Wes Tender

As you say, looking at the whole episode, Southampton have handled it with considerable aplomb. Criticise the referee in a post-match interview and run the risk of a fine from the FA. Criticise him indirectly associated with the referee's alleged insulting language towards your player and although there is not a case for the referee to answer, according to the kangaroo court decision from the referee's mates and the FA, nevertheless there is no fine. And yet everybody knows that the reason that our player was agitated enough to question the referee, leading to the altercation, was because it was a sh*t decision by a sh*t referee. We then step back from the confrontational mode, say that we've drawn a line under it. But Clattenburg probably won't be refereeing us for a while and when he does, he will be a bit more circumspect about failing to award us a stonewall penalty the next time.

It won't be for some time, but when it happens, Clot 'n' Berk will be walking on eggshells and will overlook several legitimate appeals for penalties from the other team's players for fear of upsetting us. Job done.

Neither of our two have gained a reputation for it particularly and there is a dividing line between a player going down without contact being made on him and another who goes down easily, or because he is built more slightly and so naturally is more easily knocked off his feet. Lallana in particular comes into that last category. I don't think particularly that we are a team of players who moan and b*tch to the referee in order to get players sent off. Maybe our captain will express an opinion, but then that is expected and acceptable. I stand by my point that the top glory teams add to their home advantage of huge crowds intimidating the referees by also having the most players in their teams capable of gaining an advantage by gamesmanship or blatant cheating. If all that stuff about Cortese's meticulous attention to detail regarding the physical well-being and mental conditioning of the players has been accurately reported, then it crosses my mind that it must have occurred to him that there is scope for copying some of the methods utilised by the top teams to gain an advantage. Pochettino has expressed the opinion that we are too much a team of nice guys and I suspect that is about to change. Whereas I detest gamesmanship and cheating in sport, I don't see why we should be at a disadvantage because others employ those tactics. I'm now in the "if you can't beat them, join them" camp. Cortese being Italian is probably thinking of Machiavelli's similar philosophy, that the end justifies the means

It could be that having seen Saints being on the wrong end of one poor refereeing decision too many, a decision has been taken to use whatever device is available to try and reverse the situation. Clattenburg has a history of poor decisions against us when he has officiated in our matches. Apart from the two penalties which we claimed should have been awarded for handballs in the Everton Match, there were also the poor decisions in the Arsenal and Norwich matches that stand out. He will award a penalty against us, but not award us one for an incident almost identical. His inconsistency either signals incompetance or bias, so either way that needs challenging with the game's governing authorities. When one looks at the level of gamesmanship employed by other teams in matches, where players are clearly diving, pulling shirts, gobbing at the referees in an attempt to have rival players sent off, then perhaps the time has come for us to make waves when refereeing decisions go against us for that type of incident. The alternative is that perhaps we ought to employ that sort of gamesmanship ourselves. For instance, Lambert is sometimes given a foul against him for attemptng to get the ball, when several times during a match he has players all over his back holding him down. Maybe he ought to take a leaf out of the books of those who go down easily to gain an advantage from a kick. Tot up the number of points lost when a team cheats or employs this sort of gamesmanship against us, and it could be that the conclusion reached is that during the course of a season that might represent the difference of two or three places in the table. The normal view expressed is that during the course of a season, these things will even themselves out, but patently where referees like Clattenburg are involved, that will never be the case, as I don't recall him giving us many, if any penalties. It's recognised that the top glory teams are less likely to have decisions go against them, but also that their players are more likely to be the ones employing gamesmanship to gain an advantage. Chelsea now have two new divers to add to Torres, and we all know that Man United have Young, Liverpool have Suarez, etc and those top teams also contain the most players who go to ground if a player breathes too heavily behind them too, as well as the yappy, niggly sort that try and get rival players sent off. As we have ambitions to get in amongst those top teams, perhaps a decision has been taken that we need to employ the same tactics as them to gain a points advantage that might result in a crucial place or two rise in the table.

There seems to be a lot of conjecture dressed up as fact when all that is available to go on is hearsay.

So with Man Utd and West Ham out, that's another two PL clubs biting the dust. West Ham absolutely humbled by Forest. OK, they apparently fielded a weakened team with half an eye on their League Cup semi-final on Wednesday, but I doubt that they will get much from City over 2 legs.

The ball was not as far away from the goal as it was when Clyne scored last night. There is no rule that says that a penalty decision is determined by the distance from goal, apart from the handball being within the penalty area. As far as I'm aware, the mention of there being cover is also ambiguous. Here is some guidance for you:- http://thinkfootball.co.uk/archives/11334 What is particularly interesting, is the fact that the defender's arm moved towards the ball and that the ball hit the players hand, rather than his arm, which makes the penalty decision even more clear cut. The distance the defender was away from Lallana could be excusable if he had not the time to move his arm/hand away from the ball, not when he had time to move his hand towards the ball. I'm afraid that in view of Clattenburg's rubbish refereeing, I'm inclined to believe that quite a high proportion of people brought off the street could do a better job than him on this evidence, provided that they knew the rules and how they should be interpreted. I assume that Clattenburg knows the rules, but had some other agenda which outweighed his inclination to be even-handed to us, like not wishing to offend the Everton fans again.

Most handballs are not intentional, but some certainly are. But your comment about the path of the ball being significantly altered and the player being reasonably capable of not having his hand in the way of the ball, pretty well descibes the Lallana incident to a tee. The videos posted highlight the fact that referees like Clattenburg aren't consistent from one match to another, so that highlights the possibility that certain referees will give penalties at some grounds and then disallow similar other ones at other grounds. Whether that is because of the reputation and size of the club, its fans or manager influencing the decision, it isn't fair on those smaller clubs. All one asks for is consistency. If we have penalties disallowed by a particular referee when he gives almost identical ones to other clubs, then we are entitled to question the impartiality or competance of that referee.

You obviously missed the caveats that adrian lord added, that they needed the money behind them and a refurbished/new stadium. The other clubs you mention are awash with dosh and the success that has brought them attracts the large following of plastics that perpetuate their success. Leeds had a top four history in comparatively recent times and if they had the resources, there is no particular reason why they couldn't be there again.

I suspect that the eye-witness statements that Paul Haywood refers to, concern Lallana's "jabbering at the referee" throughout the match, not what was said by Clattenburg to Lallana or vice versa. I very much doubt that he will have spoken to players in that match , only a few who would have been withing hearing distance when the stadium erupted with howls of derision baying for a penalty. And those players who might have heard the conversation would be very unlikely to be Saints players, unless they wished to face disciplinary action from the club. Also the thrust of his article is that referees should be wired up precisely so that the banter between referees and players can be heard, which lends further credence to the suggestion that Haywood does not know what was said by both parties. I take issue with Haywood's opinion that Southampton's pursuing this matter further is a form of bullying. That is risible. He states that "this is a disgraceful attempt to mess with a man’s career after he has been exonerated of a feeble charge". Exonerated by whom? Ah,yes, the referees own professional representative body, answerable to nobody, a kangaroo court which believes that any decision they arrive at should be final. As for messing with his career, if he was a good referee, respected by the players and clubs as fair and effective, then he wouldn't be having these problems. That the man courts controversy, surely makes him culpable for the effects on his own career. Other than the references to the particular Lallana/Southampton part, I agree with Haywood entirely that something needs to be done about the player/referee interactions. He alludes to the increasing bending of the referees' ears by players on the one hand and the referees' maybe not being aloof enough on the other hand. In the case of Clattenberg, he (Clattenberg) apparently suggests that Lallana's ego is getting the better of him, whilst ignoring the reputation he himself has gained for his own egotistical behaviour.

You can't

My pleasure.

Of course, everybody remembers that a certain Matt Le Tissier was hardly a model player when it came to accepting a referee's decision with good grace regardless of how hard done by he was. He had his fair share of yellows for dissent during his day and no doubt he would have expected the club to have supported his stance if it came to it. He has either matured since he retired, or he fails to realise that his stance makes him look a hypocrite.

Clot 'n' Berk was probably afraid to award the penalty because of his previous ban refereeing at Everton due to the fiasco of his performance there 6 years ago. He either saw the incidence or he didn't. Had he seen it, then it was blatant enough that any competent referee would have normally awarded it, however his return from his ban and the actual venue made it more difficult for him to have done the right thing. If he didn't see it, he would have been entitled to use that as an excuse, but it would call into question his competence (and the linesman's) for why they weren't positioned to see it. I read somewhere that he had seen it, so there was really no excuse, not even the usual ball to hand let-off, as the player clearly and deliberately moved his hands upwards towards the ball. The club's position is possibly based partly on the number of times that Clot 'n' Berk has presided over matches where dubious refereeing by him has either denied us penalties, or awarded them to our opponents. A referee can be excused having an off day, but this incompetent idiot has taken things past the point where we can shrug our shoulders and our patience has run out with him. If that has prompted us to press matters further following this last episode where he he has denied us a point and opened up the gap between us and a rival by 3 points, then I'm happy that the club have attempted to try and get him prevented from officiating in our future games. Looking at the individual incident in isolation, one the one hand we have Clot 'n' Berk who has previous form with controversial decisions, not only with us, but with other clubs. On the other hand we have Lallana who has no previous record of bad behaviour suggestive that he is one to lose it when confronting a referee. We have heard what Clot 'n' Berk apparently said to Lallana, but we have not heard Lallana's version of the conversation. The club will have had Lallana's side of things and if they are happy enough to take it up with the FA, then I for one am happy to support their position. Just because the Referees' Association have thrown it out means nothing much; of course they will protect their man outwardly, whilst even then having made a mental note of yet another incident featuring him.

I'm delighted to hear that the Club has made an official complaint against him. With luck, his decisions in that game has already been reviewed by his contemporaries who assess refereeing performances and he will be demoted to the level he deserves. I look forward to the Skates complaining about him, that is if he dares rile the most passionate fans in the football World. The atmosphere in Krap Nottarf will certainly be an influence on him.

But can we afford him giving the ball away so easily in those few matches in the hope that he will eventually show the promise he ought to have done so in the year that he has been here? There is a reason that Lallana wears the 20 shirt and Ramirez the 10; Lallana is twice as good.

I began to lose count of the number of times that he was robbed of the ball. He must have lost us possession at least half a dozen times. If he was in the box surrounded by defenders, you could excuse it, but invariably he wasn't. For the amount he cost and the billing he got as a star player, he was very poor yesterday. Puncheon would have troubled the Chelski defence far more than Ramirez did.

This will be the same lowly Accrington Stanley that they couldn't beat away in August. Mind you, this match will be an entirely different kettle of Skates, as this will be played at the home of the most passionate supporters in World Football, at their stadium of dreams and as such will be akin to Accrington Stanley's Cup Final. If they win, it will go down in the annals of their history as one of their most illustrious giant-killing victories.

First half, yes. Second half, some of them nowhere near it.

Yes, they are a better team than us. Did I dispute that? Of course, that might mean that accordingly they are more capable of playing in poor weather conditions than us, or that they are better at closing us down than we are at closing them down. But frankly I don't see why that should follow, or even that some of our players might be more skillful than theirs at doing either of those things. We seemed to be capable of closing down both Manchester clubs' players, so it must have been the weather to blame, because that wasn't a factor when we played them. Or else our players just lacked the desire for some reason. As I said, their performance in that second half was completely unacceptable.

These would be the same conditions that somehow didn't affect Chelsea's usual fast passing game? And why couldn't we close them down in all the right areas. We've become renowned for it under Pochettino, but we seem to have forgotten that in the second half.

When we play with commitment, desire and ambition we might be. When we play like we did the second half, most teams in the PL would find us out.

The worst second half I've seen at home this season - by some distance. We took our time getting our minds together from the first whistle, but after 10 minutes or so, we began to improve and by the end of the first half, we could even claim to have shaded it. But then early in the second half, Mourinho brought on Oscar and Willians and that changed the momentum firmly in Chelsea's favour. Our substitutions? To take off Cork yet again, when he was the player showing most intent to close down their midfield players and regain possession whenever we lost the ball. The player he should have taken off was Ramirez. Having heard how good he had been against Everton, I was expecting to see some improvement on the player I had last seen, but it was the same old Ramirez, flattering to deceive, losing us possession, easily knocked off the ball, not on the same wavelength as his team mates. Presumably Shaw took a knock again to be substituted for Clyne and he showed good composure on the left flank. God alone knows knows how many Chelski would have scored had Fox played there. Chambers was solid on the right. Lambert showed some promise when he came on, but after they had scored, our effort and desire diminished with each succesive goal. We lacked urgency, strolled about half-heartedly and never looked like scoring in the second half. Frankly that second half performance was unacceptable. It is one thing to be beaten by the better team knowing that you have done your best, played out of your skins. It is quite another walking away from the ground feeling that the players have not given their all and didn't have the pride to go all out to get at least one goal back. We have an opportunity in the Cup Match against Burnley to get a result that will give the players a confidence boost. After this run of poor results, albeit against some of the top teams, we need to stop the rot and turn ourselves around.

Wet and windy in West End, but it could ease off in the next few hours

Best not get to excited until we hear something a bit more concrete.