Body & Soul1 min ago
Chelsea v Man City
How is it Mark Clattenburg cannot spot a blatant foul on David Silva from 4 yards away, but can deem an accidental handball to have been deliberate foul play from over 20 yards away?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
From a neutral
00:17 Wed 14th Dec 2011
Why don't bitter blues change their tune. always the same.
Mancini settled for a draw with 20 minutes to go and made a daft substitution. And you got beat. Blame your inexperience manager before to blame the officials. Toure should have been off in the first half for kicking the Chelsea lad on the ground and slapping another in the face.
Mancini settled for a draw with 20 minutes to go and made a daft substitution. And you got beat. Blame your inexperience manager before to blame the officials. Toure should have been off in the first half for kicking the Chelsea lad on the ground and slapping another in the face.
How wrong you are, I am not bitter, we lost and thats that, all I am saying is that it is lamentable when a referee such as the weak, lily livered Mark Clattenburg can be put in charge of such an important game. It's not the first time he's made a series of cock ups
http://clattenburg.epetitions.net/
http://clattenburg.epetitions.net/
I will tell you why as a qualified referee:
1. In the Da Silva incident the contact is minimal and Da Silva seemed to be
going down before the Chelsea player really committed himself.
2. He had the perfect angle with the Lescott incident and the letter of the law
says that if you raise your hands in the penalty area directly into the path
of the ball in an attempt to divert it from its path then it will be deemed
that the player has handled the ball and a penalty has to be awarded to the
attacking team. That is the rule as it stands. On viewing it and as a
qualified referee it was not accidental handball and cannot be so as Lescott
clearly raised his arms while looking at the ball directly into the ball's path
and illegally diverted it with said hand. Therefore that is handball and
penalty Chelsea.
If you want to moan about decisions then have a look at the ones Spurs, United, Bolton, Everton and Liverpool are getting. You've had some luck but luck always runs out.
What's your problem you are still top after all!!
1. In the Da Silva incident the contact is minimal and Da Silva seemed to be
going down before the Chelsea player really committed himself.
2. He had the perfect angle with the Lescott incident and the letter of the law
says that if you raise your hands in the penalty area directly into the path
of the ball in an attempt to divert it from its path then it will be deemed
that the player has handled the ball and a penalty has to be awarded to the
attacking team. That is the rule as it stands. On viewing it and as a
qualified referee it was not accidental handball and cannot be so as Lescott
clearly raised his arms while looking at the ball directly into the ball's path
and illegally diverted it with said hand. Therefore that is handball and
penalty Chelsea.
If you want to moan about decisions then have a look at the ones Spurs, United, Bolton, Everton and Liverpool are getting. You've had some luck but luck always runs out.
What's your problem you are still top after all!!
In Fifa's Laws of the Game 2005, Law 12 says a free-kick or penalty will be awarded if a player "handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)".
However, the document fails to describe what constitutes deliberate handball, which places the responsibility firmly on the referee and referees' assistants.
"If the ball hits the arm then the referee must decide whether this action was to deliberately block the ball or whether the player has raised their arms to protect themselves - especially if the ball is hit at speed."
It is quite obvious that Lescott thought the ball was going to hit him in the face at speed and from a short distance so his natural reaction was to protect himself.
However, the document fails to describe what constitutes deliberate handball, which places the responsibility firmly on the referee and referees' assistants.
"If the ball hits the arm then the referee must decide whether this action was to deliberately block the ball or whether the player has raised their arms to protect themselves - especially if the ball is hit at speed."
It is quite obvious that Lescott thought the ball was going to hit him in the face at speed and from a short distance so his natural reaction was to protect himself.
You lost not because of the refereeing, but because Mancini settled for a draw when it was yours to win. Bringing off Aguero and Silva and replacing them with defensive players Toure and De Jong with quarter of an hour to go let Chelsea in.
Mancini is a defensive manager by nature and City spent all last season repeating this same mistake, bringing on defenders to get a draw when you should have been going for the win. City have been getting 4 or 5 goal leads so Mancini hadn't done it so far this season, but the first time City find themselves on equal terms, Mancini reverts to his old ways.
Mancini is a defensive manager by nature and City spent all last season repeating this same mistake, bringing on defenders to get a draw when you should have been going for the win. City have been getting 4 or 5 goal leads so Mancini hadn't done it so far this season, but the first time City find themselves on equal terms, Mancini reverts to his old ways.
-- answer removed --
Gromit You know f*ck all about football
He brought on K toure to shore up the back thus allowing Y toure to take up a more attacking mode. At 10 men to 11 would Furybum not do the same? When De Jong was brought on it was one a piece so we had settled for the draw, at 75 mins who wouldn't. Then the pen so dzeko in replace of Lescott, hardly defensive. Considering we had a dick of a referee aswell.
He brought on K toure to shore up the back thus allowing Y toure to take up a more attacking mode. At 10 men to 11 would Furybum not do the same? When De Jong was brought on it was one a piece so we had settled for the draw, at 75 mins who wouldn't. Then the pen so dzeko in replace of Lescott, hardly defensive. Considering we had a dick of a referee aswell.
1 to 15 of 15
