Talk:Mark Clattenburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on Mark Clattenburg is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian sport
This article is part of the Canadian sport WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] Non-NPOV, nonsense and possible vandalism

Hi. I appreciate that not all editors particularly like some of the persons whose biographies appear in Wikipedia. However, the mess that was the article Mark Clattenburg has now been reverted to remove all non-NPOV, nonsense and possible vandalism entries.

It's back on my watchlist. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post war record gone

Hi. Apparently, Mark's post-war record of refereeing a Football League match at only 25 has recently gone, to someone aged 24 diff. I have therefore tidied up that part, as we don't really need chapter and verse about who took his record and when - suffice to say that he was "at one time" the post-war record-holder. I hope this is agreeable. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I've just deleted this part:

'Many Bitter Bitter Blues are unhappy with how Clattenburg officiated the match, but it is believed that this fustration is truly derived from the fact they will become real woolly backs when they are forced to move out of the motherland that is Liverpool and become Tesco's slaves in Kirby. Some bitters have also commented that they are really looking forward to running around Kirby like red indians stealing socks off peoples feet.[1][2]'

Someone having a laugh me thinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uboat (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refereeing mistakes

why do these get removed? Pedro Mendes v Manchester United and the Merseyside derby 143.252.80.100 14:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Clattenburg denied them a penalty when Steve Finnan clearly hauled down Joleon Lescott. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=19&art_id=nw20071020155243348C877468&set_id= 143.252.80.100 14:26, 20 October 2007
Because your assertion that it was a refereeing mistake is your opinion - that's not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines; you have not provided a reference where we might check the truth of what you are putting in and as such unreferenced and possibly controversial content may be removed in biographies per WP:BIO. If you can find a way of improving the tone of your edit, and supply a reference, it might be possible to keep the info. The info about the Coast Colts League was not referenced by you either, and I can find no sources on the internet to bakc it up, so it was also removed. Please note that, as I write, the article is receiving disproportionate interest including vandalism, and it may be better to return when things are quieter. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(CNN) -- While football fans were dumbfounded earlier this month when referee Mark Clattenburg failed to award a goal to Tottenham Hotspur midfielder Pedro Mendes, a small German company was quietly pleased. Clattenburg's failure to see what was --as shown in replays -- clearly a goal from 50 yards, infuriated followers of the English Premiership game against Manchester United. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/01/14/spark.football/index.html 143.252.80.100 14:30, 20 October 2007
The first reference appears to be valid, and should be included when you re-submit the item into the article, in as neutral a tone as possible. The second reference is a personal opinion of Julie Clothier, not a neutral match report. You cannot insert opinionated material into a biography of this kind. You can talk about "possibly missing a valid goal" but not that he definitely did, as he was making decisions based on what he saw, not what we saw. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
but he definately did miss a valid goal as replays showed 143.252.80.100 15:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, if you can find a cracking good reference from any one of the top online newspaper sites (The Guardian, The Times, Daily Telegraph, those kinds), or from BBC.co.uk Sport for instance, which says he DID miss the goal, then put the information back in, quoting the reference, but without sounding as though you are accusing Mark, or ridiculing him by making him look stupid, in other words in a neutral tone. I won't be removing it if it is done properly. And please sign your name at the bottom of your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

Hi. Following renewed interest in this article, I have started to address certain style and content problems as it stands. The "Milestones" section is not the correct way to impart the information, it could be accused of being a trivia section, when the content is far more important than that. Unless anyone else does in the meantime, I will be returning to convert most or all of the constituent parts of the section to a prose-style account of each occasion, as is more in keeping with a biographical article and not a set of statistics. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ref (chew)(do) 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merseyside derby

I disagree with yesterday's Merseyside derby being deemed noteworthy to include. Having just watched the game on MOTD, I only disagreed with one of Clattenburg's decisions (Kuyt's lunge) and it seems peculiar to mention this game and only this game from his refereeing career. And "video replay later appeared to show a penalty should have been awarded" - says who? I thought it was borderline and I certainly don't think the BBC are qualified to support that claim - if they had their way, there'd be 20 penalties a match for handball alone. Thoughts on removal? Or at the least, beginning a new section on his 'criticisms' that contains more than just this. 90.197.153.181 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You only disagreed with one of Clattenburg's decisions, yet you want to put in a "Criticisms" section, which will attract all manner of unremarkable match incidents in the future? Why campaign for removal of the mention of this incident-packed match, when your proposal will generate insertions of many more non-noteworthy claims? Are you aware that the article yesterday received a bombardment of non-neutral insertions which I once removed, but someone else decided to repeat? Look here if you don't believe me. As it therefore appears that at least six people wish the match to be included, I have merely restored it to as neutral a tone as possible. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I suggested including a criticisms section simply as a compromise as, like you say, lots of people want this performance recorded. My issue was really the fact that it was this match alone which is mentioned. Ideally, I don't think this kind of treatment is necessary for any game unless the decisions really are noteworthy (lead to a referee's suspension, for instance). I'll have a look around to see how other referees' pages approach such incidents. 90.197.153.181 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you look at the Rob Styles article, which quoted chapter and verse about the Chelsea penalty award, took a lot of toning down similar to that needed on this one, and resulted in Styles being hauled over the coals by his bosses (I've no doubt that Clattenburg has privately heard from them over his handling of the match). All I ask is that the article be left alone for a period until we find out if the controversy-factor is really that high. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the number of edits on this page show how people feel about his display. There shouldbe some mention of yesterday's match, but I can't see how it can be included just yet without decending into a revert war of POV comments. I would leave it as is at the moment, and then update if/when the referees' panel take any action. KingStrato 20:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It should just mention that it was controversial... we've got to have it neutral and can't side with Liverpool or Everton on something such as a penalty not given for a foul. So for example, something like this "Video replay later appeared to show a penalty should have been awarded" can't be included.

IMO yes both should have been given penalties for Everton... but we've gotta go with NPOV instead of things like personal opinions of us. - Soprani 20:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for NPOV, naturally, and if the editors posting here wish to emphasise the "controversial" nature of the decision (or non-decision), that's fine also. I have therefore boldly made a subsequent edit - please see what you think. Ref (chew)(do) 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the paragraph as it stands is good and agree it's probably best to wait a few days to see if there is any follow-up before deciding of its notability. Thanks. 90.197.153.181 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, edits made since the previous post have not been in line with the consensus reached so far at this talk page. I have therefore rolled the article back to where it was, and would urge all interested editors to join this discussion if they wish their views on how the article should progress to be heard. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I should have read this before editing lsat night. When I looked I found a load of stuff had been added back in. My edit was to try to turn what was there into something neutral. KingStrato 06:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Would be interested, however, to hear how you would like to see the incident dealt with eventually. It looks as though Clattenburg is not going to be punished a la Rob Styles fashion, and consensus at the timestamp below appears to favour excluding the match Everton v. Liverpool altogether. Ref (chew)(do) 10:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that all of the decisions (bar the Neville dismisal) were ones that could have gone either way. The only questionable thing is that they all went agaist Everton. The two Everton appeals, some I've seen given, some not. I thought Kuyt would have been sent off 75% of the time. Hibbert I thought was harsh but it was a red offence. I'm not sure if Gerrard had any influence in it, if you watch the replay Clattenburg had his cards in different pockets and pulled out the yellow without looking at it. Maybe he just pulled out the yellow by mistake. I think we need to see the fallout from the match before deciding if it's going to be notable or not, it'll be a few weeks before we know. KingStrato 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Generally, where Keith Hackett is concerned, the fallout would have fallen out by now, believe me. For some people, it will seem that Clattenburg got away Scot free with this match. However, opinions aside, we can leave this another couple of days (say, Thursday 25 October) and if nothing arises by then, we all have to decide the best course of action. In a year's time, the controversy of this one match will have been forgotten by many casual observers - those of the Evertonian or Liverpudlian persuasion obviously will not, but we construct these articles for the greater good, not for those with a vested interest in the presentation of bias or outrage. So there would be a justification for removing the account altogether. Personally, I believe that a cutdown version should stay, complete with source, pinpointing the higher controversy (the Lescott non-penalty). The info about who got red cards should not stay (probably should not even be in it now, but someone else inserted that).

Can I just say, as an ex-ref, that I believe Clattenburg was desperately using "thinking time" when Gerrard happened to speak to him - replaying what he had just seen over in his mind, and trying to decide the proper course of action. If it was deemed that Hibbert was indeed 'last man' (whether you think Gerrard went down too easily or not, and therefore whether it was a foul or not), and the referee had not sent him off, he would have been receiving a nice phone call and letter from Hackett/PGMOL on the Monday, telling him that he should have. It may have appeared that Gerrard influenced Clattenburg, but I believe his mind was like ducks' feet under the water - going like the clappers - at the time. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the Career section of the article has been expanded, I think it reads ok if this match is included, even though nothing has come of it, though agree the specific details (the names of those involved, inclusion of "seconds before the final whistle", etc.) are probably best left omitted. In my opinion (albeit a newly-qualified and inexperienced referee's opinion!), I don't think any of the contentious decisions could be seen as cast-iron errors; it was just one of those days when those decisions happened to all fall in the favour of one team. It's a shame that once again the media reaction has been disproportionate and the support for a referee from the FA non-existent. At least all the attention has resulted in a much improved Wikipedia entry. 90.197.153.181 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As I have promised, unless anyone else does in the meantime, I will try to edit the passage further tomorrow, to leave the bare bones of the matter.
By the way, have you considered registering for an account here? You have given some measured views on this talk page, and shown common sense which will stand you in good stead during your refereeing career. Enjoy it, time passes all too quickly, and then suddenly you're not doing it any more, for one reason or another. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 00:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned, I have conducted an internet search to see if the PGMOL has announced anything regarding the above match, and they apparently have not. Therefore, in line with the consensus as it stands above, I have: 1) removed the reference to "seconds before the final whistle"; 2) removed the BBC reference per one editor's concerns; 3) removed the detail about who was issued a red card (points of Law in football). I have also inserted the score at the time of the "controversial" incident, to emphasise its importance on the possible outcome of the game. If you feel there are any further tweaks to be applied, please post here with your thoughts. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 11:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, but I've just reverted the previous edit. It seemed to be an alteration on the consensus version. KingStrato 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is not mine, so it wouldn't matter if I did. However, thanks for protecting the consensus. You don't have to justify your action, as the editor in question has not yet blessed us with a visit to tell us why his edit should be allowed, given the current consensus. Cheers. Ref (chew)(do) 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this consensus you mention, I am absolutely 100% in favour of keeping wikipedia vandalism free but the penalty incident in the derby was only the culmination of the controversy surrounding that game (If anything the entry gives too much information about that one incident without mentioning the others). The Hibbert card change and the Kuyt lunge are necessary otherwise it just looks like the controversy was based around one missed penalty appeal. If you can point out something incorrect with my entry then by all means edit or remove it but you've got no right to just delete people's entries. RoyalBlueStuey 08:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, you should know what consensus is. If not, read up on it now. But for your information, it is the process of discussion which you can see above in these posts, designed to agree upon the best or proper format of the article, in some case incorporating each different facet as suggested by different editors, or else reflecting the majority view (although there is no voting as such). In other words, you have to read the above to see what everyone wants from the article.
The basic foundation of the Laws of the Game is that those Laws shall be applied according to "the referee's opinion". These Laws are administered within seconds of incidents happening, and you well know that referees do not have the benefit of action replays. The Hibbert "card change" has been covered (above) as possible hesitation and thought process by Clattenburg, and not necessarily by verbal influence of Steven Gerrard. It is a point of referee's decision in the Laws of the Game. The Kuyt lunge is again debatable as a point of Law. However, the over-riding factor in all this is the failure of PGMOL to impose any sanction on the referee, such as that famously handed out to Rob Styles following his award of a penalty to Chelsea. It was even suggested during consensus building that the incident be removed completely if such punishment was not meted out, but the incident remains in the most basic and neutral version available so far. If you can slim it down or neutralise the tone even more feel free to do so, none of us own the article. However, expansion of the piece is not an option, as it must go in line with consensus. Thanks for posting here. Ref (chew)(do) 10:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I can understand your point RoyalBlueStuey but, as said, it's important to realise that the incidents you mention are all debatable. We'll certainly never know if Gerrard made the referee change his mind and there are people on both sides of the fence with regard to the Kuyt challenge. Questionable decisions like these happen every week and only because the result of the game hinged on these decisions, coupled with the fact that the game was a high-profile derby, has such attention been received. I think by leaving the final penalty appeal in the article (that which received the most attention) we cover enough, considering no disciplinary action was taken against Clattenburg. If you were to modify the paragraph with something along the lines of "Clattenburg received criticism for some decisions in the game, which culminated in declining Everton's appeal for a penalty in injury time...", I could live with that, but I only speak for myself.
Thanks for the words above, Lee. I've heard refereeing is a hobby notorious for finding yourself drifting out of but so far I am thoroughly enjoying it. The prod to create an account is appreciated too - it's something I'll do soon. 90.197.153.181 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
(Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew)(do) 00:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
That derby game was controversial...I take people's point that there is no need to go into the minutiae of the various incidents but the current 'consensus' makes no mention of the other incidents. Penalty appeals come and go, you win some you lose some. The reason the game is noteworthy is because there was 4 or 5 controversial decisions. It is important to note this otherwise it looks like the home fans are getting wound-up by one single incident. This patently isn't the case. Either record the facts or don't mention the game at all. My latest version (since reverted) says "he made a number of controversial decisions including declining Everton's appeals for a penalty". I don't see what wrong with a none-abusive recording of the facts. I'm genuinely puzzled as to what is wrong with this. RoyalBlueStuey 09:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The edit was reverted to protect consensus in the meantime. However, I'm inclined to accept RoyalBlueStuey's change to include mention of a number of controversial decisions, whilst not listing them, as that was indeed the case, not just the declined penalty, and the accrued incidents are what seemed to incense the home fans most (although I accept that the opinions of the supporters are not the be-all and end-all of any matter). His assertion that all should be mentioned rather than just the penalty incident, or else remove the match completely, mirrors one facet of this consensus (that the match should be removed anyway, if no disciplinary action were taken against Clattenburg, of which there was none).
Would those editors previously involved in this discussion please give us their views on the latest proposed change? I would prefer the new edit, if not then strike out the match details completely. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I can certainly agree with Refsworldlee's comments. There is no need for debating the rights and wrongs of the decision, I think it needs to be stressed that the uproar revolves around several controversial incidents and the late penalty appeal was just the culmination of the home fans ire. The match is certainly worthy of mention in the short term...it will be the reason fair percentage of people will be looking up his page for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalBlueStuey (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) It has been more than three days since I posted on perhaps changing consensus regarding the Everton v. Liverpool match account, and we have one editor who wishes to see a change made. Having requested interested editors to give their views, but having received no feedback on this whatsoever, I am inclined (as previously stated) to allow the change, which will effectively create new consensus. If belated messages are lodged here, we will no doubt enter fresh dialogue over this issue. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all been done now but for what it's worth, add my name to the consensus over the new edit - it's indeed a compromise I alluded to in my last post as 90.197... Tugoh (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] one more source

NY Times 90.241.220.98 22:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a blog resource, and as such is not a valid reference. Please do not enter it into the article when the semi-protect is lifted, as it will be removed immediately. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)