blonde poker forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42219327

Is this acceptable?

Reffing the game in a different way because of the "big picture" situation?

Or should every decision have be taken by the book and Tottenham been down to 8 if they comitted that many transgressions?

Graham Poll said summat similar about the Keane / Viera tunnel incident. Going by the book he could have sent both off and the teams would have started 11 v 11 with subs replacing the captains. But he want them on the pitch.

I think refs should see themselves as auteurs. Directors or conductors managing the players and guiding them to drama and bigger picture incident.

It's entertainment afterall. If a ref wants to seed an epic comeback / implosion / or blockbuster game with judicious interpretation of the laws I'm all for it

I don't really have a problem with a ref managing a game a way that suits the occasion. Nothing worse than being over officious and frustrating fans.

By the same token, there is a duty to protect the players and some of the Spurs challenges in that game (one from Dier in particular) could have cost Chelsea players a career. Alan Judge is almost two years out of the game after one of the worse challenges I can remember, and the ref decided to just book the offender as it was only two mins into the match (later got sent off). At the time, Judge was out of contract, had just been voted Champ player of the year so could have expected a PL move and was on his way to the Euros with Ireland. Needs to be a sensible balance.

Nothing worse from a spectator point of view in watching a game that is constantly stop/start but Clattenburg was out of his depth that day. Ridiculous challenges by Spuds players that could easily have ended careers

I've listened to the full interview. Highly recommended.

https://meninblazers.com/page/podcasts     12/1/17 Clattenburg Exclusive


Staggered really that this hasn't received widespread media attention. Game management is one thing but Clattenburg takes it to a whole new level. Do we really want a ref to give a penalty when he thinks it is only 70/30. And in a Champions League final?
What about the integrity of the game, betting markets, etc etc?

Clattenburg comes over as a complete cock as well imo - bitW, talking about himself in the 3rd person, completely up his own arse but he isn't arrogant really :)   Great listen.

What's wrong with 70/30? There is no 100% in reality.

70/30 would represent a pretty chunky portion of doubt. When giving decisions as potentially game changing as a penalty, the refs should be pretty damn sure their decision is correct. 70/30 isn't far off guess work.

Clattenburg is a twat.

I was just about to say too much guesswork at 70/30 but hyy beat me to it

I am with you, sometimes there is no black and white, just shades of grey.  Penalties are rarely going to be clear-cut at game speed and from a bad angle.

Not giving a correct penalty is just as game changing as giving a wrong one. 

51/49 should be fine.    Some people expect way too much from other people, especially football fans.   

I don't think anyone expects a ref to be 100% certain for all decisions. Obv some decisions are clear cut, others less so.

70% however is nowhere near enough to be making game changing decisions. You're basically guessing, making a mockery of the game. If you're a Premier League ref, you're at the top of your profession, supposedly the best of the best. You shouldn't be there if you're guessing for key decisions.

"There was an element of doubt so the ref was right not to give that penalty to us" said no football fan ever. 

Football fans are fickle, everyone knows that. Not sure what your point is?

It's about the referee being sure that his decision making is correct. If he is giving penalties that he believes are 70/30 then he is nowhere near confident he's making the right decision.

Do you write answers for the four wise men on Soccer Saturday?  ;nanana;

It's not guessing. It's forming a judgment based on evidence. Million pound lawsuits are decided on 51/49, but 70/30 isn't enough for a penalty in a football match?

As doobs says, no pen is a big decision too: could be the only chance a team gets to score. Or it could be 4-0 and irrelevant only for the player, fantasy players and punters.

The guidance for refs will be there as to where the benefit of doubt lies. We employ them to make reasoned judgments. 70/30 is pretty confident IMO at that speed when you're running to the incident yourself from 10 yards away, amid a lot of shouting, in the rain.

Rugby refs have to decide who's caused a scrum to collapse. Cricket refs decide whether the batsman has knicked it. Hockey refs decide whether it was foot or stick. Tennis judge line or just missed? We employ humans to make decisions.

The rule isn't "only give a foul if you're certain there was one" or "90%" sure.

That is quite a test. Sure? So certain? 100%?

Flippancy aside, you're advocating a change in the law to benefit defenders, such that the most consequential action (goal, foul, not offside, pen, sent off) can't be made unless it is clear cut.

That's against the direction of travel, nowadays, where the attacking team is generally given the benefit of doubt (offside rule an example).

I guess that's where we differ then, as 70/30 is far from confident in my eyes. 70% is essentially guesswork.

You really think refs have the required time to ''form a judgement based on evidence''? When a ref snap gives a penalty you think he's given much thought to the 'evidence'? This isn't a trial for a multi million pound lawsuit.

It's not an easy job, but these guys have made it to the top of their profession. They are not taking charge of a Sunday morning kickabout. If any ref is giving key decisions based on a 70% certainty then I'd suggest they shouldn't be at the top level.

30% represents a significant portion of doubt.

Not anymore.

The daylight rule used to favour the attacking teams. These days its been reeled in; if your little toe is offside then you're offside.

Yes, but a person has to made the decision as to whether the little toe was offside.

Lets hope they were 70% sure then.

His use of 70/30 is just a number to show he thought it was a pen but wasn't 100% certain. Stuff and nonsense to say it needs to be 95/5 or 90/10 to give - one mans 70 is another mans 90. I would be happy with 58/42 but not lower

Think Austin's kneecap was offside there.

Alright, we'll take the figures away.

1) I know that was a penalty.

2) I'm pretty sure that was a penalty.

3) I think that might be a penalty.

4) I'm not sure that's a penalty.

5) That's not a penalty.

Where do you want the ref to be?

Pretty sure = ~ 70% imo.

It's all semantics ;)

I'd want a ref to be 1 or 2, where there is little to no doubt.

I'd have 3 around the 70/30 mark.

So 3 means you think it is rather than is not, so what do you do?  :P

I think 3 means there is too much doubt to give the decision. ''I think that might be''......guesswork area.

As Nirvana says one man's 92 is another man's 68. However, Clattenburg will obviously have had the guidance and in the context of his comments it was a big decision to give the penalty to Atletico but "balanced the offside decision given in favour" of Real Madrid. 70/30 was his metric and the inference I took from it was ordinarily that is not enough for a decision in isolation.

Lol @  clatternberg or any ref actually having any concept of or method of diffrenciating between a 69% and 70% certainty.

he was using 70/30 as a verbal place-holder for the idea of a decision that's not certain, but on balance probabilities is certain enough for a penalty.

And thats why he was universally regarded as a terrible referee.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5210015/Mark-Clattenburg-caught-cheating-divorcee-50.html

He was 70% sure he shouldn't have been doing that.

Very good.