It seems very odd to have the refs using microphones but not record the conversations they have, the FA don't have to release the recordings but surely it would be useful in a number of disciplinary cases.
-
The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved. -
It's not like there would have to be massive investment, they could just start recording it from now on. Why wouldn't they? It doesn't need a debate, just do it.Comment
-
You'd think that since they're now professional that this would have been in place already - how can the referees body improve things when they only get half the picture?Hello mert.Comment
-
Dan Roan @danroan
Mark Clattenburg stood down from refereeing for a 2nd weekend following Chelsea allegation of 'inappropriate language'Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
"I couldnt give a monkeys".
Is that what he was supposed to have said?
Comment
-
Daniel Taylor @DTguardian
Breaking news from the FA: Mark Clattenburg will NOT face charges after alleged racist comment during Chelsea-Man Utd matchThanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
The FA have released a statement in relation to the recent Chelsea v Man Utd game
The FA has concluded its investigation into alleged misconduct by Mark Clattenburg during the match between Chelsea FC and Manchester United FC on Sunday 28 October 2012. No disciplinary action will follow against Mr Clattenburg.
The investigation chronology
Following the conclusion of the match, Chelsea FC reported to the match delegate that two of their players had been separately subject to abuse by the match referee, Mark Clattenburg.
On Monday 29 October 2012, The FA contacted Chelsea FC to establish whether the club and individual players wished to make a formal complaint in relation to the allegations reported to the match delegate.
On Wednesday 31 October Chelsea FC contacted The FA and confirmed that the club had conducted an internal enquiry and that they did wish to proceed with a formal complaint in relation to one of the allegations of abuse. The club did not wish to proceed in relation to the other allegation. The club provided witness statements from two players, Ramires Santos do Nascimento (“Ramires”) and John Obi Mikel.
The details of the allegation were that following one or the other of the red cards issued during the second half of the game, Ramires heard Mark Clattenburg say to John Obi Mikel, “shut up you monkey”. John Obi Mikel did not hear the alleged comment.
On 1 November 2012, The FA requested that Chelsea disclose full details of their internal investigation.
On 5 November 2012, Chelsea FC provided The FA with witness statements from other Chelsea FC players and officials.
On 5 November 2012, The FA interviewed Ramires and John Obi Mikel, using the TV match footage obtained by The FA.
Between 7 and 8 November 2012, The FA interviewed all four match officials.
On 9 and 14 November 2012, further to FA requests, Chelsea FC provided unbroadcast video footage of the game from static cameras.
On 15 November 2012, The FA re-interviewed Ramires to show him the previously unseen video footage provided by the club. At this stage, for the first time, the exact point at which the comment was alleged to have been made was established.
In light of this new information, between 15 and 19 November 2012, The FA interviewed the players who were in the vicinity of the alleged incident, and re-interviewed John Obi Mikel and the match officials.
Chelsea FC was offered the opportunity to provide any further information or evidence that they believed could be relevant to the allegation.
The FA then sought advice on the evidence gathered from independent Queen’s Counsel.
The essential facts found
The evidence for the allegation came from one witness, Ramires. Ramires, whose first language is not English, explained that his instinctive reaction was to seek confirmation from John Obi Mikel as to what the referee had said.
John Obi Mikel, who was being spoken to by the referee, was much closer to the referee than Ramires and did not hear what it is suggested was said to him.
Three other witnesses, i.e. the other Match Officials, to whom everything said by referee was relayed via their communication equipment, are adamant the alleged words were not uttered.
There is nothing in the video footage to support the allegation.
For completeness, but of lesser weight, two other players, whose first language is English and were in the vicinity, did not hear anything untoward.
The decision
Having considered all of the available evidence it was the opinion of David Waters QC, independent counsel, that the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg.
Having considered Counsel’s opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, The FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer.
Equally The FA is satisfied that the allegation against Mark Clattenburg by Ramires was made in good faith. It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief.
The FA receives and investigates numerous allegations of misconduct over the course of a season. All allegations are properly investigated. It is not uncommon for investigations to lead to no disciplinary charge being brought.
The FA encourages all players who believe they have been either subject, or witness to, discriminatory abuse to report the matter immediately to the match officials on the day. Furthermore, all Participants are advised to report any such alleged misconduct to The FA. In this case, the player and club were correct in reporting the matter to The FA and it was appropriate and proper for such an allegation to be thoroughly investigated.Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’Comment
-
Chelsea’s John Obi Mikel has been charged by The FA for an alleged breach of FA Rule E3 in relation to his side’s game against Manchester United on 28 October 2012.
It is alleged that in or around the Match Officials’ changing room at the end of the fixture, Mikel used threatening and/or abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour.
The player has until Friday 30 November 2012 to respond to the charge.Comment
-
Mikel put up on a misconduct charge.
Sounds like Clattenburg is going to go for some compensation, and rightly so.Comment
-
Nothing for John..'I'll break ya ****in legs' Terry ?Comment
-
****ing disgraceful club.
I hope Mikel gets the book thrown at him too.Comment
-
Two points....Having considered all of the available evidence it was the opinion of David Waters QC, independent counsel, that the evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg.
Having considered Counsel’s opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, The FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer.
Equally The FA is satisfied that the allegation against Mark Clattenburg by Ramires was made in good faith. It is entirely possible for a witness to be genuinely mistaken and convincing in his belief.
I love the whole 'evidential threshold' lark.........fantastic comedy from the FA
and
what's Ramires got to say about that ? Apology incoming I assume ?"I will make the boys feel your support"
Jurgen Klopp June 2020Comment
-
Got to feel sorry for Clattenburg. The Association of Black Lawyers can shove it, this should have been dealt with behind the scenes until at least a basic investigation has taken place.Trey Nyoni: countdown to stardom-2 years1year0.5 yearsComment
-
The ABL will have something [negative] to say. You can bet your last penny on thatFootball without Origi is nothingComment
-
I think this does again highlight how flawed the FA's disciplinary process is.
They have investigated and concluded that there is no case for Clattenburg to answer. That's fine. But how much of case would have been required for a charge to be brought? I presume that the case would have had to be watertight because, as we know, when holding disciplinary hearings (or trials), the accused is found guilty by the FA in almost 100% of cases.
I guess my point is that the FA's process basically establishes guilt at the investigation stage, not at the hearing. That is still completely wrong in my eyes.Oh I don't know.Comment
Comment