Just wanted to see what some other referees thought of this interview. https://meninblazers.com/2017/12/01/mibpod-120117-mark-clattenburg-pod-special/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/42219327
I also don't think Clattenburg would be bragging about this tactic is Spurs had pulled out a late 3-2 win. If he's talking about taking great pains to avoid 2CTs and erring on the side of caution when tackles came close to SFP, it's his choice and difficult to argue with because there's a huge element to truth to what he says (even if it's not "right"). But if he's arguing, for example, he looked the other way on some clear VC (Dembele's eye gauge and Lamela's hand stomp), then that's a problem and really cannot be excused. I admit I'm just going based off the BBC article and the video right now--will have to listen to the interview in full later.
His points on man management and being "fair" are interesting. There's a fine line between the this is what the game needs mentality and actually enforcing the LOTG. At his level, and considering the appointments he received, clearly man management is a whole different than what we might see in the park on Saturday morning. To hear him say that 4 yellows to none means he should give the other team a yellow is a bit shocking. Clearly in the spurs Chelsea match, player safety has to come into play as well. Interesting story regarding Collina too. He had watched a bayern match six times. Collina pointed out that they played a blocker in an offside position. He watched for it in the match and cut out the blocking thanks to Collinas tip.
That is a fascinating podcast. I never realized how meteoric his rise was. Basically 6 years from beginning as a referee and working at the highest level internationally. And to hear his relationship with Collina. One wonder where that sits now.
What I take from the discussion and the review of the video is one, if managing the game is paramount and he really saw Spurs falling apart, how is that not his discussion with the captain? I completely understand the thought about the media, its pressure I cannot even imagine but it really is something that one needs to think about how he'll be portrayed and allow that to influence the match he calls. You're 100% right if Spurs win its a different side of the same coin. The key difference being Spurs have much more clout than Leicester.
In that game, I am not sure what he was supposed to do. If that nonsense happens in a Sunday Mens O-30 league, its easy. You card them like crazy, get the crazy team below 7 and the game is over. The players expect it. Its what the game expects, to use that turn of phrase. Here? Is that what the game expects? Take a professional game (and not just any professional game but that one!) and card a team below the minimum and terminate it? Because he could have done that. Tottenham was so out of control at the end and so unwilling to get in control that I think he could have justifiably gotten them below 7. I really don't know what he was supposed to do. And I mean that in the sense I myself don't know. And never will. That's not a level that I know or will ever experience.
Its easy to see why he'd walk away, there's no way to win there. There has to be a limit to how much of that you can endure.
it is definitely worth a listen. I was also appalled by his remarks about having to essentially "even things up" to appear "fair". Sometimes one team really is the one causing all of the trouble. To punish their opponents just so fewer people criticize you seems cowardly. But really a lot of this shines a light on what's wrong with the game and officiating at the pro level. I don't know how or why those guys do it, frankly.
Its well worth the time to listen to. I did think Clatts was a bit dramatic appealing to the theater of the match. It made for a good listen. Funny side story, I listened to it while driving my son to a tournament over the weekend. My son is also a referee in his 5th year already (he will be 17). I was happy for him to hear how a top level ref thinks (rarely do we get to hear that perspective) and his game management style, despite the sense of arrogance that comes through with Clatts. Unfortunately, my son is a Spurs fan, so that part didn't go over too well , though we were laughing at that part. I would also add there was a decent podcast on The Total Soccer Show with a referee from the Richmond VA area. Didn't totally agree with him, but his talk was more applicable to the matches most of us would see, and again, it gave my son some thought to what he does when refereeing.
I haven't listened to the interview and I am just reading what he said. Maybe there is some poor phrasing by him and it is lost in "referee translation" but if he really said what he said and really means what he said, then it is really scandalous. I understand that there is subconscious and maybe some conscious thoughts of referees at those levels paying attention to the media about their decisions and how they would react. It is human nature, but to basically say, "I blatantly ignored the Laws of the Game, so I wouldn't be in the papers the next morning" is frankly irresponsible and unprofessional. It seems that he basically tailored a match management approach to what the papers would say! Am I the only one that thinks that it is patently absurd for a professional referee to say that? These guys receive advice and training from trained sports psychologists to help them block out that! Unbelievable! They go through mental and psychological training so those outside factors play a little role as possible in their decision making. I understand that at the level he referees you can't just throw players out on a whim, but to see a match disintegrating in front of your eyes and players getting hacked and choosing to ignore it and instead "allow them to self-destruct" is professionally irresponsible. Maybe, I'm overreacting, but this is unbelievable. Good riddance to Clattenburg, what a disgrace.
Clattenburg is rightfully getting roasted by the British press for his comments. Maybe that's what he wanted all along. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...se-comments-what-effect-purpose-a8091341.html So bizarre and narcissistic from Clattenburg.
I do think the narcissism accusation hits on a good point. For a referee to be so cognizant of media behavior that he would, allegedly, concoct a game plan heading into a particular match to avoid specific headlines, it is nonsensical to believe he couldn’t envisage the headlines resulting from this interview to an extent. Of course, there’s also an element of the Guardian and other British tabloids proving his point here, too. Full articles on a retired referee, implying referees shouldn’t care about the media, undermine their own argument. If Clattenburg was going to be raked over the coals today for this interview, he certainly would have been in 2016 for multiple red cards—despite the implication the press would have defended Clattenburg’s heroic application of the Laws. Also, on the other hand, does a true narcissist throw away the chance at doing a WC Final and being the first man to do the three biggest matches in the world? I don’t know. Bizarre is the right word for it.
Update from Clattenburg today. Taken too seriously he says. Fun podcast with @MenInBlazers tongue and cheek comment about Roy Keane and other words and stories taken out of context...Geordie humour... That’s why referees don’t come out and explain after matches #referee #no personality #laughing— Mark Clattenburg (@clattenburg1975) December 6, 2017
1 Referees at the top level are there to help produce a spectacle. 2 In big games, top referees raise the bar for a RC. 3 Mark Clattenburg has a bit of a big head. Not exactly shocking stuff.
Here is another interesting account! http://sportslens.com/mark-clattenburg-i-quit-the-premier-league-because-of-mourinho/221072/ PH
Yeah. That's where the story came from. I guess someone decided to listen past the Spurs/Chelsea part.