The Score uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Tuesday 21 May, 2013

Opinion: Chelsea should be docked points for Clattenburg accusations

Their behaviour, and subsequent refusal to apologise for it, warrants a severe punishment, writes Paul Fennessy.

Chelsea's Ramires, center left, remonstrates with referee Mark Clattenburg, center right, during their Premier League match against Manchester United at Stamford Bridge.
Chelsea's Ramires, center left, remonstrates with referee Mark Clattenburg, center right, during their Premier League match against Manchester United at Stamford Bridge.

ARE CHELSEA THE most loathed team in the Premier League right now?

The London club this week announced that they won’t be apologising to Mark Clattenburg, as the referees’ union have requested, for their decision to publicly make known allegations of racism against the official.

The sheer gall and arrogance of such a stance is breathtaking.

The fact that a glorified bureaucracy full of pampered millionaires can come close to ruining the life of (by almost all accounts) an innocent, hard-working, middle-class man, by going public with a ludicrous allegation that has since been essentially rubbished by everyone concerned bar the accuser, surely merits punishment of severest order.

Not one person of the many in the vicinity backed Ramires’ claim that Clattenberg called his Chelsea teammate Mikel a “monkey,” during the side’s recent Premier League game against Manchester United.

Moreover, the very thought that such an incident could possibly occur beggars belief. Why would Clattenburg, knowing that millions of potential lip readers were watching, not to mention the presence of the players and assistant officials listening in on their earpieces to his every word, think it was even remotely possible to get away with such a blatant act of racism? Additional factors, namely that the furore over the Suarez-Evra/Terry-Ferdinand cases have barely died down, and that referees tend to have inherently strong levels of self-control, means such claims were not just improbable, but almost inconceivable.

The most likely explanation behind the incident in question is that Ramires misinterpreted what Clattenberg had said, though while he was ultimately at fault to an extent, the majority of the blame lies at the club’s door for giving such credence to the accusation of a player whose knowledge of the English language is extremely limited.

While this decision to pursue Ramires’ assertion was not objectionable per se, Chelsea’s choosing to undertake the investigation so publicly meant their behaviour acquired a palpably sinister edge.

There were obvious malicious undertones to the case – Clattenburg had awarded some controversial decisions against the club amid their potentially pivotal loss to league rivals Manchester United. If Chelsea had ultimately won the match, it seems unlikely they would have made the subsequent complaints. Accordingly, it’s difficult to dismiss the suspicion that even an organisation as powerful and influential as the London club could be prone to gross irresponsibility, making decisions in the heat of the moment, and basing them largely on bias rather than objective analysis.

(Ramires was the player who levelled the accusation at Clattenburg – Andrew Matthews/PA Archive/Press Association Images)

Clattenburg has described recent events as the “most stressful time in my professional life” and the fact that an organisation such as Chelsea FC can do such damage to the reputation of an individual for no legitimate reason borders on the scandalous.

Their image has already been damaged by the much-publicised John Terry racism case and they have been guilty of highly unsavoury behaviour in the past also. The respective fan-made death threats levelled against not one but two referees – Anders Frisk and Tom Henning Øvrebø – was not helped by the behaviour of the clubs’ representatives during the incidents in question. The verbal abuse by Chelsea players towards Øvrebø was unacceptable, despite the contentiousness of many of his decisions during their Champions League encounter with Barcelona, while the incident involving Frisk was even worse.

Then-Chelsea coach, Jose Mourinho, falsely accused the referee of inviting Barcelona’s manager at the time, Frank Rijkaard, into his dressing room at the interval during the two sides’ Champions League clash, and suggested he subsequently began to award them favourable decisions as a result of this supposed meeting, which as later evidence proved, never even happened.

The recent treatment of Clattenberg shows that Chelsea have hardly resolved to show greater respect towards referees in light of these unseemly incidents, and he consequently represents the third official whose reputation they’ve tarnished to a degree.

All of which suggests that there is a culture at the club, in which they genuinely believe they are the perpetual victims of scheming officials who have the audacity to illicitly deny them their divine right to victory.

These egregious mannerisms must therefore be stamped out. A fine would be meaningless, given owner Roman Abramovich’s possession of seemingly limitless funds. Instead, an example needs to be set. If the FA are truly serious about their respective campaigns aimed at promoting greater respect towards officials and “kicking racism out of football,” it is imperative that they act decisively in this instance and dock Chelsea points for their arrogant, disdainful handling of the situation. A failure to do so would constitute a considerable disservice to both the aforementioned laudable ideals. And more seriously still, it would serve as a further blow to the association’s already faltering credibility.

Premier League: Aston Villa hold Arsenal to scoreless draw>

Inter Milan: Wesley Sneijder won’t play until contract dispute is settled>

Read next:

Comments (17 Comments)

  • I think what annoys all of us is that it was played out in the public domain… trial by media. Allegations should be made if those making them feel the need, how it got from the Chelsea dressing room to the papers is where the problem lies. Blanket bans on reporting on any cases like this until the result of the findings. That way nobodys reputation is destroyed unnecessarily.

    Reply
  • I can’t possibly agree with your points, Paul. You fail to mention that the FA stated publicly that Ramires was right to report the incident and that Chelsea went through the correct channels. Also, I don’t know if you can really say that Chelsea went about the affair “so publicly” when they refused to comment for weeks. Are you possibly confusing the Society of Black Lawyers’ public witch hunt of Clattenburg with the actual process followed by Chelsea?
    You’re usually spot on in your opinions, Paul, and I’m a big fan, but this smells like misinformed populism.
    Ask yourself this, would it have been better if the most hated club in England, whose hero captain was suspended for racism, had told the black player who thought he heard racial abuse to shut up about it? Imagine the headlines then!

    Reply
    • I’m not saying they should be punished for reporting the incident per se. On the contrary, I think they were right to do so. It’s how they handled the whole situation that I, and many others, have a problem with.

      Reply
    • And I’m saying you’ve got your facts wrong. Chelsea didn’t make any public statements on this matter because it was an ongoing investigation. The Society of Black Lawyers, however, have been public and vocal about it throughout. In fact, the SBL also publicly criticised Chelsea for not commenting publicly and for not pursuing a civil action against the FA and Clattenburg.
      The FA have said Ramires and Chelsea acted correctly in reporting the matter and have no case to answer except for Mikel’s behaviour after the game, which the club claims stems from mitigating circumstances. If the authority involved doesn’t want them to apologise, why do you think they should be docked points for not apologising?

      Reply
    • Because another of the relevant authorities – the referees’ union – has asked for an apology, and I think rightfully so. They came close to ruining Clattenburg’s reputation for something that has since been more or less disproven. And while they didn’t make a public statement, the news emerged almost immediately after the game, so I hardly think they did their best to handle it in a subtle fashion.

      And if an organisation caused me such stress because of a false allegation made by one of its representatives, I’d expect an apology at the very least, and I think most people would be of a similar opinion.

      Reply
  • Paul, I’m very disappointed with this piece. It’s clear that you did not fully understand the case, or did not read the statement by The FA. Ramires believed he heard something. He said it in the dressing room, and Chelsea reported it to an FA official, just as The FA said in their statement re Clattenburg:

    “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.”

    Chelsea then held an internal investigation, ran by lawyers who had nothing to do with the club, and the lawyers decided that there was a case. This is where Chelsea’s first official statement on the matter came, stating they were proceeding with allegations.

    Chelsea handled the case 100% correctly, according to FA regulations. They first reported it on the day to an official and declined to comment on the matter numerous times. It was the media that handled the case badly. Chelsea only ever made two official comments regarding the matter – the first saying they were proceeding with the allegations, and the second after The FA cleared Clattenburg. Point out to me exactly where they handled this wrong.

    They had to report the case to The FA. It’s that simple. You seriously think it would have been better to just forget about a black players claim about racism? You’re saying that they should be punished because of the Kick It Out campaign for reporting what Ramires believed was a racist insult? The FA also said in their statement:

    “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.”

    Chelsea have no case to answer. They reported a case of what was believed to be racial abuse. They made two statements regarding the matter, and declined to comment on the matter several times throughout. They helped The FA with the investigation (The FA statement reads: “On 9 and 14 November 2012, further to FA requests, Chelsea FC provided unbroadcast video footage of the game from static cameras”).

    And then you claim they should be given a points deduction? I really don’t understand where you’re coming from. I believe your just someone who doesn’t like Chelsea FC, and want a points deduction even though you clearly don’t understand the case or haven’t read the official statement.

    Again Paul I was very disappointed with this piece.

    Reply
    • Aidan, I don’t want to repeat what I said above. All I’ll add is that Chelsea should have handled the situation better and the allegations shouldn’t have been leaked, irrespective of what the FA says, and I think referees’ union were absolutely to right to demand an apology from the club.

      Reply
    • Firstly, Chelsea couldn’t have handled the situation any better. That is unquestionable. It is the media that made the story so big. You seem to have forgot that this was believed to be racism. Such a terrible offence in this day and age shouldn’t be swept under the rug. If you take off your “I hate Chelsea” glasses you might just realise that they done the right thing. I’m sure you were complaining that QPR handled the JT case badly when that story broke out? Double standards from yourself, just because you dislike Chelsea.

      Secondly, you think Chelsea are wrong after following exactly what The FA says? They should have dealt with it how you think it should have been done instead of The FA?

      Finally, a points deduction for not saying sorry? What is this a playground? I wouldn’t like to see yourself in charge of the Kick It Out campaign, just dishing out points deductions to clubs who have been subject to racial abuse. Again you don’t understand, this is racism, a serious offence.

      Why don’t you just admit you were wrong with this piece? Very subjective, no research done, lazy journalism. Take the piece down.

      Reply
  • Perhaps Chelsea are the most hated team in the country, and probably rightly so, but how can you punish a team for reporting an incident of alleged racism? It was their responsibility to report this to the FA. They may not have went about it the right way, they should have waited until the dust settled and had a think about what they were saying etc. Can you imagine Chelsea getting a complaint from Ramires and not reporting it? If Chelsea were docked points for this how would other teams feel about reporting an incident of racism? Would they report an incident if they thought there might be a chance of them being docked points if there was a lack of evidence to back up their claims? Chelsea being punished for this would set a very dangerous precedent and damage the campaign against racism in football.

    Reply
    • I’m not suggesting they should be punished for reporting it per se – rather, it’s the way they went about the investigation (making it so public, etc) and their subsequent refusal to apologise for it that left a bad taste.

      Reply
    • I understand it wouldn’t be punishment for them reporting the incident but that is how it could be perceived. I couldn’t see other clubs reporting incidents if they were risking losing points with the money at stake and where 4 or 5 points can make huge differences regarding the Champions League places etc. I agree that Chelsea didn’t deal with it well but at least they did deal with it, ignoring it would have been disastrous, and I think punishing them for not dealing with it correctly could be misunderstood as punishing them for “making a false claim” for want of a better term.

      Reply
    • I disagree. I think the main signal such an action would send out is this – by all means report incidents of racism, but be sure they are legitimate and rigorously thought through before reporting them.

      Reply
    • Would the Suarez-Evra case be seen differently to the Ramires-Clattenburg case? If i recall correctly, Evra was the only player who heard the comment from Suarez and there was no video evidence, as was the same with Ramires-Clattenburg. Putting aside opinions of either incident, the FA found Suarez guilty with the same level of evidence as Ramires-Clattenburg. I would find it hard to see how the Ramires-Clattenburg incident is any less legitimate a claim than Suarez-Evra. As it transpired one was found guilty and the other not guilty but on the face of it they were similar cases. I am not claiming that Clattenburg should have been found guilty or Suarez not guilty, I just can’t understand how in one case the club could be punished for not having a ” legitimate and rigorously thought through claim” and the club have their complaint upheld.

      Reply
    • ** and IN THE OTHER CASE the club have their complaint upheld.

      Reply
  • Brian 25/11/12 #

    Good read

    Reply
  • Bad Bad losers.Points deducted the BEST and the RIGHT option.chelski are a disgrace to English football.

    Reply

Add New Comment