I'm very interested to hear what you refs think about this incident in the ManU - Wigan game Saturday: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPzQ9Y-oziY"]YouTube - Wigan Vs Man Utd (Rooney Elbow) 26/02/2011[/ame] Foul? Yellow? Red? Severe warning? All comments keeping in mind that this is the EPL, not U16, of course... Thanks for your input. This is my favorite forum in BigSoccer.
http://www.proreferee.com/2011/02/rooney-in-the-clear-after-referee-confirms-he-saw-clash/ Clattenburg confirmed that he saw the foul, so further action will be taken by the FA.
I thought the article said NO action will be taken because the foul had been called with no sanction!? I think it should have been at least a yellow, the elbow was high but it did not get to the face. If it was a couple inches higher, a red.
If Rooney threw the elbow at even rib level, I would still consider this violent conduct. He's sending a message of intimidation that should not be tolerated. The fact that no action will be taken just amazes me. Stop protecting the stars and protect all players equally.
My thought is that it should have been a red whether U8, EPL or anything in between. I hope the FA gives him a few games off, but I'm not counting on it.
this is the problem when a referee says he 'saw' something that happened during a match. Sure, maybe he was looking at it when it happened, but there's no way Clattenburg really grasped what Rooney did. It was definitely violent conduct, no form of self-defense. Yes, the opponent looked like he was putting his arm out to keep Rooney from running through. That definitely was a foul. But Rooney's actions were violent conduct all the way.
Maybe so, but if I say I would have red-carded Rooney, I will never get an EPL game . Clattenburg's statement is mindboggling, assuming it is being reported correctly. It's pretty clear he wasn't looking directly at the incident, nor should he have been.
The level of play makes no difference here. Red for violent conduct. Although referees have no impact on length of suspension, if I were a league administrator that should be 3 games. There is no way he saw that. Can't believe he lied about it. I'm wondering if he said he saw it before he actually saw a video replay, thinking it wasn't a big deal. It's almost as if he is confirming he is an idiot. Haven't seen the whole game, so what was Rooney retaliating for? Something in this game or do these two have a history?
It was done with purpose and the intent to hurt an opponent. This is a text book example of violent conduct. It never ceases to amaze me how immature and stupid Mark Clattenburg can be.
Rooney is a thug and needs to be made an example of. He looks to see where Clattenburg's attention is as he runs towards Caldwell. Premeditated, cynical, brutal. He is a complete disgrace. But he plays for Utd, so he'll get away with it time and again.
In cases like this the FA or any other national or professional association should correct the mistake and punish the offence. It is not enough for Clattenburg to say in his opinion he saw the foul and dealt with it. His actions dealing with the misconduct were proven wrong in the subsequent video replays. It is quite clear there was intent and force applied by Rooney. This was not a case of his accidentally running into the opponent. He purposely seeked him and struck him with his elbow. Just because Clattenburg states he is ok with a foul call or foul and caution, does not make the call correct.
VC, no question (PV, I'll say it because I won't get an assignment regardless lol). I hope this is one of those cases were the referee catches the contact out of the corner of his eye but doesn't recognize it for what it really was. I've been there. You "feel" that something happened but can't be sure. If that's what Clattenburg faced, that would explain why only a foul was called.
Yes and yes. That's not how I see it at all. Sometimes you seem to take an overly negative view toward certain high-profile referees. As Paper.St.Soap.Co said, it seems that Clattenburg probably caught it out of the corner of his eye but didn't really understand or see what it really was so he couldn't pull out the red card. Would have been nice if one of his crew had caught it and he had the sense to check with them before dealing with the situation, but it seems that probably did not happen. He called the foul and talked his way out of the situation.
I have never understood this approach. Can anyone explain to me the thought process for why the FA will not take further action simply because the referee states that he 'saw' an incident? It's like the FA need to define the word "see" to clear this up. They seem to take a very broad view of what "see" means.
THe thinking is that if the ref saw the action, then the FA goes with what the ref called. If the ref says he did not see the incident, then post game replay can lead to punishment. You can see how this approach puts the ref in a Catch-22, admit you missed a significant incident--hence you 'failed the game'; or say you saw the action (maybe out of the corner of your eye) hence letting the culprit escape from further disclipline.
I can fully appreciate and understand his not seeing it. It happens to all of us. We follow play and an action like this occurs out of our direct view. What annoys me is Clattenburg no doubt had a chance to review the match replay and yet he still stands by his original decision that the foul call was correct. Sorry, but there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. It was violent conduct. Be a man and own up to the fact that you missed it and allow the FA to correctly punish Rooney.
(When Rooney first came up, I expected him to do this kind of thing every game, a la Joey Barton. He is still a petulant brat, but SAF has done a good job getting him to focus his energies on the game. And, I am not a fan of either of them or ManU. Just saying I am surprised Rooney doesn't do this more often.)
Wow, this is a welcome change in attitudes on here! Usually The FA are called arrogant for retrospectively punishing incidents or asked why they think they can ignore the LOAF! Very clearly this is VC. Everyone bar Fergie can see that. Unfortunately, once Clattenburg gives the free kick (we can only assume on seeing it out of the corner of his eye), he has stopped The FA being able to take any action, as he has effectively seen it and dealt with it, albeit wrongly. Unfortunately, FIFA are stuck in the dark ages where they believe that referees never make mistakes, and therefore you should back them regardless. FIFA don't like it when FAs ignore the "referees decision is final" part of the LOAF. See their over-reaction to The FA's retrospective punishment of Ben Thatcher a couple of years ago. The FA only get around being able to correct incorrect red cards through a loophole. The whole issue needs looking at. Referees are generally more than happy to accept when they're wrong, so let them and The FA (and other FAs!) correct clearly incorrect decisions! It's madness that people like Rooney can get away with things like this when there is clear video evidence to show he elbowed someone, just because he was fortunate enough that the referee didn't see the full extent of the coming together!
I think this is a bit unfair. Hopefully Englishref can come in and explain exactly how things work with the FA right now, but by the way I understand things, Clattenburg is not being as obstinate as some might think. Essentially, his hands are tied. He called a foul. Simply by executing that act, he's saying that he has "seen the incident." It's not a case of him looking at the video replay, seeing the elbow, and still insisting that he saw the play and wouldn't have given a red card. If that were the case, I'd agree with you. But I really don't think that's what's happening here. The FA has created a weird system where they want to mete out punishment for "unseen" incidents, under the theory that they are not "re-refereeing," violating Law V, and incurring the wrath of FIFA. If the FA sticks to only disciplining incidents that the referee totally missed, then they can argue (weakly, in my opinion) that they are not usurping the mandates of Law V because the referee never exercised his authority (unless he were to explicitly say in a report that he saw an incident fully and chose not to act). By doing this, they have seemed to have kept FIFA off of their backs. But in this case, Clattenburg called a foul. He adjudicated the incident and made a decision. I imagine it's very likely he would have called it differently had he seen it from another angle and/or in full. But if he told the FA now that he "didn't see it," he'd have created a paradox (how can he call the foul if he didn't see it?). Also, the incident won't even be in his report since there was no misconduct involved. In sum, I really don't think Clattenburg is "standing by his original decision." I think that's highly, highly doubtful. It's just that the system in place doesn't allow the referee to change things when he's already taken action on the field, as was the case here. Graham Poll addresses a lot of this in his recent article, but some of the real details appear to be omitted, so it'd be great to have Englishref fill them in: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...bly-let-elbow-incident.html?ito=feeds-newsxml EDIT: HA! looks like Englishref was responding as I typed!