Clattenburg In Trouble

[Guest]

It does but does not need to inherit its rules.

Ill be amazed if there ever is play uninterrupted for over 30ecs

Stop talking shit;

[Darkon84]

It does but does not need to inherit its rules.

Ill be amazed if there ever is play uninterrupted for over 30ecs

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Carl the Llama]

It does but does not need to inherit its rules.

Ill be amazed if there ever is play uninterrupted for over 30ecs

Sir, are you a purveyor of clockwork objects mechanised by a winding-key system perchance?

[The Year Of The Fox]

Ill watch the next game for a bit and Ill see then.

The referre constantly stops the game for one rule contravention or other

Boring hell

[Captain...]

Ill watch the next game for a bit and Ill see then.

The referre constantly stops the game for one rule contravention or other

Boring hell

You talking league or union?

League is very stop start, union flows a lot more, but can get bogged down in a forwards game, a bad game of union is dire to watch but at its best it is as enthralling and compelling as any football match.

[The Year Of The Fox]

Union, league is even worse

Just cant get into it and believe me Ive tried

[DB11]

So Clattenburg saying "I couldn't give a monkey's. Go away." is construed as racism by Chelsea. Go figure.

[rico]

So Clattenburg saying "I couldn't give a monkey's. Go away." is construed as racism by Chelsea. Go figure.

If thats true then Chelsea are pathetic

[anotherharboroughfox]

So Clattenburg saying "I couldn't give a monkey's. Go away." is construed as racism by Chelsea. Go figure.

Oh I hope it's not that...

[Vacamion]

So Clattenburg saying "I couldn't give a monkey's. Go away." is construed as racism by Chelsea. Go figure.

Imagine this said in an out of breath Durham accent, with crowd noise in the background, overheard by a Brazilian (Ramires) and I think we can assume that wires have been crossed.

[marko]

I read earlier that this is what Clattenburg said.

If it's proved to be true I hope they throw the book at Chelsea. They've tried to ruin the guy over the use of an everyday phrase. Just when I thought I couldn't hate them anymore.

[Jimothy]

If that's true does anyone think Chelsea might be trying to be clever. The argument in the Terry case was he was just repeating the words "black ****" and that uttering the words wasn't an offence in itself. Saying "You're a ****ing black ****" is completely different to saying "I would never call anyone a black ****" even though the offensive words are used in both. They could argue that under the same FA rules that Terry was found guilty by, Clattenburg has used the word "Monkey". He might have said "I couldn't give a monkeys" or "Go away you stupid monkey". Either way he's used the word monkey to a black player. They could easily turn round to the FA and say that they found Terry guilty on that premise so why is Clattenburg not guilty.

[rico]

If that's true does anyone think Chelsea might be trying to be clever. The argument in the Terry case was he was just repeating the words "black ****" and that uttering the words wasn't an offence in itself. Saying "You're a ****ing black ****" is completely different to saying "I would never call anyone a black ****" even though the offensive words are used in both. They could argue that under the same FA rules that Terry was found guilty by, Clattenburg has used the word "Monkey". He might have said "I couldn't give a monkeys" or "Go away you stupid monkey". Either way he's used the word monkey to a black player. They could easily turn round to the FA and say that they found Terry guilty on that premise so why is Clattenburg not guilty.

or they are just trying to make sure he never refs a game involving them ever again?

[Corky]

Why is Clattenburg being stopped from refereeing at the moment?

Terry and Suarez were allowed to continue playing when their investigations were taking place.

[Captain...]

If that's true does anyone think Chelsea might be trying to be clever. The argument in the Terry case was he was just repeating the words "black ****" and that uttering the words wasn't an offence in itself. Saying "You're a ****ing black ****" is completely different to saying "I would never call anyone a black ****" even though the offensive words are used in both. They could argue that under the same FA rules that Terry was found guilty by, Clattenburg has used the word "Monkey". He might have said "I couldn't give a monkeys" or "Go away you stupid monkey". Either way he's used the word monkey to a black player. They could easily turn round to the FA and say that they found Terry guilty on that premise so why is Clattenburg not guilty.

Of course they are, this would never have happened if it wasn't for Terry's decision, classless club, with classless fans and players.

[rico]

Why is Clattenburg being stopped from refereeing at the moment?

Terry and Suarez were allowed to continue playing when their investigations were taking place.

i think it was his own decision not to ref this weekend

[marko]

If that's true does anyone think Chelsea might be trying to be clever. The argument in the Terry case was he was just repeating the words "black ****" and that uttering the words wasn't an offence in itself. Saying "You're a ****ing black ****" is completely different to saying "I would never call anyone a black ****" even though the offensive words are used in both. They could argue that under the same FA rules that Terry was found guilty by, Clattenburg has used the word "Monkey". He might have said "I couldn't give a monkeys" or "Go away you stupid monkey". Either way he's used the word monkey to a black player. They could easily turn round to the FA and say that they found Terry guilty on that premise so why is Clattenburg not guilty.

Because Clattenburg did not use the word in a racist context.

Using your logic (I know you've only used it as an example) you could be racist by asking a black member of staff at Starbucks for a black coffee.

Edit: With regard to the Terry defence, they said it was almost certainly fabricated. I forget the actual wording, but they weren't buying it for one minute.

[Jimothy]

Because Clattenburg did not use the word in a racist context.

Using your logic (I know you've only used it as an example) you could be racist by asking a black member of staff at Starbucks for a black coffee.

That's not my logic, that's the FA's. Chelsea and Terry's argument was he didn't use "black ****" in a racist context, he was just merely pointing out he would never call someone that, and the FA found him guilty on the basis it doesn't matter what context those words are used in, just that those words were used. They will argue Clattenburg may not have been using the word monkey in a racist context to a black player, but he's used the word monkey to a black player, and as they ruled in the Terry case context doesn't matter just the that the words were said.

[notnow john]

Is "don't give a monkeys" rhyming slang ,if so , a monkeys what? I Have used the phrase and never thought of

It's origins

[marko]

That's not my logic, that's the FA's. Chelsea and Terry's argument was he didn't use "black ****" in a racist context, he was just merely pointing out he would never call someone that, and the FA found him guilty on the basis it doesn't matter what context those words are used in, just that those words were used. They will argue Clattenburg may not have been using the word monkey in a racist context to a black player, but he's used the word monkey to a black player, and as they ruled in the Terry case context doesn't matter just the that the words were said.

They didn't find Terry guilty on the basis you've pointed out.

Firstly, it wasn't the FA directly that found Terry guilty; it was an independent regulatory panel. They looked at all the evidence - which we weren't privy to - camera angles, lip reading experts, etc, etc, and found that he didn't say "I would never call anyone a black ****".

[Raj]

If thats what Clattenburg has said,then he and the FA and Ref Union should sue Chelski

Im sure DB11 can explain how hard it is for a ref to get to the levels of the Premier league and we ALL hammer the fcukers but WHO really would take the shit they have to from fans players etc..

This whole fiasco seems to smell of Chelses trying to get their own back and play the inflicted.

It has back fired badly and made them look even bigger c.unts than they are.

If the Premier League and FA had any balls they would take points of them for such a scandalous attempt to wreck a refs career just cos they lost.

[Mack]

I told you this was all bollocks several days back.

[Raj]

I told you this was all bollocks several days back.

Whats bollox?

What Clettenberg said or thats Chelski are a bunch of lying shits?

[Alexikokopops]

Imagine this said in an out of breath Durham accent, with crowd noise in the background, overheard by a Brazilian (Ramires) and I think we can assume that wires have been crossed.

Exactly. As much as I'd like Chelsea to get the book thrown at them it could be a genuine misunderstanding by a player who heard "monkeys" (if Clattenburg did indeed say "I couldn't give a monkeys"). Even if it was though, there was no need for this whole thing to be aired in public.

[ADK]

They should deduct points from Chelsea.