Clattenburg

[hhyftrftdr]

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Tal]

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.

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.

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).

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.

[hhyftrftdr]

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.

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.

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).

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.

[nirvana]

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

[hhyftrftdr]

Think Austin's kneecap was offside there.

[hhyftrftdr]

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?

[RED-DOG]

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.

[hhyftrftdr]

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.

[RED-DOG]

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? 

[hhyftrftdr]

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?

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

[Archer]

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.

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.

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



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.

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.

[teddybloat]

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.

[hhyftrftdr]

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.

[arbboy]

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

[hhyftrftdr]

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.