Sorry but Clattenburg was NOT to blame!!

[Gnasher 0]

One thing many people seem to have forgotten is that whilst we were poor for large parts of the game, that doesn''t automatically mean we lose. Sure West Ham could''ve scored more, but they didn''t and we only lost by the one goal despite a poor performance. Were it not for Clattenburg and his debatable decisions, we likely aren''t 2 goals down for the majority of the game and have the chance to take something. Thats my main gripe.

[yoda 0]

Sorry but if I watched their pen 100 times I still wouldn''t see the foul it was a nothing incident one that you see every day and goes unpunished and I ask yourself would we ever get one of those in our favour ? of course not . The handball was blatent,if you raise your hand up to that level you should accept whatever comes.The Kane incident was also one that would have been given to most clubs.

[mrs miggins 0]

I think the referee does have to take some responsibility, even though we were poor and had an off day (though what does hughton expect when we are hoofing it too a little kid).

 

In my opinion, Bennett did hold his man and probably would''ve been a free kick outside the area, but as its in the box; something you always see, i thought it was incredibly harsh and so early on in the game perhaps affected the way we grew into the game. So I think not a pen.

 

For the second goal, i think the ref actually may have got it right. I''m not sure if it was a foul, or if cole was just too strong for him, but the ref deemed it not so and as it''s not a head injury, he has no right to stop the game.

 

For the possible west ham hand ball, i would say the ref got that one right, (although am suprised he didn''t level things up) because bassong is pulling him down.

 

And lastly I am suprised he didn''t give the penalty to level things up because although there probably was a little clip on him, i think he was looking for it. Though as I said before, the referee needs to be consistant and he wasn''t.

 

ALthough we didn''t play well enough i think he got 2 out of the four key decisions wrong and was pretty woeful. But that''s the prem, terrible referees which i''ve said for a long time and don''t understand why we don''t get the championship ones in.

[yoda 0]

I couldn''t care less if the refs are good or bad what does get my goat is that it''s very apparent that things do not even themselves up if you are a club like Norwich,two pens given in the whole of 2012 and 10 against doesn''t tell the whole story,we have had several good shouts which would have been given had we been the Man u''s of this world while at the same time we have conceded some really soft one''s like the one at home to QPR for example

[step 0]

"Nothing says the game has to be stopped other than a SERIOUS or HEAD injury"

I agree is doesnt, Tets was flattened by Cole and the way Cole landed on top of him I was surprised that Clatberk didnt stop the game straight away as it could have very easily being a serious injury, he was close enough to see it for christ sake,

This is the same Berk who allowed Zamora to be practically holding hands with the Penalty taker before scoring the rebound against QPR, a game where once again he didnt cover himself in glory.

I bet you if Holt played yesterday he would not have got 1 penalty for the several times that he will be held in the same manner.

It is hard enough to get something out of a game when you arent playing well without a ref like Clattenberg doing his usual display of an attention seeking arsenal.

[SwindonCanary 455]

The best ref''s are not noticed, but I believe Clattenburg loves the publicity and always want''s to be controversial.

[step 0]

Paul

"If that had been a foul on Holt" we certainly would not have got it...in fact it would have been a foul the other way.

[step 0]

"we have conceded some really soft one''s like the one at home to QPR for example "

And what pratt was the Ref then !!

[Duncan Edwards 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just looked at the "highlights" I have one question, irrespective of the "blame" argument. The defender in the Kane incident doesn''t get the ball. It runs through to the keeper without either player touching it. So isn''t that either a penalty or a booking for a blatant dive? Kane has either gone down because he''s been fouled or because he''s thrown himself down.[/quote]

 

Hughton made the same point.

 

 

[shefcanary 2,377]

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just looked at the "highlights" I have one question, irrespective of the "blame" argument. The defender in the Kane incident doesn''t get the ball. It runs through to the keeper without either player touching it. So isn''t that either a penalty or a booking for a blatant dive? Kane has either gone down because he''s been fouled or because he''s thrown himself down.[/quote]

 

Hughton made the same point.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Yep, Kane should have been booked if not a foul.  Also Bassong should have been penalised if Clattenburg deemed it to not be handball because of Bassong''s pull - inconsistency and wearing claret & blue.  Whatever way you look at it he made some shocking decisions. 

 

Also as noted on this thread we had just two (TWO) penalties awarded us in 2012, 10 against.  And remember the first five matches of last season.  Whilst the unwritten rule of football is that these things even up over a season, I find it extremely difficult to see how this amount of bad luck can be reversed. 

 

We fight on............  No-one is going to help us that''s for certain.  But lo the team manager that complains that we had the luck and the rub of decisions and they didn''t - they''ll get both barrells from me.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just looked at the "highlights" I have one question, irrespective of the "blame" argument. The defender in the Kane incident doesn''t get the ball. It runs through to the keeper without either player touching it. So isn''t that either a penalty or a booking for a blatant dive? Kane has either gone down because he''s been fouled or because he''s thrown himself down.[/quote]

 

Purple, I often hear this comment from a match commentator, and did so again yesterday. I don''t believe it has to be a black or white issue when there''s far more room for grey. This is a body contact sport still ( despite there being less tolerance for the hefty shoulder charge of my youth ) and there could have been a legitimate coming together of bodies. Kane could have been slightly off balance when such contact occurred. It''s a split second decision and, in my opinion, it did not look like a clear cut infringement so, taking my green and yellow glasses off, if a penalty was called against Norwich for this particular incident I would have felt it was very harsh.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just looked at the "highlights" I have one question, irrespective of the "blame" argument. The defender in the Kane incident doesn''t get the ball. It runs through to the keeper without either player touching it. So isn''t that either a penalty or a booking for a blatant dive? Kane has either gone down because he''s been fouled or because he''s thrown himself down.[/quote]

 

Purple, I often hear this comment from a match commentator, and did so again yesterday. I don''t believe it has to be a black or white issue when there''s far more room for grey. This is a body contact sport still ( despite there being less tolerance for the hefty shoulder charge of my youth ) and there could have been a legitimate coming together of bodies. Kane could have been slightly off balance when such contact occurred. It''s a split second decision and, in my opinion, it did not look like a clear cut infringement so, taking my green and yellow glasses off, if a penalty was called against Norwich for this particular incident I would have felt it was very harsh.

[/quote]

 

Not very well worded by me.... I meant to say if this such an incident had occurred at the other end and West Ham were awarded a penalty it would have been very harsh against Norwich ( IMO ).

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just looked at the "highlights" I have one question, irrespective of the "blame" argument. The defender in the Kane incident doesn''t get the ball. It runs through to the keeper without either player touching it. So isn''t that either a penalty or a booking for a blatant dive? Kane has either gone down because he''s been fouled or because he''s thrown himself down.[/quote]

 

Purple, I often hear this comment from a match commentator, and did so again yesterday. I don''t believe it has to be a black or white issue when there''s far more room for grey. This is a body contact sport still ( despite there being less tolerance for the hefty shoulder charge of my youth ) and there could have been a legitimate coming together of bodies. Kane could have been slightly off balance when such contact occurred. It''s a split second decision and, in my opinion, it did not look like a clear cut infringement so, taking my green and yellow glasses off, if a penalty was called against Norwich for this particular incident I would have felt it was very harsh.

[/quote]

 

Yankee, there can be. Two players running side by side, for example. But not in this case. Kane has got goalside of the defender, who runs across the back of him. He is in no position to play the ball. And either he clips Kane, which is a penalty, or he doesn''t, in which case it is a dive. You might argue that he only clips Kane accidentally, by being clumsy, but in that situation the referee has to assume the offence is cynically deliberate. A defender who has got out of position like that loses the right to any benefit of the doubt, because most times it is cynically deliberate.

[crabbycanary 2]

The only thing Clattenburg must have thought was that Kane tripped over his own feet!

[Canary 1]

Ginger, I agree he was very poor throughout the game, I feel he needs to have a rest from being a referee and get some further training to try and be good enough to remain a premiership referee.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just looked at the "highlights" I have one question, irrespective of the "blame" argument. The defender in the Kane incident doesn''t get the ball. It runs through to the keeper without either player touching it. So isn''t that either a penalty or a booking for a blatant dive? Kane has either gone down because he''s been fouled or because he''s thrown himself down.[/quote]

 

Purple, I often hear this comment from a match commentator, and did so again yesterday. I don''t believe it has to be a black or white issue when there''s far more room for grey. This is a body contact sport still ( despite there being less tolerance for the hefty shoulder charge of my youth ) and there could have been a legitimate coming together of bodies. Kane could have been slightly off balance when such contact occurred. It''s a split second decision and, in my opinion, it did not look like a clear cut infringement so, taking my green and yellow glasses off, if a penalty was called against Norwich for this particular incident I would have felt it was very harsh.

[/quote]

 

Yankee, there can be. Two players running side by side, for example. But not in this case. Kane has got goalside of the defender, who runs across the back of him. He is in no position to play the ball. And either he clips Kane, which is a penalty, or he doesn''t, in which case it is a dive. You might argue that he only clips Kane accidentally, by being clumsy, but in that situation the referee has to assume the offence is cynically deliberate. A defender who has got out of position like that loses the right to any benefit of the doubt, because most times it is cynically deliberate.

[/quote]

 

Then we''ll just have to disagree on this one Purple because your view assumes nothing else other than the black and white of what you have stated, when you clearly do not have an opinion whether contact took place, or you would have stated so.  My view does not discard the possibility of what you surmised, but also allows that players fall down all the time when running at speed and it''s not always a case of either/or, i.e. a foul or a dive. As I said, I believe this would have been a soft call.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="yoda"]I couldn''t care less if the refs are good or bad what does get my goat is that it''s very apparent that things do not even themselves up if you are a club like Norwich,two pens given in the whole of 2012 and 10 against doesn''t tell the whole story,we have had several good shouts which would have been given had we been the Man u''s of this world while at the same time we have conceded some really soft one''s like the one at home to QPR for example [/quote]

 

We need to be a bit more pro-active on the refereeing front. They depend on Premiership managers for their marks. Like othe Clubs, we should make them earn them. For a start, a video should be put together showing all the controversial decisions we have suffered from Battenburg over the past couple of seasons. Am I the only one who winces when he is announced as our referee. The bloke is a complete clown who has never given us anything and never will. We should be demanding the authorities never place him in charge of one of our games again. This has happened with a number of other Clubs.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just looked at the "highlights" I have one question, irrespective of the "blame" argument. The defender in the Kane incident doesn''t get the ball. It runs through to the keeper without either player touching it. So isn''t that either a penalty or a booking for a blatant dive? Kane has either gone down because he''s been fouled or because he''s thrown himself down.[/quote]

 

Purple, I often hear this comment from a match commentator, and did so again yesterday. I don''t believe it has to be a black or white issue when there''s far more room for grey. This is a body contact sport still ( despite there being less tolerance for the hefty shoulder charge of my youth ) and there could have been a legitimate coming together of bodies. Kane could have been slightly off balance when such contact occurred. It''s a split second decision and, in my opinion, it did not look like a clear cut infringement so, taking my green and yellow glasses off, if a penalty was called against Norwich for this particular incident I would have felt it was very harsh.

[/quote]

 

As harsh as the one given against us when Cisse fell over?

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Canary"]

Ginger, I agree he was very poor throughout the game, I feel he needs to have a rest from being a referee and get some further training to try and be good enough to remain a premiership referee.

 

[/quote]

 

Must be a prime candidate for the next Strictly Come Dancing. It would suit him down to the ground.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just looked at the "highlights" I have one question, irrespective of the "blame" argument. The defender in the Kane incident doesn''t get the ball. It runs through to the keeper without either player touching it. So isn''t that either a penalty or a booking for a blatant dive? Kane has either gone down because he''s been fouled or because he''s thrown himself down.[/quote]

 

Purple, I often hear this comment from a match commentator, and did so again yesterday. I don''t believe it has to be a black or white issue when there''s far more room for grey. This is a body contact sport still ( despite there being less tolerance for the hefty shoulder charge of my youth ) and there could have been a legitimate coming together of bodies. Kane could have been slightly off balance when such contact occurred. It''s a split second decision and, in my opinion, it did not look like a clear cut infringement so, taking my green and yellow glasses off, if a penalty was called against Norwich for this particular incident I would have felt it was very harsh.

[/quote]

 

Yankee, there can be. Two players running side by side, for example. But not in this case. Kane has got goalside of the defender, who runs across the back of him. He is in no position to play the ball. And either he clips Kane, which is a penalty, or he doesn''t, in which case it is a dive. You might argue that he only clips Kane accidentally, by being clumsy, but in that situation the referee has to assume the offence is cynically deliberate. A defender who has got out of position like that loses the right to any benefit of the doubt, because most times it is cynically deliberate.

[/quote]

 

Then we''ll just have to disagree on this one Purple because your view assumes nothing else other than the black and white of what you have stated, when you clearly do not have an opinion whether contact took place, or you would have stated so.  My view does not discard the possibility of what you surmised, but also allows that players fall down all the time when running at speed and it''s not always a case of either/or, i.e. a foul or a dive. As I said, I believe this would have been a soft call.

[/quote]

 

Yankee, I thought your argument was that there was contact but that it was a normal coming together, and that a penalty would have been harsh for that reason! Actually, that WAS your argument. Nothing about Kane simply having fallen over.

Of course IF that was what happened then Clattenburg got it right - no penalty and no dive. And you are right that from my very small-screen highlights I cannot tell for sure if there was contact. It only looks as if there was, and it certainly doesn''t look as if Kane got his feet tangled up. It looks like how I described it.

Anyway, a happy 2013 to you and any members of the YankeeCanary family. I know you must have been heartened by Obama''s re-election...[;)]

[shefcanary 2,377]

Dion Dublin''s view was that the defender deliberately knee''d Kane in the back of his thigh - he had the benefit of all the Beeb''s TV monitors and all sorts of angles so this must be definitive.  However Clattenburg in real-time must have deemed it a coming together, but that would be very generous toward the defender where he wasn''t anywhere near as generous toward RBenno - inconsistent!

 

And thanks USofA for the fiscal cliff temporary rescue.  I''m sure there''s a chance for a cock up yet, but at least it keeps the gun issue off the front pages - plus ca change?

[Andrew Spanton 1]

Clattenburg was to blame for his poor decisions which invariably went against us, but it''s part of the game and there is no point feeling sorry for yourself. I look forward to Stoke conceding at least 5 penalties in their next game!

Much more importantly to me, Clattenburg was not to blame for the below par performance in the first half, at the end of which we could easily have been 5-1 down. We need to rediscover our defensive organisation and competitiveness for the Newcastle game (forget the Peterboro side show).

[kingsway 94]

If penalties were given for yesterdays incident all the time, their''d be at least 5 penalties every game!

 

Jostling and shirt pulling goes on all the time and is largely ignored most of the time!

 

That said sometimes penalties are given for the incidents in the West Ham box from time to time!

 

Yes we were on the wrong side of the decisions but this shouldn''t disguise the fact we were p*ss poor for much of yesterdays game. Hughton I''m afraid got the team line up and formation wrong big time!

 

Messing up 2 positions to try to solve one (Martin at left back and R Bennett at rightback) was ludicrous and put us on the backfoot straight away. Trying to put square pegs in round holes rarely works. Kane needed a partner upfront with him to help keep the ball up field. Jackson should have started instead of Hoolahan!

 

 

[Yellow Wal 314]

Kingsway - If penalties were given for yesterdays incident all the time, their''d be at least 5 penalties every game!

What absolute rubbish!

A few seasons ago deliberate handball was quite a regular occurance until this was penalised by a sending off.

What do you know - players stopped doing it as often!

If penalties were given then players and managers would soon get to know this and their games would change and we would not see at least five penalties a game.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,734]

By my reckoning this was the fourth time we''ve had this self-adulating, corrupt referee this season (QPR,Arsenal,(h), Southampton,West Ham (a)), which in my opionion at just over the halfway stage seems disproportionately high?. It can''t be a healthy situation whichever way you look at it as the opposition could accuse him of over-familiarity but on the other hand a referee will have formed pre-conceived ideas about the players.

   If anything good can come from this "surely" we will be Clattenburg free for the rest of the season?!?!?

[barclay_boy111 0]

i agree it we never turned up, i have found my self screaming in anger at the fact we cant close down the opposition,

I realize i will have to put my tin hat on now, i am starting to worry about Hughton''s ability in picking the side and using his subs, why pull Garrido out of the squad for more height in the defence!? height in the defence is the least of issues, and i am certain that''s why he doesn''t play Jackson and why he didn''t play Wes at the beginning of the season, height in a squad is not an issue as long as you can tackle and close down!

[kingsway 94]

["Yellow Wall"]Kingsway - If penalties were given for yesterdays incident all the time, their''d be at least 5 penalties every game!

What absolute rubbish!

A few seasons ago deliberate handball was quite a regular occurance until this was penalised by a sending off.

What do you know - players stopped doing it as often!

If penalties were given then players and managers would soon get to know this and their games would change and we would not see at least five penalties a game.

 

 

 

Shirt pulling especially in the build up to a corner happens regularly and is ignored most of the time!

 

Harsh penalty whatever you or anyone says, but we were cr*p and deserved to lose!

[Yellow Wal 314]

Kingsway - I won''t argue about the performance and that we probably got what we deseved.

I would also argue that it was a penalty as it was shirt pulling, I''m just mightily p**sed off with the amount of it that goes on unpunished.

I wish the referees would grow some balls and give the obvious ones they see.

Recently Fellaini nearly had the shirt pulled off his back at all set pieces and a penalty was never going to be given. He then flipped, nutted Shawcross, and all the shirt pulling was ignored and forgotten.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

Interestingly the pundits on Final Score thought Clattenburg got both penalty shouts wrong (Bennet and Kane). I have to agree with Hughton in that if pens are going to be given for the Bennet incident then every game in future should have lots of pens. Having seen it myself now, it was never a pen, both players were holding each other, how do you decide who commited the first offence?.....

[ron obvious 1,495]

For me, the worst thing was that I got the feeling that, even if we had played well, we''d never have won with that referee.