Clattenburg "my gameplan was to let Spurs lose the title" | Vital Football

Clattenburg "my gameplan was to let Spurs lose the title"

freundorfoe

freundorfoe

Vital 1st Team Regular
From the BBC article about it:

Speaking to NBC's Men in Blazers podcast, he said: "I allowed them [Spurs] to self-destruct so all the media, all the people in the world went: 'Tottenham lost the title.'

"If I sent three players off from Tottenham, what are the headlines? 'Clattenburg cost Tottenham the title.' It was pure theatre that Tottenham self-destructed against Chelsea and Leicester won the title."

Asked if he helped to "script" the game, he replied: "I helped the game. I certainly benefited the game by my style of refereeing.

"Some referees would have played by the book; Tottenham would have been down to seven or eight players and probably lost and they would've been looking for an excuse.

"But I didn't give them an excuse, because my gameplan was: Let them lose the title."

Clattenburg took charge of the Euro 2016 final, as well as that year's Champions League and FA Cup finals.

In February, he left his job as a Premier League official to become Saudi Arabia's new head of referees.

Clattenburg says he had to change his style of refereeing when he took charge of European matches.

"The English style of refereeing is different," he added.

"I had to referee differently when I went into Europe because none of the top players in Europe would accept some of the physical contact that went on in the Premier League - but that was the theatre, that's what people loved.

"They love a tackle, they don't want it punished."

 
absolute crock of **** in my opinion. If he'd have done his job and taken control of the game and stopped both sides antagonising each other it wouldn't have got so out of control. Makes it seem like Chelsea were blameless and we went into the game to attack them which is not how I remember it at all.
 
I think we lost our heads when Chelsea stepped up and made a determined effort to spoil it for us (which is fair enough, why wouldn't they?).

We did lose the title for ourselves that day. In that, Clattenberg isn't wrong... but he's a referee. It's not his role to think about that. He's there to adjudicate a match to a defined set of rules. Every match should be refereed in exactly the same way.
 
I still think too much was made of the Chelsea game both at the time and in the aftermath, even if we'd won we'd still not have won the league that year. The fact that even Clattenburg viewed it as us playing to win the title shows what a nonsense it was. Also he doesn't say anything about what would have happened if we'd won the game! If that really was the game that decided the title, surely him not sending players off has an effect the other way.
 
It's hard to put that into context but he sounds incredibly anti-Spurs. Chelsea aren't the cleanest playing team around.
 
What a horrible sub human.

Refs shouldn't be seen or heard, yet need to quickly stamp their authority on the game, then keep a tight rein.

Its a fine balance that this grub has failed to grasp, and yet he is now head of Refs in Saudi??

Anti Spurs little c---

:36:
 
So if we had scored a last minute winner , how would his stupid little headline grabbing piece of nonsense made any sense.??
Absolute load of Bow Locks.
All he has done is to confirm (what has always been denied by the top knobs in the referee' s world) that referees bend the laws of the game to suit who is playing and to suit THEMSELVES.
If anybody deserves to be sent off , surely he is admitting that he HAS FAILED as an impartial adjudicator of the game, in not carrying out the laws of the game.
Does the question need to be asked "was he a 'lone wolf' in all this. .? Or does it go on all the time depending on who the CHARACTERS are that are involved , which is what Spurs Ex was eluding to in a separate thread.
All of what Clattenburgh has said makes no sense unless it was all premeditated ,by which l mean he was going to turn a blind eye to some or most of the Plastic Tactics. Otherwise, being a decent and neutral official, he would have controlled the game from the first minute.

Coming out with all this now ,in my opinion , throws the Match Day Officials , into disrepute and yet they have said that as he no longer belongs to their organisation ,they have nothing to say on the matter.
All a bit worrying in my book
 
I think it was Steve Claridge (sp) who made an excellent point on TalkSport when he said (and I paraphrase) that if Spurs had gone on to win that game and then the title, what would the story be then? The headlines would have been 'Ref gives title to Spurs but didn't send off three players when he should have done.'

Terrible ref, always was. It was always all about him. That game was an absolute pantomime that he allowed to happen. Chelsea played dirty and for once we bit back. To this day I look back on that game with pure happiness because some of the tackles we did on the likes of Hazard, Fibreglass and Costa were an absolute pleasure to watch. And the FA should have stepped in before the game even started because some things the Chelsea players were saying was setting that game up to be dirty.
 
Do you think that by taking what he said just a little bit further, that he would have controlled the result of that game as well?? Now that is worrying
 
Matic - 7/12/2017 11:13

I think it was Steve Claridge (sp) who made an excellent point on TalkSport when he said (and I paraphrase) that if Spurs had gone on to win that game and then the title, what would the story be then? The headlines would have been 'Ref gives title to Spurs but didn't send off three players when he should have done.'
Click to expand...

That was one of the points I was making above. I'm flabbergasted by this interview. A refs first job should be to impartial, he's showing he absolutely wasn't.

It's not like prior to that game we had a reputation for players getting red cards, we have a very good record in that regard, so how on earth did he have a premeditated gameplan along the lines he's suggesting? Unless he knew they would be deliberately goading and winding us up and that he would foster and encourage that atmosphere.
 
I don't understand how Fibreglass was allowed to say before the game that Chelsea would do all they could to stop us winning the league cos they wanted
Leicester to win it . what was that all about. Why didn't the authorities pick up on it? Maybe they thought Mark Clattenburg would sort it out. .......
 
I have no problems with what any of the chav players said. They saw us as a threat and and enemy. I would have said the same about them.

The ref on the other hand can't say or do what he did. It's not his place.
 
Our boys lost it 2nd half, only because he kept breaking up our attacks by giving all decisions their way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.