Nice work, Clatts, another ref who thinks he is the celeb everyone has come to see
IT seemed right to give Mark Clattenburg the benefit of the doubt when he said his comments about the Battle Of Stamford Bridge had been taken out of context.
After all, how could a referee with his experience admit he went into the match that decided the 2015-16 title with a “game plan” which meant rather than send off three Spurs players he let them “selfdestruct” so he wouldn’t be blamed for their failure?
Clearly his quotes had been cherry-picked by enemies to make him look like a power-crazed narcissist, I thought. Until I listened to the section of NBC’s Men In Blazers podcast where the ex-ref talks about that 2-2 draw at Stamford Bridge, and was left gobsmacked.
Here’s Clattenburg in all his third-person glory: “I went in with a game-plan that I didn’t want Tottenham Hotspur blaming Mark Clattenburg for them losing the title. There should have been three red cards to Tottenham but I allowed them to self-destruct so all the media, all the people in the world, went ‘Tottenham lost the title.’ If I’d sent three off, what’s the headlines? ‘Clattenburg cost Tottenham the title’.”
The incredulous interviewer accuses him of trying to “script the game” and he replies: “I benefited the game by my style of refereeing. Some refs would have played by the book and Tottenham would have been down to seven or eight players, probably lost and looking for an excuse. But I didn’t give them an excuse because my game-plan was ‘let them lose the title.”
He’s asked if it’s the ref’s job to make the game a “spectacle” and replies, as he does throughout, like a proud actor reliving a Tony Awardwinning performance: “I think we’re all part of the theatre. That’s why the Premier League is the best in the world. We’ve all got a duty to make sure the game’s enhanced.”
So no, he wasn’t taken out of context. He was doing it to show “all the people in the world” (because that’s who he believes watches him at work) just how pivotal Mark Clattenburg used to be to the greatest show on earth.
Meaning, despite his protestations, every criticism that came his way was deserved. Criticisms like ‘shouldn’t your only game-plan have been to implement the laws of the game?’ Or ‘what if one of the Spurs players who should have been redcarded had scored a winner which changed the destiny of the title?’ Or ‘what if a self-destructing player allowed to remain on the pitch had dished out a career-threatening injury?’ And ‘why would you be thinking about your presence on tomorrow’s back pages when all you’re paid to do is referee?’
Clattenburg, who now earns £500,000 a year taxfree in Saudi Arabia, believes the abuse he’s received since that podcast will turn potential referees away from the career. Surely this selfglorifying bilge is more likely to turn them off as it confirms fans’ worst fears.
Fears that too many modern refs are playing to the cameras, arrogantly strutting around, pouting, pontificating and talking down to players as Clattenburg did to Adam Lallana in 2013 when he told him he’d “changed” since his England call-up.
It backs up those who believe referees view themselves as stars of the show, giving decisions based not on what they see, but on how they’ll be judged, revelling in their power to determine results in a multi-million pound industry.
Celebrity wannabees who think that, like Simon Cowell and Bruno Tonioli (above), they are charismatic judges who viewers tune in to watch, as much as the acts.
And even though that doesn’t apply to the majority, when one of the best reveals he used to have a game-plan he wouldn’t deviate from because he’s Mark Clattenburg, it allows every fan who thinks a ref is shafting his team to believe the b ***** d in the black is playing up to his own premeditated agenda.
Nice work, Clatts.