Clattenburg In The Clear !
- Thread starter themn
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
BBC Sport @BBCSport
FA decides not to bring disciplinary charges against Mark Clattenburg following Chelsea's allegations of inappropriate language
FA decides not to bring disciplinary charges against Mark Clattenburg following Chelsea's allegations of inappropriate language
Sam Wallace @SamWallaceIndy
FA say accusation by Ramires against Clattenburg 'made in good faith' but no charge. Initial feeling is judgement not too damaging for CFC
FA say accusation by Ramires against Clattenburg 'made in good faith' but no charge. Initial feeling is judgement not too damaging for CFC
Ian McGarry @garbosj
FA will take no action against Mark Clattenburg over alleged inappropriate language. Be few people at#CFC who are relieved about that.
FA will take no action against Mark Clattenburg over alleged inappropriate language. Be few people at
http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2012/nov/statement-mark-clattenburg.aspx
News
the home of English football
- News
- FA statement: Mark Clattenburg
FA statement: Mark Clattenburg
- THURSDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2012
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)]Mark Clattenburg
-
The FA have released a statement in relation to the recent Chelsea v Man Utd game
The FA has concluded its investigation into alleged misconduct by Mark Clattenburg during the match between Chelsea FC and Manchester United FC on Sunday 28 October 2012. No disciplinary action will follow against Mr Clattenburg.
The investigation chronology
Following the conclusion of the match, Chelsea FC reported to the match delegate that two of their players had been separately subject to abuse by the match referee, Mark Clattenburg.
On Monday 29 October 2012, The FA contacted Chelsea FC to establish whether the club and individual players wished to make a formal complaint in relation to the allegations reported to the match delegate.
On Wednesday 31 October Chelsea FC contacted The FA and confirmed that the club had conducted an internal enquiry and that they did wish to proceed with a formal complaint in relation to one of the allegations of abuse. The club did not wish to proceed in relation to the other allegation. The club provided witness statements from two players, Ramires Santos do Nascimento (“Ramires”) and John Obi Mikel.
The details of the allegation were that following one or the other of the red cards issued during the second half of the game, Ramires heard Mark Clattenburg say to John Obi Mikel, “shut up you monkey”. John Obi Mikel did not hear the alleged comment.
On 1 November 2012, The FA requested that Chelsea disclose full details of their internal investigation.
On 5 November 2012, Chelsea FC provided The FA with witness statements from other Chelsea FC players and officials.
On 5 November 2012, The FA interviewed Ramires and John Obi Mikel, using the TV match footage obtained by The FA.
Between 7 and 8 November 2012, The FA interviewed all four match officials.
On 9 and 14 November 2012, further to FA requests, Chelsea FC provided unbroadcast video footage of the game from static cameras.
On 15 November 2012, The FA re-interviewed Ramires to show him the previously unseen video footage provided by the club. At this stage, for the first time, the exact point at which the comment was alleged to have been made was established.
In light of this new information, between 15 and 19 November 2012, The FA interviewed the players who were in the vicinity of the alleged incident, and re-interviewed John Obi Mikel and the match officials.
Chelsea FC was offered the opportunity to provide any further information or evidence that they believed could be relevant to the allegation.
The FA then sought advice on the evidence gathered from independent Queen’s Counsel.
The essential facts found
The evidence for the allegation came from one witness, Ramires. Ramires, whose first language is not English, explained that his instinctive reaction was to seek confirmation from John Obi Mikel as to what the referee had said.
John Obi Mikel, who was being spoken to by the referee, was much closer to the referee than Ramires and did not hear what it is suggested was said to him.
Three other witnesses, i.e. the other Match Officials, to whom everything said by referee was relayed via their communication equipment, are adamant the alleged words were not uttered.
There is nothing in the video footage to support the allegation.
For completeness, but of lesser weight, two other players, whose first language is English and were in the vicinity, did not hear anything untoward.
The decision
Having considered all of the available evidence it was the opinion of David Waters QC, independent counsel, that the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg.
Having considered Counsel’s opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, The FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer.
Equally The FA is satisfied that the allegation against Mark Clattenburg by Ramires was made in good faith. It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief.
The FA receives and investigates numerous allegations of misconduct over the course of a season. All allegations are properly investigated. It is not uncommon for investigations to lead to no disciplinary charge being brought.
The FA encourages all players who believe they have been either subject, or witness to, discriminatory abuse to report the matter immediately to the match officials on the day. Furthermore, all Participants are advised to report any such alleged misconduct to The FA. In this case, the player and club were correct in reporting the matter to The FA and it was appropriate and proper for such an allegation to be thoroughly investigated.
The rumour is it's "The possession of shite hair".
Where's the 100+ page report?
Why were they looking for video evidence? They didn't need it, they didn't have any in the Suarez case.
"first language is not English" what's that got to do with anything?. I thought if you come to play in this country then you should be fully aware of all the language and cultural nuances from the start.
Why were they looking for video evidence? They didn't need it, they didn't have any in the Suarez case.
"first language is not English" what's that got to do with anything?. I thought if you come to play in this country then you should be fully aware of all the language and cultural nuances from the start.
Something about rule E3 - "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour"
meh, what a waste of time the whole thing has been
I don't get it
Wow.
I would imagine no 100 page report was needed because no hearing took place.
There was video evidence in the Suarez case. There wasn't visual proof, which is another matter.
And I can't believe I need to point out that if someone isn't great at English, and needs clarification on what was said in English to someone else - they're giving Mikel the benefit of a misunderstanding as opposed to a blatant lie
The Clear? Wada will be all over him.
Chelsea have actually done quite well in retrospect. If the FA punished the fucker, he'd have been deemed to have served his time and might even have got some sympathy. This way his reputation has been tarnished, there will always be a doubt that he's a fucking racist, and people will be pissed off that he seems to have got away with it.
Not to mention the ice has been broken for anyone else who gets a bad decision from this fucking gimp of a referee. Two allegations of racial abuse will be curtains for him. Chelsea have shown everyone exactly how to make an allegation without getting yourself into shit over it.
Not to mention the ice has been broken for anyone else who gets a bad decision from this fucking gimp of a referee. Two allegations of racial abuse will be curtains for him. Chelsea have shown everyone exactly how to make an allegation without getting yourself into shit over it.
oh well plenty more cases for them I bet
I'm not getting into a Suarez debate Ross. Nice trolly try though. Back to the turkey for you
hahahhaha the cunt now wants an apology and compensation for the damage to his career. what the fuck does he earn? even 50k a year would be obscene. does he have any fucking idea how much his fucking gimp performances week after week cost to the club in financial damages? moron.
No you definitely don't get it. Your irony meter needs attention .
There's video evidence of all Premier League games if you want to be a pedant. Your right though there wasn't any proof.
One player asks another what did he say? 'shut up you monkey' says Ramires (he's got a good working knowledge of Geordie). You could get a 100 pages on that alone, no?
Seriously how do you misconstrue 'shut up you monkey'?, what could it have been that sounded like 'shut up you monkey'?
R
RedZeppelin III
Guest
so basically chelsea jumped the gun on this and went ahead with it cause they were pissed off at his performance in the game . Surely they knew there was a million holes in the accusation and that nobody else closer to clattenburg had heard it at the time .And yeah you back your players but only when it's 100% certain .
And if the FA are now taking first languages into it , why did they not consider that when Evra admitted his spanish was very poor and acknowledge he believed the word "negro" to mean something else ? .
And if the FA are now taking first languages into it , why did they not consider that when Evra admitted his spanish was very poor and acknowledge he believed the word "negro" to mean something else ? .
Meanwhile Ferguson has given his support to referee Mark Clattenburg, who on Thursday was cleared by the Football Association following allegations from Chelsea that he used "inappropriate language" to their players.
"I didn't believe it anyway," Ferguson said. "The unfortunate thing for Mark is he's had to carry that stain for the last few weeks and everyone in the game is pleased for him now, apart from Chelsea."
"I didn't believe it anyway," Ferguson said. "The unfortunate thing for Mark is he's had to carry that stain for the last few weeks and everyone in the game is pleased for him now, apart from Chelsea."
So, get a non-UK player to swear blind he heard a racial slur. If it fails, it's a innocent language misunderstanding - no fowl. If you win you can have the "offender" banned (at least) or ruined.
..... and we think diving is bad.... wait till the "hard to prove" allegations get given the balance of probabilities test. (well to non UK players at least).
When in doubt - feed it to the Black Lawyers Society - they'll not care - they'll approach the police, not having been involved in any way, shape, form or manner...... or without any evidence.
..... and we think diving is bad.... wait till the "hard to prove" allegations get given the balance of probabilities test. (well to non UK players at least).
When in doubt - feed it to the Black Lawyers Society - they'll not care - they'll approach the police, not having been involved in any way, shape, form or manner...... or without any evidence.
Chelsea have apologised for said they now regret their handling of the affair, and the impact it has had on Clattenberg and his family.
I read one suggestion that the word "muppet" could have been what Clattenburg said. You wouldn't even have to be a foreigner to mishear that in the middle of a Prem match, especially when it's said in a Durham accent.
If he did say 'muppet' to a player during the game, you have to question his professionalism - as an official of on of the biggest leagues in the world - in the first place.
Really? In comparison to being called 'fucking wanker' and all the rest of it by the players?
It's not even a question of professionalism when it comes to the overpaid wankers playing footy.
I'm talking about refs.
That's kinda my point though. Compared to the abuse they get, calling someone a muppet is child's play. I don't think it shows a lack of professionalism at all. In normal circumstances it would, but a referee calling a player a muppet isn't something I find questionable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked