What's new

Clattenberg: "My game was to let Tottenham lose the title"

michaelden

Knight of the Fat Fanny
Aug 13, 2004
26,386
21,685
If his game plan was to let Spurs implode, he was then intentionally not punishing Chelsea so as to aggravate our players and as such he was favouring 1 team, therefore cheating. He should be fined, fired & banned from football forever.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,984
30,494
He also said this -
"Even in the Premier League, I still smile at the first time I came across Roy Keane," Clattenburg told NBC's Men in Blazers podcast.

"He screamed at us for a corner and I'm sure it was a goal kick but because he screamed at us so loudly, I gave a corner. I was that petrified of him."

Unrelated to us but still completely unacceptable :rolleyes:

Imagine what else he has done and hasn't admitted to (in general, not necessarily relating to us)

I think this is true of so many football referees they must be some of the biggest pussies going. The amount of times I see refs who like like they’re about to cry or shit their pants when players are shouting at them. They’re fucking footballers ffs. Half of them are 5:8 and no more than 11 stone it’s fucking stupid.

Also, whatever happened to booking players that swarm the ref? Another thing they’re to shit scared to follow through on.
 

glacierSpurs

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2013
16,163
25,472
If his game plan was to let Spurs implode, he was then intentionally not punishing Chelsea so as to aggravate our players and as such he was favouring 1 team, therefore cheating. He should be fined, fired & banned from football forever.
9 out of 11 yellow cards were given to us. I think that was rather obvious, haha.
 

nightgoat

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
24,604
21,898
I can't believe there is not more being made of the fact a premier league referee has admitted to purposely going against the laws of the game in order to affect its outcome.

You can bet your life it would if it was 'Clattenburg: My game was to let Liverpool lose the title'.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
Interesting...so what would have happened if Dembele did real damage to Costa's eye or one of those tackles connected in the wrong place and proved to be a potential career-ender? Is Clattenburg saying that he deliberately allowed the game to turn into a ruckus therefore putting players at risk, absolutely shocking, incompetent, fucking coward...I wouldn't even call that gross negligence, it's criminal. He should be banned from sport indefinitely.
 

southlondonyiddo

My eyes have seen some of the glory..
Nov 8, 2004
12,599
15,011
and there was me thinking Hazard (the ****) woke up 2nd half (from having a season off!!) and was absolutely brilliant

This 'self destruct' bollox is so boring
 

Colston

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2013
670
847
If I ever want to know what people who were shit at their jobs think, I'll come to you first Clattenburg, until then I'll be perfectly content ignoring any output from your shit for brains.

If a referee retires, and no one is around to see it, does anyone give a shit?
 

parj

NDombelly ate all the pies
Jul 27, 2003
3,586
5,861
Erm, isn't it Clusterfucks job to referee? Is this not breach of duties? After all he is paid to referee the match not worry about headlines
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
It was Clattenburg who failed to award Mendes from the halfway line, right?

He and any of his spawn should have been euthanised there and then.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Not really, brah.

I'm making a deliberately over-emphatic point, but largely constrained by the nature of the post I'm replying to. If you check my first post in this thread you will see that I said I believe we lost what fading chances we had of the title when we drew with West Brom*, so I'm not really saying Leicester would have shat the bed and we would have won the title. We don't know what would have happened if Clattenburg had dealt with Chelsea and their antics effectively from the start of the first half. So none of us know what the result would have been - that is the nature of time and causality.

But the point is still a valid one. Some folk are looking at it from the consequences, which were that our players imploded and could/should have been sent off. Funnily enough, that suits the whole narrative that has been presented from the night of the game. And Clattenburg is playing that by talking about our players that could/should have been sent off. But the fact is that if you look at it from the first whistle, it was the Chelsea players who were most in danger of being sent off, and lucky not to be. They were throwing themselves wildly into tackles all over the pitch. And when the subtext was that they said they would do anything to prevent us winning the title (when they still had to play us and Leicester) the referee should have came down like a ton of bricks the first time one of those tackles, one of those incidents of violent conduct, or any instance of vile winding up by Fabregas (or anyone else) occurred. But he didn't, he let it fester.

I don't know what would have happened if he had dealt with them effectively. But there is a good chance that our players wouldn't have got so wound up (which is, after all, exactly why the Chelsea players were doing exactly what they were). And that means, like without a player or two, not being allowed to do the antics that would our players up, and our players not being wound up, it is fair to infer a situation where they wouldn't have got an equaliser or even back into the game. So all of this talk, from the end looking backwards, of how many players we could have lost is totally irrelevant and totally misses the point. If Clattenburg had done his job properly from the first whistle the odds are against our players being in a position to be that wound up.

*As for West Brom, that is a whole different story. Pulis said outright he wanted Leicester to win the title - for Ranieri (I think). A couple of days before us he played the Goons and they were utterly abject. I watched the whole game. A couple of days after playing us they played West Ham, and were utterly abject. I watched the whole game. Against us, they suddenly played the second half like it was a cup final!?! We should have won the game, anyway...so I am not just blaming them for playing out of their skins. But it does beg the question, doesn't it? Did they conserve themselves against Arsenal? Did they leave themselves too knackered too compete against West Ham and would they have done that as routine in league matches? We were royally shafted - and the FA are who I blame the most for letting them, and especially Chelsea, away with it. How do you imagine Ferguson would have reacted to this?

we do, if the title went to the last weekend, Chelsea would of laid down and died like they did for most of it:whistle:
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
It was Clattenburg who failed to award Mendes from the halfway line, right?

He and any of his spawn should have been euthanised there and then.

that was the linesman's fault, Clutterberg was behind Mendes impossible to see the goal line.

he let Chelsea get away with everything that night, and didn't control the game that could of stopped that happening, by punishing Chelsea players for their actions in the 1st half, or not sending 1 of ours off when it started to boil over. still trying to work out from where he was stood how he didn't see Ivanovic push on Jan for Chelsea's 1st goal.

at the end of the day he is a ****, and his actions never cost us the title, our slowish start, and 4 other games before that night cost us, Leicester at home, Wet Spam, Arscum and the WBA game.
 

tiger666

Large Member
Jan 4, 2005
27,978
82,214
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42299897

Ex-Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg says his comments about "allowing Tottenham to self-destruct" in a game at Chelsea in May 2016 have been "misinterpreted".

Spurs needed to win to retain any hope of winning the league but drew 2-2 and conceded the title to Leicester City.

Clattenburg said he could have sent off three players but told NBC's Men in Blazers podcast last week that he "went in with a gameplan" so he could not be blamed for Tottenham's result.

However, speaking to BBC Radio 5 live's Sportsweek programme on Sunday, the 42-year-old said: "I probably said it in the wrong way.

"One thing I certainly don't want to do is be the centre of attention."

Former top-flight official Dermot Gallagher said Clattenburg's handling of the game at Stamford Bridge was a "gamble too far", while ex-Arsenal striker Ian Wright said it was "baffling".

Clattenburg, who is now head of referees in Saudi Arabia, booked nine Tottenham players - the most for one team in a Premier League match - in the bad-tempered game in which Chelsea came back from two goals down.

The two clubs later received record fines from the Football Association and Spurs midfielder Mousa Dembele was also given a six-match ban for violent conduct against Chelsea striker Diego Costa.

"Tottenham self-destructed when Chelsea equalised," added Clattenburg.

"When Tottenham lost their discipline in the last few minutes, it was an opportunity for me to say: 'OK, the game is finished, do I want to be the centre of attention?'

"Tottenham drew the match which meant they had lost the title. I always said my gameplan was not to be the centre of attention, not to cost anybody the title and not to influence the result."
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
"One thing I certainly don't want to do is be the centre of attention." Said the man on National radio.
 
Top