgracefully damaging to Clattenburg, it is almost impossible to believe the Stamford Bridge board could proceed without making sure there was genuine substance to the claims.

They will presumably have known how the stigma of any such charge would hang over the official. They would have been aware of the implications for the man and his career. But they did it anyway, two hours after losing a heated, bad-tempered match.

Only it now seems their case is based on the flimsiest claims. We are told there is no television footage. No audio recording. No corroborating testimony from the officials on the touchline wearing communication devices. And no witness who is likely to stand up to genuine scrutiny. In short, there is little proof that anything of the sort happened.

On advice from lawyers, Chelsea have already withdrawn the Mata accusation, which is embarrassing in itself. Yet the Mikel charge still hangs in the air.

Dropped: After legal advice, Chelsea opted not to press ahead with the Juan Mata accusation

More from Des Kelly...

• Des Kelly: The finger of blame will only point at you, Roberto 26/10/12
• Des Kelly: Now it is time for football's three monkeys to wise up19/10/12
• Des Kelly: Really, what are these people who support Armstrong on?12/10/12
• Des Kelly: Terry affair must not derail battle to defeat racism... so let's stop the schism28/09/12
• Des Kelly: Forget the badge... it might have been you on that tragic day at Hillsborough14/09/12
• Des Kelly: These real diamonds can shine brightly on any stage08/09/12
• Des Kelly: Fire up the Quattro — Sam and Carroll are back in vogue31/08/12
• Des Kelly: Survivors won't care if Lance was cheating during his seven Tour victories24/08/12
• VIEW FULL ARCHIVE

Not that Mikel heard this insult, you understand. It is based on the word of Brazilian player Ramires Santos do Nascimento, who apparently believes he was able to hear Clattenburg abusing his Chelsea team-mate.

At this point, it is worth noting that Ramires speaks about as much English as I speak Portuguese — which is very little. His club interviews require the services of a translator and, on the pitch, he apparently asked David Luiz — another Brazilian — to explain what he thought he had heard Clattenburg say.
Is this the evidence Chelsea are relying on to destroy a match official’s career? A piece of hearsay passed on second or third hand?

In the absence of anything to the contrary, I prefer to listen to common sense. I prefer to listen to the voice in my head telling me the way this has been conducted is plain wrong.

I also have to admire the fact that Chelsea’s players suddenly appear to have developed improved listening skills. Not one of them heard John Terry shout ‘f****** black ****’ at Anton Ferdinand, despite being in close proximity to their captain’s sweary outburst, but now they are supposed to have ears as sensitive as a piano tuner when it comes to hearing a referee’s remarks.

If Ramires believes something insulting was said, he is right to report it to those in charge at the club. But the people paid huge sums to run Chelsea and protect their worldwide image should have had the decency and good judgment to examine the charges thoroughly before stampeding into the public domain with such a complaint.
Instead, they reacted like fans. They got caught up in the emotion of the game. They lost a vital match and, in their perception at least, it was ‘the referee’s fault’.

Selective hearing: Chelsea players failed to hear John Terry's exchange of opinion with Anton Ferdinand

In this scenario it is hard to avoid speculating about the possibility Chelsea were so aggrieved at being shown two red cards, they waved the race card too quickly.

Dealing with what we know from all the briefings and reports, let us employ the ‘balance of probability’ test that saw the FA punish Terry. Just ask yourself what is the more likely scenario:
1) That a leading referee said ‘shut up, monkey’ to a player while wearing a microphone in front of 24 or more television cameras, 41,000 spectators and a global audience of half a billion? Or…
2) That a Brazilian player misheard a Geordie referee saying ‘shut up, Mikel’ and the entire incident got completely out of hand due to the Chelsea players’ over-inflated sense of grievance?
Follow Des Kelly on Twitter


Click here for more: @DesKellyDM


This is a referee with more than a dozen years of top-flight officiating experience, one who has been on the FIFA international list for the past six years. He took charge of the 2012 League Cup final and the Olympic final. I’m not saying he doesn’t make mistakes. Quite clearly, he does.

But his reputation is being trashed by a club who can hardly boast a noble record of restraint when it comes to the treatment of referees.

Anders Frisk was once accused by Chelsea of chatting with the then Barcelona manager, Frank Rijkaard, in the officials’ room at half-time. This was proved to be inaccurate and wrong but Frisk received death threats that drove him into retirement.

Referee Tom Henning Ovrebo was branded a ‘thief’ and smuggled out of England by police for his own safety when Chelsea lost a Champions League semi-final to Barcelona again in 2009.

Hounded: Tom Henning Ovrebo is surrounded by Chelsea players after the final whistle at Stamford Bridge

Ex-referee Graham Poll says a clique of Chelsea players made accusations that he had threatened to ‘sort them out’ when he sent off Terry. Their claims were later retracted.

Add too that Chelsea club secretary David Barnard is handling this Mikel dispute. He is the Stamford Bridge official who was shown to have altered witness statements in the Terry case and provided what the FA described as ‘materially defective’ evidence with ‘very real concerns’ about its accuracy.

Right now, the balance of probability is tipped about as far as gravity will allow, although Chelsea will probably demand action against Sir Isaac Newton for this.

Don’t bother to tell me this is an ‘ongoing police investigation’, either. That is another farce.

They are involved only because the Society of Black Lawyers made a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police. ‘We weren’t there, but we don’t need to be in order to report an incident,’ said their chairman, Peter Herbert.

Still, it got him in the papers, didn’t it?

Well done.

When this case collapses, as it surely will without an extraordinary silver bullet of evidence being produced, the Football Association cannot let Chelsea walk away without sanction.


Eye of the storms: John Terry, John Mikel Obi and Ashley Cole in training

They cannot allow a club to throw around such vicious indictment of an official’s character and decency without suffering some consequence. The referees’ union need to step up, too.

Officials endure enough vitriol and hatred as it is. Week in and week out practically every single decision during a match is openly contested. Each corner, each throw-in, each free-kick is little more than the cue for a bout of snarling protest.

Players steal a yard, dive at the merest touch, then stamp their feet like a child denied chocolate at the supermarket checkout when the official they have spent an entire match trying to dupe finally dares to make an error.

It feeds a mood of hostility and confrontation the game is doing nothing to address. The FA’s reaction to this will no doubt be to tape referees’ conversations with their assistants during a match to prevent this kind of incident happening again.

Really, it should be used to put the players’ outbursts on record and hold them to account for the abuse they hurl at officials. It’s the ideal way to change behaviour overnight. But is anyone listening?

Winter of discontent

Winter has arrived and it’s downright depressing. I’m not talking about the weather, I’m talking about ex-referee Jeff Winter, who has been doing the rounds on TV and radio offering his opinions on Mark Clattenburg and Chelsea.

Producers can be unimaginative sorts. An appearance on one channel inevitably leads to a slot on another. But it might be an idea to skip the page of the contacts book with Winter’s name on it next time. Especially if the debate is on issues of prejudice and tolerance.


Extreme views: Former referee Jeff Winter

His website carried a peculiar anti-Catholic rant when Celtic went top of the Scottish Premier League at the turn of the year. The piece asked: ‘What does it mean for the altar boys? Do they get abused in celebration? Would it have been worse in the anger of defeat? Or would they just get abused anyway?’

The Pope was also described as a ‘dress-wearing, Nazi, kiddy-fiddling protector’.
I think we can do without any more sectarian bile. And we can do without more Winter, too. We don’t need to put the clocks back twice.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...#ixzz2BBXO59fo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Paul Marin]

Dunny, is it possible to rape a prostitute?

[Dunny]

Dunny, is it possible to rape a prostitute?

He he, Paul you no easy mi bwoy. Yes it's possible!!
Paul when the Chelsea captain(still the captain) racially abuse Anton Ferdinand the closest player to the incident was John Obi Mikel he witness everything yet when investigation come him keep quiet and dem send the sell out Ashley cole fi go tell one bag a lie. Dem bettah dan mi baba.In my opinion Chelsea are a disgrace!!

[Paul Marin]

He he, Paul you no easy mi bwoy. Yes it's possible!!
Paul when the Chelsea captain(still the captain) racially abuse Anton Ferdinand the closest player to the incident was John Obi Mikel he witness everything yet when investigation come him keep quiet and dem send the sell out Ashley cole fi go tell one bag a lie. Dem bettah dan mi baba.In my opinion Chelsea are a disgrace!!

My only point is that you can't dismiss the claim without an investigation just because of past behaviour on Chelsea's part. I don't know if Clattenburg is guilty or not, but my orginal reason for making this post was to show that the system is out of whack. When Liverpool and Chelsea supported their players, everyone came down on them. When the referees union supported Clattenburg, no one condemned them.

In my opinion, the Union and the clubs were all correct to support their "man" until they were proven guilty. However, before there was even a trial, everyone -- managers included -- cried down both Chelsea and Liverpool, but not ONE manager has come out the same way in crying down the Union. Why? Do you think they are stupid? They don't want the Union coming down on their team.

Now to the media. Why would anyone write an article like this? Again, they are not foolish - they know that selling papers is far easier when you exploit existing rivalries as opposed to writing about a group no one quite cares about; it would be like writing about shenanigans of the groundskeepers at a club - who cares about them? Anyway, as I have said, the system is broken.

[Tilla]

Yes, Paul, I too find it surprising that many on here would want to consider the claim a lie without a full investigation into the matter. What if it were true that the referee said what it is alleged to the player? Should it just be swept under the rug like that without a proper investigation and necessary actions taken?

I also consider the position taken by Ferguson and Wenger following the incident as insensitive and irresponsible when considering the situation. I know many of these guys only give lip service to the eradicate racism fight, but I can see with them as they are not ones who have these insults thrown in their faces. It was the same way Ferguson was prepared to discipline Ferninand when the player decided not to wear the Fight Racism shirt a couple weekends ago. Only when the Players Association decided to back Ferninand did he have a change of heart.

I am not taking any position on the matter. I say let the investigations find out if there is a case or not. It would be an unfortunate situation to know that the players actually made up the charge just as it would be equally unfortunate to know that the referee racially abused the player during the game. Again, let us reserve judgement until the investigations are over.

[Dunny]

Yes, Paul, I too find it surprising that many on here would want to consider the claim a lie without a full investigation into the matter. What if it were true that the referee said what it is alleged to the player? Should it just be swept under the rug like that without a proper investigation and necessary actions taken?

I also consider the position taken by Ferguson and Wenger following the incident as insensitive and irresponsible when considering the situation. I know many of these guys only give lip service to the eradicate racism fight, but I can see with them as they are not ones who have these insults thrown in their faces. It was the same way Ferguson was prepared to discipline Ferninand when the player decided not to wear the Fight Racism shirt a couple weekends ago. Only when the Players Association decided to back Ferninand did he have a change of heart.

I am not taking any position on the matter. I say let the investigations find out if there is a case or not. It would be an unfortunate situation to know that the players actually made up the charge just as it would be equally unfortunate to know that the referee racially abused the player during the game. Again, let us reserve judgement until the investigations are over.

My judgement mek already, i don't need to wait pon no investigation.Chelsea should've tek dem beating like men and cut the almshouse! me done talk.

[Assasin]

you can't have it both ways Paul. You didn't know if the man guilty or not but you come out swinging, saying how them a go let off the ref. You gave the impression that the case the ref was guilty, now you pulling back.

[Tilla]

So it matters not to you if the referee called the player a monkey? That is my point as none of us are able to say what was said or not said without an investigation. I for one as a Black man do not condone or trivialize racial abuse. If there was abuse, then it is more than losing s few points in a game. Abuse must be investigated and dealt with.

[Paul Marin]

you can't have it both ways Paul. You didn't know if the man guilty or not but you come out swinging, saying how them a go let off the ref. You gave the impression that the case the ref was guilty, now you pulling back.

Nope. Wrong. I have been saying all along that whether he is guilty or not the system is tipped in his favor. The higher up you go in football the more to your advantage the system is. As I said, look at the difference between how the players were treated and how Clattenburg has been treated both by the media and the rest of football. In the player's case, it was guilty until proven innocent, but not so for the ref. Also, look at the propoganda machine, they have immediately started to discredit Chelsea players without any investigation. If you all are serious about kicking racism out of football, start at the top, not with the players.

[Paul Marin]

So it matters not to you if the referee called the player a monkey? That is my point as none of us are able to say what was said or not said without an investigation. I for one as a Black man do not condone or trivialize racial abuse. If there was abuse, then it is more than losing s few points in a game. Abuse must be investigated and dealt with.

Tilla, Dunny's response and position is a perfect example of why racism in football will continue. He has come to a conclusion (as the media has done in that piece, as they did with JT and as they did with Suarez) before facts have been laid bare all because of base human tribalism. The media is the worst. They no longer have any honest investigative journalism, just the kind of drivel in the article Dunny posted. Otherwise, the world would be far better educated as to why the FA, FIFA and UEFA have no black people on their boards. But hey, start on the field and why not submit to grade school explanations to justify a potential honest claim? Dyam foolishness.

[Dunny]

So it matters not to you if the referee called the player a monkey? That is my point as none of us are able to say what was said or not said without an investigation. I for one as a Black man do not condone or trivialize racial abuse. If there was abuse, then it is more than losing s few points in a game. Abuse must be investigated and dealt with.

Tilla if the ref did that then he should be sacked and written off it is as simple as that.

[Assasin]

"Wrong. I have been saying all along that whether he is guilty or not the system is tipped in his favor."

Paul you can't say that if you don't give it a chance to play out. What if he is innocent? Again you can't have it both ways. If he is innocent he deserves to be given the suppport, if he is not then it is a problem. Base on your rumblings you know that the other officals will lie to save him(how can you assume that?) Just like in the Terry case you went came to judgement, on what they would do. Mi brethren Dunny coming to the same conculsion now.

How is Clantenburg treated? There has been good and bad press about him but I know you wouldn't see that. The only difference is the Ref association is supporting, but they are not going the public and embarrassing way Liverpool did.

[Paul Marin]

"Wrong. I have been saying all along that whether he is guilty or not the system is tipped in his favor."

Paul you can't say that if you don't give it a chance to play out. What if he is innocent? Again you can't have it both ways. If he is innocent he deserves to be given the suppport, if he is not then it is a problem. Base on your rumblings you know that the other officals will lie to save him(how can you assume that?) Just like in the Terry case you went came to judgement, on what they would do. Mi brethren Dunny coming to the same conculsion now.

How is Clantenburg treated? There has been good and bad press about him but I know you wouldn't see that. The only difference is the Ref association is supporting, but they are not going the public and embarrassing way Liverpool did.

Sass - who says I am not giving it a chance to play out? All I am saying is that there are different sets of rules the higher up the food chain you get. I am also saying that the system is broken. The article that Dunny posted insinuated that the Chelsea players were lying when they said they didn't hear JT call Anton a "---"; it also insinuates that they are lying when they claim they heard Clattenburg.

As for the other officials not hearing anything, I posted an article that showed the fate of referees that go against Slurgie. Why do you think that there is any less of a mafioso system amongst them in dealings with each other? The bottomline is that they can't be trusted, because whether they are telling the truth or not, the way the system works, coming out against "one of their own" is certain career death.

As for the Referee's Union, drawing the comparison between the way they are doing it and the way Liverpool did it distracts from the fact that they ARE doing it.

[Assasin]

The case you are making is that if Clatenberg is innocent it must be because of the broken system. You framed your reasoning long before that article. Just re-read your post at the begining of the thread. You didn't leave much for objectivity.