Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Here is the place to talk about all things city and football!

Could he have in someway not seen it?

Impossible. He has to have seen.
68
76%
No, I believe that he didn't see it.
21
24%
 
Total votes : 89

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Ted Hughes » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:11 am

blues-clues wrote:The really stupid thing is that if Ade had actually jumped up to avoid the foul and then stepped on Van Penis' head and knocked him out but then fallen over as a result of the impact he would probably have got a free kick in his favour and VP would have got a straight red for a two footed challenge when he eventually came around!


That's the point. If Ade really wanted to fuck up Van Persie he could've just landed on his head. If I'd've been in that position & wanted to do him, he'd still be in fucking hospital.
The pissartist formerly known as Ted

VIVA EL CITY !!!

Some take the bible for what it's worth.. when they say that the rags shall inherit the Earth...
Well I heard that the Sheikh... bought Carlos Tevez this week...& you fuckers aint gettin' nothin..
Ted Hughes
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Colin Bell's Football Brain
 
Posts: 28488
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:28 pm
Supporter of: Bill Turnbull
My favourite player is: Bill Turnbull

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby dazby » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:31 am

Adebayor is leaning forward. He did well to just graze RVP and not stomp him completely.
Attack the argument of the person, not the person of the argument- except Carl.
User avatar
dazby
Joe Mercer's OBE
 
Posts: 19305
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:02 am
Location: Brisbane Australia
Supporter of: Manchester City
My favourite player is: Ed

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Abu Dhabi » Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:57 am

This thread is embarrasing. What do you people suggest? That the ref saw it and decided not to show the red just to come later and say that he would have sent Ade off? Absolutely embarrasing. Ofcourse the incident was in his view frame, but he never realized what really happened at normal speed and that angle.
Viva El City
Abu Dhabi
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
De Jong's Tackle
 
Posts: 1780
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:42 am
Supporter of: The Citizens

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Slim » Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:09 am

Abu Dhabi wrote:This thread is embarrasing. What do you people suggest? That the ref saw it and decided not to show the red just to come later and say that he would have sent Ade off? Absolutely embarrasing. Ofcourse the incident was in his view frame, but he never realized what really happened at normal speed and that angle.


Welcome to yesterday, try reading the fucking thread before you label shit and realise that point was already made without the need to belittle the other posters in it.
Image
User avatar
Slim
Anna Connell's Vision
 
Posts: 30343
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:57 am
Location: Perth

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Abu Dhabi » Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:35 am

Slim wrote:
Abu Dhabi wrote:This thread is embarrasing. What do you people suggest? That the ref saw it and decided not to show the red just to come later and say that he would have sent Ade off? Absolutely embarrasing. Ofcourse the incident was in his view frame, but he never realized what really happened at normal speed and that angle.


Welcome to yesterday, try reading the fucking thread before you label shit and realise that point was already made without the need to belittle the other posters in it.


I was talking about the people who said that he must have seen it. If only your voice counts slim we'd never have a poll . I'm actually amazed. Look who, among all people, talks about belittling other posters.
Viva El City
Abu Dhabi
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
De Jong's Tackle
 
Posts: 1780
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:42 am
Supporter of: The Citizens

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Alex Sapphire » Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:50 am

Original Dub wrote:How come we have eleven people that think he didn't see it and it so happens that none of the people with this opinion have posted their reason behind it?

You're either a WUM or a fucking retard if you can't see that that knob of a ref not only saw the incident clearly, but gestured to RVP to get up straight after it.

Where are you?


I'm here OD and I did explain. Read the fookin thread. WUM or fuckin Retard I am not. Cunt am I. But you're obviously hard of thinking too :-) so I'll repeat what I said BEFORE your post:

alex sapphire wrote:tell you what the videos do prove:
he couldn't see Ade's face when the incident happened, and the most compelling evidence against him was that he was looking down at RVP when his foot struck. From behind (the angle he looks most innocent) he seems to be looking away and therefore could be seen as an accident.


the angles where you see Ade looking at what he's doing and actually extending his "stamp" were not visible from that angle.
Did he see the incident "yes", did he see the foul play "No"
Never criticise a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
That way when you do criticise him you'll be a mile away.
And you'll have his shoes.


Ἄνδρες γάρ πόλις, καί οὐ τείχη
User avatar
Alex Sapphire
Joe Hart's 29 Clean Sheets
 
Posts: 5758
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:02 am

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby walshawblue » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:19 am

He deffinatly saw the incident bud didnt realise the seriousnes of it til it was pointed out on TV slow motion yet another instance of trial by television, I did think ade did try to get VP. No doubt he will get tho book thrown at him for both incidents cos we are a threat to the top 4
BORN TO BE BLUE
User avatar
walshawblue
De Jong's Tackle
 
Posts: 1010
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Radcliffe
Supporter of: CITY
My favourite player is: Colin Bell

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Ted Hughes » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:19 am

Alex Sapphire wrote:
Original Dub wrote:How come we have eleven people that think he didn't see it and it so happens that none of the people with this opinion have posted their reason behind it?

You're either a WUM or a fucking retard if you can't see that that knob of a ref not only saw the incident clearly, but gestured to RVP to get up straight after it.

Where are you?


I'm here OD and I did explain. Read the fookin thread. WUM or fuckin Retard I am not. Cunt am I. But you're obviously hard of thinking too :-) so I'll repeat what I said BEFORE your post:

alex sapphire wrote:tell you what the videos do prove:
he couldn't see Ade's face when the incident happened, and the most compelling evidence against him was that he was looking down at RVP when his foot struck. From behind (the angle he looks most innocent) he seems to be looking away and therefore could be seen as an accident.


the angles where you see Ade looking at what he's doing and actually extending his "stamp" were not visible from that angle.
Did he see the incident "yes", did he see the foul play "No"


Please look at the actual moment his foot makes contact from one of the other angles. The so called 'extension of his stamp' is his foot coming OFF VP's head not going ON to it. The angle they keep using makes it look as if it happens BEFORE contact, I thought the same until it was pointed out on here. It's the motion you would make with your foot if tripping over something; your foot catches the object, turns sideways, slipps off the object & stamps down as your weight transfers.

Now I don't know if Adebayor could avoid tripping over VP, he probably could but imo he DEFINITELY didn't change the angle of his foot to catch him, as it appears on ONE & only one angle & ONLY appears that way in slow motion. At normal speed the ref saw nothing. Could you see from a few feet away if someone changed the angle of their foot to stamp on somebody without having to look at their eyes? I certainly could.

Can you not see how absolutely ludicrous it would be to now start trying to judge Ade's guilt or innoccence on what you THINK his eyes are fixed on during a slomo from an angle? It's like trying to win a 'spot the ball' contest! If the referee has changed his opinion because he's making judgements on a players eyeline then it's a fucking utter disgrace. Some batsmen have their eyes closed at the moment they hit a cricket ball, which proves what?

These people have all decided because of the apparent change in angle of his foot. Of that I'm certain & for that reason, it's badly wrong. It looks like we can't contest this; they've decided that slomo is the factual evidence. It brings into question the ability of over emotive football people to interpret such evidence.

A bastsman wouldn't even be given out in a cricket game on that evidence as you can't see the point of contact & that's a fact.
The pissartist formerly known as Ted

VIVA EL CITY !!!

Some take the bible for what it's worth.. when they say that the rags shall inherit the Earth...
Well I heard that the Sheikh... bought Carlos Tevez this week...& you fuckers aint gettin' nothin..
Ted Hughes
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Colin Bell's Football Brain
 
Posts: 28488
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:28 pm
Supporter of: Bill Turnbull
My favourite player is: Bill Turnbull

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Rag_hater » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:38 am

I think that the quality of a 25 mill player lets him do things that are not apparent to us normal people.
I'm sure he can react in a milllisecond and do things in a way that wouldnt be seen by the rest of us.
Image
Rag_hater
Joe Hart's 29 Clean Sheets
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: Alicante Spain

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Alex Sapphire » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:50 am

Ted Hughes wrote:Can you not see how absolutely ludicrous it would be to now start trying to judge Ade's guilt or innoccence on what you THINK his eyes are fixed on during a slomo from an angle? It's like trying to win a 'spot the ball' contest! If the referee has changed his opinion because he's making judgements on a players eyeline then it's a fucking utter disgrace. Some batsmen have their eyes closed at the moment they hit a cricket ball, which proves what?.


it proves they're shit cricketers.
You are so wrong to suggest that where he's looking is irrelevent.
If he cant see RVP's head he cant avoid treading on it.
If he is looking towards his feet he cannot offer that excuse.
Never criticise a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
That way when you do criticise him you'll be a mile away.
And you'll have his shoes.


Ἄνδρες γάρ πόλις, καί οὐ τείχη
User avatar
Alex Sapphire
Joe Hart's 29 Clean Sheets
 
Posts: 5758
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:02 am

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Ted Hughes » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:45 am

Alex Sapphire wrote:
Ted Hughes wrote:Can you not see how absolutely ludicrous it would be to now start trying to judge Ade's guilt or innoccence on what you THINK his eyes are fixed on during a slomo from an angle? It's like trying to win a 'spot the ball' contest! If the referee has changed his opinion because he's making judgements on a players eyeline then it's a fucking utter disgrace. Some batsmen have their eyes closed at the moment they hit a cricket ball, which proves what?.


it proves they're shit cricketers.
You are so wrong to suggest that where he's looking is irrelevent.
If he cant see RVP's head he cant avoid treading on it.
If he is looking towards his feet he cannot offer that excuse.


It proves that slomo is nothing more than a starting point for discussion on such things. You can't tell if he's looking directly at his head or not from slomo. He may be looking at a point next to it, not directly at it. If he is looking at it, it could be because he's noticed his foot has made contact. He doesn't tread on it, he catches it. There are so many interpretations, only one of which is the one you are suggesting.

This stuff is not an exact sceince. They've learned how to use it pretty well in cricket but it always involves using several angles & NEVER involves guessing. Football people, typically, are using their own opinions rather than exact sceince.

Why am I spelling science incorrectly when I know how to spell it? There's another question.
The pissartist formerly known as Ted

VIVA EL CITY !!!

Some take the bible for what it's worth.. when they say that the rags shall inherit the Earth...
Well I heard that the Sheikh... bought Carlos Tevez this week...& you fuckers aint gettin' nothin..
Ted Hughes
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Colin Bell's Football Brain
 
Posts: 28488
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:28 pm
Supporter of: Bill Turnbull
My favourite player is: Bill Turnbull

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby dick dastardley » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:39 am

Image

he needs a pair of these if he didnt see it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Support the badge, players come and go along with managers!!!
User avatar
dick dastardley
Shaun Goater's 103 Goals
 
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:14 pm
Location: city of manchester where else !!!

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby ronk » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:43 am

Ted Hughes wrote:
Alex Sapphire wrote:
Ted Hughes wrote:Can you not see how absolutely ludicrous it would be to now start trying to judge Ade's guilt or innoccence on what you THINK his eyes are fixed on during a slomo from an angle? It's like trying to win a 'spot the ball' contest! If the referee has changed his opinion because he's making judgements on a players eyeline then it's a fucking utter disgrace. Some batsmen have their eyes closed at the moment they hit a cricket ball, which proves what?.


it proves they're shit cricketers.
You are so wrong to suggest that where he's looking is irrelevent.
If he cant see RVP's head he cant avoid treading on it.
If he is looking towards his feet he cannot offer that excuse.


It proves that slomo is nothing more than a starting point for discussion on such things. You can't tell if he's looking directly at his head or not from slomo. He may be looking at a point next to it, not directly at it. If he is looking at it, it could be because he's noticed his foot has made contact. He doesn't tread on it, he catches it. There are so many interpretations, only one of which is the one you are suggesting.

This stuff is not an exact sceince. They've learned how to use it pretty well in cricket but it always involves using several angles & NEVER involves guessing. Football people, typically, are using their own opinions rather than exact sceince.

Why am I spelling science incorrectly when I know how to spell it? There's another question.


Wait, why are you discussing whether Adebayor glancing in the direction of van Persie in super slow motion is a signal of intent when Clattenburg was right there and (allegedly) didn't see what happened. Even if he looks, at that speed it has little bearing on whether there was actual intent.
“Do onto others — then run!”
B. Hill
User avatar
ronk
Shaun Goater's 103 Goals
 
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 12:23 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Slim » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:22 pm

Abu Dhabi wrote:
Slim wrote:
Abu Dhabi wrote:This thread is embarrasing. What do you people suggest? That the ref saw it and decided not to show the red just to come later and say that he would have sent Ade off? Absolutely embarrasing. Ofcourse the incident was in his view frame, but he never realized what really happened at normal speed and that angle.


Welcome to yesterday, try reading the fucking thread before you label shit and realise that point was already made without the need to belittle the other posters in it.


I was talking about the people who said that he must have seen it. If only your voice counts slim we'd never have a poll . I'm actually amazed. Look who, among all people, talks about belittling other posters.


I think you'll find if I have a problem with what someone has posted I address them directly.

I don't imply in the first four words that anyone who has contributed to the thread is an embarrassment and being that I was one of those I can only assume you were in some part addressing me. I therefore concluded that you had read the thread through and had to have seen where I posted the same point.

Otherwise you have made a call on something you haven't seen, or ignored what you have seen in order to make your point. Are you Mark Clattenburg in disguise?
Image
User avatar
Slim
Anna Connell's Vision
 
Posts: 30343
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:57 am
Location: Perth

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Original Dub » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:32 pm

Alex Sapphire wrote:
Original Dub wrote:How come we have eleven people that think he didn't see it and it so happens that none of the people with this opinion have posted their reason behind it?

You're either a WUM or a fucking retard if you can't see that that knob of a ref not only saw the incident clearly, but gestured to RVP to get up straight after it.

Where are you?


I'm here OD and I did explain. Read the fookin thread. WUM or fuckin Retard I am not. Cunt am I. But you're obviously hard of thinking too :-) so I'll repeat what I said BEFORE your post:

alex sapphire wrote:tell you what the videos do prove:
he couldn't see Ade's face when the incident happened, and the most compelling evidence against him was that he was looking down at RVP when his foot struck. From behind (the angle he looks most innocent) he seems to be looking away and therefore could be seen as an accident.


the angles where you see Ade looking at what he's doing and actually extending his "stamp" were not visible from that angle.
Did he see the incident "yes", did he see the foul play "No"


Sorry I missed your original post you fucking retard WUM cunt ;)

Your argument is bringing the game into very very dodgy ground and would indeed fuck the whole game up if this is to be the benchmark for refereeing in the future.

If parts of a player's body (the one who's actually involved) and real time movement can be seen to be obstructions to a referee's view, and subsequent decision, then we can forget about using the referee's word for anything.

Simple as that.
Original Dub
 

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Alex Sapphire » Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:45 pm

Original Dub wrote:
Your argument is bringing the game into very very dodgy ground and would indeed fuck the whole game up if this is to be the benchmark for refereeing in the future.

If parts of a player's body (the one who's actually involved) and real time movement can be seen to be obstructions to a referee's view, and subsequent decision, then we can forget about using the referee's word for anything.

Simple as that.


I've posted this before as well you fuckin moron. The regs say:

Applies to the more serious sending-off offences (violent conduct, serious foul
play, spitting, offensive/insulting/abusive language or behaviour) where the
match officials did not see the incident. The purpose is to put the player in the
same position as if the incident had been seen by the match officials.
The Compliance Department is guided by the referee’s view of whether the
incident merited a dismissal.
The processes mirror the timings and sanctions that would apply had any of the
match officials seen the incident and the referee then sent the player off.


there is NO consideration given to how or why an official may come to "not see the incident", but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that obstructed view (even obstructed by the players involved) would be a justification.
Never criticise a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.
That way when you do criticise him you'll be a mile away.
And you'll have his shoes.


Ἄνδρες γάρ πόλις, καί οὐ τείχη
User avatar
Alex Sapphire
Joe Hart's 29 Clean Sheets
 
Posts: 5758
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:02 am

Re: Poll: Was it possible for Clattenburg not to have seen?

Postby Abu Dhabi » Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:48 pm

Slim wrote:
Abu Dhabi wrote:
Slim wrote:
Abu Dhabi wrote:This thread is embarrasing. What do you people suggest? That the ref saw it and decided not to show the red just to come later and say that he would have sent Ade off? Absolutely embarrasing. Ofcourse the incident was in his view frame, but he never realized what really happened at normal speed and that angle.


Welcome to yesterday, try reading the fucking thread before you label shit and realise that point was already made without the need to belittle the other posters in it.


I was talking about the people who said that he must have seen it. If only your voice counts slim we'd never have a poll . I'm actually amazed. Look who, among all people, talks about belittling other posters.


I think you'll find if I have a problem with what someone has posted I address them directly.

I don't imply in the first four words that anyone who has contributed to the thread is an embarrassment and being that I was one of those I can only assume you were in some part addressing me. I therefore concluded that you had read the thread through and had to have seen where I posted the same point.

Otherwise you have made a call on something you haven't seen, or ignored what you have seen in order to make your point. Are you Mark Clattenburg in disguise?



First of all Slimy, I addressed the thread as an embarrassment and not all people who contributed in it. Second, I completely agreed with your opinion so how on hell would I be addressing you? Third and most important, how could addressing the thread as an embarrassment be considered as belittling posters when, initially, all people who disagree with the majority of the voters, including me and you, where labeled as WUMs?
Viva El City
Abu Dhabi
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
De Jong's Tackle
 
Posts: 1780
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:42 am
Supporter of: The Citizens

Previous

Return to The Maine Football forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: branny, carolina-blue and 201 guests