I still feel incredibly angry about last night’s latest, almost unbelievable, addition to the crimes in favour of Manchester United against Tottenham at Old Trafford. Maybe we should just award the three points to the home team and choose to no longer participate in this fixture. What’s the point? We can’t win...we can’t even lose 0-1 after a creditable performance.
It has been argued by some that Mark Clattenburg’s decision to award a Manchester United goal and overrule his lineman who was flagging for Nani’s handball (which clearly stopped the ball going for a goal kick) was incompetence. But surely the nature of incompetence is random? How is it that major decisions of this nature (like the Pedro Mendes goal in the Man Utd net) are ALWAYS given in favour of Manchester United? Isn’t it also insulting that Mike Riley, Head of the Referee’s Association, thought so little of the disallowing of the Mendes goal in 2005 that he deemed the hapless Clattenburg suitable to referee this fixture and return to the scene of his previous crime?
Tottenham missed out on a European place as a result of Clattenburg’s failure to see Mendes' goal at Old Trafford. Imagine if we miss out on Champions League qualification by a single goal via goal difference.
How is it that Ferdinand can be intimately involved in the decision to award ‘Nani’s goal’, shoving his head in an intimidatory fashion in the linesman’s face, and Modric is booked for complaining? Scholes shoves the lilly-livered Clattenburg (presumably boyish horseplay between close friends) and he is not booked? Even Fletcher goes through Lennon and is not booked when in copycat challenges Kaboul and Gallas are booked. Presumably Lennon should learn from Hernandez’s histrionics and roll around like a demented toddler?
Clattenburg has claimed he was playing ‘advantage’. A new and interesting interpretation of the rule. What advantage does a team have in its own 18-yard box? Last night Clattenburg invented something new in world football...playing ‘Disadvantage’.
What was the exact nature of the financial irregularities that saw Clattenburg suspended from refereeing in 2008? And what made him suitable to return to officiating?
Did he not prove in 2005, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he is out of his depth in a game of this stature?